Equilibria and Dynamics of Gas Adsorption on Heterogeneous Solid Surfaces

Equilibria and Dynamics of Gas Adsorption on Heterogeneous Solid Surfaces by W. Rudzinski, William A. Steele, G. Zgrablich (Editor)

• ISBN: 0444822437 • Publisher: Elsevier Science & Technology Books • Pub. Date: January 1997

PREFACEThere was a period in the development of adsorption science when the theoretical descriptions of gas adsorption on solid surfaces were based on highly idealized models of solid surfaces. Most commonly, models of localized adsorption were used in which the gas molecule approaching a solid surface "saw" a regular array of the local minima in the gas-solid potential function - the adsorption sites. In the first introductory chapter of this book by Cerofolini and Rudzinski, that period is called the "pioneering age" of adsorption science. It began in 1917 when Langmuir published the theory of his famous isotherm equation. It was based on the model of one-site/one molecule - occupancy adsorption with no interactions between the adsorbed molecules. Until the Second World War, the main stream of the theoretical work was oriented toward generalizing that model to account for possible interactions between the adsorbed molecules. It started with the application of the mean-field approach to develop the Bragg-Williams isotherm. Next various forms of the Quasi-Chemical Approximation were introduced. That trend reached its peak by the publication of the exact solution for the isotherms of molecules adsorbed on two-dimensional regular arrays of adsorption sites in 1944 by Onsager. We could reasonably set this year to be the end of this "pioneering age" of adsorption science. Although most of the theoretical work was based on models of localized adsorption, mobile adsorption also received interest during that period. Here the most spectacular achievement was the application of the two-dimensional analogue of the Van der Waals model to develop isotherm equation. However, the most famous achievement of that time was probably the generalization of the Langmuir model by Brunauer, Emmet and Teller (BET) to account for the possibility of a secondary adsorption on the already adsorbed molecules. The BET equation became a standard in the determination of the surface area of adsorbents but was also criticized for various thermodynamic inconsistencies and shortcomings. An alternative well-known approach to multilayer adsorption was then proposed by Frankel, Halsey, and Hill, usually called the FHH slab theory. However, in spite of the advanced theoretical treatments seen in many papers published before the Second World War, adsorption experiments showed more and more discrepancies between theory and experiment. Attempts to fit experimental isotherms by various theoretical equations always showed negative deviations from experiment at low adsorbate pressures~ and positive deviations at higher adsorbate pressures. Deviations between theory and experiment were probably most dramatically demonstrated in measurements of the enthalpy changes upon adsorption. The theoretically predicted isosteric heats of adsorption should be increasing functions of the surface coverage. The reason is as follows: Although the solid phase must perturb to some extent the interactions between adsorbed molecules, the interactions should basically preserve their Lennard - Jones character. This means that there exists only a narrow range of distances at which adsorbed molecules interact via moderate repulsive forces. At still smaller separations they will not be adsorbed at all, and at all other distances they should interact via attractive potentials. The probability of finding a physical situation where adsorption sites are located at distances such

vi that admolecules interact via moderate repulsive forces is therefore small compared to the probability of finding the situation where adsorbed molecules interact via attractive forces. It means that, in general, the experimentally observed isosteric heat of adsorption should increase with increasing adsorbed amount due to the increase in attractive lateral interaction energy at high density. Meanwhile, almost all the reported experimental heats of adsorption showed an opposite trend. As the theoretical adsorption isotherms could not be successfully used to fit experimental data, various empirical equations were used for that purpose. At small adsorbate pressures, the Freundlich empirical isotherm was commonly applied as superior to Langmuir equation. (It is interesting to note that this isotherm equation was published in 1909 and was the first ever used.) In 1927 Bradley proposed a hybrid which preserved the superiority of Freundlich isotherm at low adsorbate pressures, but predicted also that the surface coverage will tend to unity at high pressures. Bradley's name was later forgotten and the hybrid isotherm is now generally called the Langmuir-Freundlich isotherm. Other empirical isotherm equations include Temkin's and Tdth's isotherms. The more and more frequent discrepancies between theory and experiment showed that there must exist another yet important physical factor that had not been taken into account in the theories. It was Roginsky in the former Soviet Union who, at the end of the thirties, launched the idea that the missing factor is the energetic heterogeneity of the actual solid surfaces which is crucial in governing the behaviour of actual adsorption systems. Roginsky's works marked the end of the "pioneering age" of adsorption science in which theoretical works were based on highly idealized models of solid surfaces. However, it should be emphasized that it was Langmuir himself who first introduced the idea of adsorption on heterogeneous solid surfaces. In his second theoretical paper, he emphasized that in the case of adsorption on real solid surfaces, one will have to deal with a number of distinct kinds of adsorption sites. His equation, with suitably chosen constants, should be used to describe adsorption on a certain kind of sites, and the experimentally observed isotherm will be a sum of these Langmuir terms, each multiplied by the fraction of a given kind of site on the solid surface. Roginski assumed that in the case of the real adsorption systems, the spectrum of adsorption energies characterizing various adsorption sites will be very dense so that the differential distribution of the number of sites over the values of the adsorption energy e can be represented by a continuous function X(e). That function is nowadays called commonly the adsorption energy distribution. Roginski also introduced another idea that appeared to be extremely fruitful in further theoretical studies. He postulated that, as the adsorbate pressure increases in the case of real heterogeneous solid surfaces, adsorption proceeds gradually on adsorption sites in the sequence of decreasing adsorption energies. At a given temperature T and pressure p, the adsorption sites having energy larger than a certain critical adsorption energy e~(p, T) are completely filled, whereas the others are totally empty. After the Second World War, the idea of adsorption on energetically heterogeneous solid surfaces received strong interest by Americans like Hill, Adamson, Halsey, Sips and Zettlemoyer who, in the forties and the fifties, made an enormous contribution to this area of research. The feeling that a certain era of adsorption science was closed and a new period was starting encouraged some authors to write monographs reporting on the current state of

vii the art. Thus, Young and Crowell published Physical Adsorption of Gases in 1962 and two years later Ross and Olivier published their book: On Physical Adsorption. In the latter case, adsorption theories based on idealized models of solid surfaces were reviewed, but some elementary principles of adsorption on energetically heterogeneous surfaces were also introduced. Ten years later Steele published his book The Interaction of Gases with Solid Surfaces, oriented already toward new trends in the theoretical studies of adsorption. It was the time when the nature of the gas/solid interactions was studied in more detail, as was the combined effects of admolecule interactions and of surface energetic heterogeneity. The so-called virial formalism was extensively used to study adsorption at low surface coverages. Adsorption at higher surface coverages was studied commonly by applying the so-called integral equalion for adsorption isotherm. The experimentally observed isotherm was assumed to be an average (integral) of the local adsorption isotherm, describing adsorption on adsorption sites characterized by an adsorption energy e, with the adsorption energy distribution X(c). As mentioned already, the idea of an integral isotherm equation was introduced by Roginski at the end of the thirties and was developed further by American scientists in the fifties, based almost exclusively on use of the Langmuir equation as the local adsorption isotherm. An explosive development of that research took place in the seventies and the eighties, and was marked by local isotherm equations that took account of the interactions between the adsorbed molecules. Simultaneous consideration of the effects arising from the interactions between adsorbed molecules and the effects of the energetic heterogeneity of adsorption sites involves another important factor yet to be taken into account. This is the way in which the various adsorption sites are distributed on an energetically heterogeneous surface. In 1949 Hill published the first fundamental paper concerning that problem. In his paper he studied the model of the solid surface in which various adsorption sites are randomly distributed on the solid surface, now commonly called - the random model. Some ten years later Ross and Olivier introduced another extreme model to represent the topological (topographical) distribution of different adsorption sites on partially graphitized carbons by assuming that identical adsorption sites are grouped into large patches. That model is now commonly called the patchwise model. Both these models were studied extensively by the group working in the Department of Theoretical Chemistry of Maria Curie-Sklodowska University in Lublin. Very advanced theoretical works were published by Tovbin in Russian journals. The explosive development in the seventies and in the eighties of the research based on the integral equation was accompanied by another vigorous trend of solving the reverse problem. That necessitated solving the integral equation to calculate the adsorption energy distribution from an experimental adsorption isotherm. This trend was initiated by the paper published by Sips in 1948, who used the inverse Stieltjes transform for that purpose, but it was not until the beginning of the seventies that this research started to develop vigorously. A variety of methods were proposed to solve the integral equation. The most stable and convenient of these seem to be the methods which were advanced versions of the Condensation Approximation approach introduced by Roginski. Here, the method proposed by Adamson and co-workers in 1966 was the first attempt of that kind. Later developments were based on the work of Cerofolini, Rudzinski and Jagiello.

VIII

Much attention was also devoted to the effects of surface energetic heterogeneity upon the adsorption of gas mixtures on real solid surfaces. In 1967 Hoory and Prausnitz published the first paper on the applicability of the integral equation approach to describe mixed-gas adsorption on solids. However, essential progress toward further development of this idea was due to the papers published by Jaroniec. At the beginning of the eighties, Myers and his co-workers showed how the other fundamental approach to mixed-gas adsorption- the Ideal Adsorbed Solution Approach- can be generalized further to take account of energetic surface heterogeneity. The new period of adsorption science which started after the Second World War reached its peak in the eighties. It can be characterized by: 9 consideration of the energetic heterogeneity of real solid surfaces, 9 looking for more and more advanced analytical solutions for the combined effect of surface energetic heterogeneity and of the interactions between adsorbed molecules. The beginning of the nineties seems to mark the beginning of a third era of development of adsorption science. In our opinion, the following two factors opened that new era: 9 the development of STM and AFM microscopies, which allow one to "see" the molecular structure of real solid surfaces, 9 the explosive development of computer simulations of adsorption processes, which take account of more detailed mechanistic models of solid surfaces. Again, the feeling that a certain era of adsorption science had closed encouraged some authors to review the state of art. Thus, Jaroniec and Madey published in 1989 their monograph: Physical Adsorption on Heterogeneous Solids, and 3 years later Rudzinski and Everett published their monograph: Adsorption of Gases on Heterogeneous Surfaces. There is a tendency to describe the beginning of every new era as "modern" so we will follow that tradition by calling the third era starting at the beginning of the nineties "the modern era of adsorption science". The judgment of every era at its beginning must always be imbalanced in many respects. Nevertheless, we believe that there has been a need for a book presenting the current trends in this new era of adsorption science. This was the idea behind our efforts to publish this monograph. So far we discussed adsorption on essentially fiat solid surfaces with no limits in either the direction parallel or perpendicular to the solid surface. Meanwhile, many of the adsorption systems of great technological importance are the systems with the so-called restricted geometry, where the dimensions of the adsorption system are limited. First of all, these are porous carbons and zeolites of various kinds. In the case of porous sorbents, one usually distinguishes between two adsorption mechanisms. One is the adsorption in micropores having dimensions less than 2 nm. This adsorption mechanism is frequently called - pore filling. The other adsorption mechanism is one occurring in mesopores having dimensions between 2 and 50 nm. Adsorption in macropores having dimensions bigger than 50 nm is essentially the same as on a fiat solid surface. Historically, the first theoretical works on adsorption in porous materials concerned adsorption in mesopores. A very special feature of this adsorption mechanism is the appearance of capillary phenomena, demonstrated by the hysteresis loops on the experimental adsorption isotherms.

They make it possible to calculate mesopore size distributions using Kelvin's equation and its further improvements and modifications. As to adsorption in micropores, the achievements of Dubinin's school of adsorption have for many years remained the most essential contribution in this area. The theory of micropore filling, developed by Dubinin and Radushkevich in the late 1940's, is a major contribution to adsorption science, alongside the Langmuir and BET isotherms. This approach was based on Polanyi's idea of adsorption potential, which was assumed to be different in different micropores. An implicit assumption was made that the adsorption proceeds in a stepwise fashion in micropores in the sequence of decreasing adsorption potential. This was the basis for the first attempts by Dubinin and co-workers to calculate the distribution of micropore sizes. The idea that the Dubinin-Raduskhevich (DR) equation is related to the geometric heterogeneity of porous solids has to be tested critically soon. First, it is a surprise that adsorption in hundreds of different carbon samples studied by various investigators obeyed the DR equation, i.e. had the same type of pore size distribution. Secondly, at the beginning of the sixties, Hobson in Canada published his surprising discovery that the DR equation developed for adsorption in porous carbons can be successfully used as a general isotherm equation to describe low-coverage adsorption on real flat solid surfaces. Hobson was first to consider the DR isotherm as a result of averaging the Langmuir isotherm with a certain adsorption energy distribution. He was also first to use the CA (Condensation Approzimation) approach to show that the energy distributions appeared to be gaussian-like, with a widened function of e on the high energy side. Later experimental studies showed that at higher surface coverages, adsorption can be correlated by Freundlich's equation, and at still higher surface coverages, by the Langmuir-Freundlich isotherm. This striking behaviour was studied theoretically by Cerofolini, who launched a well-documented hypothesis that this behaviour should be a universal feature of all adsorption systems, and is related to certain rules governing the formation of the real solid surfaces. As a result, the fact that the DR equation can describe low-coverage adsorption on flat solid surfaces must put into question the hypothesis that it is related to factors affecting the adsorption in micropores. Also, deviations between the DR equation and the experimentally observed behaviour of microporous adsorption systems were reported more and more frequently. The modification of the DR equation proposed by Astakhov and Dubinin did not solve the problem. Thus, at the beginning of the eighties Stoeckli and Dubinin launched the hypothesis that the DR equation should be used "locally" to describe adsorption in a certain class of micropores having the same dimensions. Their hypothesis received strong support from SAX experimental studies showing some relation between the size of micropores and the parameter in the DR equation. This experimental finding was the basis for developing a new method of determining the distribution of micropore sizes (Dubinin-Stoeckli, MacEnaney, Jaroniec). It seems, however, that an important conclusion that follows from these works has not received enough attention. Namely, if the DR equation describes adsorption in pores of the same geometric dimensions, it cannot be related to geometric surface heterogeneity. Two factors may be responsible for the successful application of the DR equation to systems (subclasses) of homogeneous micropores:

9 the energetic heterogeneity of micropore walls, 9 the mutual effects arising from energetic heterogeneity and those due to the restricted geometry of the system. Recent computer simulations seem to favour the first explanation. Simulated adsorption isotherms in micropores show behaviour far different from that predicted by the DR equation. These simulations were based on the assumption of a regular micropore shape with chemically homogeneous walls. Such idealized models of micropores were used to calculate the pore size distribution by applying certain analytical solutions (Everell-Powell, Horvath-Kawazoe), as well as by comparison with computer simulations. Recently, however, a certain feeling is spreading that more realistic models should be applied to represent the geometric - energetic features of real microporous solids. The "pioneering age" can be characterized by the attempts to apply Langmuir, BET, FHH and virial equations, along with certain specific approaches like t-plot, c~,-plot and others. They were accompanied by extensive studies of capillary phenomena in mesopores. That period was covered by the review by Gregg and Sing published in 1976 - The Adsorption of Gases on Porous Solids and by Dubinin in 1972 - The Adsorption and Porosity (in Russian). The book Adsorption, Surface Area and Porosity covering the period ending at the beginning of the nineties, was published by Gregg and Sing. In considering the time dependence of adsorption on heterogeneous solid surfaces, it can be seen that studies of the equilibrium and the time dependence of adsorption have proceeded on two somewhat separate paths. The lack of Langmuirian kinetics in real adsorption systems was primarily discussed during the "pioneering age" of adsorption science. As in adsorption equilibrium, various empirical equations were used to describe the kinetics of gas adsorption on the real solid surfaces. The most famous and commonly used is the Elovich equation proposed at the end of the thirties. Its appearance and common use marked more and more strongly the end of the "pioneering period" based on the use of idealized surface models to describe adsorption equilibria and kinetics. However, as in the equilibrium problem, these idealized models were the starting point for further generalizations that take account of surface energetic heterogeneity. Here, the most popular approach had been based on the application of Absolute Rate Theory, developed originally to describe the kinetics of chemical reactions in bulk systems. Soon after the first attempts were made to apply it to adsorption/desorption kinetics at the beginning of the seventies, serious discrepancies were reported between the theoretical predictions and experimental observations. This was especially seen in the coverage dependence of the kinetics. These reports led to the introduction of the concept of precursor states and of the sticking probability concept. One stream of research was to further improve the theoretical description of adsorption/desorption kinetics based on a model of the regular (homogeneous) solid surface. In 1986 Kreuzer and Gortel discussed this work in the exhaustive review Physisorption Kinetics. Another stream of work led to improving the Absolute Rate Theory approach by incorporating the idea of surface energetic heterogeneity. It was particularly popular among the scientists using TPD (Temperature Programmed Desorption) to study the thermal desorption of gases from solid surfaces. The principles of that method were published in 1963 by Amenomiya and Cvetanovic. Two years later papers began to appear suggesting that the activation energy for desorption should be considered to be a function of the surface coverage because of the existence

of various adsorption sites on a solid surface which should be characterized by different activation energies for desorption. The implicit assumption underlying that interpretation was that desorption proceeds in an ideally stepwise fashion in the sequence of increasing activation energies for desorption. As mentioned already, the inapplicability of the adsorption/desorption theories could be seen most clearly by comparing the predicted and observed coverage dependence of the kinetics. Very special, but also technologically extremely important, is the kinetics of adsorption in, and desorption from porous adsorbents. This is because the kinetics of molecula~r motion in restricted spaces may be predominantly governed by surface diffusion across pore walls. Diffusion of adsorbed particles is one of the most fascinating phenomena on solid surfaces and one of great importance in catalysis, metallurgy, microelectronics, material science, and many other scientific and technological applications. Beginning with Volmer and Eastermann's pioneering experiment in the early 20's, studies of surface diffusion have constantly expanded. From the early stages, the problem of surface heterogeneity was crucial. This can easily be understood in a figurative way since "the best way of feeling the landscape is to take a walk through the hills". For a long time, surface diffusion studies were mainly associated with the necessity of estimating the surface flux contribution to the total flux of a gas through a catalyst support (often, a random porous medium). This is a very complex problem and very limited tools were available at that time, such as the effective Arrhenius-type equations and the experimental technique of the diffusion cell. The development of field emission microscopy in the 40's and of field ion microscopy in the 60's opened a new horizon by enabling the observation of the migration of individual adatoms on more precisely characterized surfaces. With the help of lattice-gas theories, important advances were made in understanding surface self-diffusion for both physisorbed and chemisorbed species. The availability of many new surface spectroscopies and the utilization of computers starting in the late 70's allowed the possibility of studying new and exciting phenomena such as the behavior of surface diffusivity in the presence of two-dimensional phase transitions, the growth of thin films and clusters, and the effects of controlled defects (like steps) and other geometrical heterogeneities upon atomic motion on the surface. The invention of Scanning Tunneling Microscopy in the 80's and the continued growth of computer power produced a new revolution: detailed numerical simulations (either Monte Carlo or Molecular Dynamics) of diffusion of adsorbed species on heterogeneous surfaces and experiments performed on well-characterized surfaces became possible, fields which are now expanding rapidly. The old problem of diffusion on the surface of disordered porous media is still open and receiving new attention, while interesting problems such as the diffusion of chain molecules (k-mers) and polymers are continuously arising to make this field more exciting. Many adsorbents that are not porous in bulk are also not "flat". Their properties can frequently be described by using the concept of adsorption on fractal surfaces. The concept of the fractal nature of solid surfaces in relation to adsorption phenomena (Pfeifer, Avnir) is one of the new approaches marking the beginning of the modern era in the nineties. From this overview of the research on adsorption on heterogeneous solid surfaces, one can see that surface heterogeneity affects adsorption at the gas/solid interface in a variety of ways. For that reason, the papers treating various aspects of surface energetic hetero-

xii geneity were published in a variety of scientific journals addressed to various groups of scientists. No book has been published yet that would give an overview of all the effects of surface energetic heterogeneity of real solid surfaces. The present monograph is a first attempt of such a kind. It concerns both adsorption equilibria and the time dependence of adsorption phenomena. We have used the term dynamicsfor the aspects related to the time evolution of adsorption systems. This book was not aimed to provide the readers with the historical development of adsorption science. For that reason we decided to give a historical overview in this Preface. We have distinguished here basically three periods in the development of surface science. Our book was aimed to present the state of this art at the beginning of the third period which we call "modern", and which started at the beginning of the nineties. As mentioned already, this modern era is marked by the development of STM and AFM microscopies which provide the information about the mechanistic models to be accepted in computer simulations. The explosive development of the computer simulations seems to take the lead over the development of analytical approaches. The latter, of course, will follow that development as a necessary scientific synthesis of the information obtained from the true and simulated experiments. We are very aware that the panorama of the research presented here is incomplete. There are surely many excellent names to be mentioned and many adsorption problems to be discussed. Nevertheless, we believe, that this monograph is a substantial step toward presenting the present state of the art. We would like to express our warmest thanks to all the colleagues who contributed to this book.

Wladyslaw Rudzinski William A. Steele Giorgio Zgrablich

xiii

AUTHOR INDEX

1. F. Bardot ~ Laboratoire Environnement et Mineralurgie, ENSG et URA 235 du CNRS BP 40, 54 501 Vandoeuvre les Nancy cedex, FRANCE 2. I. B e r e n d - Laboratoire Environnement et Mineralurgie, ENSG et URA 235 du CNRS BP 40, 54 501 Vandoeuvre les Nancy cedex, FRANCE 3. J . M . C a s e s - Laboratoire Environnement et Mineralurgie, ENSG et URA 235 du CNRS BP 40, 54 501 Vandoeuvre les Nancy cedex, FRANCE 4. G.F. Cerofolini ~ EniChem'- Instituto Guido Donegani, 28100 Novara, ITALY 5. YuDong C h e n - - The BOC Group, Inc., 100 Mountain Avenue, Murray Hill,

NJ 07974, U.S.A. 6. A.S.T. C h i a n g - Department of Chemical Engineering, National Central University, Chung-Li, Taiwan ROC 32054 7. J. C h o m a - Institute of Chemistry, Military Technical Academy, 01489 Warsaw, POLAND 8. D.D. D o - Department of Chemical Engineering, University of Queensland, Qld 4072, AUSTRALIA 9. J.A.W. Elliot o Thermodynamics and Kinetics Laboratory, Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Toronto, CANADA M5S 1A4 10. M . F r a n c o i s - Laboratoire Environnement et Mineralurgie, ENSG et URA 235 du CNRS, BP 40, 54 501 Vandoeuvre les Nancy cedex, FRANCE 11. S.P. Friedman w Department of Chemical Engineering, University of Cambridge, Pembroke Street, Cambridge CB2 3RA, U.K. 12. G . G e r a r d - Laboratoire Environnement et Mineralurgie, ENSG et URA 235 du CNRS, BP 40, 54 501 Vandoeuvre les Nancy cedex, FRANCE

xiv 13. K.E. Gubbins ~ School of Chemical Engineering, Cornell University, Ithaca NY 14853, U.S.A. 14. M.Jaroniec ~ Separation and Surface Science Center, Department of Chemistry, Kent State University, Kent, Ohio 44242, U.S.A. 15. K . K a n e k o - Department of Chemistry, Faculty of Science, Chiba University Yayoi 1-33, Inage, Chiba 263, JAPAN 16. H.J. Kreuzer ~ Department of Physics, Dalhousie University, Halifax, N.S. B3H 3J5, CANADA 17. C . M . L a s t o s k i e - Department of Chemical Engineering, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor MI 48109, U.S.A. 18. C.K.Lee ~ Department of Environmental Engineering, Van-Nung Institute of Technology, Taiwan ROC 32054 19. Kuang-Yu Liu ~ Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Missouri Columbia, MO 65211, U.S.A. 20. J.M.D. MacElroy m Department of Chemical Engineering, University College Dublin, Beldfield, Dublin 4, IRELAND 21. L.J. Michot - - Laboratoire Environnement et Mineralurgie, ENSG et URA 235 du CNRS, BP 40, 54 501 Vandoeuvre les Nancy cedex, FRANCE 22. J.Narkiewicz-Michalek o Department of Theoretical Chemistry, Maria Curie-Sklodowska University, 20-031 Lublin, POLAND 23. S.H. Payne m Department of Physics, Dalhousie University, Halifax, N.S. B3H 3J5, CANADA 24. P. Pfeifer - - Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 65211, U.S.A.

XV

25. N.Quirke w Department of Chemistry, University of Wales at Bangor, Gwynedd LL57 2UW, U.K. 26. W. R u d z i n s k i - Department of Theoretical Chemistry, Maria Curie-Sklodowska University, 20-031 Lublin, POLAND 27. N.A.Seaton- Department of Chemical Engineering, University of Cambridge, Pembroke Street, Cambridge CB2 3RA, U.K. 28. W. A. S t e e l e - Department of Chemistry, The Pennsylvania State University, 152 Davey Laboratory, University Park, PA 16802, U.S.A. 29. P. Szabelski ~ Department of Theoretical Chemistry, Maria Curie-Sklodowska University, 20-031 Lublin, POLAND 30. Yu.K. Tovbin - - Karpov Institute of Physical Chemistry, Vorontsovo Pole Str. 10, 103064 Moscow, RUSSIA 31. F.Villieras- Laboratoire Environnement et Mineralurgie, ENSG et URA 235 du CNRS, BP 40, 54 501 Vandoeuvre les Nancy cedex, FRANCE 32. C.A. Ward m Thermodynamics and Kinetics Laboratory, Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Toronto, CANADA M5S 1A4 33. T. Yang - - Department of Chemical Engineering, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, U.S.A. 34. J . Y v o n - Laboratoire Environnement et Mineralurgie, ENSG et URA 235 du CNRS, BP 40, 54 501 Vandoeuvre les Nancy cedex, FRANCE 35. G. Zgrablich- Departamento de Fisica, Universidad Nacional de San Luis, Chacabuco y Pedernera, 5700 San Luis, ARGENTINA

Table of Contents

Preface Author Index Theoretical Principles of Single- and Mixed-Gas Adsorption Ch. 1

1 Equilibria on Heterogeneous Solid Surfaces Application of Lattice-Gas Models to Describe Mixed-Gas

Ch. 2

105 Adsorption Equilibria on Heterogeneous Solid Surfaces Theories of the Adsorption-Desorption Kinetics on

Ch. 3

153 Homogeneous Surfaces Theory of Adsorption-Desorption Kinetics on Flat

Ch. 4

201 Heterogeneous Surfaces Statistical Rate Theory and the Material Properties

Ch. 5

285 Controlling Adsorption Kinetics on Well Defined Surfaces A New Theoretical Approach to Adsorption-Desorption

Ch. 6

Kinetics on Energetically Heterogeneous Flat Solid Surfaces

335

Based on Statistical Rate Theory of Interfacial Transport Surface Diffusion of Adsorbates on Heterogeneous Ch. 7

373 Substrates

Computer Simulation of Surface Diffusion in Adsorbed Ch. 8

451 Phases Multicomponent Diffusion in Zeolites and Multicomponent

Ch. 9

487 Surface Diffusion Energy and Structure Heterogeneities for the Adsorption in

Ch. 10

519 Zeolites Static and Dynamic Studies of the Energetic Surface

Ch. 11

573 Heterogeneity of Clay Minerals Multilayer Adsorption as a Tool to Investigate the Fractal

Ch. 12

625 Nature of Porous Adsorbents

Ch. 13

Heterogeneous Surface Structures of Adsorbents

679

Characterization of Geometrical and Energetic Ch. 14

Heterogeneities of Active Carbons by Using Sorption

715

Measurements Structure of Porous Adsorbents: Analysis Using Density Ch. 15

745 Functional Theory and Molecular Simulation

Ch. 16

Dynamics of Adsorption in Heterogeneous Solids

777

Ch. 17

Sorption Rate Processes in Carbon Molecular Sieves

837

W. Rudzitiski, W.A. Steele and G. Zgrablich (Eds.) Equilibria and Dynamics of Gas Adsorption on Heterogeneous Solid Surfaces Studies in Surface Science and Catalysis, Vol. 104 9 1997 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

Theoretical Principles of Single- and Mixed-Gas Adsorption Equilibria on Heterogeneous Solid Surfaces G. F. Cerofolini ~ and W. Rudzifiski b EniChem- Istituto Guido Donegani, 28100 Novara, Italy b Department of Theoretical Chemistry, Maria Curie-Sklodowska University, 20031 Lublin, Poland

1. I N T R O D U C T I O N

1.1. History and logic of adsorption Logic and history often do not run parallel to each other. Therefore, when a treatise describes the status of a discipline, it has to avoid loops and misconceptions, and often to anticipate later results. Dirac's Principles of Quantum Mechanics does not furnish us with any information on the history of this discipline; conversely, Jammer's The Conceptual Development of Quantum Mechanics can hardly be considered a treatise on quantum mechanics. The theory of adsorption, possibly because of its non-foundational character, does not suffer from this difficulty, so that its logical development is almost the same as its historical development. This will allow us to sketch the theory of adsorption simply by following its evolution. Though periodization is always a risky activity, we have divided the (history of) adsorption into three phases, referred to as Pioneering Age, Middle Age and Modern Age. The Pioneering Age is characterized by experimental or theoretical discoveries of new adsorption isotherms; this period is marked by the 'equation of ...'. The Middle Age is characterized by the attempts of explaining the most frequently observed experimental isotherms in terms of surface properties like the adsorption-energy distribution; this period is marked by the 'method of ...'. The Modern Age is characterized by the attempts toward understanding of specific behaviours of complex adsorbents; it is characterized by the absence of general methods or equations and by the extended use of large computational methods. The Pioneering and Middle Ages are adequately covered by the literature, like Steele's compact treatise on adsorption [1], Jaroniec and Madey's and Rudzifiski and Everett's books on adsorption on heterogeneous surfaces [2, 3], and Gregg and Sing's treatise on adsorption on porous surfaces [4]. There is no book covering adequately the Modern Age and it would not be an easy job to write such a book at present. This is because of the explosive research in this area, and especially of computer simulations. It is to be expected that, after collecting a sufficiently large body of computer simulation data, they will lead to a theoretical synthesis having a form of compact analytical expressions.

Computer simulations will surely take the lead in explaining fundamental features of various adsorption systems. The application of the Density Functional Theory to adsorption in micropores shows, on the other hand, that analytical approaches will always be competitive as far as the computational time is considered. Some analytical expressions developed at the beginning of the century, (the Langmuir equation for instance), are still used at the end of this century in a more or less modified form. Adsorption technologies create a large market (demand) for compact analytical expressions that could be calculated fast to control technological processes. The fascination by the new possibilities created by computer simulations is also accompanied by a growing nostalgy for having simple expressions that could be applied by anyone in research and practice. As this chapter is supposed to provide one with "theoretical principles", we will try to review some analytical expressions and approaches that have most frequently been used, and perspectives of their further development and generalizations. Then, although the energetic surface heterogeneity, i.e. the dispersion of gas-solid interactions, and the admolecule-admolecule interactions affect the behaviour of adsorption systems in a cooperative way, we will focus here our atention on the role of the energetic surface heterogeneity. 1.2. Establishing the t h e o r y of adsorption ~ Gibbs e q u a t i o n Gas adsorption is a way through which the unsaturated forces at the surface of a given system in a condensed phase (adsorbent) are partially saturated by the interaction with gas-phase molecules (adsorbate). Being a way to approach equilibrium, adsorption is a spontaneous process, usually exothermic in nature. When the adsorption energy is higher than approximately 0.5 eV per an adsorbed molecule, a true chemical bond is formed between the adsorbate and the adsorbent; this case is referred to as chemisorption. Though chemisorption is a relatively highly exothermic process, it may be hindered by the activation energy required to destroy the molecular structure of the gas-phase molecule or the bonds at the reconstructed surface. When the adsorption energy is lower than about 0.5 eV per a molecule, adsorption involves secondary (electrostatic or Van der Waals) forces and this case is referred to as physisorption. The forces responsible for physisorption are essentially the same as those responsible for the condensation of a vapour to the liquid state. When a new chemical bond is not involved in the adsorption process, activation energy is not required for the formation of the adsorbed phase, so that equilibrium is attained in a short time, thus allowing a direct experimental characterization of this state. The founding father of the theory of adsorption equilibrium was Gibbs, who at the end of the 18th century established his celebrated equation, r

b2

Odln

p

(1)

where k is the Boltzmann constant, T is the absolute temperature, b2 is the area occupied by one molecule in the surface, p is the equilibrium pressure, pt is a reference pressure, 0 is the fraction of surface covered by the adsorbate, and r is the chemical potential of the system relative to that in the absence of adsorbate

Equation (1) stands on purely thermodynamic considerations and is therefore unable to specify a functional relationship r = r (actually, it holds true whatever is this relationship) so that it is unable to specify the adsorption isotherm 8 = 8(p). An isotherm can be specified only by assuming a microscopic model of the adsorbate, which eventually allows the function r to be determined.

2. T H E P I O N E E R I N G

A G E OF A D S O R P T I O N

2.1. A d s o r p t i o n of s t r u c t u r e l e s s gases on ideal surfaces

This Age of adsorption was characterized by the search of physically plausible and mathematically simple microscopic models for the adsorbate, and by the discovery of experimental isotherms which could hardly be understood in the frame of the theoretical models. The first models considered the very ideal case of the adsorption of structureless gases on ideal surfaces. With 'structureless' molecule we intend here a molecule characterized exclusively by its covolume b, and with 'ideal' surface we intend a surface with an energetically homogeneous distribution of adsorption sites. Moreover, the volume above each site is assumed to allow the accomodation of one and only one molecule, whatever is the value of b. In a first approximation, the potential energy of a gas-phase molecule near a surface will be the sum, extended to all the atoms of the solid, of the pair potentials acting between the molecule and each atom of the solid [5, 6, 7, 8]. Describing the interaction potential by the 6-12 Lennard-Jones pair potential [9], u(r) = uo [(r0/r) 12- 2 (r0/r) s] (where r is the nuclear separation of the pair, r0 the equilibrium distance and u0 the depth of the minimum), the adsorption potential acting on a gas-phase molecule in the point r, r = (Xl,X2, x3), in the vicinity of a solid is therefore given by U(r) = ~-~zu ( I r - RI[), where Rx is the position of the I-th atom in the solid, and the sum is extended to all these atoms. This potential depends both on the plane vector xll = ( x l , x 2 ) lying in the surface plane and on the distance x3 from the surface. A summary of key data concerning adsorption potentials over 250 gas-surface systems is given in ref. [10]. Some general features of the adsorption potential, almost independent of the specific crystal lattice, can be pointed out. Low-index faces are characterized by a two dimensional lattice of minima that reflect the periodic structure of the underlying surface. High-index faces are characterized by regular lattices with several distinct minima, of different depths, separated by barriers of different heights. The zones of atomic size centred on the minima constitute the adsorption sites. These sites are separated from one another by saddle points, so that an activation energy is required for surface migration. If the potential well at the adsorption site is sufficiently deep to contain one or more quantum states for the adsorbed molecule and is separated from the saddle point by a high energy compared to the thermal energy kT, the adsorbed molecule will be localized in one or another of these sites. Otherwise, the adsorbed molecules, although still held near the surface by the vertical part of the adsorption potential, will be free to move along the surface, in which case one speaks of mobile adsorption. The thermodynamic properties of the adsorbed molecules, mainly the adsorption isotherm, can be obtained from the knowledge of the adsorption potential. In the most

general and used scheme the partition function Zx,adof Af adsorbed molecules is evaluated from the adsorption potential U(r) and the gas interatomic pair potential u(r~j): Zx,ad . . . J .

J

exp

,,~ ( --~--~ 1 [~i U(ri)+~E'u(rij)])dr~...drx,

(2)

where: rij -- Iri - rj[, the indices runs over all the adsorbed atoms, and the prime means that the case i = j is excluded. With the possible exception of helium, spin of adsorbed molecules is irrelevant so that classical statistical mechanics can be used. Considering the adsorbed molecules as forming a distinct phase (the adphase) at temperature T, the chemical potential of the adphase can be computed,

~t~d=-kT (OlnZx'~d) 0Af

(3) V,T

(V denotes the system volume), and when equated to the chemical potential of the gas considered as perfect,

~tg~= kTln(p/po) (where p0 = kT(mkT/2rli) 3/2, m is the mass of the adsorbed molecule, and

(4)

h is the reduced Planck constant), the adsorption isotherm is obtained [11, 1]. However, the difficulties encountered in computing the partition function for realistic potentials make it necessary the use of drastic approximations, usually related to simplified models of the physical situation.

2.2. Submonolayer adsorption The models are particularly simple if one stipulates that adsorption is exhausted when one monolayer is filled. This situation is expected to occur when the adsorbent temperature is above the critical temperature of the adsorbate.

2.2.1. Localized adsorption Localized adsorption is characterized by the existence of an activation energy for surface diffusion and by a temperature so low as not allow an appreciable diffusion. In modern language, the models for submonolayer localized adsorption are variants of the two-dimensional Ising models, either with no interaction between nearest neighbours (Langmuir model) or with an interaction described in the mean field approximation (Fowler-Guggenheim model). L a n g m u i r i s o t h e r m . The first, and still the most used, adsorption model was established by Langmuir in 1918 in a paper with the reductive title The adsorption of gases on plane surfaces of glass, mica and platinum [12]. The original derivation of the Langmuir isotherm was kinetic in character, but a rigorous statistico-mechanical derivation was soon found. The statistico-mechanical derivation of the Langmuir isotherm is based on the following assumptions:

9 9 9 9 9

the gas is perfect; adsorbed molecules are classical objects localized on their adsorption sites; the surface is characterized by Afs identical sites; adsorbed molecules do not interact laterally; and adsorption is exhausted after the formation of the first layer;

from which a straightforward application of eqs. (3) and (4) leads to the celebrated Langmuir isotherm [12, 11]: 0=

P

p+pLexp(-r

(5)

where 0 = A/'/A/'s, PL is a characteristic pressure given by PL = po/z, z is the partition function of an adsorbed molecule in the adsorption field, and e is the binding energy of this molecule to the surface. F o w l e r - G u g g e n h e i m i s o t h e r m . This equation is based on the same assumptions as the Langmuir model, however improved to include nearest-neighbour interactions in the Bragg-Williams approximation. In this approach lateral interactions are taken into account in a simple way by assuming that the total interaction energy is the same for all the possible configurations of Af molecules on A/'s sites. The resulting adsorption isotherm is [13] e

P=PLi

'0exp

kT

kT

'

(6)

where: PL and e maintain the same meaning as in the Langmuir equation, w is the nearest neighbour interaction energy, and c is the site coordination number. This isotherm exhibits phase transition loops at temperatures lower than a critical temperature Tr with Tr =

cw/4k. 2.2.2. Mobile adsorption Mobile adsorption is characterized by an activation energy for surface diffusion so low as not allow localization. In modern language, the models for submonolayer localized adsorption are two-dimensional (2D) variants of the Van der Waals model. V o l m e r i s o t h e r m . The hypothesis, that the adsorbed phase behaves as a 2D Van der Waals gas with only co-area effects, led Volmer [14] to propose the following isotherm: o

P=Pvi

'0exp

1--0

'

(7)

where Pv is a characteristic pressure,

pv = (mkT/27rh2)l/2kT/b2z•

(8)

z• is the partition function for the motion of the admolecule in the direction perpendicular to the surface, r maintains the meaning of adsorption energy, and b2 is the co-area. The co-area is the 2D analogue of the covolume in the Van der Waals equation of state. Though co-area effects are expected to be very important in an adsorbed phase (because this phase may have a density of the same order as the bulk phase) the Volmer model ignores ignores that lateral interaction between adsorbed molecules may be equally, or even more, important.

H i l l - d e B o e r isotherm. This difficulty was solved by Hill [15] who described the adsorbate as a 2D Van der Waals gas held at the surface by the adsorption field. The resulting adsorption isotherm is given by:

0 p=pv 1

{" 0 /~exPkl_O

a20 kT

kT

'

(0)

where a2 takes into account the interaction energy among the adsorbed molecules. The qualitative behaviour of this isotherm is roughly similar to that of the Fowler-Guggenheim one. Even this equation exhibits phase transition below a critical temperature To, with Tr = 8a~/27b2k. The first evidence for systems behaving as 2D Van der Waals gases was provided by de Boer [16] and since then the above equation is usually referred to as Hill-de Boer isotherm.

2.3. Multilayer adsorption In the previous part we have considered only submonolayer adsorption, i.e. the formation of only one layer of adsorbed molecules, held on the surface by gas-solid forces. However, since gas-solid interaction energies which are responsible for adsorption are not very different from vapour-phase interaction energies which are responsible for condensation to liquid state, it is not surprising that multilayer adsorption (i.e., adsorption on the top of already adsorbed molecules) occurs. Actually, when the temperature of a solid surface is lower than the critical temperature of the adsorbate, multilayer adsorption is a common phenomenon, resulting in a gradual increase with pressure of the adsorbed molecules up to bulk condensation as the adsorption pressure approaches the bulk vapour pressure. The possibility of multilayer formation complicates considerably the treatment of adsorption on homogeneous surfaces. In principle, the general equations (3) and (4) take into account the multilayer formation when the rigorous potential is included in the expression (2) for the classical partition function Z~c,~d: this is no more true for the various simplified models which lead to the local isotherms (Langmuir, Fowler-Guggenheim, Hill-de Boer, etc.) reported in the previous section. Simplified models for multilayer adsorption are formulated by explicitly allowing the possibility of multilayer formation. Among these models we shall consider only the ones due to Brunauer, Emmet and Teller (BET), and to Frenkel, Halsey and Hill (FHH). They can be considered as complementary, since the BET isotherm gives generally a satisfactory description of the real systems at coverages lower than 2 - 3 layers, while the FHH isotherm becomes adequate only at coverages higher than 3 layers. 2.3.1. The B E T isotherm and its extensions The original derivation of the BET isotherm was based on kinetic arguments [17], although statistical derivations are known [1]. The hypotheses upon which the BET theory is built are the following: 9 the gas is perfect; 9 adsorbed molecules are classical objects localized on their adsorption sites; 9 the surface is characterized by A/'s identical sites;

9 adsorption takes place either on surface sites or on the top of molecules already adsorbed but not in in-between positions; 9 the first layer only interacts with the surface; all other layers have interparticle interaction with the same energy as would apply in the liquid state, and involving only nearest neighbours in the vertical stack of adsorbed atoms in each site; and 9 adsorbed molecules do not interact laterally. Since the first three assumptions are the same as for the Langmuir isotherm, the BET model is essentially an extension of Langmuir model to multilayer adsorption. The above assumptions lead to the following expression for the surface coverage: 1 Cx e(x) = 1 - x 1 + ( C -

1)x"

(10)

where x is the relative pressure (x := p i p . , ratio of the equilibrium pressure p to the saturation pressure ps), and C = z-~ exp ( ~ -- 81iq) Zr,n

kT

(11)

"

In eq. (11) z and znq are the partition functions for a molecule in the first layer and liquid phase, respectively, while ~ and enq are the adsorption energies in the first layer and higher layers, respectively. If C >> 1 (BET isotherm of II type), higher layers are occupied only when the first layer has been filled almost completely. If C ~< 1 (BET isotherm of III type), adsorption in the first layer occurs in competition with adsorption in higher layers. The BET isotherm can formally be reduced to the Langmuir isotherm by a simple variable transformation, a fact that is useful to develop a unified treatment of mono- and multi-layer adsorption. In fact, defining an 'enhanced pressure' P [18], p=

1

P

(12)

and a modified surface coverage OM(P, ~), 0(P, ~) 8M(P,e) = 1 + P/p~'

(13)

for the BET isotherm one has 8M(P, 8)

=

p +

PL

P exp ( - e / k T ) '

(14)

where PL = PL e x p ( - e r , q / k T ) . The BET assumptions can be modified by imposing that piles with a maximum of n molecules can be accomodated on the surface. In this case one gets C z 1 - (n + 1)z '~ + n z T M 6,.,(x) = i - x I + ( C - l ) x Cx n+l' -

of eq. (10). Form lly a (x) for n pressure with above properties can be defined even for the BET equation with n layers [19].

(15)

A simple inspection of the BET assumptions clearly shows that the BET equation cannot give an adequate physical description of multilayer formation. However, in the neighborhood of the B point (i.e., the point in the x - 6 plot where the experimental isotherm changes its concavity) the BET equation has provided a rationalization of so many experimental data as to have become a standard for the quantitation of surface areas. Many treatments have been developed in order to improve the BET theory [20, 21]. Among them we mention the model by Hill [20], essentially based on the same assumptions of BET theory, but accounting for lateral interactions among adatoms in the same layer (within the Bragg-Williams approximation). The obtained improved isotherm is considerably more complicated without leading to better agreement with experimental results [22]; for these reasons it is not frequently utilized in p r a c t i c e - that occurs for other seemingly 'improved' isotherms. 2.3.2. T h e a d s o r b e d phase as a liquid - - F H H isotherm In the FHH theory [23, 24, 25] the adphase is considered as a liquid phase subjected to an external potential generated the adsorbing solid surface: these attractive gas-solid interactions are responsible for a stabilization of the adphase with respect to the bulk liquid. The FHH isotherm is derived by assuming the adsorbate as a uniform thin layer of liquid on a planar, homogeneous, solid surface and considering the effect of the replacement of the solid by the liquid: a molecule in the adsorbed layer will feel different potentials in these two situations. Equating such a potential-energy difference to the difference of chemical potentials between the adsorbed layer and the bulk liquid, one obtains the following implicit isotherm kT ln(p/p~) = up(t),

(16)

where t is the thickness of the adsorbed layer and up(r), known as perturbation energy, is the difference between the actual potential U(r) acting on a point r of the adsorbed layer and the hypothetical potential acting on the same point if the solid adsorbent were substituted with liquid adsorbate: up(r) = [U(r)-Unq(r)]. Equation (16)is interpreted by stating that a liquid condenses in a volume within a distance t from the surface when the perturbation potential in that volume is less than, or equal to, k T l n ( p / p s ) . The quantity (17)

c = -kTln(p/ps)

is usually referred to as Polanyi potential. See Steele's treatise for a compact discussion the the physical bases of the FHH theory [1]. An explicit form for the FHH isotherm (16) is obtained by putting t = 0d~ (where d~ is the thickness of each layer), and assuming that the perturbation energy is attractive and varies as an inverse power ; of the distance, U(x3) cx x3 r With this assumption the FHH isotherm becomes in

=

O~fsn

kTd~

(18)

'

where aFHH is a proportionality constant. Considering the long range part of the gas-solid interaction and the intermolecular interaction in the bulk liquid as due to dispersion interactions, the exponent s should be equal to 3.

Of course, the assumption t cx 0 provides a 'continuum' description of the adsorption process; this description is realistic only for 0 high enough, say 0 > 3. 2.4. Classic empirical i s o t h e r m s for s u b m o n o l a y e r a d s o r p t i o n None of the isotherms considered above is observed frequently: Clear-cut evidence for the Fowler-Guggenheim or Hill-de Boer isotherms has been provided only for adsorption on highly homogeneous lamellar surfaces (see [26] and references therein quoted). The BET isotherm describes poorly both the submonolayer region and the high-coverage region; it provides a satisfactory description of adsorption only for C >> 1 and in the vicinity of the B point. The FHH isotherm provides an adequate description of multilayer adsorption for 0 > 3, but most experimental data can be fitted with r = 2.1 - 2 . 8 [27] rather than with the theoretical value r = 3. These anomalies cannot surprise, because in most cases the surfaces of adsorbents of practical interest are highly non-ideal due to numerous physico-chemical factors, like: the presence of different compounds, phases or crystalline faces, the absence of short-range order, or the complex topographic structure. Rather, what is surprising is that in spite of the plethora of ways through which non-ideality can be manifested, only three adsorption isotherms and their combination are frequently observed in submonolayer adsorption: the Freundlich (F), Dubinin-Radushkevich (DR), and Temkin (W) isotherms. 2.4.1. Freundlich i s o t h e r m The F isotherm has both a historical importance, because it is the oldest reported rationalization of adsorption data (it was extensively used by Freundlich [28] well before Langmuir's derivation of his isotherm [12]), and a practical importance because it is still largely used in the description of real systems. The F isotherm is given by 0F(p) = (p/pF) ~,

(19)

(where PF and s are at the moment unspecified parameters characteristic of the adsorbent-adsorbate system, with s < 1) and is defined for 0 _< p _< PF- However dOF/dp ~ +oc for p ~ 0, so that eq. (19) is not reduced to the Henry isotherm in the low pressure limit. A variant of the Freundlich isotherm was proposed by Sips [29, 30]" 0F,S(p)=

P +PP F

(20)

Equation (20) is defined even for p _> p~, but does not behave asymptotically as the Henry isotherm in the low-pressure limit. Another isotherm which is reminescent of the F equation was proposed by Tbth [31]" OF,T(p) = [ 1Is

P

~PT -4- pUS

)s.

This isotherm is defined for all p and behaves as the Henry isotherm in the low pressure limit.

l0 2.4.2. D u b i n i n - R a d u s h k e v i c h i s o t h e r m

The isotherm, originally proposed by Dubinin and Radushkevich in 1947 for adsorption on microporous solids [32], reads lnA/" = CDR- B[kTln(p/p~)] 2,

(22)

where CDR and B are suitable constants, depending on the considered system. This equation is defined for 0 _ p < p~. Only later Kaganer observed that the parameter CDR coincided with lnA/'s, where Af~ is the monolayer coverage as determined by the BET technique [33], so that eq. (22) could be written In 0DR(P) = -B[kT ln(p/ps)] 2.

(23)

It was with astonishment that Hobson [34] found that eq. (23), an equation manifestly in the realm of the Polanyi potential theory, could be applied to adsorption on non-porous surfaces. Soon after Hobson's discovery the DR equation, eq. (23), was found to describe several adsorption systems, though in some cases better fits could be obtained by replacing psat by the saturated pressure of the solid phase [35, 36]. The theoretical analysis of the DR isotherm carried out by Cerofolini [37] and the subsequent numerical analysis by Rudzifiski et al. [38] then showed that for adsorption on non-porous surfaces the DR equation (23) should actually be replaced by the modified DR (mDR) equation: In 0mDR(P) = -B[kT ln(pm/p)] 2,

(24)

where Pm is a suitable pressure related to the minimum adsorption energy. A large number of systems is known to be described by eq. (24) in the deep submonolayer range (8 < 0.1); a nonexhaustive list of systems obeying this equation is given in ref. [2]. A short history of the DR isotherm is sketched in ref. [40]. Equation (24) is defined only for 0 < p _~ pro; however, as suggested by Misra [39], the equation in 0mDR,M(P) = -B[kT ln(1 + pm/p)]2

(25)

is very close to the mDR equation for p << Pm and extends the domain of p to the entire physical region (0, +oo). However, dO~DR/dp ~ 0 for p ---+0 and so does dOmDR,M/dp~ even in these cases the expected Henry behaviour is not reproduced. 2.4.3. T e m k i n i s o t h e r m

An adsorption isotherm where 0 increases logarithmically with p was first found by Slygin and Frumkin in 1935 [41]. However, the pressure-logarithm isotherm is usually associated with the name of Temkin, who had already proposed such a law on theoretical grounds in 1933 [42] and later applied it to the kinetics of ammonia synthesis and decomposition [43]. We shall write the T isotherm in the form 0T(p) = 1 + CT ln(p/pm),

(26)

where CT and pin are characteristic constants of the system. Equation (26) has a meaning for - 1 _ fiT ln(p/pm) < O, but is known to provide accurate description of physical systems only in a more restricted interval {p" 0.2 < 0T(p) < 0.8}.

ll 2.5. Blends of classic empirical isotherms The study of actual adsorption isotherms over extended pressure ranges has shown that pure F, DR or T behaviours are not observed in most cases; usually the actual isotherm exhibits a gradual transition from one classic empirical isotherm to another. 2.5.1. Merging the F and D R isotherms The FDR isotherm was proposed by Cerofolini [44] in the frame of the condensation approximation (see section 3.7.1) assuming that the adsorbing surface was obtained by quenching an equilibrium configuration and that lateral interactions are not negligible. The FDR isotherm is defined for 0 < p < pm and reads in 8FDR(P)

=

1 kTF

(kTln ( ~ ) [ l + - - l nkT ~o

(~-~)])

(27)

where TF is a 'frozen temperature' and ~0 is a suitable energy. For exp(-no/kT) <

In O = - Z

Bj[kT In(pro~p)]j for 0 _< p _< Pro,

(28)

j=0

where the temperature-independent coefficients Bj characterize the adsorbent-adsorbate system. Equation (28) follows from an idea of Heer, according to which the expansion of the logarithm of fugacity gives a better description of the adsorption isotherm than the traditional virial expansion [47].

12 2.5.2. M e r g i n g the T and F isotherms In an analysis of published experimental data, Gottwald and Haul [48] found that isotherms, previously referred to as obeying the DR equation, are better described for 0 < p ~ p~ by an equation of the type ( p / p m ) s -- 8TF

exp(STF/8O),

(29)

where 80 is a characteristic coverage. Equation (29) cannot be inverted in terms of elementary transcendental functions. However, it behaves as the F equation in the low coverage limit, 8TF << 80 =~ 8TF(P) (p/pm) s, while behaves as the T equation in the high coverage limit, 8TF >> 80 ~ 8TF(P) -- in 80 +8oS ln(p/pm), provided that 8oS is identified with ~T. Because of these behaviours eq. (29) will be referred to as TF equation. 2.5.3. M e r g i n g the T, F, and D R isotherms We have now the instruments for finding an expression behaving as the mDR equation at low coverage, as the T equation at high coverage, and as the F equation in the intermediate coverage region. Such an equation, which is defined for 0 < p
(~)]})=STFDRexp\

(STFDR 8o ) "

(30)

At last we note that the change of argument which allows the F and mDR equations (defined for 0 _ p < Pro) to be transformed into the generahzed Freundlich and DR equations (eqs. (20)and (25)), i.e. Pm/P ~ Pm/P + 1,

can also be used to extend the domain of the blended isotherms (27), (29) and (30) from (0,pro) to (0, + ~ ) . 2.6. A d s o r p t i o n on heterogeneous surfaces Most of adsorbents of practical interest in physical chemistry are not energetically homogeneous, so that they are expected not to obey the isotherms described in section 2. The problem of describing adsorption on energetically heterogeneous surfaces was considered by Langmuir himself [12], who described the coverage St(p) of the entire surface as a weighted average of the coverages 8(p, ej) of sites of adsorption energy ej:

0~(p) = Z 0(p,~)xj,

(31)

J where Xj is the fraction of sites with energy Q, and the sum is extended to all different sites forming the surface. By definition

Vj : Xj >- 0

(32)

and

Z ~ = 1. J

(33)

13 The function 0t(p) will be referred to as overall isotherm, while the function O(p,e) will be referred to as local isotherm. Langmuir could ignore surface topography because he assumed his equation as local isotherm. When other models are considered, however, surface topography is no longer mute in the description of adsorption. In this case, two extreme situations are usually considered: patchwise heterogeneity and random heterogeneity.

2.6.1. Adsorption on patchwise heterogeneous surfaces The description of adsorption is significantly simplified if the adsorption sites having the same adsorption energy are assumed to be grouped in homotattic patches, each large with respect to the atomic size, so that they can be considered as indefinitely extended and lateral interactions between molecules adsorbed on different patches can be neglected. This model, known as homotattic patch approximation (HPA) [49], allows the use for each patch of the theory developed for the homogeneous surface. If the family of different patches is so densely distributed as to allow the finite set {Xj} to be replaced by a continuous distribution function X(e), the overall isotherm is given by

~

M (34)

where ~m and ~M represent the minimum and maximum adsorption energy, respectively. For reasons of mathematical convenience the lower limit of integral (34) is often put to 0, while the upper limit is put to + ~ : (35)

j~O+~ This substitution does not produce difficulties, provided that X(r in (0, +oc) and identically null for r < Cm and for e > eMIt is stressed that in the realm of the HPA, eq. (35) holds true isotherm describing the adsorption on each homogeneous part of the Langmuir isotherm as well as for the Fowler-Guggenheim or

is considered as defined irrespective of the local the surface: it holds for the Hill-de Boer ones.

2.6.2. Adsorption on random heterogeneous surfaces In the second extreme model, known as random approximation, the adsorption sites having the same adsorption energy are assumed to be distributed completely at random on the heterogeneous surface. Although considered as early as in the forties by Hill [50] and Tompkins [51], this model is employed much less than the HPA, because of its greater computational difficulties and (perhaps) of its lower adherence to the physical reality. The Hill-Tompkins model extends the Fowler-Guggenheim theory of localized adsorption on homogeneous surfaces to adsorption on heterogeneous surfaces with a random distribution of sites. This model is based on a canonical ensemble approach, in which only interactions between adsorbed molecules are taken into account. On the basis of this assumption, Hill derived the following expression for the partition function, In ZX,~d -

z

Afs,i In

3'

+

7 +~1

nlw + k--T-- '

(36)

14

(

W (0rL 1 ~ 7 = !zi exp a - -s ' N'si' is the number of sites of adwhere: a = kT kT ~,-~,]' sorption energy ei, ~t is the chemical potential of the adsorbate, Af is the total number of adsorbed molecules, zi is the partition function of the adsorbed molecule on the i-th site, w is the nearest-neighbour interaction energy, the configuration factor n l is defined through the relationship exp

(TZlW E g(nll)exp(nlxw/kT) =

(37)

Eg(nlx )

g(n11) is the number of configurations of the adsorbed molecules with rill nearest-neighbour pairs, and the sum is extended to all possible configurations. Making use of eqs. (3) and (4), and replacing the summation over Af~,~by an integration in eq. (36), Hill derived the following overall isotherm

j[o~176 0t(p) =

(p/pL ) exp( r / kT)

exp [ - w / k T (Onl/ON')] + (P/PL) exp(e/kT)

(3S)

Using the Bragg-Williams approximation, Hill showed that Onl/OAf = cOt(p), so that the overall isotherm is given by Ot(p) =

/o=[

1 + P__L_L exp

p

(

r kT

cwOt(p) kT

)]

-1

X(e)de.

(39)

The comparison of this equation with the one which describes Fowler-Guggenheim adsorption on patchwise heterogenous surfaces, i.e. Ot(p) =

/=[

1 -4- PL exp

p

(

e

kT

cwO(p, r kT

)]

-1

Z(e)dr

(40)

shows that the HPA expression holds also for random heterogeneity provided that 0 t ( p ) is substituted for O(p,e) - - a rather intuitive conclusion.

3. T H E M I D D L E AGE: E M E R G I N G S T U D I E S OF S U R F A C E H E T E R O GENEITY EFFECTS 3.1. T h e inverse problem A coarse-grain look at the log p-O plot of all the considered theoretical isotherms describing submonolayer adsorption on energetically homogeneous surfaces shows that they remain close to 0 for p << Pe while become close to 1 for p >> pc, where p~ = 0(1) exp(-e/kT). The transition region from 0 to 1 is quite narrow and extends over less than one order of magnitude. The classic empirical isotherms, by contrast, are characterized by a transition region usually extending over several orders of magnitude. The most direct explanation for this behaviour is to ascribe it to a distribution of adsorption energy along the surface, so distributed as to allow for the observed transition region. This interpretation originates the problem of finding such a distribution.

15 3.2. S t a t e m e n t of the problem Adsorption on patchwise or random surfaces is described by eq. (35), provided that the possible dependendence of 8(p,~) on 0t or 8 are considered (as in eq. (39) or (40), respectively). Relationship (35) is the source of three problems [52]:

9 the problem of the unknown kernel, in which the overall isotherm 0t(p) is experimentally determined in correspondence to a given distribution function X(e), and eq. (35) is considered as an equation for 0(p,e); 9 the direct problem, in which 0(p,e) and X(r are assumed to be known and 0t(p) is calculated by a quadrature; and 9 the inverse problem, in which 0(p,e) is assumed as theoretically known,/~t(p) as experimentally determined, and eq. (35) is considered as a Fredholm integral equation of first kind for X(r The problem of the unknown kernel is often ignored, but is of fundamental importance since its solution would give information on the actual adsorption mechanism. This problem would be solved if one were able to prepare energetically homogeneous adsorbents. Actually, the preparation of energetically homogeneous sorbents with surface area so high as to allow rehable adsorption measurements is a conceptual problem which has practically been solved in few cases only [26]. Only few works have been devoted to the problem of the unknown kernel; its mathematical nature is discussed in ref. [52]. The direct problem is not simply a quadrature problem, but rather aims at calculating the adsorption isotherm for an assigned surface; the specification of X(r is a part of this problem, and its solution requires the formulation of a model of the adsorbing surface. This problem will be considered in section 2.4 for equilibrium surfaces. The inverse problem is the one more frequently encountered in practice, because (i) the overall isotherm is directly accessible to experiments, and (ii) there are good reasons for choosing one or the other local isotherms. 3.3. Choice of the functional space In mathematical terms, the inverse problem is the problem of solving eq. (35) for X(e) when 0t(p)and O(p,c)are assigned functions. The functional space in which the distribution function is searched plays an important role in the discussion of the problem. Indeed, as discussed in ref. [53], the choice of the functional space in a physical problem is not straightforward and may affect the solution of the problem; because of this fact this choice must be decided on physical bases. Consider, for instance, the case 0t(p) -- 8(p, ~). It is easy to show that in this case there is no continuous function X(e) satisfying eq. (35). However, in the space of distributions eq. (35) admits the trivial solution X(e) = 5 ( c - ~), where ~(-) is the Dirac 5 distribution. Ignoring this trivial case (and its natural extension, for which /gt(p) is given by eq. (31) with few coefficients Xj, each of the order of unity), one may reasonably assume that X(r is a smooth (however not necessarily continuous) function. Because of the physical conditions of non-negativity,

> 0,

(41)

and of normalization,

f0 ~176

= 1,

(42)

16 the function X(r belongs therefore to the space LI(0, +oo) of Lebesgue-summable functions. Equations (41) and (42)transcribe conditions (32) and (33), respectively, from the discrete case to the continuous one. The overall isotherm can in turn be considered a smooth function (so are the classic empirical isotherms considered in section 2). Since 0t(p) is monotonically increasing with p, from a famous theorem due to Lebesgue its derivative Ott(p), O~(p):-- dOt(p)/dp, exists almost everywhere [54] and is non-negative: o

Vp" O~(p) >_ 0,

(43) o

where the symbol ' > ' means '>_ almost everywhere'. Assuming, quite realistically, that the monolayer is completed when the pressure is increased to +oc (i.e., p ~ +oo =~ 0t ---* 1), one has

fo ~176 O't (p)dp = 1.

(44)

The combination of conditions (43) and (44) guarantees that O~(p) too belongs to LI(0, +oc). The function O~(p) plays a special role in the theory and will be referred to with a new n a m e - disotherm. Since a natural functional space for O't has been identified, rather than eq. (35) it is convenient to consider the equivalent equation

O't (p) =

fo

O'(p, e)X(~)de,

(45)

where O'(p, e) is the local disotherm O'(p,r O0(p,e)/Op. Considered as an equation for X(r eq. (45) is linear only if the local disotherm does not depend on 0~(p). If we want to remain in the frame of linear integral equations, we have therefore to limit ourselves to the HPA. Unless otherwise explicitly mentioned, all the forthcoming considerations are limited to this case. Moreover, the attention will mainly be concentrated on O(p, ~) given by the Langmuir isotherm. The 'good reasons' for choosing 0(p,e) are reasons of simplicity, since other choices of local isotherms do not allow us even to express analytically O(p, r in terms of elementary transcendental functions. When O(p, ~) is given by eq. (5), the local disotherm is given by O'(p, e) =

p2 exp

[

(

(46)

1 + PL e p exp -~-~

This expression takes a more compact form on defining er

~(~r

kTln(pL/p), := 0(p(~),~), :=

(47) (48)

17 for which the local disotherm is given by 6"c

6'(r162r --

1

exp

-- ~I

kT Cc

where O'(r162

-- C

(49) 2~

i)0(p(r162162

3.4. Ill-posedeness of t h e problem Putting

(O'x)(P)

O'(p,e)X(e)dr

:=

(50)

eq. (45) can be written in operator form as 0it ---~Or,)(""

(51)

The corresponding inverse problem reads: given 0~ E L 1, find the element X E L 1 satisfying eq. (51). According to Hadamard, a physico-mathematical problem is well posed when: (a) it admits at least one solution; (b) it is unique; and (c) it is stable. None of these conditions is trivially satisfied. To demonstrate that existence and uniqueness are not trivial, we shall construct specific counterexamples; for instability we shall use the property that if the kernel @'(p, c) is sufficiently regular, then the operator | is compact. 3.4.1. E x i s t e n c e Equation (51) admits solution only if 0't belongs to the image of O'. This condition is not trivial. For, let {r be a complete orthonormal system of L 2 belonging to L 1 too. An example is given by Laguerre functions which form a complete orthonormal system in L2(0, +or and belong to LI(0, +cr If the local disotherm is given by l

o'(;, ~) = ~ o'~jC~(p)~j(~),

(52)

i,j=l

then

O~(p)must

be of the form

l

0'~(p) = ~ b,r

(53)

i=l

with

b~ = ~ I % j--1

jfO§

~j(~)~(~)d~.

(54)

18 If O[(p) has not this form (for instance, if O~(p) = r with j > l or 0't E LI\L2), eq. (51) does not admit solution. However, we shall later see that for O(p, e) given by Langmuir isotherm, it is possible to modify slightly each of the classic empirical isotherms to such a form which allows a solution to be found.

3.4.2. Uniqueness Let ker O' := { f : O ' f = 0}.

(55)

The set ker O' is not void since the null element 0 of L 1 belongs to ker O'. If X0 is a solution of eq. (51), then any other element X0 + f, with f E ker t9', is a solution of this equation because of the linearity of 19'. Necessary and sufficient condition for a solution X0 of (51) be unique is that ker O ' = {0}.

(56)

Condition (56) is not trivially satisfied by all operators on L 1. Consider, for instance, a finite-rank kernel O'(p,e) of the form (52). Then any element (i with j > 1 of {~,} belongs to ker O'. The analysis of the next section will however show that the solution of eq. (51) is unique when O'(p, ~) is the Langmuir disotherm.

3.4.3. Stability Rather than the 'true' overall disotherm 0~(p), one knows an 'experimental' overall disotherm O~,~(p), i.e. a disotherm known in a certain pressure domain (pl, p~) (usually, a proper subset of (0, + ~ ) ) and differing from the true isotherm by less than a given quantity a (the experimental error). The best one can do is to perform a set of measurements, in which the pressure domain (pl, p2) is gradually extended and the error a is reduced. In so doing one determines a sequence {0't,~} of disotherms converging to the true isotherm for n ---, + ~ . Assuming that for each 0~,~ a solution exists and is unique, one can thus construct a sequence of functions {X~}. The solution is stable if 0~,n ---, 0't implies Xn --* X. This property, however, does not hold true for the Langmuir disotherm. In fact, since the kernel O'(p,e) of equation (45) is continuous and bounded, the associated operator O' is compact [55]. That means that for each bounded sequence {X~ }, one can extract from the the corresponding sequence {0't,~} a subsequence {0't,m} converging to the true disotherm 0't. Assume now that the measurements have actually produced just the sequence {0't,,~}. In this case the solution of the inverse problem generates a bounded, however non-convergent, sequence {X-~}The above difficulties is more fundamental than practical. In fact, though we cannot be sure that from a convergent sequence {0~,m} we can always calculate a convergent sequence {X-~}, in practice a convergent sequence may result (and often does). Even in this case, however, we run in difficulties. Indeed, the experimental and true overall disotherms satisfy the condition

I o',,.(p) 1

O,(p)

@

<

(57)

19 Taking the limit for an ~ 0 means that 0't,n tends to O't with the metric of L 2. Even assuming that xn converges to X, this tendency is however in the mean. A uniform convergence is not guaranteed, and it may happen that even small errors are responsible for large local deviations of X,(e) from X(e). This difficulty is made more dramatic by the fact that the n~ighbourhoods of p = 0 and p = +oo are physically inaccessible. That the convergence in the mean of X,(e) to X(e) does not guarantee the uniform convergence is immediately realized by observing that a piecewise continuous function X(e) having a finite number n of simple jump discontinuity points (say e l , ' " ,e,), may be approximated by a continuous function Xcont(e) obtained by replacing X(e) in ( e ~ /Xe, e~ + Ae), by means of the straight line joining the points ( ~ - / X e , X(e~- Ae)) and (c~ +/X~, X(r + Ar for all i = 1 , . . . , n. Indeed if M = sup [ X(e)I, one has ! X ( e ) - Xr

de < 8M2nAr

(58)

which can be made vanishing taking/Xe ~ 0 [56]. 3.5. B e y o n d l i n e a r i t y The analysis of section 3.4 is essentially based on the properties of linear integral operators, so that it cannot be applied to eq. (39). However, as shown by Cerofolini and Re [52], it is possible to reduce the problem of solving the integral equation (39) to the problem of solving (35) with the Langmuir local isotherm (5). This reduction is possible only when 0t(p) is a monotonically increasing continuous function of p. In this case the functions f ( p ) = exp(cwOt(p)/kT) and pf(p) are continuous and monotonically increasing. Hence, Vp E (0, +cxz) the equation p = pf(p) has a unique solution p = p(p). Defining v~(p) = 0t(p(p)), eq. (39) becomes ~(P) =

P X(e)de, P + PL e x p ( - e / k T ) jr0+~176

(59)

which is exactly eq. (35) with the Langmuir local isotherm as kernel. Equation (59) also allows the direct problem for the random approximation to be solved. In fact, if 0L(p) is the solution for the direct problem in the patchwise approximation with the Langmuir local isotherm corresponding to a given distribution function X(e), then /~t(P) = t~L(pexp(cwt?t(p)/kT))

(60)

is the solution of the direct problem in the random approximation for the same distribution function. The above relationship is an implicit equation for 0t(p) and its solution, supposedly existing, may be calculated iteratively, starting from 0~~ = 0L(p) and proceeding with the recursive relationship

3.6. Exact m e t h o d s Three exact methods have been proposed to solve the integral equation (35) with Langmuir kernel: The first method, essentially an application of Stieltjes transform theory,

20 was proposed by Sips in 1948 [29] and improved two years later [30]; the second method is an application of Wiener-Hopf technique and was proposed by Landman and Montroll in 1976 [57]; and the third method is a kind of infinite-order approximate method and was developed by Jagietto et al. [58, 59] in the period 1989- 1991 following early ideas of Rudzifiski et al. [60, 61]. 3.6.1. Sips method The method considered in this section is based on the theory of Stieltjes transform [62]. Putting

x := --PL/P-- 1

(--oo < x < --1)

y := e x p ( e / k T ) - 1

(0 <_y < +oo)

(62) (63)

Ot(z) := (1/kT)Ot(-PL/(1 + x))

(64)

2(v) := ~(kTl.(1 + v))

(65)

(the symbol x has not the same meaning as in section 2.3.1), eq. (35) becomes

~(~) = f0 ~176 y_~ 2(Y)du.

(66)

Consider now the analytic extension 0t(() of 0t(x) in the whole complex plane; for 0t(() the Cauchy theorem holds 0~(r

c

-

where (0 is any internal point of any simply connected set C, and 0C is the boundary of C. If (a) [([ ~ +oo =~ 0t(()---* 0, and (b) the singular points of 0t(() lie only on the positive semiaxis, eq. (67) gives 1 [+oo 0t(y + ir - 0t(y - ir dy, v-~

0t(~) = ~i ~o

(68)

where r is an arbitrarily small positive number. Comparing (66)with (68)one eventually gets 1 :~(y) - ~i[0t(y + i~b)- 0t(y - i r

(69)

The uniqueness of this solution is ensured by the uniqueness of the analytic extension. This solution was applied to physically interesting cases by Sips himself [29, 30] (generalized Freundlich isotherm), Misra [39, 63] and Sokotowski [64] (generalized DR isotherm). Here, rather than to apply eq. (69) to real cases, we are interested in discussing the difficulties it hinders.

21 First of all, the conditions (a) and (b) are suggested (but not ensured) by the behaviour of St(p) for p ---, 0 and by expression (66), respectively. Moreover, ~Jt(()is experimentally known only in a portion of the segment P = ( - o o , - 1 ) (the 'physical region'), while eq. (69) gives ;~(y) when ~Jt(() is known in the small strip E = {( 9 Re ( E (0,+oo) A Im ( E ( - r 1 6 2

(70)

Hence the evaluation of ;~(y) requires the knoledge of the analytic extension of ~Jt(x). But (a) and (b), is known only in an approximate form ~Jt~(x), whose analytical expression is chosen in order to satisfy (a) and (b). The maximum one may assume about the knowledge of 0t(x) is that

~t(Z), supposedly satisfying conditions

w

--oo

< -1 ~ 16.(~)-

< 9

#t(~).

I< o-,

(71)

where (r is the precision of the measurement and a physical meaning can be given only to ~t~(x) for a ~ 0 and no to 0t (x) itself. This means that we can extract from {St~(x)} a sequence of functions converging uniformly in the physical region to the true function as O" --'4 0 .

No difficulties would occur if the uniform convergence of {/t~(z)} to^~t(x) for x < - 1 ensured the uniform convergence of the analytic extension {8t~ (() } to 8t (r in the whole complex plane or, at least, in the small strip across the positive serniaxis, but this fact usually does not hold true [65]. 3.6.2. L a n d m a n - M o n t r o l l

method Through the change of variables

r162

:=

~(cr

kTln(pL/p)

:= O(p(~r

g,(~r

=

1 + exp

:= 0,(p(~r

( "kT )]_1 g'c --

5"

(72) (73) (74)

eq. (35) is transformed into an integral equation whose kernel depends only the difference e r ~, rather than on r162and e separately. This occurrence makes the corresponding integral a convolution integral: t~t(~r =

K(er ~0+~176

-

r

(75)

with K(er ~ ) = 0(er given by eq. (73). To solve this equation assume X(r be analytic, consider its analytic extension to (-oc, +oc), and define f+(er :=

K(c,: ~0+~176

1_(~r :=

F (x)

~)X(e)de,

K(~r - ~)x(~)a~.

(76)

(77)

22 Summing these equations member to member,

f+(r

+ f+(r162= ~.oo g(r162- e)X(~)de,

(78)

taking the Fourier transform of both members, 9v[f+ + f _ ] ( x ) = 3:[K](x).T'[X](x )

(79)

solving for .7-[X](x), and calculating the inverse Fourier transform, one eventually gets X(e) = $--1[$-[/+ + f_]/J:[g]](e).

(80)

Since f+(er experimentally known (f+(er = 0t(ec)), the problem of finding X(e) would be reduced to the calculation of Fourier transforms if one knew f_(x). In the absence of this knowledge, however, the previous calculations are only a formal development. The Wiener-Hopf technique is a method which allows the calculation of X(e) even without knowledge of f_(x). This technique is based on suitable decomposition of K(ec - e) and requires that each decomposition is analytically continued [66]. Its practical use is difficult, but Landman and Montroll succeeded in this job and applied the Wiener-Hopf technique to the generalized Freundlich and DR equations, and to any other overall isotherm admitting a virial expansion [57]. 3.6.3. dagietto m e t h o d Though both Sips's and Landman-Montroll's methods work well for equations which strictly resemble the F and DR equations, they however suffer from a fundamental diff i c u l t y - both methods require indeed that both 0t(p) and X(~) are analytic functions. In general this is false: the support of X(~) is compact (that excludes the possibility that this function is analytic) and the overall isotherm is known only in an interval (pl, p2) and is raccorded at the boundaries in a piecewise manner (see, for instance, the high pressure behaviour of the classic overall isotherms, or Hobson-and-Armstrong's low-pressure extension of the DR isotherm [67]) rather than by analytic continuation. A solution is said to be local when a one-to-one correspondence ~ ~ p exists such that the unknown function X(~) is completely determined by the behaviour of the given function 0t(p) in the neighborhood of p. While naive considerations suggest that the adsorption behaviour at pressure p is related to the energy distribution function X(~) in the neighborhood of ~ = ~c(p) (thus suggesting the possibility of local solutions), this fact is recognized neither in the Sips method nor in Landman-Montroll one. In other words, the solution is expected to be local, but the described methods provide global solutions [65]. A local method was first proposed by Jagietto in different collaborations [58, 59] and will be referred to as Jagietto method. A similar method was independently proposed by Chen for the mathematically equivalent problem of finding the density of states of Fermi systems [68]. It is however noted that this method is based on a formula already known to Widder in 1938 [69] and that a similar result was also obtained by Brs et al. in 1985

[7o]. The derivation is obtained from the following representation of the Dirac ~ distribution: +o~ )~7r2~ 02~+1 t~(x- y ) = ~ (-1 ~ ,=0 (2n + 1)! 0y 2n+1 1 + e~-y"

(81)

23 The proof of this relationship is obtained in two steps. First, the cases y < x and x < y, are considered separately, (1 + e=-Y) -1 is expanded in powers of e -Ix-yl, and the resulting series are summed and found to be null. Second, the integral of the rhs of eq. (81) is calculated and found equal to 1, that completes the proof. To apply this formula, we first define the local and overall nisotherms:

~,(=c,~) := i - O(~c, ~)

(82)

i(er

(83)

:= 1 - 0 t ( c r

for which

i(~o) =

(84)

A(s~,s)x(~)&

because of the normalization condition of X(e). Then we observe that for Langmuir adsorption A(sc, e ) =

(

l+exp

e-er kT

(85)

so that we can apply eq. (81): +~

(-1)n(,rkr) 2n o2n+l

~ ( ~ - ~ c ) = n=o

(2n + I)!

O~cn+,A(~c,e).

(86)

Inserting this relationship into the identity

x(~c) =

f0

(8;)

~(~ - ~c)X(~)&

one has x(er

(2n +

1)!

n+--------~(ec'e)X(e)de Oe~

r~=O

n=o +c~

L n=o

(2n + 1)1

Oe~n+l

fo

A(ec, e)X(e)de

(-1)n(~kT) ~n O~n+' ~(~o) (2= + 1)!

b-~c~:;~

(88)

Equation (88) gives X(er as a function series; its first two terms are

X(~c) =

o~(~c) &c

(89)

and

oh(~c) X(~c)=

&c

(~kT) = O~h(=c) 6 &~ "

(90)

24 Since the series (88) involves (odd) derivatives of the experimental nisotherm in ~ = ~r it gives a local solution, thus satisfying the initial need which motivated Rudzifiski and Jagietto. It is however noted that the_ Jagietto method allows an exact solution to be calculated only if all the derivatives of )~(~r are known. On another side, if all derivatives of an analytic function are known, the function is known everywhere by analytic extension, so that the described method is equivalent to any other non-local methods. One serious advantage of this method, however, is that it does not assume that X(r is analytic (though the first derivation was carried out under this restrictive condition [58, 59, 60]) so that the method seems suitable for application to practical systems where X(r is not analytic, the support of X(r being compact.

3.7. Approximate methods The methods described in this section are mely, the condensation approximation and the considered as special cases of eq. (88) obtained second term, respectively, we shall nevertheless aiming at clarifying their physical bases.

local methods. Though two of them (naRudzifiski-Jagietto approximation) can be by truncation of the series to the first and propose for them independent derivations,

3.7.1. Condensation approximation The condensation approximation (CA) was first proposed by Roginsky [71] and later better formalized by Harris [72] and Cerofolini [73]. This method is based on the replacement of the the true local isotherm by a step function, 0r

J" 0 for 0 < p < pr l ] for pr < p,

~)

(91)

where the pressure pc(~) can be interpreted as a condensation pressure, i.e. the pressure at which the gas suddenly condenses on the patch with adsorption energy ~. A convenient criterion for choosing the condensation pressure pc(~) is the minimization of the distance between O(p,e) and Or [73]. Using whether the Lagrangian distance,

dc..[O,Or =

sup I O(p, ~) - Or pe(0,+oo)

~) I,

(92)

or the L2(0, +oo) distance, dL2[O,/~c] =

{/0

I /~(p,r

Oc(p,e)! 2 dp

,

(93)

one obtains O(pr

= 89

(94)

which for the Langmuir isotherm gives

pc(c) = PL e x p ( - c / k T ) .

(95)

The same result is obtained with Harris's criterion, which states that pc(c) must be chosen as the pressure at which the local isotherm changes concavity in a log p - / 9 plot.

25 Operating as in eq. (48), i.e. using er = - k T l n ( p / p L ) , as independent variable (obtained by inverting eq. (95)), expressing p as a function of er and putting 0t(er Ot(p(er the integral equation (35) becomes t~t(ec) =

Xc(e)de,

(96)

where Xr is the distribution function corresponding to the condensation approximation. Equation (96) can easily be solved by a differentiation with respect to ~r (97)

Xc(ec) "-- --l~#t(ec)/l~ec.

Interesting consequences of eq. (97) are: (a) since er is defined on the real axis (-c~, +co) while only positive values of adsorption energy have physical meaning, X:r162 must be 0 for er < 0, i.e. for p > PL; and (b) Xr is temperature independent, as physically required for hard adsorbents (see section 4.2), only if 0t(er does not depend on T, i.e. if 0t(p) does not depend on p and T separately, but only on kT ln(pL/p). The errors occurring in the CA may be estimated by defining 0(ec, e) as in (48) and writing the integral equation (35) in the form 0t(er =

f0+= 0(er

(98)

e)X(e)de.

Differentiating eq. (98) with respect to er and taking eq. (97) into account, one has Xr162 = -

f

+~ 0~(~r e) O-e-cf

X(e)&-

Equation (99) shows that the more -0t}(er162 resembles 6 ( e - er similar to :~(er For the Langmuir local isotherm one has 0#(So, e) _ i Oer kT

exp

-

1 + exp

(

kT ec - e kT

(99) the more Xr162

(i00)

This function has a bell-shaped form, with a maximum centred on er = e, and becomes sharper and sharper as T decreases, tending to a Dirac distribution when T --, 0. It may hence be assumed that the CA gives reliable results when applied to surfaces whose distributions have a spread much greater than kT. In the opposite case, i.e. for surfaces whose distribution functions present peaks with width smaller than kT, the CA gives distributions which are smoother than the true ones.

3.7.1.1. Application to classic overall isotherms The application of CA to the classic overall isotherms and their blends specifies the meaning of p~ - - the characteristic pressure pm is given by p~ = PL e x p ( - e ~ / k T ) , where r is the minimum binding energy. This physical meaning specifies how pm depends on T (at least when Cm is temperature-independent, as it happens for hard adsorbents) and states that p~ < PL.

26 The application of CA to the classic empirical isotherms is straightforward: the F isotherm is associated with an exponential energy distribution function; the mDR isotherm with a Rayleigh distribution, and the T isotherm with a uniform distribution. 3.7.1.2. E x t e n s i o n to o t h e r local isotherms

The condensation approximation can easily be extended to other local isotherm, like the Fowler-Guggenheim and the Hill-de Boer ones. While in the first case Harris's and Cerofolini's criteria predict the same condensation pressure [74], in the second case they lead to slightly different choices [75]. This small difference affects only marginally the resulting distribution function [75]. 3.7.2. Asymptotically correct approximation

The asymptotically correct approximation and modified to the present form by Cerofolini true local isotherm by an approximate kernel behaviours both at low pressure (Henry law)

(ACA) was first introduced by Hobson [76] [73, 78]; it is based on the replacement of the O~(p,s) which shows the correct asymptotic and at high pressure (saturation):

{ (p/pL)exp(s/kT)l forf~ Pa(~)0 _ p _~
(101)

where p~(e) is a suitable pressure. If this pressure is so chosen as to minimize the distance

bCtw~r 0(p,~) ~.d 0~(p, c), o,r h~s p.(~)= p~ ~xp(-~/kT). Since p~(e) - pc(e), the arguments of the previous subsection can be repeated here. In particular, expressing p as a function of ~c and putting 0t(~r = Ot(p(ec)), the integral equation (35) becomes #t(sc) = exp ( - ~ T )

/o

(k-~)X,(s)ds +

Xa(s)ds,

(102)

where Xa(e) is the distribution function corresponding to the condensation approximation. Equation (102) can be solved by two differentiations with respect to sr and gives 00t(er x~(~r

=

0~r

kTO20t(er 0~r~

(103) '

to which all the general considerations made in the previous subsection for the CA distribution Xr apply again. In order to evaluate the errors occurring in the ACA consider eq. (98) with its first and second derivatives: 0~t(er

= rl +or a~(~r ~)x(~)d~

a~r -_ a~0~(~o)

(104)

o~ x(~)d~. f0+~176 a:0(~o,~)

Multiplying both members of eq. (105) by eq. (103) into account, one has

(lo5)

kT, adding the result to eq. (104) and taking

0_ kT0~r ) 9(~r ~)x(~)d6

(~06)

27 Equation (106) shows that the more its kernel resembles 6 ( r r the more Xa(Cc) is similar to X(r For example, for the Langmuir local isotherm, one has 1-exp( 0 0ec

0(~r162

kT-~r

ec-e)kT

1+

kT

l+expk,

kT

(107) l+exp

kT

This function is bell-shaped and tends to a Dirac 6 distribution when T --, 0 K. Furthermore, a comparison may be performed between the CA and ACA approximations. In fact, it is easy to verify that the width at half maximum of the ACA kernel (107) is about 3 k T compared with 3.5 k T of the CA kernel (100). However, this advantage of the ACA is neutralized by the fact that the in this case the kernel is not centred on cc but on cr + k T In 2 [37].

3.7.2.1. Extension to other local isotherms Like the CA, the ACA can be extended to other local isotherms, namely the Hill-de Boer one (for which it was developed [76]) and the Fowler-Guggenheim one [78]. The mathematical machinery employed in these two cases is the same. We do not intend to describe here the details of the calculations; rather we call the attention on the following mathematical aspect. Any method (like the CA and ACA) in which the local isotherm is approximated by an isotherm which is identically equal to 1 for p greater than a suitable pressure p'(~) transforms the Fredholm integral equation of the first kind (35) into a Volterra integral equation. This process removes the instability. While solving the resulting Volterra equation for the CA is essentially reduced to the calculation of the derivative of the overall isotherm, in the ACA the procedure is somewhat more complex. While the solution of the Volterra equation for the Langmuir local isotherm is immediately reduced to the calculation of two derivatives, for the Hill-de Boer and Fowler-Guggenheim isotherms it requires the method of solution proper of the Volterra equation of the second kind [73, 78]. 3.7.3. Rudzifiski-Jagietto approximation This approximation was first developed by Hsu et al. [79], Rudzifiski et al. [61] and Jagietto et al. [58] without assuming any local isotherm approximation. Their derivation is based on equation (99) which can be considered as an alternative formulation of the integral equation (35); its kernel is the derivative of the local isotherm with respect to ~c which in the case of the local isotherm is, as already seen, a bell-shaped function. The true distribution function is then expanded in power series of ~ around r = ec, so that eq. (99) may be written as

0r

=

\

j=o

(lo81

) ~=~c

where Cj(~r = k T

~r

' O~c

kT

d

--~--]

"

(109)

28 When only the first term of the series in eq. (108) is retained, the resulting distribution coincides with that given by the CA, while when also the second term is retained eq. (108) becomes O~c

= -X(e,:) -

( kT) 6

(110)

0~

which is a second order linear differential equation for X(ec). If the second term in eq. (110) can be considered as a correction, this equation can be solved in an iterative way, giving the CA distribution function at the first step, and the RJ distribution function, )~RJ (gc) -----

~

0~c

t (~kT) ~ 0 ~ t (~r 6

(111)

0g 3

at the second step. Rudzifiski et al. [61] have shown that, when applied to real systems, eq. (111) gives results remarkably better than those obtained by the CA or ACA. 3.7.4. B e y o n d the R J a p p r o x i m a t i o n In view of what wassaid in section 3.6.3, the CA and RJ approximations can be seen as the first- and second-order aproximations of general formula (88). A somewhat different procedure, the logarithmic symmetrical local isotherm approximation (LOGA), was developed by Nederlof et al. [80]. Approximating the local isotherm with the kernel ON(p,e) =

-~ (p/pL) ~ e x p ( ~ e / k T ) 1 - ~1 (pL/p) ~ e x p ( - ~ e / k T )

for 0 _< p < pN(e), for PN(r _< P,

(112)

(with PN(r = PL exp(--e/kT)), changing the independent variable from p to r162= k T ln(pL/p), inserting the local isotherm (112) into eq. (48), taking three successive derivatives with respect to r162and noting that in the equation for the third derivative enter the same integrals which appear in the equation for the first derivative and which can therefore be eliminated, one obtains XN(gc) = (~0t(gc_____~)_[_ ( k T ) 2 030t(er 0ec ~2 (~ec3

(113) "

For ~ = x/~/~r = 0.780 this equation coincides with the RJ approximation, so that this procedure can be considered as a way to deduce the RJ formula in a scheme in which the local isotherm is suitably approximated. Nederlof et a/., however, optimized /3 by minimizing the distance between the Langmuir isotherm and its approximating form (112). They obtained fl = 0.7 wheter using the Lagrangian distance or using the L2(0, +oo) metric, and showed that with this choice eq. (113) works slightly better than the RJ approximation. Although both the RJ and LOGA approximations lead to good results in a wide experimental range of pressures, the previous methods present a common drawback - - they are not reduced to the Henry isotherm at low pressure. Consequently, both methods may lead to physically meaningless values of X(r at high adsorption energies. Accordingly, the

29 analysis of the adsorption isotherm in this regime is performed more conveniently within the ACA. A general method for the determination of the distribution function approximated to the n-th order, in which the local isotherm is approximated consistently with its asymptotic behaviours, has been proposed by Re [81]. 3.8. N u m e r i c a l m e t h o d s

The particular nature of Fredholm integral equation of the first kind poses severe difficulties to its solution and strict limits to the range of numerical methods that can be utilized for its solution. Instability in particular poses the most strict limitations from a computational standpoint. Several numerical algorithms have been developed in order to solve the Fredholm integral equation of the first kind (35) [82, 83] and many of them have been applied to the determination of the adsorption energy distribution function from experimental adsorption isotherm [84]. The most frequently employed codes are described in refs. I85, 2]; the methods upon which they are based are shortly discussed in ref. [52]. A list of them includes: 9 discretization methods, in which the solution of the integral equation is reduced to the inversion of a square matrix; 9 regularization methods, in which the ill-posed problem is replaced by a stable minimization problem in various ways; 9 iterative methods, which use various iterative algorithms in order to improve an initial guess for the distribution function; 9 ezpansion methods, which are based on the expansion of the functions A(p), X(~) and A(p,r in series of a complete orthonormal set (the concept of nisotherm is especially important for this class of methods); 9 integral transform methods, which are based on analytical methods in which the experimental isotherm is approximated by a suitable interpolating expression (e.g., a cubic spline) and the analytical inversion formula is expressed in an easily computable form; and 9 optimization methods, based on the choice of an analytical form for the distribution function containing some parameters which are subsequently determined by a best fit of the calculated global isotherm (through a simple numerical integration) to the experimental isotherm.

The last class is briefly considered here because these methods can be considered to solve the direct problem. Without pretending to be complete, among the numerous attempts we mention: 1. The description of heterogeneous adsorbents in terms of exponential energy distribution was probably considered first by Zeldovich [86] and later by Temkin and Levich [87]. Halsey used the exponential distribution for explaining the Freundlich behaviour [88], while Sparnaay used the discrete (rather than continuous) exponential distribution in eq. (31) with Fowler-Guggenheim local isotherm to explain the Dubinin-Radushkevich behaviour [89].

30 2. The possibility of using a Gaussian distribution function for X(e) and the Hill-de Boer isotherm for 0(p,r was explored by Ross and Olivier [90]. For a long time Ross and Olivier's work remained the unique systematic analysis of experimental submonolayer isotherms in terms of surface heterogenity, and created great interest on this topic. 3. Skew distributions with several maxima were described by van Dongen with exponentials of higher-degree polynomials X(r = exp j=0 cjr j , where Co, .-. , ct are adjustable parameters, l of them being independent and the remaining one being obtained with the normalization condition [91]. van Dongen's choice is a natural extension of the choice l = 2 of Ross and Olivier. 4. Wojciechowski and his coworkers described most of classic empirical adsorption isotherms in terms of Langmuir local isotherm and Maxwell-Boltzmann energy distribution function [92, 93].

)

In the absence of 'good reasons' for chosing one or the other energy distribution function and in view of the variety of possible choices, the above approaches must considered essentially as fitting schemes. 3.9. Direct p r o b l e m Ideally homogeneous surfaces can hardly be obtained. In general, they can be prepared either by exfoliating Van der Waals lamellar crystals (like mica or graphite) or by cleaving crystals along low-index planes (e.g., the (111) plane of diamond-cubic silicon). In the latter case, however, the cleavage of true chemical bonds results in appreciable relaxation of subsurface planes and reconstruction of the surface lattice. Once these really few cases are excluded, real surfaces are usually characterized by a complex situation: The surface of crystalline solids will contain several crystalline faces with different extension; each face will be relaxed and reconstructed, and will contain point defects (like vacancies or self-interstitials) and line defects (like emerging dislocations and grain borders). The surface of dispersed amorphous solids will be characterized by an even more complex distribution, since dispersion is often based on processes (like milling) responsible for phenomena (fracture, plastic deformation, etc.) where a macroscopic energy is imparted to few degrees of freedom. The concentration of a large energy on few degrees of freedom, with the consequent creation of highly defective sites, is unavoidable during the preparation of highly dispersed solids even when the process is formed by close-to-equilibrium steps (like supercritical extraction of embedded liquids in sol-gel preparation techniques). What is truly surprising is that in spite of the complexity and variety of formation modes of real heterogenous surfaces, they exhibit striking similarities in their adsorption behaviours, usually obeying one or the other classic empirical isotherm in various pressure range. 3.9.1. E q u i l i b r i u m surfaces The problem of explaining why so few experimental isotherms describe so many adsorbent-adsorbate systems was raised by Cerofolini [94], who suggested that the classic empirical isotherms are observed when the surface was formed in equilibrium conditions

31 (at a certain temperature Tf) and was quenched at room temperature preserving the previous equilibrium structure. Equilibrium surfaces are neither geometrically plane nor energetically homogeneous. The problem of determining the equilibrium shape of a body is a classic problem of surface science, solved within a continuum approximation. Considering first crystalline solids and assuming that the faces with (hkl) Miller indices can be described by a surface tension 7hkt, the equilibrium extension Ahkt of the face (hkl) of a body at assigned temperature T is determined by the condition E h k i AhklThkl

--

V =

min, const.

(114)

If Vhkl : 7hkt = 7 (this situation is characteristic of amorphous bodies) the above condition gives A = min for assigned V, so that condition (114) is strong enough to specify the equilibrium shape - - the sphere. Wulff showed that even when "~hkt is not constant (that occurs in general for crystalline bodies), condition (114) is sufficient to specify the equilibrium shape of the body m the polyhedron obtained via the Wulff's construction [95, 96]. Though very powerful and elegant, the continuum description of the surface of real bodies is inadequate to account for their adsorption properties. Indeed, while the surface of an isotropic amorphous adsorbent is described in a continuum approximation by a unique parameter (the surface tension), it is characterized by a distribution of surface configurations which in turn result in a distribution of adsorption energy. For the reasons discussed at the beginning of this section this conclusion is also true for crystalline adsorbents. The first elementary description of the energetic heterogeneity of equilibrium surfaces was proposed by Cerofolini, who postulated that the number N~ of surface atoms with excess energy/Xi relative to the ground state energy is given by a Boltzmann distribution N~/No = exp(-U~/kTf), where No is the number of atoms in the ground state (with null excess energy//). Assuming a dense distribution of excess energy, the following distribution function was then derived: 1

exp(-U/kTf)

(115)

where b/M is the maximum value of/4;//M is not greater than the energy of sublimation. Two limiting cases of eq. (115) are of interest: weak heterogeneity: strong heterogeneity:

> 1 =~ Xs(//)~- k-~exp

/~M 1 ~ << 1 =~ Xs(//) ~ ~MM"

(116)

3.9.2. Adsorption on equilibrium surfaces For a description of adsorption on equilibrium surfaces it is necessary to specify the adsorption energy e as a function of the excess energy//. Since sites w i t h / / = 0 are those for which surface atoms are most fully coordinated, they are expected to have the minimum tendency to attract gas-phase molecules; since

32 sites with higher excess energies are less strongly bonded to the substratel they are expected to manifest a higher tendency to attract gas-phase molecules. The combination of these occurrences strongly supports the idea that, in the absence of steric or electronic factors,/4 is an increasing function of 6. At the present stage it is not possible to derive on physical considerations the function / / = / / ( 6 ) . However, a Taylor expansion with positive coefficients truncated to the second power, ~I/ --- C~1(6

-- ~ m )

"IF C~2(6

(i17)

-- ~ m ) 2

(with ai, a= positive coefficients and null constant term, because b/ = 0 for e = ~m), is sufficient to explain why the FDR and Temkin are so frequently observed on real adsorbents: the FDR isotherm is associated with adsorption on weakly heterogeneous equilibrium surfaces [94], while the Temkin isotherm corresponds to adsorption on strongly heterogeneous equilibrium surfaces [97]. See ref. [98] for a discussion of this matter. For, it is necessary to calculate the adsorption-energy ditribution function X~q(e) of an equilibrium surface,

Xoq(e)

=

x~(U(e)) I OU/a~ I.

(118)

The first conclusion follows from a comparison of the energy distribution function calculated within the CA for the FDR equation (27) with the energy distribution X~q(e) : l:ul ted from er Conclusion follow from Comparison of the energy distribution function calculated within the CA for the T equation (26) with the energy distribution X~q(e) calculated from eqs. (116) and (117), and ignoring the quadratic term. It is also noted that the case blM/kTf ,~ 1 is expected to originate the TFDR blended iso;therm (30).

4. T H E C U R R E N T SOLIDS

TRENDS

IN T H E S T U D I E S OF A D S O R P T I O N

ON

4.1. A d s o r p t i o n of s t r u c t u r e l e s s molecules on rough surfaces As already observed, the formation of the first layer is particularly interesting when observed in log p - 0 plot. If the attention is limited to homogeneous surfaces, any adsorption isotherm is defined by a characteristic pressure p~ below which (say, for p/p~ << 1) 0 is negligible and above which (say, for p/p~ >> 1) 0 is close to unity. Since adsorption on different homogeneous surfaces is in general defined by different characteristic pressures, p~ is a free (external) parameter. Plotting these isotherms vs. log(p/p~), all of them have the same shape so that p~ is a scale parameter. When the constraint of surface homogenity is removed, the pressure region in which 0 varies from 0 to 1 extends over several orders of magnitude. The attempts to account for this situation have originated the theory of

adsorption on heterogeneous surfaces. The above remark seems to suggest that the simplest adsorption systems (homogeneous adsorbents) can be described by a unique scale parameter. This conclusion, however, ignores that experiments do not provide the isotherm 0t(p), but rather the isotherm JV'(p). The calculation of 0t(p) requires one additional (scale) parameter - - the number of sites

33 As. This would not be a great complication if Af~ were simply related to the number of sites Afs,~at of a geometrically flat surface (Af~,nat = 1014-1015cm-2). This however occurs in very special conditions only, and almost never for adsorbents of interest for chemistry. Even for systems for which a geometric surface area can be defined, the ratio Afs/Af~,flat may exceed 1 by several orders of magnitude and varies from one system to another. The attempts to account for this situation have originated the theory of adsorption on rough surfaces. Of course heterogeneous surfaces can hardly be flat and, conversely, rough surfaces can hardly be homogeneous. There is always a certain correlation between heterogeneity and roughness, so that any theory of adsorption on real surfaces should take both them simultaneously into account. Fortunately, the problems can however be decoupled since the adsorption isotherm is sensitive to heterogenity mainly in the submonolayer region, while is sensitive to roughness mainly in the multilayer region. The theory of adsorption on rough surfaces is complicated by the fact that the surfaces of chemical interest usually cannot be described by a smooth function z3 = x3(xl,x2), because they often exhibit very pathological behaviours. In most of the theoretical treatments of adsorption on rough surfaces, the adsorbent is assumed not to vary appreciably during adsorption itself. Adsorbents with this property will be referred to as 'hard'. In general, an adsorbent is expected to be hard when the energy which stabilizes its configuration is much higher than the adsorption energy. Typical examples of hard adsorbents are: ionic or covalent crystals with high melting point, and highly reticulate polymers like amorphous carbon or silica. Very rough surfaces are possible for hard adsorbents only. This conclusion is based on the fact that highly rough surfaces are non-equilibrium configurations, and they can be preserved only when an appreciable activation energy is required to bring the adsorbent to its equilibrium configuration. Hard adsorbents are usually characterized by X(e) independent of T. 4.2. P o r o u s solids Porous solids are known by a long time and are very familiar in chemical practice. In spite of this, modelling adsorption on porous surfaces is a very difficult task, because of the enormous number of possibilities in which porosity can be manifested. Assuming that the complex topography can be represented in terms of distribution of voids in an otherwise bulk adsorbent, these voids will be referred to as 'pores'. Pores can be defined by a characteristic shape and parametrized with one or more characteristic length (like radius for spherical pores, diameter and height for cylindrical pores, etc.). According to the International Union for Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC), pores are classified as in Table 1.

34 Table 1: IUPAC classification of pores in relation to their size

type

width (nm)

micropores mesopores macropores

< 2.0 2 . 0 - 50 > 50

The adsorption properties of pores are very different in relation to their sizes. In fact, if the adsorbed layer is thinner than approximately 3 monolayers, its description in terms of properties of bulk phase (possibly perturbed by the vicinity of a surface) is manifestly meaningless. Assuming that adsorbed molecules have diameter around 3/~, the typical pore size below which the adsorbate cannot manifest the properties of the bulk phase is around 20/~. This might be the ultimate reason supporting IUPAC classification.

4.2.1. Adsorption in micropores The description of adsorption on adsorbents with pore size below 2 nm is expected to require both the volume available to adsorption and the special nature of the adsorption potential inside the pore (where the potentials generated by different walls can superimpose). Adsorption in micropores is described with two methods: In the first method one assumes that inside each pore adsorption is described by a BET behaviour, with the additional stipulation that only a finite number of site can be filled. In the second method (essentially due to Dubinin and Stoeckli) one postulates a special law for adsorption in micropores and stipulates a scaling law for adsorption in pores with different size T h e B E T equation with finite n. The adsorption in a restricted geometry can be described in terms of BET model by expicitly assuming that a finite number of layers can be formed at the surface. This assumption leads to eq. (15). By construction, On(x) remains finite even for x = 1, where attains a maximum coverage 0M given by OM=n+l 2

Cn

1 +Cn"

(119)

Of course, a real porous surface is expected to be characterized by pores with a given distribution w(n) of n, so that this scheme has the possibility to describe the complexity of real system. A method for the determination of w(n) is discussed in ref. [52]. This method is however unpractical, since requires the knowledge close to x = I of experimental isotherms at different temperatures. In most cases micropores are studied via the semiempirical Dubinin-Stoeckli method. T h e D R equation and Stoeckli extension. The description commonly employed for adsorption on structurally heterogeneous solids (i.e., solids possessing pores of different sizes) has been developed essentially by Dubinin and Stoeckli [99, 100] and recently extended by Jaroniec and Madey [101,102]. This description is semiphenomenological and

35 essentially based on the experimental obvervation that adsorption on homogeneous microporous solids (mainly activated carbons) may be described by the DR equation [103,104], usually written in the form (120)

O(e, B) = exp[-B(e/eo)2],

where: the Polanyi potential e, defined by eq. (17), is used as independent variable in place of the equilibrium pressure p; e0 is a similarity coefficient depending on the chemical nature of the adsorbate; and B is a structural parameter that depends on the adsorbent properties only. Various experimental studies on carbonaceous adsorbents with cylindrical pores showed that B is related to the micropore size d by the relationship

B = add 2,

(121)

where O~D is a proportionality constant [105]. Representing the structural heterogeneity with the distribution function F(B) of the parameter B, the characteristic adsorption curve 0t(e) for a structurally heterogeneous solid may be written Or(el =

= exp

-B

~

F(B)dB,

(122)

with the normalization condition .fsM F(B)dB = 1, where Bm and BM are the minimum and maximum values of B, respectively. Although eq. (122) has the same form as the fundamental equation (35) for adsorption on heterogeneous surfaces and poses essentially the same problems faced in sections from 3.1 to 3.9, only the direct problem is usually considered for it. A gGussian [99] or, better, a gamma type [101, 102] distribution for F(B) leads in fact to an adsorption isotherm 0t(e) which fits satisfactorily almost all experimental data; the use of free parameters in the distribution function and their optimization enables a quantitative characterization of F(B). Because of (121), the distribution function J(d) for the micropore size d is eventually obtained

J(d) = 2aDd F(B(d))

(123)

This treatment does not explicitely consider the energy heterogeneity, which is implicitly contained in the kernel (120) of eq. (122). Jaroniec and Madey have developed a simple model for evaluating the adsorption energy distribution function X(e) for porous solids with a given structural parameter distribution function F(B) [101].

4.2.2. Adsorption in mesopores Multilayer-type isotherms are usually exhibited by adsorbates below their critical temperature. When the pore size is higher than 20/~ the adsorption at high relative pressure produces therefore the formation of films which can, with a good deal of approximation, be regarded as liquid. Liquid layers in a concave region can manifest a lot phenomena usually referred to as capillary condensation. As these phenomena involve the formation of menisci, they are usually analyzed in terms Laplace equation (describing the mechanical stability of the vapour-fluid interface) or Kelvin equation (thermodynamic stability).

36 Adsorption in mesopores is always associated with the existence of hysteresis phenomena in adsorption-desorption cycles. Hysteresis can be explained in terms of capillary condensation. Hysteresis is a complex phenomenon and several explanations have been proposed. For instance, it can be understood by assuming that (a) during adsorption the vapour is held at the surface with adsorptive filling until capillary condensation occurs; (b) once this has occurred the liquid-vapour interface area is drastically reduced so that the adsorption branch of the isotherm has a plateau; and (c) in the desorption branch vapour is gradually desorbed from filled pores by preserving a bulk filling [1]. For any assumed geometrical model of pores and for any mechanism supposedly responsible for hysteresis, one can calculate from the isotherms describing a complete adsorption-desorption cycle a pore size distribution. This distribution is however strongly model-dependent and should be substantiated by more structural analysis, like x-ray diffraction, electron microscopy, etc. Porous adsorbents either are queer systems or have fractal surfaces.

4.3. Queer s y s t e m s The area A of bodies with regular shape (such as the cube, sphere, regular polyhedra, etc.) increases with volume as V 2/3. For bodies with a regular shape the effect of the surface on their intensive thermodynamic properties (such as specific heat, magnetic susceptibility, etc.) disappears in the thermodynamic limit (infinite volume, constant density). A body whose area increases with V faster than V 2/3 is said to have a queer shape. The area of a queer system is a well defined quantity; its effect on intensive thermodynamic properties, however, can persist even for V ~ ~ . The effect surely persists in the thermodynamic limit for bodies with A cx V. Though it may appear that the concept of queer system is an extravagant concept, Nature however abounds in bodies with queer shape (the first systematic analysis for queer systems was given in ref. [106]). Among the most interesting queer systems we mention: zeolites (in which queerness is due to a lattice of void cages connected by tubes, regularly arranged in the system), biological systems (because reproduction is a way which allows the overall area to increase in proportion to the volume), and films obtained by low temperature physical vapour deposition (where the condensed film grows in such a way that the with an exposed sites increase in proportion to the average thickness [107]). 4.4. Fractal surfaces When the geometric irregularities in the surface have spatial extensions which are comparable with the size of the adsobed molecules, new phenomena are expected to occur. In particular, several surfaces observed at a length scale 3 - 15 ~ give evidence for fractality. For the observation of geometric irregularities at a certain length scale, one needs probes with the same length. Molecules with diameter betwen 3 and 15 ~ have areain the range 7-180/~2. Assuming a local density of site given by Afs,~at (Afs,~at ~ 1015 cm -2 = 0.1/~-2), according to its size a molecule can cover from just one site to approximately 18 sites. In this case an adsorption measurement can provide the monolayer coverage A/'m (number of adsorbed molecules per unit area at 0 = 1) rather than the number of sites Afs. The surface area of a solid can be determined by choosing a probe gas, with effective cross-section b~ (known, for instance, from the molar volume of liquid adsorbate), de-

37 termining with adsorption techniques the number N ~ of molecules forming a monolayer (e.g., from a BET plot), and taking the product A ~ = A/'~ The area determined by the BET plot of the N2 adsorption isotherm in the BET confidence range has become a widely accepted standard. This procedure would not produce ambiguities if such a product for a different gas, A = A/'mb2, were independent of the gas itself. Actually, the relationship

is found to be satisfied only for certain adsorbents [108]. Adsorbents which are not described by eq. (124) are usually found to obey the equation

Arm = Nm(b /b )

(125)

with 2 < D < 3 [108]. Surfaces whose surface areas vary with the size of the probe as in eq. (125) are said fractal, and D is their fractal dimension [109]. For fractal surfaces the concept of surface area loses its original absolute meaning and becomes relative to the probe through which the area is determined. Defining the characteristic length ~ of the probe as ~0= v~2, the surface area varies with ~0as A cx ~2-D,

(126)

which diverges for D > 2. From a mathematical point-of-view, a fractal set exhibits the property that the 'whole' can be represented as the collection of several parts, each one obtainable from the 'whole' by a contracting similitude [110]. A typical fractal object is self-similar, i.e. a magnified portion of it appears identical to the entire object observed under lower resolution: from this point of view it is said to be invariant under scale trasformation. A fractal object can usually be defined through an iteration process in which an initiator is contracted with a similarity ratio 1/~ and put v(~) times in a given arrangement called generator, the same operation being then repeated without end. The area of a fractal set varies with the probe yardstick ~ as in (126), the fractal dimension D of the set being given by D = - / slim I ln t,(~)/ln(1/~) i-

(127)

The identification of an irregular surface with a fractal set poses strict constraints on the surface characteristics: it implies the recurrence of the same irregularity details when the surface is magnified successively. Although this seems to be a very limitative condition, evidence for the fractal behaviour of a few adsorbing surfaces has been provided [108, 111, 112, 113]. The fractal nature of an adsorbing surface has important consequences on its adsorption behaviour [114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119]. Indeed, any adsorbed molecule has a number of available adsorption sites between that for two and three dimensions, and this fact affects their statistico-mechanical behaviour. Such an effect is even more pronounced when lateral interactions between adsorbed molecules are taken into account. Several attempts have recently been performed in order to understand the influence of fractal geometry of the adsorbent on the adsorption isotherm. We can distinguish two general approaches: a statistical mechanical one which is based on the general relations (3) and (4) with the fractal nature of the surface accounted for in the partition function Z~r

38 through different geometrical considerations [114]; and a kinetic approach which considers how the fractal nature of the surface affects the rates of adsorption and desorption processes [116]. An ultimate understanding of adsorption on fractal surfaces has not been reached yet and such studies constitute an active area of research. In particular, tittle is known as regards the adsorption on simultaneous geometrically (fractal) and energetically heterogeneous surfaces. A fractal surface is a typical non-equilibrium configuration, so that the occurrence of fractal surfaces may seem surprising. Fractal surfaces are typically obtained under strong non-equilibrium conditions, such as those typical of electrochemistry (anodic oxidation leading to dendritic corrosion) or sol-gel technology [120] (SiO2 gels, especially via acid catalysis, where filamentary, weakly branched, structures are produced [121]). The difference D - 2 can be seen as a generalized driving force toward equilibrium. Since adsorption is a way to restore equilibrium at unsatured surface bonds, adsorption is presumably a way to reduce dimensionality. Surface defractalization by adsorption was actually observed [115]. Particularly intriguing is the situation encountered when a surface displays a fractal behaviour in the size scale characteristic of microporosity, so that each pore could be described in terms of DR isotherm. Reminding that for cylindrical pores the pore size distribution function J(d) is related to the fractal dimension D by J(d) c( d 2-D [109], Avnir and Jaroniec [118, 119] have shown that inserting this distribution function in the integral (122) and taking into account eq. (123) one obtains a global isotherm which, in the limiting case of a very wide range of possible size values, may be approximated by an isotherm with the same functional form as FHH isotherm, i.e.

(i2s) Reminding the definition (17) of the Polanyi potential, the comparison of the Avnir-Jaroniec isotherm, eq. (128), with the FHH isotherm, eq. (18), shows that they have the same functional dependence of 0 on p, 0 oc (ln(psat/p)) -1/~. In the FHH theory, however, the exponent q is determined by the adsorption potential (r = 3 for the 6-12 Lennard-Jones potential), while in the Avnir-Jaroniec model 1/~ = D - 3. The currently known values of ~, in the interval 2.1 - 2.8 [27], interpreted in the realm of Avnir-Jaroniec model give D in the interval 2.5 - 2.7, which is expected for fractal surfaces. The question, whether or not the FHH behavior is due to a fractal nature of the surface combined with the Dubinin-Radushkevich isotherm, rather than to a special behaviour of the adsorption potential, remains unanswered. 4.5. A d s o r p t i o n of s t r u c t u r e l e s s molecules on soft a d s o r b e n t s An adsorbent which is not hard will be referred to as 'soft'. Not only do not hard adsorbents exhaust the class of adsorbents, but also soft adsorbents have practical and conceptual interest. Though adsorbent softness-hardness results from a comparison of the configuration energy with the adsorption energy, the weakness of the adsorption field suggests that soft adsorbents belong to the class of soft matter (e.g., polymers with low reticulation degree, elastomers, Langmuir-Blodgett films, etc.), whose interest has dramatically increased in

39 last years [122] and which plays a fundamental role in biological phenomena. Other examples of soft adsobents are solids with non-directional bonds (like metals) and low melting point. In general, soft matter is characterized by an energy landscape with several minima, separated by low barriers. Because of either thermal excitation or external stimuli, the system can therefore undergo even large structural transformations. Roughness is a non-equilibrium property, and in most cases rough-to-smooth transitions are exothermic. If the energy landscape of the adsorbent is as described above, any rough configuration of the system will tend toward a smoother configuration. An example, showing how the rougness is progressively lost with time, was presented by Endow and Pasternak, who determined the monolayer volume of molybdenum films deposited and kept at 77 K. They showed that the monolayer volume decreased monotonically with time during the first half day, at which time it was reduced by a factor of 2 with repect to the value measured 2 h after sample preparation [123]. Since different adsorbent conformations are characterized by different energy distribution functions or topographic configurations, adsorption will consequently feel these structural changes. Conversely, the adsorption isotherm can be used as a probe to test the softness of any adsorbate. Since an adsorbent is softer the higher is the adsorption energy or the adsorption temperature, it is not surprising that softness is particularly evident for adsorption of highly polar molecules (like H20) at room temperature. 4.6. R e c o n s t r u c t a b l e surfaces Surface reconstruction has ever been well known to occur in chemisorption, in situations where the adsorption energy is of the same order as the binding energy of surface atoms. In chemisorption (and especially in oxidation) the surface reconstruction is expected to affect the process rate. Landsberg's explanation [124] of the Elovich equation (a time-logarithm law which plays in kinetics a role as important as the ones of the the classic empirical isotherms in equilibrium [125, 126]) is an example showing how surface reconstruction can affect kinetics. While surface reconstruction of hard adsorbents can occur only after chemisorption, an appreciable surface reconstruction may occur during physisorption on soft adsorbents. Large substrate modifications are indeed known to occur during the uptake of small polar molecules like H~O or CH3OH by biological macromolecules like proteins or cellulose. Adsorption in polymers, originally described either as adsorption on rigid porous surfaces or as absorption in adsorbent bulk with the formation of a solid solution, was based on a picture of hard adsorbent. Limited attempts to overcome these limits were based on a description of the polymer as a flexible linear chain [127], though interchain bridges could be taken into account [128]. These methods were however based on a specific model of adsorbent, rather than on the details of the adsorption process. A model for surface reconstruction resulting after adsorption has recently been proposed by Cerofolini [129] along the line indicated by Landsberg in kinetics. For adsorption on unreconstructable surfaces one has

d N / d p = A/'~dO/dp,

(129)

40 with N's = constant. Even though this constraint is no longer valid for adsorption on reconstructable surfaces, one can reasonably admit that eq. (129) continues to hold, provided that one considers the actual number of sites N's resulting from surface reconstruction. The following assumption is a way to consider a self-similar reconstruction: dp

=

77

A/'~

(130)

=

(131)

where 77 is the available area destroyed (7/> 0) or generated (7? < 0) after adsorption of one molecule. Equation (131) can be solved by separation of variables 1

N'~(p) = N'~(0) 1 +

rlAf~(O)O(p),

(132)

where Afs(0) is the number of exposed sites at p = 0. Inserting eq. (132) into eq. (129) one has the following differential equation dO dAf = Aft(0) 1 + r/Aft(0)0"

(133)

For r / = 0 eq. (133) gives Af(p) = Af~(0)0(p), so that the standard theory of equilibrium adsorption on unrecontructable surfaces is reproduced. Otherwise, i.e. for r/ 7~ 0, the solution of eq. (129) is 1 Af(p) = ~ In (1 + r/Af~(0)0(p)).

(134)

Equation (134) shows that, irrespective of 0(p), adsorption on reconstructable surfaces occurs in the low coverage limit with the same law as on unreconstructable surfaces, 0 << 1/[~IX.(0 ) ~ Zr(p)_~

~(O)O(p).

(135)

At higher coverage, the adsorption isotherm on the reconstructable surface is immediately calculated provided that the isotherm O(p) is otherwise known. For instance, if O(p) is the Langmuir isotherm, adsorption on the reconstructable surface is described by the isotherm

1

N(p)=~ln

(l+p/p'~) 1+p/p,

(136)

where p~ = PL exp(-r and p'~ := p~/[1 + bN~(0)]. Formally speaking, this isotherm is just the Temkin equation [3, sect. 5.3]. However, the appearance of the Temkin behaviour (i.e., Af increasing with In p) requires !

<<

p', >> p~

>> l)

(i.e.,

1 + r/A/'~(0) = o(1))

for

> 0,

for 77 < 0.

(137)

41 4.7. Space-filling surfaces The above model applies to surface shrinkage (77 > 0) as well as to surface magnification (r/< 0). While no problem are met for 77 > 0, for r/< 0 a divergence of A/'(p) may occur for Af~(0)r/ < - 1 . When this condition is satisfied, as soon as O(p) approaches a value 0. = -1/Af~(0)b < 1, A/'~(p) goes to infinite. At a first glance, one is tempted to reject this conclusion and to advocate the existence of physical factors (like the amount of available matter) which limit the otherwise unlimited increase of Af~ with p. However, an infinite surface area is not absurd, provided that space-filling surfaces are allowed. Curves filling a space are quite common: linear polymers are good examples of space-filling curves. Any globular protein "is essentially a one dimensional system folded into a three dimensional structure" [130]. Less familiar are space-filling surfaces: an example might be given by dendromers (highly branched polymers like the 94-met Cl134Hl146 and 127-met C139sH1278 described in ref. [131]); this work suggests that space-filling surfaces can also be produced by physisorption on highly reconstructable (hence soft) adsorbents. Of course, a space-filling surface is a mathematical, rather than physical, concept because of the limitations imposed by the atomistic structure of matter. These limitations hold true in other situations too, like for fractal surfaces, whose scale invariance is usually valid in a quite restricted scale range. In view of the atomistic nature of matter the maximum allowed value of Afs is given by the condition (1 + u)A/', ~ ~bL,

(138)

where u is the number of atoms in each adsorbed molecule, ~b is a typical atomic density in bulk condensed matter (~b ,~ 1023 cm-3), and L is the thickness of the adsorption region. On another side, the complete exposure of the adsorbent, with atomic density to the gas atmosphere implies A/'s = ~L. Combining this equation with (138), one gets the density conditions for space-filling surfaces: ~ = ~b/(1 + u). Typically u = 1 - 3, so that space-filling surfaces cannot be obtained under extreme dispersion. Picturing the space-filling surface as a porous adsorbent, it should be microporous. It is worthwhile noting that, as follows from the analysis of carbon blacks [108], even fractality tends to appear only for relatively little dispersed adsorbents. 4.8. Allosteric surfaces An allosteric molecule E is characterized by n equivalent sites, which modify their structure (binding energy) when the sites are progressively filled. Allosteric transitions play an important role in biology: the transport of oxygen by haemoglobin is a classic and important example [132]. The theory of allostericity has been the matter of one of the seminal works in molecular biology [133]. The theory of allostericity has been developed for molecules formed by a small number of large subunits each containing an active site [133]. Usually the conformation of each subunit is ignored except for the change it brings to the adsorption energy on the active site. This approach has been found extremely interesting for the description of phenomena like 02 adsorption on hameoglobin, etc. Allostericity plays also a major role in phenomena like the adsorption of polar molecules on proteins, or protein denaturation in suitable solvents. The description in this case is complicated by the wide variety of adsorption sites and of protein configurations resulting after adsorption. Allostericity and heterogeneity combine together in a truly intriguing case in the adsorption of polar molecules on proteins [134]. In this case, the adsorption energy is comparable to the energy stabilizing the secondary structure of the proetein, so that a kind of surface reconstrunction takes place after the adsorption; accordingly, the adsorbent and

42 adsorbate cannot be considered as slightly coupled entities, but rather as a new molecular system. The adsorbing properties of the protein are due to its exposed polar sites: the back-bone groups of the peptide bonds, )CO and )NH, and the side-chain groups,-COOH, -NH2, -OH, - S H and - S - S - , in neutral or ionized forms. The complete distribution of the adsorbing sites is determined both by the primary structure of the protein, which specifies the site number and types, and from the secondary and tertiary structure, which specify the relative spatial arrangement of the sites. The heterogeneity of the protein surface is due both to the different chemical nature of the various explored polar sites and to the splitting of each adsorbing energy produced by the particular position of the site in the protein arrangement. In this context the protein surface could be classified as a random heterogeneous surface. However, the protein presents an additional particular adsorbing behaviour. The folding of protein chains, described by the secondary and tertiary structure, can mask several sites to the adsorbate. This masking is due both to steric constraints to the motion of adsorbate molecules and to interactions between polar sites: more polar sites have a higher probability to be unexposed. When small polar molecules like water are adsorbed on the dried protein, the long range interaction between polar sites is reduced by protein swelling and chain folding is consequently reduced. The result of such an unfolding is an increase in the number of the exposed sites. As the adsorption process continues, the straightening of protein chains increases: this straightening renders available new sites which, in turn, adsorb more water, thereby reducing further protein folding. The whole process is concerned with heterogeneity in the first stages and with allostericity later: both concur to make its description a complicated problem. 4.9. Mobile surfaces An extreme case of softness is represented by mobile adsorbents. A physically interesting situation of mobile adsorbent is represented by an ordered Langmuir-Blodgett film adsorbing a multisite molecule. The description of adsorption of structured molecules on solid surfaces requires complicated statistico-mechanical analysis and will be the matter of the next section. In the case of mobile adsorbents, however, the comparison of the following energies: 9 Ea, energy required to deform the adsorbate to a configuration which allows it to be accomodated on the adsorbent in a given configuration (Ea > 0); 9 E~os, energy gained in forming adsorptive bonds between all site of the adsorbate in its original configuration and the site of the deformed surface (E~os < 0); 9 E~0, energy gained in forming adsorptive bonds between all site of the adsorbate in its modified configuration and the site of the unperturbed surface (E~.,0 < 0); 9 E~ energy required to deform the surface to a configuration which allows the adsorbate in its original configuration to be accomodated on the adsorbent (E~ > 0); the following inequality chain is easily established: E~ > ]E~01 _'2 [E~0~I > E~. This comparison suggests that the configuration resulting after adsorption is an almost unchanged adsorbate, whose polar sites are bonded to molecules of the substrate; the enthalpy change resulting after adsorption is expected to be around E~o. + E~(< 0). Though the described situation may appear quite extravagant, a lot of cases of large biological relevance runs in it. Reminding that the surface of eukaryotic cells is essentially constituted by a phospholipidic Langmuir-Blodgett vescicle, phenomena like antigen attack or pinocytosis probably run in the considered situation. The adsorption of proteins on Langmuir-Blodgett films is a case of large practical importance and extensively considered in the literature (see, for instance, the reviews [135, 136]).

43 The description of adsorption of a hard adsorbate on a soft adsorbent is dramatically simplified if one assumes that the adsorbent is undeformable and the surface sites are mobile. In a statistico-mechanical approach, the hypothesis of site mobility allows the partition function to be specified. This produces a description of adsorption in terms of Langmuir isotherm with modified PL [137]. The statistico-mechanical description ignores however the complicated temporal pattern characterizing the kinetics of adsorption and desorption, probably associated with conformational changes of the adsorbate [135, 136]. 4.10. Multi-Site O c c u p a n c y A d s o r p t i o n on Rigid H e t e r o g e n e o u s Surfaces In many cases, the adsorbed molecule can be considered as consisting of a number of quite distinct chemical fragments (mers). The adsorption characteristics show then, to a good approximation, additivity of various features. In other words, one may assume, that the adsorption is affected in a more or less independent way, by the adsorption of these chemical fragments. It is, therefore, much more realistic to consider the whole adsorption process as an adsorption of interconnected fragments of the minima of the fragment (mer)-surface interaction potential. Because the various mers are connected in some way by chemical bonds, a simple analogy emerges to collective adsorption of molecules interacting via Van der Waals forces, for instance. So, there is no surprise, that even in the absence of interactions between the molecules composed of distinct mers, their adsorption will be influenced by surface topography, like in the case of collective adsorption of simple molecules. Until the surface has a patchwise topography, the problem is relatively simple. One can apply directly one of the already existing approaches to multi-site adsorption on homogeneous surfaces, which are now the patches. In the case of random topography, the problem becomes much more complicated, and it was only a decade ago, when a first solution of that problem was proposed by Nitta[138]. However, Nitta's original approach could be applied only to surfaces characterized by discrete distributions of adsorption energy. Some few years ago, Rudzinski and Everett have developed further Nitta's approach to apply also continuous adsorption energy distributions. Let )r be a continuous distribution of the possible occupancies of n sites on the surface by an adsorbed molecule, among the values of its total adsorption energy cn corresponding to a particular occupancy of sites. For a simple molecule occupying one adsorption site the term "surface" occupancy means occupancy a certain surface esite. To calculate the overall (total) adsorption isotherm St, one canthen use anyone of the methods discussed in the previous sections, based on employing the "condensation function", co. Rudzinski and Everett[3], have developed the form of the condensation function for an adsorbed molecule occupying n sites, cc~. For surfaces for patchwise topography, con takes the following form,

e~ = - k T l n

( nl+n/2(nl/2 +

1)n_l g'p

)

(139)

whereas for surfaces with random topography

e~ = - k T l n ( n g ' p ) - ( n - 1)kTln ~t

(140)

where K ~ is a temperature dependent Langmuir-like constant. Marczewski et. a1.[139] published a paper which is of a crucial importance for the application of Nitta's approach. Namely, they have shown how the number of mers in an adsorbed molecule affects the multi-site-adsorption energy distribution X~(e~). The multi-site-occupancy adsorption on heterogeneous solid surfaces is becoming rapidly a hot topic in the recent studies of adsorption at gas/solid interface.

44 5. M I X E D - G A S A D S O R P T I O N E Q U I L I B R I A : T H E C U R R E N T STATE OF THE RESEARCH In the fundamental studies of mixed-gas adsorption the knowledge of the mechanism of adsorption and a possibly best agreement between experiment and theory have the highest priority. The experimental problems and computational time are of a secondary importance. In the numerical programs developed for engineering purposes the priorities are different. At first the computation of mixed-gas adsorption isotherm must be fast, as it is only a part of a large computer program. Then the data necessary to predict mixed-gas adsorption should not require time-consuming experiments on single and mixed-gas adsorption. In the early stage of theories of gas adsorption on solids, theoretical considerations were based on the idealized models of a solid surface. This sometimes led to dramatic discrepancies between theory and experiment. Nowadays the role of the energetic heterogeneity of the actual solid surfaces is almost commonly taken into account by the authors proposing various theoretical approaches to the mixed-gas adsorption. They may be classified into three groups: 1. the molecular approachesemploying methods of statistical thermodynamics[140-210]; 2. the thermodynamic approaches based on the methods of phenomenological thermodynamics [211-260]. 3. the computer simulations of mixed-gas adsorption[304-318] The molecular approaches attracted many scientists working on fundamental problems of mixed-gas adsorption, but they were rarely used by the scientists working on gas-separation processes. The complexity of the accompanying theoretical considerations based on the methods of statistical thermodynamics seems to be the main reason for that. The second group of approaches was also very popular in the fundamental studies of mixed-gas adsorption, but was rarely applied in the theoretical description of gas separation by adsorption. The main reasons for that were the time-consuming computations necessary to predict mixed-gas adsorption from the pure gas isotherms. The exception was the so-called Potential Theory (PT) approach which required very simple computations and knowledge of a small number of data for the adsorption of single components. Recently, a new group of works based on computer simulations of mixed-gas adsorption has emerged rapidly. There are obviously two main factors affecting predominantly the mixed-gas adsorption on solids: 1. the gas-solid interactions, 2. the interactions between adsorbed molecules. As in the case of single-gas adsorption equilibria, we will focus our attention on how the dispersion of the gas-solid interactions across a solid surface, called surface energetic heterogeneity, affects mixed-gas adsorption on solids. We do it with the purpose in mind to present in a possibly simple and clear way the theoretical approaches which were used, or could be used to describe mixed-gas adsorption equilibria. The role of the interactions between the.adsorbed molecules in the mixed-gas adsorption was considered in the earlier

45 review by Rudzinski et. a1.[262] Fundamentals of Mixed-Gas Adsorption on Heterogeneous Solid Surfaces. At the same time the analysis of the energetic surface heterogeneity was limited there only to the Gaussian-like symmetrical adsorption energy dispersion, which in the case of single-gas adsorption leads to the Langmuir-Freundlich isotherm. Although we give here a pretty exhaustive list of references of the papers dealing with the theories of mixed-gas adsorption equilibria, we are not going to present a typical balanced review. We will focus our attention on the two approaches that have most commonly been used in the hithero theoretical studies of mixed-gas adsorption. One of them is the Integral Equation approach introduced into literature by Hoory and Prausnitz[143] at the beginning of the seventies. That approach was later developed by the adsorption group in the Department of Theoretical Chemistry, Maria Curie--Sklodowska University in Lublin. The other fundamental approach is the Ideal Adsorbed Solution approach, also introduced into literature at the beginning of the seventies by Myers and Prausnitz[211]. That approach was used and developed further in numerous papers on mixed-gas adsorption. In the next chapter of this book, Tovbin will review the achievements of the Russian school of adsorption, which are less known as most of them were published only in Russian, and in Russian journals. The newly emerging computer simulations of mixed-gas adsorption will be briefly reviewed at the end.

6. T H E I N T E G R A L E Q U A T I O N A P P R O A C H 6.1. T h e o r e t i c a l principles The first approach ever used to predict mixed-gas isotherms from the single component data is known as the integral-equation (IE) approach and is based on the integral representation for Oti [143,262]:

0ti(p,T ) -- [

1

..-~_ J~n

Oi(E,p,T)X(n)(lf.)d6l...ds

(141)

where: 8ti(p, T) is the total surface coverage by the component i at the set of the partial pressures p -- {p~,p2, ...,p,}, 0~(e, p, T) is the fractional coverage by the component i (i --- 1, 2, ...,n) of a certain class of adsorption sites, characterized by a set of the adsorpt ion energies e = { o , ~ 2 , . . . , ~,} for the single components; X(,)(e) is the n-dimensional normalized differential distribution of the number of the adsorption sites among various sets e,

9" ~ 1

X(n)(e)dQ"'den--1,

(142)

n

and f~i is the n-dimensional physical domain of ei. For the adsorption isotherms of single components, we have /gti(p, T) = f Oi(ei, p, T)xi(ei)dei, f2i

(143)

46 where

Xi(s163163163

(144)

The integral (143) can be easily evaluated using the Rudzifiski-Jagietto method, oo

Ot(p,T) = - E

(kT)l l~ Cl

1=0

where:

x(~) = f

(146)

x(e)de,

Ct-s are the temperature-dependent coefficients given by,

[

(~M-er Cz - J(~-~r

tte t (1 + e')2dt'

the function er

T) is found from the condition,

(147)

(0~0/0e~),_,~ = 0,

(148)

and 0 is the local isotherm O(e,p,T) under the integral in eq. (143) When T ~ 0, all the terms under the sum in eq. (145) vanish, except the leading one. It is also true when the variance of X(e) is much larger than that of the derivative O0/Oe. Then, Ot,(p,T) = -X,(er

(149)

The features of the adsorption model are coded in the function er is the Langmuir equation,

T). When 0(e, p, T) (150)

gpexp(e/kT) O(e,p,T) = 1 + K p e x p ( e / k T ) '

condition (148)is fulfilled when 0(e = er

x Then 7"

(151)

ec(p,T) = - k T l n K p .

If Xi(ei) is the following bell-shaped adsorption-energy distribution 1 exp x~(~,) =

c,

(152)

~,

l+exp(e/-e~

2'

then -I

-Xi(eei)= [l+ exp ( eci-

(153)

47 so we arrive at the Langmuir-Freundlich (LF) isotherm for the single-component adsorption isotherm 0ti,

Oti(pi, T)=

[Kipiexp(e~ 1 + [Kipi exp(eoi/kT)] kT/c'

(154)

The experimentally measured adsorbed amount, ~ti(P, T), is equal to A/'~Oi(p,T), where N's~ is the number of the adsorption sites on a solid surface, expressed in the same units aS J~fti(P, T). A convenient way to analyze an experimental adsorption isotherm in terms of eq. (154) is to use the following linear regression

~,IN~,

_

In 1 - Xti/Afsi -

kT l n K + c--~-

eoi ) k-T

+ -kT -lnp. c,

(155)

The only adjustable parameter is the monolayer capacity Af~i, which is chosen in such a way as to make the 1.h.s. of eq. (155) a possibly best linear function of In p. The heterogeneity parameter kT/ci is then the tangent of that linear plot, and K exp (eo~/kT) is found from the intercept multiplied by c~/kT. The actual adsorption energy distributions are much more complicated functions, so Xi(e~) in eq. (152) is a 'smoothed' form of an actual energy distribution, the third central moment of which is equal to zero. In many cases, the actual energy distribution may be better represented by the following non-symmetrical function

X,(e,) = r , ( c - e~,) r'-I E~'

exp

-

e, - e~i

Ei

,

for e, > e~,

(156)

This is a right-hand-widened Gaussian-like function when r < 3, a pretty symmetrical function for r = 3, and a left-hand-widened one for r > 3. The parameter Ei is the variance of that function. Then --X(er

(--(er Eem) ),

(157)

or

Ot(p, T) -- exp (-[~-~--T In ( p ~ ) ] r )

,

( 58)

where ln pm = - l n K em/kT. Equation (158) is the well-known Dubinin-Astakhov (DA) equation. While analyzing an experimental isotherm in terms of this equation, it is convenient to make the following linear regression In Aft = lnAfs - (~--~T) r [ln ( ~ )

] ~9

(159)

The adjustable parameters are pln and r which are now chosen so as to make lnAft a possibly best linear function of [ln(pm/p)] r. It is a frequent practice to choose p~ to be saturated vapour pressure, but it is not correct. The DA isotherm was first used to correlate the experimental isotherms of adsorption in porous carbons. Such a choice of Pm reflects the classical view on adsorption in porous materials as filling micropores by a bulk liquid-like adsorbate phase. In this picture of adsorption, e = kTln(p~/p) is the

48 value of the adsorption potential that causes the liquefaction of adsorbate molecules in an empty pore at the pressure p. The present molecular simulations show that the condensation pressure depends on the pore dimension, and may be several orders of magnitude lower than Pm- When r = 2, eq. (159) becomes the Dubinin-Radushkevich (DR) isotherm equation. In many theoretical works the following rectangular (constant) function is accepted to represent X(e): I

for

eM--em

x(e) =

0

em < e < --

eM,

(160)

elsewhere.

The corresponding isotherm equation Ot(p, T) takes then the form of Temkin's isotherm:

kTlnK

8t(p,T) = ~ s

kT

+

~

(161)

~lnp.

s

~M ~

s

The linear relationships between Aft(p, T) and In p were reported in literature for strongly heterogeneous solid surfaces. The theoretical background for that is following: On every heterogeneous solid surface there will exist minimum and maximum values of adsorption energy Cm and eM- The assumption that r varies from a minimum value s to plus infinity, like in eq. (156), is due to a mathematical convenience. The consequence of making this assumption is that the corresponding isotherm equations do not reduce to the Henry's isotherm when p ~ 0. Meanwhile, for some fundamental thermodynamic reasons such reduction must take place in every adsorption system, provided that the adsorbent structure is fully rigid, i.e., it is not affected by the presence of adsorbate. The latter assumption seems to be a good approximation for the majority of the adsorption systems. The assumption that e varies within infinite energy limits has no large impact on the behaviour of the calculated adsorption isotherm, except for the regions of small (St ~ 0) or high (8t --~ 1) surface coverages. For most of the industrial applications of mixed-gas adsorption, the mediate surface coverages are of interest. While using the IE approach to predict the mixed-gas adsorption, it is sufficient to know the behaviour of the single adsorption isotherms at mediate surface coverages. Therefore the problem of infinite energy limits, accepted for mathematical convenience, is not essential for that theoretical approach. On the contrary, it is essential when one uses the ideal adsorbed solution (IAS) approach to predict mixed-gas adsorption from pure component isotherms. Therefore we shift the discussion of that problem to the section on the application of IAS for predicting mixed-gas adsorption equilibria. Further, it is known that the rectangular function (160) applies only to strongly heterogeneous surfaces. For that purpose we consider that X(r is represented by the function (152) defined in the interval (era, eM), so, it has to be written as follows, 1

c

c "

where FN is a normalization factor, FN=

[

l+exp

(

era. --co c

[

-- l + e x p

. (2

(163)

49 For the purpose of illustration, we assume that s = 0 , G0 = 5kT, s = 10kT, and make the heterogeneity parameter c to accept higher and higher values, corresponding to stronger and stronger surface heterogeneity. The result of that model investigation is shown in Fig. 2 of the chapter 6 by Rudzinski. One can see in Fig. 2 that as the heterogeneity parameter c increases, X(e) defined in eq. (162) becomes more and more similar to a rectangular adsorption energy distribution. One fundamental problem of mixed-gas adsorption occurs, when the monolayer capacities estimated from single-gas adsorption isotherms are different for different components. One faces that problem even in the case of mixed-gas adsorption on a hypothetical homogeneous solid surface. In such a case even the generalization of Langmuir equation for mixed-gas adsorption is difficult. So far it has been done only for the case when Vj(j -# i): .N'sj = A/'~,[140]:

Ki pi exp Oi(e,p,T) =

-ff-f ,

n

(164)

1 + ZK p exp j=l

Provided that N'.~ and A/'sj(j # i) are not much different, the next problem is to define the multidimensional adsorption energy distribution X(,0(e), which would reduce to X~(e~) after n - 1 integration steps, as outlined in eq. (144). This, however, is not a trivial problem at all. Then, the multidimensional integrals would have, for sure, to beevaluated numerically. Although such computer calculations could be carried out, there is still a strong demand for relatively simple analytical expressions for 0t(p,T). Firstly, because carrying out necessary computer calculations would not be convenient in many cases. Secondly, these might be time-consuming too much for certain purposes. Finally, having analytical expressions for 0t(p,T) is convenient for carrying out further mathematical operations leading to other thermodynamic quantities of interest. The success of using the 'integral equation' (IE) approach depends much on making proper assumptions about the nature of an adsorption system under investigation. A general strategy is to reduce the nD integral (141) to a 1D integral by using various physical arguments. Most commonly, it is done by considering correlations between the adsorption energies e~ and ej(j # i), with i,j = 1, 2 , . . . , n. Two physical situations have been considered so far: 1. The adsorption energies ei and ej are not correlated at all for j -# i; 2. Functional relationships exist:

ei = fij(ej),

i r j = 1,2,.-.,n.

(165)

6.2. The case w h e n adsorption energies are strongly correlated, and the nature of the gas-solid interactions is similar for various components In such a case one can expect that the local minima of the gas-solid potential function for one of the components, will simultaneously be the local minima for other components. Then, until the sizes of the adsorbed molecules are not much different,we m a y assume that all the components are adsorbed on the same lattice of energetically different adsorption

50 sites. Next, it is to be expected that the higher will be the adsorption energy for a certain component on one of the adsorption sites, the higher will also be its adsorption energy for other components. It means, the function c~ = f~j(ej) in eq. (165) will be one-to-one function. Now, let us consider the extreme case of high correlations existing between the adsorption energies of various components, represented by the condition on every adsorption site:

Aji, j,i = 1 , 2 , . . . , n ,

ej = ci +

(166)

where Aji-s are the constants. Then, 0i(c~, p, T) can be rewritten to the following form:

Kipi

Oi(p, ei, T ) =

E Kjpj exp kT ]

exp (~--~)

J ./

,

(167)

j

and the averaged function

0ti(P, T)

is given by the 1D integral

E Kjpjexp

9 1 + E Kjpj exp kT]exp ( ~ T ) J J The above integral can also be evaluated by using the RJ approach. The function ec is defined now as follows: ~r

T) =

-kT In

Kjpj exp kT ]

"

Equation (168) is again a kind of a master equation from which various isotherm equations can be developed corresponding to various adsorption energy distributions X(ei). For the Gaussian-like function (152) leading to the LF isotherm for single gas adsorption, 0ti takes the following form

eo, ~ Kip~exp (~,kT ]

0ti(p, T) =

Kjpj exp k kT] J (170)

because (e0i + Aji) is the most probable value of ej. (The numerator and denominator before the integral in eq. (168) have been multiplied by exp (eoi/kT).) When the adsorption isotherms of single components are correlated well by the DA equation (158), the equations for mixed-gas adsorption take the following form ri

0ti(P, T) = ~

Pi/Pmi exp Pi/Pm,

j=l

~-ln

1

~ P.i/Pmj j=l

(171) "

51 Eq. (171) has not been tested in the literature yet, but both eq. (170) and (171) seem to be promising for correlating mixed-gas adsorption data for the components having a similar chemical character. Another obvious condition is that the molecules of the different components should have similar sizes. However, even in the case of such chemically similar molecules, the functional relationship (165) may have a form more complicated than that in eq. (166). It can be deduced from the low-temperature adsorption isotherms of single components. At low temperatures, the adsorption will proceed in a fairly stepwise fashion, and the experimentally measured isotherm Ot~(p,T) will be given by eq. (149). At the same coverage of surface by two components i and j, the following relation will hold:

-x,(~r

= -xj(~r

(172)

Now let us assume that the adsorption isotherms of both components obey the LF behaviour originating from the fully symmetrical, Gaussian-like energy distribution (152). Then, according to eq. (172) we have:

[

l+exp

(

er

)]' [ =

ci

l+exp

(

ecj-eoj cj

))'

.

(173)

From eq. (172) we obtain the following linear relation

cj

~j=--ei+ Ci

(r

cj ) ,

(174)

Ci

where we have already omitted the superscript 'c' in cr When the single-gas adsorption isotherms of all the components are described by the DA isotherm (157), then, we obtain from eqs. (157) and (172) the following interrelation ri/r 3

(175) As the function X(e) is called the 'cumulative adsorption-energy distribution', eq. (172) is called 'seeking for the adsorption energy interrelations through the cumulative distributions'. That idea has been proposed independently by Valenzuela et a/.[243] and by Jaroniec and coworkers[198], in the same year (1988). One difficult fundamental problem in the application of lattice formalism to describe mixed-gas adsorption is when the values of .Ms, (the total number of sites on a solid surface), estimated either from eq. (155) or eq. (159) is different for different components. Moreover, the value of A/'s is temperature dependent as a rule. There might be various reasons for that. One possible reason is that the linear regression (155) or (159) is made only for a certain region of pressures, i.e. surface coverages, corresponding roughly to a certain region of the adsorption energies. The functions (152) or (156) approximate the true function X(e), in that region of energies. Beyond that region, X(e) may not be described by the function (152) or (156), or at least not by the same sets of parameters {e0,, c~} or {em~,Ei, ri}. Thus, such local approximations may not give the true value of The commonly observed temperature dependence of A/'s could mean that some weakly adsorbing sites simply disappear. Of course, the number of the local minima in the

52 gas-solid potential function will not be affected by temperature. It will rather happen that a part of the adsorbed molecules is no longer in the localized states. Going into 2D or 3D mobile states means switching to another isotherm equation predicting weaker adsorption at the same pressure and temperature. If, in spite of that, one uses the same (Langmuir) isotherm, valid for localized adsorption, to correlate the experimental data, then the changing mobility of a part of the adsorbed molecules may simulate decreasing a number of adsorption sites. Assuming that the substantial part of the adsorbed molecules is still in the localized states, and remembering that this is the total number of adsorbed molecules essential for the seeking correlations through the cumulative distributions, eq. (172) should be considered rather in the following form: (176) For the same reason, while calculating the experimentally monitored quantities Nti(p, T) one is likely to use the relation Nt~(p, T) - Afu0u(p, T). It should, however, be remembered that this is a kind of approximate relation. Before we approach the other extreme case when no correlations exist between the adsorption energies of various components, we would like to mention the first paper on mixed-gas localized adsorption on a heterogeneous solid surface, published in 1975 by Jaroniec and Rudzinski[150]. As the local i s o t h e r m - the Langmuir-Markham-Benton[140] equation for mixed-gas adsorption was used, whereas X2(el,e2) for the (ethane + ethylene) coadsorption on an activated carbon was represented by a two-dimensional Gaussian function. That function was introduced in the adsorption literature by Hoory and Prausnitz [143] who used an extension of Hill-de Boer isotherm, to represent the local isotherm $(E,p,T)in eq. (141) along with patchwise model of surface topography. The 2D Gaussian function includes a parameter $ E [0,1], describing the degree of correlations between el and e2. When $ - 0, no correlation exists between s and e2, whereas for ~ - 1, perfect correlation exists. This kind of intermediate correlations will be discussed in more detail in the forthcoming section 8. 6.3. The case when the adsorption energies of various c o m p o n e n t s are not correlated at all This is the case of coadsorption of components exhibiting a much different character of interactions with the same solid surface. These differences are usually due to different chemical nature of the coadsorbed components. There is a certain tendency in literature to apply again eq. (141) to such cases, and to consider X(~)(E) to be the following product: n

X(=)(E) - 1-I X,(e,).

(177)

i=l

This seems to be an improper strategy. Even if the molecules of different components have similar sizes, their different nature of the gas-solid interactions will result in various depths and positions of the local minima in the gas-solid potential function. It means, we

53 have to consider various non-overlapping and even not correlated lattices of adsorption sites for each of the coadsorbing components. The case when ei and ej (with j ~t i) are not correlated at all was considered by Wojciechowski et al.[192]. They used the following argument: When the energies e~ and ej#~ are not correlated at all, there should also be no spatial correlations between the local minima (adsorption sites) of the components i and j. So, when the adsorption energies of components i and j, e~ and ej (with i,j = 1 , 2 . . . ,n,i # j), are not correlated at all, the presence of other components will affect the adsorption of i only by random blocking of adsorption sites, proportional to their total coverages 8tj-s. (The probability that the molecule j will be adsorbed on a certain site does not depend on ei.) Thus, 0,~(p,T) = -

1- ~

0,~(p,r)

X~(e~),

(17a)

where the functions e~i-s are found from the conditions

(028,/0e~)~,=~., = O,

i = 1,2,-.-,n,

(179)

When 8~-s are Langmuir isotherm equations, one arrives at the same definition of er as in eq. (178). er = - k T l n ( g , p , ) . Equation (178) is another kind of a master equation from which various expressions for the mixed-gas isotherm can be derived by assuming various adsorption energy distributions X(e). The equation system (178) is linear with respect to 8ti(p, T), so, it can be solved easily, to express 8t~(p,T) by X'~(er For practical purposes it is sufficient to consider the adsorption from a ternary gaseous mixture (1 + 2 + 3). Let r denote -X'~(er then, the solution takes the following form: - x ~ - x ~ x 2 x 3 + x~x2 + XlX3

t~tl(pl,p2,Pa, T) = 1 - 2X1X2X3 + XIX 2 -~- X I X 3 -4- X 2 X 3 ' - X2 - X1X2 X3 + X~ X2 + X2 X3

0t2(pl, p2, P3, T)

=

1 - 2,u

-[- X 1X2 + ,'~'1r

(~80)

(181)

-[- X 2 X 3 '

- Z 3 - Z~X2X3 + XlX3 + X2X3 8t3(p~,p2,p3,T) = 1 - 2X~X2X3 + X1X2 + X~X3 + X2X3"

(182)

Generally if all -k'i-s are the LF isotherms for single component adsorption, the solution of the equation system (180-182) yields the generalized LF mixed-gas adsorption isotherm

[Kipi exp ( e~ ) ] kT/c' 8t,(p,T) =

,

1--b ~

i = 1,2,-.-,n.

[Kjpjexp (-~T)] kT/~'

j-'l

m decade ago Ruthven wrote[263] (See page 108 of his monograph): "Although not thermodynamically consistent, these expressions, have been shown to provide a reasonably good empirical correlation of binary equilibrium

(183)

54 data for a number of simple gases on molecular sieve adsorbents, and are widely used for design purposes. However, because of the lack of a proper theoretical foundation this approach should be treated with caution". The theoretical origin of that isotherm had remained a mystery until Wojciechowski et al. published its derivation[192]. A convenient way to check the thermodynamic consistency of a system of equations for mixed-gas adsorption is to use the criterion proposed by Keller[264]" 1 (0Afti~

=1

(OAftj)

(lS4)

In the case of the generalized LF isotherm, eq. (183), that criterion is fulfilled when ci = cj even for j :/: i. The theoretical derivations based on the mechanistic models will always contain a number of simplifying assumptions so the lack of the thermodynamic consistency is to be expected here as a rule rather than an exception. The only problem is, how much serious impact on predicting mixed-gas adsorption that thermodynamic inconsistency may have in a particular case. The IAS approach always thermodynamically correct may lead in many cases to a less accurate prediction of mixed-gas adsorption equilibria than a thermodynamically inconsistent system of equations developed by using the IE approach. In view of the wide applicability of DR and DA isotherm equations, it should be interesting to investigate the behaviour of the corresponding equations for mixed-gas adsorption. Thus, we will consider the adsorption from a binary gaseous mixture, when the adsorption of single gases follows the DA isotherm (158). For adsorption from a binary gas mixture, the equation system (180-181) reduces to the following one 0.(p~,p~,T)

=

8t2(px,p2,T)

=

- & + x~& l+&& -&+&& I + X~X2

(lS5)

.

(186)

So, when A'i is given by equation, eq. (157), we arrive at the following explicit expressions:

O.(pl,p~,T)

=

1-exp (-- [~21n (Pm2~]"2)]exp P2 / (- [~~~ln \ Pi / kT (pm2 Pro1~ rl 1 ex (

T1) ,

(lST)

"~2 In x,-~2 /

and

(Pml"~"~) ] exp (-[~-T-T2In ( ~ )

1 - e x p (-[~---~Tlln k - ~ / ] 1 - exp

-

~ l In Pml \ Pl /

_

~

r2)

In Pro2 \ P2 /

This equation is to be compared with eq. (171) which is the extension of the DA isotherm for the case of mixed-gas adsorption, when the adsorption energies of various components are strongly correlated. Equations (171) and (188) should also be compared

55 with the semiempirical extension of the DR equation for mixed-gas adsorption proposed by Bering et. a1.[266,267], at the begining of the seventies. By using the master equations (180-182) or (185-186) one can generate a still larger variety of the theoretical expressions for mixed-gas adsorption, by putting for X/any of the expressions for single gas adsorption. Now, there still remains the problem of relating the theoretically calculated functions 0ti(P, T), to the experimentally monitored quantities Aft~(p, T). Applying the multicomponent LF equation, eq. (183), most of the authors assumed that Aft~ = N'si0ti. This statement is not obvious and deserves further theoretical studies. We summarize our consideration in this section as follows: For a mixture of components the single-gas adsorption isotherms of which are known, one may develop a variety of expressions for the adsorption from their mixture. Thus, there is no universal guideline how to apply the IE approach. For every adsorption system a suitable method is to be chosen on some rational basis. This, however, requires certain experience in the theoretical description of adsorption at all. The attractive side is the compact analytical form of the obtained expressions, which makes computer calculations of mixed-gas adsorption equilibria fast. The rapidly growing industry of gas separations by adsorption creates, however, a large market for such theoretical expressions. Having such expressions, one can also develop easily compact analytical expressions for the heat effects accompanying mixed-gas adsorption, and mixed-gas surface diffusion characteristics. This is because their calculation involves only calculation of derivatives from a certain system of isotherm equations.

7. T H E I D E A L A D S O R B E D S O L U T I O N A P P R O A C H

(IAS)

7.1. Theoretical principles The IAS approach was launched first in the work by Myers and Prausnitz[211] and reexamined recently by Rudisil and Le Van[251]. The IAS theory is based on the assumption that the adsorbed phase can be treated as an ideal solution of the adsorbed components. The reduced spreading pressures H~, p~

II; = ri,A = f ~dp,, RT pi

(189)

0

of the components i = 1, 2 , - . . , n, in their single-gas standard states, are equal to the reduced spreading pressure of the adsorbed mixture, H'" n~ = n~ . . . .

= n: = n'.

(190)

The function A/'~(p,,T) denotes the adsorbed amount, (moles per unit mass of adsorbent), at the pressure pi and temperature T, and A is the specific surface area. A/'i(pi, T) = A/'s~0~(p~,T), where 0~ is the fractional coverage by component i of the surface, and Afs~ is the maximum adsorbed amount when 8ti = 1. It is assumed in the present considerations that Af~ and Afu are expressed in moles (per unit area or unit weight).

56 The relation between the mole fraction in the gaseous phase Yi, and the mole fraction in the adsorbed phase Xi is described by Raoult's law for ideal solutions, (191)

PY~ = p~(II*)X,,

where p~ is the pressure of the single component i in its standard state which is fixed by the spreading pressure of the mixture according to eq. (190). In addition, the mole fraction constraints are ~] Xi = 1 and i----1

Y~ = 1. z'-I

The total amount of the adsorbed gases Af* depends on the amounts A/'i* adsorbed in the standard state:

1 _ ~-, X!, N'*~ z',"

(192)

"__

where A/'~ is the value A;~ for the pure component i, at p~ = p;(II*). The actual amount of each component adsorbed is Afi = A/'*X~. There is one fundamental problem accompanying the application of IAS to predict the mixed-gas adsorption equilibria on heterogeneous solid surfaces. That problem has never been explicitly discussed in the papers reporting on application of IAS, except for the recent paper by Rudzifiski et a/[262]. The term ideal solution refers to the systems of interacting molecules in which the 'interchange energy' W is equal to zero: W = Wi, + Wjj - 2Wj, = O,

i , j = 1,2,.-. ,n,

(193)

were Wij is the interaction energy between two molecules i and j adsorbed on two neighbouring adsorption sites. As discussed in Sect. 4, when the adsorption of interacting molecules (collective adsorption) on a heterogeneous surface is considered, one must take also into account the surface topography. So far two extreme models of surface topography have been commonly considered: The patchwise model assuming that the surface is composed of arge homogeneous surface domains - - 'patches', grouping identical adsorption sites. Thus, the adsorption systems have to be considered as composed of macroscopically different subsystems being only in thermal and material contacts. At a certain adsorbate pressure p and temperature T the adsorbed amount Afi and the corresponding spreading pressure II~ are to be referred to a certain patch and will be a function of the adsorption energy e on this patch. Thus, the correct use of IAS to predict the mixed-gas adsorption equifibria will require the following sequence of operations. First, IAS has to be applied to every homogeneous patch to calculate {X i}. They are, of course, a function of the energy set e. Next, the calculated Xi-s values have to be averaged over all possible sets e as in the IE approach. The random model assuming that adsorption sites characterized by different adsorption energies are distributed on a heterogeneous surface completely at random. As a result, the local 'microscopic' composition {Xi} of the surface phase is the same across the surface. The adsorbed phase is a thermodynamic entity, the spreading pressure of which is the same across the surface, and has to be calculated by replacing Afi by Afti, in eq. (189).

57 One course, one may ask the question what the condition (193) for the mixtures of molecules exhibiting quite different character of interactions with the solid surface means. In the model of localized adsorption they will be adsorbed on different incompatible lattices of adsorption sites. It is clearly stated that when considering interactions between adsorbed molecules, the attice is treated as a kind of an abstract theoretical tool as in the lattice theories of liquid mixtures. 7.2. A p p l i c a t i o n of IAS to surfaces with r a n d o m t o p o g r a p h y Myers who was the first to consider the extension of IAS for the case of heterogeneous solid surfaces did it for the surfaces with random topography first[229]. He accepted the rectangular adsorption energy distribution to represent Xi(ei). Then, the problem was considered more extensively in his second paper coauthored by Richter and Schfitz[248]. Three isotherm equations were considered in their work: Freundlich, Langmuir, and DR. For the first two, the integration in eq. (189) can be performed analytically, whereas in the case of DR equation it must be carried out numerically. Then, the single and mixed isotherms of methane and ethane adsorption on an activated carbon were used for illustration. Of all the equations the DR isotherm fitted the adsorption isotherms of single components best. The DR equation was also superior to predict mixed-gas adsorption equilibria. Since DR does not reduce to Henry's isotherm as p ---, 0, a certain error in calculating the spreading pressure is surely involved. Even then DR appeared, to be superior over the Langmuir isotherm which reduces correctly to Henry's Law. That problem was more extensively analyzed in the paper by Talu and Myers[242]. They took into consideration the following three equations used frequently to correlate the single adsorption data: 1. The Langmuir-Freundlich equation, eq. (154), 2. The Dubinin-Radushkevich equation, eq. (158), in which p~ was taken to be the saturation pressure ps, 3. The T6th equation (21),

p---,0

The limiting slope, lim dAft/dp, is equal to: +c~ for the LF equation, 0 for the DR equation, and a finite value for the T6th equation. Here, the behaviour of the function Af/p is of crucial importance. That study led Talu and Myers to the following conclusions. The limit +c~ for the LF isotherm makes it unsuitable for calculating spreading pressure under any conditions. The limit of the T6th equation is too large because the slope of the Aft/p curve goes to - ~ at the origin, and the limit of the DR equation is too small (zero), because the slope of the A/'t/p curve goes to +or at the origin. However, the error in the integral (189) introduced by the incorrect limits of the T6th and DR equations is in fact small unless the pressure is very low. For the DR equation, the maximum of .N't/p is given by

/J~t/ T

J~Sexp(/ E /2)

max = P--/

.

(194)

58 The error in the spreading pressure/kII*, introduced by this false maximum, is /xm=N~exp

-

2-~

"

and the pressure p ~ x at which p~x = psexp

(195)

3/'t/p attains its maximum value is given by,

-~

(196)

According to Talu and Myers, this error is usually smaller than the experimental error in II* and the pressure Pm~ at which attains its maximum value and below which the calculated ratio deviates significantly from the experiment, is usually very low. In view of that positive judgement concerning the applicability of the DR equation, the readers may appreciate using the analytical approximation for IF(p), developed by Myers and coworkers for the case when Aft(p) is the DR isotherm,

A/'t/p

II* = IIakT= 2Ns(II)1/2 (k__~~In (~)) (kT/E--------~erfc

.

(197)

As the error function erfc(-) is the standard in computers now, eq. (197) may therefore be considered as the analytical expression for II*. The conclusion by Talu and Myers that Pmax is small, is likely to be true in the case of adsorption by activated carbons. But in the case of adsorption in zeolites, for instance, the adsorption isotherms which quite frequently obey the DR or DA equation at mediate coverages, reduce clearly to Henry's law at measurable pressures. The attempts to modify the DR equation toward an expression having Henry's limit have a long history, and were described in the monograph by Rudzifiski and Everett[3]. Most recent attempts of that kind have been published by Sundaram[268], who used a modified version of the DR equation to calculate spreading pressure II*[261]. All these modifications were made on an empirical basis. Sundaram used the following modification of DR isotherm

po

k-T

i=a

i

(198)

where the term within the square bracket in eq. (198) is the truncated series expansion,

-ln0t = ~ i=1

(1 -at)' ,

0 < 0, < 2

(199)

z

and where D is an additional temperature independent parameter. The problem of the transition to Henry's Law of the equations used to calculate II" in IAS is of primary importance for a successful application of IAS, but a good fit of the experimental isotherms at mediate coverages is another essential condition too. In the mediate coverage region a good fit is usually obtained by using isotherm equations which do not reduce to Henry's Law (LF, DR., DA, ... ). This is a serious difficulty accompanying the use of the IAS approach to predict mixed-gas adsorption equilibria.

59 Recently Rudzifiski et a/.[262] have proposed a general solution for that problem, by using the RJ approach. As already discussed, the failure of the LF, DR, DA, and other isotherm equations to reduce correctly to Henry's Law, has its source in assuming the infinite energy limits (-oc, +cr or (0, + ~ ) while developing these isotherm equations. For obvious physical reasons, there must exist finite integration limits, (era, eM). When RJ expansion is used to represent Oti(pi, T), the function eci(pi, T ) i s defined in the interval (-oo, +oo), and x(e) is to be defined as follows[3]:

X(e) =

0 forO_<e<e=, X for em_<e< eM, 0 for eM <_ e.

(200)

Accordingly, the function X(e) is to be defined now as follows: ,u

forO<e<em,

X(s

for ~M ~< s

(201) and the normafization condition states thatX(eM) -- X(em) = 1. In the case of finite energy limits (era, eM), the expansion (145) takes the more general form

Ot(p,T) = [O(eM)X(ei) - O(~m)X(s

oo ( k r ) ' l! el ~'-~cl /

]- E l=O

(202) s163

While carrying out our considerations we take the function (162) for illustration. In the limit of a strongly heterogeneous surface, when k T / c ---, 0 (practically when k T / c < 0.9), eq. (202) reduces to:

Ot = O(eM)[X(eM) -- X(er

+ O(e=)[X(e~) - X(em)].

(203)

At very low adsorbate pressures such that er > s from eqs. (201) and (203) it follows that 0t = 0(era). It means that adsorption is occurring as on a homogeneous solid surface characterized by the adsorption energy e = era. That apparently strange result was predicted even earlier in earlier theoretical works. Let us suppose that half of the surface is covered, and that function (162) is still symmetrical. Then, IX(~M)- X(,r

1 = IX(~c) -- X(*m)l = 5,

(204)

and eq. (203) reduces to (205)

0t = 0(eM)[X(~M)- X(~c) ] because 0(eM) >> 0(era). When the surface is strongly heterogeneous, i.e. when and eM ~ +cr then FN ~ 1, 0(ei)"-* 1, and X ( e i ) ~

0,

~m ~

-cr

(206)

60 as can be deduced from eq. (162). Then eq. (205) reduces to eq. (153), i.e. to the LF isotherm. When eM is large, the reduction takes place even at very small surface coverages (adsorbate pressures). This is why linear log 0t-vs.-logp plots are commonly observed at low adsorbate pressures. (The Freundlich isotherm is the low-pressure limit of the function -k'(cc) when X(e)is given by (162).) This also means that there is a transition within a certain range of pressures, around p = PM = ( 1 / K ) e x p ( - c M / k T ) , from the LF isotherm to the Langmuir isotherm. As expected at low adsorbate pressures, Langmuir behaviour means simply Henry's Law, p < PM =*" 8t " p K e x p ( e M / k T ) . This means that there is a transition region, where the tangent of the plot In 8t vs In p increases from a value smaller than unity (typically between 0.5 and 0.9) to values close to unity when p ~ 0. In view of what was said above, the integral (189) should be written as follows PM

P*

f

n-=

p

- f

0

p

PM

where

(2o8)

PM = ( l / K ) e x p ( - c M / k T ) .

Equation (207) is quite general and any function k'(~c) i.e. any X(C) can be accepted. It is convenient to carry out the integration by writing the second integral on the r.h.s. of eq. (207) in the following form p"

ec(p*)

(209) PM

ec (PM)

For the particular case of the function (162), we have

/

X(cr

_

c...._~_~In

c 1 -I- exp c

1 + (Kp" exp (~TT)) ~

c

(2~o)

FNkT

Then, the first integral on the r.h.s, of eq. (207) takes the form ,~o(pM)

PM

r 0

1 + exp

e(,,,,) dp =

p

de~

+oo

= I n (1 + e x p ( e = ' - - ; T ( P M ) ) )

kT

(211)

61 Finally H * = HM +

FNkT In 1 +

(~-~

,

(212)

where

1 + exp (era-Co H M = .hfs In

s -- s

kT kT [l + exp (e~ -- eM)]

"

(213)

For the purpose of further considerations we will rewrite eq. (212) to the following form HA I_[M c kT = H" = - Z ' ~ In (1 - 0t).

(214)

After solving eq. (212) for p*, we have

p. 1

[

) lc/T

where K exp(co/kT) is found from the linear regression (155) for the experimental adsorption isotherm. Let us consider the simplest case of a binary adsorbed mixture. Then

pl = p~Xx and p2 = p~(1 - X~).

(216)

The quantity p* defined in eq. (215) is a function of H* and of the parameters K exp {eo/kT}, kT/c, (eo - em)/C, and (eM -- eo)/C. The first two parameters are easily found from linear regression (155) of the adsorption data measured at moderate surface coverages for a single adsorptive. The other two parameters: (e0 - em)/c and (eM -- e0)/c can be found by an appropriate numerical analysis of low-coverage data, based on more general equation (203). Such low-coverage data are not commonly available, so the parameters (e0 - em)c and (eM -- eo)/C are likely to be treated as best-fit ones. Another general solution of the problem of Henry's Law in IAS was proposed by Morbidelli and coworkers[258]. The main idea is somewhat similar to that described above. It does not involve introducing additional best-fit parameters, but creates strong criteria for the accuracy of adsorption experiments. Recently, Rudzinski et a/.[269] have shown, that the PT (Potential Theory) approach to mixed gas adsorption is nothing else, but a special edition of IAS approach which is applicable only to strongly heterogeneous surfaces, characterized by random surface topography. The potential theory of adsorption, introduced by Polanyi, has been widely accepted as the basis for correlating the effect of temperature on the adsorption isotherms of pure gases. A number of authors have modified Polanyi's original method of treating pure-gas adsorption isotherms. These modifications attempt both to improve the temperature correlation and to account for the effect of the nature of the adsorbate on the adsorption isotherm for a given adsorbent. The milestones of the use of the PT for estimating adsorption equilibrium of gas mixtures are: (a) proposal by Lewis et a1.[270];

62 (b) formalization based on the thermodynamic arguments by Grant and Manes[214]; (c) improvements by Reich et a/.[223] and Mehta and Danner[233]. The most recent theoretical achievements along these lines have been reviewed by Moon and Tien[257]. The PT method for predicting mixed-gas adsorption equilibria is based on the assumption that the adsorption data for all pure components fall on the same line when plotted on appropriate coordinates. A number of methods based on the PT have been advocated for correlating pure-gas adsorption isotherms. The most recent extensive experimental and theoretical study by Mehta and Danner[233] showed that the method of Lewis et a/.[270] appeared to be the most useful one. It consists in expressing the adsorption isotherm of a pure component i in the following functional form

Nt,'ViS=F

(kTw (f,i'~)fi] v-;:,.In

(217)

,

where F is the temperature independent function of (kT/V~s) ln(f~,/fi), V~s is the saturated liquid molar volume of the i-th pure adsorbate at a pressure equal to the adsorption pressure pi, fsi is the saturation fugacity of pure i at the adsorption temperature T, fi is the fugacity at the pressure pi and the temperature T. Moon and Tien have shown that in most cases one may replace the bulk fugacities by pressures[257]. For surfaces having random topography the integral for the spreading pressure H* takes the form, Pt

'r

ii. = f N,idp__j_= ~i / Pi

o

kT

X(Qi)d6.ci.

(218)

+oo

Assuming H~ = II~#i, we have,

*r

r

.Afsi f Xi(Qi)deei =.A['sj J +oo +oo

Xj(ecj)decj.

(219)

The above equation will be important for our further consideration. Meanwhile we use the following transformation of the variables:

ti = e~i+ kT in(Kip~i) = v:

kT

----7In vi

(Psi ~ -- .

(220)

Then, eq. (219) takes the form (kr/vt)

~(,,,,/pr )

f +oo

(kr/~,) ~ (,,,, #,.; )

Vi'Nti(ti)dti=

f

V/Nt,(t,)dtj.

(221)

+o0

Thusl if it happens that V~SNti plotted as a function of ti coalesces with V/Ntj plotted as a function of tj, then the upper integration limits must be equal, i.e.

63 Taking into account the Raoult Law (191), we can rewrite eq. (222) to the following form Vi---;In

~i

= ~

Vjs

in

\

Pj

,

(223)

Pi

pi

where means the partial pressure of the adsorbate i. Usually, well approximates fi, so, eq. (223) becomes essentially the Grant-Manes equation. Thus, it should be clearly stated that the PT approach is nothing else, but a special form of IAS theory, valid only for the case of heterogeneous solid surfaces. An extensive study of a large body of experimental data brought Mehta and Danner to the conclusion that the potential curves of different adsorbates have, however, similar shapes and can be coalesced by an appropriate modification of abscissa. So, they have modified the functional relationship (217) as follows:

(kT kov/sln (f,i'~) k,Z]

NtiVis = F

(224)

'

where k~ is the coalescing factor for adsorbate i relative to a standard adsorbate. Rudzifiski a/.[269] have shown that their theoretical development of the PT approach suggests a possibility of two coalescing factors to be introduced. These authors also give certain recommendations as to the way in which one can use the PT approach to predict mixed-gas adsortpion equilibria better than by applying the traditional 'coalescence' operation.

et

7.3. Application of IAS to the surfaces with patchwise topography In their review, Rudzinski et a/.[262] first emphasized it clearly, that the authors proposing various extensions of IAS for energetically heterogeneous surfaces did not address explicitly their approaches to a certain topographical model of surface topography. To illustrate the problem of surface topography Rudzinski et. al. took extensions of the Langmuir-Freundlich equation into consideration. Their reasults are briefly reported belOW. We start with calculating the spreading pressure l'I~ on a homogeneous surface patch characterized by the adsorption energy e,

or, in another form, II~A kT = n~ = - a r ~ In (1 - 0,).

(226)

After solving it for p~, we have P~=E

exp

~

-1

exp -~-~

.

(227)

For two-component adsorption, from eqs. (191) and (227) we have, X-exp (H'/N',x) - 1, P'

=

' K,

tl

X ' exp

(22S)

'

- 1

54 After solving the above equation system with respect to Xl and X2, we obtain

[(en./~2_l)/(eri./~_l)]P_zK1 XI =

P2 ~ exp 1+ [(en'/Ar'2- 1 ) / ( e n'/~a - 1)]

(el - e2) . .kT.

(229)

p--LKl ~ p2exp (el e2)kT -

When Afsa = A/'s2, on a local patch characterized by the adsorption energies el and e2, the molar functions X1, and X2 are not functions of the independent variables el and e~, but rather of their difference (Ca - e2). Of course, it is difficult to know whether Aft1 = A/'~2 on a certain microscopic patch, but it seems reasonable to assume it until their values found for the whole heterogeneous surface are not much different. Therefore, in order to arrive at the average values Xtl , Xt2 for the whole heterogeneous surface, the following averaging is to be done /

Xlt

Xl(eX - e2)Xa2(ea - e2)d(ex - e2)

(230)

f2(q _,~)

where Xa2(ex- e2) is the differential distribution of the number of adsorption sites among corresponding values of ( c a - e2). Trying to relate Xzx2 to Xi(el) and Xx(e2), one has to consider again the correlations between el and e2. For the case of the highest correlations represented by the condition in eq. (166), Xa2 in eq. (230) is a Dirac delta function. This, for the LF single-gas isotherms, leads to the following expression for Xu:

[(r

(eo, - Co2) ~22/~2 exp

Xtl

"-

1 + [(e:~,'2- 1) / (e:~i,'~ --1)]

p--2.E1Klpexp 2 (r

kT

(231)

' -k Tr

which is reduces to

plK1 Xu =

(e01 - e02)

P2 K2 exp 1 + P-22K-~2exp

kT kT

(232)

when Afsl = A/'s2, One can see that the above expression fulfills the condition (Xu + Xt2) = 1. Coming to the practical side of calculating Xu, Xt2 the problem is as follows: From linear regression (155) applied to the experimental isotherms of single components Kiexp(eoi/kT)values are found. Next, for a certain pair of values of pl and p2 appearing in eq. (231), the corresponding value of H* is calculated from equation system (228) in which the K~exp(e,/kT)are the values K~exp(eo,/kT)found from linear regression (155). In a similar way, one can calculate X1, X2 for the systems where single-gas isotherms are correlated by DA isotherms. (In eqs. (231), (232), eo~ has to be replaced by emi).

65 Thus, we are facing an interesting physical situation. When the adsorption energies of components are highly correlated, and Afsi ~- Afsj for j # i, then for the patchwise surfaces the adsorption from their mixture proceeds as on a homogeneous solid surfaces, although this surface may be strongly heterogeneous for single-gas adsorption. When el and e2 are not correlated at all, the function Xa is found from the following relation 1 exp (e2 - Co2)

x,', (t) = /

J n, 2

[

1 + exp

(

C2

C2

t + e2 - eol

(233)

Cl

where t = (el - e2) and fl,2 is the domain of e2. Our numerical exercises showed, that for the infinite energy limits, e 1 E (--OO, +(X)) and e2 E (-oo, +oo), the function xa(t) is still Gaussian-like, and may be well approximated by the following expression, 1 exp

(/o) t

C

(234)

[l+exp(t-t~ where to = e l 0 - e20, and ca is given by

(CA) 2 = V/( ~C1 ) 2 + (C2) 2+ ~

0.05.

(235)

For the special case when A/'sl = AYe2,Xtl is now given by

Xt, =

Pl K1 ~2 K-'22exp

Col - s kT

Contrary to eq. (232) the above eq. (236) shows the influence of the dispersions of the adsorption energies of components on the adsorption of their mixture. It means, that the lack of correlations between the adsorption energies of components on various patches will increase the effect of surface heterogeneity of the adsorption from their mixture. That conclusion must be true also when Af~i # Af~j for j -# i. The IAS theory is just one of the possible approaches which must lead to at least generally similar conclusions. Thus, the conclusion which we have drawn above must be of a general validity. Valenzuela et al.[243] were first to combine IAS with the concept of seeking the correlations between ei and ej for j # i through their cumulative distributions. They wrote the integral equation for Nti in the following form :

...

1

p,

n

(237)

56 where Afi(e, p,T) is the 'local' isotherm describing the mixed-gas adsorption on a patch characterized by the set of the adsorption energies e = el, e2,..., en. That isotherm was calculated by applying IAS to every patch, so, for the jth patch,

PY~= p~jXij,

i = 1,2,-.., n,

*

nxj(;,) =

:~

.

(238) $

n j(p j)= ri;,

,

(239)

and Pb 1-I:.j = f Afi(eij, p, T). dpp

(240)

0

The total adsorbed amount Afi(e, p, T) is obtained from

1 _- ~ X!j.,

(241)

where Af~ = Afi(eij, p, T)v=v;i(n;)

(242)

and Aft(E, p, T ) =

X~Aft*(e,p,T).

(243)

The integral (237) is reduced to a 1D one by considering the correlations between ei and Qr They seek these interrelations through the cumulative adsorption energy distribution,

F(e) = / X(e)de.

(244)

o j s

Thus, they express the function X(n)(e) as follows: n

X(,)(e) = H Xkx (ek/el) Xl (~1),

(245)

k-2

where Xka is the density function for the conditional probablity that a particular adsorption site has the energy ek, provided that it is characterized by the adsorption energy el for the component number 1. If every site on the surface, irrespective of the component chosen as a reference, has the same higher and lower energy neighbours, then the conditional probablity can be written: Xkx (ek/ex) = ~lFk(ek) -- Fx(ex)l,

(246)

67 where 5 is the Dirac delta distribution. Physically, eq. (246) means that the ordering of the sites from low to high energy is the same for each adsorbate; it is called 'perfect positive correlation'. Insertion of eq. (244) and (246)into eq. (237) yields Xt~(p, T) = [ ~ ( p , T, el, c-2,e~,..., (.n)Xl(s163

(247)

t /

where ek is found from the relation

Fk(Ck) = Fl(el).

(248)

For the purpose of practical calculation they use the binomial distribution,

X(s

= (~)uJ(1-- u) k-j,

(O < j <_ k),

(249)

which gives the 'probablity' of energy ej for (k + 1) sites, u is a skewness parameter, (0 < u < 1), and for a symmetric distribution u = 0.5. Valenzuela et al. took k = 40 which they believe is large enough to represent any unimodal adsorption energy distribution, but small enough not to be a computational burden. For the discrete adsorption energy distribution, the integral (237) is replaced by a summation, k

Aft,(p, T) = ~ Afi(p, T, elk, e2k,'--, e~k)AFk, j=O

(250)

where AFk is the fraction of the distribution for which each adsorbate has a constant energy eik. Of course ~ AFk = 1. Valenzuela et. al. took for illustration the experimental data reported by Talu and Zwiebel on the adsorption of the binary and ternary mixtures of H2S, CO2, and C3Hs on H-modernite at 303.15 K[237]. While predicting mixed-gas adsorption equilibria, they carried out their calculations twice. First they used the single-gas adsorption isotherms to calculate mixed-gas equilibria in terms of the ordinary IAS theory. Next, they calculated the mixed-gas isotherms by using the theoretical approach described above, and called by them the heterogeneous ideal adsorbed solution (HIAS) theory. The ideal-adsorbed-solution calculations show that (CO2+C3Hs) and (H2 +C3Hs) form highly nonideal mixtures, as can also be inferred from the azeotropic behaviour exhibited by these systems. For (CO2 + C3Hs), HIAS correctly predicts an azeotrope but does not predict correctly azeotropic composition. For (H2 + C3Hs), HIAS does not predict the azeotrope but the prediction of HIAS is better than IAS. The mixture H2S + C02 forms a nearly ideal solution; therefore IAS agrees fairly well with experiment. HIAS calculation is almost in the same agreement. Generally, the improvement in agreement obtained by adopting HIAS is only moderate when compared to that achieved by IAS, so, Valenzuela et al. concluded that still "something was missing in the theory". Just at the same time (1987) the concept of the 'site matching' was elaborated independently by Moon and Tien[244]. They made, however, one step forward by generalizing it through the assumption that instead of eq. (248) we will have in general

68

Fk((k) = F I ( s Skl, and called that approach the regular site-matching (RSM) model. When Ski = 0, the above model reduces to what Valenzuela et al. c a l l e d - the perfect positive correlation. In fact, these authors realized that it may not be true for some binary mixtures of molecules exhibiting much different interactions to a solid surface, so, in their work referred above they wrote that "heterogeneity is an important factor, for correlation of adsorption energies". That obvious physical fact was taken into consideration by Moon and Tien, who assumed another model when, Fk(e-k) = 1--FI(s S~: 1, which they called the complementary site-matching (CSM) model. For the purpose of mathematical convenience they accepted the rectangular function (160) to represent the adsorption energy distribution X1(q)- For this particular function ek -- emk ,

Fk(ck) = Ak = s

Cmk _< ~k _< ~Mk-

(251 )

- - ~mk

For regular site matching Ai(ei)

-

A/(ej)+ Sij,

[Sij[ < 1" i 7~ j,

(252)

whereas for complementary site matching A,(ei) = 1 - Aj(ej)+ S~i,

ISSsl _< x, i # j.

(253)

Then, it can be shown that the following identity requirements for Sii and S~ and the combination rules must be obeyed. The identity requirements are: Sij

=

S~j = S~s - S~k =

--Sji,

s~j - s ~

=

Sji , Sks, s~,

s~k - s ~

=

sis.

(254)

The combination rules are: 1. If the match of the i - j pair and that of the i - k pair are of the same type (either regular or complementary), then the match of the j - k pair is regular. 2. If the matching of the i - j pair and that of the i - k pair are dissimilar (namely, one is regular and the other complementary), then the match of the j - k pair is complementary. The physical significance of the two types of matching conditions differs as follows. The RSM condition implies that if all the adsorption sites are arranged in an ascending order of their adsorption energy with respect to the i-th adsorbate, e-i, then these sites also fall into the ascending order of the jth adsorbate's adsorption energy. On the other hand, the CSM condition means that an arrangement in the ascending order of ei is an arrangement in the descending order of ej. As the high-energy sites permit a greater degree of adsorption, matching according to RSM, means that the sites which favour the adsorption of the ith adsorbate also favour that of the j-th adsorbate. The opposite is true with the CSM condition. Since the overall adsorption is the sum of results occurring at the individual

69 sites, the presence of two different ways to describe the competitive effect among the adsorbates makes it possible to provide a better or more accurate description of adsorption equilibrium. Determining which of the conditions will be used and the evaluations of S~j (or S~j) are done by comparing binary gas mixture data with predictions. Furthermore, the values of S~j (or S~j) determined from binary gas mixture data must obey the identity requirements. The satisfaction of the identity requirements ensures that the proposed site-matching criteria are self-consistent. With the identity requirements, the criteria used for an n-components system, in the limiting situation when one of the n-components vanishes, reduce automatically to those of the corresponding (n - 1)-component system. It should be stated clearly, that the HIAS approach used by Valenzuela et al. and its more general version - - the site matching (SM) approach used by Moon and Tien are nothing else but the application of IAS theory accompanied by the assumption that the solid surface has patchwise topography. It is important to emphasize it, because all the authors do not express this assumption explicitly, and use sometimes such confusing expressions as 'the solution at some point', instead of the fully rigorous expression - - 'the solution on some patch'. Like Valenzuela et al. Moon and Tien took for analysis the adsorption data for H~S, COs, and C3Hs adsorption on H-modernite reported by Talu and Zwiebel. When Sij (or S~j) becomes zero the Moon-Tien SM approach reduces to the Valenzuela et al. 'perfect positive correlation' HIAS approach. Then, both these groups of authors conclude that the improvement over the (classical) IAS approach is only modest or none. The assumption S~j ~ 0 (or S'zj -fi 0) does not improve it much. A much better agreement was, later on, achieved by Karavias and Myers[252] who additionally considered the non-ideality of the adsorbed phase due to the interactions between the adsorbed molecules. Their theoretical treatment, however, involves introducing not one but two additional best-fit parameters. Eiden and Schlfinder (ES)[222] have proposed another extension of the IAS approach to surfaces characterized by patchwise topography. As their theory was taylored to describe mixed-gas adsorption by activated carbons, the DA equation was assumed to represent the adsorption of single components. They prefer to consider it in terms of 'volume filling' rather than 'site filling', so, they write the DA equation in the following form:

(255)

V - Vs exp ( - (e~ EeSm)~ ) where

es=-kTln(p/p~),

e~m = - k T l n

(P~-~)

(256)

and esm is the lowest value of es below which the DA isotherm does not apply any longer. The esm value is that corresponding to the beginning of the hysteresis loop, which means the end of the filling of micropores, and the start of the adsorption in mesopores. The adsorption in mesopores is described by other than DA equation. This adsorption results into capillary condensation at the end. The value of V~ in eq. (256) is taken as equal to V(es = esm), i.e., is lower than that estimated as the maximum adsorbed amount, found in experiment at p---, p~.

70 Eiden and Schliinder studied experimentally the adsorption of three species: benzene, DM (dichloromethane), and HMD (hexamethyldisiloxane), on two kinds of activated carbons: Supersorbon and Kontisorbon. While considering the spreading pressure integral (189) ES introduced a new integration variable es, through the relation (256). They operated also with the spreading pressure r = HA. Then, in the case of adsorption of ith component, they wrote: oo

if

(257)

where In (P~ /Ps,) ,

c:~ = - k T

(258)

and ~ is the molar volume of the ith adsorbed species. (~ defined by ES is a constant, and should be close to the volume Vi~ defined in the Potential Theory approach). For the temperatures below the boiling point of adsorbate, ES take Q to be the molar volume of the bulk liquid. The Raoult's Law (191) takes then the following form pi = X i p s i e x p (_e~,(r

= r

....

= r

(259)

kT

Next ES divide the whole micropore volume into z subvolumes. The fiUing of these subvolumes is assumed to proceed in a perfectly gradual way in the sequence of decreasing values of e~ characterizing these subvolumes. After filling the j th subvolume, the adsorption is running in the micropores characterized by es = esj, so that e~ij = ~mi ~- Ei [ I n ( z / j ) ] 1/'' ,

i=

1,2,...

, n,

j = 1, 2, . . . , z.

(260)

The spreading pressure is defined as a local property for every subvolume, so r

= r

= ....

r

= Cj,

(261)

where (262)

=

cs*O and = - k T In

.

(263)

The above statements do not leave any doubt that ES introduce the concept of patchwise topography. The so-called 'subvolumes' are simply classes of identical micropores. The essential concept of patchwise topography is not necessarily related to adsorption on planar surfaces. We have to deal with patchwise topography every time when the adsorption system can be considered as a collection of independent subsystems. Then the adsorption properties must be the same in every part of a subsystem under consideration. And now some confusing statements appear in the theoretical considerations by ES, who

71 do not relate DA isotherm with the concept of adsorption on a heterogeneous surface. This immediately creates the fundamental difficulty in their consideration. Namely, how one should define the function V~j(e~) under the integral in eq. (262). Valenzuela et al. and Tien and Moon assumed V~j(e~/Q) to be simply the Langmuir isotherm. In order to overcome that difficulty ES launched the following tricky statement: "Because adsorption in phase j is only possible for the adsorption potentials

qi > esij and the adsorbed volume in phase j is always A V = ~z ' integration in eq. (257) is possible, and one obtains AV

r

= ~

(esij - el*j)

(")

pi=Xi.ip~iexp

-

e~iJ(r kT

(264)

, i=l,

2,

..

9 n j = l , ,

,

2,

..

9 z ,

(265)

o.ol,

While analyzing that tricky statement it is difficult to understand why the function V/j(~si) is replaced by the constant A V. However, all that can be true by adopting the following assumption: The Langmuir isotherm, or any other describing the adsorption in a sub-system of identical micropores is replaced by a step function, V/j(esi) =

0

AV

for esi < ~ j , for esi _> e~ij.

(266)

In other words the condensation approximation is used implicitly to describe the local adsorption in the sub-system of identical micropores. What should also be clearly said is, that ES introduce implicitly the same concept of the "perfect positive correlation" which was first applied by Valenzuela et al. ES combine equations (264), (265) and the condition ~lj = r . . . . . ~j. For the particular case of a binary gas mixture, they arrive then at the following equation:

(

(Xlj)~/V1 -- ~(Prl)V2/V1 e x p 1 - X~j pr2

(Y2/Yl)s

kT

- s

)

(267)

'

where pri is the relative pressure Pi/P~. As the mixed phase composition on jth patch (in the jth subvolume) is the function of qlj and q2j values, it means, that after filling the volume ( j - 1)V~/z, the adsorption of both 1 and 2 occurs on the same patch (subvolume). To calculate the amounts adsorbed in phase j, ES apply the equation, AV J~fJ -- X l j Yl -t- X2j ~r2

(268)

which is the analogue of the IAS equation (192). Then, A/'lj = X~jAfj. For the whole surface (all micropores) Vesij(> ei*j)" N" = Y'~Afj J Ve~ij(> e2ij) : .Af/= ~ A f / j ./

,

(269)

, i = 1,2

(270)

72 The overall (average) composition in the adsorbed phase is calculated as X1 = Af~/Af. ES have done interesting model calculations based on their approach. They showed that different exponents rl and r2 can lead to a strong 'real' azeotropic behaviour, even if there are no interactions between adsorbed molecules, i.e. the adsorbed mixture can be treated as an ideal solution. The above described approach developed by ES turned out to be very successful in correlating mixed-gas adsorption in activated carbons. ES argue that the above procedure for calculating mixed-gas adsorption can be used only when V~ has the same value for both components. If not, the sieving effects must take place, and they also proposed a special procedure for such cases.

8. T H E A P P R O A C H E S B A S E D ON T H E M O D E L S OF M O B I L E ADSORPTION 8.1. E x t e n s i o n s of Hill-de B o e r approach. A first treatment of mixed-gas adsorption, based on a model of mobile adsorbed phase was proposed in 1948 by Kemball et. a1.[142], who extended Volmer's equation for that purpose. This isotherm equation takes into account, and in a crude way, only repulsive interactions between adsorbed molecules, so, this equation seldom provides a good representation of single-gas isotherms. This approach is, therefore, of a limited value for predicting mixed-gas adsorption. Twenty years later Hoory and Prausnitz[143] extended the Hill-de Boer isotherm equation for a two-dimensional mobile monolayer of a gas mixture on a solid surface. To obtain the equation of equilibrium between the two phases, they introduced the concept of surface fugacity; for a component designated by subscript 1, the two-dimensional fugacity in the adsorbed layer is designated by f~'

d#~ = R T d In f~

(271)

and lim f~

l-I--.o X----'~ -

(272)

1"

where H is the spreading pressure,/z~ is the chemical potential and X1 is the mole fraction of 1, all in the adsorbed layer. The surface fugacity of component 1 in the adsorbed mixture is then calculated from a two-dimensional equation of state by the thermodynamic relation,

R T In f~ =

0II A

-

A--A-dA - R T In A/'IRT

(eTa)

T,A,A/'2 ....

where A is the total surface area available for adsorption and A/'I is the number of moles of 1 in the adsorbed layer. Let fl stand for the fugacity of 1 in the gas phase. It can then be shown that the equation of equilibrium is

f~=

KH1RT NA--.---..~.f~

(274)

73 where NA is the Avogadro's number, KH1 is the Henry's constant for pure component 1 and fll is the surface occupied by one molecule of component 1 when 01, the fraction of a monolayer covered by 1, is equal to unity. The parameters KH1 and fll are obtained from a suitable analysis of pure component data, and K m fulfills the following condition, 9

K m - l : m~ \ f ~ ]

(275)

A/'2 . . . .

(275)

0

Next, the two-dimensional analogue of van der Waals' equation of state was accepted by Hoory and Prausnitz to represent H II =

kT O" ~

a /~

(276)

0 .2

where k is the Boltzmann's constant, a and ~ are the characteristic constants (analogous to van der Waals' a and b) and a is defined by A (277)

o" = N A./V'F_,

where A/'z is the total number of moles adsorbed. Hoory and Prausnitz assumed further, that for a binary mixture, the constants a and are related to those of the pure components by (278) and a -- a1X21 + 2 a 1 2 X i X 2 + a2X 2

(279)

where a12 is a constant characteristic for the 1-2 interaction. They assumed that a12 =

x/ala2. Substitution into Eq. (273) yields then for the surface fugacity of component 1 X1 k T In f~ = In cr " / 3 -+

~1 a-~

2 akT

(miX1 + a12X2)

(280)

Further substitution into the equation of phase equilibrium, and the assumption that the bulk gas phase is ideal yields X1~1 ~1 In (a - ~)KH1PY1 -~ a - - ~

2 o'kT ( a l X 1 + a12X2) = 0

(281)

A similar equation can be obtained for component 2. The two equations of equilibrium predict the adsorption isotherm for a binary mixture using only the data obtained from the pure-component adsorption isotherms. Given the temperature, the total pressure, the composition of the gas phase and the parameters Ks, a and 3 for each pure component, the two equations of equilibrium can be solved to yield

74 cr and X. For binary mixture, the number of moles of component 1 which are adsorbed is found from All = X1/~IAf~

(282)

o"

where Aft1 is the number of moles of 1 adsorbed at the full monolayer coverage of pure 1. One has a similar relation for component 2. Since the area of the solid is a constant, it follows that (/3Afs)l = (/3A/',)2

(283)

To illustrate their equations, Hoory and Prausnitz performed numerical calculations for the adsorption isotherms of several mixtures on homogeneous graphitized carbon. In these calculations we have used pure-component parameters reported by Ross and Olivier[271]. These parameters are given in Table 2.

X 10 30

Gas

(ergcmZl molecule z)

/3 • 10 TM

(cm21 T molecule)(~

Nitrogen Argon Benzene

33.85 43.98 112.0

15.55 13.60 30.60

Chloroform

283.0

29.40

CFC13

297.0

31.20

90.1 90.1 273.2 322.6 286.2 322.6 273.2 286.2

KH 1

6.30 13.20 0.71 9.93 15.10 87.63 15.20 28.80

Table 2. Parameters for pure-gas adsorption on graphitized carbon P-33 (2700~

(From Ross and Olivier[271]).

Unfortunately, they could not make any comparison with experimental results because no data for adsorption of these gas mixtures on a nearly homogeneous graphitized carbon, were available at that time. The application of the two-dimensional analogue of Van der Waals' equation (276) also makes it possible to describe the adsorption systems showing considerable departures from ideality in the two-dimensional adsorbed phase. The activity coefficient of component 1 is then given by, f~(X1, n, T)

~/1 = X~fp% l (H, T)

(284)

75 where f;~(II, T) is the surface fugacity of pure component 1 in the adsorbed layer at the same spreading pressure II and temperature T as those of the mixture. One can calculate 3' from the two-dimensional equation of state. For component 1 in a binary mixture In 71 = In 0"1 -- /~1 /~I a - ~ I a /3 -

a~

/~1 -

~1

2

akT(a~Xl+X~2X2)+

2C~I alkT

(285)

and there is a corresponding equation for component 2. In Eq. (285), al is the area occupied by one molecule of component 1 when pure component 1 is adsorbed at the same temperature and spreading pressure as those of the mixture. In the limiting case, when al = a2 and fll = f12, one obtains a = o" 1 - - a 2 and hence 71 = ")'2 = 1. If a l and a2 are not zero, the necessary (and sufficient) condition for the mixture to be ideal is that al = a2 and ~1 =/32. An insight into Table 2 must bring one to the conclusion, that the two-dimensional surface mixture (CFC13 + CHC13) is nearly ideal. On the contrary, the surface mixture (CFCI3 + C6H6) should exhibit considerable departures from an ideal behaviour. Hoory and Prausnitz demonstrated next that this surface phase non-ideality does not affect much the ( X - Y) diagram which is so frequently used to compare theory with experiment. At the same time, however, that surface nonideality affects strongly the relative volatility 7"]21defined as, r/2~ = I/1/X~

(286)

As the relative volatility is the reciprocal of the selectivity coefficient which is an important characteristics for gas separation, one may conclude it as follows. Small departures of a theoretically predicted (X - Y) diagram from the experimentally observed one may suggest a satisfactory agreement between theory of experiment, but this may mean serious errors in predicting separation factors. The graphitized carbon P33 is nearly homogeneous, but not perfectly homogeneous. Thus, Ross and Olivier studied the adsorption on this material by assuming patchwise topography, and mobile adsorption on every homogeneous patch. The local adsorption on n-th patch was described by Hill-de Boer isotherm, P=

(1) ~

0 (0 J : - O exp 1 - 0

2aO'~ kT~]

(287)

where o= - , Vr

= --exp Pv

(288)

Eq. (287) is the particular form of eq. (281) when X = 1, and Y = 1. (Please compare eq. (287) with its slightly different form (9)). It was assumed next that the distribution of the adsorption energy e can be represented by the gaussian function, g(e), =

exp

76 where w 2 is the variance of that function. Table 7.2 collects the values of the parameters ~, w, pv, and Afs obtained by fitting eqs. (287) and (289) to experimental adsorption isotherms of nitrogen and argon on P33.

N2 -g kcal/mole w kcal/mole pv(90-l~ mmHg Z's cm3(STP)/g

Ar

2.150 0.289 6.79x105 3.30

2.066 0.242 11.32• 3.76

a and f~ as in Table 7.1

Table 3. Adsorption parameters for N2 and Ar on P-33 (1000~

(From Ross and Olivier[271]).

Hoory and Prausnitz have generalized that treatment for the case of adsorption of a binary gaseous mixture by assuming that the local adsorption on every patch is described by their generalized Hill-de Boer isotherm (281) and that the two-dimensional adsorption energy distribution X2(el, e2) is the generalized Gaussian function, 1 ( X2(el,e2) = 2Hwlw2V/1 _ ~2 exp -

~I/12-- 2~I/1 ~2 + ~1/22) ~

(290)

2: e2)

where ~1 -- el -- s el

~i/2

e2 -- e2 W2

(291)

and where ~ois the correlation coefficient = cov(e,, e2)

(292)

WlW2

This correlation coefficient may be positive or negative; its absolute value must lie some-

where in the interval zero to unity. Let the probability that for a patch ij the adsorption energies lie in the intervals (el + Ael), and (e2 + Ae2) be designated by 5ij,

~ij

-- X(s

s163163

E E ~ij = 1 {

(293)

(294)

j

The parameters ~'1, ~'2, Wl, W2 can be found from the pure--component adsorption data, but the correlation coefficient ~ can be found only by the analysis of mixed-gas isotherm. For the components which are chemically similar ~0should take positive values and close to unity.

77 The mixed-gas isotherm is obtained by applying eq. (281) to each homogeneous patch, and then summing over all patches with the weighting factor 6ij. Upon applying the equation for homogeneous surfaces to a patch ij, one calculates for 6~j and the mole fractions Xlij and X2~j. Let F1 and F2 be the overall number of moles of components 1 and 2 respectively, adsorbed per unit area of the heterogeneous surface. To find F1 and F2 the summations are used,

Xlij i

(295)

j

F~ = ~ ~ ~y X2~j i

j

(296)

NAaij

The overall mole fractions of the adsorbed film on the heterogeneous surface are then given by F1 X1 = F1 + F2

and

X2 =

F2 F1 + F~

(297)

Experimental data for the adsorption of the (N2+ Ar) mixture on P33 were not available at the time when Hoory and Prausnitz worked on their publication. For this reason they presented only some model calculations. To be able to confront their theoretical predictions with the experimental data, Hoory and Prausnitz took into consideration the experimental isotherms of adsorption of the (ethane+ethylene) mixture on the Nuxit-A1 active carbon, reported by Szepesy and I1les[272]. These authors also reported the experimental isotherms of the pure components which were fitted first by Hoory and Prausnitz to estimate the single-gas adsorption parameters; ~, w, p~, ~, a, and A/'s. The values of these parameters found by Hoory and Prausnitz are collected in Table 4.

C.H6 -~ kcal/mole w kcal/mole

4.144 1.430 pv(90.1~ mmHg 3.84x106 x 1016 cm2/molecule 24.1 a x 1030 erg cm2/molecule 2 123.9 Afs cm3(STP)/g 218.0

C2H4 3.923 1.430 4.05x106 22.2 88.7 237.0

Table 4. Adsorption parameters for C2H4 and C2tt6 on Nuxit-Al active carbon (From Hoory and Prausnitz[143]). The calculations of mixed-gas adsorption were made by applying these single-gas parameters, pv, fl and a found from single-gas adsorption of C2H4and C2H6 on P33 to (ethane + ethylene) mixture adsorbed on Nuxit-A1 active carbon. Two values of the correlation

78 coefficient; ~0= 0, and ~o= 1, were assumed in this calculation. Because of the chemical similarity of C2H4 and C2H6, the value g = 1 seems to be a more reasonable assumption. This was confirmed by the calculation of the corresponding mixed-gas isotherms. The results calculated with full correlation (g = 1) gave an excellent agreement with the experimental mixture data. The hypothesis that the adsorption energies of hydrocarbons are strongly correlated received further support in the theoretical work by Nakahara. Nakahara et a/.[226,227] studied the adsorption of hydrocarbons by the carbon molecular sieve MSC-5A and showed failure in fitting the mixed adsorption data for these systems by either the semiempirical approach by Cook and Basmadjian[212], or the classical edition of IAS theory, as well as by VST approach proposed by Suwanayuen and Danner[222]. After proving the failure of fitting these data by theoretical approaches based on the model of homogeneous surface, Nakahara[273] turned to the approach developed by Hoory and Prausnitz. However, the procedure of fitting single-gas isotherms used by Nakahara was somewhat different from the procedure of Hoory and Prausnitz, because no data for a reference homogeneous carbonaceous adsorbent were used. While fitting mixed-gas adsorption isotherms, Nakahara employed the generalized Hill-de Boer isotherm (281) developed by Hoory and Prausnitz, but again the fitting procedure was different. Nakahara did not employ the generalized gaussian distribution (290), but introduced in an implicit way the assumption about high correlations between the adsorption energies of the adsorbates. In the calculation of probability densities for a model isotherm he used a normalized Gaussian distribution whose variables were continuous. But in the calculation of adsorption of binary gaseous mixtures he treated the number of patches as countable and discrete variables. The number of patches which have the same adsorption potential was calculated by the Gaussian equation multiplying the normalizing factor by 1000 and counting the fractions of 0.5 and over as a whole number and disregarding the rest. The important point of the extension of pure isotherms to describe the adsorption of mixtures was how to combine the two isotherms. In the first step of this study Nakahara set the 1000 patches in a series with respect to the potential values, being numbered consecutively by integer i from 1 to 1000 in highest potential, and increasing i values corresponds to either the same or higher potential. While considering adsorption of binary mixtures, the patch which has the highest potential in the adsorption of pure component 1 was considered to be the same patch which has the highest potential in the adsorption of pure component 2. The second patch which has the potential next to the highest for component 1 is also the patch which has the potential next to the highest for component 2. The same rule was applied to the third, fourth, ..., and to the thousandth patch. Thus, although it was not stated explicitly by Nakahara, the above procedure was equivalent to the assumption of high correlations between the adsorption energies of the adsorbates. The average surface coverage of each component 8tj was calculated as follows,

Zj

1

1000

Otj = 1000 i=1 ai = 1000 ~

Oii

(298)

i--1

The amount adsorbed of each component, to be compared to the experimental data in

79 the unit of rag/g-adsorbent, Aftj is calculated as follows .Aftj = .M'~jOtj

(299)

All the figures presented in the Nakahara's work must be viewed as an impressive evidence for the success of Nakahara's theoretical method. Also, they must be viewed as an evidence of the importance of the surface energetic heterogeneity of MSC-5A in mixed-gas adsorption. Nakahara's method can be applied only for the systems in which high correlations exist between the adsorption energies of the components of the adsorbed mixture. This, for instance, should be the large class of the adsorption systems in which a mixture of hydrocarbons is adsorbed on a carbonaceous adsorbent. In the systems where the adsorption has a mobile character rather, but the adsorption energies of the various components are not strongly correlated, using the classical Hoory-Prausnitz approach allowing to consider existence of limited correlations may be necessary. Danner and coworkers[220,221] attempted to use the Hoory-Prausnitz eq. (281) to describe the adsorption of (ethane + ethylene) mixture in 13X molecular sieve, which was treated as creating a homogeneous gas-solid interface. This led them to a limited success, and it turned out, that even the simplest edition of IAS worked better. In the case of (ethane + ethylene) mixture adsorbed on the nearly homogeneous carbon adsorbent Sterling FTG-DS, Lee and Connel[274] used successfully a statistical description based on a model of partially localized and partially mobile adsorption. The Hill-de Boer isotherm is known for that it does not describe well the repulsive (excluded area) interactions. So, Findenegg and coworkers[275,276] used the more accurate treatment offered by the Scaled Particle Theory to develop an isotherm equation for the adsorption of a binary gas mixture. That equation turned out to provide a good description of hydrocarbon mixtures on graphitized carbons which are known for having relatively homogeneous surfaces. Nitta et. a1.[204] developed an isotherm equation for mobile mixed-gas adsorption, where repulsive interactions were described in terms of the Scaled Particle Theory. Next, patchwise topography was accepted, along with Gaussian energy distribution. However, it is also essential to account properly for attractive interactions between adsorbed molecules. In the case of an adsorbed mixture which may be highly non-ideal, due to attractive interactions, the attractive terms in the Hoory-Prausnitz' extension of Hill-de Boer isotherm may not describe well the complicated nature of attractive interactions. The Hill-de Boer (Van der Waals) isotherm was developed statistically by using the simple mean field approximation to represent effects of attractive interactions. Thus, Patrykiejew et. al.[174] and next Konno et. a1.[193,194] used more accurate 2D equations of state to develop isotherm equations for adsorption of binary gas mixtures. In their second paper Konno et. a1.[193] used their mixed-gas isotherm to describe adsorption on patchwise heterogeneous surfaces. While describing the adsorption of (methanol + n-hexane), (methanol + acetone), and (acetone + n-hexane) mixtures on the sieving carbon MSC-5A, they assumed that its surface could be modelled as composed of two kinds of patches. Very recently, Zhou et al.[208] have developed a variety of mixed-gas isotherms corresponding to five 2D equations of state.

80 8.2. Low p r e s s u r e formalism.

adsorption

and

the

application

of virial

description

When the total bulk pressure of the adsorbed gas mixture is relatively low, the virial description formalism may become a very convenient tool to deal with mixed-gas adsorption. It has been used extensively to describe single-gas adsorption on both homogeneous and heterogeneous solid surfaces. A detailed exhaustive description of the use of the virial formalism to describe single-gas adsorption has been given by Rudzinski and Everett in Chapter (7) of their monograph[3]. Attempts to use the virial formalism in the theoretical description of mixed-gas adsorption were started in 1955 by Kwan, Freeman and Halsey[277], but these concerned adsorption on a homogeneous solid surface. Jaroniec and Sokolowski [278] were the first to use the virial formalism to describe mixed-gas adsorption on heterogeneous surfaces. For that reason we refer to their paper in a more detailed way. Let us consider a two-component gaseous mixture of volume V and temperature T in contact with a solid surface. The activities of gaseous molecules are aA and aB. The solid is assumed to be completely inpenetrable for gaseous molecules. The quantity adsorbed is defined as the difference between the average number of gaseous molecules in the system and the average number of molecules in a hypothetical system, so-called "calibration system" of equal volume but with no gas-solid interactions. The grand canonical function for the real adsorption system is

_NA _NB

-"

E

uA uB Z(NA, NB) NA~NB! NA,NB>O

(300)

whereas for the calibration system is

--*-":

aNAA NB E NA!NB!aB Z*(NA,NB) NA,NB~O

where Z(NA, Ns)and calibration systems:

(301)

Z'(NA, Ns)are the configurational integrals for the adsorption and

Z(NA, NB) = / drNAdrNB exp ( U(NA,NB)

(302)

V

Z'(NA, NB) =

drNAdrNB exp

--

kT

(303)

V In eqs. (302-303) U(NA,Ns) and U'(NA, Ns) denote the potential energies of the indicated set of molecules in the adsorption and calibration systems, respectively. The adsorption isotherm is obtained from the relation -

Nr = 01n(~.) + l n ( ~ . ) = -NA + -Ns cOIn aA In as -

(304)

81 where Nz, NA, NB are the average numbers of the molecules adsorbed. Using the expansion of In (~.), it is possible to express Nr. as an infinite series in powers of aA and aB. While retaining only the first power and quadratic terms in this expansion, we have

N--a= aABAs ~- aBBBs -+-aAaBCABs -F a~CAAs q- a~CBBs

(305)

where BAS and Bss are the second gas-solid virial coefficients, which in the case of a non-reactive, non-swelling solid considered here are given by,

B~s=/(g,-1)dri=/[exp(~'(ri)) v

- 11 dr i

kT

'

i = A, B

(306)

v

Cijs (i,j = A, B) are the gas-solid coefficients,

(307)

Cqs = j j(gigjfij - f~)dridrj v

where

f,j=exp(

wq~rj))_l

*

( uij(ri' rj) ) - i kT

f~j = exp

(308)

The function wij is an "effective pair potential" of interaction between two adsorbate molecules, one of species i, one of j, in the presence of solid surface, and is a quantity averaged over all allowable configurations on the adsorbent. The uij is the interaction potential between two gaseous adsorbate molecules under calibration conditions. The potential 0i(ri) is the average energy of interactions of i-th type of adsorbate with the adsorbent, averaged over all configurations on the adsorbent. As the adsorption on heterogeneous solid surfaces is usually considered in terms of localized adsorption, Jaroniec and Sokolowski accepted that model to arrive at a more detailed form of their gas-solid virial coefficients. They introduced next the simplifying assumption that adsorption sites are labelled only by their values of ei (i = A,B), i.e. by the local minimum of the gas-solid potential 0i(ri). While accepting that simplifying assumption, w

-ff~.

de, ,

i = A, B

(309)

12i

and

B,s = f B~

,

i = A,B

(310)

fti

where B~ is the expression for the second gas-solid virial coefficient for a homogeneous solid surface, on which the adsorption sites have adsorption energy equal to c,.

82 While B~s depends only on the energy distribution of the sites, the presence of lateral interactions introduces an additional dependence on the spatial distribution of sites, X(2) O (%i, e~,, Rni~~), giving a number of pairs of sites, having energies %, and e~j which are separated by a distance P~i~j. The function XI~) has the following features"

/

X~)(%,,e,,,,t?..,..,)dR,7,,r, = Xi(%,)X,(e,,,)

(311)

R,Ti ,,i >0

(312) where 6 is the Kronecker's symbol, the (77,x) label the sites, and species, On the other hand, we have

(i,j = A,B).

(i, j) label the adsorbed (313)

As usual, one may distinguish the following cases of site pair distributions: (i) patchwise distribution, distribution with finite correlation length, random distribution. In the case of single-gas adsorption the problem of surface topography was elaborated in the theoretical works by Steele[279], and by Pierotti and Thomas[280]. The case of the finite correlation length was elaborated by Ripa and Zgrablich[281]. In their study of mixed-gas adsorption, Jaroniec and Sokolowski limited their interest to only patchwise and random site distribution. For patchwise surface topography, (p), the third gas-solid virial coefficients take the following form,

(ii)

(iii)

exp

(2tgi(rl;ei)) kT dei] . fii- f~}

drzdr2

(314)

and

X(2)(eA'eS)exp(--VqA(rA;eA)--~B(rB;eB))deAdeB] " k T

BS-V-V*

A XI2B

9fAS -- f~S } drAdrB

(315)

whereas in the case of random site distribution, (r), =

exp

kT

" (f~i +

f Xi(e')exp (-2tg'(rz; ei)) de' - f~]} t2i

1)-

(3 6)

83 and CA(r) BS

/ ~V-V*

[{j (

}

" {a/BgS(eB)exp(--tgS(rB;eB))deB}

/

X(2)(eA,eB)exp (--OA(rA;

(317)

eA)kT~S(rB; - eB)) deAdeB -- f~B] drAdrB

~A X 12B

The above considerations by Jaroniec and Sokolowski were kept on a purely theoretical level. The case of partial correlations has, more recently, been considered in the paper published by Zgrablich and coworkers[187]. They applied, however, another kind of virial expansion based on the assumption that the adsorbed phase can be considered as a strictly 2-dimensional one. The 2-dimensional compressibility factor Z of that adsorbed phase was represented in their work by the following expansion:

Z = A/'r~RT =

1 + B,(T)

-~

where A/'r~is the total number of moles in the adsorbed phase, a,~ = ~A) , and Bn is the 2-dimensional nth virial coefficient, which is the function of temperature. It can be shown, that the second virial coefficient of an adsorbed mixture is a quadratic function of the molar fractions Xi's of the components in the adsorbed phase composed of i and j.

B2 = x, 2 ii + 2X XjB ' + x,2Bjj

(319)

and the third coefficient B3m is the following cubic function, = Xi B3 +

~3 +

+ Xj B 3

(320)

The coefficients/3~i and -3 fqiii have the following form,

B~i= / / d r l d r 2 f 1 2 exp (e~(rl) ei(r2))kT +

(321)

A

Biii f f/drldr2drsf12f23f31exp (ei(rl) + ei(r2) + ei(rs)) a = kT A

(322)

84 The interaction potential uij(r), between two adsorbed molecules being at the distance r is approximated by the "square well" function, oc

uij(r) =

for r < too

-kTgg for roo < r < rgg 0

(323)

for r > rgg

The crossed 2D coefficients can easily be written by expressing properly f12 functions. In the case of B~~, for instance, u12 in fij is the potential function between two molecules i and j. Zgrablich and coworkers still used the square--well function (323) to describe the interaction potential between molecule "i" and molecule "j", along with the crossed parameters, . .

=

1 [(roo)i-t-(rcc)j]

(324)

[(T,,),.

(325)

The expression (318) was used in the relation (273) to carry out the integration leading to the isotherm equation for mixed-gas adsorption. For that purpose Zgrablich and coworkers wrote the Gibbs' relation in the following form,

In

RTKH, Y~P = / fli

[0(AfZ) -10am X, RT + In L (gAfi T,A,JV, am am

(326)

O'rn

where P is the total bulk pressure of the adsorbed mixture. Eqs. (318-325) yield the following expressions for the mixed-gas adsorption, In XifliO 2 k(X.B" 3 \.~,,i~.~3 (y2Riii ' 2 + XjB~j) 0 + + I~KHiYiP ~ In

~iij 2~ 2

- } - 2 X i X j ~'3

"Jl- X.Bijj ' 3 )

02

= 0

Xj~jO 2 (XjB~ j + X,B~j) 0 3 (X~B~ j~ + 2XiXjB~ jj + X}B~ 'j) 02 + + = 0 ~KHjYjP ~ 21~~

(327)

(328)

The virial coefficients were calculated by means of the Ripa-Zgrablich generalized Gaussian model[281]. While calculating the 2D coefficients for a heterogeneous solid surface, Zgrablich and coworkers replaced exp ( ~ ~ , e(ri)) under the integral sign by these functions averaged with the following multivariate Gaussian distribution X~(e) Xn(E, T1 -- T2,..., Tn--I -- Tn) =

[(2r) ~ det HI-' exp

-~ ~ i,j=l

(e(Ti) -- ~) (H~ 1) (e(rj) - ~)

)

(329)

where

Hii = w2C(ri- Tj)

(330)

85 is the covariance matrix, and C(Ti - rj) is a certain correlation function. In the simplest case n = 1 function (329) reduces to the ordinary Gaussian function (289). Thus, for a heterogeneous solid surface, the coefficients B~i and ~-3~" take the following form,

drldr2f12exp (~--~)C(rl-r2)

B~i=--~

(33~)

A 3 = -'~

drldr2drsfx2f23fm

exp

I w 2

(~-~)[C(rl-r2)+

A

\

+ C(r~ - ~ ) + c ( ~ - ~,)])

(332)

As for the correlation function C(r), it was expressed by the formula C(r) = exp

-~

,

rc e [0,1]

(333)

where rc was called the "correlation distance" between two points on the surface. When r~ = 1 the points are totally correlated. Then, when rc = 0 they are completely independent. The case rc = 1 means patchwise topography. For two different molecules / and j, the crossed correlation parameter (%)ij was approximated by the formula

(r~),j = [(rr189

(334)

Thus,

B2= --~

where ~ = exp

--~

- 1

(337)

The second virial coefficient can be evaluated analytically in terms of the integral exponential function E~(x), (Abramowitz and Stegun[2821),

(33S) rc

w

2

1

roo

86

[

w

2

{

1 (rgg~ 2

l(roo)2}]}

(339)

;:0 The i}3) integrals were calculated by using Simpson's tridimensional integration subroutine with 1% accuracy. The calculated values were next expressed in terms of the dimensionless coefficients; B~,, B],

B2

B; = (H~L/2)

'

B~ =

Ba

(n~L/2)

(340)

After solving the equation system (327-328) one obtains the values of the individual adsorption isotherms. The adsorption isotherms calculated in that way by Zgrablich and coworkers were tested against a variety of experimental mixed-gas adsorption isotherms already reported in literature, (Szepesy and Illes[272], Lewis at. a1.[270], Markham and Benton[140]), and mixed-gas isotherms measured in Zgrablich's laboratory in San Luis.

9. T H E STATE OF ART A N D T R E N D S IN A N A L Y T I C A L A P P R O A C H E S The term 'analytical' approaches is used here for all the works which are not purely computer simulations. They include, therefore, both the 'thermodynamic' and 'molecular' approaches. Of course, the analytical approaches also involve carrying out more or less complicated and time consuming computer calculations. Most of the papers using either molecular or thermodynamic approaches were based on the models of localized adsorption. Therefore, the papers based on the models of mobile adsorption have been discussed separately in the previous section. It seems reasonable to assume that in the real adsorption systems the mixed adsorbed phase is neither perfectly mobile or localized[144,173]. The choice of localized adsorption models in some cases may be viewed as adopting a convenient t o o l - the lattice description formalism, in a similar sense as it is made in the theories of liquid state. The works in which the thermodynamic approaches were used created in literature a certain tendency of verifying various approaches and corresponding mixed-gas adsorption isotherms, through the thermodynamic consistency test, which may be expressed in a number of ways. It should, however, be realized that this test is related to the sense of macroscopic thermodynamic phase, defined in the phenomenological thermodynamics. So, while applying that test one has to consider to which extent, the adsorbed molecules in a certain adsorption system can still be considered in that way. Various approaches involve accepting various simplifying assumptions, so, the most essential test would be that stressed by the simple question - how does the approach work. In other words, how effective a particular approach is, i.e. corresponding isotherm equations, in predicting mixed-gas adsorption equilibria. The VST ( Vacancy Solution Theory) which was so popular for some time, has recently been abandoned as it does not predict correctly selectivity in adsorption of a binary mixture at very low surface coverages[283]. At the same time using VST to predict mixed-gas adsorption equilibria is easier than using other thermodynamic approaches m IAS, NIAS and HAS, for instance. The VST approach does not involve necessity of studying carefully

87 low-coverage behaviour of single gas isotherms, what may be difficult in many cases. As it was emphasized by Talu and Knabel, VST "has a built-in flexibility" due to adopting powerful though semiempirical expressions for the surface activity coefficients. These are expressions which have been used in the theories of highly non-ideal bulk solutions (Wilson, Flory-Huggins). In VST bulk concentrations were replaced by surface concentrations (coverages). Danner an coworkers used their VST approach also to adsorption systems with strongly heterogeneous surfaces. It is, therefore, obvious that the parameters in the surface activity coefficients, found by computer, reflected not only effects due to interactions between adsorbed molecules, but also simulated effects arising from surface energetic heterogeneity. As far as the behaviour of adsaorption isotherms is concerned, these two effects can simulate each other to some extent. This has been discussed recently by Koopal et. a1.[207]. That mutual simulation, however, becomes much worse in the case of enthalpic effects accompanying single and mixed-gas adsorption. Thus, Talu and Knabel showed[240] that using VST equations to fit single-gas isotherms in various adsorption systems leads to wrong predictions of accompanying heats of adsorption. Rudzinski et. a1.[262] have shown that the VST approach can still be modified further to take separately into account the surface energetic heterogeneity, and the interactions between the adsorbed molecules. Their considerations were kept on a purely theoretical level, and the applicability of that modified VST approach has not yet been prooved. As far as adsorption at one temperature is concerned the test "how does it work" may justify using some usefull analytical expressions. In addition to the classical VST approach, another interesting example of that kind may be the NICA equation proposed by Koopal et. a1.[207]. Instead of Markham-Benton (Langmuir) equation (164) these authors put the generalized Langmuir-Freundlich isotherm 0~=

(/s

"~'

(341)

1 + E ([fiP') m' under the integral in eq. (141). The values m~ < 1 may arise from either repulsive interactions between adsorbed molecules or from energetic surface heterogeneity. The values mi < 1 may also account for both of them. On the contrary, the values mi > 1 may simulate attractive interactions between adsorbed molecules. In other words, one parameter mi is used to describe the combined effect of surface energetic heterogeneity and of the interactions between the adsorbed molecules. Koopal et. al. argue that this combined effect will be different on different adsorption sites so eq. (341) should, again, be averaged with the function describing the dispersion of the parameter (/~)m~. Provided that this parameter can be expressed a s / ~ 0 e x p \-~--/, where/s is the same for all adsorption sites, and the new variable e~~ changes from one site to another, one9may assume a function X~(e~~ e~om,---, C~om)to exist, and next carry out the averaging in a similar way as it is outlined in eq. (141). Koopal et. al. assume, that c~~ are highly correlated like e~'s in eq. (~66), and that X~(~~~ is the Gaussian-like distribution function (152). Then, the result of averaging 0~ in eq. (341) with X(er176 takes

88 the following form,

8ti(p,T)=

([ffipi)m' j

(K'pi)s ~j (Rjpj) ms

1+

(342)

Koopal et al. called the above equation NICA (Nonideal Competitive Adsorption). There was a time, (the late seventies), when the Jovanovic isotherm equation was extensively used to describe mixed-gas adsorption on heterogeneous surfaces. For single-gas adsorption on homogeneous solid surface the Javanovic equation reads,

{

O(e, p, T) = 1 - exp - K p e x p

(343)

~-~

It was kineticaUy developed by Jovanovic[284], who also took into account the collisions between the adsorbed and bulk molecules while considering localized monolayer adsorption. (The kinetic derivation of Langmuir isotherm ignores these collisions). Jaroniec et. a1.[147] proposed then the following generalization of the Jovanovic equation for mixed-gas adsorption:

n

i) 8({e}, {p}, T) = 1 - e x p { - Z KiPi exp ( e~~

}

(344)

i'-1

Next, they applied the IE approach to extend it for adsorption on heterogeneous surfaces. A good correlation was obtained in that way for a variety of adsorption systems, by accepting some additional assumptions making analytical integration in eq. (8) possi-

b1~[151,175]. There are, however, certain problems related to the statistical derivation of the Jovanovic equation for which it was later abandoned. Still, some other approaches were used to describe mixed-gas adsorption on heterogeneous solid surfaces. Thus, Nikitas et. a1.[188] applied the whole theory of liquid state to describe localized and non-localized adsorption on heterogeneous surfaces. They developed appropriate theoretical expressions for both patchwise and random topography, but their considerations were kept on a purely theoretical level. Dubinin et. a1.[182] showed that the osmotic theory of adsorption might be useful in the studies of mixed-gas adsorption on heterogeneous surfaces. Jaroniec[173] and Patrykiejew et. a1.[174] attempted to extend the Kiselev's approach for collective adsorption based on the picture of associating molecules[285-289], to describe mixed-gas adsorption equilibria. Of course, considering the "associates" is only a theoretical tool to take into account interactions between the adsorbed molecules. The idea is similar to the graphs techniques used to describe nonideality effects in real bulk gaseous phases. Like in the case of single-gas adsorption, one may expect tendencies to exist toward multilayer adsorption in mixed adsorbed phases. Attempts to describe mixed-gas multilayer adsorption were started by Hill's extension of BET model in 1946. Gonzales and Holland[290] introduced in 1977 a number of simplifying assumptions to that model. A

89 year later Jaroniec and T6th[177] proposed certain generalizations of Freundlich and T6th equations for the case of mixed-gas adsorption. Jaroniec et. a1.[168] and Jaroniec[173] also attempted to use the Kiselev's approach, based on the picture of "associating molecules" to describe mixed-gas multilayer adsorption. Nowadays, there is widely spreading view that the differences in the dimensions of adsorbed molecules are an important factor affecting mixed-gas adsorption equilibria. When thermodynamic approaches are used, this factor is a source of strong deviations from ideality of the "adsorbed solution". The success of Danner's VST approach in some cases comes from using Wilson's type activity coefficients which have turned out to be very powerful in describing non-ideality effects in bulk liquid mixtures composed of molecules of much different sizes[291]. Effects arising from different sizes of adsorbed molecules are becoming now a hot topic in the works employing molecular approaches. Here not only the size, but also the structure of adsorbed molecules is very important. For molecules having a linear chain-like structure, the application of the ideas underlying the Guggenheim's theory of polymer solutions seems to be strightforward. Nitta et. a1.[190] derived an adsorption isotherm for a multicomponent gas mixture in which each molecule can occupy any number of adsorption sites on a uniform lattice of sites. Interactions among the homogeneous molecules were treated by using the Bragg-Williams approximation. Nitta et. al. also derived equations[138] for adsorption of molecules composed of different segments. Most recent attempts along these lines have been published by Russel and LeVan[292], and by Rudzifiski et. a1.[293]. Russel and LeVan have adopted Guggenheim's lattice theory of solutions[294], along with the Bragg-Williams approximation to describe the interactions between adsorbed molecules. The Guggenheim's lattice model was reduced to a 2D lattice of (adsorption) sites, but it was assumed, that adsorbed molecule may be composed of chemically different segments. One segment was assumed to occupy one lattice site, and the vacant sites were treated in the same way as monomer-solvent molecules in the original Guggenheim's theory[294]. Russel and LeVan assumed further, that different chemical segments may have their own adsorption energy distributions. If a certain segment is common for two or more different molecules in an adsorbed mixture, that fragment has still the same adsorption energy distribution. The integral equation (141) takes then the following form 0t~(p)

/ ' ' " / Oi(p,T, ~1,s ..., s163163 fh

(345)

~m

where n means as before the number of components in the mixture, ei is the adsorption energy of ith segment, and m is the number of different segments in the adsorbed mixture. Like in the case of eq. (141) Russel and LeVan considered the possibilities of reducing the m-th dimensional integral (345) to one-dimensional, by considering functional relationships between the adsorption energies ei and ejr of various segments, ei = ei(e i). For the purpose of illustration Russel and LeVan analyzed the Nakahara's experimental data for (ethene + propene) mixture on the carbon molecular sieve MSC-5A[292]. Two kinds of segments, -CH3 and = CH~ were considered in this case by Russel and LeVan. As the segments are similar with respect to the gas-solid interaction, a perfect positive correlation between e-OH3 and e=CH~ was assumed. So, the relation (172) was used to reduce the

90 integral (345) to one dimensional. Good agreement was obtained between the theoretical predictions and the experimental data. The estimated adsorption energy distributions X(eCH3), and X(e=CH,) turned out to be Gaussian-like but had different variances. There was found a broader distribution of adsorption energies for the = CH, segments. One limitation of this very interesting approach by Russel and LeVan is that it can be applied only to surfaces with patchwise topography. Multi-site-occupancy adsorption on heterogeneous surfaces having random topography has been considered very recently by Rudzinski et. a1.[292]. The starting point in their consideration was the paper by Nitta et. a1.[138] on adsorption of molecules composed of different mers, on heterogeneous solid surfaces. Rudzinski and Everett modified further Nitta's approach toward using continuous adsorption energy distributions. Then, the essential point in Rudzinski-Everett approach was to apply the theoretical considerations by Marczewski et. a1.[139] concerning the relations between one mer adsorption energy distribution Xj(ej), j = 1,2,...,m and Xm(el,e2,...,em). In the simplest case of a homogeneous molecule composed of m identical mers, the variance ~,~ of X,~(em) is related to the variance 01 of Xl(e) in a way which depends on surface topography. For patchwise topography, ~,~ = m01

(346)

whereas for random topography 0m = v/mOt

(347)

The variance 0 is related to second central moment #2 by, #2 = ~2

(348)

Marczewski et. a1.[139] also developed relations between 01 and 0,.,., for the cases when the adsorbed molecule is composed of chemically different mers. Marczewski et. al. showed that surface topography also affects the relations between higher central moments of Xm(em) and Xx(e). However, surface energetic heterogeneity manifests itself in adsorption through the second central moment (variance) first. It is related to the width of the adsorption energy distribution, which is the most crucial factor. Higher central moments describe the shape of that function, which is of a secondary importance. Thus, while considering the multi-site-occupancy adsorption on heterogeneous solid surfaces, Rudzinski et. al. took into account only the effect of the number of mers rn on the variance of Xm(em). While considering single-gas adsorption, Rudzinski et. a1.[3,294,295] took the following functions X~ (em) into consideration, . l e x p (~=-~=o) X,~ (em) =

~"

\

~"

(349)

where 0.~ = ~-Z-c~ v~ ' and (Era) ~

r) exp

-

E,~

(35o)

91 where zgm = Era. The effect of surface topography was, thus, coded in the relation 0m = zgm(m), and in the form of the condensation function ecru. Now m denotes the number of identical mers in the adsorbed molecule, and em,m is the minimum value of era. For patchwise surface topography em is given by eq. (139), whereas for random topography ec,~ is given by eq. (140). So, let us consider, for example, isotherm equations corresponding to the quasi-Gaussian adsorption energy distribution (348). Then, from eqs. (139), (149) and (348)we arrive at the following equation for single-gas adsorption on surfaces characterized by patchwise topography, (p), kT

O~P)(p,T)=

K(~')P~11 1 + K(p)p~

(351) kT

K(P) =

(m i]5 7

-~),.,.,-xK'

exp

Cl ]

(352)

where cx is the value of c for one mer. For random surface topography, (r), we have, kT

=

K(")[o~rn-1)p] K<")-(rnK')~r~lexp(e~

(353)

1+

\r

(354)

]

Depending on the correlations between the adsorpion energies emi and emj of the components i and j, one can have a variety of equations for mixed-gas adsorption, being generalizations of eqs. (351) and (353). In their first paper on that problem, Rudzinski et. a1.[291] have considered the Gaussian-like function (349). Then, for patchwise surface topography, we have, kT

e~ ) (p , T) =

K~P)P~"=~'~

(355)

1 + ~ Kj(p).~,j-,jca~ j----1

whereas for random topography, one arrives at the following equation, kT

up) C' 9"t,A(")(P,T) =

'~ r , , ( ~ - l )

1+

i <'<j

1

kr

(356)

PJ

Eq. (356) turned out to describe well the adsorption of (oxygen + carbon monoxide) mixture in the molecular sieve 10X, studied experimentally by Nolan et. a1.[298]. Nitta's approach[138] which was the starting point for Rudzinski et. al.[3, 293], follows essentially the ideas underlying Guggenheim's theory of solutions. Thus, as in the case of the paper by Russel and LeVan[292], all the equations developed by Rudzinski et al.

92 should apply to chain-like molecules rather, composed of well-defined chemical fragments - - mers. The developed equations may not, therefore, be a good tool to describe adsorption of large molecules having a compact structure. For such molecules Scaled Particle Theory (SPT) should be a better tool to describe the effects arising from different sizes of adsorbed molecules. The STP approach is essentially related to mobile adsorption model, but it seems that surface phase mobility may be of a secondary importance, compared to the effects arising from different sizes of large adsorbate molecules. Interesting remarks concerning this problem can be found in the recent paper by Frances et. a1.[210]. There is one intriguing problem related to the Langmuir-Freundlich isotherm equations for single and mixed-gas adsorption. In all the considerations presented so far, the exponent k__T < 1 was related to the dic spersion of adsorption energies on a solid surface. Keller and coworkers[265, 299, 300] have shown, that Langmuir-Freundlich equations also may be deduced by considering fractal properties of the actual solid surfaces. Theoretical studies along these lines are being continued by Giona and Giustiniani[301-303]. This would suggest that certain relations exist between fractal nature, and surface energetic heterogeneity of the real solid surfaces.

10. C O M P U T E R S I M U L A T I O N S OF M I X E D - G A S A D S O R P T I O N As in the case of single-gas adsorption, computer simulations of mixed-gas adsorption have been used primarily to study adsorption in the systems having a limited geometry. These were mainly activated carbons and zeolites of various kinds. Computer simulations of mixed-gas adsorption were actually started in 1990, by Sokolowski and Fisher[304] using the methods of molecular dynamics, and by Karavias and Myers[305] using Monte Carlo calculations. The latter method has, almost exclusively, been used in the studies of mixed-gas adsorption. Karavias and Myers studied the adsorption of (C02 + C2H4), (C02 -4-CH4), and ( C4H10 q- C2H4) mixtures in zeolite 13X. Their attention was focused on the heat effects accompanying the mixed-gas adsorption. The theoretical predictions were compared with those given by the simplified IAS theory, but no comparison with the experimental data was presented. Rasmus and Hall[306] used MC (Monte Carlo) simulations in the grand cannonical ensemble to study the adsorption of the (N2 + 02) gas mixture in the zeolite 5A. Their studies of mixed-gas adsorption were proceeded by the studies of the single-gas adsorption. Good agreement was found between the experimental and the theoretical heats of 02 adsorption, and a dramatic discrepancy between the simulated and the experimental heats of N2 adsorption reported for this system by Miller et a/.[307]. At the same time the experimental heat of nitrogen adsorption showed a behaviour predicted by the Langmuir-Freundlich isotherm. The results for the multicomponent adsorption isotherms were quantitatively correct; however, their simulation was not able to predict the mixture data quantitatively. The failure of simulation was ascribed by these authors to inaccuracies in the adsorbate-zeolite potential used in the simulation. Such an explanation can also be found in the later studies of mixed-gas adsorption.

93 Maddox and Rowlinson[308] used the grand-cannonical MC simulations to study the adsorption of (N2 q- CH4) mixture in zeolite Y. In a first step, the adsorption of the single gases was simulated[309]. A dramatic discrepancy was observed between the simulated heat of N2 adsorption, and the experimental heat of adsorption measured for this system by Hampson and Rees (personal communication). Maddox and Rowlinson ascribed it to "the omission of the quadrupolar interaction of the nitrogen molecules with the zeolite". However, an inspection into Figure 2 of their paper also shows a disagreement between the simulated and experimentally observed heats of methane adsorption. The latter heats plotted versus the adsorbed amount show a behaviour typical for that predicted by Langmuir-Freundlich isotherm. The aim of the paper by Maddox and Rowlinson was to test the predictions of IAS theory versus the computer simulations of mixed-gas adsorption. Thus, it is interesting to note that for this particular adsorption systems both these theoretical methods led to similar results. Cracknell and Nicholson[310,311] used the grand cannonical MC simulations to study the adsorption of fluid mixtures in the slit-shaped micropores which are often assumed in modelling the adsorption in active carbons. The pore walls were assumed to have a graphitic structure, and the adsorbed fluid was assumed to be a (methane § ethane) mixture. The results of computer simulations were compared with the IAS predictions considering the selectivity isotherms. In a first step the simulated single-gas isotherms were approximated by either the Langmuir-Freundlich equation, or by the Temkin isotherm equation obtained by averaging the Langmuir isotherm with the rectangular adsorption energy distribution. These isotherm equations were next used to calculate the spreading - pressure integrals. The selectivity isotherms calculated by the subsequent application of IAS were practically the same for both the Langmuir-Freundlich and Temkin equations used to approximate the simulated single-gas isotherms. These selectivity isotherms were also close to those given by the direct computer simulations. All the calculations (simulations) were done only for the temperature 296.3 K. For that reason a certain inconsistency did not affect that comparison. Namely, the heat of adsorption curves calculated for both the Langmuir-Freundlich and Temkin equations will be decreasing functions when plotted versus the adsorbed amount. Meanwhile, the heats of adsorption of the single gases predicted by the molecular simulations were increasing functions of the adsorbed amount (Figure 3 in the paper by Cracknell and Nicholson[311]). It has been known for a long time[3], that finite geometry of an adsorption system affects adsorption isotherms (pressure dependence of adsorption) in a similar way to that of the surface energetic heterogeneity. So, this is why the Langmuir-Freundlich and Temkin equations could be successfully used by Cracknell and Nicholson to fit their simulated isotherms of adsorption in the slit micropores. At the same time, however, the finite system geometry must affect the temperature dependence of adsorption isotherms, (heats of adsorption), in a much different way from that the surface energetic heterogeneity does. As has already been mentioned already, the picture of slit pores is frequently used in modelling the adsorption in the carbonaceous adsorbents. Recently a new research has emerged rigorously. This is the determination of the micropore size distribution based on computer simulations of adsorption in pores having different dimensions. Most frequently

94 the slit pore model is accepted for that purpose. The experimentally observed adsorption isotherm is assumed to be the function obtained by the following averaging HM

Ot(p, T) = / O(p,T, H)~(H)dH

(357)

Hm

where O(p,T, H) is the simulated isotherm of adsorption in a micropore the dimensions of which (the width of slit pore, for instance), are given by the parameter H. Hm and HM are the minimum and maximum values of H found in the investigated adsorption system. Next, numerical methods are used to solve the integral equation (357) to recover the pore size distribution ~r The literature concerning that problem will be reviewed in detail in the forthcoming chapters by Lastoskie, Quirke and Gubbins, and by MacElroy, Seaton and Friedman. In most of the computer simulations reported so far, it was assumed that pore walls have a regular molecular structure. This picture may be too much idealized in many cases. Recently Chmiel et a/.[312] have used MC simulations to study the single--gas adsorption in the slit micropores having energetically heterogeneous walls. Gubbins [313] has started simulations of binary gas mixtures in micropores of such a type. Bojan and Steele[314] have performed simulations of single-gas adsorption in the cylindrical micropores with an irregular molecuIar structure of pore wails. That irregular structure created energetic surface heterogeneity. MacElroy and Raghavan[315] have used another model of heterogeneous porous structures while modelling gas adsorption in the silica xerogels. They assumed that the structure of silica gel may be taken to a first approximation as uniform spheres of silica arranged to correspond to an equilibrium configuration of hard spheres. That model has been elaborated further by Kaminsky and Monson[316], who simulated also the adsorption of (CH4 + Ar) mixture in such model systems. It is frequently emphasized in the papers on computer simulations, that a proper choice of gas-solid interaction potentials is of a fundamental importance. The failure of simulation of gas adsorption in zeolites in some cases was almost exclusively ascribed to inaccuracies in the definition of gas-solid potential function and its parameters. This has also been emphasized in the works by Van Tassel et a/.[317] who studied (simulated) the adsorption of Xe, Ar, CH4 and their binary mixtures in zeolite NaA. It seems, however, that one important factor has not been yet sufficiently recognized in the computer simulations of adsorption in zeolites. Namely, zeolites are probably less regular structures than it is commonly assumed. This has, recently, been emphasized by Golden and Sircar[318]. They draw attention to the fact that many common zeolites such as A, X, Y, modernite, etc., may exhibit a substantial degree of physicochemical energetic heterogeneity for gas adsorption caused by (a) structural defects, (b) presence of trace water in the cages, (c) nonuniform distribution of silica-alumina in the framework, (d) location and distribution of one or more cations of different charge densities in the framework, (e) presence of bare and hydrolized cations etc. These factors, which can drastically influence the polarity of the adsorbent and, subsequently, the adsorption characteristics of a gas in the zeolite, may not be quantitatively known or easily modelled. Consequently, gas adsorption isotherms generated for these zeolites by simplified models of gas-solid molecular interactions can be ambiguous.

95 While finishing our consideration in this chapter, we would like to mention that as in the case of single gas adsorption, Density Functional Theory appears to be a powerful tool to study the mixed-gas adsorption in porous systems[304,319-322]. It may be competitive to computer simulations in some cases, because of its advantage of being computationally faster than full molecular simulations.

References [1] W.A. Steele, The Interaction of Gases with Solid Surfaces (Pergamon Press, Oxford, 1975)

[2] M. Jaroniec and R. Madey, Physical Adsorption on Heterogeneous Solids (Elsevier,

[3] [4]

[5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

[12] [13] [14] [15] [16]

[17] [18] [19] [2o] [21] [22] [231 [24] [25] [26]

[27]

Amsterdam, 1988) W. Rudzifiski and D.H. Everett, Adsorption of Gases on Heterogeneous Surfaces (Academic Press, London, 1992) S.J. Gregg and K.S.W. Sing, Adsorption, Surface Area and Porosity, 2nd Ed. (Academic Press, New York, NY, 1982) H.E. Neustadter and R.J. Bacigalupi, Surf. Sci. 6, 246 (1967) R.J. Bacigalupi and H.E. Neustadter, Surf. Sci. 19, 396 (1970) F. Ricca, Suppl. Nuovo Cimento 5, 339 (1967) F. Ricca, C. Pisani and E. Garrone, J. Chem. Phys. 51, 4079 (1970); Trans. Faraday Soc. 66, 959 (1970) J.E. Lennard-Jones, Proc. Royal Soc. (London) A 106, 463 (1924) G. Vidali, G. Ihm, H.-Y. Kim and M.W. Cole, Surf. Sci. Rep. 12, 133 (1991) T.L. Hill, An Introduction to Statistical Thermodynamics (Addison Wesley, Reading, MA, 1960) I. Langmuir, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 40, 1361 (1918) R.H. Fowler and E.A. Guggenheim, Statistical Thermodynamics (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 1938) M. Volmer, Z. Phys. Chem. 115, 253 (1925) T.L. Hill, J. Chem. Phys. 1.44,441 (1946) J.H. de Boer, The Dynamical Character of Adsorption (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1953) S. Brunauer, P.H. Emmett and E. Teller, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 60, 309 (1938) G.F. Cerofolini, Thin Solid Films 23, 129 (1974) A. Waksmudzki, W. Rudzifiski, M. Jaroniec and S. Sokotowski, Polish J. Chem. 48, 1741 (1974) T.L. Hill, J. Chem. Phys. 1_5, 767 (1947) J.C.P. Broekhoff and R.H. Van Dongen, in: B.G. Linsen, ed., Physical and Chemical Aspects of Adsorbents and Catalysis (Academic Press, London, 1970) ch. 2, p. 63 W.M. Champion and G.D. Halsey, Jr., J. Phys. Chem. 57, 646 (1953) J. Frenkel, Kinetic Theory of Liquids (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1946) G.D. Halsey, Jr., J. Chem. Phys. 16, 931 (1948) T.L. Hill, J. Chem. Phys. 17, 590, 668 (1949) A. Thorny and X. Dural, Surf. Sci. 299/300, 415 (1994) K.S.W. Sing, Ber. Bunsen-Gesell. 79, 724 (1975)

96

[28] H. Freundlich, Kapillarchemie (Akademische Verlag, Leipzig, 1909) [29] R. Sips, J. Chem. Phys. 16, 490 (1948) [30] R. Sips, J. Chem. Phys. 18, 1024 (1950) J. Tbth, Acta Chim. Acad. Sci. Hungaricae 30,416 (1960); 32, 39 (1962) [32] M.M. Dubinin and L.V. Radushkevich, Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR 55, 331 (1947) [33] M.G. Kaganer, Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR 116, 251 (1957) [34] J.P. Hobson, J. Chem. Phys. 34, 1850 (1961) [35] F. Ricca, R. Medana and a. Bellardo, Z. Phys. Chem. (Frankfurt) 52, 276,318 (1967) [36] B. Kindl, E. Negri and G.F. Cerofolini, Surf. Sci. 23, 299 (1970) [37] G.F. Cerofolini, J. Low Temp. Phys. fi, 473 (1972) [3s] W. Rudzifiski, S. Sokolowski, M. Jaroniec and J. Tbth, Z. Phys. Chem. (Laipzig) 256, 273 (1975) [39] D.N. Misra, Surf. Sci. 18, 367 (1969) [4o] G.F. Cerofolini, in: D.H. Everett, ed., Colloid Science, Vol. IV (The Royal Society of Chemistry, London, 1983) ch. 2 [41] A. Slygin and A. Frumkin, Acta Physicochim. USSR 3, 791 (1935) [42] M.I. Temkin, Zhur. Fiz. Khim. 4, 573 (1933) [43] M.I. Temkin and W.M. Pyzhev, Acta Physicochim. USSR 12, 327 (1940) [44] G.F. Cerofolini, J. Low Temp. Phys. 23, 687 (1976) [451 P. Cavallotti, G.F. Cerofolini and A. Casarico, in: J.M. Haynes and P. Rossi-Doria, eds., Principles and Applications of Pore Structural Characterization (J.W. Arrowsmith, Bristol, 1985) p. 171 [46] M. Jaroniec, Surf. Sci. 50, 553 (1975) [47] C.V. Heer, J. Chem. Phys. 55, 4066 (1971) [4s] B.A. Gottwald and R.A. Haul, Proc. 4th Int. Vac. Congress (Inst. Phys. and Phys. Soc. Conf. Ser. No 5, London, 1968) p. 96 [49] C. Sanford and S. Ross, J. Phys. 58, 88 (1954) [50] T.L. Hill, J. Chem. Phys. 17, 762 (1949) F.C. Tompkins, Trans. Faraday Soc. 46, 569 (1950) [5z] G.F. Cerofolini and N. Re, Riv. Nuovo Cimento 16, No. 7, 1 (1993) [53] G. Fichera, Rend. Mat. Ace. Lincei, Series 9, 1, 161 (1990) [54] J. Foran, Fundamentals of Real Analysis (Dekker, New York, NY, 1991), theorem 8.2 [551 R. Kress, Linear Integral Equations (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1989) [56] R. Courant and D. Hilbert, Methods of Mathematical Physics, (Wiley, New York, NY, 1953), vol. I, oh. 2 [57] U. Landman and E.W. Montroll, J. Chem. Phys. 64, 1762 (1976) [58] J. Jagietto, G. Ligner and E. Papirer, J. Colloid Interface Sci. 137, 128 (1989) [59] J. Jagietto and J.A. Schwarz, J. Colloid Interface Sci. 146, 415 (1991) [60] W. Rudzifiski and J. Jagietto, J. Low Temp. Phys. 45, 1 (1981) W. Rudzifiski, J. Jagietto and Y. Grillet, J. Colloid Interface Sci. 87, 478 (1982) [62] D.V. Widder, An Introduction to Transform Theory (Academic Press, New York, NY, [63] D.N. Misra, J. Chem. Phys. 52, 5449 (1970) [64] S. Soko}owski, Vuoto 8, 45 (1975) [65] G.F. Cerofolini, Chem. Phys. 33, 423 (1978) [66] J.W. Dettman, Applied Complex Variables (Macmillan, New York, NY, 1965)

97

[67] J.P. Hobson and R.A. Armstrong, J. Phys. Chem. 67, 2000 (1963) [681 N.-X. Chen, Phys. Rev. A 46, 3538 (1992) [69] D.V. Widder, Trans. Am. Math. Soc. 43, 7 (1938); Duke Math. J. 14, 217 (1947) [701 P. Brguer, M. Fassler and M. Jaroniec, Thin Solid Films 123, 245 (1985) S. Roginsky and O. Todes, Acta Physicochim. USSR 21,519 (1946) [72] L.B. Harris, Surf. Sci. 10, 129 (1968); 13, 377 (1968); 15, 182 (1969) [73] G.F. Cerofolini, Surf. Sci. 24,391 (1971) [74] G.F. Cerofolini, Thin Solid Films 26, 53 (1975) [75] G.F. Cerofolini, Surf. Sci. 47, 469 (1975) [76] J.P. Hobson, Can. J. Phys. 43, 1934 (1965) [771 W. Rudzifiski, L. Lajtar and A. Patrykiejew, Surf. Sci. 67, 195 (1977) [78] G.F. Cerofolini, Surf. Sci. 52, 195 (1975) [79] C.C. Hsu, B.W. Wojciechowski, W. Rudzifiski and J. Narkiewicz, J. Colloid Interface Sci. 67, 292 (1978) [8o] M.M. Nederlof, W.H. Van Riemsdijk and L.K. Koopal, J. Colloid Interface Sci. 135,

410 (1990) [81] N. Re, J. Colloid Interface Sci. 166, 191 (1994) [82] G.F. Miller, in: L.M. Delves and J. Walsh, eds., Numerical Solutions of Integral Equations (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1974) ch. 13

[83] C.T.H. Baker, The Numerical Treatment of Integral Equations, (Oxford Univ. Press, London, 1977) W.A. House, J. Colloid Interface Sci. 67, 166 (1978) M. Jaroniec and P. Brs Surf. Sci. Rep. 6, 65 (1986) J.B. Zeldovitch, Acta Physicochim. USSR 1, 961 (1935) M.I. Temkin and V.E. Levich, Zhur. Fiz. Khim. 20,1441 (1946) G.D. Halsey, Jr., Adv. Catalysis 4, 259 (1952) [89] M.J. Sparnaay, Surf. Sci. 9, 100 (1968) [90] S. Ross and J.P. Olivier, On Physical Adsorption (Wiley, New York, NY, 1956) [91] R.H. van Dongen, Surf. Sci. 39,341 (1973) [92] B. Kindl, R.A. Pachovski, B.A. Spencer and B.W. Wojciechowski, J. Chem. Soc. Faraday Trans. 1 69, 1162 (1973) [93] B. Kindl and B.W. Wojciechowski, J. Chem. Soc. Faraday Trans. 1 69, 1926 (1973) [94] G.F. Cerofolini, Surf. Sci. 51,333 (1975); 61,678 (1976) [95] G. Wulff, Z. Kristallogr. 34, 449 (1901) [96] L.D. Landau and E.M. Lifshitz, Statistical Physics, Part 1 (Pergamon Press, London, 1958) [97] N.I. Ionescu, Surf. Sci. 61,294 (1976) [98] G.F. Cerofolini, J. Colloid Interface Sci. 86, 204 (1982) [99] M.M. Dubinin and H.F. Stoeckli, J. Colloid Interface Sci. 75, 34 (1980) [100] U. Huber, H.F. Stoeckli and J.P. Houriet, J. Colloid Interface Sci. 67, 195 (1978) [101] M. Jaroniec and a. Madey, J. Chem. Soc. Faraday Trans. 84, 1139 (1988) [102] M. Jaroniec and R. Madey, J. Phys. Chem. 93, 5225 (1989) [103] M.M. Dubinin, Chem. Phys. Carbon 2, 55 (1966) [104] M.M. Dubinin, Progr. Surf. Membr. Sci. 9_, 1 (1975) [105] M.M. Dubinin, in: S.J. Gregg, K.S.W. Sing and H.F. Stoeckli, eds., Characterization of Porous Solids (Soc. Chem. Ind., London, 1979) p. 1

[84] [851 [86] [87] [88]

98 f106] [107] [108] [109] [110]

G.F. Cerofolini, Thin Solid Films 79, 277 (1981) G.F. Cerofolini, Thin Solid Films 27, 297 (1975) D. Avnir, D. Farin and P. Pfeifer, J. Chem. Phys. 79, 3566 (1983) P. Pfeifer and D. Avnir, J. Chem. Phys. 79, 3558 (1983) B.B. Mandelbrot, The Fractal Geometry of Nature (Freeman, San Francisco, CA,

982) [111] D. Avnir, D. Farin and P. Pfeifer, J. Colloid Interface Sci. 10.3, 112 (1985) [112] W. Friesen and R.J. Mikula, J. Colloid Interface Sci. 120, 263 (1987) [113] K. Kaneko, M. Sato, T. Suzuki, Y. Fujiwara, K. Nishikawa and M. Jaroniec, J. Chem. Soc. Faraday Trans. 87, 179 (1991) [114] M.W. Cole, N.S. Holter and P. Pfeifer, Phys. Rev. B 33, 8806 (1986) [115] E. Chang, M.W. Cole and P. Pfeifer, Phys. Rev. S 39, 12962 (1989) [116] E.V. Albano and H.O. Martin, Phys. aev. A 39, 6003 (1989) [117] P. Pfeifer, Y.J. Wu, M.W. Cole and J. Krim, Phys. Rev. Lett. 39, 6003 (1989) [118] D. Avnir and M. Jaroniec, Langmuir 5, 1431 (1989) [119] M. Jaroniec, X. Lu, R. Madey and D. Avnir, J. Chem. Phys. 92, 7589 (1990) [120] J. Zarzyki, J. Non-Cryst. Solids 95 & 96, 173 (1987) [121] L.L. Hench and J.K. West, Chem. Rev. 90, 33 (1990) [122] P.G. de Gennes, Rev. Mod. Phys. 64, 645 (1992) [123] N. Endow and R.A. Pasternak, J. Vacuum Sci. Technol. 3, 196 (1966) [124] P.T. Landsberg, J. Chem. Phys. 23, 1079 (1955) [125] C. Aharoni and F.C. Tompkins, Adv. Catalysis 21, 1 (1970) [126] G.F. Cerofolini, in: A. Dabrowski and V. A. Tertykh (ads.), Adsorption on New and Modified Inorganic Sorbents, Elsevier, Amsterdam (1995) ch. 2.4, p. 435 [127] M. Pyda and M. Kurzyfiski, Chem. Phys. 67, 7 (1982) [128] M. Pyda and M. Kurzyfiski, Chem. Phys. 79, 219 (1983) [129] G.F. Cerofolini, presented to ISSHAC2 [130] H. Frauenfelder, in Structure and Dynamics: Nucleic Acids and Proteins, edited by E. Clementi and R.H. Sarma (Adeninine Press, Guilderland, NY, 1983) p. 369 [131] Z. Xu and J.S. Moore, Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. Engl. 32, 246 (1993) [132] F.A. Cotton and G. Wilkinson, Advanced Inorganic Chemistry, 5th Ed. (Wiley, New York, 1988) [133] J. Monod, J. Wyman and J.P. Changeux, J. Mol. Biol. 12, 88 (1965) [134] G.F. Cerofolini and M. Cerofolini, J. Colloid Interface Sci. 78, 65 (1980) [135] P.M. Claesson, E. Blomberg, J.C. Frhberg, T. Nylander and T. Arnebrant, Adv. Colloid Interface Sci. 57, 161 (1995)

J.J. Ch m. Rev. 73 ( 995) [ 37] S. Ghosh and S. Ghosh, J. Chem. Ed. 72, 6 (1995) [138] T. Nitta, M. Kuro-Oka, and T. Katayama, J.Chem. Engng. Japan, 17, 45 (1984). [ 39] A.W. Marczewski, A.Derylo-Marczewska, and M. Jaroniec, J.Coll. Interface Sci., [140] [141] [ 42] [143] [144]

09,310 (1986). E.C. Markham, A.F. Benton, J. Amer. Chem. Soc. 53, 497 (1931) T.L. Hill, I. Chem. Phys. 14, 268 (1946) C. Kembal, E.K. Rideal, E.A. Guggenheim, Trans. Faraday Soc. 44, 952 (1948) .E. Hoory, and J.M. Prausnitz, Chem. Eng. Sci. 22,1025 (1967) C.S. Lee, and J.P. O'Connell, Ind. Eng. Chem. Fundam. 13, 165 (1974)

99 [145] R.A. Pierotti, and H.E. Thomas in Surface and Colloid Science (E. Matijevic Ed.) Willey- Interscience, New York (1971); Trans. Faraday Soc., 70, 1725 (1974) [146] M. Jaroniec, I. Coll. Interface Sci. 52, 41 (1975) [147] M. Jaroniec, Chem. zvesti 29, 512 (1975) [148] M. Jaroniec, J. Coll. Interface Sci. 53, 422 (1975) [149] M. Jaroniec, VUOTO 8,151 (1975) [150] M. Jaroniec, and W. Rudzinski, Phys. Letters 5..3A, 59 (1975) [151] M. Jaroniec, and J. T6th, Acta Chim. Acad. Sci. Hungaricae 91, 153 (1976) [152] K.F. Loughlin, K.A. Holborow, and D.M. Ruthven, AIChE Symp. Ser. 71, 24 (1976) [153] I.W. Perram, and E.R. Smith, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A (1976) [154] M. Jaroniec, VUOTO 9, 57 (1976) [155] M. Jaroniec, Z. phys. Chemie, Leipzig 257, 449 (1976) [156] D.M. Ruthven, AIChE J. 22, 753 (1976) [157] M. Zaroniec, VUOTO 9, 36 (1976) [158] M. Jaroniec, and J. T6th, Colloid & Polymer Sci. 254, 643 (1976) [159] V. Popa, and E. Segal, Rev. Roumaine de Chim. 21, 977 (1976) [160] M. Jaroniec, Phys. Letters 56A, 53 (1976) [161] M. Jaroniec, Trans. Faraday Soc. II. 73, 933 (1977) [162] M. Jaroniec, Colloid & Polymer Sci. 255, 32 (1977), 255, 176 (1977) [163] M. Jaroniec, and W. Rudzinski, J. Res. Inst. Catal. Hokkaido Univ. 25, 197 (1977) [164] M. Jaroniec, J. T6th, and W. Rudzinski, Acta Chim. Acad. Sci. Hungaricae 94, 35 (1977) [165] M. Jaroniec, J. Coll. Interface Sci. 59, 230 (1977) [166] M. Jaroniec, and M. Bor6wko, Surface Sci. 66, 652 (1977) [167] M. Jaroniec, J. Coll. Interface Sci. 59, 371 (1977) [168] M. Jaroniec, M. Bor6wko, and W. Rudzinski, AIChE J. 23, 605 (1977) [169] M. Jaroniec, J. Narkiewicz, and W. Rudzinski, J. Coll. Interface Sci. 65, 9 (1978) [170] M. Jaroniec, Thin Solid Films 50, 163 (1978) [171] M. Bor6wko, and M. Jaroniec, Z. phys. Chemie, Leipzig 259, 989 (1978) [172] M. Jaroniec, and S. Sokolowski, Pol. J. Chem. 52, 1561 (1978) [173] M. Jaroniec, Colloid & Polymer Sci. 256, 1089 (1978) [174] A. Patrykiejew, M. Jaroniec, and W. Rudzinski, Thin Solid Films 52, 305 (1978) [175] M. Jaroniec, J. Narkiewicz, M. Bor6wko, and W. Rudzinski, Pol. J. Chem. 5_.22,197 (1978) [176] M. Jaroniec, W. Rudzinski, and S. Sokolowski, Pol. J. Chem. 52, 395 (1978) [177] M. Jaroniec and J. T6th, Colloid & Polym. Sci. 256, 690 (1978) [178] M. Bor6wko, M. Jaroniec, and W. Rudzinski, n. phys. Chemie, Leipzig 260, 1079 (1979) [179] M. Bor6wko, M. Jaroniec, and W. Rudzinski, 69, 369 (1980) [180] M. Jaroniec, and J. Piotrowska, Colloid & Polymer Sci. 25.8, 977 (1980) [181] A. Patrykiejew, M. Jaroniec, A. D~browski, and J. T6th, Croatia Chimica Acta 53, 9 (1980) [182] M.M. Dubinin, T.S. Yakubov, M. Jaroniec, and V. Serpinsky, Pol. J. Chem. 54, 1721, (1980) [183] Ch. Sheindorf, M. Rebhun, and M. Sheintuch, J. Coll. Interface Sci. 79, 136 (1981) [184] J.K. Garbacz, A. D~browski, and M. Jaroniec, Thin Solid Films 94, 79 (1982)

100 [185] M. Bfillow, H.J. Wrapler, M. Jaroniec, and J. Piotrowska, J. Coll. Interface Sci. 85, 136 (1981) [186] M. Jaroniec, J. Coll. Interface Sci. 86, 588 (1982) [187] A. Castro Luna, I. Horas, I. Papa, C. Tagliaferro, I. Rivarola, and J. Zgrablich, Lat. am. j. chem. eng. appl. chem. 12, 125 (1982) [188] P. Nikitas, A. Anastopoulos, and D. Jannakoudakis, Chimica Chronica, New. Set. 12, 199 (1983) [189] P. Glanz, B. Khrner, and G.H. Findenegg, Adsorption Sci. & Technol. 1, 183 (1984) [190] T. Nitta, M. Kuro-Oka, and T. Katayama, J. Chem. Eng. Japan 17, 39 (1984) [191] H. Vereist, and G. Baron, J. Chem. Eng. Data 30, 66 (1985) [192] B.W. Wojciechowski, C.C. Hsu, and W. Rudzinski, Canad. J. Chem. Eng. 63, 789 ( 985) [193] M. Konno, K. Shibata, and S. Saito, J. Chem. Eng. Japan 18, 394 (1985) [194] M. Konno, M. Terabayashi, Y. Takako, and S. Saito, J. Chem. Eng. Japan 18, 398 ( 985) [195] S. Sircar, and A.L. Myers, AIChE J. 32, 650 (1986) [196] W. Nakahara, Chem. Eng. Sci. 41, 2093 (1986) [197] G.H. Findenegg, Proc. Sec. Int. Conf. Fundamentals of Adsorption (A.I. Liapis, D.H. Everett, K.S.V. Sing, Eds.) Engng. Foundation, Santa Barbara, CA (1986) [198] A.W. Marczewski, A. Derylo-Marczewska, and M. Jaroniec, Chemica Scripta 28, 173 (1988) [199] R. Rota, G. Gamba, R.Paludetto, S. Carra, and M. Morbidelli, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 27, 848 (1988) [200] U. Eiden, and E.U. Schlfinder, Chem. Eng. Process.28, 13 (1990) [201] A. Kapoor, J.A. aitter, and R.T. 'fang, Langmuir 6, 660 (1990) [202] S. Sokolowski, and J. Fischer, Mol. Phys. 70, 1097 (1990) [203] M. Moreau, P. Valentin, C. Vidal-Majdar, B.C. Lin, and G.Guiochon, J. Coll. Interface Sci. 141,127 (1991) [204] T. Nitta, A. Yamaguchi, N. Tokunaga, and K. Katayama, J. Chem. Eng. Japan 24, 312 (1991) [205] S. Sircar, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 30, 1032 (1991) [206] F.H. Tezel, H.O. Tezel, and D.H. Ruthven, J. Coll. Interface Sci. 149, 197 (1992) [207] L.K. Koopal, W.H. van Riemsdijk, J.C.M. de Wit, and M.F. Benedetti, J. Coll. Interface Sci. 166, 51 (1994) [208] C.Zhou, F. Hall, K.A.M. Gasem, and R.L. Robinson, Jr., Ind Eng. Chem. Res. 33, 1280 (1994) [209] I. Talbot, X. nn, and N.-H. L. Wang, Langmuir 10, 1663 (1994) [210] E.I. Frances, F.A. Siddiqui, D.I. Ahn, C.-H. Chang, and N.-H.L. Wang, Langmuir 11, 3177 (1995) [211] A.L. Myers, and J.M. Prausnitz AIChE J. 11,121 (1965) [212] W. H. Cook, and D. Basmadjian, Can. J. Chem. Engng. 43, 78 (1965) [213] A.J. Kidnay, and A.L. Myers, AIChE J. 12,981 (1966) [214] R.J. Grant, and M. Manes I& EC Fundamentals 5, 490 (1966) [215] A.L. Myers, I& EC 60, 45 (1968) [216] R.P. Danner, and L.A. Wenzel, AIChE J. 15, 515 (1969) [217] H.C. van Ness, I& EC Fundamentals 8, 464 (1969)

lO1 [218] [219] [220] [221] [222] [223]

S. Sircar, and A.L. Myers, Chem. Eng. Sci. 28, 489 (1973) G.A. Perfetti, and J.P. Wightman, Carbon 13, 473 (1975) L.R. Dorfman, and R.P. Danner, AIChE Symp. Ser. 71, 30 (1975) R.P. Danner, and E.C.F. Choi, I& EC Fundamentals 17, 248 (1978) S. Suwanayuen, and R.P. Danner, AIChE J. 26, 68 (1980), 26, 76 (1980) R. Reich, W.T. Ziegler, and K.A. Rogers, Ind. Eng. Chem. Process Des. Dev. 19, 336 (1980) [224] H. Dreher, and W. Kast, Ger. Chem. Eng. 3, 222 (1980) [225] E. Costa, J.I. Sotelo, C. Calleja, and C. Marron, AIChE J. 27, 5 (1981) [226] T. Nakahara, M. Hirata, and S. Komatsu, J.Chem. & Engng. Data 26, 161 (1981) [227] T. Nakahara, M. Hirata, and H. Mori, J. Chem. Engng. Data 27, 317 (1982) [228] A.L. Myers, C. Minka, and D.Y. Ou, AIChE J. 28, 97 (1982) [229] A.L. Myers, Proc. Int. Conf. Fundamentals of Adsorption held in Elmau (1982) [230] R.J. Wilson, and R.P. Danner, J. Chem. & Engng Data 28, 14 (1983) [231] B.K. Kaul. Ind. Eng. Chem. Process Des. Dev. 23, 711 (1984) [232] T.W. Cohran, a.L. Kabel, and R.P. Danner, AIChE J. 31,268 (1985) [233] S.D. Mechta, and R.P. Danner, I& EC Fundamentals 24, 325 (1985) [234] T.W. Cochran, R.L. Kabel, and R.P. Danner AIChE J. 31, 2075 (1985) [235] J.A. O'Brian, and A.L. Myers, Ind. Eng. Chem. Process Des. Def. 24, 1188 (1985) [236] A.L. Myers, and D. Valenzuela, J. Chem. Engng. Japan 19,392 (1986) [237] O. Talu, and I. Zwiebel, AIChE J. 32, 1263 (1986) [238] J.A. aitter, and a.w. Yang, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 26, 1679 (1987) [239] R. Paludetto, G. Storti, G. Gamba, S. Carra, and M. Morbidelli, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 26, 2250 (1987) [240] O. Talu, and R.L. Kabel, AIChE J. 33, 510 (1987) [241] H. Moon, and C. Wien, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 26, 2042 (1987) [242] O. Talu, and A.L. Myers, AIChE J. 34, 1887 (1988) [243] D. P. Valenzuela, A.L. Myers, O. Talu, and I. Zwiebel, AIChE J. 34, 397 (1988) [244] H. Moon, and C. Wien, Chem. Engng. Sci. 43, 2967 (1988) [245] K.E. Noll, D. Wang, and T. Shen, Carbon 27, 239 (1989) [246] G. Gamba, R. Rota, C. Storti, S. Carra, and M. Morbidelli, AIChE J. 35, 959 (1989) [247] E. Costa, G. CaUeja, C. Matron, A. Jimenez, and I. Pau, J. Chem. Eng. Data 34, 156 (1989) [248] E. Richter, W. Sch/itz, and A.L. Myers, Chem. Eng. Sci. 44, 1609 (1989) [249] G. Gamba, R. Rota, S. Carra, and M. Morbidelli, AIChE J. 36, 1736 (1990) [250] Y.D. Chen, J.A. Ritter, and R.T. Yang, Chem. Eng. Sci. 45, 2877 (1990) [25 ] E.N. Rudisil, and M.D. LeVan, Chem. Eng. Sci. 47, 1239 (1992) [252] F. Karavias, and A.L. Myers, Chem. Eng. Sci. 47, 1441 (1992) [253] S.-L. Kuo, and L. Hines, J. Chem. Eng. Data, 37, 1 (1992) [254] T. Nitta, M. Nozawa, and S. Kida, J. Chem. Eng. Japan, 25, 176 (1992) [e55] T.K. Ghosh, H.-D. Lin, and A. Hines, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 32, 2390 (1993) [2561 J.A. Hampson, and L.V.C. Rees, J. Chem. Soc. Faraday Trans. 89, 3169 (1993) [2571 H. Moon, and C. Tien, Sep. Technol. 3, 161 (1993) [2581 R. Rota, G. Gamba, and M. Morbidelli, Sep. Technol. 3, (1993) [259] J. Li, and O. Talu, Chem. Eng. Sci. 49, 189 (1994) [260] K. Miyabe, and M. Suzuki, J. Chem. Eng. Japan 27, 257 (1994)

102 [261] N. Sundaram, Langmuir 11, 3223 (1995) [262] W. Rudzinski, K. Nieszporek, H. Moon, and H.-K. Rhee, Fundamentals of Mized Gas Adsorption on Heterogeneous Solid Surfaces, Heterogeneous Chemistry Reviews 1, 275 (1994) [263] D.M. Ruthven, Principles of Adsorption and Adsorption Processes, John Willey & Sons, U SA (1984) [264] R.T. Yang, Gas Separation by Adsorption by Adsorption Processes Butterworth Pub. USA (1987) [265] J.V. Keller, Per. Bunsensges. Phys. Chem. 92, 1516 (1988) [266] B.P. Bering, V.V. Serpinsky, and S.I. Surinova, Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR 153, 129 (1963) [267] B.P. Bering, V.V. Serpinsky, and S.I. Surinova, Izv. Skad. Nauk SSSR, Otd. Khim. Nauk 769 (1965) [268] N. Sundaram, Langmuir 9, 1568 (1993) [269] W. Rudzinski, K. Nieszporek, H. Moon, and H.-K. Rhee, Chem. Eng. Sci. 50, 2641 (1995) [270] W.K. Lewis, E.R. Gilliland, B. Chertow, and W.P. Cadogan, Ind. Engng. Chem. 42, 1319 (1950) [271] S. Ross, and J.P. Olivier, On Physical Adsorption, N.Y. Willey (1964) [272] L. Szepesy, and V.IUes, Acta Him. Acad. Sci. Hungaricae 35, 37 (1963),35, 53 (1963),35, 245 (1963) [273] W. Nakahara, Chem. Eng. Sci. 41, 2093 (1986) [274] C.S. Lee, and J.P. O'Connel, Ind. Eng. Chem. Fundam. 13, 165 (1974) [275] P. Glanz, B. Khmer, and G.H. Findenegg, Adsorption Science & Technology !, 183 (1984) [276] G.H. ,Findenegg, Proc. Second Int. Conf. Fundamentals of Adsorption, Santa Barbara, CA, (1986) [277] T. Kwan, M.P. Freeman, and G.D. Halsey, J. Phys. Chem. 59,600 (1955) [278] M. Jaroniec, and S.Sokolowski, Polish J. Chem. 52, 1561 (1978) [279] W.A. Steele, J. Chem. Phys. 67, 2016 (1963) [280] R.A. Pierotti, and H.E. Thomas, Trans. Faraday Soc. 70, 1725 (1974) [281] P. Ripa, and G. Zgrablich, J. Phys. Chem. 79, 2118 (1975) [282] M. Abramowitz, and I.A. Stegun, Handbook of Mathematical Functions, National Bureau of Standards, Appl. Math. Set. 55, (1964) [283] O. Talu, and A.L. Myers, AIChE J. 34, 1931 (1988) [284] D.S. Jovanovic, Kolloid - Z.Z. Polym. 235, 1203 (1970), 235, 1114 (1970) [285] A.V. Kiselev, Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR 117, 1093 (1957) [286] A.V. Kiselev, Kolloid Zh. SSSR 20, 338 (1958) [287] G.I. Serezin, and A.V. Kiselev, J.Coll. Interface Sci. 38, 227 (1972) [288] G.I. Berezin, A.V. Kiselev, R.T. Sagatelyan, and V.A. Sinitsyn, J.Coll. Interface Sci. 38, 335 (1972) [289] G.I. Serezin, and A.V. Kiselev, J.Coll. Interface Sci. 46, 203 (1974) [290] A.J. Gonzalez, and C.D. Holland, AIChE J. 16, 718 (1970),17, 470 (1971) [291] J.M. Prausnitz, Molecular Thermodynamics of Fluid-Phase Equilibria, Prentice--Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, (1969) [292] B.P. Russel, and M.D. LeVan, Chem. Eng. Sci. (in press)

103 [293] W. Rudzinski, A. Dominko, and B.W. Wojciechowski, Chem. Engng. J. (in press) [294] E.A. Guggenheim, Miztures, Chapters 10 and 11. Oxford University Press, London

(~952) [295] T. Nakahara, M. Hirata, and H. Mori, J. Chem. Engng. Data 27, 317 (1982) [296] W. Rudzinski, K. Nieszporek, and A. D~browski, Adsorption Sci. & Technol. 10, 35

(~993) [297] W. Rudzinski, K. Nieszporek, J.M. Cases, L.I. Michot, and F. Villieras, Langmuir 12, 170 (1996) [298] J. W. Nolan, T.W. McKeehan, and R. P. Danner, J. Chem. Eng. Data 26, 112 (1981) [299] J.V. Keller, Ber. Buuserges. Phys. Chem., 1510, 92 (1988) [300] J.U. Keller, Physica, A166 (1990). [301] M. Giona, M. Giustiniani, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. (in press) (1994) [302] M. Giona, M. Giustiniani, D. K. Ludlow, L. M. Sperle, Lecture delivered at the AIChE Annual Meeting, San Francisco, November 13-18 (1994) [303] M. Giustiniani, M. Giona, L. Marelli, A. Viola, "Fractal Adsorption Isotherms: A Critical Comparison of Energetic and Geometrical Descriptions of Heterogeneity in Adsorption", published in Chaos and Fractals in Chemical Engineering, First Italian Conference, G. Biaroli, M. Giona, A. R. Giona Eds; World Scientific: Singapore (1995), pp. 49-65 [304] S. Sokolowski and J. Fisher, Mol. Phys. 71,393 (1990) [305] F. Karavias and A. L. Myers, Mol. Sim. 8, 23 (1990), 8, 51 (1991) [306] D. M. Razmus and C.K. Hall, AIChE J. 37, 5 (1991) [307] G. W. Miller, K.S. Knaebel and K.G. Ikels, AIChE J. 33, ~94 (1987) [308] M.M. Maddox ~ a J.S. Rowli~so~, J.Chem. Soc. Faraday Trans. 89, 3619 (1993) [309] G.B. Woods, and J.S. Rowlinson, J. Chem. Soc. Faraday Trans. 85, 765 (1989) [310] R. F. Cracknell, D. Nicholson, and N. Quirke, Mol. Phys. 90, 885 (1993) [311] R.F. Cracknell and D. Nicholson, J. Chem. Soc. Faraday Trans. 90, 1487 (1994) [312] G. Chmiel, L. Lajtar, and S., Sokolowski, J. Chem. Soc. Faraday Trans. 90, 1153 (1994) [313] K. Gubbins, Lecture delivered at the NATO Summer School on Physical Adsorption held in Nice (France), May 20-31 (1996) [314] W.A. Steele, Lecture delievered at the Fundamentals of Adsorption conference, in Asilomar Center, California, May (1995) [315] J. M. D. MacElroy and K. Raghavan, J. Chem. Phys. 93, 2068 (1990) [316] R.D. Kaminsky and P.A. Monson, Langmuir 10, 530 (1994), see also J. Chem. Phys. 95, 2936 (1991) [317] P.R. Van Tassel, H. T. Davis and n. V. McCormick, Langmuir 10, 1257 (1994), see also Mol. Phys. 76, 411 (1992) and J. Chem. Phys. 98, 8919 (1993) [318] T.C. Golden and s. Sircar, J. Coll Interface Sci. 162, 182 (1994) [319] E. Kierlik, M. Rosinberg, J. E. Finn and P.A. Monson, Mol. Phys 75, 1435 (1992) [320] E. Kierlik and M.L. Rosinberg, Plays Rev. A 44, 5025 (1991) [321] Z. Tan, U.M.B. Marconi, F. Van Swoll and K.E. Gubbins, J. Chem. Phys. 90, 3704 (1989) [322] Z. Tan and K.E. Gubbins, J.Phys. Chem. 96,845 (1992)

W. Rudziriski, W.A. Steele and G. Zgrablich (Eds.) Equilibria and Dynamics of Gas Adsorption on Heterogeneous Solid Surfaces

Studies in Surface Science and Catalysis, Vol. 104 9 1997 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

Application of Lattice-Gas Models to Describe Mixed-Gas Equilibria on Heterogeneous Solid Surfaces

105

Adsorption

Yu. K. Tovbin Karpov Institute of Physical Chemistry Vorontsovo Pole Str. 10, 103064 Moscow, RUSSIA

In order to describe the separation and purification of gases and liquids by adsorption [1,2], heterogeneous catalysis [3] and many similar processes, it is indispensable to describe the adsorption equilibria of mixtures of components on real solid surfaces. Early experimental data on the adsorption of mixtures were reported in papers [4,5]. Recent papers discuss a large number of binary adsorption systems [6,7]. Most of those data relate to the adsorption of hydrocarbon mixtures by activated carbons, silica gels and zeolites. A generalization of the Langmuir model for the adsorption of mixtures on homogeneous surfaces was given by Markham and Benton [8] (see also [9-11]). The energetic heterogeneity of real surfaces and the lateral interactions between adsorbed molecules can result in considerable deviations from strictly ideal behaviour of adsorbed phases on homogeneous surfaces. Calculations of adsorption equilibria are connected with a search for the optimum conditions for carrying out separation processes over a wide range of temperatures, total pressures and partial pressures of various components. In a similar way as for one-component systems, an increase in surface coverage results in a corresponding increase of the role of the cooperative effects and of the related processes of local clustering and macroscopic ordering of the adsorbed molecules. To describe real adsorption systems it is necessary to simultaneously calculate the cooperative effects and the heterogeneity of the adsorbent surface. At present, the theory of adsorption equilibrium for gas mixtures based on the lattice-gas model is elaborated at the same level as for one component systems. The equations obtained for adsorption equilibria can serve as a basis for the verification of the applicability of the simplified equations which are widely used in the description of experimental data [12,13]. Below, we will discuss the basic results obtained for the case of approximately equal sizes of the components of the mixture. This is the most commonly used assumption (explicitly or otherwise) in most papers on the adsorption of mixtures. Rejection of this assumption highly complicates the description of the adsorption equilibria. This problem is briefly considered in Section 6. Special emphasis is laid on the molecular basis of the theories and on the physical meaning of the simplifications used. Before considering the influence of surface heterogeneity and lateral interactions between adsorbed particles (Section 3), peculiarities of the adsorption of mixtures on heterogeneous surfaces are considered in the absence of lateral interactions (Section 1) and on homogeneous surfaces but including lateral interactions (Section 2). Multilayer adsorption of mixtures on non-porous adsorbents, and in

106 porous materials is also considered in Section 4. The equations for the partial adsorption isotherms are used to calculate the mixture separation coefficient (Section 5).

1. T H E O R Y OF M I X E D G A S A D S O R P T I O N O N H E T E R O G E N E O U S FACES IN A B S E N C E OF L A T E R A L I N T E R A C T I O N S

SUR-

1.1. T h e lattice gas m o d e l for adsorption of a m i x t u r e While describing surface processes, their equilibrium and kinetic characteristics usually are defined for unit surface . It means that we are interested in an average of various physical quantities which are obtained by averaging over all the local fragments of the surface. In the lattice model, the local fragments are surface centers (sites). In the monolayer lattice model, the surface of the adsorbent A can be divided into sites of area ah: A = ~--,h=l M ah, where h is the site number of the surface. For a homogeneous surface, ah = A / M , where M is the number of sites on unit surface. For a heterogeneous surface the area of a site can change from one to another. Let the site's volume be Vh = o'hd where d is the linear size of a molecule. Also, let the number of components of the mixture be s. We will limit our considerations to the case of localized adsorption. Every adsorption site can be occupied by one molecule of the mixture or it can be empty; i.e., the number of occupation states of every site is equal to s' = s + 1. In the case of adsorption of component i on a homogeneous surface, the sites of the lattice structure represent a periodically repeating area for localization of molecules, in their minima of the potential energy. On a heterogeneous solid surface, the dependence of the potential energies Ui(r) on the coordinates r (r = (x, y , z ) ) is more complicated. A wide spectrum of areas of localization will exist for adsorbate molecules having different sizes and different binding energies. The positions of these potential energy minima are, generally speaking, nonperiodic. The situation gets still more complicated when the adsorption of mixtures is considered. Even for a homogeneous surface, the potential Ui(r) for various kinds of molecules i differ, and can have different positions of the individual points: minima, maxima and saddles. Those particularities are connected with differences in the interactions of molecules with the adsorbent. On a homogeneous surface, however, the periodic character of Ui(r) is kept and the partition of the surface into sites (when the sizes of the mixture's components are equal), can be done for molecules of any kind. Then, at the center of every such point there is an energy minimum for a molecule i (for example), and other molecules j there may have other coordinates for their minima. In any case, the positions of the local minima shall not differ more than by half a lattice constant. Every site h can be characterized with a set of local Langmuir constants a~, 1 < i < s, 1 < h < M. For a homogeneous surface, Aij = a~ - a ~ , does not depend on the number of the site h. On a heterogeneous surface, the potential Ui(r) can be different for various molecules not only by the current meaning of energy and by the position of the particular points, but also by the number of the local minima N i. As a consequence, if the partitioning of the surface into sites is made according to such a rule as for a single component (the center of a lattice site ~ the minimum U~(r)), then, for various molecules i, various kinds of fragmentation can be done which may result in treating various functions by various kinds of lattice sites. In particular, the sites of the lattice for the kind i can be without

107

the local minima of energy for molecules j. In order to use the advantages of the lattice model - those connected with a discrete change of coordinates - it is necessary to formulate some more formal rules of partitioning the surface into sites. Let us remark that all the sites have more or less similar sizes though some differences cannot be excluded. This limits their differences in such a way that the main condition for the admittivity of the model could be assured, i.e. every site can be occupied or free, and every molecule can occupies one and only one site. The procedure of partitioning the surface into sites turns out to be common for all the molecules of a mixture. It requires the presence of one value of M, such that N i < M, 1 < i < s. Of course, as the support for a chosen kind of molecules g, such a kind of molecules should be used for which the condition N t = M can be fulfilled. If there are several such kinds, any of them can be used as the supporting one. To the supporting kind g corresponds a partitioning of the surface into sites with area a~ (as in the case of adsorption of one component g), as well as the local constants of the Langmuir equation. For molecules of any other kind, formally, local Langmuir constants are introduced which correspond to their volumes v~. Let us denote those constant values as a~ (g). In consequence, s meanings of the local constants of Langmuir correspond to every center h"

(i)

4(e) = f f exp [-#,d drda/F~

where ei is the binding energy of molecule i to the surface. The integrals are over the coordinate of the molecule's mass centre r, inside the site volume v~, and over the orientations of molecules ft. The formula (1) can be presented in the form [6,11]

a~(g) = F~(g)/3exp [/3Qh(g)]/F i ~= s

i [flQh(g)]

(2)

where Q~(g) is the energy of binding of molecule i to the site h, F;,(g) is a statistical sum for the molecule i on the site h, F ~ is the same quantity for the molecule i in the gas phase, and a ~ ( { ) = F;,(g)~/F ~ is the preexponential factor, l~ = (ksT) -1. On a heterogeneous surface, adsorption sites are characterized by a different adsorption capability and their coverage depends on the value of that capability. We can introduce the concept of a local coverage of the site h characterized by a~(g)" e~(g) --

a~(g)pi

,

1 + k a~(g)pi

0h(g)= ~ e~(g)

(3)

i=1

i=l

where 0},(g) is the local coverage of site h by molecules of i, Oh(g) is the local coverage of the site h by all the molecules of the adsorption mixture, and pi is the partial pressure of component i. The macroscopic coverage of the surface can be calculated from the local coverages (3), by taking the sum for all the sites M

MO~=~ O~(e), h='

M or

M

o~= M-1 E O~(e)-- M-1 E h=l

h=l 1 +

9

ai,(e)p~ fi a~(e) i=1

(4)

108 M

and similarly, 0 = ~] Oh(g)/M. h=l

Equations (4) describe isotherms of adsorption (partial ones for molecules i, as well as the full one) on a heterogeneous surface in absence of lateral interactions between adsorbed molecules. 1.2. D i s t r i b u t i o n f u n c t i o n s for various kinds of a d s o r p t i o n sites For large M, the calculation of macroscopic values by eq. (4) is not suitable. To simplify the calculations of averages, one introduces distribution functions for sites of various kinds. For the one component system, such a procedure is simply the partition of all the sites of the surface into t groups of sites having similar adsorption features. This allows us to apply a simpler procedure of calculating averages: instead of averaging over all the centers, we average over the groups of identical centers (t << M). Such a procedure means that one does not average over the space coordinates, but energetic coordinates because in the first approximation, the adsorption capability depends on the energetic binding between the adsorbent and the adsorbate. In the case of mixture adsorption, to every surface site h there corresponds s values of the Langmuir constants, and for every kind of molecule, such a partition results in its own distribution function. If one wants to keep the analogy with one-component adsorption, it is recommended that one carry out the partition with the help of molecules of supporting kind g defined in the preceding subsection. Thus, we introduce the discrete distribution function for sites of various kinds according to their adsorption capability fq(g) defined by the following relations: fa(e) = Na(g ) M '

t(O E fq(g) = 1, q=l

aq(g)in _< a~(g) _< aq(g)r~ aeq(g)in ~ atq(g)~ ,

for

1 <_ i(# g) < s,

(5)

for i = g,

where Nq(g) and t(g) are the number of sites of kind q and the number of types of surface sites with respect to molecules g. In the relations (5), it is assumed, that in the group of sites q are gathered all the sites h for which we have ath(l) = atq(1). The constants a~(1) are defined in eq. (2) where the index h is replaced by the index q for the constants depending on the molecular properties of the sites, and not on the assigned number. On the other hand, in a general mixture, the classification of sites according to identical values of the constants ath(g) leads to an absence of relations between the local Langmuir constants for other kinds of molecules aih(g). These differences depend on the nature of the interactions between the adsorbent and the adsorbate as well as on the lattice structure. The differences between a~ (g) become more important as the differences of potentials of interaction between the adsorbent atoms i and the adsorbed molecules i and g grow. In consequence, the values ah(g ) can change in a certain range from a~(g)in to aqi(g)lin, where aqi(g)fin and aqi(g)in and the smallest values of a~(g) correspond to a given kind of sites q. The last relation (5) results from the condition that the sites are partitioned into groups.

109 If the condition analogous to the second condition of (5) is fulfilled for molecule i -# g and

aiq(e)in ~ aq(e)fm ,

(6)

we can talk about a definite correspondence of the kinds of sites and the adsorption i capabilities of the molecules of various kinds. In such a case, A~,(h) = ah(ig ) - a~(g) does not depend on the number of sites h relative to the sites of kind q. The last case is usually assumed in the majority of the papers dealing with the theory of mixture adsorption . The expression for the adsorption isotherm can then be written as: t(s

Oi = ~

t(s

fq(/)Oq(/) = ~

q=l

q=l

fq(gl aq(/)pi 1 + s 4(g)pj j=l

t{l)

e = ~_. q(e)Oq(g)

,

oq(e) =

q=l

o~(e),

(7)

i=1

where 8~(g) is the coverage of the sites of type q with molecules i for supporting kind of molecules g and ~q(g) is the full coverage of the same sites. In the general case of eq. (5), it is necessary to use the multidimensional energy distribution functions f(qz,-.., q~) = N(ql, ..., q~) M '

t(1) ~""

t(~~

ql=l

cb=l

f(q~, ..., qs) = 1 ,

(8)

where N(ql, ..., qs) is the number of surface sites possessing the adsorption capabilities aq1(1) for molecules of the first kind, aq2(2) is for molecules of the second kind, etc, up to a~(s) for molecules of type s (the dimension of the function be defined by the number of components of the mixture s); 1 < qk < t(k), 1 < k < s; qk is the type of site for the adsorption of molecules of kind k, and t(k) is the number of types of surface sites for adsorption of molecules of kind k. The second equation (8) defines the normalized distribution for this distribution function. Using the distribution function (8), we can express the partial adsorption isotherms as"

0i

t(1) =

t(s)

f(ql,---,; qslaq(g)pi qs=l 1% E aJq(g)PJ j=l

~---~ ... ~ q1=l

(9)

Eq. (9) is a symmetrical picture (contrary to eq. (7)) that takes account of the adsorption capabilities of all kinds of molecules on various surface sites, but with the initial partition of the surface into sites done with respect to the molecules of the selected kind g. The use of another kind of molecule k for the partition of the surface into sites is given by some 9 ) and corresponding aq~(k) . other distribution function f(ql, ...,q,) and local constant a'h(k On the other hand, the calculation of 0i should not depend on the kind of the selected

II0 molecules at their identical sizes if they do not bind the position of the local minimum Ui(r) with the center of the site, and if one uses the formal partition of the space into areas having the sizes characteristic of the diameter of the molecules. Let us observe that the application of the idea of grouping lattice sites q causes the disapearance of the information about the spatial distribution of the lattice sites, belonging to this group. This can be done accurately only in absence of lateral interactions. When one takes into account the lateral interactions (and especially in kinetic considerations) the spatial distribution of the lattice sites of various types plays an important part and it is necessary to consider it. 1.3. T h e integral f o r m of the a d s o r p t i o n i s o t h e r m If the number of types of lattice sites t is large (1 < < t < < M), then we can integrate instead of summing in eq. (7):

#i = / f l ( x ' ) O i ( x ' ) d x ' , t xi n

~i(Xl)=

O = f f~(xe) i xitn

ai(xt)pi i+ aj(x')pj j=l

(I0)

0i(x')dx'

i=l

n

/ f (x )dx = 1 x.tx n

where x e defines the adsorption capability of molecule ~, zi,t ~ and x~i~ are the initial and the final values of x t, f t ( x l) is the continuous density distribution function of sites according to their adsorption capability, defined for molecules of kind ~. It characterizes the lattice sites existing on the unit area of the surface and having the values x t in the interval from x e to x l + d x l. The differential distribution function f t ( x t) usually normalized to unity. The a i ( x l) is usually the local Langmuir's constant for molecule i that corresponds to lattice sites h which have a given adsorption capability x e for molecules ~. Strictly speaking, instead of x t in the expression f t ( x t) one should use a t ( x t ) . Usually, however, ^ -- aq ^e = 5t ,~ c o n s t , and the basic contribution to the change of the one assumes that a~h local Langmuir constants comes from the energy of binding of a molecule to the surface Qtq = Q~h. In this case, x corresponds to this binding energy, and the upper and the lower intervals of integration are the smallest and the largest energy of binding of the molecule to the adsorbent surface. In the case of a large number of types of sites, eq. (9) can be written in the form: xL

x~o

-/.../,/xi,..., xs ax , /--'/f(xl,...,xs)dxi---dxs=l

(11)

,

Oi(x = j--1

111 where f(xl, ...,xs) is the multidimensional continuous distribution function of the lattice sites of various types having the adsorption capability from x~ to xi + dxi, 1 < i < s; the function f(zl, ...,xs) is a continuous analogue of the discrete function of eq. (8). Formally, when ones chooses the integral form of equation (10), the description of the adsorption isotherm becomes simpler. It involves a considerably smaller number of molecular parameters than in eq. (7). If we use eq. (7) we must know the t 9 s Langmuir constants, where t = t(/), and ( t - 1)is the number of h(g). Even for a simple where case s = 2 and t = 10, we need 20 Langmuir constants and 9 values of fq(g). When we use eq. (10) we must know x~,~, z~i ~, two parameters of the Gaussian distribution function fe(x ~) (for example), and the correlation between the values of ae(x l) and ai(xe). A considerable simplification can be achieved when the following conditions are fulfilled: 1) the definition of fq(g), 1 < q < t for a given adsorbent surface composition, can be approximated to a good accuracy by the distribution function fe(J) and, 2) there exist some simple relations between ae(x ~) and ai(xe). To fulfill the first condition is not obviously a difficult task but the realization of the second one is more problematic. If we assume that a simple relation between he(Z.e) and a~(x ~) does not exist, passing over to the integral form of the equation does not give any advantage in comparison to eq. (7). The reason is that in both cases (for any concrete q in (7) or for any current meaning x t in (10)), a full list of all the local Langmuir constants aiq(g) or a,(xe), 1 _< i <_ s is necessary. That is why looking for simple relations between ae(z ~) and a~(x e) is a central question in the attempt to simplify the description of the adsorption of mixtures on heterogeneous surfaces. In order to find the relation between ae(z t) and a~(x e) one should consider the molecular interpretation of the binding between molecules and the adsorbent surface. 1.4. Physics of the adsorption of mixtures on h e t e r o g e n e o u s surfaces The fundamentals of the theory of adsorption of mixtures on heterogeneous surfaces were presented by Roginski and Todes [14-17]. Those fundamentals have remained practically unchanged till the present. As a measure of the adsorption capability of the lattice sites of various kinds, one needs the energy of binding for various kinds of molecules with a certain adsorption site. The preexponential factors of the local Langmuir constants ^~(g) = 5~(x~) ~ hi are considered to be independent of the kind of lattice site. In ~h(g) = aq this case, the binary relations between the local Langmuir constants for molecules i and j on various sites x ~ were found as a functional dependence between the binding energies of those molecules:

Qj(x') =

[Qi(x')]

(12)

In fact, in most cases, the shape of the function ~2ij depends on the molecular nature of the system. Roginski and Todes separated three kinds of molecules that differ by their potentials of adsorbate-adsorbent interaction. The dominant factors are: 1) nonspecific dispersive forces, 2) electrostatic forces of interaction between the charged particles of the surface and the permanent or induced dipoles of the adsorbate, and, 3) chemical adsorbent-adsorbate interactions. 1. In the case of non-specific interactions between adsorbate molecules and the surface, their potential energy of attraction can be represented as: V = -CasoZaa/d 3, where C is a constant, depending on the ionization potential of the adsorbate molecules and of

112 the atoms of the adsorbent, aa is the polarizability of the adsorbate molecule, asol is the polarizability of the surface atoms, and d is the molecular diameter. It allows one to "separate" the contributions of the surface and the adsorbate. We may consider in the first approximation, that if we equate the adsorption heats with the potentials of interaction Qi "~ Vi "~ asotgi, gi = C o l i / d i 3, then, when passing from one part of the surface to another, the adsorption heats should also change proportionally to the local polarizabilities between the studied parts ol~ot(xl). In such a case, the ratio of the adsorption heats of two different gases should be constant to a first approximation: Qj(x e) = flijQi(x ~) ,

~ij = gi , gj

(13)

for all points of the surface, even though the heats can change according to that part. Changes in Qi and Qj for various x l, take place in the same direction (likeness, see Fig.l). If we neglect the changes of the polarizability of the molecules of adsorbate ai and aj for various x ~, the proportionality constant can be estimated from the relation ~ ~ , where Ti,c is the gas-liquid critical temperature of gas i, and bi is the Van der Waals constant for gas i. ~ij = aiaj ~

T~,r

Q2

1

3

~ ~2

Q1 Figure 1. The relation between adsorption heats Q1 and Q2 of the adsorbed mixed species: 1 - changes in the same direction; 2 - changes in the opposite direction; 3 - noncorrelated dependence (black dots)[16]. 2. In the first approximation, the electrostatic forces of interaction also result in the relationship (13) where the proportionality constant depends on the nature of the potential. In the case of adsorption of polar molecules on metallic surfaces, the mirror image potential is proportional to #2, where #i is the dipole moment of molecule i. That is why when the mirror image forces prevail in adsorption, ~ij '~

~

. In the case of adsorption

of slightly polarizable molecules on ionic lattices, the basic role (as in case of dispersive

113 interactions) is played by the polarizability of the molecules and therefore/3~j ~ ~. In aS the case of the adsorption of permanent molecular dipoles on an ionic lattice,/3ij ~ ttj u~. Thus, in the case of the simultaneous adsorption of various molecules characterized by identical kinds of interactions (dispersive or electrostatic), one should expect roughly likeness relations between all the adsorption heats. 3. Chemical adsorption. Chemical interactions are characterized by a strong specificity of binding and the character of the relations between the adsorption heats Qi and Qj for various parts of the surface can be quite different. 3-a. If one considers the adsorption of adsorbates which of a similar chemical nature, e.g., various halogens or various olefins, then one can expect likeness changes of adsorption heats while passing from one part of the surface to another. At the same time one can expect that the relationship (12) will be linear, Qj = AijQi + Cij ,

Aij, Cij -

const.,

Aij > 0

(14)

or more complicated. 3-b. When one considers the adsorption of substances of opposite functions, e.g., acids and bases, then it can be expected an antilikeness will exist in the heats. In such cases the condition (14) is fulfilled, but with Aij < O. 3-c. Finally, some situations are possible when, for two chemisorbing molecules, correlations don't exist between the adsorption heats Qi and Qj. In Fig.l, a set of points corresponds to such a case, (Qi, Qj) for various parts of the surface. Cases 3-b and 3-c should be more probable when examining gas mixtures characterized by potentials of interactions of various types. These will also depend on the peculiarities of the surface topography. When the adsorption heats of the components of a mixture are related to each other by the function (12), then if we know them and if we know the distribution function for one of the kinds of molecule, e.g. i, we can obtain the expression for the distribution function for the other kind of molecules. It follows from the fact that a group of lattice sites of surface dM can be characterized by the adsorption heats of various molecules [17] dM = fi(Qi)dQi = fj(Qj)dQj ,

or

fj(Qj) = fi(Qi)

dQi

(15)

where dQ,/dQj follows from the relation (12). Let eq mean an inverse function to ~,j(Q,). Then dQ~/dQj = e~j(Qj). The sign of the modulus concerns to the antihkeness run of the curves. The sign of eij is positive for the surface fragments dM. In a particular case, for the likeness relation (14), eq. (16) takes the form: fJ(QJ)=~~-jfi( Qj-CijAij )

(16)

When A~j = 1, the functions f~ and fj are identical. A change from Qi to Qj produces a displacement of the whole distribution by a constant amount toward increasing Q (at the positive value of Cij) or toward the opposite direction in the case of negative Cij (Fig.2a). When Aij > 0, the function fjcan be calculated from f~ by a simultaneous extension of the scales along the axis of the abscissa in Aij, one time, and diminishing of the scale

114 along the axis of the ordinates by the same amount of times. In other words, the curves fj(Qj) and f~(Q~) can be considered as similar to each another. The displacement of the whole curve along the abscissa by the value ~AO corresponds in this way to Cij # O. (see the curves on Fig.2b).

a

b

f, I

I

I

C12

2

,

I

I I

~-~ C12

Q

C12

I

C fl

I

I

I

I

f2

I I I

Q

I I I

I I l

I I i

Q

C12/2

Figure 2. Distributions of the adsorption energies of the components of a binary mixture: (a) identical distribution functions, A12 = 1; (b) similar distribution functions, A12 > 0; (c) opposite dependence, A12 < 0 [17]. For Aij < 0 there is an antilikeness change of the adsorption heats. According to (15), eq. (16) can be rewritten in the form: fj(Qj) = f~

(Co-Qj) IA,~l /IA,ji. In such a case,

the distribution fj(Qj) can be obtained from the distribution f~(Q~), with additional reflection around the vertical line Qj = -q-~, as shown in Fig.2c at A~j = - 1 . It should be noted that these conceptions about a likeness and an antilikeness of the changes in the adsorption heats of the gas mixture mean that, generally speaking, a whole range of functional relationships exist, instead the linear relation (14). These equations are partially expressible: Qj = AijQ'~ and Qj = C~j exp [-AqQi], where Aij, Cij and n are constants. In Fig.3, relationships are shown between f(Q2) and the uniform distribution function f(Q~) = const, for n > 1 (a) and between f(Q2) and the exponential function

a

f I I I

', I I ,

b

"

fl

fl --i I I I

I I I I

"-4.. ! I !

I I I I I

!

Q

I

I I I I / ~

I I

I i

I

I

Q

Figure 3. Examples of the relations between the distributions of adsorption energy for the components of a binary mixture: (a) power-law relation, Q2 = A12Q~2. For the first component, a constant distribution is shown; (b) exponential relation between adsorption energies: Q2 = C12exp(-A12Q1), C12, A12 > 0; for the first component, an exponential distribution function is used, f(Q1) = con,st, exp(gQ1), g > 0 [17].

ll5

f(Q1) = const, exp[TQl] when 7 > 0 (b). In other words, monotonic relationships are admissible: OQj/OQi > 0 in the first case and OQj/OQi < 0 in the second case, for any z I. The case 3-c corresponds to the absence of correlations between the adsorption heats Qi and Qj on various parts of the surface. That means the presence of more complicated relationships (12) than monotonic, as well as fullfilling the conditions (5). In the last case, the distribution function turns out to be multidimensional and the expression (15) is no longer true. If one uses the multidimensional functions then the calculation of the thermodynamic characteristics of the adsorption mixture becomes complicated. In order to do it, some additional suppositions must be introduced. One of the simpler ones is the statistical independence of each of the functions, x~

s

f(x,,...,xs)= H f ( X m )

,

/f(xm)dxm=l

,

(17)

d x.m

m=l

in

This case was considered to be fundamental by Roginski and Todes when considering the adsorption of a binary mixture of gases, one of which is chemisorbed and the other physically adsorbed. In Fig.4a one can see the section of a two dimensional distribution function in the absence of correlations between the distribution functions of the individual components. To any value of the adsorption energy of the second component from Q~ to Q 2fin , there may correspond any value of the adsorption energy of the first component Q~.

~

f--r-f2 ~,

'Q1 ~,

~ 9 --

"

I |

f

S ' Q1

J ' Q1 I

Q

Figure 4. Range and constant energy contours of a two-dimensional distribution function for binary mixed adsorption: (a) with no correlation in adsorption energies; (b) with correlation; (c) with an unambiguous correlation between adsorption energies. In the case of a partial correlation between the adsorption energies, a limited range of , values from Qi2"(QT) to [')fin ~2 (QT) corresponds to O~(Fig.4b) (i.e. not the whole interval (-}fin from Q~ to , ~ corresponds to a particular energy Q~). This situation corresponds

116 to condition (5). This case of course, corresponds best to the real physical nature of adsorption of mixtures but it is the most complicated. This is because in equations (9), (11) the order of integration (summing) is very important, according to the "internal" variables from the dependence of their initial and final meanings on the current fixed meanings of the other "exterior" variables. Functional relationships between the adsorption heats (12) mean strong correlations: to every value of Q~ there corresponds a certain single value of Q2(Q~). Such relations correspond to the conditions (6) (see Fig.4c). They are fundamental for practical calculations and they are going to be considered in more detail further on. General expressions for the partial adsorption isotherms with multidimentional energy distribution (for any number of components mixture) were given first in a paper by Balandin [18]. The author used, however, only the case of the complete similarity of the individual distribution functions. Jaroniec and Rudzinski [19-21] gave a deeper consideration of the case of multidimensional energy distributions. A practical application of that idea meets many difficulties and cumbersome calculations are necessary. In the paper [20] the isotherms of two binary adsorption systems were described: ethane-ethylene/carbon (Nuxit AL) at 333~ (experimental data by Syepesy and Illes [22]) and CO-N2/CsI at 83.56~ (experimental dat~ by Tompkins and Young [23]). Assumption (17) was widely used in the first papers by Roginski and Todes. It somewhat simplifies the calculation which still remains complicated. The unavoidability of calculating the effect of competition for various kinds of molecules does not allow one to simplify the expressions for the local adsorption isotherms, even for the case described by eq. (9). That is why a calculation of the isotherms is indispensable. This assumption was used in paper [20] to describe the adsorption data for the mixture (CO + N2)/CsI [23]. Jaroniec[21] has pointed out that the use of the extended empirical equation of Jovanovic for gas mixtures on a homogeneous surface has the form: 0({p}) = 1 - exp [- ~i~__1Kipi] for the local isotherm. Then using the approximation (17), one obtains the following expression for a heterogeneous surface:

0({p}) = 1 - 12i f exp [-Kipi] f(xi)dxi = 1 - 11I (1 - 0i(pi)) i=l

9 xl.

(iSa)

i--1

where the 0i(pi) are adsorption isotherms of the individual components. When s = 2, a similar equation was obtained by Roginski and Todes [14,15] who postulated that it is valid for any kind of adsorption isotherm for the pure components. Misra [24] proved that the result of averaging a local isotherm of Jovanovic with an exponential distribution function can be effectively approximated by the classical Freundlich isotherm. Jaroniec then obtained the following general form of Freundlich's isotherm for gas mixtures [21] ..F ~2 -lxlr~2Pl T.F..F ~1P2~2 , 0 = K F p ~ l+ix2p2

(18b)

where K F and 0i are the parameters of the Freundlich equation for the pure gases. This equation was used for the description of experimental data for the binary systems (CO +

117 N2) and (At + 02)[23]. Other results of this approach have been discussed in a survey by Jaroniec and Madey [12]. 1.5. Simplified m e t h o d s of describing the a d s o r p t i o n of gas m i x t u r e s In the subsection, the partial adsorption isotherms for mixtures with functional relationships between the adsorption heats of various molecules are discussed for ideal adsorption.

1.5.1. Quasi-Homogeneous Heterogeneous surface The term "quasi-homogeneous surface" to describe the adsorption of mixtures on heterogeneous surfaces had been introduced and applied by Balandin in his theoretical paper on catalytic processes [18,25]. The expression means a full similarity of the adsorption heats of the components - a case where the change of adsorption heats of various components remains constant (see Fig.2a) when passing from one part of the surface to another. This is the simplest form of relationship (14): Aij = 1, and it leads to the following relationship between the Langmuir constants for various molecules: ai(X i) -- aj(Xi)~ij

,

~ij =

~ / ~ j exp{-~Cij}

,

(19)

(For simplicity, the index g is omitted below). In fact, the condition (19) removes the concentration differences of kinds of molecules in relation to sites of various kinds. In such a case, eq. (10) has the form: Xfin

0= / Xin

f(x)a,(x)p~f dx , 1 + a~(x)pef

0i = 0~ig p---Li Per

(20)

Per = ~ 6ijpj j=l

It can be seen from the above equations that the total coverage of the surface 0 with the molecules of a mixture appears as if it were concerned with one a kind of molecule g at the effective pressure p~f. Balandin applied in his papers a constant and an exponential distribution function. For the first distribution function, he arrived at a generalized form of the quasilogarithmic isotherm of Temkin for a gas mixture:

0i =

Pi . in (1 + a ~ A i ) Aifl(xfm - Xin) 1 + a~Ai

Ai=~ '

s j=a ai

(21) '

_fin and a iis are the Langmuir constants for the lattice site characterized by the where ui greatest and smallest adsorption heats, respectively. His equation was repeated many times in other papers (see e.g. [26-28]). Temkin has shown [27] that the condition (19) allows us to write a partial adsorption isotherm for the components of a binary mixture of A and B, provided that we know the adsorption isotherm of the pure substance 0A = F(0A), where F is a functional relation such as: OA = p A F (r)/~r where r = PA + 5ABPS. In particular, when the pure component

118

0 <_ 7 ~ 1, then the partial isotherm is described by Freundlich's isotherm 0A = I'(~pA, F of a mixture of A and B can be expressed as: OA = KFAPA/(PA + 8ASPS) 1-'Y. In the paper [26], the condition (19) had been used to obtain equations for partial isotherms by generalizing the quasilogarithmic (for dissociating molecules), negative power and Freundlich's isotherms for an arbitrary number of components , and also can be adopted to express configurational entropy and enthalpy. In particular, in the middle coverage range, for negative power distribution functions, the system of equations for the $ partial isotherms can be expressed as: a~ = D (1 - 8vDS), D = y~/~-~j=~ yj, where 0v is a portion of free surface (6v = 1 - 0). Here, yi is related to the sites characterized by the maximum adsorption heats with 1 > ~ > 0 by y~ = (aipi) 1/m~, where m is the degree of dissociation of the molecule i in the gas phase. The value rni is usually equal 1 or 2. Relations (19,20) make it possible to use the results obtained for one component systems. Thus, the isotherms of pure substances can be extended to mixtures. In this way, in paper [29] a total adsorption isotherm was obtained which turned out to be in the general form of the empirical four-parameter equations of Marczewski and Jaroniec [30] and of the equation by Dubinin and Astakhov [31]. In the first case, the total isotherm has the following form:

( ( a ~ p e f ) k ) ~/k 0 = 1 + (a~pef)k where a~ is the Langmuir constant of the species ~, for the sites having the maximum adsorption heats. From the above equation, other empirical equations follow. They are generalizations of the Langmuir-Freundlich isotherm when 0 = k (the Toth isotherm when = 1, and the generalized Freundlich isotherm when k = 1). In the second case, the total isotherm can be expressed as: 0 = exp { - B ~

j (~-~f) }

where B ~ is a parameter related to the surface heterogeneity, and pat is the energetic parameter for the l'th component. From this formula, at j = 1, one obtains the Freundlich isotherm, and with j = 2, the Dubinin-Radushkevich isotherm. From the partial isotherms (20), we can obtain the linear relationship:

Oi ~il Pi In ~j = In ~jl + in--pj

(22)

The slope of the expression is equal to 1 for both a homogeneous surface and for the quasihomogeneous heterogeneous surfaces. Its deviation from unity means that condition (19) was not fulfilled.

1.5.2. Other Relationships (14) Tompkins and Young [23] and Glueskauf [32] considered the adsorption of a binary mixture on a heterogeneous surface with an exponential site energy distribution function and with C~j = 0 (14). The authors found two characteristic cases: c~' < c~' + R T and c~' > d~ + RT, where c~ is the heat of adsorption of molecule i on a completely covered surface. In the first case, the adsorption isotherm at medium coverage of molecules of

119 the 1st kind, in the presence of molecules of the second kind, is similar to the Langmuir isotherm: 01 = Kip1/

_(<7'1<7') }~ pl + ~,x-21-,2

,

a = (e~ -

RT) 1~7,

r

e~ > RT

(23)

At small values of pl the relationship (23) is linear, and at large values of pl the relationship (23) saturates. In the second case, in the range of medium total coverage, the molecules of the first kind - even in presence of a large excess of the second component - follow the Freundlich isotherm" 01 = KI{pl/[p~ ~'/<7) + g2p2]}RT/(<7-~7). There is, however, a tendency toward saturation at larger coverage. If the surface is practically saturated and it contains an excess of the more strongly adsorbed component, then in both cases, the condition (22) is fulfilled. Some more convenient correlational relationships than formula (22) were suggested by Jaroniec [33] based on the following generalization of the Langmuir-Freundlich equation for gas mixtures: 0= ~

1 +

(a;Pi)~

'

oi =

O(a;pi)e

(24)

E(arpi) '~

i=l

i=l

where ~ is a parameter of heterogeneity which characterizes the adsorption of all the components on a given surface, a~ corresponds to the Langmuir constant for the component with the maximum adsorption heat. According to formula (24), there is a relationship between the partial isotherms:

Oi

a~'

Pi

&~'

pj

ln~ = ~ln-- +~ln--

(25)

A complete survey of the application of correlations was given in [12].

2. A D S O R P T I O N O F A M I X T U R E O N A H O M O G E N E O U S WITH LATERAL INTERACTIONS BETWEEN ADSORBATE LES.

SURFACE MOLECU-

The body of experimental data on the adsorption of gas mixtures on homogeneous surfaces is significantly smaller than for the adsorption of single components. Nevertheless, the available data suggest strong mutual interaction effects to exist between the components of an adsorbed mixture. For example, from the experiments on the diffraction of slow electrons by single crystals of platinum metal, data were obtained suggesting that in CO and 02 systems there are present either as stratified and ordered phases of individual components or mixed ordered phases, coexisting with an ordered stratified phase [34]. Mutual attractions between adsorbed K atoms and CO molecules on Ru (0001) faces accelerates the desorption process and modifies significantly the nature of the thermal desorption curves in comparison to analogous curves obtained for the individual components [35,36]. These data emphasize the importance of the lateral interactions which determine

120 the non-ideality of adsorption systems. For description of these interactions, various thermodynamic approaches were used. The first attempts were presented in [37,38] as well as by Bering and Serpinski [39,40,41]. Further development of this trend was reflected in the numerous papers published by different authors e.g. Myers and Prausnitz [42], Hoory and Prausnitz [43,44], Bering and Serpinski [45,46] (more detailed information is given in [47]; discussion of these trends is not a subject of interest here.) Lateral interactions in mixtures of adsorbed gases were considered using virial expansions[48]. Calculations made on such a basis are, hovever, time-consuming. At present semi-phenomenological models based on the concept of local composition are widely used [49-51]. Lattice-gas models allow one to check the competency and accuracy of different semi-phenomenological models. We shall discuss lattice-gas model with the pair potential interactions between adsorbate - adsorbate. At first the equations for partial isotherms adsorption of binary mixtures have been obtained by Temkin [52]. This equations take into account a lateral interaction in the mean field approximation between the nearest neighbors. Later such equations for multicomponent mixtures have been considered by Jaroniec et al [53] and by Tovbin [54]. For the adsorption of binary mixtures the quasichemical approximation was introduced first by Barter and Klinowski[55], whereas for multicomponent gas mixtures it appeared first in [54]. Vicinal neighbors make a major contribution to the energy of lateral interactions amounting to about 70-90% of the total energy. The remaining energy is connected with contribution of more and more distant neighbors. As in the analysis of single gases [56], these contributions significantly influence the equiliibrium and kinetic characteristics by changing either the numerical values of the estimated quantities or the conditions of realization of a condensed state (and therefore the transitions between different condensed states). A generalization of the theories of the adsorption equilibria of mixtures by considering contributions from the second and more distant neighbours was given by Tovbin [57,58]. Closed equations were obtained in the mean field approximation, in the quasichemical approximation, and in the superpositional approximation (the last one is more accurate approximation than quasichemical). Let us limit the discussion to the first two approximations. We measure the distances between molecules by the numbers of the coordination sphere; z(r) is the number of sites in the r-th coordinational sphere (z(1) = z). Let s be the interaction of molecules i and j at the distance r; the interaction of the molecules i with the free sites is equal to zero ei~(r) = 0. The potential of every pair of molecules ij is characterized by its radius of interaction Rij. Let us choose the largest Rij and denote it by R. The equations of partial adsorption isotherms for multicomponent mixtures have the following form [58] Oi =

aipiSi [1"~t]j--'l ~" "pj'~j

(26)

The structure of the equations for the partial adsorption isotherms (26) is maintained at any radius of interaction R. The expressions for the function Si (which is used to consider the non-ideality of the adsorption system) change for different approximations.

121 In the quasichemical approximation, the functions of non-ideality of an adsorption system have the form: R

Si "- H[Si(r)]-z(r)

,

Si(r) = 1 +

r=l

xij(r)tij(r)

(27)

j=l

xij(r) = exp {-/3eij(r)} -- 1, where tij(r) = Oij(r)/Oi, and 0ij(r)is the probability of finding molecules i and j at a distance r. (Thus the function tij(r) is a conditional probability). For the functions 0ij(r), we have the following system of equations

(2Sa)

0ii(r)0jj(r) = 0~(r)exp {/3 [en(r) + ejj(r) -- 2eij(r)]}

s+l

Z 0,j(r) =

(2Sb)

j=l

which has a well-known form for R = 1 resulting from the theory of solutions [59,60] (but here R > 1). The system of equations (28) can be solved with respect to the unknown values 0ij(r) at fixed values of the partial coverages 0i. The dimension of the system of equations (28a)is equal to Rs(s + 1)/2, and increases rapidly with an increase in the number of kinds of molecules s. But, as previously noted [61] (for R = 1), the system of equations (28) can be reduced into an identity 1 - 1, when new variables X~(r) are introduced with the help of the relationships:

O,j(r) =

ij(r)X (r)Xj(r),

aij(r) = exp {fleij(r)}

(29)

After that, the functions 8~ and S~ in equations (27) and (28b) must be re-written in terms of the new variables: s+l s+l Si(r) -- E X j ( r ) / E Xj(r)aij(r) ' j--1 j--1

s+l 0i -" xi(r) E Xj(r)t2qj(r) j--I

(30)

This sharply reduces the dimension of the system (28) [561. The solution of the system (28) when surface coverages 8i are small, can be written as: 8i~(r) = 8,8j exp[~e,j(r)] : for every distance, the average fraction of neighbouring pairs of molecules i and j depends only upon their direct interaction. The attraction increases and the repulsion diminishes the number of pairs ij. In the mean field approximation, we have the following expression for

[

Si = exp / 3 E r=l j=l

z(rl%eij(r)

I

= exp ;~z

]

eijSj j=l

,

122 R ~ij = Z Z(~)'~j(~)/Z, r=l

In the first equality, the contributions of the second and further neighbours enter additively to the index of the exponential function. They can be re-grouped and, as can be seen from the second equality, give the concentration dependence of the function Si upon 0i. Thus, the calculation of the long range contribution to the interaction results in a change of the short range eij(1) into the effective parameter ~ij. Its value can be determined by the shape of the cij(r) and by the structure of the surface (as shown by At small interactions both approximations give similar results. But for an increase of ~eij, the difference between them is related to the fact that Oij(r ) differs from the product 0~0j which defines the function 8~*j(r) = 0~0j in the mean field approximation.

0.5

~

01,02

0.3

3

7 / /

///4

01156 3 9 15 21 lnP1 Figure 5. Partial isotherms for the first (curves 1 - 4) and the second (curves 5 - 8) components of a binary mixture with z=4,/3ell = -4, and/3e22 = -8. ~ex2 = -1 for curves (1, 3, 5, 7); -4 for (2, 4, 6, 8). aa > a2 for curves (1, 2, 5, 6) and aa < a2 for (3, 4, 7, 8). Fig. 5 shows some typical binary chemisorption isotherms for a wide range of surface coverages. The initial and the final values of the partial pressure pl change by 5.104 at a fixed p2. Curves 4 and 8 qualitatively correspond to the behaviour of C O and 02 on the platinum metals [61-63]. At small pressures, two variants are possible, depending on the relation between Ya and Y2, yi = (aipi) 1/m~. When Yl > Y2, the coverage of the surface by the first component is larger than the coverage by the second component and vice versa, when Ya < y2. When the pressure Pa increases, the lateral interaction of the adsorbed particles starts to play its role. In such cases, the sign of the parameter e12 is very important. The curves 1 and 2 correspond to the case al > a2. The value of 81 for attraction between particles 1 and 2 is greater than in the case of their mutual repulsion. The fraction of the second component increases if there is attraction between particles 1 and 2 and decreases for repulsive interactions (the curves 5 and 6). The same shape of the curves, only in a more explicit form, is observed for al < a2 (the curves 7 and 8). It should be noted here, that 7 passes through the maximum and diminishes when pl continues to grow. This is connected with the substitution of particles of the second kind

123 for adsorption of the first component. A comparison of curves 1 and 3 shows, that with growing coverage by the second component, the surface coverage by the first component increases more quickly than their attraction. The mutual repulsion of molecules of various kinds causes a decrease in the adsorption of both components. A detailed comparison of the physical adsorption isotherms of a binary mixture with their individual isotherms was carried out by Barrer and Klinowski [55] for various values of the lateral interaction parameters and relations between the Langmuir constants. The calculations were carried out for an equimolecular gas mixture with increasing total pressure of the system P = pl + p2, and with Pl/P~ = const. Fig.6 shows the characteristic curves for the adsorption isotherms calculated in this paper. The full lines represent the partial isotherms, the dotted lines correspond to the pure components (the parameters wij of the paper [55] are connected with the parameters used here by % = -2w~j/z).

a

b

c

1.0 0"8 !0.6

B

0.4 tZD

< tZD

B ~

-

B.

0.2

0.8 -

,

0.6-

/

A

y a ~ """ -

B

0.4-

-

tt

,

-

i

I

0.2 00

A,' " ~

.~

40

80 120 160

d

0

40

- BtfB t A

r~

-

I~ tla I

-

t

80 120 160 0

e

40

/

80 120 160 200 pressure/Tort

f

Figure 6. The dashed lines show isotherms of pure A and B. The full lines denote partial isotherms of A and B in their 1:1 mixture. Here, z=4, ai = (p.)-I with i=A,B; P~, = 760 Torr, P~ = 380 Torr. Values of ~wAA: (a) through (c), 0; (d) through (f),-2.303. Values of ~WAB: 1.151 in (a), (e), and (f,);-2.303 in (b);-3.354 in (c);-1,151 in (d); ~WBB: 0 in (a) through (e);-2,303 in (f)

[~5].

Weak repulsion between molecules A and B results in a decrease of adsorption of both components, for zero parameters of the pure gas interactions (a). Their attraction increases the adsorption of both components (b). A strong attraction of various components (c) results in a stepped change of the adsorption of both components. This case can be considered as the formation of dimers AB, for the relation 0A : 0B .w. 1 : 1. In their shape,

124 such isotherms are similar to the experimental isotherms [64] for the equimolecular mixture of NH3 and HCI sorbed in zeolites. The calculations confirm the existence of a strong interaction between the sorbed pair N H 3 . . . HCl. At high temperatures (245-315~ each gas taken separately hardly adsorbs. 1.0

-

Oi

0.5

--

2 .,.

m

.

.

.

.

.

1 m..-.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

s s

"

"

"

""

3

s

I

- 16

-

-

I

I

I

-9

-2

5

In P

Figure 7. The effects of second neighbors on the partial chemisorption isotherms of a binary mixture. The quasi-chemical approimation is used with z=4, XA=0.1, T=450 K, QA=30, QB=27 kcal/mol, a~4= a~=104 Torr, /3eAA(1) = --2 kcal/mol, eBB(r) = 1.2EAA(r), EAB(r) = (eAA + s r-'l a n d 2; e2 = 7eAA(1), with 7 = 0 (curve 1), 1/3 (curve 2),-1/3 (curve 3). As the total pressure P rises, a surface is fined faster when attraction of the second neighbors is included and slower with repulsion, relative to absence of the second neighbor contribution. The genera] influence of lateral interactions remains the same when one allows for the contributions of the second neighbors; however, as attractions with the second neighbors increases, the tendency to form regular adsorbed films becomes larger. Hence, one has to take account of these effects upon monolayer ordering. For the systems with a strong enough attraction between A and B, and an absence of interactions between molecules of B (d, e), the attraction or the repulsion between the molecules A and B changes their partial isotherms in various ways. In the first case, the attraction between A and B keeps them together and the divergence between the partial isotherms is considerably smaller than in the second case. In both cases, there can be observed an adsorption substitution of the component B simultaneous with an increase of

125 component A. When the molecules repel each other, the quantity of displaced molecules of B increases and the maximum on the curves 8B(P) is moved toward smaller pressures (e). In such a case, one can observe a loop on the curve 8A(P) which is a witness of an instability in the adsorption system. Depending on the correlation between the parameters of the intermolecular interaction and the partial coverages and temperature of the system, its one-phase disordered state can become energetically unfavorable and condensation can take place. The concentrations of the co-existing phases can be determined from the material balance as well as from the equality of the chemical potentials in the system [65]. The number of phases which originate in the many-component adsorption system is considerable and should be treated separately. This question has been investigated only slightly (see ref.[56,66,67]). Changing the lateral interactions between molecules B (f) at constant values of the other parameters produces a change in the kind of gas removed from the surface. In this way, the lateral interactions can essentially influence the equilibrium characteristic of an adsorption mixture. The effect of contributions of the second neighbours on partial adsorption isotherms are shown on Fig.7. While concluding this chapter, we shall compare the equations obtained using the quasichemical approximation with the concept of local composition introduced by Wilson [49]. The importance of this concept is contained in the fact, that the ratios of the molar concentrations of the components j and k in the vicinity of can be expressed with the help of the Boltzmann approximation xJ---Li= 0j exp [flCjk]/Ok,

Cjk = eji -- eva ,

(32)

Xki

(A positive sign of parameters corresponde to attraction of molecules - another sign is used in papers [49,50]). According to the definition of the above pair-functions t~j (here R = 1), they are identical to the xj~ [49]. At small coverage, it can be seen that the relationship (32) is fulfilled. But in the general case, equation (32) is not accurate and any further considerations based upon it result in half-phenomenological models. Their parameters have no clear molecular interpretation and they can be treated only as empirical. For example,the application of equation (32) does not reflect condensation in the solutions. In order to describe this effect, one should introduce additional parameters or modify the models [50,51].

3. D E S C R I P T I O N OF A G A S M I X T U R E ON A H E T E R O G E N E O U S FACE T A K I N G A C C O U N T O F L A T E R A L I N T E R A C T I O N S

SUR-

3.1. General remarks The most important problem in the theory of adsorption is the simultaneous description of the effects of the surface heterogeneity and lateral interaction upon thermodynamic properties. In this case, one must consider a joint realization of all the previously considered effects: adsorption substitution of the molecules of various kinds (competitive adsorption) and cooperative behaviour in the adsorption system, as well as redistribution of molecules on the various types of sites on a heterogeneous surface. The complex character of the

126 joint effects of heterogeneity and lateral interactions has stimulated the development of various thermodynamic approaches and semi-phenomenological models. The best known were presented in the papers by Hoover and Prausnitz [43,44], Myers [68], Nakahara [69], Bering et al. [70-72], Danner and co workers [73-75] and their modifications. For small coverages it was Jaroniec [76] who used a virial approach to describe these adsorption processes. Various empirical equations are applicable only for narrow ranges of concentrations and temperatures and their forecasts should be verified by more rigorous theories. They also can help to determine the ranges of concentrations and temperatures where empirical relationships can be considered as well-grounded scientifically. Theories considering both heterogeneity and lateral interactions, based on the model of a lattice gas started more than ten years ago [77-80] (see also [56,62,81]). In these theories, the surface of the adsorbent is considered to be practically unchanged during the adsorption of any component of the mixture and at any concentration. It allows one to consider as stable all the distribution functions used for the description of the composition and for the structure of the adsorbent surface. To describe the surface composition the function used is the distribution of sites according to their adsorption capability (see section 1). Surface structure can be depicted in various ways that differ only in the accuracy of their descriptions. The most exact is obtained by considering a given arrangement of a set of sites on a certain rather small fragment of the surface. If translational operations on the surface repeat such treatment, then the given fragment approximation turns out to be suitable. Otherwise, in more complicated situations, it may be necessary either to increase the size of the fragment or to simplify the description of the surface structure. In the latter case, a cluster approximation can be applied, or the even simpler pair approximation. In the cluster approximation, the surface structure is described in terms of a cluster site distribution function d(q{m}R). It characterizes the conditional probability of finding a cluster consisting of a central site of type q and of its zq(r) neighbours among which there are mqp(r) sites of type p and for which the following relationship is fulfilled: ~-]~p=~ t mqp(r) = zq(r), 1 < r _< R. Here R is a radius of interaction equal to the greatest value of all the radii of the pair potentials of interaction between molecules i and j, where 1 < i,j < s, and s is the number of components of the gas mixture. In the pair approximation, the structure of the surface is described in terms of the distribution of pairs of sites fqp(r), characterizing the probability of finding a pair of sites of type qp on the surface separated by distance r. Those functions obey the relations: ~-']~p=lfqp(r) = fq, l
127 3.2. A d s o r p t i o n i s o t h e r m s The equations which describe the distribution of adsorbed molecules on a heterogeneous surface can be considered from the viewpoint of the accuracy of calculating the correlation effects (the mean field and quasichemical approximations) as well as the accuracy of calculating the surface structure. The most detailed description of the interacting molecules can be obtained by a "site-by-site" consideration of a certain fragment of the surface (a fragment approximation). In such a case, one investigates the partial coverages of every site of the fragment. Such a detailed description allows one to analyze the distribution of the molecules within the fragment, at any displacement of the sites of various types, i.e. the description is carried out in the real coordinate space and not in an energy space as done when one uses surface composition distribution functions. Cluster and pair approximations are intermediate approaches. Let us illustrate this by an example of application of the average description of the surface structure by the pair distribution functions . The equations representing a more exact description of the surface structure were published in [56,80,81]. In all the approximations, the contributions from every coordination sphere can be calculated independently. Differences are connected with keeping or abandoning the correlation effects. This leads to various forms of the equations. The coverage of the surface by molecules of i (partial isotherm) is given by the expression: t(0

0i = E

t(g)

fq(g)0iq(g) ' E

q= 1

fq(g) = 1,

(33)

q= 1

where the local coverages of the sites of various types are calculated from the following equation system (0~ = 0~(g))" R i v = eqi H %pieq

[Siq(r)]zq(r) ,

~"~ eqi eqv = 1 - a..,

r= 1

(34)

i= 1

For the quasichemical approximation: siq(r) = [1 + ~

dqp(r) ~I~ tqp(r)Xqp(r) ij ij ] ,

p=l

t~(r) = O~(r) ,

j=l

(35)

Oiq t

xiJqp(r)= exp (--/3eiJqp)-- I,

E

dqp(r)= 1,

p=l

where dqp(r) = fqp(r)/fq is the conditional probability of finding a site of type p at a distance r from site of type q, 1 < r < R, and the functions 0~J(r) give the probability of finding molecules i and j on the sites of type q and p on distance r. For every value of r the pair functions 0qp(r) ij can be calculated from the system of non-linear equations"

O~(r)t~J~(r)

"i ii e i ~ ( r ) - e"~ ( r ) e- i ~ ( r ) ] } = O~(r)t~qp(r) exp {~ [eqp(r)+

s+l

E0~(r) j=l

s+l i

=/gq,

E0~(r) i=l

= ~ ,

(36)

128

0.5-

/~2

b

Oi

1.0-

1.0- Oi

3/ 2

0.5-

1

3~ .... / . . . .

. - _ -_ _ 2--_3

1

I

I

I

i

-1

2

5

8

11

Oi

C

i

1

I

l.O"

1

s-

lnP

~

1.0"

//I

2

-1

5

8

I

11

lnP

d

0A

/

2

1

0.5

0.5"

4

3 I

i

i

4

2

. . . . . . . . . . . :::::::-==-::1 i

7

i

!

!

!

!

2 5 8 11 lnP -1 Figure 8. Partial physical adsorption isotherms of a binary mixture in the quasi-chemical approximation, with similar dependence of adsorption energies and with heterogeneous surfaces consisting of two types of sites: Q1A = 3.0, Q~ = 2.5, QA = 2.0, Q~ = 1.5 (all in kcal/mol), with z=4, ~ E . A A - - 1, e B B "- 1.2eAA, ~-AB = (~-AA "Jr e B B ) ~ 2 . Here, T=78 K, a~ = a~ = 10 -2 tort. (a) The effect of random surface composition upon the partial adsorption isotherms at XA =0.2 with fl = 0.25 (curve 1), 0.50 (curve 2), 0.75 (curve 3). Lateral attraction decreases the total pressure for the nearly full surface, relative to the case of zero lateral interaction (curve 1, Fig. 8d). As the fraction of sites with stronger adsorption capability rises at constant pressure, the quantity of both adsorbed components increases. (b) The effect of bulk composition upon the partial isotherms of adsorption with XA = 0.2 (curve 1), 0.5 (curve 2), 0.8 (curve 3), all for s = 0.5 (a random surface). As the fraction of component A in the bulk increases, its adsorbed amount increases and the amount of the other component decreases. (c) The effect of heterogeneous surface structure on the partial adsorption isotherms at XA = 0.5 and s = 0.5 for a regular (curve 1), random (curve 2), and a patch-wise surface (curve 3). Curve 1 corresponds to an ideal adsorbed solution with all eij - 0 and is given for comparison. The structure of a heterogeneous surface plays an important role in determining surface composition. On the patch-wise surface, two steps are clearly shown because each patch is filled independently. On the regular surface, the curve is smooth (without steps) as on a homogeneous surface, but its slope is smaller. The joint influence of a regular structure and lateral attraction results in the same effects as lateral repulsion on a homogeneous surface. At medium coverages, curve 2c can be described by a straight line, i.e., by Tem-kin's isotherm. Curve 3 for the random structure is intermediate; and two slight steps are manifested. (d) The effect of regular (2, 4) and patch-wise (3, 5) structure at various fractions of sites of the first type is shown: fl = 0.25 (curves 2,3) and 0.50 (curves 4,5) at XA = 0.5. The partial isotherms of component A are presented but partial isotherms of component B are omitted due to their small differences on the given scale. Curve 1 is for an ideal adsorption system at fl = 0.25. As the fraction of the sites of either the first or the second type decreases in comparison with the case fl = 0.5, the effect of the structure becomes smaller for the sites that are more numerous. -1

2

5

8

11

lnP

129 A reduction of the dimension of the equation system (35), (36) by replacement of the changeable values can be done for every coordination sphere exactly in the same way as for a homogeneous surface (see above). For the mean field approximation [78]: i v aqPiOq

-

"

i Oq exp --/3

Zq(r) r=l

t i

-- 8q exp{-flz ~

ij " eqp(r)

dqp(r) p=l

=

(37)

j--1

s ~'j

dqp

p=l

"

~qp~p}, j=l

R

-_ij

ij

% =

4, = 4,(1)

r----1

The second equality can be obtained by replacing the sums and regrouping the items. It shows that for any radius of the interaction potential, the concentrational dependence of the index of the degree of the exponential can be reduced to the case R = 1. The "long range" contributions change the value of the effective parameters of the "short range" parameter eqv. "ij For physical adsorption, the energetic parameters hardly depend on the types of site and eqv -~j ~ ~j. For longrange potentials and chaotic surfaces, there takes place a sharp reduction of the dimension of the algebraic equations (37) where the effective constant values aqi are equal to: aq -~ = aqi exp ~Zq E j = I s " The resulting dimension of such equation system is equal to s. The joint effects of heterogeneity of the surfaces with sites of the two types, and the lateral interactions (R=I) are shown on Fig.8. 3.3. C o n t i n u o u s distribution functions The transition to a larger number of sites on the surface does not change the physical basis of the distribution functions, and the procedure is limited to a change of discrete variables into continuous ones. Let us limit our considerations to the use of the pair approximation to describe the surface structure. An increase in the number of the neighbouring sites increases the number of variables, so the transition to continuous functions corresponding to the cluster and fragment approximations can be done in an analogous way. In case when relations exist between the adsorption capabihties of various molecules, the continuous pair distribution function of types of sites f t ( z ~, ytlr) characterizes the probability of finding a pair of sites with adsorption capabilities within the intervals from z ~ to x l + dx l and from y~ to ye + dy l at a separation distance r. In absence of functional relationships between the adsorption capabilities of various molecules, the continuous pair distribution function of types of sites f(5,Y I r) characterizes the probability of finding a pair of sites with adsorptional capabilities which are given by the indexes varying from to ~ + d~ (5 = xl,...,x,) for the first and from ~ to ~ + d-ff (~ = yl,...,y,) for the second site occurring at a separation distance r. For both situations the differential pair

130 distribution functions are normalized to the single distribution functions (10) and (11)'. Y~n

Y-~n

/ fe(xe, S [ r)dy = fe(xe) ,

/ f(~, y [ r)dy = f(~),

#b

(38)

q]

Y~n

Y-in

where 5i,~, Yi,~ and ~f~n, Yfi~ are the vectors of the initial and final values of the adsorption capabilities of the sites on the heterogeneous surface for various molecules. The expressions describing the stucture of the heterogeneous surface (38) and the thermodynamic functions, are similar in form, and that is why below, in order not to double them, we use below only one vector descriptor 5. Aside from the functions (38) one can determine distributions d(5, ~[ r) characterizing the probability of finding some sites with adsorption capability ~ at distance r from the site for which the adsorption capability is 5:

/

Yfin

d(~, Y lr) =

f(~, y I r)/f(~),

(39)

d(2,ylr)dy = 1

Yin

Using the distribution functions describing composition and structure of a heterogeneous surface, we can write expressions for the partial adsorption isotherms which incorporate interactions between the adsorbate molecules,

0i(X)-" ai(x)piSi(x)/[1 -[-s aj(x)pjSj(x)] ,

(40)

j=l

The form of the functions Si(x) describing the non-ideality of an adsorption system depends upon the approximation used to calculate the effects of lateral interactions. For the mean field approximation:

Si(x)

=

i

Yfin

R

exp fl E z(~l r) r=l

d(2, Y lr) -

Yin

s ~, Y l rlOj(Yld

=

j=l

YfinM

exp

f a( ,y I Yin

(41) j=l

R

,-~j(~,y) = ~ z(~ I r)d(~,y) I r)~j(~,Y I r)/[z(~ I 1)d(~,Y I 1)1,

(42)

r=l

where z(5 [ r) - is the number of nearest neighbours in the r-th coordinational sphere around the site characterized by the adsorption capability 5, z(5) = z(S[ 1); eij(5,~[ r) is a parameter of interaction between the molecules i and j, occurring on the sites of type 5 and ~ at distance r in the second equality (41), a regrouping of the items took place that

131 allowed us to introduce the effective energetic parameters ~ij(x, y) The use of expressions (11), (40) is connected with the preliminary solution of the integral equation (40), (41). For the quasichemical approximation:

R Si(x) = I I [ s i ( ~ l r=l

r)]-z(xlr)

Xij(Y, Y lr) = exp [-/3eij(Y,y I r ) ] - 1 ,

s Si(~ I r) = 1 + / d(~, y [ r ) E Xij(~, y ! r)tij(x, y I r)dy, J j=l Yin Yfin

(43)

where tij(5,~ I r ) = 0,j(5,ff I r)/0i(5), 0~j(5,ff I r ) is a pair function, characterizing the probability of finding a molecule i on a site of type 5 and a molecule j on a site of type at a distance r. These functions are subject to equations which are analogoues of the equations (36)

0ii(x,y I r)0jj(x, ff I r ) -- 0ij(x,y [ r)0ji(x,y ! r)exp {fl [eii(~,y I r ) + ejj(~,y [ r) --s

s+l s+l if[r) -- eji(~,y [ r)]} , E 0ij(~' Y lr) = 0i(x) , E 0ij(x, Ylr) = Oj(y). j=l i=l

(44)

The dimension of the equation system (43), (44) can be lowered by changing the variable values as explained earlier. The above system of integral equations represents a correlated arrangement of sites of various types. In the general case, their solution is complicated. In order to make this easier, it is necessary to use admissible simplifications. As a rule, such simplifications are connected with certain kinds of heterogeneous surface. Traditionally, the greatest interest is connected with two kinds of surfaces" patchwise and chaotic. For such surfaces, the equation systems are simplified. 3.3.1. P a t c h w i s e surface This case is the simplest and it has frequently been used to describe the adsorption of pure components [82]. The structure of the surface is described by the function d(5,~ ] r) = 5 ( 5 - ~) for any value of r, where 5 is here a delta-function. That means we neglect the contributions from the borders between various surface fragments. As a result, the coverage of every fragment is described by the equations of section 2: For the quasichemical approximation

R Si(x) --

II[si(~ ] r)]-z(~l~) , r=l

Si(~ I r)

= 1 -1t- ~ Xij(x , ~ ] r)tij(~,~ I r) , j=l

(45)

where the function X,j(5,~ ! r) and t,j(5,~ ! r ) are given by eq. (43). For the mean field approximation

Si(x) = exp [flz(x)~ ~ij(x,x)Oi(x)dx] , j=l

(46)

132 where parameter ~d(5, 5) can be determined from eq. (42).

3.3.2. Chaotic surface The condition of a chaotic distribution of the sites of various types on the surface (and in the case of the patchwise surface) makes it possible to use the information about the surface composition of adsorbent which is given by the distribution functions f(g), since for these surfaces we have: d(~, ~ [ r ) = f(~) for any value of r. In this case, the functions which enable us to incorporate the non-ideality of the adsorption system ~5i(5), are the expressions (41) and (43). These can be written as: For the quasichemical approximation: Yfin

Si(K, [r) - 1 + f fly) ~

(47)

Xii(K, y [ r)tij(K, Ylr)dy,

j=l

Yin

where the interpretation Si(5 1r) and S/(5) is given by eq. (43). For the mean field approximation" Yfin

Si(K) = exp flz(~)

f(y) Y--in

(48)

~ij(g, y)Oj(y)dy j=l

Eqs. (47), (48) along with eq. (40) determine the partial adsorption isotherm. Their use is not much simpler than calculations made using equations (40), (41), (42). The evaluation of the integral equations involves integration along the values ~, appearing in eqs. (47), (48). It order to simplify the task, some additional assumption must be made. In case of physical adsorption c~j(5,~ ] r) = e~j(r). Such an assumption fundamentally simplifies the equations for the mean field approximation. Eq. (48) can be rewritten as

Si(K) = exp [flz(K) ~ c-ij/gjl

(49)

j=l

where the partial coverages of the surface, 0j, appear in the exponent. The form of eq. (49) is essentially that of eq. (27) for a homogeneous surface. Hence we have the system of equations having the dimension s, for the partial adsorption isotherms

0i = -~'in

Ai(x)pi/ 1

d~, j--1

Ai(~) = ai(~)exp [ / 3 z ( ~ ) ~ e"ij0j] (50) j=l

Thus, instead of looking for the local coverages 0,(5) (or 8~(s for the discrete distribution functions) it is necessary now to solve a nonlinear system of equations with respect to the 0i's. For such cardinal simplification in the quasi-chemical approximation, one must introduce an assumption about the additivity of the contributions from surface heterogeneity

133 and from the lateral interactions. Then, by analogy to eq. (49), we change the function of non-ideality of the adsorption system into the function for a homogeneous surface (28)

Si(g I r) = 1 + ~

tij(r)xij(r) ,

(51)

j=l

So the expressions for the partial coverages have the form as in eq. (50) where the coefficients Ai(5) are given by: Ai(~) = ai(~)l-I

1+

r=l

(52)

tij(r)xij(r) j--1

Equation (52) represents the generalization of the results obtained by Hill [83] for chaotic surfaces with mixtures of the adsorbed molecules. From equation (50) for the corresponding distribution functions f(5), one obtains the results of Jaroniec et al [55,84] which generalize the Langmuir-Freundlich equation for gas mixture on chaotic surfaces. This gives a possibility of molecular interpretation of the parameters in the models [55,84]. It should be noted that the hypothesis of additivity of the effects due to surface heterogeneity and to lateral interactions is in general in contradiction to the idea of calculating direct correlations between the neighbouring molecules in the quasi-chemical approximation for which the local coverages of the neighbouring sites are important and not just the surface coverage. Its applications should be controlled by calculations using more exact formulas such as (47). The hypothesis brings us to expressions for the partial adsorption isotherms of the components of a mixture which are analogous to those of section 1. In a series of situations, the integrals in those expressions can have simple analytical forms. This possibility is related to the correlations between the heats of adsorption of various components, and to the shape of the distribution function f(5). For an illustration we discuss the case of a uniformly heterogeneous surface for which expressions can be developed for the whole range of surface coverages. 3.3.3. U n i f o r m l y h e t e r o g e n e o u s surface We consider examples of the relations (14), corresponding to the likeness and antilikeness correlations of the energies of the components of the adsorbed mixtures. Let us write y(x) = (ai(x)p~) 1/m' as yi(x) = Ciexp(/~x), Ci = (fzip,) I/m'. Then, the expression (14) can be represented as yi(x) = [yj(x)]~ crij = Ci(Cj)-~'3. If aij > 0, we have likeness behaviour of the adsorption coefficients of molecules i and j. If on the contrary, aij < 0, the antilikeness; aij is the shift of the values of the adsorption coefficients for molecules i and j. To the assumption of a similar likeness behaviour of the adsorption coefficients for various kinds of molecules, there corresponds the expression yi(x) = yj(x)a~j. To the assumption of a strongly antilikeness behavior of the adsorption heats, there corresponds the expression yi(x) = C, Cj/yj(x). Using the tables [85] of the natural and rational values of aij, we can rewrite the system of equations by introducing elementary functions. With these limitations, these equations can be written as:

Oi

Xin) -1

- - f(x) Xin

exp [fl~ix]/

+

exp [tic,ix] j=l

dx,

(53)

134

1.0-

Oi

a

3

1.O-

4

Oi

b

0.5-

0.51

32

.--"-4-2

2222--f 3

-1

2

5

8

11 1.0

14 Oi

0.5

lnP

- '1

2

5

8

11

14

InP

C

3

4

3

Jd

_7, ~_-- .~ -_--- _ ~ ~ ' - = ~ " "

-'1

;1 ;4

ln e

Figure 9. Partial physical adsorption isotherms of a binary mixture in the quasi-chemical approximation', with similar dependence of adsorption energies and with heterogeneous surfaces having continuous distribution functions f(x): QB(X) = QA(X) = 0.5 kcal/mol, Q~A? = 1.2, Q~OH = 3.2 kcal/mol, z=4, t~E.AA "" 1, e B B - " 1.2eAA, i C . A B - " ( ~ . A A + eBB)~2, a~t = a~ = 10 -2 tort, T=78 K. (a) The case of a uniform distribution function: f(x) -" (QAoH -- Q HAA ? ) -1 , ZA = 0.2 (curves 1,4), 0.5 (curve 2), 0.8 (curve 3); for curve 4, eBB = 0.7EAA. As the fraction of one component in the bulk increases, its adsorbed fraction is also increased, as shown in curves 1 - 3. Decreasing the lateral attraction between molecules of B causes the quantity of the adsorbed molecules A to increase, and that of molecules B to decrease. (b) The gaussian distribution function f ( z ) = e x p [ - ( z - ~.)2/2a2]/n, where n is a normalization factor and a =1, ~' = ( Q A o H - Q~A?)/2 = 2.2 (curves 1,3) and 2.7 (curves 2,4) kcal/mol, ZA =0.5, for curves 1 and 2; all eij =0. When the lateral interaction is larger, more rapid filling A of the monolayer is present (compare curves 1 and 3 with 2 and 4). As the range ( QA li~ -Qi,~) increases, the region of monolayer filling becomes larger (compare curves 1 and 3 with 2 and 4). (c) Comparison of partial adsorption isotherms for various distribution functions f(x) at XA =0.2, QAoH --QHA? A = 2 kcal/mol. The uniform (curve 1), gaussian a = 1, ~, = 2.2 kcal/mol (curve 2), and exponential functions f ( z ) = exp(Tx)/n, 7 = 1 (curve 3) and 7 = -1 (curve 4). The uniform and symmetric gauss distribution functions are characterized by similar isotherms. As the fraction of the sites with strong adsorption capability increases, the surface is filled faster; a decrease in such sites results in the opposite effect.

135 where the coefficient ai characterizes the behaviour of the heat of adsorption of molecule i relative to the heat of adsorption of the selected type of molecule I (at = 1), for the sake of simplicity given the index I is omitted. For example, for a mixture of molecules with a similar likeness behavior for the adsorption coefficients of all components of the mixture, a~ = 1, we have Oi = CiSi In {(1 + C exp[~x~])/(1 + C exp[~xin])}/(~C(xf~ - Xin)) ,

c =

(54) i--1

In absence of lateral interactions, the functions S = 1 and eq. (54) reduces to the well-known expression [18]. In this way, one can arrive at a closed systems of equations which make it possible to account for the lateral interactions of the adsorbed molecules, as well as for the heterogeneity of the surface. Their dimension is equal to the number of the components in the mixture. These equations are nonlinear with respect to the values of 8~ in the functions Si. The simplifications which we have made while developing these equations are, however, sufficient that their applicability can be controlled with the help of some still more accurate equations. Curves on Fig.9. are illustrated the joint effects both the lateral interactions and the heterogeneity of the surfaces describing by continuous distribution functions. 4. M U L T I L A Y E R A D S O R P T I O N

OF MIXTURES

The description of the multilayer adsorption of gas mixtures appears in many practical calculations [1,2]. The first theoretical work by Hill [86] (see also studies by Bussey [87]) are a generalization of the BET model to gas mixtures. Hill's results were used by Arnold [88] for description of experimental data on the adsorption of a O~, N2 mixture on anatase for various compositions of the gas phase. Similar to the BET equation for the pure components, the equation of Hill predicts the quicker increase of the full coverage of the surface which was observed in the experiments. The principles of the BET model have been considered in ref. [89] for one component systems. In order to describe multilayer adsorption, phenomenological approaches have been used. Thus, Sircar and Myers [90] used a combination of the potential theory of adsorption and the theory of the ideal adsorbed solution, while Gonzalez and Holland [91] proposed a kinetic method to obtain the equation for bilayer adsorption.The main idea of their work reflects one of the postulates of the BET theory, that the influence of the surface does not concern the second and the further layers, so the isotherms for two component mixtures can be represented by: = g0(1) ,

A

B

g = 1 + a 2ph + % P s ,

(55)

where 0(1) is the total adsorption isotherm of a mixture in the first surface layer, and the quantity g expresses the coverage in the second layer. The form of the factor g was chosen by considering the two following limiting conditions: coverage should be equal to one at decreasing pressure of both components of the gas mixture, and it should increase without limit with increasing pressure in the adsorption system. Jaroniec [92] generalized that approach [91] for heterogeneous surfaces. Surface heterogeneity changes the function

136 in the expression for coverage in the first layer, although the general structure of equation (55) remains unchanged. As for the function g, any function can be chosen, provided that it fulfills the two limiting conditions. In the paper [93] dealing with many component S ai2pi) was proposed. mixtures , the function g = exp (~-~i=1 The description of the multilayer adsorption of a mixture is basically similar to that of calculating a concentration profile of non- electrolyte solutions in contact with a solid surface. That is why, for the description of mixture adsorption, it is necessary to use the same theories. With vacancies, the number of components s of the adsorbed mixture corresponds to the (s + 1)-component solution. The equations developed using the lattice model for surface regular solutions with an arbitrary number of components were proposed in the papers by Smirnova [94-96], as well as in the papers [97,98]. In all those works the quasichemical approximation was used to calculate the effects of the interactions between the nearest neighbours for specific interactions at various orientations of the adsorbed molecules [94,95]. It was assumed that only the molecules of the first layer interact with the surface. In paper [99] one considered more distant neighbour contributions as well as the possibility of changing the internal degrees of freedom of the molecules and their parameters of lateral interaction in various layers of the surface region. In paper [100], equations were obtained for the concentration profiles of molecules in the presence of the pair interaction, as well as for the three- and many-particle contributions to the short range potentials. These papers consider adsorption on homogeneous surfaces. The theory of adsorption of a mixture of molecules on a heterogeneous surfaces was elaborated by Tovbin [101,102]. He obtained equation systems for the cluster distribution functions by considering the pair interaction potential between molecules at any terminal distance, and obtained closed expressions for the quasichemical and for the mean field approximations.

4.1. A lattice model for mixture multilayer adsorption In adsorbed systems, in addition to the heterogeneity of the surface we also must deal with the nonuniformity of the distribution of molecules in the surface region. In the lattice model, this is reflected by the fact that the sites in various layers turn out to be sites of various types. The description of the surface region should reflect a strict sequence of the layers, starting from the first (surface) one up to the final layer of this region ~ where the density of molecules is practically the same as in the bulk phase. Here ~ = L / d , where L is the width of the surface region, d is an average diameter of the molecules of the mixture having more or less the same size. The layers are considered to be situated parallel to the gas-solid interface. The strict alternation of the layers can be calculated with the help of cluster distribution functions, which is why the structure of the whole surface region should be described by these functions. We shall assume that for the multilayer adsorption of a mixture, the same procedure can be used which was discussed in the subsection 1.1. This is based on the partitioning of the surface into separate sites of area 6~. The volume of the first monolayer is composed of the volumes of the separate sites v~. For a flat separation border, the second layer and all the following are divided into sites with respect to a molecule of the reference type I. For a rough interface, , there can occur atoms of adsorbent in various layers of the surface region. In such a case, the region which is not occupied by the adsorbent is also separated into sites v~ with the the molecules of reference type ~, when the partitioning of the surface of adsorbent is made into areas $~. For the surface region, the index h denotes

137 the sites of a volume structure and not those of the surface, just as in subsection 1.1. We shall also assume that the same way of grouping the sites according to their adsorption capability is kept as in subsection 1.2. The type of sites in the the surface region is determined by the layer number k and the value of the interaction of molecule i with the adsorbent Q~q(k) which is connected with a local Langmuir constant aq~(k) = aq Ai (k) is the preexponential ^~(k)exp[~Q~(k)], where aq factor of the local Langmuir constant. Its form is similar to that given by equation (2). Let tk be the number of types of sites in layer k. Then a general number of types of sites in the system is equal to t = ~]k=l tk. In a similar way, for every layer we can introduce its own distribution functions, characterizing the composition of a layer fq(k) and its structure d(q{m}R)k: tk

tk

Z fq(k) = 1 ,

Z

d(q{m}R)k = 1, Z

q=l

6q(k)

mqp(k Jr) = zq(k J r ) ,

(56)

p--1

where rnqp(k I r) is the number of the neighbours of type p at a distance r from the central site q in the layer k and zq(k I r) is the number of neighbours at a distance r around the site of type q in layer k ; 5q(k) is the number of a different clusters with a central site of type q in the layer k. Let the mole fraction of the coverage of the sites of type q with molecules i in layer k be expressed by O~(k). Then the partial coverages in layer k by these molecules and the partial coverage by these molecules throughout the surface region can be written

tk 0i(k) = ~

,` fq(k)0q(k) ,

s

0i = Z

q=l

0i(k)Lk/L,

k=l

L=

Lk,

(57)

k=l

where L is the relation of the sites in layer k to those in layer x (in the bulk gas phase) which can differ in their structural imperfection (for example as in their roughness) and in the structure of the adsorbed solution close to the surface relative to the bulk phase. The total coverages in layer k and throughout the surface region can be determined in the following way: O(k) =

•

Oi(k)

,

0

--"

i--1

i--1

The total numbers are given by Ni = LOIN,,,

•

Ni

Oi =

•

O(k)Lk/L,

(58)

k=l

of molecules i and their excess contents I'i in the surface region

ri = N,` s

- O~(,~)]L.,

(59)

k=l

where N,` is the number of sites in a homogeneous layer of bulk phase. For the calculation of the distribution of the values (58) and (59), it is necessary to know O~(k) which can be found from the solutions of the corresponding algebraic equations. As previously, we shall limit our considerations to interactions between neighboring molecules in the quasichemical and in the mean field approximations.

138 4.2. D i s t r i b u t i o n s of molecules in the surface region The distributions of molecules in the surface region can be described by the system of equations: aiq(k)piO;(k) = Oiq(k)Siq(k) ,

s Oiq(k) + Oq(k) = 1, i=l

(60)

where the function of non-ideality S~(k) help in the calculations of the contributions from various components of the adsorption mixture. In the quasichemical approximation, the system of algebraic equations consists of two groups. The first group of equations describes the local distribution of molecules of a mixture on various types of sites (60), where (for simplicity we assume the case R = 1) Sq(k) = E d(g{m}l) 6q(k) (61)

II H 1 + 0~(kn [1){exp (-fle~(kn I1)) - 1}/0iq(k) n=k-1 p=l j=l

The second group are equations for the local portion of the average amounts of pairs of various molecules occurring on sites of various types at distances r, where 1 < r < R. The equations of the second type resemble the analogous equations (36) and are omitted here. The difference consists in the fact that for the multilayer model, the type of site is given by two indexes: the number of the layer k and the number of the type of site q occurring in a given layer. In the mean field approximation, the function of non-ideality can be written as (R = 1):

[

sin(k) = exp

,,o,

s

]

ij (kn [ 1)Oip(n) --flZq(1) E E dqp(kn [ 1) eqp n=k-1 p=l j=l

(62)

where dqp(kn [ r) is a conditional probability of finding the site of type p in the layer n at distance r from the site of type q in layer k. In the majority of tasks where the interest is focused on multilayer adsorption, it can be assumed that the parameters of interaction do not depend on the types of sites:

4.3. Simplified e q u a t i o n for the full i s o t h e r m For one component systems, the expression (55) has its motivation within the lattice gas model to a degree that makes it possible to formulate assumptions resulting in such formulas. Thus, the approximate isotherm of multilayer adsorption [103] results in a universal form of the factor g with arbitrary assumptions for the properties of the first monolayer in an adsorption system: the surface can either be homogeneous or heterogeneous, and lateral interactions can be present or not. In fact, there arises the possibility of obtaining some analogous approximate equations for the multilayer adsorption of mixtures. In this case, one should use the equations from section 4.2 and limit the consideration

139

300[ V

V

._-

240

2

.-'''

.-''- - "

180

00/160V 600

0

V

0

x

0.03

0.2

0.06

0.09

0.4

0.6

_.

0.8

x

Figure 10. Comparison of one component multilayer adsorption isotherms for oxygen (curve 1) and nitrogen (curve 2) on anatase. At low coverages, the approximate equation (63) was used to find Langmuir constants. The calculated (solid lines) and experimental data of Arnold [88] (dashed lines) are shown. Curve 1 is shifted by unity on the X axis. Curve 3 (50.2% 02 and 49.8% N~) was fitted by the parameters of the approximate equation with the help of the total adsorption isotherm. Thereupon the fitted parameters were used to calculate the total isotherms at other bulk composition without refitting. V is the volume of the adsorbed gases, x = P/P0. to the case where one considers the interactions between nearest neighbours on flat heterogeneous surfaces and a short range potential of adsorbent - adsorbate interaction. To arrive at the approximate equations one should eliminate the partial pressures (by dividing of all the equations of the system into the equation for a volume gas phase) and analyze the systems of equations describing the distribution of molecules of the mixture in the volume close to the surface according to the small parameter/3eij << 1. The details of these considerations result in a final expression that agrees with those for the approximate adsorption isotherm of a one component system [103]. Finally we obtain: t

0 = g0(1),

0(1) = E f q A ~ P / { 1

+ AXqP} ,

(63)

q=l

g = {(1 - 5P/Po)/(1 - P/Po)} ~/2

1 s

Aq =

i= 1

a;(1)xi

140

],'

V

Jf

2280

,'/:1

,'1:1 ,7,7

1710

1140 1

f 570

f 0

0.2

I

I

I

0.4

0.6

0.8

x

Figure 11. The predicted and experimental (dash-dotted lines [88]) total multilayer adsorption isotherms for the N2 - 02/mixture on anatase at 14.9 (curve 1) and 85.3 % 02 (curve 2). The same fair agreement was obtained at other bulk compositions. Curve 2 is shifted by unity on the Y axis. where 6 = ( z k k - 1)/z, x~ is the molar fraction of component i in the gas phase, P is the total pressure in the gas phase, and Pi = Pxi. Here 0(1) represents total isotherm for a heterogeneous surface in the absence of lateral interactions between molecules in the surface monolayer. At small pressures, equation (63) reduces to equation (7). If the number of the site types on the surface is large, then one can use continuous distribution functions and one arrives at equation (10) for 0(1). If one considers lateral interactions, then the factor 0(1) becomes expression (33)-(35)in the quasichemical approximation or (33),(34),(37) in mean field. Finally, for a homogeneous surface, the factor 0(1) is expressed by equations (26)-(28) and (26), (31), correspondingly. Thus, the lattice gas model gives universal expressions for the factor g and equation (55). This expression is essentially different from the empirical functions proposed previously. The expression for g (63) has the same form as that for one component systems. There we had P = p whereas P = pa + . . . p s for the many component systems. The saturated vapour pressure P0 depends on temperature and on the composition of the gas mixture. Figs. 10- 12 illustrate how the simplified equations apply for describing the multilayer adsorption isotherms for the system N2 + 02/anatase. In conclusion, while developing equation (63), we introduced some greatly simplified assumptions. Although (63) is considerably better for describing the full isotherm of multicomponent adsorption over a wider range of pressure than the various modifications based

141 on the BET model, its parameters are determined by the adjustment of the calculated curves to experimental data and have no obvious molecular interpretation. 5

........

-

3 2

0.5 1

~N2

1.0 -

""~-~--_

0.5-

- ~ --

"

1

9

3

""-~

"

~

4

- 5 0

I

0.1

I

0.5

i

I

0.9

x

Figure 12. The values (i = Vi/V, ii=N2 and 02, found for various x with use of the experimental data [88], and their linear approximation obtained from the experimental points Xl =0.1 and X2 = 0.9: (i = [(i(X~)(X2- z ) + ( i ( z - X1)](X2- X1 ). This procedure was applied to extract the partial contributions from the total isotherm, since the distinction between mixed components vanishes upon constructing the approximate isotherm in this case (63). Therefore, one needs additional information to find the partial isotherms: 0~(x) = O(z)(~(z). As a result, the use of equation (63) together with any points X1 and X2 enables one to determine partial adsorption isotherms in the entire range of pressure.

4.4. Adsorption

of a mixture

in p o r e s

The adsorption of mixtures in pores can be formally described by the same equations used in the case of multilayer adsorption discussed above (subsections 4.1 and 4.2). The difference consists in the fact that the molecules can adsorb in the field of action of both walls of a pore. This can provoke an essential increase of the adsorption value. For wide pores one can separate such volumes in a pore where the molecule is not under any influence from the walls of the pore. In such a region, one can use equations (60), (61) or (62). The solution of the equations for all regions can be done together. Another peculiarity of adsorption of mixture of molecules in pores consists in the fact that the critical conditions of condensation inside the pore differ from the analogous conditions in the bulk gas phase. They may also depend on the relations between the

142 components of a mixture. It was deduced in paper [105] that the conditions of condensation of one component systems in pores with heterogeneous walls give critical temperatures and coverages that depend not only on the sizes of the pores, but also on the character of heterogeneity of the walls. Similar effects should also be observed for the adsorption of mixtures. Application of the lattice-gas model for describing adsorption Ar+Kr mixture in slit-like carbon micropore is given on Fig.13 as well as a comparison with the analogous molecular dynamic calculation [106].

16

l~J~

~

ff~\

Figure 13. Partial Ar adsorption isotherms for an Ar - Kr mixture in a slit-like graphite pore. (a) shows the results obtained in [106] by density functional theory and molecular dynamics simulation; and (b) shows the same curve obtained from the lattice model using molecular parameters from [106]. Both methods give the similar results.

5. T H E S E P A R A T I O N

COEFFICIENT

OF A M I X T U R E

The separation of mixtures by adsorption is characterized by the degree of purification of any particular gas from some other gases. For the quantitative evaluation of the degree of purification one can apply the double separation coefficients aij of components i and j for an adsorbent. The separation coefficient is determined [2,107] as follows: aij = 0iPj/0jPi 9

(64)

An important characteristic of adsorption separation is the separation coefficient concerning pairs of components, one of which occurs in a microquantitative amount and the other one is a "macrocomponent" as it determines the effectiveness of the purification of the special component by adsorption. It is a hard task to find experimentally such separation coefficients and therefore much effort is dedicated to its theoretical calculation. From the definition of the separation coefficients it follows that, in order to calculate them it is necessary to know the partial isotherms of adsorption which relate the partial coverages of the surface 0i with the pressure of the components in the gas phase. Let us limit our

143 considerations to binary mixtures only and let the microcomponent be denoted by A and the macrocomponent, by B. Let us study only the case when all the components of mixture occupy only one site of the surface. To calculate the separation coefficient a = aAB, one can use the previously considered partial isotherms of adsorption determined by the molecular features of the adsorption system. Let us study the relationship between the equilibrium coefficient of competitive adsorption in a given model with the separation coefficient. Competitive adsorption can be formally expressed as Agas + B~d, ~ A~,ds + Bg,~,. The thermodynamic equilibrium constant KAB for this process has the following form: /(AB = OAZ'/APBTB/(OBzysPATA) = KABZ'/A/ZYB, where 7/ and ~i are the activity coefficients of component i = A and B in the gas phase and in the adsorbed phase, and KAB is the equilibrium coefficient of the process. If the gas phase is ideal, then we have 7i = 1 and a = KAB. A calculation of the effects of nearest neighbor lateral interactions in the quasi-chemical approximation for heterogeneous surfaces described by the pair approximation leads to the partial isotherms (33)-(35). These equations give the separation coefficient as: t

t

=

fqqOq(SJ

/Z q= 1

,

q= 1

where the function S~ is given by eq. (35). For the binary systems microcomponent A macrocomponent B, this expression can be simplified, since 0A --+ 0. Then, the separation coefficient A depends on the local Langmuir constants of both components for various types of sites, on their parameters of lateral interactions, and on the composition and structure of the heterogeneous surface [108,109]. For many adsorption separations of mixtures, zeolites are used. Below we present the results of the calculations [110,111] of the separation coefficient of a microadmixture macrocomponent for the systems X e - K r and UH4 - N2 (the microcomponent is given first) using the lattice model. The calculations were carried out employing the information about the potential energy of molecule of every component in the zeolite cavity and about the potential of the intermolecular interactions. To calculate the potential energy, the data on the structure of zeolite were used (its model is discussed in papers [110,111]). The potential of interaction of molecules CH4 and N~ with the atoms of adsorbent and with the other molecules was first based on the approximation of effective spheres for these molecules. The zeolite cavity was broken into sites along the three coordinates according to the parallel planes to calculate the real spatial arrangement of the sites. The cluster approximation was also used. In this case, the functions of non-ideality of the adsorption system & in formula (65) have the form R

Siq = E

t

d ( q { m } R ) H I I [Si~(r)] mqp(~) '

6

r=l p=l

S~(r) = 1 + ~

8ijqp [exp {-/ge~(r)} - 1]/Siq,

(66)

j=l

To calculate the separation coefficient from equations (65) and (66), in addition to the parameters of adsorpion of the individual components (local Langmuir constants aiqai),

144

i~KrKr

SKrXe

SXeXe

SN2N2

8N2CH4

8CH4CH4

0.52 0.21 0.06 0.03

0.62 0.29

0.70 0.38 0.16

0.19 '0.10 0.05

0.25 0.13

0.33 0.18

0.02

0.06 0.02

0.09

0.04

O.11 0.03

0.03

Table i. Lateral interaction parameters (in kJ/mol)

t'~

~'1

9

0.8

~

0

ee

9

0.8

0.6

0.6

0.4

0.4

0.2

0.2 4

6

o ~

lg P

3-

2

4

61g p

In

b @Q I

I

I

I

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

0Kr

Figure 14. Theoretical adsorption isotherms for Kr and Xe and the separation coefficient a of their mixture. The parameters used are given in Table 1. (a) shows Kr isotherms at T=200 (1), 252 (2), and 303 (3) K; (b) shows Xe isotherms at 210 (1), 240 (2), 280 (3), and 303 (4) K; (c) shows the changes in In(a) for the Xe - g r mixture at T=200 (1), 252 (2), and 303 (3) K, [110, 111]. the interaction parameters of the molecules eqp(r), ii and the cluster functions d(q{m}R) describing the structure of the lattice) one also needs the parameters of the intermolecular interactions e~(r). In our calculations we assumed that e~p(r)= eij(r). The parameters c j ( r ) were calculated using the combination rules for the individual potentials u~(r) of the Lennard-Jones type. These were of the type e~j = (e~ejj) 1/2 and aij = (cr~q-ajj)/2. Finding the average value according to the volumes of the separate sites vq and vv occurring at

145

0

om 9

0.8

0.8 9

0.6

0.6

0.4

0.4

0.2

0.2 I ~

I

4

I

6

I

lg P

2

-'-

4

6 lg P

t.

0[ t" i,

I

I

I

0.2

0.4

0.6

I

0.8 0

Figure 15. Theoretical adsorption isotherms for nitrogen ((a), T=253 K), methane ((b), T=100 (1), 210 (2), 253 (3), and 303 (4) g), and the separation coefficient of their mixture ((c), T=253 K), [110, 111]. The values of the parameters used are given in Table 1. distance r from one another:

eli(r) = -~ uij(r) ~- = / /uij exp [-~uij(rij)] dridrj///exp [-~uii(rij] dridrj Vq Vp

,

(67)

Vq Vp

where rij is the distance between molecule i, on the site of volume vq of the type q, and j, occurring on the site of volume vp of type p. The results of the calculations for four coordination spheres are shown in Tab. 1. Figs. 14 and 15 show the comparison of the computed curves with the experimental data for the separation coefficients of the mixtures X e - Kr and C H 4 - N2. The small difference in the sizes of these pairs of molecules allows us to use the average values of the volumes of various molecules vi. In this case, the formula for the separation coefficient takes the form t t -zq / V i E fqaqOq(SJq) -z" , C~ij : Vi E fqaqOq(Sq) i v j v q=l q=l

(68)

One obtains satisfactory agreement between the theory and the experiments. Thus, the lattice model gives a possibility to calculate the separation coefficient of microcomponent macrocomponent mixtures, based on the data for the adsorption of individual components.

146 6. A D S O R P T I O N

OF A M I X T U R E

O F M O L E C U L E S O F V A R I O U S SIZES

All the theoretical considerations of the adsorption of a mixture of molecules presented in this chapter were based on the assumption that every molecule occupies one site of the lattice and that in every site there can occur not more than one molecule. This limitation allowed us to consider only mixtures of more or less similar molecular sizes. If the molecules can be greater than the dimension of the sites, we have to do with the "multisite adsorption" problem. The lattice model uses the concept of a site, the size of which is fixed. In confrontation of two molecules two problems arise: 1- the determination of the number of sites occupied by the molecules of each kind, and 2 - calculation of the deviation of the real sizes of molecules from the strictly discrete relations of their sizes given by the lattice structure. The first aspect has been very well elaborated in theory of the lattice models of solutions. As an example we should remember the Flory-Huggins theory [112-114] as well as its generalizations [59,60] such as that proposed by Nitta [115]. This kind of equation is well known in the theories of the surface tension of liquid solutions, as well as in the theories of adsorption of polymers on homogeneous solid surfaces. Such equations can also be found in papers [116-119], and their generalizations both for flexible chains and hard rods, in [94,98,120]. The second aspect of the problem concerns more precise calculations of the sizes of molecules than in a situation when as the unit distance of the calculation, there occurs a discrete site size. This aspect was discussed in papers by Prigogine and co-workers [121,122] on molecular solutions, and even earlier in paper by Wilson [123] and by Aptekar [124] for metallic alloys. The conclusion is that the lattice is considered to be "soft" and its states are determined from the condition of minimum free energy of the system. This assumption both allows to one to calculate some small deviations of molecules from the fixed site size, and to preserve all the convenience of the lattice models connected with (a) the simplicity of solving the algebraic equations for molecular distributions and (b) calculations of the peculiarities of the interaction potentials of the components of a mixture. In the papers [121-124], this approach was applied to homogeneous volume phases while calculating effects of lateral interactions in the mean field approximation. In paper [125], that approach was generalized and applied to heterogeneous lattices, with both monolayer and multilayer adsorption of components of a mixture, when calculating the effects of lateral interaction in the quasi-chemical approximation. So in principle, the formalism of the lattice model makes it possible to consider mixtures of components of molecules of various sizes and to calculate the thermodynamic characteristics of an adsorption system which are of interest for research.

Acknowledgement Athour wishes to thank Profs. W.Rudzinski, W.A.Steele and V.A.Bakaev for preparing the English version of this manuscript.

147 REFERENCES

1. D.M.Ruthven, Principles of Adsorption and Adsorption Processes, Wiley, New York, 1984. 2. R.T.Yang, Gas Separation by Adsorption Proccesses, Butterworths, London, 1987 3. L.K.Doraiswamy, Progress in Surface Sci., 37 (1990) 1. 4. A.A.Zhukhovitskii, Adsorption of Gases and Vapours (in Russian), ONTI, Moscow 1935 5. S.Brunauer, Adsorption of Gases and Vapours (in Russian), GIIL, Moscow 1948. 6. D.M.Young and A.D.Crowell, Physical Adsorption of Gases, Butterworths, London, 1962 7. D.Valenzuela and A.L.Myers, Separation and Purification Methods, 13 (1984) 153 8. E.C.Markham and A.F.Benton, J. Am. Chem. Soc.,53 (1931) 497 9. G.Damkohler, Z. Phys. Chem., B23 (1933) 58 10. F. J. Wilkins, Nature, 141 (1938) 1054 11. M.I.Temkin, Zh. Fiz. Khim., 11 (1938) 169 12. M.Jaroniec and R.Madey, Physical Adsorption on Heterogeneous Solids, Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1988 13. W.Rudzinski and G.Cerofolini, Chapter 1. 14. S.Z.Roginsky and O.M.Todes, Acta Physicochim. USSR, 20 (1945) 307 15. S.Z.Roginsky and O.M.Todes, Acta Physicochim. USSR, 20 (1945) 696 16. S.Z.Roginsky, Adsorption and Catalysis on Nonuniform Surface, Izd. Acad. Nauk USSR, Moscow-Leningrad, 1948 17. S.Z.Roginsky and O.M.Todes, Problems of Kinetics and Catalysis, Izd. Acad. Nauk USSR, 8 (1949) 339

18. A.A.Balandin, Dokl. Akad. Nauk USSR, 93 (1953) 55 19. M.Jaroniec and W Rudzinski, Phys. Lett., 53A (1975) 59 20. M.Jaroniec and W Rudzinski, Surface Sci., 52 (1975) 641 21. M.Jaroniec, J. Colloid Interface Sci., 53 (1975) 422 22. L. Szepesy and V.Illes, Acta Chim. Hung., 35 (1963) 245

148 23. F.C.Tompkins and D.M.Young, Trans. Farad. Soc., 47 (1951) 88 24. D.N.Misra, J. Colloid Interface Sci., 43, 85 (1973) 25. A.A.Balandin, Dokl. Akad. Nauk USSR, 93,273,475 (1953) 26. Yu.S.Snagovsky, Kinetics and Catalysis (in Russian), 16 (1975) 1435 27. M.I.Temkin, Kinetics and Catalysis (in Russian), 16 (1975) 1461 28. A.L.Myers, Proc. Int.Conf."Fundamentals of Adsorption"',Eds. A.L.Myers and G.Belfort, Am. Inst. Chem. Engineers, 1984 29. M.Jaroniec, J. Narkiewicz and W. Rudzinski, J. Colloid. Interface Sci., 65 (1978) 9 30. A.W.Marczewki and M.Jaroniec, Monatsh Chem., 114 (1983) 711 31. M.M.Dubinin and V.A.Astakhov, Izv. Akad. Nauk SSSR, Ser.Khim., N 1 (1971) 5 32. E.Glueckauf, Trans. Farad. Soc., 49 (1953) 1066 33. M.Jaroniec, J. Res. Inst. Catal. Hokkaido Univ., 28 (1980) 31 34. T.Engel and G.Ertl, Adv. Catalysis, 28 (1979) 1 35. F.M.Hoffmann, J.Hrbek and R.A.de Paola, Chem. Phys. Lett., 106 (1984) 83 36. R.A.de Paola, J.Hrbek and F.M.Hoffmann, J. Chem. Phys., 82 (1985) 2484 37. T.L.Hill, J.Chem.Phys., 18 (1950) 246 38. T.L.Hill, Advances in Catalysis, 4 (1952) 211 39. B.P.Bering and V.V.Serpinsky, Izv. Akad. Nauk SSSR, Set. Khim., (1952) 997 40. B.P.Bering and V.V.Serpinsky, Zh. Fiz. Khim., 26 (1952) 253 41. B.P.Bering and V.V.Serpinsky, Izv. Akad. Nauk SSSR, Ser. Khim., (1961) 1947 42. A.L.Myers and J.M.Prausnitz, AIChE J., 11 (1965) 121 43. S.E.Hoory and J.M.Prausnitz, Chem. Eng. Sci., 22 (1967) 1025 44. S.E.Hoory and J.M.Prausnitz, Surface Sci., 6 (1967) 377 45. B.P.Bering and V.V.Serpinsky, Izv. Akad. Nauk SSSR, Ser. Khim., (1969) 1222 46. B.P.Bering and V.V.Serpinsky, Izv. Akad. Nauk SSSR, Ser. Khim., (1972) 169, 171 47. W.Rudzinsri, K.Nieszporek, H.Moon and H.K.Rhee, Heterogeneous Chemistry Reviews, 1 (1194) 275 48. R.A.Pierotti and H.E.Thomas, Trans. Farad. Soc., 70 (1974) 1725

149 49. G.M.Wilson, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 86 (1964) 127 50. H.Renon and J.M.Prausnitz, AIChE J., 14 (1968) 135 51. J.M.Prausnitz, E.A.Grens, T.F.Anderson, et al, Computer Calculation for Multicomponent Vapour - Liquid and Liquid- Liquid Equilibria, Englewood Cliffs, New York, 1980 52. M.I.Temkin, Zh. Fiz. Khim., 15 (1941) 296 53. M. Jaroniec, M.Borowko and A.Patrykiew, Surface Sci., 78, (1978) L501 54. Yu.K.Tovbin, Zh. Fiz. Khim., 55 (1981) 273 55. R.M.Barrer and T.Klinowski, JSC Farad. Trans, 2, 74 (1978) 904 56. Yu.K.Tovbin, Theory of Physical Chemistry Processes at a Gas - Solid Interface, Mir Publishers, Moscow & CRC Press, Inc., Boca Raton, 1991 57. Yu.K.Tovbin, Kinetics and Catalysis (in Russian), 23 (1982) 813, 821 58. Yu.K.Tovbin, Kinetics and Catalysis (in Russian), 23 (1982) 1231 59. E.A.Guggenheim, Mixtures, Oxford Univer. Press, Oxford, 1952 60. J.A.Barker, J.Chem.Phys., 20, (1952) 1526 61. S.Yu.Surovtzev and Yu.K.Tovbin, Kinetics and Catalysis (in Russian), 26 (1985) 1181 62. Yu.K.Tovbin, Progress in Surface Science, 34 (1990) 1 63. S.Yu.Surovtzev and Yu.K.Tovbin, Poverkhyost'(Surface, in Russian), N 5 (1985) 22 64. R.M.Barrer and A.G.Kanellopoulos, J. Chem. Soc. A, (1970) 765, 775 65. B.N.Okunev, V.A.Kaminsky and Yu.K.Tovbin, Kolloid Zh., 47 (1985) 1110 66. R.K. Kaza and S.Sunderesan, Chem. Eng. Commun., 32 (1985) 333 67. Yu.K.Tovbin and V.M.Pak, Zh. Fiz. Khim., 58 (1989) 788 68. A.L.Myers, Fundamentals of Adsorption, Ed. A.I.Liapis, Ehg. Foundation, New York, 1987 69. T.Nakahara, Chem. Eng. Sci., 41 (1986) 2093 70. B.P.Bering, V.V.Serpinsky and T.S.Jakubov, Izv. Akad. Nauk SSSR, Set. Khim., (1977) 727 71. B.P.Bering and V.V.Serpinsky, Izv. Akad. Nauk SSSR, Ser. Khim., (1978) 1732

150 72. T.S.Jakubov, B.P.Bering and V.V.Serpinsky, Izv. Akad. Nauk SSSR, Ser. Khim., (1977) 991 73. R.P.Danner, Fundamentals of Adsorption, Eds. A.L.Myers and G.Belfort, Am. Inst. Chem. Eng., New York, (1984) 195 74. T.W.Cochran, R.L.Kabel and R.P.Danner, AIChE J., 31 (1985) 268 75. S.D.Mehta and R.P.Danner, Ind. Ehg. Chem. Fundam., 24 (1985) 325 76. M.Jaroniec and S.Sokolowski, Polish J. Chem., 52 (1978) 1561 77. Yu.K.Tovbin, Dokl. Akad. Nauk USSR, 262 (1982) 929 78. Yu.K.Tovbin, Theory and Experim. Chemistry (in Russian), 18 (1982) 417 79. Yu.K.Tovbin, Kinetics and Catalysis (in Russian), 24 (1983) 308,317 80. Yu.K.Tovbin, Dokl. Akad. Nauk USSR, 277 (1984) 917 81. Yu.K.Tovbin, Zh. Fiz. Khim., 64 (1990) 865 82. S.Ross and J.P.Olivier, On Physical Adsorption, Wiley-Interscience New York, 1964 83. T.L.Hill, J. Chem. Phys., 17 (1949) 762 84. M.Jaroniec and J.Piotrowska, Colloid Polymer Sci., 258 (1980) 977 85. I.S.Gradshteyn and I.M.Rizhik, Tables of integrals, sums, rows and products. Moscow, Fizmatgiz, 1962 86. T.L.Hill, J. Chem. Phys., 14 (1946) 46, 268 87. B.W.Bussey, Ind. Eng. Chem. Fundamen., 5 (1966) 103 88. J.R.Arnold, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 71 (1949) 104 89. S.J.Gregg and K.S.Sing, Adsorption, Surface Area and Porosity, 2nd Ed., Academic Press, London-New York, 1982 90. S. Sircar and A.L.Myers, Chem. Eng. Sci., 28 (1973) 489 91. A.J.Gonzalez and C.D.Holland, AIChE J., 16 (1970) 716 92. M.Jaroniec, Phys. Lett., 56A (1976) 53 93. M.Jaroniec, J.Toth and W. Rudzinski, Acta Chim. Akad. Scient. Hing., 94 (1977) 35 94. N.A.Smirnova, Fluid Phase Equil., 2 (1978) 1 95. E.N.Brodskaya and N.A.Smirnova, Kolloid Zh., 36 (1974) 19 96. N.A.Smirnova, Kolloid Zh., 41 (1979) 1152

151 97. J.-C.Joud, N.Eustathopoulos, A.Bricard, et al, J. Chim. Phys., Phys. Chem. Biol., 71 (1974)1113 98. E.M.Beglyarov, V.A.Dozorov and I.P.Pugashevish, Zh. Fiz. Khim., 35 (1981) 524 99. Yu.K.Tovbin, Kolloid Zh., 45 (1983) 707

100. Yu.K.Tovbin, Poverkhnost'(Surface, in Russian), N 6 (1985) 33 101. Yu.K.Tovbin, Proc. Int. Conf. "Electrodynamics of Interface. Quantum Effects in Adsorption Layers and Films", Telavi, 1984. Tbilisi, Metznieroba, 1986, P.210. 102. Yu.K.Tovbin, Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR, 312 (1990) 918 103. Yu.K.Tovbin, Zh. Fiz. Khim., 66 (1992) 2162 104. Yu.K.Tovbin, and V.V.Gvozdev, Zh. Fiz. Khimii, 70 (1996) NS. 105. E.V.Votyakov and Yu.K.Tovbin, Zh. Fiz. Khim., 68 (1994) 287 106. S.Sokolowski and J.Fisher, Molec. Phys., 71 (1990) 393 107. A.M.Tolmachev, Uspekhi Khimii, 50 (1980) 769 108. Yu.K.Tovbin, M.F.Gilyazov and A.M.Tolmachov, Vysokochistye Veshchestva (Highly Purified Substances, in Russian), 9 (1990) 76 109. Yu.K.Tovbin, M.F.Gilyazov and A.M.Tolmachov, ibid., 9 (1990) 83 110. M.F.Gilyazov, T.A.Kuznetzova and Yu.K.Tovbin, Zh. Fiz. Khim., 66 (1992) 395 111. M.F.Gilyazov, A.M.Tolmachev and Yu.K.Tovbin, Fundamentals of Adsorption, by M. Suzuki, Kodansha, Tokyo, 1993 112. P.J.Flory, J. Chem. Phys., 9 (1941) 660; 10 (1942) 51 113. M.L.Huggins, J. Chem. Phys., 9 (1941) 440 114. A.R.Miller, The Theory of Solution of High Polymers, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1948 115. T.Nitta, M.Kuro-Oka and T.Katayama, J. Chem. Engng. Japan, 17 (1984) 45 116. I.Prigogine and J.Marechal, J.Coll. Sci., 7 (1952) 122 117. I.Prigogine and L.Sarolea, J. Chim. Phys., 47 (1950) 807 118. J.Marechal, Trans. Farad. Soc., 48 (1952) 601 119. M.Kurata, Busseiron Kenkyu, 56 (1952) 60 120. N.A.Smirnova, Kolloid Zh., 42 (1980) 84 121. I.Prigogine and A.Bellemans, J. Chem. Phys., 21 (1953) 561

152 122. I.Prigogine, A. Bellemans and A.Englert-Chowles, J. Chem. Phys., 24 (1956) 518 123. A.H.Wilson, Proc. Cambr. Phil. Soc., 34 (1939) 81 124. I.L.Aptekar, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz., 21 (1951) 910 125. Yu.K.Tovbin, Zh. Fiz. Khim., 69 (1991) 104

W. Rudzifiski, W.A. Steele and G. Zgrablich (Eds.)

Equilibria and Dynamics of Gas Adsorption on Heterogeneous Solid Surfaces Studies in Surface Science and Catalysis, Vol. 104 9 1997 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

153

Theories of the Adsorption-Desorption Kinetics on Homogeneous Surfaces H.J. Kreuzer and S.H. Payne Department of Physics, Dalhousie University Halifax, N.S. B3H 3J5, Canada 1. I N T R ODU C T I O N Whereas the equilibrium properties of a large system are controlled by the minimum of its free energy, the kinetics involve questions of energy transfer. To establish the relevant time scales for the adsorption and desorption processes, let us follow a gas particle approaching the surface of a solid. If it rids itself of enough energy within the attractive region of the surface potential, it will get trapped. However, even if it descends all the way to the bottom of the surface potential well, it will eventually evaporate again. For times to required for a particle to traverse the attractive potential well, the particle will remain close to the top of the well within an energy of kB T. In this time there is a fair chance that the particle acquires enough energy from the heat bath of the solid to escape again. If this escape, which we can identify with inelastic scattering, has not happened within a few round trips, the particle will begin its descent to the bottom of the potential well, which, in a quantum picture, corresponds to a cascade of transitions between the bound states of the surface potential, each downward transition accompanied by the emission of phonons into the solid and each upward transition with the absorption of phonons. This adsorption process, characterized by a time scale ta is, of course, more likely at low temperatures. After it has happened, the particle will try again and again to climb back out of the potential well through a sequence of phonon absorption and emission processes. It will eventually succeed in doing so after a desorption time ta. If ta is much shorter than td, then adsorption and desorption are statistically independent, and the processes of sticking, energy accommodation (i.e. thermalization) and desorption can be well separated. This is most likely the case if the thermal energy kB T is much less than the depth of the surface potential. The energy necessary to desorb a particle from the adsorbate can either come from the solid substrate or from some external source. As examples of the latter, lasers or other sources of electromagnetic radiation have been used in photodesorption and photon stimulated desorption [1,2]. Likewise, electron and ion beams are employed to cause electron and ion-stimulated des0rption, respectively ~]. Strong electric fields at field emission tips cause field desorption and evaporation, sometimes used in conjunction with lasers or electrons to produce photon- and electron-stimulated field desorption [4]. If the solid itself acts as the reservoir from which the desorption energy is taken, we speak of thermal desorption. Lennard-Jones and co-workers [5] argued that the thermal motion of the lattice should act as a time-dependent perturbation on the surface potential, with which the adsorbate is bound to the surface, and can hence supply the desorption energy. It has been shown in recent years that this picture, in modern parlance called phonon-mediated desorption is, by and large, correct, although coupling to

154 the electronic excitations in the case of metal substrates may also be important. Kinetic theories of adsorption, desorption and surface diffusion can be grouped into three categories: (i) At the macroscopic level one proceeds to write down kinetic equations for macroscopic variables, in particular rate equations for the coverage or for partial coverages. This can be done in a heuristic manner, much akin to procedures in gas phase kinetics or, in a rigorous approach, using the framework of nonequilibrium thermodynamics [7-10]. (ii) If it cannot be guaranteed that the adsorbate remains in local equilibrium throughout desorption, then a set of macroscopic variables is not sufficient and an approach based on nonequilibrium statistical mechanics involving time-dependent distribution functions must be invoked. The kinetic lattice gas model is an example of such a theory. It is derived from a markovian master equation, but is not totally microscopic in that it is based on a phenomenological hamiltonian and on postulated transition probabilities that are subject to the principle of detailed balance. For the kinetics in chemisorbed systems, this is as far as theory has progressed. (iii) Lastly, we realize that a proper theory of the time evolution of adsorption and desorption must start from a microscopic hamiltonian of the coupled gas-solid system. A master equation must then be derived from first principles with the benefit that transition probabilities are calculated explicitly involving microscopic parameters only. So far this programme has only been completed for phonon-mediated physisorption kinetics, as reviewed in a monograph by Kreuzer and Gortel [6]. This review is structured as follows: In the next section we briefly sketch experimental methods and procedures of data analysis to the extent they are needed in the ensuing discussions. Next, in section 3 we present the theory for adsorbates that remain in quasi-equilibrium throughout the desorption process in which case a single macroscopic variable, the coverage 0, and its rate equation are needed. We introduce the lattice gas model and discuss results ranging from non-interacting adsorbates to systems with multiple interactions treated essentially exactly with the transfer matrix method. Examples of the accuracy possible in the modelling of experimental data using this theory, from our own work, are presented for such diverse systems as rare gases and CO on metals and multilayers of metals on metals. Dissociative adsorption and the role of diffusion are also discussed. This is followed, in section 4, by a review of the macroscopic theory based on Onsager's approach to nonequilibrium thermodynamics, as adapted in recent years to surface kinetics by the authors. In section 5 we then p r o c e ~ to the semi-microscopic level by outlining recent advances in the theory of the kinetic lattice gas model. In section 6 we very briefly mention the few advances made in physisorption kinetics since 1985. The review concludes with a statement of policy, and the identification of some directions for progress. Recent reviews of adsorption-desorption kinetics since Menzel's articles in 1975 and 1982 [11,12] are by Rendulic [13], mostly on experimental advances, by Lombardo and Bell [14], with emphasis on Monte Carlo simulation, by Brivio and Grimley [15] on dynamics, and by the present authors [16]. 2. E X P E R I M E N T A L P R E L I M I N A R I E S , P H E N O M E N O L O G Y ANALYSIS

AND D A T A

Experimental studies of thermal desorption kinetics can be grouped into three approaches: (i) isothermal desorption, (ii) temperature jump desorption, and (iii) temperature programmed desorption. In an isothermal desorption experiment one removes the gas phase above the surface, either by reducing the initial pressure P~ to a final pres-

155 sure Pf <
(1)

as a balance between the adsorption rate, Ro, and the desorption rate, R~. Here the coverage, 0, is defined as the total number of particles in the adsorbate normalized either with the maximum number in a monolayer or with the number of adsorption sites; both conventions are used. The rate of adsorption is given by Ro = S(O, 7") Pa,/ ( 2 m n k B T ) 1/ 2

(2)

as the flux of particles of mass m hitting the area, as, of one adsorption site from the gas phase at pressure P and temperature T. The sticking coefficient, S(O, T ) , is a phenomenologieal transport coefficient that accounts for the efficiency of energy transfer between the substrate and the adsorbate. Two major assumptions have gone into writing down the rate of adsorption in the form (2): (i) we have assumed that the gas phase above the adsorbent surface remains homogeneous, i.e. that the process of adsorption does not deplete the gas phase. Depletion may occur in adsorption on small particles, or if fast reactions take place on the surface. An example for the latter is the oxidation of CO on P d ( 1 1 0 ) in the oscillatory mode. If depletion occurs we must couple the rate of adsorption to a gas phase diffu-

156 sion equation as done elsewhere in this volume. (ii) Adsorption can depend on the past history of the system. E.g. in dissociative adsorption at low temperature where surface diffusion is much slower than adsorption, single sites left over between occupied sites become ineffective such that the maximum coverage, for situations of negligible diffusion over the time scale of the experiment, is 0.907 for dimer dissociation [22]. Such situations can sometimes be accounted for through the temperature dependence of the sticking coefficient. Without further knowledge about the system, little can be said about the rate of desorption, R e , short of the fact that it describes an activated process. One frequently parametrizes the desorption rate Ra = rd (o, r)o ~

(3)

as a process with desorption order x. For atomic adsorption in the low coverage regime (where lateral interactions within the adsorbate are negligible) we have x = l , for dissociative adsorption in the low coverage regime we have x =2; but note that the coverage dependence of the rate constant in general precludes such simple interpretations. It is, indeed, the coverage dependence of the rate constant that contains all the interesting physics and is the reason why desorption experiments are done in the first place. We point out that the fact the rate of desorption as written in (3) is a function of temperature and coverage only is based on a major assumption, namely that the local configuration around a desorbing particle is completely determined by the overall coverage. This is clearly only the case if the adsorbate remains in quasi-equilibrium throughout the desorption process. Let us next implement the fact that desorption is a thermally activated process by writing the desorption rate constant in the Arrhenius parametrization, in surface science more frequently referred to as the Wigner-Polanyi equation, as ra = v exp(-E a / k B T )

(4)

in terms of an attempt frequency, J,, to escape the surface potential well, and an activation or desorption energy, E a . We will see below that both parameters are in general temperature- and coverage-dependent. To describe a TPD experiment we assume a linear temperature ramp, T(t) = T O + #t, which inserted in (1) with the adsorption term dropped, gives with (3), e.g. for x = l , dO dO dt v d--'T = - dt d T = # 0 exp(-E d / kBT)

(5)

If, and only if, g and E a are coverage and temperature independent, the temperature at the peak is given by the Redhead formula [23] Ed

-# = kB T exp( E,~/ kB T)

(6)

Conversely, determining the peak temperature experimentally, (6) provides one equation for two unknowns, i.e. p and Ed . To get a second equation, one can run TPD with a second heating rate differing by one or two orders of magnitude, and solve for p and Ea from the respective peak temperatures. We stress again that this analysis is only valid for systems in which v and Ed are c,overage independent, which is rarely the case (and uninteresting). Moreover, Redhead s analysis is invalid if two or more inequivalent adsorption sites are present on the surface, in which case a single variable 0 does

157 not suffice to characterize the adsorbate, and a rate equation like (1) must be written down for each partial coverage. In case particles can convert from one kind of adsorption site to another, additional diffusional terms must be added to the rate equations. This will be discussed below. To finish our discussion of phenomenology, we comment on methods of extraction of the kinetic parameters Ea and J,. First, we point out that inspection of TPD data can frequently lead to some (albeit semi-quantitative) insight into the structure and kinetics of the adsorbate. Let us assume that the TPD data show one peak. We can then extract a value for E a assuming that the prefactor r has a "standard" value of the order of 1013s -1 , characteristic of the vibrational frequency of an atom in a potential well with a spatial extent of an angstrom or so. The assumption of a "standard" frequency is rather dubious as r may vary anywhere from 10 ~0 to 1020s -~ from system to system and even over several orders of magnitude within one system as a function of coverage. Even so, with the assumption of a standard frequency and a heating rate of 5 Ks -1 one gets, approximately, from (6) that Ea = 31kBT p

(7)

If the TPD trace shows several (hopefully well-separated) peaks, this simple formula can be used to estimate different adsorption states, although great caution must be exercised and further analysis is required to substantiate such claims. Fortunately, this Redhead-type analysis, and variations on it [24], has been largely displaced by the "complete" analysis of a set of TPD curves, yet one still finds attempts at refinements [25], based on the coverage-independence of the parameters. A proper analysis of TPD data starts from the fact that in the desorption rate (5) the prefactor and the desorption energy are coverage (and particularly at low temperatures, also temperature) dependent quantities. The method proposed by several groups [26-28] consists of the construction of a series of isosteric (constant coverage) Arrhenius plots of enRd(O) (or en(ra) if the reaction order x is assumed) against 1/T, as interpolated from a family of TPD traces generated by varying initial coverages and/or heating rates. If the Arrhenius plots are straight lines or consist of sections of straight fines, the 0-dependence of E a and 1, can be deduced from the variations of slope and intercept, respectively, on these plots. Deviations from straight fines must be expected if (i) more than one adsorption state contributes to a TPD peak, or (ii) if the adsorbate does not remain in quasi-equilibrium throughout desorption, or (iii) if quantum effects produce a strong temperature dependence in the prefactor, e.g. in physisorbed systems. As for the interpretation of the parameters Ea(O) and r(0), we note that their zero coverage values refer to an isolated particle on the substrate, and their coverage dependence reflects lateral interactions between and different adsorption sites of adsorbed particles. A third method of determining such variations is based on the technique of threshold TPD [29,30]. Here the desorption rate is accurately measured at initial desorption for small changes in coverage and temperature, the initial coverage is then varied and the results fitted to (5). Compared to the second method, this extracts the kinetic parameters more directly, and is of advantage for systems away from equilibrium. Any temperature dependence of E d and J,, however, will not be as easily observed because the desorbing range is so short at each coverage value. We shall return to several points mentioned above in the following sections. Difficulties associated with the various methods of analyzing desorption data and remedies to overcome them are discussed at length elsewhere [31 ].

158

3. DESORPTION UNDER QUASI-EQUILIBRIUM CONDITIONS We consider desorption from an adsorbate where surface processes is so fast (on the time scale of desorption) that the adsorbate is maintained in equilibrium throughout the desorption process. That is to say that, at the remaining coverage 0(0 at temperature T(t), all correlation functions attain their equilibrium values. Thus the adsorbate can be characterized by its chemical potential,/z(0(t),T(t)). E.g., if we were to look at desorption of an adsorbate that shows coexistence of a dense and a dilute two-dimensional phase in a certain range of coverage and temperature, then the assumption of quasiequilibrium implies that at the remaining coverage, 0(t), the distribution of particles among the two phases is identical to that in equilibrium at coverage 0. In such situations a purely macroscopic description of the desorption process in terms of a single variable, the coverage 0(t), is sufficient. Its time rate of change has been written down in (1) in terms of an adsorption rate, R,, and a desorption rate, Ra. _We now look at a situation where the gas phase pressure, P, is different from its value, P, to maintain an adsorbate at coverage 0. There is then an excess flux to establish equilibrium between gas phase and adsorbate so that we can write

dO/at = S(O,T) (P-rJ)a,I (2mnkBT) ~/ 2

(8)

Next we express the equilibrium pressure in terms of the gas phase chemical potential, #s,

= kBT~-haexp(#gl kBT)Zi,I

(9)

where

X,h = hi (2~nkBT)l/ 2

(10)

is the thermal wavelength and Z~n, is the intramolecular partition function accounting for rotations and vibrations. However, in equilibrium, the chemical potential in the gas phase is equal to that in the adsorbate, #a, so that we can write the desorption rate in (1) as

R d = S(O,T)a, kBT/hXt2hZ~,,, exp(#o/kBT )

(11)

This is our principal result for the rate of desorption from an adsorbate that remains in quasi-equilibirum throughout desorption. Noteworthy is the clear separation into a kinetic factor, the sticking coefficient S(O, T), and a thermodynamic factor involving single particle partition functions and the chemical potential of the adsorbate. Thus a theory of desorption must simultaneously be a theory of adsorption, explaining not only kinetic data on desorption but also all thermodynamic data such as phase diagrams and heat and entropy of adsorption. The sticking coefficient is a measure for the efficiency of energy transfer in adsorption. Since energy supply from the substrate is required for desorption, the sticking coefficient, albeit usually at a higher temperature, must appear in the desorption rate by the detailed balance argument. The sticking coefficient cannot be obtained from thermodynamic arguments but must be calculated from a microscopic theory or be postulated in a phenomenological approach, based on experimental evidence for a particular system or some simple arguments.

159

3.1. Lattice gas model Most microscopic theories of adsorption and desorption are based on the lattice gas model. One assumes that the surface of a solid can be divided into two-dimensional cells, labelled i, for which one introduces microscopic variables n~ =1 or 0, depending on whether cell i is occupied by an adsorbed gas particle or not. The connection with magnetic systems is made by a transformation to spin variables a~ =2n~-1. In its simplest form a lattice gas model is restricted to the submonolayer regime and to gas-solid systems in which the surface structure and the adsorption sites do not change as a function of coverage. To introduce the dynamics of the system one writes down a model hamiltonian

H=E,

~ ni + ~ V2 E ninj + . . . i (ij)

(12)

Here Es is a single particle energy and V2 is the two-particle interaction between nearest neighbours (ij). Interactions between next-nearest neighbours etc. and many-particle interactions can be easily added to (12). As long as the number of particles in the adsorbate does not change, which is the case for systems in equilibrium, or for diffusion studies, the first term in (12) is constant and can be dropped from further consideration. However, if we want to study adsorption-desorption kinetics, the number of particles in the adsorbate changes as a function of time and a proper identification of E, is mandatory. Arguing that the lattice gas hamiltonian should give the same Helmholtz free energy as a microscopic hamiltonian (for noninteracting particles) one can show that the proper identification is given by

E, = - Vo - kBT en(q3qi,,, ) - kBT [en(X?hP/kBT ) - en(Z,,,,)]

(13)

where v 0 is the (positive) binding energy of an isolated particle on the surface. Moreover,

q3 = qzchy

(14)

is the vibrational partition function of an adsorbed particle with

qz = exp(hvz/ 2kBT)/ [exp(h~'z/ kBT)- 1]

(15)

its component for the motion perpendicular to the surface. Likewise, q~. is the partition function for the motion parallel to the surface. We have also made a'djustment for the fact that the internal partition function for rotations and vibrations of an adsorbed molecule might be changed from its free gas phase value Zi,,, to qi,,,, if some of the internal degrees of freedom get frozen out or frustrated.

3.2. Non-interacting adsorbates To elucidate our principal result (11) for the rate of desorption we first consider a noninteracting adsorbate in the submonolayer regime. Its chemical potential is given by

Izo = -V o + kBT[en(O/ ( 1 - 0 ) - en(q3qi,,,)]

(16)

If the adsorbate is not localized, i.e. if the corrugation of the surface potential parallel to the surface is negligible, we can treat it as a two-dimensional ideal gas and have

160

q~y = a~/ N2h

(17)

Thus (11) reads in the high temperature limit, i.e. for kBT>>h~,z, for a nonlocalized, noninteracting adsorbate R a = S(O,T) 0/(1-0) Z,.,/q~., ~ exp(-Vo/kBT)

(18)

In particular, if S(O,T)=So(1-O), then (18) is the familiar first order rate expression, with i, and E d identified. Let us next consider a noninteracting, localized adsorbate for which q~y has two factors like (15) with frequencies ~,~ and z,y. In this case we find in the high temperature limit Ra = S(O,T) 0/(1-0) Z~.,/q~., 2 m n a s / k B T g~PyPz exp(-Vo/kBT)

(19)

Since substrate vibrational frequencies ~,x, ~, ~z, are typically of order 1012-10~3s -1, the prefactor here can be larger than that in ~ 1~,j by a factor as great as 104, depending upon the system under study. Thus (zero coverage) prefactors up to 1017s-1 are to be expected even if Z~,,, = q~,,t [32]. Nevertheless, one sees statements in the literature that prefactors as large as 1020s- ~ are erroneous or unphysical. A word of caution about the high temperature limit: typical vibrational frequencies correspond to vibrational temperatures Tv =50-500K. Recall that desorption of chemisorbed species, with a heat of adsorption of a few eV, occurs at temperatures well above room temperature so that the high temperature approximation of the partition functions is justified. This is not the case for physisorbed systems with heats of adsorption of less, and frequently much less, than an electronvolt. In such cases the high temperature approximation is not justified. Indeed, for very weakly bound systems, such as rare gases on metals or even N2 on Ni(ll0), one might well be in the low temperature regime when desorption occurs. In such cases we write for (15) qz = exp(-ht'z / 2kB T)

(20)

and find, instead of (19) R a = S(O,T) O/(1-0) Zi.,/qi., a s kBT/hk,2hexp(-Ed/kB T)

(21)

Ea = Vo - h(vx +vy +Vz)/2

(22)

Thus the effective desorption energy is reduced from its high temperature value by the zero point energy in the surface potential, a reduction which is significant for some systems. Similarly, the prefactor in (21) is reduced (by orders of magnitude) from its value in (19) to a quantity independent of substrate vibrations. Expressions similar to (21) have been used frequently in the literature without reference to the fact that they are only valid in the low temperature regime [33]. While neither the classical nor the quantum limits of the vibrational (and internal) partition functions may apply to a system, they underscore the point that, across systems, there is no fixed relation between the desorption energies and prefactors, as determined by an Arrhenius analysis, and the microscopic binding energies and frequencies of the underlying dynamics. Whereas V0 and ~'i are parameters in a Hamiltonian, which gives the energy level structure of the substrate binding potential, Ed and v are strictly phenomenological (but physical) parameters. There is a considerable confusion in the literature on this point. It is useful at this stage to realize that for systems that remain in quasi-equilibrium throughout the desorption process, the desorption energy is more or less equal to the

161 isosteric heat of adsorption, as derived from the adsorption isotherms OenP aiso ( O, T) = k B T2 " ~

(23)

To see this we first define a differential desorption energy as

e,d (O, D = ksT2

Oen(Rd) Or

(24)

corresponding to the local slope of an isosteric Arrhenius plot. The desorption rate here can be identified from (8) in terms of an equivalent pressure that would be maintained if the adsorbate with the instantaneous coverage 0(t) were in equilibrium at temperature T. We can therefore write (24) equivalently as

Ea(O,T ) = Qiso(O,T) - ~ k B T + kBT2

OenS ( O, T) OT

(25)

Note that the second term is essentially irrelevant in the exponential. If the temperature dependence of the sticking coefficient is small (which is not the case for all systems), then the effective desorption energy is given by the heat of adsorption, provided that (i) surface processes are fast enough to keep the system in quasi-equilibrium throughout desorption, and (ii) that precursor states are absent. The generalised prefactor, v(O,T), is now defined via (3) and (24). In passing we note that a fit to the equilibrium data (isosteric heats, isobars) also provides a sensitive method of deducing V0 and {~'i}3.3. Nearest neighbour interactions in the quasi-chemical approximation Next we look at the effect of lateral interactions between adsorbed particles which are assumed localized so that, in the simplest model, we can think of the adsorbate as a lattice gas with a nearest neighbour interaction of strength V2. We illustrate some elementary but important results within the quasi-chemical approximation which gives [34] ].ta/ k n Z = - Vo/ kB Z + [1--~c] en[O/(1-O)] - en[q3qi,,, ]

+ cV2/2knT + ~ cen[(~ 1 +20)/(a+ 1.-20)]

(26)

where c is the site coordination number and a,2 = 1 - 4 0(1- O)(1- e x p ( - V2 / k B T) )

(27)

The desorption energy, via (11) and (24) can be expressed as Ea(O,T) = E a ( 0 , T ) + ~cV 2 [(1-20)/tx- 1]

(28)

For a large, repulsive (V2 >0) interaction, for example, Ed(O,T) exhibits two distinct

162 and essentially constant values for 0 ~: 1/2, implying two peaks in the TPD spectrum for initial coverages 00 _<1. The case of attractive interactions is more interesting, especially for temperatures below the critical value, To, for the phase transition. Here dilute and condensed phase regions coexist and (26) and (24) are replaced, within the coexistence region, by ~a = 89cV2- ksren(q3q~,)

(29)

z ~ ( o , r ) = E~(o,r~

(30)

- ~cv2

Inserting (29) into (11) we readily get zero order desorption kinetics within the coexistence region as a result of the coverage-independent chemical potential. As an example we look at the Ag/Mo(110) system for which the isosteric heat of adsorption at zero coverage, identified with Ea, has been measured to be 2.91eV [35]. A fit to the isothermal desorption data by choosing vz = 3.0x1012s -1, vx = p = 3.4x1012s-l and cVz = -0.41 eV produces the TPD traces of Figure 1, their p e ~ heights agreeing, within 10-20%, with those of Figure 4 of [35]. We note that these vibrational frequencies result in an effective prefactor in the Arrhenius parametrization of about 101Ss-1 as obtained in the evaluation of the experimental data, as discussed in [10]. The coverage dependence of the kinetic parameters is of particular note. At a fixed temperature, Ed(O,T) assumes a constant value, (30), if 0 lies within the coexistence region, but a quite different value, (28), otherwise. Figure 2 shows this dependence for three temperatures spanning Tc ( = 969K for V2 above), but as calculated from the local slopes of a series of isoteric Arrhenius plots, i.e. as if the data were generated experimentally. Note that, because we have imposed first-order kinetics on a zero-order process, the prefactor, u(0,13, is not constant in the coexistence region, but decreases like 0-1. This artifact is often contained in the evaluation of experimental data as well. The abrupt changes in E a and ~, mark the phase boundary at that temperature, and a complete temperature sequence will map out the phase diagram of the system. As an example we take the work of K olaczkiewicz and Bauer [36] on the desorption of metals from metals: having increased considerably the sensitivity of their measurements over earlier work [27], they noted that most Arrhenius plots did not yield one, but two, straight lines. We reproduce their resulting plots of Ed,(0) and ~,(0) for metals on ~(110), in Figure 3. For comparison purposes only, we show in Figure 4 the values of Ed and obtained by assuming two linear fits to the theoretical isosteres obtained from Figure 1. These curves are the temperature averages over the desorption range of a complete sequence of curves of Figure 2. The double-valuedness of Ed(O) and ~,(0) is clearly the indicator of desorption through the two-phase region. The results of Figure 3 must be considered as one of the examples of considerable progress in experiment [37]. There are many examples in the literature where similar features should have been seen, e.g. in [38]. Finally, we observe from Figures 3 and 4 the familiar compensation effect, namely an approximate proportionality between the single phase values of Ed and v, as a function of coverage. While this is observed experimentally for systems with attractive interactions (see e.g. ref.[39] for a further example), and is understood in this case by consideration of entropy change, the argument does not apply for repulsive interactions; nor is the proportionality well founded in lattice gas models. It has received much attention, however [40,41]. Any application of a compensation 'law" to the modelling of TPD spectra is suspect [42]. It is clear from the rate expression (11) that for systems that remain in quasi-equilibrium during desorption, one can extract the chemical potential as a function of cover-

163 [,~

o o

/'X

/ /

s"--

x 0

(.J (D 03

.

I

_.J

C3

n,,, 0

c-

.-.: .

0 "..,c Q_ 0 03

.

.. '

'

850.0

'

'

!

.

.

.

.

900.0

i

.

.

.

.

l

950. 0

.

1000 9 0

Temperoture

.

.

.

I

1050. 0

(K)

Figure 1" Temperature programmed desorption calculated for A g / M o ( 1 1 0 ) with data from ref. 35. Solid lines: quasichemical approximation with Vo = 33760 K = 2.91 eV, cV 2 = - 4 7 1 5 = - 0 . 4 1 e V , c = 4 , Tc = 9 6 9 K , vz = 3 x 1 0 1 2 s -1,v x = v . = 3 . 4 x 1 0 1 2 s -1, a, = 5 A2, S~ = S2 = 1. Dashed curves: Bragg-Wilhams approximation for which Vo = 2.93 eV, cV 2 = -4725 K and Tc = 1074 K. Heating rate is 1.21 K s- 1, initial coverages (top to bottom): 00 = 0.75, 0.55, 0.35, 0.15. From ref.[10]. .

.

.

.

Y

age and temperature, i.e. exp(#~/kBT) = ra / [S(O, T)a.kBTZ,., / hX,2h]

(31)

provided the coverage dependence of the sticking coefficient is known. Thus isosteres can be constructed, isosteric heats of adsorption can be calculated, and phase diagrams can be deduced. This procedure to use thermal desorption data to extract equilibrium properties is complementary to direct equilibrium measurements because the latter can usually be performed at low temperatures whereas the former extend to much higher temperatures, e.g. in the case of metals on metals to temperatures above critical. If equilibrium data can be measured independently in addition to thermal desorption, then (31) can be used to extract the sticking coefficient, although nobody has attempted this so far.

164 o t.,o ',z" 0 0 0

-

.f /

o

I"

'

f

i

:'-'I' - - ~ "

.

.

.

.

v

k_ I13 t't.IJ

o

t'-

.s

t~

Q. 0 m I1)

cD

~

r

1

t/

:J"

o I21

n r._.J

o w

mO.O

0.2

0.4

Coverage

0.6

I

08

(ML)

Figure 2" Upper triple of curves: differential desorption energies, Ed(O,T), as a function of coverage and for three temperatures, derived from the local slopes of isosteres as calculated from TPD spectra generated in the quasichemical approximation;temperatures are Tl = 1000 K (dash-dotted curve), T2 = 950 K (solid), T3 = 900 K (dashed). Lower triple of curves: (logarithm of) the corresponding effective prefactors. From ref.[10]. 3.4. 'Exact' results using transfer matrix methods The rate expression (11) allows one to set up as precise a kinetic theory as the equilibrium properties of the system can be modelled. One can extend the quasichemieal approximation to more general cluster methods [43]. To overcome the restriction to finite clusters one can employ transfer matrix methods [44,45] to calculate #a, with multiple lateral interactions included, on an M x oo lattice. The transfer matrix is constructed for interactions between particles in adjacent columns of M sites in the finite direction; its leading eigenvalue, X1, gives the grand partition function, ~ T , M, #) = XlM, and hence the coverage

165 1017 t

o

..o.... ,,= o ~

9

v

u

+

+

o o

v

v

oV

,,

~,

lO~S t

'v~

1016 ~-

v

z

v

v

- 10" ~

c~

0

10 Is ~

eY

_ 101] u_

1

z

_o

10" 0

>- ,.,

tD

~

~36

t,l.J z

z

|

"'k.6 z

z i---

l.-e~

tY

o

I

,,,

0

c~

I

0.2 0.t, COVERAGE 8

1

1

06

0.8

(ML)

~

I 02

t/1

"'

0

o

! 0t,

, t

i

06

08

COVERAGE 8 (ML)

----

10 =

!017 1

+ + ,~ o

t 1015 !

I

.,-

...':':"

1016~ &

9

,> >-

i0 Isz,,, o rY

101~.ug

T

z,2

o

~

t

1012

3.6

>

101]~ c/1

~u J3 . t .

~.0

.

o 0o

1011

u..J

,~ .'"

38

>.L.~

c~

!

"

0:3.2 t~ z z I--n

36

9

30

CX:

C~

m2.8 "'

0

I 1 1 02 0t. 06 COVERAGE 8 (ML)

3z'~ 7~

I 08

10 =-

0

1

z

02 04 06 COVERAGE 8 (ML)

i

~

08

10

Figure 3: Desorption energies Ed(O) and pre-exponential factors p(~ of Ni (a), Cu (b), Ag (c) and Au (d) on ~ 1 1 0 ) as a function of coverage O. The data are derived from the evaluation of 5,4,6 and 7 series of TPD spectra of Ni, Cu, Ag and Au, respectively, characterized by different symbols. O = 1 corresponds to 14.12x10 TM atoms/cm 2. The lines through the experimental points are only intended to guide the eye. From ref.[36].

n

kBT aen~ M a#

(32)

Exact results can be obtained by this method in the limit of large M. In practice, it suffices to consider only the totally symmetric subblock of the transfer matrix for this calculation; 0 is obtained from the corresponding eigenvector. One finds rapid conver-

166 0

',e"

o o o

f 0

!I3

J E

l.j o

.9 k.

\

0 m ~ Cl

\ \

o

.

0 u o ~ 12-

. m

f

E

f

..J

o

,....

mO.O

I

0.2

II

i

0.4

0.6

i

0.8

Coverage (ML) Figure 4: ,Coverage dependence of desorption energies (upper pair of curves) and (logarithm of) prefactors in quasichemical approximation, obtained by fitting equ.(5) to generated isosteres in the one-phase and two-phase regions separately (solid and dashed curves, respectively). From ref.[10]. gence of the method; e.g. for a system with nearest neighbour interactions on a hexagonal lattice, M-9 is essentially exact (but M=3 is not good enough). The transfer matrix method has been used extensively to determine phase diagrams of adsorbates [46-48], where details of the method can be found. As a first demonstration of the richness of the structures that can be dealt with we reproduce model calculations [49] of the isosteric heat and TPD rates for systems with first and second neighbour and trio interactions on a hexagonal lattice. We begin with a simple system with repulsive nearest neighbour interactions only, Figure 5a. The isosteric heat, as calculated from (9,23), shows a sharp drop. at low temperature around coverage 1/3 reflecting the onset of ordering into the V"3x~Y'3 R300 structure. It results from the large increase in chemical potential as nearest neighbour sites become occupied above coverage 1/3. The feature of note is the appearance of local maxima and minima, most pronounced for temperatures less than the (reduced) ordering temperature, Tc =Tc I V2 - 0.34, for the system which appear as one cuts isothermally through

167

0

~

o

-.I

-.1 -.2

-.2

-j

-.3

I

!

-.4

j \.

-.4

i

-.s

-4

-.6

!

~

-.5

~, o .-~ 0

-.6

,

-.7

<1

-.7

-.8

-.9 -1 0

-.9

-11

-10

!

-1 2

_,,[ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0

1

2

3

.4

5

.6

Coverage

1

.7

.8

1

-13

.9

.~

0

.2

5

.4

(,~tL)

.5

Coverage

o

.6

.7

8

.9

(ML)

1

-.1

1

-.3 -.2 I -.4 -,5 >~

-.~

-~ 0 (5

-,7 -.8 -.9 <1 9-~ .0 -1.1 -I .2 -1.3

~

-1.4

-15 - | . 6

. . , i . , . 1 , .

0

.1

.2

,

i

3

.

,

.

l

,

,

.4

,

l

l

,

l

.5

l

l

l

,

I

,

.6

L

.7

p

8

,

,

,

t

,

,

,

.9

Coverage (ML)

Figure 5: Normalised isosteric heat, AQ - Q(O,T') - Q(0,T), as a function of coverage for nearest neighbour repulsive interactions (V 2 > 0 ) between particles on a hexagonal lattice. The curves are labelled by reduced temperature, T = k B T / V ~ , with the values (top to bottom at O = 0.1) 0.15, 0.2, 0.25, 0.3, 0.35, 0.4, 0.5, 0.6, ...7, 0.85. Calculated for a) 9-site approximation to the two-row transfer matrix, b) including next nearest neighbour repulsion, V~ = 0.1V 2, and c) including trio interactions, V~ = -0.1V 2, W =0-2112- From ref.[49]. the phase diagram [50]. Thus there is an effective attraction, AQis o >0, between particles for coverages 0 _<1/3 and T = T / V 2 = 0 . 1 8 - 0 . 3 2 ; and a diminished repulsion, sig-

168 nailed by the local maxima, for T =0.32-0.35. These features result from the tradeoff between the energy and the entropy of the adsorbate in the vicinity of the orderdisorder boundary. Similarly for 0 _>1/3 the repulsion is enhanced, relatively, for these temperature ranges. This behavior is repeated at coverage 2/3 due to particle-hole symmetry around coverage 1/2. These features are also observed for the square lattice as discussed elsewhere [51] where connection is made to the structure of the two-particle correlation function. For temperatures greater than the ordering temperature all these features wash out leading eventually to a more or less linear decrease in A Qiso, as expected from mean field theory. Turning next to weak next nearest neighbour repulsion (V2'=0.1V2) we note in Figure 5b that additional drops appear at low temperatures around coverages 1/4, 1/2 and 3/4. These correspond to the onset of orderings into 2x2 and 2xl phases. These sharp decreases also disappear above the ordering temperature. Even this weak next nearest neighbour repulsion begins to suppress the v"3xV"3 structure. As one increases the next nearest neighbour repulsion to V2'=0.2V2, this suppression is complete with only period two structures remaining [52]. On a hexagonal lattice there are two kinds of trio interactions, (i) between nearest neighbours only, V,, and (ii) involving two nearest neighbour and one next nearest neighbour pair, Vt '. As Vt preserves period three structures induced by nearest neighbour repulsion, the additional effect of this (weaker) trio interaction on the isosteric heat is effectively to move the plateau region of Figure 5a above coverage 2/3 up (down) for Vt <0 (>0). The same is true when attractive next nearest neighbour interactions (V2' <0) exist as well. The situation is different for the case v2'>0 and Vt ;~0: depending on the relative strengths of these interactions, there is a competition between adsorbate structures of periods two and three above coverage 2/3. A similar situation applies for combined next nearest neighbour pair and trio interactions. Essentially, the trio interactions enhance the orderings induced by the pair interactions of the same sign and compete with them if the signs are opposite, for coverages above 1/2. We show an example of this situation in Figure 5c. We next turn to thermal desorption showing in Figure 6 the three corresponding TPD spectra, plotted as a function of reduced temperature and for various initial coverages. The three broad desorption peaks of Figure 6a (for 00 >0.75) correspond to the three plateaus of Figure 5a over this temperature range, with the valleys in the rate occurring at coverages 2/3, 1/3, where the adsorbate repulsive energy reduces dramatically. We compare the trace for 00 = 0.70 with the variation of A Qis o in Figure 5a: the sharpness of the low temperature peak, occurring at 0=0.67, arises from the excess repulsion reflected in the local minimum in zXQ~,o just above this coverage; the next peak occurs at 0 = 0.56 and T = 0.23 following, again, an excess of repulsion, relative to lower temperatures, in AQ~ o ; similarly the shoulders at 0 = 0.40, T = 0.27, and 0 = .22, T = 0.32. The effects of the local maxima of A Qi~o are harder to discern here but, compared to more approximate calculations of tza , they appear as a steepening of the leading edge of the desorption trace out of the valleys. Figure 6b shows the desorption traces obtained corresponding to the ratio V 2 ' / V 2 = 0.1 of Figure 5b. Again, the existence of essentially six 'plateaus' in A Qi,o, for low to intermediate temperatures, implies six desorption 'peaks' for high initial coverage, with the positions of the local maxima of F ~ u r e 6b reflecting the local minima of Figure 5b occurring about the 2 x 2 and v"3 x v 3 orderings. Figure 6c contains the effects of competition between these two orderings induced by the interactions corresponding to Figure 5c. The sharp peaks at T = 0.20 for the traces 00 = 0.85, 0.70 clearly arise from the large excess of repulsion at this temperature for 0 >__2/3. The asymmetry of the two desorption peaks for the trace 00 =

169

. . . .

"

"

"

'

'

. . . .

'

a

9

b o

3

0 0 •

x

3

c

2 o

O 1

I

.

0

.15

.20

Reduced

.25

.30

.35

Temperature

~

9 9

.15

.20

T/V 2

.

.

.

25

.30

Reduced Temperature

.35

T/V 2

.

,

.

.

,

,

,

.

.

.

.

,

.

.

.

.

~

.

.

.

.

c

oo 3

\ \

~2

I

0

.15

.

.20 25 JO Reduced TemperGture

.

3~ T/V2

Figure 6: Temperature programmed desorption rates as a function of reduced temperature (T/V2) and initial coverages, for three sets of adsorbate interactions. The site parameters assumed are typical for those of CO on (111) faces of transition metals: V0 = 156 k J / m o l , ,,., = ~'xy = 5 x 1012 s- ' , nearest neighbour repulsion V2 = 12.5 kJ/mol = 1500 K. Heating rate is 5 Ks -1. Initial coverages (left to right) 0o = 0.85, 0.7, 0.55, 0.40, 0.25, 0.1. (a) nearest neighbour repulsion only; (b) next nearest neighbour repulsion included, V~ = 0.1V 2; (c) next nearest neighbour attraction V~ = -0.1V 2, and next nearest neighbour trio repulsion 11; = 0.2V 2. (For this interaction set the lowest temperature desorption peak for 00 = 0 . 8 5 lies below T~ V 2 = 0 . 1 5 . This is suppressed to maintain the scale.) From ref.[49].

170 0.55 nicely displays a general effect of the local maxima/minima structure of ~Q~,o. Such asymmetries are absent in mean-field type calculations. Although multi-peaked desorption spectra will occur with nearest neighbour repulsion (on a triangular lattice) alone, two lessons should be taken from these examples: the presence of additional, and weaker, interactions easily gives rise to multi-peaked spectra of more complicated and varied shapes; and the local minima of the isosteric heat significantly affect this spectral structure. To directly associate such structures with different binding states, as frequently done in the literature, is too naive and often misleading. As an application of the above theory we now look at the adsorption of CO on Ru(O001). In a number of respects this system is an ideal one to model: Menzel's group has performed a complete set of measurements [53-55], producing superb data, on the low temperature structural properties of the adsorbate (LEED), its equilibrium properties, and adsorption and desorption kinetics (the latter in both isothermal and temperature programmed modes). The system displays a number of interesting features that demand detailed analysis for their modelling. There is convincing evidence that CO is mobile on Ru(0001) for temperatures above 200K, so that the adsorbate is in quasi-equilibrium throughout desorption. LEED data [55] suggests that the CO molecules move off their original binding sites above coverage 0 = 0.4. The simple lattice gas model with one type of adsorption site, as specified in (12), is therefore inapplicable above this value, but can be used to fit the experimental data below it, with a trio interaction introduced to mimic effects in the data above 0=0.4. One can estimate the nearest neighbour and next nearest neighbour interaction strengths by making use of the equilibrium isobaric data, Figure 7, and the (derived) isosteric heat, Figure 8a [54]. An alternate, and common procedure, is to use the structural data and compare with model phase diagrams. This is always much more difficult computationally. From Figure 8a we have the following estimates: Q~o(O = 0,T=700K) = 154 kJ/tool, Q~,o(O = 1/3, T <700K) = 118 kJ/mol implying V2 = 12 kJ/mol. A fit to the low coverage isobars yields the site parameters V0 = 154.6 kJ/mol, ~'z Pxy ~" Phr = 2.64 x 10 ~2 s-~. A hindered rotation, of frequency ~'hr, has been included as the additional degree of freeAom of the molecule. All frequencies are set equal for simplicity. The behaviour of the isobars elsewhere in the 0-T plane is now determined by particle interactions alone. Figure 7 shows the fit assuming a next nearest neighbour attraction, V2' = -0.07 V2 and a next nearest neighbour trio interaction, V,' = 0.07 V2. The fit is excellent for 0 _<1/3, but is poorer in the vicinity of 0 = 1/3 (the flatter portions) as reflected in the calculation of Q~,o(O,T), which is shown in Figure 8b for several temperatures in the range 300-700 K. With the parameters which produced Figure 7 one now generates TPD spectra according to eq. (11). With the "standard" assumption for the sticking coefficient, i.e., S(O,T) = S(0)(1-0) with S(0)=0.7, one gets the desorption traces as depicted in Figure 9a displaying several features not present in the experimental data. However, the sticking coefficient varies dramatically as a function of both temperature and coverage [53]. If one parametrizes the experimental sticking coefficient, approximately, according to the insert in Figure 9b and folds this information into the calculation of the desorption traces, we get Figure 9b. The agreement with the experimental data, Figure 9c, with regards to peak positions and relative peak heights is excellent for 0 _<1/3 and still good elsewhere. On performing an Arrhenius analysis of the desorption rates in the standard manner, i.e., 'plotting' (-1/0 dO~dO vs. 1/T, thus averaging Ea(O,T) over the desorption temperature range, we obtain the solid line in Figure 8c. The dashed line plots Q~,o(g), obtained by averaging the isotherms of Figure 8b over the temperature range of the isobars at coverage 0. The hump below coverage 1/3 can only be obtained in an infinite lattice calculation. An earlier attempt [56] based on the generalized quasichemical approximation to a lattice gas with nearest neighbour repulsion only is too simplistic. =

171

. . . . . . . .

'i ....

I ....

! ....

I ....

! ....

t

600

>

50O

E c o ".~

400

C

~_

5(?0

0

200

<1 100

0 350

400

450

500

550

600

650

Tempereture

Figure 7: Isobaric plots for CO/Ru(O001): comparison of theory (curves) and experiment [54] (points) using a 9-site approximation to the two-row transfer matrix. Interaction parameters: V2 = 12 kJ/mol = 1440 K, V~ =-0.07V2, V; =-V~, site binding parameters as in text. The isobars are P = 1.3 x 10 -6 mbar (left) and 1.30 x 10 -4 mbar (right). Coverage and change in work function, A~, are related by 0 = 7.58 x 10 -4 A~ + 8.01 x 10 -7 ( A 4 - 4 4 0 ) 2. From ref.[49]. The isothermal desorption kinetics of CO adsorbed on Rh(111) has also been analyzed employing a lattice gas with up to third neighbour interactions [57]. Here again the form of the sticking coefficient, varying as 1-30, is important for the proper modelling of the kinetics. The transfer matrix method can be extended to deal with adsorbates with more than one adsorption site or state per unit cell. As an example we refer to hydrogen adsorption and desorption from Rh(ll0) [58]. A lattice gas model with first, second and third neighbour and various trio interactions between hydrogen atoms adsorbed on two inequivalent sites on the reconstructed surface is capable of reproducing all observed ordered structures, i.e. lx3 - H at 0=1/3, lx2 - H at 0=1/2, lx3 - 2H at 0=2/3, lx2 -2H at 0=1 and l x l - 2H at 0=2. It also reproduces the experimental TPD spectra, Figures 10 and 11. There are few other applications of the transfer matrix method to the modelling of desorption kinetics [59]. Much of the modelling is performed using Monte Carlo simulations [14,60-68]. While this method has obvious advantages for simulating effects such as fast diffusion and relaxation of the local environment of the adparticle , under quasi-equilibrium conditions the transfer matrix method of calculating the chemical potential (which yields both equilibrium and kinetic data) is definitely superior for the desorption rate. This is also evident by comparing the quality of TPD spectra produced by the two methods. This and the fact that the

172

Eeff or

EB

o

~

{KJ/rr~

o

150

~:.~

9

.

oo o

9

o

o

o

100

4 ......

,

i

....

,

, . . . . . . .

. . . .

o:2 o3 o'.4 ols o.6

; ....

e-

; .... L .

.

.

.

'

9 i

- -

~;

....

, ....

i

....

t

i

b

150

!50

>,

140

i

Q) 130

g

13C

. _

120 t~

110

-4,'

110 ~-

~oo F ...............................

100 0

.1

.2

=

Coveroge

.4 (ML)

.5

.6

0

"

2

3 Coverage

.4

1. .5

.6

(IdL)

Figure 8: a) Experimental data on heat of adsorption (full circles) and desorption energy from ref.54, b) Temperature and coverage dependent isoteric heat, Qi,,, (e, 7) for CO/Ru(O001) for the interaction and site parameters of Figure 7. The curves are labelled by temperature (top to bottom at (9 = 0.2) T = 300, 380, 460, 540, 620, 700 K. c) Temperature-averaged desorption energy, Ea(~ (solid curve), obtained from a linear Arrhenius analysis of the TPD spectra of Figure 9b; and isosteric heat, Qi,o(~) (dashed curve) obtained by proper averaging over the curves of Figure 8b. transfer matrix computation is relatively fast (and definitely faster than Monte Carlo) is important for an accurate fit of experimental desorption data. We stress again that in the analysis of the thermal desorption data, the role of the sticking coefficient is crucial. Here a caution regarding the simulation of desorption rates by the Monte Carlo tech-

173

I

.

.

.

.

I

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

t

.

.

.

.

t

"'

"

"

" ' t

.

.

.

.

d__ar

o •

dt o r~ .

2

!

0

4.00

350

300

500

450

Tem,,~eraLure s,o~

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

:

.

.

.

.

"'

";

'

~

"

"

"

b f

o ~

"

\ . ~

g2

j 300

t,00

500

600

~"

--T(K)

0

500

~

350

4-00

4.50

500

Temperature

Figure 9" Temperature programmed desorption spectra for CO/Ru(O001) for two forms of the sticking coefficient (a) S(O,T) = 1-0, (b) S(0,7") given by the inset to this figure. Parameters as for Figure 7. Heating rate 5 Ks -]. Initial coverages (left to right): 00 = 0.66, 0.58, 0.49, 0.43, 0.38, 0.3, 0.25, 0.15, 0.05. c) Experimental spectra from ref. [54]. nique is in order: by the principle of detailed balance it implicitly assumes an adsorption rate with a sticking coefficient S(O)=So(1-0) (unless precursors are invoked). Thus in any system where the sticking coefficient does not have this simple form, simulation by standard Monte Carlo is inappropriate. For example, the recent attempts [63,67] to fit the desorption data of CO~Ru(O001) are unacceptable.

174

H/ah(l 0) Tad= 90K 1.36

d

0.57

j[3

0.74

~

@

0.36 026

'

100

i

150

I

i

'

'

'

!

. . . .

200 250 300 Temperature in K

I

. . . .

350

400

Figure 10: Temperature programmed desorption spectra of H 2 from gh(110) [58]. Initial coverages are indicated. Heating rate: 10Ks -1. Before closing this section, we mention a widely used phenomenological approach to adsorption-desorption kinetics based on transition state theory. In this approach one views the desorption process as a chemical reaction where a particle A bound to a surface site I:, forming a "molecule" (A+I:), is removed into the gas phase via a transition state or an activated complex (A +I:)* leaving an empty site behind. One then assumes that the transition state is in equilibrium with the reactants and calculates the corresponding equilibrium constant. Arguing next that the transition state vibrates along the reaction path, one can calculate its partition function in the high temperature limit to arrive, eventually, at a formula for the desorption rate constant (which no longer contains the vibrational partition function of the transition state). These remarks are not meant to discredit transition state theory as such, which no doubt has its role in chemical reaction kinetics, but to point out that for desorption kinetics simpler arguments, as presented e.g. from (8) to (11), lead to answers in a straightforward way. A case in point is the several pages of arguments needed in ref.[69] to arrive at the expression for zero order desorption, already contained in (11) for constant chemical potential.

175 045

,

i

,

|

LJ

o81111.

040 9--

035

~

1

i::

>-"(1)

||

030

0.6

.........

ii :."

. ....

~.~'~'. " ..

'~" t..:

I I I I i

025

0.4

I!

Co 020

""- . . . ~ ,,/ I ....~:

._

015 L

o

,

,

c_

~

!.'" ~.i

0.2

010 {[I

s

005

t

x x

C)

03

0 100

150

Temper

200

& ture

250

300

350

o of ................ o.o

o.s

1.o

!i'i 1.5

2.0

Coverage

(K )

Figure 11: TPD spectra (left panel) and isosteric heat (right panel: dotted at T=100K, dashed at T=150K and dashed-dotted at T=200K) in the "best" inhomogeneous 2-site model [58]. Solid line in the right panel gives the desorption energy (up to 0=1.36) obtained by a linear Arrhenius analysis of the TPD data. a- and b-site binding and interaction parameters: V0(a)=2.50eV, V0(b)=2.45eV, VabI =0.09eV, Vboo=-0.013eV, Vba I -'Vaa 1 = 0 . 0 4 3 e V , Vob2 =0.013eV, Vo~2 =0.0043eV, Vba~ =Vo.b~2 =0.013eV, Vba.a2-----'O.OO86eV, Vo~a=0.0065eV, V'aa=V'bb=-O.OO86eV, V~a=-0.0021eV. Initial coverages as in Figure 10 with the addition of 00=1.36.

3.5. Multilayer adsorption and desorption Whereas adsorbates with mainly repulsive lateral interactions are generally restricted to the submonolayer regime, those with mainly attractive lateral interactions exhibit multilayer growth. Examples of the latter are most physisorbed systems such as rare gases and inert molecules on metals or insulators, but also strongly chemisorbed systems such as noble metals on transition metals and others [37]. Although such systems have been studied experimentally for many years and are obviously of great interest and importance, little progress has been made, until recently, on the theoretical side despite major advances in our understanding of adsorption and desorption in monolayer adsorbates. Early work [7,9] showed that even a small population of second layer particles can in.fluence the overall rate when desorption from the islands, on which" the particles reside, is restricted. A bilayer model for zero-order desorption has also been advanced by Asada and Masuda [70]. Some non-trivial lattice-gas models have been developed for the equilibrium properties of multilayers [71,72]. Recently we have presented a theory of multilayer adsorption and desorption based on a lattice gas [73,74]. The theory is based on a lattice gas with a hamiltonian

U-'Esl~rl

i dffEs2~Ilim

i

i

i "+ I Vii

~

n.n.

ni nj

l'lillj "+" ~ V'll n .n .n.

176

+

+

n.n.

+

n.n.

~"

niminjm J + ...

(33)

n.n.n.

Here the occupation number ni = 0 or 1 depending on whether site i is empty or has a particle adsorbed in the first layer with a single particle energy Es~ , c.f. (13). Likewise, m/ = 0 or 1 depending on whether the site i in the second layer is empty or occupied with an energy Es2. Here we assume on-top sites for the second layer for simplicity. In (33) we identify vl~ (V'l~) and V22 (V'22,) as the lateral interactions between two particles in nearest neighbour (next-nearest nelghbour) sites in the first and second layers, respectively. The interaction V~ is between next-nearest neighbours with one particle in the first layer and the second m the second layer. The nearest neighbour interaction between a particle in the first layer and another one on top of it in the second layer is accounted for by Es2 which also contains the residual interaction with the substrate. As an example we quote results for Cu on Mo(110). Experimental TPD traces [75] are reproduced in Fig.12a with a theoretical fit given in Fig.12b. Although isotropic nearest neighbour interactions alone with on-top adsorption for the second layer is assumed, the model reproduces the experimental data surprisingly well, with regard to both the shape of the desorption traces as well as the absolute magnitude of the rates. Lateral nearest neighbour interactions in the first and second layers are attractive and give a critical temperature of the first layer of Tc = 1125K in agreement with an estimate by Paunov and Bauer from TPD data [75]. Desorption from the coexistence region of the first layer is quite clearly displayed in the leading edge of the high temperature TPD peaks indicative of zero order desorption. The growth mode of the Cu bilayer is shown in Fig.12c as the partial coverages 01 and 02 of the first and second layer, respectively, as a function of total coverage for temperatures spanning the desorption range. Layer-by-layer growth is clearly in evidence. This has an interesting effect on the partial rates dO1~dt and dazl dt, Fig.12d in the intermediate temperature range of TPD where first and second layer peaks overlap: although the partial rates show apparent independent desorption of the two layers with the first layer trailing the second at higher temperatures, desorption from the first layer is now constrained by that of the second layer, resulting in a sudden onset of the former and a shift of the first layer peak for initial converages larger than one monolayer to higher temperatures to accomodate the total amount of material to be desorbed. Desorption of Au from Mo(110) is also analyzed in detail in [74]. Most of the applications of the lattice gas model to crystal growth have been concerned with calculating phase diagrams, critical properties and growth mechanisms within the solid-on-solid model. While the literature on crystal growth is enormous it has mainly been concerned with phenomenological descriptions, see e.g. [76]. The theory developed in [73] is distinct in that it considers the details of the adsorptiondesorption kinetics together with equilibrium properties of the first few layers where effects of the substrate still occur. In particular, the interplay of structure and kinetics can be studied within the one framework.

177 7.S r

7.5

o

!

i ~.so

6.0 d4.5 *o w

.

~3.0

0 ' 6 )0

g

~ 2OC

900

1 1 O0

1000

1200

Tempercture

(K)

TEMPER~TUR E [K}

75 i i,

.0

i . . . . .

, "

......

:

"

'

"

0

"

"

'

.

.

.

.

.

'

"

"

"

'

""

" ' "

"

'

'

"

"

"/i

III

/

/i

. - . 6.0

1

/il

i Id i ',I i ',e

3.0

6 ~,I !.5

6 , ~'1~

I

O

.2

.4

.6

.8

:.0

1.2

', 4

Coveroge (ML)

~.6

!.8

2.0

0 t ...... 800

t

=~. 900

~000

Tempercture

, ',,,S

11O0

1200

(K)

Figure 12" (a) TPD data of the first two monolayers of Cu on M o ( 1 1 0 ) obtained with a heating rate of 2.43Ks -1 [75]. The curves differ in initial coverage by approximately 0.07 monolayers between 0.07 and 2.2 monolayers. (b) Theoretical fit for initial coverages between 0.07 and 2 monolayers in steps of 0.14 with the following parameters: V0O) = 3.2eV, Vo(2) = 2.98eV, Vl~=-0.172eV, Vj2= 0 eV, V22=-0.129eV, vx = v = v z = 5x1012s -]. (c) Partial coverages for first (sohd lines) and second (dashed lines~ as a function of temperature. (d) Partial rates for first (solid lines) and second (dashed lines) as a function of temperature. From ref.[74].

178 3.6. Competition between atomic and molecular desorption A gas in equilibrium contains atoms and molecules at partial pressures that, at low densities and high temperatures, are controlled by the mass action law. Thus in a onecomponent gas of atoms and diatomic molecules we get for the respective pressures in terms of the chemical potentials #rag and #og of the molecular and atomic gas,

-Pa --- kBT 3 et~ag !tBr Nh

(34)

_ Pm-

(35)

kBT kBr kBT T e(2Uag +edis)1kB 1" X23 Zin, eumg! - h23 2T~ Qv (T)

edis is the (positive electronic) dissociation energy of the gas phase molecule and =X,h/~'2 is its thermal wavelength. Zi,,, is the partition function accounting for the rotations and vibrations of the molecule. Thus Tr is the rotational temperature of the molecule, and Q,, (79 is an expression like (15). A molecular gas adsorbs atomically if the energy released by binding its constitutent atoms separately is large enough to supply the dissociation energy. Entropy considerations also play a role because in equilibrium the Gibbs free energy of the atomic adsorbate must be lower than than of a molecular adsorbate. This brings in vibrational partition functions of the atoms or molecules with respect to the surface and also of hindered internal motion of the molecule. For practical reasons the released energy must also be enough to surmount a possible activation barrier in order to achieve equilibrium on an acceptable time scale. The question remains under which conditions an atomic adsorbate desorbs as either atoms or molecules. The theory has recently been developed for homonuclear diatomic molecules and applied to the desorption of Te from ~ 100) [77]. Two models have been considered: (i) In the direct dissociation model one assumes that the gas phase molecules become dissociated on impact with the surface, so that only atomic species are present. (ii) For precursor-mediated adsorption one assumes that molecules adsorb in a precursor state from which dissociation occurs into the atomic state. If fast surface processes maintain the adsorbate in quasi-equilibrium, the system is completely characterized by the two partial coverages, i.e. of the precursor and chemisorbed states, and the theory can be set up quite straightforwardly. We consider the case of direct dissociation only [58]. The atomic species has a coverage 0. Its time rate of change is due to an excess flux of molecules and atoms hitting the area, as, of an adsorption site and sticking with probabilities Sm (0,7") and S,, (0, T), i.e. .o

_

dt - S m

(0, T)

(Pro - Pro) -t- Sa(O,T ) (

)]k(P a - Pa)

(36)

Her~ Pm and Po are the instantaneous molecular and atomic pressures above the surface and Pm and Po are the equilibrium pressures needed to maintain a coverage Oof atoms at the temperature T. Next one uses (34) and (35) and the equality of the chemical potentials of the atomic gas above the surface, #,,g, and the atomic adsorbate, #,,(o), to write the rate equation (36) as

dO a-7 = R,,d - Rd~,

(37)

179 where the rates of adsorption from the atomic and molecular gas components are, respectively,

RaaO0 = S,, (0, T) a, -h P"

(38)

Rad (m) = S m (0, T~ 2a, -~ I'm

(39)

and the rates of desorption as atoms or molecules are

kBT (I.ta(a))/kBT

Rdes (a) = S a (0, ~ a, " ~ - e

(40)

kBT T (a) .t.~dis)lkB T Rdes (m) = Sm(O,T) 2a, hX22 2T r Qv(T) e (2ua

(41)

To complete the theory one needs to specify the coverage dependence of the sticking coefficients and the chemical potential, #o
e

0 1 <-Vo+l,ti)lkBT - 1-0 q3(T) e

(42)

so that (40) and (41) read 0 a~kBT (#i-Vo)IkBT Rd,~
0z

askBT T

Q~(T)

Re,,(m) = S m (O,T) (1_0)2 hk22 Tr (q3(T)) 2 e

(43) (2ui-2Vo+eais)/kBr

(44)

Whether an atomic adsorbate desorbs as atoms or molecules obviously depends on the relative magnitudes of the prefactors and the desorption energies. Lateral interactions can also play a major role as we now discuss for Te on W(100). From LEED data [78] it is known that this system has a 3x3 structure at 0=1/3 below room temperature, a c(2x2) and p(2xl) structure at 0=1/2, a (3x3) structure at 0=2/3 and some more complex structures close to monolayer coverage. To explain these structures adsorption at hollow and bridge sites is necessary. The necessary two binding site lattice gas model with first, second, third neighbour, trio and quarto interactions has been set up and the chemical potential has been calculated as a function of temperature and coverage using a 12-site transfer matrix. In Figures 13 and 14 we reproduce the experimental data and a theoretical fit that also explains the ordered structures. It is very gratifying that the molecular desorption peak is exactly in the right position and of the right magnitude, i.e. about an order of magnitude smaller than the lowest atomic peak. We stress that no additional parameters are available for the fit to the molecular peak. Considering the desorption energy for Te we note that V0 =5eV and qi, =2.38eV for Te~. Thus in the absence of lateral interactions the difference in desorption energies tor atomic and

180 |

I

|

[

|

1

1

i

1

a Is

z

Te~ {1001

...190

Tom :500K t =20Ks" i ~ m e t e r : Exposure time (s} Te. 9

,/~

/

,,-- ~ ~ 160

6o 6~

I~5

~s

Z'tO$! Z~Z

]OOs Z6.3 3'm~ Zt,O

b

Te/W (100) :500K ~mn ..2gKff~ l:~-Qmet~ : Exi)osure time (s) Te.

w

t,-

~S

t

r

A

<

Z20

w w

/ / --

//

I~mmeter: Ex~:msure time (s) lez

195

w

<5

~

Tetw (lOOl I,:~: SO0K f : ZOKs"

II II

i~

18o /

6OO

8OO

1000

1200 ~ TEMPERATURE (K)

!

I

1600 --

1800

20C0

Figure 13: TPD spectra for Te 1 (a,b) and Te 2 (c) from Te adsorbed on ~ 1 0 0 ) at 500K. Mass spectrometer/electrometer ranges 10 -s A (a), 3x10 -8 A (b), 3x10 -9 A (c). Heating rate 20Ks -1. Parameter: exposure (s). From ref.[78]. molecular desorption would be roughly 2.6eV, i.e. molecular desorption would occur at much higher temperature and would never be significant. However, strong lateral repulsion in this system amounting to about 2.5eV at full coverage reduces the molecular desorption energy to the same magnitude as the atomic one in the high coverage regime leading to the occurrence of atomic and molecular desorption at low temperature. Here the molecular prefactor is about 3 orders of magnitude larger then the atomic one, also helping in the competition. In closing this subsection we want to stress that competition between atomic and molecular desorption should be observable in a number of metal-on-metal systems [79] but has rarely been reported most likely for lack of looking. Of course, in such situa-

181

.12 ij 9 oo

9

.10

.08

r6 C 0

.06

o--

i:).. L. o 9 E]

.04

.02

I

600

800

1000

1200

T emperature

1400

160Z

1800

2000

(K)

Figure 14: Temperature programmed atomic (solid lines) and molecular (dashed lines) desorption of Te from V~100) with a 2-site model. From ref.[77]. tions a separate Arrhenius analysis of the atomic and molecular rates must be performed. 3.7. The role of diffusion in desorption The quasi-equilibrium theory presented so far can easily be extended to systems with more than one adsorbed species and several adsorption sites. If, however, precursors are present as in activated chemisorption, quasi-equilibrium may not obtain during desorption as intermediate steps in the desorption process may be rate limiting. These problems have been discussed very clearly by Cassuto and King [80] at the phenomenological level, and not much has been published since apart from an excellent review by Ehrlich [81]. We briefly comment on one aspect of diffusion in desorption kinetics, following an analysis of the system N2/Ni(430) [82]. We assume that there are two distinct adsorption sites on the surface, referred to for simplicity as step and terrace sites, with partial coverages 8, and 0,. The phenomenological rate equations in the absence of precursors and lateral interactions are assumed to be

182 dOs/ dt = SsasP/ (27rmkBT) l/ 2(1-Os)-rsO s +rs._ t Ot (1-Os)-rt._sOs (1-Ot )

(45)

dOt / dt = St at P/ ( 2 mnkB T) l / 2 (1- Ot) - rt Ot- rs._ t Ot (1- Os) + rt.. s Os(1- Ot)

(46)

Here Si for i=s,t are the sticking coefficients at zero coverage with a simple linear decrease assumed as a function of coverage. The rate constants can be obtained from as

(19)

l"i = SiOiZint/ qin, 2mnail kBT vxiuyi~zi exp(-Voi/ kBT)

(47)

r ~ , = J,~., exp(-Q~_,/k B73

(48)

where Q ~ , is the activation energy for hopping from the terrace to the step site. Detailed balance demands that rz.. s = r~_,r,/ rt

(49)

implying in particular that the activation energy for hopping from the more deeply bound step site to the terrace site is enhanced by the difference in binding energies. To calculate TPD curves we assume that all parameters are such as to produce two distinct .10

F-"

'

"

'

,

,..

9

,

9

,

9

,

;

j

.10

.09

,

~

a

~

~

,

9

,

.

,

,

170

180

.'

',

b

~.o7

~.07 v

.

.0'9

.06

v

.06

g -~

g

~ .o3 ~ .o2

-~ .o3 ~ .ca

0 1.90

0

'

17,'0

140

1,50

.~

160

Temperoture

170

180 (K)

190

200

120

,/I

"

,

I~

!~.(3

!I \,,,, t

-"

150 Temperature

t

160

190

.

200

(K)

Figure 15" Temperature programmed desorption spectra for the phenomenological model of equ.(45-49): (a) Parameters from a fitting to equilibrium data of experimental data of N 2 / N i ( 4 3 0 ) (M. Grunze, private communication); no hopping ( ~ , =0), initial coverage 00 = 2/3, heating rate 3Ks -1. (b) As for (a) except u~_, =10 s s -1, Q~.,=lO kJ/mol. The solid curve is the sum of the rates from the terrace (long-dashed curve) and step (short-dashed) sites; the net diffusive rate (step--, terrace) is the dash-dotted curve. These three components have been scaled down by 0.25. desorption peaks in the absence of diffusion, see Figure 15a. Conventional wisdom then has it that, in the presence of fast diffusion, particles trapped in the deeper-bound step sites will diffuse into the terrace sites as the latter desorb. One therefore expects a lowering of the high temperature peak and a shift to lower temperatures, thus filling up

183 the valley between the peaks, as borne out in Figure 15b. We note, however, that the transfer from steps to terraces only sets in at temperatures above the maximum of the lower peak, i.e. when the blocking factor l-O, approaches one, and this for all values of J'~ t, and for all heating rates. Indeed, the effect saturates for hopping prefactors us._t larger than 10Ss-~. In Figure 15b the solid curve represents total desorption; the shortdashed curve is desorption from the step site, i.e. the term -rsO, in (45). Diffusion replenishes the terrace sites maintaining desorption from the terrace sites even at higher temperature, i.e. due to the last two terms in (45), the sum of which is shown as the dash-dotted curve in Figure 15b. Indeed, this is the fastest route for depleting the population of the step site, as indicated by the terrace site desorption rate, -r, O, (long-dash curve). The total desorption rate thus shows the high temperature peak reduced and shifted to a slightly lower temperature with considerable filling of the valley. We condude: if system parameters are such that in the absence of diffusion the TPD curves would have two separated peaks, then the two-peak structure remains in the presence of diffusion, no matter how fast it is. 4. N O N E Q U I L I B R I U M T H E R M O D Y N A M I C S OF S U R F A C E PROCESSES So far we have assumed that quasi-equilibrium is maintained during the desorption process. This assumption breaks down when the time constant of surface diffusion is not appreciably faster than that for desorption, as it happens e.g. for rare gases on metals, in which case nonequilibrium effects show up in desorption experiments. To deal with such situations it is advantageous to formulate the kinetics of adsorption, desorption and diffusion using the methods of nonequilibrium thermodynamics. We will demonstrate the approach by considering, in more detail, gas-solid systems in which the adsorbate exhibits coexistence of a dilute, gas-like phase together with islands of a condensed phase, both of course, being two-dimensional (2-d). The 2-d gas phase consists of two parts, adsorbed, respectively, on the bare surface or on top of the condensed islands. Taking the system out of equilibrium by, e.g., changing the temperature of the substrate or the ambient gas pressure, will induce surface processes such as adsorption, desorption and diffusion. Looking at desorption from such a two-phase adsorbate, it can proceed via several channels, namely (i) out of the 2-d gas phase on the bare surface with a time constant ta, (ii) out of the 2-d gas phase on top of the condensed islands with a time constant ta', and (iii) directly out of the condensed phase with a time constant t~, a process particularly important around monolayer coverage. On the other hand, as long as desorption proceeds predominantly via the 2-d gas phase, the depletion of the condensate islands takes place by evaporating into the 2-d gas phase, with a time constant tev, from where particles then desorb into the 3-d gas phase. This will result in density gradients leading to surface diffusion. Two rather different situations may obtain: (i) if tev '~ ta, evaporation is so fast that during the desorption process a quasi-equilibrium is maintained between the adsorbed phases. In such a situation there will be a coverage regime where the desorption kinetics is roughly zero order. (ii) If t,v >) td then evaporation is the slowest process in a chain and thus rate determining. With evaporation proceeding via the rim of the condensed islands one expects roughly half order kinetics. These ideas were first put forward many years ago in a number of papers [83-88].) From the above discussion it should be obvious that adsorbates under nonequilibrium conditions can no longer be described by a single macroscopic variable, i.e. the coverage, but that, as a minimum, one must consider the partial coverages of the various phases and components. To set up a macroscopic theory of surface processes, it is then expeditious to follow the Onsager approach to nonequilibrium thermodynamics [89]. Our first task is to identify the proper set of macroscopic variables to describe the

184 adsorbate. To describe typical experiments involving adsorption, desorption and surface reactions, it is usually not necessary to introduce local densities at the macroscopic level. If the adsorbate forms a single phase, it will remain homogeneous throughout so that diffusion plays no role. If, on the other hand, the adsorbate shows coexistence of two phases, mass transport is limited to particle exchange between the two phases which can be described as 2-d condensation and evaporation. It is then rather dubious to introduce density gradients in the dilute phase, because, e.g., at half coverage, the number of molecules in a typical patch of dilute gas is at most a hundred, so that number fluctuations amount to at least 10%, and the number of particles per patch of dilute gas, and even more so the local particle density, can hardly be taken as macroscopic variables in the two-phase region. To set up the balance equations controlling energy and mass exchange in a two-phase adsorbate, we consider the total system, consisting of gas phase, adsorbate, and substrate, as closed in a volume V, and isolated with total energy U,. As extensive variables we consider the particle numbers X 1=N1 in the condensed 2-d phase, X2 =N 2 in the dilute 2-d phase on the bare surface, X3 =N2,in the dilute 2-d phase on top of the condensed islands, X4 = N 3 in the 3-d ambient gas, X 5 =N, in the substrate, and the respective energy variables X6 =U1, .... Xa0 =Us. Following Onsager we can write the macroscopm balance equations as 10

dX i -- Z dt

OS

L,j ~ j

Ut , Vt ,N, Ns

j=l

(50)

Such a description is valid (i) in the linear regime, and (ii) as long as local equilibrium pertains. The latter condition in particular implies that the entropy of the system is given by

S(Ut,Vt,N, Ns) = SI(U1,A1,NI) + S2(Uz,A2,N2) + S2,(U2,,A2,,N2, ) + ss(v3, V, N3) + S,(U,, V,,N,)

(51)

Here A~ are the areas occupied by the respective phases. Thus we get in (50) OS

vj,Aj(

=-

~rj

OS

1 m

(52)

(53)

introducing the chemical potentials, #j, and the temperatures, Tj, in the various phases and components. Noting mass conservation in the system dNs/dt = O, ( d / d t ) ( N 1+N2+N2,+N3) = O, and energy conservation d U t / d t = 0, one gets 30 conditions on the 100 phenomenological coefficients Lq, because the coefficients in front of each thermodynamic force have to vanish independently. Onsager's reciprocity relations Lq =Lji eliminate another 43 coefficients.

185 Under isothermal situations the equations simplify considerably and can be written as L12

dN1 _ at

-

-

T

L12' (~-~")

- -'T

L13 (~'-#~)

- 7"

(~-~")

dN 2 LI2 L23 L22' at - - r (#l-g,2) - " ~ (P,3-/z2) - " ~ (/z2'-P'2) dN2' dt - -

L12' T

(#l-~

d N 3 -__ d ( N l dt dt

,) L22' , ) - L2'3 ,) - " ~ (V'2-V2 " ~ (~-V'2

W N2 + N2' )

(54)

(55) (56)

(57)

Note that equilibrium conditions, i.e. v~ =t~j, imply vanishing fluxes. The next task is to relate the 60nsager coefficients in (54)-(56) to experimentally accessible quantities like sticking coefficients and activation energies. This has been done for the individual processes, such as adsorption, desorption, and 2-d evaporation and condensation [7,9]. The resulting equations are dN 1 dt - R13 4- R12 + R12,

(58)

(59)

dN2 dt -- R23 - R12 + R22' d~,

(60)

- R2'3 - R12, - R22'

dt

Here Ri3 = SiAi

[:

kBT

~h - " - ~ ~h

2

e~i

/kBr]

(61)

are the net rates, i.e. adsorption minus desorption, of mass exchange between the 3-d gas phase above the surface at temperature T and pressure P and the adsorbed components,/=1,2,2'. The chemical potentials, v~, are those apropriate for the instantaneous values of Ni(t) and Si is the sticking probability, to the i-th phase. There is some arbitrariness in deciding whether particles impinging from the 3-d phase onto the condensed islands become instantly part of the condensed phase (sticking coefficient S 1) or equilibrate first with the 2'-gas phase on top of the islands (sticking coefficient $2,). This seems irrelevant because adding (58) and (60) implies adding (61) for i = l and 2', which, with ~ ' = t ~ , results in an overall sticking coefficient S1 +S2,, since A~ ----'A2,. The rate of mass exchange between the condensed phase and the 2-d gas. phase (2-d condensation minus 2-d evaporation), summarizing diffusive processes, is gwen, within the coexistence region, by v RI2

=

1

S c f AI~ -Tr A-A 1 IN2- ~V2(Na'T)]O(N1)O(N2)

(62)

186 as an excess flux of particles, moving with an average speed v and sticking, with probability So, to the rim of_ the condensed islands, the boundary length of which we approximate by fair. Here N2(Na, 7) is the number of particles that would be in the 2-d phase if the adsorbate were at equilibrium with a total number of particles, Na=N ~+N 2 +N2,, and O(N)=I for N>I and zero otherwise. Although the phenomenological geometric quantities of f, and ~', must change as the coexistence region is traversed, approximations are possible, e.g. if the islands are n in number and circular then f -- 2V'mr, ~" = 1/2; for irregular perimeters f = fo n~-~, 0.5 < g" < 1, fo >2~r. Likewise, particles in the 2'-phase can be incorporated into the condensed phase at the island rim according to R12' = Sc'f'AI

t.,v 1 ~r Z IN2' - N2'(Na'T)IO(N1)O(N2')

(63)

Lastly, we get for the rate of equilibration between the 2'- and the 2-phase w

v 1 R22 , = (1-Sc'Rc)fAl~ -TrA-A l [N2 - N2(Na, T)IO(N~)O(N2)

(64)

Here it is assumed that particles skipping along the bare surface will either be reflected back with a probability R,, or stick to the rim of the condensed islands with a condensation coefficient Sr or hop on top of them with a probability 1-S,-R,. As is evident from the rate equations (54)-(57), the thermodynamic forces responsible for mass transport are differences in chemical potentials. To specify the latter for a two-phase adsorbate one can resort to analytic models, e.g. in simplest form, by treating a mobile adsorbate as a 2-d van der Waals gas, and a localized adsorbate as a lattice gas with nearest neighbour interactions within the Bragg-WiUiams and the quasichemical approximations [7-9]. This being specified, the macroscopic theory is complete. It has been used successfully to describe adsorption-desorption kinetics in a number of gassolid systems, such as metals on metals and rare gases on metals [7-10]. We comment briefly on a few of the results. One example of the new insights gained from the rate equations (58-60) that was not contained in (11), is the desorption from the coexistence region for a system in which the sticking probability on the bare surface, $2, is different from that on top of the adsorbate, S~ +$2,=S~,, both being assumed constant, for simplicity. This appears to be the case, e.g., for Xe on Ni and Ru where S 1=0.6 and $2=1.0 [90]. In quasi-equilibrium the chemical potentials of the various adsorbate phases are equal, i.e. ~1 = ~ =tza in (61), so that after summing (58-60) we get dNa/ dt = (SItA 1 + S2A2)[P~h/ h - kBT/ hXt2hexp(#a/ kBT)]

(65)

Within the coexistence region one can use the lever rule and re-express (65) under desorption conditions, i.e for P=0, as

dO 1 kBT 2 dt =-[($1'-$2)0+$201~-$It02~] 0~-02~ as "--~,~ exp(#a/ kB T)

(66)

The new variables here are the lower and upper boundaries to the two-phase region, 02c(T) <0it(T) We note that, within the coexistence region and at constant temperature, there .~..o coverage dependence outside the square brackets. This implies zero order kinetics, provided that the sticking coefficients are the same for the dilute and the dense phases. However, if this is not the case, quasi-equilibrium in the coexistence region does not imply zero order kinetics. As an illustration we present in Figure 16

187

0

!

-

_J

o

I I/" /1

0 ~

9 |

9

-

.

~

|

I i "i

-

(D~ 0 _..j

/"

! I

! t/3 03 I

--

-

0.0

o. 2

o. 4

o.s

o. 8

1. o

Coveroge (ML) Figure 16: Isothermal desorption of X e / N i ( 1 1 1 ) for temperatures (top to bottom) T = 82,80,78,76 K and a two-component adsorbate in quasi-equilibrium (solid lines); and T = 80,76 K for a nonequilibrium situation (dash-dotted lines). Parameters for the Bragg-Williams approximation: V0 = 3200 K, cV2 = -375 K, Vz = 5xl011s-l, vx = v. = 1013S -1, a s = 5 . 0 A 2, $1, = 1 . 0 , S 2 = 0 . 6 . D a s h e d lines s h o w coexistence boundaries m quasi-equilibrium. From ref.[9]. 9

9

9

)'

an approximate fit to data on Xe desorbing from Ni(111) [90], calculated in the BraggWilliams approximation9 Nonequilibrium effects are introduced by increasing the size of condensed-phase islands and decreasing the hopping rate away from the perimeters of these islands, such that Rl2 .~R23, R13. The effect on (two of) the curves of Figure 16 is indicated by the dash-dotted lines, corresponding to imposing the extreme condition,a~2 < R23, R13. In this case coexistence continues down to 0 = 0, i.e. it is desorption from the islands that contributes predominantly to the total rate. Such isothermal modelling also shows that the concept of a fixed desorption order (x in (3)) is found wanting: in the quasiequilibrium case, x may not be fixed at zero during coexistence, c.f.(66) and cannot be unity outside coexistence due to adparticle interactions; in nonequilibrium situations x varies markedly with temperature, and it does not necessarily approach the value of ~'. Even the utility of the Arrhenius parametrisation (4) is questionable when desorption is not a quasi-equilibrium process - isosteric Arrhenius plots are no longer one or more straight lines, but smooth curves. Figure 6 of ref. [90] contains an excellent example of

188 this; its significance was overlooked by all. This sounds acaution against the 'blind" fitting of a single line through scattered isosteric data points, so common in the literature. Now the quantity Ed(0, T), defined by (24) is a necessity if one insists on a parametric analysis of the data. Again, though, the temperature dependence of Ea (0, T) can be so great as to render that analysis almost useless unless a detailed comparison is also made with specific models of the adsorbate. In such cases it is far better to model the o

O O

x,._

o

~

t c;-i 0.0

",,\

J'/ / 0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Coverage (ML) Figure 17: Desorption at T = 80 K of a two-component adsorbate with desorption from condensed phase suppressed (S~ =0); quasi- and nonequilibrium situations otherwise as Figure 16 Initial coverage 6(t=0) = 0.8. From ref.[8]. rate data directly. As a final example, we show in Figure 17, the result of setting $1 = 0, N2, = 0 in the rate equations (58-60). For quasi-equilibrium, c.f. (66), there is a linear growth of the rate as 0 decreases, as far as 0zc(7) then a nonlinear decrease as the dilute phase desorbs. The extreme nonequilibrium cor~dition produces a variable order process, however (dash-dotted line). Since the first phenomenological kinetic models describing zero-order desorption and the effects of islanding of the adsorbate were advanced [83-88], surprisingly little improvement of the theory has occurred despite the large number of experiments exhibiting these effects. Of the few groups that have modelled desorption trajectories through a phase coexistence region, Nagai and co-workers [91] have been restrictive in their use of transition-state theory (quasi-equilibrium), with a constant prefactor, and no distinction between the coexisting phases, e.g. differing sticking coefficients. That

189 thermal desorption experiments can detect unequal sticking coefficients, as described by refs. [7-10], has been shown recently by Meyer et a/.[92] in their modelling of H/Mo(110). The characteristics of the sticking coefficient at the two-phase interface can also be probed [93]. Desorption experiments clearly illustrating nonequilibrium effects are more scarce. Arthur and Cho [83] observed half-order kinetics, long ago, for Cu and Au desorbing from graphite. Their Arrhenius plots are not linear but, as has occurred with other experimental analyses t94] since, they derive a desorption energy from the straightest portion of the isosteres. Such fitting procedures, coupled with experimental uncertainties, must be partially responsible for this scarcity. As many systems are in the quasi-equilibrium regime at the approach to peak desorption temperatures only a careful examination of the low temperature-high coverage rates will illustrate lack of equilibration [17-18,95]. 5. K I N E T I C L A T T I C E GAS M O D E L To go beyond a macroscopic description of time-dependent phenomena, we explore a mesoscopxc approach entailing the kinetic lattice gas model. It was originally set up in close analogy to the kinetic Ising model for magnetic systems [96]. To set up the kinetic lattice gas model we restrict ourselves to gas-solid systems in which all relevant processes, like diffusion, adsorption, desorption etc, are markovian. We introduce a function P(n;t) which gives the probability that a given microscopic configuration n=(nl,n2,...,nt) is realized at time t, where I=N s is the total number of adsorption sites on the surface. It satisfies a master equation

dP(n;t)/dt = Z

[B(n;n')P(n';t)- B(n';n)P(n;t)]

(67)

1l'

where B(n';n) is the transition probability that the microstate n changes into n' per unit time. It satisfies detailed balance

B(n';n)Po(n ) = B(n;n')Po(n 9

(68)

where

Po(n) = Z -1 exp(-H(n)/ kBT)

(69)

is the equilibrium probability. In principle, B(n';n) must be calculated from a hamiltonian that includes, in addition to (12), coupling terms to the gas phase and the solid that mediate mass and energy exchange; this has been done for phonon-mediated adsorption-desorption kinetics [6]. Rather, we follow the procedure initiated by Glauber [97] and guess an appropriate form of B(n';n). We briefly indicate possible forms below, and their consequences for the solution of (67). Assuming that the residence time of an adsorbed particle in an adsorption site is much longer than the transition time into or out of that site, we can write B(n';n) as a sum of terms accounting for individual processes of adsorption, desorption and diffusion, i.e. ~,~,(n';n)= Wa.d(n';n ) + Wd/f(n';n)

(70)

The simplest choice has been termed Langmuir kinetics [98] for which one assumes that adsorption into a site i takes place provided that site is empty, irrespective of whether

190 neighbouring sites are occupied. We then get

nn,= oZIlni+ onlX+ Zni a + ania n + ] *~ni ', l-hi) -[-[iS(hi',nt) l ;ai

(71)

where a and a' enumerate the neighbours of site i. Similarly we write for diffusion

1

Waif(n';n) =J0 ~ ni(1-ni~) 1+C1 ~ ni.o, + ' " l b~a j i,a * ~ n i ', 1 - n i ) ~ n i + a ',

1-ni.~)

]-[

~("l',nl)

(72)

l~i,i+a Inserting (72) into (70) one gets

Co = exp(E,/kBr)

(73)

Cr = [exp(VJ k s r ) - 11r

(74)

Langmuir kinetics, in particular, results in a sticking coefficient

S(0, I9 = S0(1-0)

(75)

Other choices, and their physical or unphysical implications, have been discussed in ref.[98]. As long as the master equation (67) is used in Monte Carlo simulations solely to determine the equilibrium properties of the system, it does not matter what choices are made for the transition probabilities ~n';n) as long as they satisfy detailed balance (68). However, if we are interested in the adsorption, desorption and diffusion kinetics of a particular physical system, the choice of transition probabilities l~(n';n) is rather narrowed [98]. To solve the master equation (67), Monte Carlo techniques have been invoked [99-102]. The renormalisation group has also been used successfully [102,103]. Recently, a perturbative approach has been suggested that constitutes a time dependent generalisation of Kikuchi's method [104] in equilibrium statistical mechanics. In a systematic approach one can derive a hierarchy of coupled equations of motion for average occupations and correlation functions [97,98,105-115]. To this end we define

(ni) = ~ niP(n;t) n

(76)

191

(ninj) = ~ ninjP(n;t)

(77)

n

and obtain from (67)

d(n,)ldt=Wo(1-(n,))-WoC0[(n,)

(78)

+ C~ Z ( n , n , + = ) + ...]

I.

a

J

and similar equations for the higher order correlation functions. Comparing (78) to (1-2) for the case of a homogeneous adsorbate with (n~) = 0, allows one to identify W0 as

(79)

Wo = So pas / ( 2 7vnkB T)1/ 2

implying, with (73) and (13), that the desorption rate constant is given by

rd(o=O)

= woco

(80)

= SO as kB T/hXt2h61 Zi,,, / qi,,, exp(- Vo/k B T)

The infinite hierarchy (78) etc., is obviously exact. To solve it, approximations must be made; in particular, the hierarchy must be truncated, e.g. by invoking the 2-site or Kirkwood closure approximation, which states that (n irlj...n m

) =

(ninj )(rljn k )...(nIn m )/(n i)(rlj)(nk )...(nl)(nm

(81)

)

In higher, n-site closure approximations the right hand side would involve n-site correlation functions in the numerator and (n-1)-site functions in the denominator. In the simplest (Kirkwood) approximation, and for a homogeneous adsorbate, one is left with two coupled equations for 0 and for the average correlation function ~k = (nini+a), which read for a square lattice [98] (82)

dO/dt = W0[1 - 0- CoO(1 + C1~//0)4] d~k/dt = 2Wo[O- ~k- Co(1 + C~)r + 2./o(1 + C~r

+

q~/e)31

3(1 + C~)~/+ 6"107/+ 5C~r

q~(1

+ 2r

(83)

We note that the equilibrium solution of these equations yields, at least in the absence of the diffusional terms, the quasichemical approximation to the isotherms. Other treatments of the closure, in 2-d, correspond to quasichemical, Kirkwood or maximum entropy approximations [109,116,117]. In one dimension the truncation of the equations of motion has been worked out and examined in detail [112,115,118]. This has allowed an accurate examination of the role of diffusion on desorption and implications for the Arrhenius analysis in non equilibrium situations. The largest deviations from the desorption kinetics of a mobile adsorbate obviously occur for an immobile adsorbate where surface diffusion is negligible throughout desorption. If the time scale of surface diffusion is of the order of that

192 of desorption we expect results intermediate between those of fast and negligible diffusion.

~'-5

............

I . . . . . . . . .

7

s

4.0

'

(3

"-~

3.0

~:2.5

~

61

~

5

~(

i

9[

,

:'/

4

t

)

!

1

o 90

.

'i'f 0

10(3

110

120

130

Temperoture

1( 0

150

. . . . . . . . . .

90

~9(:;

: 10

120

130

140

150

Temperoture

Figure 18:(a) Temperature-programmed desorption rate for a 1-d immobile adsorbate with repulsion V2 =400K. Solid lines: 3-site closure. Initial coverages (left to right) 00=0.9, 0.7, 0.5, 0.3, 0.1. Dashed lines: 2-site closure (for initial coverages 00=0.9, 0.5; for initial coverages less than 0.3 2-site and 3-site closures coincide). (b) Corresponding evolution rates d <-->/dt (solid lines) and d < . - - > / d t (dashed lines) in 3-site closure for 00=0.9, 0.7, 0.5. From ref.[115]. Figure 18a presents temperature programmed desorption spectra for an immobile adsorbate with nearest neighbour repulsion for varying initial coverages [115]. The dashed lines are obtained in the 2-site closure, while the solid lines result from the 3-site closure which, for an immobile adsorbate, is exact. Clearly the 2-site approximation is inadequate. Evans et al. [118] have interpreted the three peaks in the desorption spectra as "staged" desorption, with the low temperature peak reflecting desorption of particles from an environment of two occupied neighbouring sites and the smaller middle peak as desorption from the ends of chains. This picture is nicely confirmed by looking at the time evolution of <-- > = (nini+~) and <... > = (nini+ln~+2), Figure 18b. One can perform an Arrhenius analysis of the desorption spectra in Figure 18a by plotting isosteric rates vs. T-1. Although, for an immobile adsorbate these curves are not expected to be straight lines, one does a linear fit for simplicity, anyway. The resulting (temperature averaged) desorption energy and prefaetor are plotted in Figure 19a,b for the 2-site closure and the exact immobile and mobile cases. The mobile case correponds to the quasichemical approximation, c.f. (28). Although Figure 18a shows a two-peaked desorption spectrum for an immobile adsorbate calculated in the 2-site approximation, similar to the mobile case, the desorption energy looks quite different with the appearance of a peak at half coverage. The exact (3-site) calculation exhibits two peaks in the desorption energy. In the analysis of experimental desorption data, such features might be interpreted as arising from attractive interactions. This is clearly not the case here. The corresponding prefactors also show sharp peaks, which would be interpreted as an ordering above that for equilibrium. These features are an artifact of the Arrhenius analysis, and their form depends on the strength of the interaction,

193

~4.5 ~. 0

39

[i i

E~

"~ v

14.0

37 36

:3.5 c:~ 3 5

,.i ' ,'

r L i

t 41

L

~

i L

o

b

,

4 i

I,i

(3. ~.3.0

c

33 0 ".7, 3 2 O. m ~

0 _.J

:

3o

i

125

31

:

I

29 ~

0

.

.

.

.

.

.~

.

.

.

.

.

.2

.

.

.

.

.

.

.3

.

.

.

.

.4

.

.

.

.

.5

Coveroge

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.6

.

.

.

.7

.

.

.

.

.

.8

.

.

.

.

.

.

:2.0

.

i

ij

0

.9

L'\

;

.2

.3

.4

.5

"Coveroge

(ML)

.6

.7

.8

.9

(ML)

Figure 19: (a) Temperature-averaged desorption energy, Ed((~), for adsorbate with V2=400K for cases" immobile, 3-site closure (solid); immobile, 2-site closure (dash); mobile (long/short dash). (b) Corresponding prefactors v(~). From ref.[115]. the initial conditions and the range of desorption temperatures over which the analysis is performed. Clearly, the Arrhenius analysis should be reserved for systems that remain in quasi-equilibrium where the interpretation of the desorption energy as the heat of adsorption and the prefactor as a measure for the entropy is rigorous. Figure 20 exhibits the transition from an immobile to a mobile adsorbate in the TPD spectra for a system with repulsive interactions. The variation of J0 between the immobile and mobile limits is approximately five orders of magnitude. Relaxation of correlation functions to equilibrium in the absence of desorption has also been examined [113,115]. In the remainder of this section we want to briefly survey other applications of the kinetic lattice gas model. The effects of adatom clustering on desorption rates,[106] and desorption of dimers [107] have also been considered. A specific application, in the one-dimensional case, has been to N2/Ni(430) [82], including multi-particle interactions and diffusive terms completely. Recently the kinetic lattice gas model has been used to find a time-dependent generalization of the grandcanonical ensemble to describe inhomogeneous adsorbates within the coexistence region [119]. If the adsorptiondesorption kinetics are precursor-mediated, one can extend the kinetic lattice gas model by introducing three sets of occupation numbers per lattice cell, namely ni =0 or 1, mi =0 or 1 and li =0 or 1, depending on whether the chemisorbed state, the intrinsic precursor and the extrinsic precursor are empty or occupied, respectively. The hamiltonian of the system is then [120]

H=Es~'~ ni + e ~ Z mi + ~ ' i

i

Ii + ~ V2 ~ ninJ i

(V)

For the transition probability in (70) we then write

(84)

194

o (2) 9-

3

x

0

c

2

0 CL 0 r~

f

o 90

I

L

IO0

110

120

.

I

130

.

.

.

.

1

.

140

.

.

.

.

.

.

150

Temperature.

Figure 20: Temperature-programmed desorption rate for a 1-d adsorbate with repulsion, V2---400K, for 00=0.9 and varying hopping rates Jo=uoexp(-Q/kBT). Hopping barrier Q=0, and po=10-4s -l (solid, three-peaked) (effectively immobile), 10-3s -1 (- -), 10-2s -1 ( . . . . . . ), 10-1s -1 ( . . . . . . ), ls -1 (-), and 10s-1 (solid) (effectively mobile). From ref.[115].

T~n',m',l';n,m,l) = Wt + We + Wc + W c t + Wce + Wee + Wit + Wet

(85)

The significance of the individual terms is illustrated in Figure 21. As an example, we can specify adsorption into, and desorption from, the intrinsic precursor state with

Wt(n,m',l;n,m,l ) = wt ~ (1-ni)(1-mi +Dtmi)8(m,', 1-mi) ]-[ 6(ink',ink) i k~i

(86) where the first factor ensures that the intrinsic precursor only exists over an empty site. The kinetic lattice gas model with precursors has been used recently to study the temperature and coverage dependence of the sticking coefficient as a consequence of lateral interactions [121,122]. A similar formalism is also appropriate for the kinetics of rnultilayers.

195

W~

~

Q "i~ ~

Figure 21: Schematic illustration of the various processes between extrinsic precursor (E), intrinsic precursor (I), and chemisorbed (C) states included in the kinetic lattice gas model. 6. PHYSISORPTION KINETICS A monograph on physisorption kinetics was published by Kreuzer and Gortel [6] which covers the field up to 1985. The book starts with a review of the gas-solid interaction of physisorption. Next the master equation is derived and the transition probabilities are calculated for phonon-mediated adsorption and desorption processes. On this basis desorption times are calculated as well as time of flight spectra of the desorption flux, and is followed by a discussion of sticking and energy accommodation. In the final chapter the Kramers equation is derived from which the macroscopic laws are obtained, together with microscopic expressions of the friction coefficient. Thus the complete programme of nonequilibrium statistical mechanics, as envisaged by Boltzmann, has been completed for physisorption namely, starting from a microscopic hamiltonian, one derives kinetic equations and, finally, calculates macroscopic transport coefficients. The only other example where this programme has been completed before is the theory of dilute gases. This is not to say that there does not remain a large amount of work still to be done. In particular, the above theory is largely restricted to the low coverage regime, except for helium where the kinetics has been worked out for multilayer adsorbates. Although nonequilibrium thermodynamics and the kinetic lattice gas model are being applied to study the kinetics of physisorbed multilayers, little progress has been made on its microscopic foundations. Brenig [123] has reviewed the kinetics and dynamics of the gas-surface interaction in the zero coverage limit stressing the importance of the principles of detailed balance and unitarity. Jack et al. [124] have derived the FokkerPlanck equation for physisorption kinetics, again in the zero coverage limit, and presented a general formulation for its solution under isothermal desorption conditions. The good news in physisorption kinetics comes from Menzel's group where an exhaustive experimental study of rare gases on Ruthenium has been completed [17-19].

196 7. C O N C L U D I N G

REMARKS

In this review we have tried to give a concise overview of the physical processes underlying adsorption and desorption. We have reviewed the phenomenological approach and methods of evaluation of experimental data. For systems that remain in quasiequilibrium throughout desorption an essentially exact theory now exists, and accurate fitting of data is now possible. We have also outlined the current status of kinetic lattice gas models. We have only made passing reference to experimental aspects of thermal deso~tion, but mention some recent work as exemplifying a new standard. We note the margin by which such good experimental technique leads the many over-simplified theoretical models and analyses of data in the literature. It is time the simple but fundamental phenomenological concepts and results outlined in Sections 2 and 3, were understood by all interpreters of TPD data. Specific examples bear re-emphasis: the assumption of a constant prefactor is no longer tolerable, nor must high temperature limits be presumed; nor should a peak temperature analysis of experimental TPD data be considered sufficient - a complete analysis is mandatory if sense is to be made of the phenomenological parameters, E d and p, including their coverage and temperature dependence [31]. The complete theory at the macroscopic level, including non.equilibrium effects, has now been formulated for the submonolayer and multilayer regimes: apart from restrictions on one's knowledge of the chemical potential of the adsorbate, there is no need for further oversimplifed modelling of TPD spectra. In the quasiequilibrium situation transfer matrix techniques can give essentially exact results (apart from sticking coefficients), as long as the adsorbate can be described by a lattice gas model. Although originally conceived to deal with adsorbates on a fixed lattice of adsorption sites and simple two-body interactions, the model is also capable of dealing with reconstruction which is mimicked through the introduction of multisite interactions [125-127]. Employing these techniques one can now also model coadsorption accurately [128,129]. To make contact with microscopic concepts, the kinetic lattice gas model provides an alternate, and perhaps more satisfactory description. One hopes for further analytic work on this model in the monolayer and multilayer regime along the lines of the closure approximations. The application to heterogeneous surfaces holds great promise. This review has addressed developments in the theory of adsorption and desorption. Only cursory mention has been made of Monte Carlo simulations. They can, in principle, produce the exact kinetics from well-defined transition probabilities. It is, however, our view that such '~umerical experiments", although very useful in providing "data ~, are not a substitute for a statistical theory in which one first derives a small set of kinetic equations from which observable quantities and relationships are calculated. Even for very complex systems such as adsorbates with precursors and multi-particle interactions for which Monte Carlo simulations were deemed to be the only practical tool, progress has now been made in the statistical theory that promises a better understanding of their kinetics. ACKNOWLEDGMENT Funding for this research was originally provided by the Network of Centres of Excellence in Molecular and Interfacial Dynamics, one of fifteen Networks of Centres of Excellence no longer supported by the Government of Canada.

197 REFERENCES

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31.

32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37.

T.J. Chuang, Surf. Sci. Repts., 1983, 3, 1. P. Piercy, Z.W. Gortel, and H.J. Kreuzer, Adv. in Multi-Photon Processes and Spectroscopy, 1987, 3, 105. See e . g . R . H . Shulen and M.L. Knotek eds., Desorption Induced by Electronic Transitions, DIET III, Springer- Verlag, Berlin, 1988. J.H. Block, in Chemistry and Physics of Solid Surfaces IV, ed. R. V anselow and R. Howe. Springer-Verlag, Berlin-Heidelberg-New York, 1982, p. 407. J.E. Lennard-Jones and A.F. Devonshire, Proc. R. Soc. London, Ser. A, 1936, 156, 6 and 29. H.J. Kreuzer and Z.W. Gortel, Physisorption Kinetics, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1986. H.J. Kreuzer and S.H. Payne, Surf. Sc/., 1988, 198, 235. H.J. Kreuzer and S.H. Payne, Surf. Sci., 1988, 200, L433. S.H. Payne and H.J. Kreuzer, Surf. Sc/., 1988, 205, 153. S.H. Payne and H.J. Kreuzer, Surf. Sci., 1989, 222, 404. D. Menzel, in Interactions on Metal Surfaces, ed. R. Gomer. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1975, p. 102. D. Menzel, in O~mistry and Physics of Solid Surfaces IV, ed. R. Vanselow and R. Howe, Springer-Verlag, 1982, p. 389. K.D. Rendulic, Surf. Sci., 1992, 272, 34. S.J. Lombardo and A.T. Bell, Surf. Sci. Reports, 1991, 13, 1. G.P. Brivio and T.B. Grimley, Surf. Sci. Reports, 1993, 17, 1. H.J. Kreuzer and S.H. Payne, in Dynamics of Gas-Surface Collisions, eds. M.N.R. Ashfold and C.T. Rettner (Roy. Soc. of Chemistry, Cambridge, 1991). H. Schlichting and D. Menzel, Surf. Sc/., 1992, 272, 27. H. Schlichting and D. Menzel, Surf. Sci., 1993, 285, 209. H. Schlichting and D. Menzel, Rev. Sci. lnstrum., 1993, 64, 2013. R.N. Carter and A.B. Anton, J. Vac. Sci. Technol. A, 1992, 10, 344. M.A. DeAngelis and A.B. Anton, J. Vac. Sci. Technol. A, 1992, 10, 3507. J.W. Evans, Rev. Mod. Phys., 1993, 65, 1281. P.A. Redhead, Vacuum, 1962, 12, 203. A.M. de Jong and J.W. Niemantsverdriet, Surf. Sci., 1990, 233, 355. E. Tronconi and L. Lietti, Surf. Sci., 1988, 199, 43. D.A. King, T.E. Madey and J.T. Yates, Jr., J. Chem. Phys., 1971, 55, 3236. E. Bauer, H. Poppa, G. Todd and F. Bonczek, J. Appl. Phys., 1974, 45, 5164. J.L. Taylor and W.H. Weinberg, Surf. Sci., 1978, 78, 259. E. Habenschaden and J. Kfippers, Surf. Sci., 1984, 138, L147. J.C. Miller, H.R. Siddiqui, S.M. Gates, J.N. Russell, Jr., J.T. Yates, Jr., J.C. Tully and M.J. Cardillo, J. Onem. Phys., 1987, 87, 6725. A software package called ASTEK for the analysis and simulation of thermal equilibrium and kinetics of gases adsorbed on surfaces, written by H.J. Kreuzer and S.H. Payne is available from Helix Science Applications, Box 46, Site 3, R.R. 5, Armdale, Nova Scotia B3L 4J5, Canada. E.G. Seebauer, A.C.F. Kong and L.D. Schmidt, Surf. Sc/., 1988, 193, 417. This reference contains a useful list of desorption data; however, the theory and the interpretation of the data are to be taken with a grain of salt. H. Ibach, W. Erley and H. Wagner, Surf. Sci., 1980, 92, 29. T.L. Hill, An Introduction to Statistical Thermodynamics, (Addison-Wesley, New York, 1960). M. Paunov and E. Bauer, Surf. Sci., 1987, 188, 123. J. Kolaczkiewicz and E. Bauer, Surf. Sc/., 1986, 175, 487 and 508. E. Bauer, Appl. Phys. A, 1990, 51, 71.

198 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. 76. 77. 78.

J.W. Niemantsverdriet, P. Dolle, K. Markert and K. Wandelt, J. Vac. Sci. Technol. A, 1987, 5, 875. X. Guo and J.T. Yates, Jr., J. (?hem. Phys., 1989, 90, 6761. P.J. Estrup, E.F. Greene, M.J. Cardillo and J.C. Tully, J. Phys. Ozem., 1986, 90, 4099. H.C. Kang, T.A. Jachimowski, and W.H. Weinberg, J. t2~em. Phys., 1990, 93, 1418. J.W. Niemantsverdriet and K. Wandelt, J. Vac. Sci. Technol. A, 1988, 6, 757. D. M. Burley in Phase Transitions and Critical Phenomena, Vol. 2, Eds. C. Domb and M. S. Green (Academic, New York, 1972), p. 329. C. Domb, Adv. Phys., 1960, 9, 149. F.H. Ree and D.A. Chesnut, J. (?hem. Phys., 1966, 45, 3983. L.D. Roelofs and R.J. Bellon, Surf. Sc/., 1989, 223, 585. N.C. BarteR, T.L. Einstein and L.D. Roelofs, Phys. Rev. B, 1986, 34, 1616. P.A. Rikvold, K. Kaski, J.D. Gunton, and M.C. Yalabik, Phys. Rev. B, 1984, 29, 6285. S.H. Payne, Jun Zhang, and H.J. Kreuzer, Surf. Sc/., 1992, 264, 185. W. Kinzel and M. Schick, Phys. Rev. B, 1981, 23, 3435. S.H. Payne, H.J. Kreuzer, and L. D. Roelofs, Surf. Sci. Leg., 1991,259, L781. J. S. Walker and M. Schick, Phys. Rev. B, 1979, 20, 2088. H. Pfnfir and D. Menzel, J. t2~em. Phys., 1983, 79, 2400. H. Pfnfir, P. Feulner and D. Menzel, J. O~em. Phys., 1983, 79, 4613. H. Pfnfir and D. Menzel, Surf. Sci., 1984, 148, 411. U. Leuth/iusser, Z. Physik B, 1980, 37, 65. S.H.Payne, H.J. Kreuzer, K.A. Peterlinz, T.J. Curtiss, C. Uebing, and S.J. Sibener, Surf. Sci., 1992, 272, 102. H.J. Kreuzer, Zhang Jun, S.H. Payne, W. Nichtl-Pecher, L . Hammer, K. MfiUer, Surf. Sci., 1994, 303, 1. A.V. Myshlyavtsev, J.L. Sales, G. Zgrablich and V.P. Zhdanov, J. Stat. Phys., 1990, 58, 1029. E.S. Hood, B.H. Toby, and W.H. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. Len., 1985, 55, 2437. M. Silverberg and A. Ben-Shaul, Surf. Sc/., 1989, 214, 17. L.V. Lutsevich, O.A. Tkachenko, and V.P. Zhdanov, Langmuir, 1992, 8, 1757. K. Nagai and K.H. Bennemann, Surf. Sci., 1992, 260, 286. P.E. Araya, J. Ozem. Soc.-Faraday Trans., 1992, 88, 2401. V. Bustos, G. Zgrablich, and V.P. Zhdanov, Applied Physics A, 1993, 56, 73. A. Chen and C.S. Hirtzel, Mol. Phys., 1993, 79, 757. L.V. Lutsevich, O.A. Tkachenko, and V.P. Zhdanov, Langmuir, 1991, 7, 1225. H.C. Kang and W.H. Weinberg, Surf. Sc/., 1994, 299/300, 755. K. Nagai, Surf. Sc/., 1986, 176, 193. H. Adasa and M. Masuda, Surf. Sci., 1989, 207, 517. H. Asada, Surf. Sci., 1990, 230, 323. K. Pilorz and S. Sokolowski, Z. Phys. Chemie., 1984, 265, 929. S.H. Payne and H.J. Kreuzer, Surf. Sc/., 1995, 338, 261. S.H. Payne, H.J. Kreuzer, A. Pavlovska, and E. Bauer, Surf. Sci., 1995, (in press). M. Paunov and E. Bauer, Appl. Phys. A, 1987, 44, 201. R. Kern, G. Le Lay, and J.J. Metois, in: Current Topics in Materials Science, vol.3, ed. E. Kaldis (North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1979). H.J. Kreuzer, S.H. Payne, and Zhang Jun. In: 'Proceedings of the Symposium on Surface Science 3S'93', eds. G. Betz and P. Varga (Institut fiir Angewandte Physik, Technische Hochschule Wien, 1993). C. Park, H.M. Kramer, and E. Bauer, Surf. Sci., 1982, 116, 456.

199 79. 80. 81. 82. 83. 84. 85. 86. 87. 88. 89. 90. 91. 92. 93. 94. 95. 96. 97. 98. 99. 100. 101. 102. 103. 104. 105. 106. 107. 108. 109. 110. 111. 112. 113. 114. 115. 116. 117. 118. 119.

M.E. Jones, J.M. Heitzinger, R.J. Smith, and B.E. Koel, J. Vac. Sci. Technol. A, 1990, 8, 2512. A. Cassuto and D.A. King, Surf. Sc/., 1981,102, 388. G. Ehrlich, Physics and Chemistry of Solid Surfaces VII, ed. R. Vanselow and R. Howe, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1988, p.1. S.H. Payne, A. Killinger, and H.J. Kreuzer, unpublished. J.R. Arthur and A.Y. Cho, Surf. Sc/., 1973, 36, 641. J.R. Arthur, Surf. Sc/., 1973, 38, 394. M. Bienfait and J.A. Venables, Surf. Sc/., 1977, 64, 425. G. Le Lay, M. Manneville, and R. Kern, Surf. Sc/., 1977, 65, 261. M. Bertucci, G. Le Lay, M. Manneville, and R. Kern, Surf. Sc/., 1979, 85, 471. R. Opila and R. Gomer, Surf. Sci., 1981, 112, 1. H.J. Kreuzer, Nonequilibrium Thermodynamics and its Statistical Foundations (Oxford University Press, 1981). D. Menzel, in Kinetics of Interface Reactions, ed. M. Grunze and H.J. Kreuzer, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1987, p.2. K. Nagai and A. Hirashima, Surf. Sci., 1987, 187, L616, and references therein. J.A. Meyer, I.D. Baikie, G.P. Lopinski, J.A. Prybyla and P.J. Estrup, J. Vac. Sci. Technol. A, 1990, 8, 2468. D.F. Padowitz and S.J. Sibener, Surf. Sci, 1989, 217, 233. A. Klekamp and E. U mbach, Surf. Sci., 1991,249, 75 N. Vasquez, A. Muscat, and R.J. Madix, Surf. Sc/., 1994, 301, 83. For a review of the kinetic Ising model, see K. Kawasaki, in Phase Transitions and Critical Phenomena, ed. C. Domb and M.S. Green, Academic Press, New York, 1972, Vol. 2,443. R.J. Glauber, J. Math. Phys., 1963, 4, 294. H.J. Kreuzer and Zhang Jun, Appl. Phys. A, 1990, 51, 183. K. Binder, ed., Monte Carlo Methods, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1986. J.D. Gunton, M. San Miguel and P.S. Sahni, in Phase Transitions and Critical Phenomena, ed. C. Domb and J.L Leibovitz, Academic Press, New York, 1983, Vol. 8, p. 267. J.D. Gunton, in Kinetics of Interface Reactions, ed. M. Grunze and H.J. Kreuzer, Springer- Verlag, Berlin, 1987. E. Oguz, O.T. Vails, G.F. Mazenko and J.H. Luscombe, Surf. Sci., 1982, 118, 572. J. Luscombe, Phys. Rev., 1984, 29, 5128. K. Wada, M. Kaburagi, T. Uchida and R. Kikuchi, J. Stat. Phys. 53 (1988) 1081. J.W. Evans, J. Otem. Phys., 1987, 87, 3038. J.W. Evans and H. Pak, Surf. Sci., 1988, 199, 28. J.J. Luque and A. Cordoba, Surf. Sci., 1987, 187, L611. A. Surda and I. Karasova, Surf. Sci., 1981, 109, 605. A. Surda, Surf. Sci., 1989, 220, 295. A. Cordoba and M.C. Lemos, J. Chem. Phys., 1993, 99, 4821. D. ben-Avraham and J. K6hler, Phys. Rev. A, 1992, 45, 8358. D. Poland, Phys. Rev. A, 1991, 44, 7968. D. Poland, J. Stat. Phys., 1990, 59, 935. A. Wierzbicki and H.J. Kreuzer, Surf. Sc/., 1991, 257, 417. S.H. Payne, A. Wierzbicki and H.J. Kreuzer, Surf. Sci., 1993, 291, 242. H. Pak and J.W. Evans, Surf. Sci., 1987, 186, 550. S. Sundaresan and K.R. Kaza, Surf. Sc/., 1985, 160, 103. J.W. Evans, D.K. Hoffman and H. Pak, Surf. Sci., 1987, 192, 475. H.J. Kreuzer, Phys. Rev. B, 1991, 44, 1232.

200 120. 121. 122. 123. 124. 125. 126. 127. 128. 129.

H.J. Kreuzer, Surf. Sc/., 1990, 238, 305. H.J. Kreuzer, Surf. Sc/., 1995, in press. H.J. Kreuzer, J. Ozem. Phys., 1995, in press. W. Brenig, in Kinetics of Interface Reactions, ed. M. Grunze and H.J. Kreuzer, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1987, p.19. D.B. Jack, Z.W. Gortel, and H.J. Kreuzer, Phys. Rev. B, 1987, 35, 468. T.L. Einstein, Langmuir, 1992, 7, B.N.J. Perrson, Surf. Sci., 1991,258, 451. A.V. Myshlyavtsev and V.P. Zhdanov, Langmuir, 1993, 9, 1290. P.A. Rikvold, J.B. Collins, J.D. Hansen, and J.D. Gunton, Surf. Sci., 1988, 203, 500. P.A. Rikvold and M.R. Deakin, Surf. Sc/., 1991, 249, 180.

W. Rudzifiski, W.A. Steele and G. Zgrablich (Eds.) Equilibria and Dynamics of Gas Adsorption on Heterogeneous Solid Surfaces Studies in Surface Science and Catalysis, Vol. 104 9 1997 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

Theory of adsorption-desorption on flat heterogeneous surfaces

201

kinetics

Yu. K. Tovbin Karpov Institute of Physical Chemistry Vorontsovo Pole Str. 10, 103064 Moscow, RUSSIA

1. I N T R O D U C T I O N Adsorption processes in gas - solid systems turn out to be fundamental to technologies of purification and separation of gas mixtures as well as being stages of more complex catalytic processes, membrane separation of gases, corrosion of solids in chemical gas mixtures, etc. In many cases, the time evolution of those processes is determined by the rates of adsorption and desorption. The investigation of those processes has been given, of course, quite a lot of attention. In view of the intensive experimental research, it appears necessary to develop a theory of adsorption rates. The simple theory of Langmuir describes the kinetics of adsorption on homogeneous surfaces, based on the law of mass action. One assumes that every adsorbed particle occupies one and only one site on the surface. The change of the surface coverage in time T can be described by the kinetic equation [1-4] dO dr - UA -- UD, UA = K A P ( 1 - 0) TM ,

00

=

0(~- = 0)

(1)

UD = KD0 TM ,

(2)

where UA and UD are rates of adsorption and desorption; KA and KD are rate constants for adsorption and desorption; P is the pressure of the adsorbing gas; O = N A / N is the degree of coverage of the adsorbent surface, 0 < 0 < 1, NA is the number of the adsorbed particles, N is the number of sites per unit area of surface, m is the adsorption order with m - 1 corresponding to adsorption without dissociation, m = 2, to adsorption with dissociation of the adsorbed molecules into two identical particles. The solution of equation (1) for the adsorption of non-dissociating molecules at a constant pressure in the gas has the form:

O(r) = 0o e x p ( - k r ) + 0o~[1 - e x p ( - k r ) ] ,

k = KAP + K D ,

0o~ = K A P / k ,

(3)

and for dissociating molecules in cases when the process of desorption prevails over adsorption (and the adsorption can be neglected) or vice versa, we have: Oo 0(~-) = 1 + 0oKDr '

0(T) = 1 -- (1 -- 00)/[1 + rKAP(1 - 0o)].

(4)

202 The kinetic relationships (3) and (4), however, do not describe well most of the experimental data [1-5]. It is not by accident that in the course of chemisorption, two stages can be separated, fast and slow [2]. Often enough, the slow adsorption process also can be observed for physical adsorption. It was Titov [6] who attempted to describe the slow course of the physical adsorption of gases in coal. McBain [7] described preliminary research concerning the sorption of iodine by activated coal, where the absorption did not stop after several years. The factors determining slow penetration in adsorption are related to the system, but the most important are considered to be the high heterogeneity of the adsorbent [1-5] and the strong non-ideality of the adsorbate [8,9]. To describe adsorption kinetics, one frequently applies empirical equations. The course of many sorption processes can be satisfactorily described by [10,11]

(5)

0(~) = a7 ~/~

where a and n are parameters. One discovers that the value n is analogous to the parameter in the Freundlich adsorption isotherm [1]. It seems that equation (5) was presented for the first time by Bangham and Bart [12]. A differential form of equation (5) is the empirical power law UA = KAP8 -~ ,

UD = KD~9k ,

n,k - const.

(6)

The equation for the rate of desorption corresponds to the above equation. These equations were used in papers [13-15]. Experimental data show a wide spread of the exponential dependence of the adsorption and desorption rates upon the coverage. A relationship of the type UD = KD exp(h~) ,

h = const ,

(7)

for the desorption of Th and Cs from the surface of tungsten was observed by Langmuir [8,9]. In order to describe the kinetics of adsorption in the system Co/Mn02, the following equation [16] was proposed UA = KA exp(--g~) ,

g = const ,

(8)

Methods of the determination of the constants in a given equation were considered in papers [5,17]. The integral form of the Roginski-Zeldovich equation (8) has the following logarithmic form [18,19]

O(T) = k'ln(w + ~'0),

k', r0 -

const ,

(9)

Equation (9) is often called the Elovich equation because it was he who gave its the first interpretation. It was shown in [19] that this equation is connected with a linear change of the energy of activation with surface coverage: EA(O) = EA(O = O)+gO. This equation describes the slow processes which often follow a fast initial stage of chemisorption. Equation (9) was confirmed many times. Its application and the methods for the determination of its constants are discussed in [20-26]. The necessity of explaining the origin of the empirical equations stimulated the development of the theory. In the first place, it was necessary to consider the fundamental physical factors affecting adsorption systems: the heterogeneity of the surface and the

203 lateral interactions between the adsorbed particles. This resulted in development of the theory in two directions. In some papers the main part was allotted to surface heterogeneity and the adsorbed particles were considered not to interact with one another [1-4, 27-32]. In some other papers, on the contrary, lateral interactions of the adsorbed particles were considered on homogeneous surfaces [9,27,33-38]. (A more detailed review of all those papers is given in [39,40]). The task of incorporating the influence of lateral interactions upon the kinetics of adsorption was found to be complex because non-ideal adsorption systems are characterized by co-operative behaviour. So it was necessary to use the methods of statistical physics of the condensed state in order to study this problem. That is why, at the very beginning, the theories of the first group were most widely studied and developed. In absence of lateral interactions, the description of kinetics was based on the law of mass action which essentially does not need a new method in spite of the procedure of averaging over the energy distribution function which is well elaborated in the theory of probability. Intensive development of the work of the second group started in 1973-1974. A new step in the development of the theory of kinetics of the adsorption processes was presented in 1982-1984, after elaborating equations describing the rates of adsorption and desorption on heterogeneous surfaces with lateral interactions taken into consideration [41-45]. In the present paper a review is given of the development of the theory of kinetics of the adsorption processes on heterogeneous flat surfaces. At first, we consider the theories of the first group, then we consider those of the second group. Then, we present the theories which take account of the simultaneous influences of the heterogeneity of the adsorbent surface and the lateral interactions. Because of the limited length of this review, we consider only the case of the equilibrated distribution of the adsorbed particles on a surface for all models. The state of the surface layer of an adsorbent is assumed to be unchangeable during adsorption-desorption processes (absence of reconstruction of the surface layer); also not considered is the possible solution of the adsorbed particles in the solid substance, and the possible occurrence of a precursor state. All these limitations can be calculated with the help of the kinetic equations, elaborated in terms of the lattice gas in papers [45, 47] (see also [40, 48, 49]). While considering also the moments which are obtained in current experimental investigations by the method of thermo-programmed desorption and the necessity of the molecular interpretation of thermo-desorption spectra (TDS), special attention shall be given to the application of the theory in the calculation of TDS in this review. The values of the rate constants are connected with the energy of activation are given by the Arrhenius law: =

exp(-ZE

),

KD = K~ exp(--/3ED) ,

/~ = (ksT) -1 ,

(10)

where K~4,Dare preexponential factors of the rate constants, and EA,Dis the energy of ac0 tivation of adsorption or desorption. While calculating TDS it always assumed that KA,D hardly depends on temperature. This results from rate theory of elementary processes [28,50,51] 9 In the molecular interpretation of K A~, D for surface processes, one most often uses the collisional model and transition state theory [1-4, 28, 52-55]. In the collisonal model, the rate of reaction is proportional to the probability of collisions of the reagent hard spheres which can be calculated from kinetic theory. The model of the transition

204 state [56], aside from a geometrical factor, also includes the redistribution of energy within the internal degrees of freedom of the reagents. This difference is important for the description of the kinetics of the non-ideal adsorption systems. In such systems the reagents constantly occur in the "field of action" of neighbouring particles so that lateral interactions can influence the energy of the transition state.

2. I D E A L A D S O R P T I O N

ON H E T E R O G E N E O U S

SURFACES

In his first work on the theory of adsorption, Langmuir pointed out the possibility of the existence of crystalline and amorphous surfaces in places which are characterized by various numbers of residual valences. Energetic heterogeneity produces differences in the adsorption and kinetic capabilities of various fragments of such surfaces. The sources of the energetic heterogeneity can also be conditioned by the chemical nature of the surface atoms of the solid (for example, by the occurrence of various atoms in alloys or by the occurrence of mixtures), by different crystallographic faces of the solid and their structural imperfection, etc. Such heterogeneity depends on the history of the formation of the surface of adsorbent. Expressions for the macroscopic rates of adsorption and desorption of nondissociating molecules on unit surface of adsorbent can be written as: t

t

UA = E

fqU~,

t

UD -- E

q--1

fquD'

q--1

E

t

fq = 1,

q--1

8

"~ E fqeq, q--1

(11)

where the UA(D are local rates of adsorption (desorption) on the sites of type q, 1 < q < t, t is the number of types of surface sites, fq is the fraction of sites of type q, and 8 is the macroscopic fractional coverage of the surface. The function fq (the discrete surface site distribution of the adsorption energy) characterizes the surface composition of the adsorbent. The local rates of adsorption-desorption have an analogous form to eq. (2), UqA

A =Ka(1-Oq),

D =KqOq, D Uq

KqA,D = K qA,Voexp(_~E~,D)

(12)

where the K A'D~ are the pre-exponential constants of the rate K {'D for a site of type q, E A'D is the energy of activation of the process for the site q; 0q is the probability of coverage of the sites of type q (i.e., the local coverage). The local rate constants are connected with the local Langmuir constants aq = aq0 exp(~Qq), where Qq is the adsorption energy on a site of type q, by aq = K A / K D, E D = E A + Qq, aqo: K{o/KDo If the number of types of sites is large, then the sums in (11) can be changed into integrals. It is usually also assumed that the pre-exponential factors hardly depend on the type of site so the change of the adsorption capability while passing from one fragment of the surface to another is determined by the differences in the adsorption energies on those fragments. Let x be the value of the adsorption energy. Then, formulas (11) and (12) can be re-written as: X2

UA,D = / f(x)Uh,D(X)dx, Xl

X2

0 : / f(x)0(x)dx, Xl

x2

/f(x)dx : 1 Xl

(13)

205 UA(X)

--"

KA(X)[1 0(x)] --

~

UD(X) KD(x)0(x) "--

~

KA,D(X)= K ~

A,D

exp[--BEA,D(X)]

(14)

where xl and x2 are the smallest and the largest adsorption energy. The first statistical description of the rate of reaction on heterogeneous surfaces was given by Constable [58]. He assumed the site distribution function to be an exponential function of the activation energy of the reaction: f(x) = exp(~/z)/n, where "7 is the width parameter of the distribution and n is a normalizing factor. He also assumed that the probability of a local coverage does not change while passing from one fragment of the surface to another. Later on, the statistical description of the rates of the surface processes was also treated by Cremer and Schwab [59,60]. To calculate the rates of adsorption-desorption, it is necessary to estimate the character of the changes of the energies of activation with the change of the adsorption capability of various fragments of the surface. In other words, it is necessary to know how the values KA,D(X) depend upon the value of x which in turn determines the relationship cwbetweenof KA,D(X) and 0(x)). In order to construct the function EA,D(X) (14), Temkin proposed to use an analogous relationship by Br<nsted [63] for homogeneous catalysis. Br<nsted proved that for the reaction of acid catalysis in solutions of various monovalent acids, we have the relationship ln a = a ln k + C, where g i is a rate constant which characterizes the catalytic reactivity of those acids, k is a dissociation constant for those acids, cr and C are constants. An analogous relationship was also observed for basic catalysis. Temkin proposed that one should consider various fragments of the surface as similar to compositions. Then the process of adsorption (desorption) on various fragments of the surface can be considered as a reaction, and the values of the rate constants KA,D(X) and those of the adsorption coefficients a(x), are linearly related to each other" AEA(x) = - ~ , A x ,

AED(x) = a A x .

(15)

A graphical interpretation of the Bronsted relations, with the help of the potential energy diagram, was given by Horiuti and Polanyi [64] (see Fig.l). If two monovalent reactions are characterized by an increase of the potential, then the change of the activation energy A E consists of a certain fraction of the change in the energy. At the same time, if- over a small distance- the curves can be considered as straight lines, these values turn out to be proportional. In this way, ~, < 1, and the change of the adsorption activation energy is a certain fraction of the change of adsorption energy. An analogous relationship is also valid for desorption. Then a + "7 = 1, because ED(x) = x + EA (x). The relationships (15) state that the fragments of the surface with the greatest adsorption capability possess the smallest adsorption activation energy and the greatest desorption activation energy. A decrease in the adsorption capability increases the energy of activation of adsorption and decreases the energy of activation for desorption. At "r = 0, the energy of activation for adsorption hardly depends upon the type of sites on the surface, and at a - 0, the desorption activation energies do not depend on the type of the surface fragment. In many adsorption, catalytic and electrode processes, the coefficients a and ~, turn out to be close to 0.5 [3, 65, 66]. Formulas (13)- (15) can be reduced to the following expressions for the rate of adsorption" X2

X2

/ .

Xl

Xl

206

A{__ Q ~ .~

AQ' --

AQ"

Distance Figure 1. A graphical illustration of the relation between the changes of the activation energy AE and the adsorption energy AQ (-= Ax)[64]. These expressions allow us to obtain some simple analytical formulas if one assumes a site distribution function. The most simple distribution function is the regular function f ( x ) = (x2 - xl) -~ [27]. If we assume that -y = 1/2, the following expression can be obtained"

UA = 2 K ~ P { a r c t g ( u 2 ) - arctg(ul)}/[a(aop)X/2] , ul,2 = (al,2P) 1/2 ,

al,2 = ao exp(/gXl,2 ,

a =/9(x2 -- Xl).

(17)

The value of the equilibrium pressure P, corresponding to the given coverage of the surface O, can be written with the help of the quasi- logarithmic isotherm of Temkin: 8 = ln{(1 + a2P)/(1 + a l P ) } / a .

(lS)

In this way, equations (17), (18) determine UA(O). In a similar way, we arrive at an equation for Up(O). If we limit these considerations to the range of middle coverages a l P << 1, a 2 P >> 1, then empirical equations (7), (8) can be found and we obtain a molecular interpretation of the constants in these equations [27]: rg~ KA = sin(Tr)er '

g = 7a,

7rK~) KD = sin(a~r)a '

h = ha.

(19)

The molecular interpretations of the empirical equations (7), (8) are not equivalent in meaning. Considering the lateral interactions on a homogeneous surface leads to the same kind of the concentration relationships [32,27]. The interpretation by Langmuir [32] corresponds to the values of the parameters h = 1 and g = 0 in equations (7), (8) (i.e. the model of collisions has been used). The interpretation by Temkin [27] was made with the help of the transition state model which accounts for the interaction of the activated complex with the environment. Equation (8) can also be obtained if we assume that the

207 number of sites on the surface changes during adsorption [67-69, 21]. In a similar way, with the help of exponential distribution functions (with positive and negative values of the exponent), one can explain various power dependencies of the rates of adsorption in equations (5), (6), [3,30,31]. Expressions (16) allow us to formulate the task of finding a distribution function f(z) from measured adsorption data. The first such work was carried out by Roginski, Lewin and others [1, 70-74]. There are many methods of solving the integral equations (16). The current state of this field is given in the monographs [75,76]). Fig.2 shows a distribution function obtained in [72] from data [72-74] on adsorption of hydrogen on sugar coal at 557 and 669K. Such work, based on application of the methods discussed in [1,70-72] was carried out by analysis of the kinetic data for the decomposition of methanol on zinc oxide. It was found that the distribution function obtained depended on the temperature of the experiment [72]. Based on these results, together with the data on isotopic exchange [73,74], the authors concluded that isothermal measurements are not effective for strongly heterogeneous surfaces, because at T = const., only a small part of the surface "works". This problem can be avoided when the method of programmed heating of the surface is applied.

I

I

'

9

16 18 20 x, kcal Figure 2. Site energy distribution function for hydrogen adsorption on the surface of an active carbon from sugar as obtained by Levin [72] from the processing of experimental data on the kinetics of adsorption [72-74]: f(x) = 640 exp[A-9.85-l0 s exp(a)], a = -7.19-lO-4x, x=energy in kcal/mole.

3. T H E R M A L D E S O R P T I O N S P E C T R A 3.1. Principles of t h e a n a l y s i s o f t h e r m a l d e s o r p t i o n s p e c t r a The method of thermal desorption was originally proposed in papers by Becker and Hartman [77] and Ehrlich [78]. It was widely developed and is presently used in many studies of adsorption processes. Its essence is contained in the fact that an adsorbent containing a certain amount of adsorbate is heated according to a given time-law of changing temperature T(r). The corresponding changes of pressure are measured in the experimental cell. The dependence of the pressure change (or of the number of molecules which desorb) on temperature is called the thermal desorption spectrum. Contrary to the lengthy measurements at a fixed temperature, here, within a short period of time, one can follow the process of desorption throughout the whole range of coverages from the full surface to practically zero. The mass material balance in the cell can be described in

208 the following way [79,80]:

(20)

an/dr = -AdNa/dr - nS/V - L,

where n is the number of molecules in the volume of the thermal desorption system V, N~ is the surface concentration of molecules, A is the area of the adsorbent, S is the speed of pumping the gas from the cell (liter/sec.), L is is the flow of gas into the cell from all the sources of molecules with exception of the sample itself. One assumes that at the beginning of the experiment: 1) the molecules in the cell are at thermal equilibrium with its walls, having a temperature To; 2) unadsorbed molecules obey the equation of the state of an ideal gas n = PV/RTo; 3) a stationary state occurs in the cell (dR~dr = O) for the gas pressure P equal Po = LRTo/S. If we write A P = P - P0, then the equation (20) can be re-written as:

(21)

d A P / d r = ARToN(-dO/dT)/V- S A P / V ,

where N is the number of adsorption sites on unit surface. For dO~dr one can use any equation of adsorption. Heating of the sample can be carried out according to any law T(r). The most widely used is linear T(r) = To + b r ,

(22)

where b is the velocity of heating (degrees/sec.). Other relationships considered include: 1/T = l/T0 +bT; a sequence of stepped increments of temperature; or a sequence of linear dependencies (22) with various velocities of heating. The description of the experimental data requires a simultaneous solution of equations (21) and (22).

a

b

~3

(

f

\ rl

__

t

t

Figure 3. (a) Desorption of nitrogen from tungsten after adsorption at T = 115~ Gas desorbed is proportional to the nitrogen ion current ip. 1 c m = l . 10 -9 amp. Time scale: 1 cm = 100 msec. Adsorption interval At = 10 min. Surface concentrations: n.y = 50.1012 molecules cm -2, n~ = 11.1012, nz = 136.1012. (b) Desorption of CO from W. Adsorption at 336~ At = 35 min. Time scale of desorption: 1 cm = 100 msec. Surface concentrations: nzl = 206- 1012 molecules cm -2, n& = 202.1012, n~3 = 62.1012 [81].

209 i

I

I

I

I

I

I

i

I

I

I

I

.,,--4

V

< "~ 0"

10

_

8

6

r162

4 o E

2

<

0

-

!11

D

-_

!

__ _

(~1.Zt- ,~?.~r ,: ~ '

~2

i : ............... ~,,

.......

.

I

1O0

-

I

!

I

300

I

700

900

I

I

1100

I

I

I

1300

Temperature (K) Figure 4. Desorption spectrum of the nitrogen/tungsten system for a full virgin layer deposited at 770 K. (o) Heating time per step is 5 sec. A's represent alpha layer adsorbed at 77~ K after heating the full virgin layer to 600 ~ K. For comparison, a spectrum from polycrystalline tungsten is shown as dotted lines [82]. One can distinguish between two extreme cases of the outflow of gas from the cell. In the first case, the velocity of the outflow is small (S ~ 0) and the velocity of desorption can be calculated as the first derivative of pressure. On the curve AP(T) one can observe the leaps (Fig.3) which are connected with the occurrence of various phases of the adsorbate. With increasing temperature, the phase which is most weakly attached desorbs first and the phase desorbs next which has a stronger binding, etc. until the whole surface is free. In the second case, the velocity of the outflow is large and the velocity of desorption is proportional do the difference of pressures AP. The curve AP(T) is formed of several peaks, each of which corresponds to an adsorbed phase (Fig.4). In the real situation, the experiment can be carried out over a wide range of change of the velocity of the outflow [78-81]. (Discussion of the influence of the temporary delay upon the shape of TDS can also found in the papers [83,84]). Redhead [85] (see also Carter [86]) has presented a method of analysis of the TDS peaks to determine the molecular properties of the adsorbent-adsorbate system. Let us limit our considerations to conditions of heating (22) such that the temperature dependence of the the surface coverage due to desorption of molecules from a homogeneous surface in absence of re-adsorption has the form:

dO/dT = -K~O exp(-ED/RT)/b. TM

(23)

Let us observe that the pre-exponential K~ and the energy of activation ED correspond to every value of m. When these values are independent of the surface coverage. Redhead related the temperature Tp corresponding to the peak maximum to the energy of activation

210

a, u

dO

dO dT

a, u !

! !

Tp T,K T,K Figure 5. The TDS curves for different initial coverages 00 of the ideal adsorption system, m = 1 (a) and 2 (b): 00=0.1(1), 0.2(2), 0.4(3), 0.6(4), 0.8(5), 0.99(6). Dashed lines show the half-widths of the curves. of desorption by: ED/RT~ = K~ e x p ( - E D / R T p ) f m / b ,

fl = 1 ,

f2 = 20p ~ 00,

(24)

where 0p corresponds to the peak maximum. For a qualitative evaluation, one uses the fact that the peak is roughly symmetrical for dissociative adsorption (see Fig. 5) so that 0p ~ 0o/2 and f2 ~ 00. The value 00 can be determined by the measurements of the area under the TDS curve 0o = fo(dO/d'r)d'r. It follows from the formula (24) that the position of the peak for first order desorption does not depend on the initial coverage. For second order desorption the position of the peak moves toward the range of lower temperatures as the value of 0o increases (Fig. 5). For non-dissociating molecules, the position of the maximum can be found by considering the meaning of K~, ED and b. For them, the half-width of the peak AT1/2 ' - T~/2, " (Ti/2 ' > T"a/2,,~ is the width of the peak at half the peak's (where AT1~2 = T;/2 height) does not depend on the value of 00 [85]. Kislyuk et al. [87] obtained an approximate relationship between the half-width of the peak and the energy of activation for desorption: ATI/2

=

1117

ln(01/02) ,

7 = RTp/ED ,

(25)

where 01 and 02 are surface coverages corresponding to temperatures T~/2 and T~)2. Hence the simple relationship AT1~2 = 3.2. IO-3ED/R. More nearly exact is the relationship given by Edwards [88] ATx/2/T = 2.44647(1 - 1.40057- 3.532572...),

(26)

All values appearing in the above formula are dimensionless. Equation (26) can be accurate to within several percent over a wide range of model parameters 1011 < K~ < 1015, 102 < Tp < 2.103, 10 -2 < b < 102 degree/sec. The TDS curves for non-dissociative desorption are asymmetric with respect to their maxima but for dissociative desorption, they are symmetric. This criterion is used for the

211 determination of the order of desorption if the peaks do not overlap. Usually, the order of desorption can be determined graphically from the relation of the experimental data to the coordinates ln((mT]/b)- 1/Tp. For this purpose, equation (24) must be re-written in the form: ln(~mT2p/b) = ED/RTp + ln(ED/K~R)

(27)

The slope of the left-hand-side of equation (27) gives an energy of activation ED at fixed values of b and K~9. Fig. 6 shows the results of such an analysis for the desorption of //2 molecules from the phase i /~2 on the (100) face of tungsten [88]. One can avoid the preliminary assumptions concerning the value of K~9 in the determination of ED if one varies the velocity of heating b and shows the experimental data in the coordinates ln(~mTp/b)- 1/Tp [90,91]. The exactness of this method can be satisfactory if the velocity of the heating changes by more than one or two orders of magnitude. If we know ED, the value K~9 can be found from relationship (24). 1020 0

[-.

0

o

0

1019

E = 32.3 kcal 2

v2 =4.2*10

1018

-2

cm

molecule * sec

!

!

I

1.60

1.70

1.80

1 9 103 (deg K) "1 T Figure 6. Plot to determine rate parameters for the ~2 state of H2 on the (110) face of W at 300 K. The coverage varies from 3.9- 1012 mol/cm 2 to saturation, iwhich is 2.5- 1014 mol/cm 2. The straight line gives ED = 135 kJ/mol and g~9 = 4.2.10 -2 cm2/(molecules, sec)[89].

In spite of the movement of the peak maximum toward lower temperatures (for second order desorption) with an increase of 80, its half-width remains practically constant. The interpretation is connected with ED through the approximate relationship AT1~2= 4.8. IO-3ED/R [87] or by the relationship, analogous to equation (26)[88]:

AT1/2/Wp = 3.52557(1 - 2 . 0 0 0 7 - 6.94172 + . . . )

(28)

212 It was shown in [85], that 7 in eq. (25) hardly depends on temperature and, if ED is given in units of Kcal/mole, then 7 is found in the interval from 30 to 34. With the help of this approximation, equation (24) can be changed into a more concenient expression for an approximate calculation [92]: ED/RTp

=

ln(K~(mTp/bT)

(29)

Quantitative analysis of the theoretical spectra proved [92] that one can construct some practically linear correlations for the half-width of the peaks: ATx/2/Tp = C1 - C2 l n ( K ~ m T p / b ) ,

(30)

where C1 = 0.20 and C2 = 0.00845 for m = 1 and C1 - 0.233 and C2 = 0.0083 for m = 2 (Fig.7). 0 -

1st ORDER

-

3

3

40 ATI 2 80 -

1 109 2 10 l~

21

3

- 120 -

2

100 l

l 0 ll

80

0

-

~

120 -

-

-

~

~

60 o ,.~

-

160 200

40

-b

m

t 20

i

0

_o

I

,

i

400

,

l

i

]

I

l

,

I

,

I

|

I

,

I

|

0

800

1200 1600 2000 Tp, K = Figure 7. Computer-generated graphs of the flash-desorption peak temperature Tp and peak width ATx/2 vs ED for a binding state with first-order desorption kinetics [92]. The majority of experimental TDS curves have a complex shape and cannot be described by the simple methods described here. The simple model of desorption which is the basis for these methods does not express the real properties of the experimental systems such as the heterogeneity of the surface and the lateral interaction between adsorbate molecules. Many adsorption spectra that are constituted of several peaks have been investigated - every peak was considered to belong to a separate phase and was described independently [92]. Such an approach turns out to be justified when it concerns various mechanisms of adsorption (with dissociation and without it) as, for example, for the system nitrogen/tungsten [79,81]. In some other situations, an even more detailed analysis is necessary. relationships for a h e t e r o g e n e o u s surface For the calculation of the TDS of non-dissociating molecules from a heterogeneous surface, one must replace the expressions for UD in section 2, by equation (20). The shapes of the TDS curves depends on the number of types of sites and the fractions of sites of various types on the surface. The desorption of molecules from the sites of each

3.2 Correlation

213 type can give a peak in the TDS. If the energetic features of the sites of various types are much different, the individual peaks do not overlap, or they hardly do. Then the TDS curve consists of several maxima and minima. If the energies of the sites of various types do not differ much from one another, the individual peaks overlap and one can observe a widened peak. The first case is considered as corresponding to a discrete distribution for fq, and the second case, to the continuous distribution function f ( x ) . In the first case, the main question is the relationship between the number of types of sites and the number of TDS peaks. In the second case, the relationship between the characteristics of the peak and the parameters of the distribution function is studied. The influence of the various kinds of distribution functions on the shape of TDS for discrete distribution functions was considered in the papers [86-87,93-96] and in the papers [79-81,86,87,92,97-101]. For the continuous distribution function f ( z ) = ( z 2 - Zl) -1, this was done by determining the doncentration dependence of the energy of activation of desorption; ED(0) =

E~ -

E~ =

~:0,

ED(O : 0 ) .

(31)

The simplest way of interpreting TDS curves is to seek for the correlation between the observed characteristics of a peak and the energetic parameters of an adsorption system. Carter [86] obtained a relationship between the differences of the activation energies of i neighbouring peaks AED (discrete distribution function) and their energy for first order desorption: AED = 3ED6/(0.91 -- 1.86), where 6--~ ( 1 . 5 - 1.7). 10 -2. While considering the conditions for peak splitting, it was assumed that the maximum of the smaller of the two neighbouring peaks should surpass e times the value of the minimum between them. This condition turns out to be analogous to that for the splitting of optical spectra. Kislyuk et al [87] obtained as a condition of splitting AED = ED/14 for non-dissociating molecules and AED = ED/9 i for dissociating ones. As a criterion for splitting, one used the condition of the occurrence of a minimum in the TDS at the increase of AED. The difference between the two evaluations is related to different criteria and to the degree of the mobility of the adsorbed molecules (see below). a

u, a.u.

U, a.u. 1

500

2

700

900

T,K

I

I

I

300

500

700

T, K

Figure 8. (a) TDS curves for atomic nitrogen on platinum: curve (al) is for the a form with N,n~ = 3-1013 atom/cm 2, b = 30 K/s; curve (a2) is the fl form with Nm~, = 5" 1013 atom/cm 2, b = 5 K/s. Part (b) is the TDS curve of CO on platinum with N,naz = 7.1014 molecules/cm 2, b = 38 K/s [87]. The same authors studied the correlation for an uniformly heterogeneous surface which is characterized by equation (31). In paper [86], a relationship was obtained between the

214 half-width of the peak and the temperature of the maximum in the TDS" ATll2 = 0.37Tp. In paper [87] yet another correlation was obtained: AT1~2 = [(~rT)2 + (AT~ 1/2, where 800

45

(2) VO no

13

700

11

1

= 1o10 deg 40 35

600 Tv (K) 500 25 400

300

200

100 !

I

I

I

I

I

I

25

50

75

100

125

150

175

AT, (K) 2

Figure 9. Computer-generated graphs of Tp azld AT1~2 for flash desorption from a second-order binding state with ED of the form ED - E~9 - aO [92]. AT~ is the peak half-width for a homogeneous surface. The value of a T characterizes the interval of the energetic heterogeneity of the surface given by the equation a E = aTT, cr ,-, 30 (25). Kislyuk et al applied this relationship to the experimental data on the atomic adsorption of nitrogen [102] and CO [103] on platinum (Fig.8). While analyzing these experimental data [104] and assuming that ln(0x/02) = 2.6 for m = 1 and 1.6 - 1.9 for m = 2, they obtained AT~ = 1050 from equation (25) for the low-temperature phase a and 900 for the high temperature phase 13 of nitrogen on platinum. The experiment gives the value AT1~2 ,,, 950 (a) and 630 (~). These authors conclude that for the a phase the agreement is satisfactory, and for the j5 phase the deviations are possibly due to non-linearity of the heating. This is why the surface of platinum is assumed to be roughly homogeneous (within every phase) with respect to the adsorption of nitrogen. For the system C O / P t , calculations based on equation (25) yield AT1/2 = 60 ~ compared to the experimental value AT1~2 = 190~ This means that the surface is nonuniform. The interval of heterogeneity evaluated by the above mentioned formulas as AED = 7 kcal/mole, agrees very well with the data on the adsorption heats [105].

215 The correlation of AT1~2 with the temperature of the peak for various meanings of E~ and a in equation (31) was studied in the paper by Schmidt [92]. The results of this analysis for second order desorption are shown in Fig. 9. In papers [106,107], attention was focused on the fact that a knowledge of only the value of the half-width of the spectrum is not enough to determine the molecular parameters of the model. This view was popular even previously, see, e.g. the paper [95], where one observed the indispensability of performing a preliminary comparison of the calculated and experimental data. In fact, it is not a complicated task to elucidate additional information from the TDS curves. In the paper [106], the width of the spectrum AT3~4 was obtained from two points where the rate were 3/4 of the maximum rate of desorption. In the paper [107], as additional information, the derivative dUD/dT, taken at two points of the spectrum where the rate of desorption was equal to 1/2 of the maximum gave another measure of peak-width. Drawing more detailed information from insufficiently separated spectra using simple relationships seems to be problematic. In paper [108] it was shown that a large number of parameters makes such an interpretation dubious (not having one meaning only). In order to better analyze the molecular nature of an adsorption system, more attention is paid to o b t a i n - from the TDS curves - data on the concentration dependencies of the effective energies of activation and on the pre-exponential factors of the rate of desorption.

3.3. Effective energies of activation and the pre-exponential constant of the desorption rate equation The equation for the rate of desorption can be represented by : UD = K0(O)O~ exp[--f~ED(0)] ,

(32)

where the pre-exponential coefficient Ko(O) and the desorption activation energies ED(O) are functions of the concentration of the adsorbed molecules. The technical possibilities to determine ED(O), if the order of desorption is known as well as Ko(O), were elaborated by Ehrlich [81]. His method has been applied to a whole series of systems [109-112]. King [112] proposed the so-called "complete analysis" for the determination of the coverage dependence, ED(O). For this purpose, one uses a sequence of TDS curves corresponding to various initial coverages 00. For every curve, an Arrhenius plot is constructed In UD -- l/T, from which one determines the value of E,I, related to the given initial coverage. The intercept of the Arrhenius plot with the coordinate axis gives the value B(O) = l n K 0 ( 0 ) + m In 0. From the plot of B(O)versus In 0, one estimates the order of the desorption and the value of Ko(O). If this plot is linear, i then the order can be determined from its slope, and Ko(O) is found from its intercept (independent of 0). If this plot is not linear, then the order m should be determined independently, which allows one to obtain the function K0(0). The method needs high quality measurements at high values of 0. It was applied successfully in numerical studies [113] for the range of coverage 0.04 < 0 < 0.3. The authors of [113] proved also that even a weak dependence of ED(O) (~ 6% on ED) provokes a considerable deformation of the concentration dependence of the isothermal rates of desorption which are obtained by calculation of the rates from the TDS curves while using the coordinates In UD - In 6 at T = const. The analysis of such isothermal rates of desorption does not require a knowledge of the order of desorption. That method

216

b a

I

I

0.s

hl %

4

I

I

I

x\5

3

02

"~e ~

~

I"

0-02 I

.~//

~

.~/"

]I

0 01 ~ 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.10 0.20 0.50 Relative coverage

o.1

~-~ 0.02 0.01 2.15

(d) 00:24 (e, 0.6 i

i

2.25

\ i

,

2.35 103/T(K)

I

2.45

Figure 10. (a) Experimental desorption rate isotherms for CO desorption from clean Ni(110). (b) In N versus lIT for CO desorption. Data points obtained from the desorption rate isotherms in Fig. 10a. The curves correspond to relative coverages in Fig. 10a of 0.07, 0.10, 0.20, 0.40, 0.60

[113].

was applied to the analysis of the desorption of CO from the surface of Ni(110) (Fig. 10) and for the system N2/hydrazine. An improvement of this method of determining the functions ED(O) and KD(O) at various velocities of heating for fixed initial coverage was presented by Taylor and Weinberg [114]. In their method, the temporal law of heating T(r) can be arbitrary. In this way, one excludes mistakes connected with deviations from the chosen regime of heating. The method is applicable for any coverage, but it requires that the change of the velocities of heating be not less than two orders of magnitude. The authors applied their method for the description of desorption of CO from It(110). The concentration-dependent functions ED(O) and KD(O) obtained are shown in Fig. 11. They show a compensation effect. This kind of relationship can also be observed for the system 02/W(llO), for which a modified expression for the rate of desorption was used: Ud = K00exp{[-ED(0)/R](1/T- 1/Ts)} ,

(33)

where T, is a parameter. For the system 02/W(llO) it was estimated that K0 = 7.10ss -1 and T, = 1230K; the dependence ED(O) was approximately described by equation (31) with ED(O) = 35 and x = 16 kcal/mole, i The problems accompanying the determination of the desorption parameter T~ were discussed in paper [115]. A simpler way of describing TDS curves and estimating the function ED(0) is presented in paper [116]. Instead of analysing a family of curves, one proposes to use the phenomenological description of the energy of activation approximated by the polynomial

M ED(O) = ~ a k ( 1 - O)k, where the coefficients ak have no physical meaning, and M is k=l

the number of terms which can be determined from adjustment of the calculated to the

217

40l if,

30

=~

20

1015 ~ 10

13

10

o ~ t~

10

109

10 7

!

0

I

0.2

I

I

0.4

I

!

0.6

I

i

0.8

k.q

10 5

N

0

o=

!

1

Fractional coverage Figure 11. ED(8) and K(O) profiles obtained from analysis of TDS curves. Broken lines are Taylor and Weinberg's results [114]. Full lines are the results of Forzatti et al. [117]. experimental spectra using the method of least squares. After presenting the eight types of dependencies of ED(O) (Fig. (12)), the authors considered them as a combination of the contributions from the homogeneous and uniformly heterogeneous (31) surfaces. This approach was applied to describe of desorption of 02 molecules from the surface of ZnO and from a silver catalyst. In Fig. 13, the TDS curves are shown along with the constructed functions ED(O). The main problems which were studied by the authors were to how to eliminate the necessity of a large number of TDS measurements and how to select parameters of the model from one of r several curves. A method for determining ED(O) and K0(0) from one TDS curve was presented in paper [117]. The curve is normalized with respect to the maximum of the peak and one constructs a parabolic approximation around its maximum. This allows one to obtain a linear correlation between certain values which can be determined from the experimental curve. From this correlation, one can evaluate the energy of activation of desorption corresponding to the point of the maximum, and determine - approximately - all the functions ED(8). As a result one can calculate both m and K0(0). This method was been tested on the curves shown in Fig. 12; it gave an accuracy of about ~5%. The results of its application to the desorption of CO from the face of I r ( l l 0 ) are shown in Fig. 11. Habenschaden and Kuppers [118] proposed a method where the parameters may depend on temperature (though the importance of this factor is not great [119]). It was suggested that one choose a small fragment of the curves in the low-temperature range of the spectrum (leading edge analysis), so that the changes of 6 and T were insignificant.

218

3

40

,_q m

o

E r

9\ gd

30

-.-.-

_

,,

\ ~

1

4

_ _-~.~_,__ _-,,,.

\

" . . ~ ---~ .

\

I

0

"7

0.5

.7

1,4: l/2scale

r

Il

o

I I

31

/I

4,1

_

i i

!,,, "~

[

f ,6,

!

i:

i

i

9

,

i

I

"~x

.

#

~

I

i

_

~

' l " . i "~.

-~

-" I.

~ ~

!

I

373

]l

I

I,

],"i: 1

0

I

8,

r~

473

573

673

373

473 573 673 T/K Figure 12. Upper graph: Distribution profiles of ED(e). Lower graphs: Thermal desorption curves simulated for first-order kinetics with K ~ = 1013 s -1, b = 10 K/s [116]. For this chosen fragment, a graphical analysis was carried out as in method [112]. In the papers [120,122], the role of compensation effects was studied and the prospects of using the various methods of analysis of the TDS curves to find the molecular parameters of an adsorption system were discussed. Fig. 14 shows the influence of the parameter Ts in equation (33) on the shape of the TDS curves in a system with a linear change of energy of activation of desorption (31). If one considers the coefficient x as a contribution of the lateral interactions, then the variation of Ts leads to a change of the sign of the interaction parameter (such a situation was observed in the system Au/W(llO) [109] and in a series of other systems). A detailed analysis of the various methods of determination of m, ED(O) and Ko(O) has been presented in paper [121]. Testing was carried out for desorption of the first and second order with calculation of the linear dependence (31) and of the compensational effect (33). The conclusions drawn by these authors is that the methods of [112] and [118] turn out to be preferable.

219

a

13/K/min

eq

o

_A

1;

6

13/K/min

4 _

9

1.0

0

1~/~ ^

2

1;

4

9

0

20.5 1-

0 373

473

573

I 373

473

573 T/K

T/K "7

13/K/min

O

"~ 35

b

13/K/min

A / s "1

E o

11.1

~ I\

l;

4

~--"~ 30

10

E

A/s

-1 10.5

35

10.4

' ~

10

3,4; 10

10 11.4 10 11.1 10

30

--t----.

25

ols

|

t 0

t\ l 0.5

Figure 13. Part (a): Thermal desorption curves for oxygen on zinc oxide. Part (b): Results obtained by the analysis of thermal desorption curves of oxygen on zinc oxide. Part (c): Thermal desorption curves of oxygen on silver catalysts. Part (d): Results obtained by the analysis of thermal desorption curves of oxygen on silver catalysts [116]. Equation (32) allows us to carry out a numerical analysis of the rates of desorption from the TDS curves, but does not yield much information about the molecular nature of an adsorption system. It is not by coincidence that this approach is used for the description of the process on single crystals where a large part is played by the lateral interactions as well as for processes on poly-crystalline and amorphous adsorbents. The influence of a certain molecular property of an adsorption system on the shape of the TDS curve will be considered in the following chapters of this survey: lateral interactions in Section 4, and the common influence of the heterogeneity of adsorbent and lateral interactions in Section 5. Right now we shall illustrate briefly the influence of the molecular characteristics of heterogeneous adsorbents on the shape of TDS in absence of lateral interaction.

220

r .s o. -o t_

Attractive interaction~ EO=300kJlmol J~

ld 3Is ~11 JP~t W= -25kJ/mol ~ \ 1 riO=

Repulsive interactions

%= 300kJ/tool no= ld3/s w= +25kJ/mol

t-

O

I, To= 2000

To=

Tc= 2

100~

To= 1 0 0 0 ~

Tc= 600K

Tc= 600K

900

1000 1100

attractive interactions

"

900

~.~!I~iI

1000 1100 TIK repulsive interactions

T (K)

"i~88

~" 115oL r~'--.~~

o

~

0.5

--

1000

1

150

11501.-

lOO%

o'.s

150

9

i oo

.

Q (Mr.)

Q (ME)

Figure 14. Part (a): Simulated TDS for first-order kinetics and attractive (left) and repulsive (right) lateral interactions, and different values of the compensation effect at temperature To. The desorption energy varies with coverage as ED(O) = Eg - wO, and the preexponential factor varies according to the compensation effect as ln K = -wO/RTc + I n K ~ Parameter values: E~ = 300 kJ/mol, w = +25 kJ/mol, K~ = 1013s -1. The coverages for each set of spectra vary from 0.1 to 1 M1 in steps of 0.1 M1. (b) Dependence of the peak maximum temperature Tp and the full width at half maximum (s upon initial coverage for TDS corresponding to first-order kinetics and attractive (left) and repulsive (right) lateral interactions. Curves are for different values of the compensation effect temperature Tc with parameter values as in part (a) [120].

221 3.4. D e s o r p t i o n of n o n - d i s s o c i a t i n g molecules While investigating TDS for a surface characterized by a discrete site energy distribution function, the main problem is the explanation of the conditions for total splitting of the TDS peaks. This is related to the number of peaks Np and the number of the types of sites t. Examples of such splitting are shown in Figs. 15 and 16. These curves were calculated from equations (11) and (12). To the equilibrium distribution of the adsorbed molecules corresponds the following "chaining" of the local coverages aq/% = Oq(1-Op)/[Ov(1- 0q)]. Fig. 15 shows the influence of the change of the surface composition on the shape of the TDS for t = 2 and a = 1. The positions of the two peaks do not change but the height of every peak changes in proportion to the contribution of the sites of every type. Fig. 16 shows the simplest TDS curves for a discrete uniform distribution fq = t -1. The first peaks are the most distinct. With increasing temperature, the maxima decrease whereas the the minima increase. Such a form of the curves is connected with surface migration of the adsorbed molecules. Fig. 17 gives a comparison of the TDS curves for an equilibrated distribution of the adsorbed molecules and for the case of no surface migration [122]. (The methods of describing the surface migration of molecules are discussed in paper [45-48, 122, 123] for heterogeneous surfaces and in papers [124-126, 122] for homogeneous ones.) a.Ll.

dO dT

I

Figure 15. TDS curves for the inhomogeneous surface with sites of two types (t=2): Curve 1 is for fl = f~, f~ < 0.5; 2, for fl = 0.5, 3, for fl = 1 - f~, 00 = 0.99 [40].

222

dO dT

a.u.

I

I !

!

T Figure 16. Completely split TDS curves for an inhomogeneous surface with fq = t -1, t = 2(curve 1), 3(curve 2), and 5(curve 3); here, 0o = 0.99 [40].

dO dT 0.6

2 0.3

-

0 500

! 600

i 700

T

Figure 17. TDS curves for the inhomog;eneous surface with random distributions of the different type sites, t = 2: Curve 1 - adspecles are immobile, Curve 2 - equilibrium distribution of admolecules; K1D~ = K D~ = 1012 s -1, E ~ = 168 kJ/mol, E ~ = 126 kJ/mol, 0o = 0.99, b = 50

K/~ [122].

223 Numerical studies of the conditions for the total splitting of the TDS curves for heterogeneous surfaces are reported in paper [127]. There, the case AQ = Q q - Qq+l = const. is assumed, where Qq is the adsorption heat on site q, 1 < q < t.

AQ* kJ/mol

~Q* 20J

40,

I0i

i

i

l

I

3

I

I

6

l~t

9

20

0

I

I

0.2

0.4

,,

I

I

I

0.6

0.8

1.0

f2 Figure 18. Condition for the complete splitting of the TDS curve for nondissociating molecules on a heterogeneous surface (t=2) for Q1 = 126 kJ/mol, a = 1 (1,3) and 0.5 (2,4). Inset: dependence of the complete splitting upon the number of the site types t for a = 1 (curve 3) and 0.5 (curve 4) [127], calculated using the uniform site distribution function (h = t-l) [127]. The decrease of AQ leads to a situation where the high-temperature peak disappears first, below a certain value of AQ*. If AQ = AQ* is the critical value for the total splitting of the TDS, then at AQ _> AQ*, the TDS consists of t peaks, and when AQ _< AQ* there will be (t - 1) peaks, i.e. the case of partial splitting (t > 2), or of no splitting at all (t = 2). Instead of the high-temperature peak, there will appear a "shoulder" with a characteristic curvature. Any further decrease of AQ leads to the situation in which the shoulder becomes only weakly visible, and later on, the high-temperature peak disappears, etc. The determination of the conditions for total splitting is possible for arbitrary mobilities of the adsorbed molecules, and for arbitrary values of AQq :~ const. In the ge-

224 neral case, any local maximum can disappear, and not necessarily the high-temperature peak (the dependence for the condition of a total splitting on the shape of the distribution function). Diminishing the initial coverage of the surface results in a decrease of the low temperature maxima of TDS and in their complete disappearance. That is why, in order to show the total splitting of TDS, it is necessary to have the initial coverage 00 --~ 1.

2

2 2 90 1

""

22.0

'x~,,

2

29"4 l ~ X 9

3

29.4~ 37"8 V

a

b

Figure 19. C~176 for the complete splitting of the TDS curves for t=3, Q1=126 kJ/mol, a = 1 (part a) and 0.5 (part b). The cross sections are given for fq = 0.03, q= 1,2,3. The contour lines are given for AQ = 14.7(3), 16.8(4), 18.9(5), 21.7(6), 25.2(7), 29.4(8), 33.6 (9), all in kJ/mol [127]. Searching for AQ* can be done by numerical variation of AQ value and following the number of the local maxima of the curve dS/dT. That procedure permits us to investigate the lower limit of the differences in the adsorption energies of the various nodes that lead to total splitting of the TDS, and the dependence of this lower limit upon the molecular parameters of the adsorption system (a generalization of the criteria of paper [87]). The "optical" criterion of Carter [86] allows one to determine the conditions for a strong splitting of the peaks. Note the difference in the "optical" criterion and those obtained in paper [86] for AED (see Subsection 3.2) for the case when no surface mobility of the adsorbed molecules is possible [127]. The analogy of the TDS curves with the optical spectra in the case of a equilibrium distribution of the adsorbed molecules is not complete: it does not take into consideration the redistribution of the molecules between sites of various types. For a surface with two types of sites an approximate interpretation of 6E has been developed that relates it to the energy of activation of desorption from the sites of the first type: SE = aE + b, where a, b are constant values which depend on the surface composition and on the coefficient a (see Table. 1). That relationship holds with an

225 accuracy of 0.8 k J / m o l e for the range 4 < E12 < 500 KJ/mole. Fig. 18 shows how the conditions for the total splitting of the TDS are related to the surface composition. The minima of the curves are situated in the vicinity of fl "~ 0.5. When the number of sites of the first or second type increases, the value of AQ* increases too. W h e n a = 1 AQ* increases faster than f2 increases, and when a = 1/2, AQ* increases more than fl.

Composition

0.1

0.3 0.5 0.7

0.9

Parameters

1.0

0.75

0~50

0.25

0.15

0.10

0.206

0.162

0. I 16

0.072

0.055

0.048

0.641

0.536

0.406

0.272

0.242

0.222

0.161

0.124

0.088

0.053

0.038

0.030

0.515

0.440

0.306

0.204

0.155

0.138

O.120

0.089

0.060

0.042

0.032

0.026

0.398

0.297

0.201

0.168

0.130

0.113

0.128

0.108

0.086

0.062

0.052

0.047

0.490

0.222

0.264

0.226

0.201

0.268

0.170

0.145

0.119

0.096

0.091

0.090

0.649

0.113

0.302

0.327

0.377

0.394

,,

Table 1. Parameters of the approximate equation for

6ED(ED) [127].

Analogous relationships can be observed while investigating the conditions for a total splitting of TDS when t = 3 (the results for the splitting are shown in Fig. 19). The composition of any point in the concentration triangle (fa, f2, ]'3) can be determined by the usual rules describing three component diagrams of state: if a line is drawn across the point, parallel to any of the side of the triangle (let it be the side of the triangle which unites the corners f2 = 1 and f3 = 1), then on the other two sides of the triangle some fragments are cut out (they are along the triangles f2 = 1 and f3 = 1) which determine the part of the component occurring in the third angle (here it is q = 1). The value A Q ' , in the considered point, can be determined by the values which are on the isoline passing through the given point. The minimum value of AQ* can be determined in the vicinity of the point fq ,~ 1/3. The most rapid increase of AQ* value takes place when the value f2 increases (if a = 1), or at f~ (if a = 1/2). The conditions for the total splitting of the TDS for a uniform site distribution fq = t -a are shown in the supplement to Fig. 18. The total splitting of TDS takes place at practically one and the same value of AQ* (some differences can be observed at t = 2).

226 dO dT

1.0-

I

I

I

I

300

400

500

600 T,K

Figure 20. TDS for uniformly heterogeneous surfaces Qx=30 kcal/mol, Ax = 5(1,4), 10(2,5), 15(3,6) kcal/mol; ~ = l(Curves 1-3) and 0.5(4-6)[128]. a

1.0

dO

dO dT

1.0

6

4

4

1

I

200

I

400

I

I

I

600 T,K

200

400

600 T,K

Figure 21. TDS for heterogeneous surfaces with exponential distribution function f(z) = Here, n is a normalization coefficient, 7 = 0.33(part a) and -0.33(part b); Q1=30 kcal/mol, Ax= 5(Curves 1,4), 10(2,5), 15(3,6); a = 1(1-3) and 0.5(4-6) [128].

exp(Tz)/n.

227

b 1.0-

d_9_O

d.__OO dT

1.0-

dT

1

!

200

400

200

600

T,K T,K Figure 22. TDS for heterogeneous surfaces with the gaussian destribution function f(z) = exp[-(x - 5c)2/2a]/n, Q2 = Q1 - Ax, ~ = Q2 + $Ax, Q1 = 30 kcal/mol, (part a) a = 1, a = 2, 5 = 0.25 (Curves 1-3) and 0.75 (4-6); Az = 5 (1,4), 10 (2,5), 15 (3,6) kcal/mol; (part b) = 0.5, a = 2 (1-6) and 0.5 (7), a = 1(1-3,7) and 0.5(4-6); Az = 5 (1,4), 10 (2,5), 15 (3,6,7) kcal/mol [128].

Eef (O)

lg Kef(O )

30

12.8

~

5

1

4

6

12

18.7 0

0.5

I 11.3 l 1.0 0

! 0.5

1 ~

1.0 O O Figure 23. (a) Effective activation energies for desorption E~I(O) = -d{ln Uo(O)/O}/d~ for Q1 = 30 kcal/mol, Az = 12 kcal/mol, a = 1(1,3-5) and 0.5(2). The distribution functionis are: uniform (1,2), exponential with 7 = 1(3), and symmetric gaussian with a = 1(4) and 2(5); homogeneous surface(6). (Part b) Effective constants of the desorption rate K~s(0) = UD(0)exp[~E~s(0)]/0, corresponding to the curves of part a [128].

228 A relationship between the various conditions for the splitting of the TDS can be given in the form AQo = AQ* + nQ1, where AQ0 is a difference of the energies of desorption from the sites of the first and the second type, corresponding to the "optical" criterion. Here Q1 is the adsorption heat on the "strong" sites. Such a correlation holds within an accuracy of 20%, but the values ~ depend on a: ~(1) = 0.085, a(0.75) = 0.1, ~(0.5) = 0.13 and a(0.25) = 0.3. The most significant deviation from that correlation can be observed in the vicinity fl = 0.5 - 0.7. This correlation can be used for a qualitative evaluation with the largest number of types of sites. Thus, for the surface with three types of sites and a = 1, the conditions for the splitting of the TDS into two peaks yield AQ0 = 23 KJ/Mole and AQ* = 12.4 KJ/Mole and the conditions for the splitting into three peaks yield AQ0 = 27.1 KJ/mole and AQ* = 14.7 KJ/mole. Let us focus attention on some peculiarities of the use of continuous distribution functions f(z) to calculate TDS curves. Fig. 20 shows the spectra for a uniformly heterogeneous surface. The calculation was carried out by using equation (16), but not using the effective activation energy of desorption (31). An increase of Ax = x2 - xl makes the spectra wider and flatter. However, at a certain critical value of Ax* there appears a sharp low-temperature peak. Its appearance depends also on the value of the parameter a. Figs. 21 and 22 show the TDS for exponential and Gaussian distributions. Depending on the parameters of the distributions, there will also be possible various variants for the peak widening, and in some cases sharp low-temperature peaks can also appear. This can be related to the part of area of the comparatively weak adsorption sites which can be considered as analogous to the weak sites for a discrete distribution function, and by the redistribution of the adsorbed molecules due to surface migration. This migration causes the main stream of the desorbing molecules to go through the weak sites. Fig. 23 shows some concentration dependencies of the effective desorption activation energies for TDS curves calculated with continuous distribution functions. At a small value of Ax, the dependence of ED(O) for the uniform and the Gauss functions does not differ much from the linear ones which can well be approximated by the formula (31). In all the case one can observe the similarity of changes in ED(O) and KD(0), which usually is considered as the presence of a compensation effect. 3.5. D i s s o c i a t i v e a d s o r p t i o n The elementary processes of dissociative adsorption take place on neighbouring sites of the surface. On homogeneous surfaces the adsorption process is the same for any pair of sites whereas on a heterogeneous surface, the pairs of the sites differ from one another. In consequence, depending on the type of the pair of sites, the rate of adsorption will be different. A statistical description of the contributions of the elementary processes on various pairs of sites of the heterogeneous surface will involve introducing the distribution function of pairs f~q, 1 ~_ q, p <_t, t

t

fqp = 1 , q,p----1

~ q--1

fqp = fp,

(34)

229

dO dT

1.2

0.8

0.4

300

500

700 T,K

Figure 24. The TDS curves for dissociating molecules on heterogeneous surfaces with fq = 1/t, t = 2, Ell = 126, Qa = 84, AQ = 14.7 kJ/mol, a = 1. The surfaces are: regular(i), chaotic (2), patchwise(3) [130]. With these distribution functions one can express the rates of adsorption of dissociating molecules [129] as: t

U ~ = K ~ P ( 1 - 8n)(1 - 0p), q,p=l U D = K~0q0r, D ,

A,D = Kqp A,Do exp(--/~E~D), Kw

(35)

where t h e VqA'D are rates of t h e elementary processes on the pairs of sites qp, K A'D~ are the pre-exponential factors, and E ~ 'D are energies of activation.

230

AQ*, kJ/mol

AQ, kJ/mol 16.8

m

33.6 12.6

~

7

I

!

I

2

4

6

t

4

21.0

8.4

6

0.5

Figure 25. The conditions for complete splitting of the peaks for dissociating molecules on patchwise (1,4), chaotic (2,5), and regular (3,6) surfaces; Ell = 126, Q1 = 84 kJ/mol, a = 1 (1-3,7) and 0.5 (4-6,8)[130]. The function fq~ characterizes the structure of the surface. In general, it describes the correlation of various sites, with a given energy on the surface. If identical sites are situated together, we have to deal with a homogeneous or patchwise surface. Then, fqp = 1 for q = p and fqp = O for q :~ p, fqp = fqh. These two cases are very well known in the literature [3,27,72]. To describe them, the equations (35) should be re-written as: t

UA,D = ~fqqUqAr D , q= 1

t

UA,D= ~

fqfpU~;D ,

(36)

q,p= 1

The second equation (36) can be simplified if one introduces a multiplicative approximation for the rate constant of the elementary process K~ 'D = K~ 'D. "A trA'DAn'A'D ---'*J'ql "**~pl "

231 The essence of this approximation is that the contributions AK~ 'D and Agp4 'D to the change of the rate on various sites is observed independently on every site of the pair qp (relative to a pair of sites on the homogeneous surface of type "1"). Such an expression, for example, is obtained if we assume independence of the pre-exponential constants on the types of pairs qp and additivity of the contributions of the energy of activation on every site of the pair. This assumption was presented first in paper [27] as a consequence of the linear relationships (15), and it was frequently used in recent work [3,29-32, 72]. Determining the energies of activation using this assumption seems to be rough, but it greatly simplifies the description of the reaction rates. In consequence, the expression for the rate of desorption for a chaotic surface, for example, can be written as: UD = U1D~

fqAK~0 n

,

AKqD1= exp[-~(E~ - E~)]

(37)

q=l

In the case of patchwise and chaotic surfaces, the macroscopic rate of dissociative adsorption can be calculated, knowing only the function fq characterizing the surface composition of the adsorbent. Generally, this information is not complete [129]. For a large number of types of sites, expressions (34), (35) can be re-written by introducing two-dimensional distribution functions f(z, y): X2

Xl

Y2

Yi

X2

Y2

ll 'x'y' xdy:'' Xl Yl

where xi = yi, i = 1 and 2. Let us limit ourselves to analysing the conditions for the total splitting generated by a discrete distribution function. The shape of the TDS curves for dissociative adsorption is similar to that for the shape of the curves for non-dissociative adsorption discussed above [130]. The influence of the construction of the surface on the shape of TDS and on the conditions of the total splitting for the case t = 2 is shown in Fig. 24 (f~ = f2) and Fig. 25. For surfaces having ordered structure 1 (d12 = 1), the TDS begins at higher temperatures, and for a surface with a patchwise structure (d12 = 0), the TDS begins at lower temperatures. For the surface with a chaotic structure the TDS curves occupy an intermediate position, nearer however to the TDS for patchwise surfaces. On a strongly ordered surface, the desorption of molecules takes place when a pair of molecules occupies two similar sites, which is the reason that, for such surfaces with a given value of AQ, splitting does not take place (curve 1). Fig. 25 shows the conditions for total splitting depend on the surface composition. The most comfortable conditions for the splitting are realized on patchwise surfaces, and the least comfortable ones, on an ordered surface. At a fixed structure of the surface, the value of AQ*(f2) increases with a decrease in the coefficient a. No matter what the structure of the surface, all the curves of AQ*(f2) sharply increase as the number of sites of the first or second type diminish to zero. In the medium composition range 0.2 < ]'2 _< 0.8, the curves AQ'(f2) strongly depend on the structure of the surface and on the value of the parameter a. Thus, the conditions for total splitting can be determined both by the surface composition and by the surface structure (at a fixed surface composition). The conditions for total splitting of the TDS for the uniform distribution function fq = 1/t

232 depend on the number of types of sites on the surface and are given in the supplement to Fig. 25. An increase of a leads to a complete splitting of the spectrum, and the increase of the number of the types of sites t at t > 3 is practically constant. In general (also for non-dissociative adsorption), all the molecular characteristics of the adsorption system influence the shape of the TDS. A more detailed discussion of the influence of these parameters on the shape of the TDS curves is presented in paper [130].

4. L A T E R A L I N T E R A C T I O N

ON A HOMOGENEOUS

SURFACE.

4.1. P e c u l i a r i t i e s of n o n - i d e a l m o d e l s In addition to the heterogeneity of an adsorbent surface, the lateral interactions of the adsorbed particles influence the kinetics of adsorption. It was Langmuir who considered this for the first time [33, 131,132] while studying the desorption of thorium, cesium, and hydrogen from the surface of tungsten. Assuming the presence of dipole-dipole interactions between the adsorbate atoms, he described desorption with the help of an effective rate constant of desorption which depends on the surface coverage 0: UD = --KD(0)0,

KD(0) = K~ exp[--/3ED(0)],

ED(0) = E~ - H0

(39)

where ED(O) is the effective activation energy of desorption, H is a constant depending on the potential of interaction, and K~9 is the pre-exponential factor of the rate equation. It was assumed in papers [33, 131, 132] that the effective energy of activation coincides with the energy of adsorption ED(O) = Q(O). In the theory of the kinetics of surface processes, the model of the elementary event plays an important part. As already mentioned, in most cases one uses the model of collisions together with transition state theory. In calculations of the effects of lateral interaction, the differences between these models appear as different dependencies of the energy of activation on the surface coverage. This is due to the effect of lateral interactions upon the energetic states of neighbouring particles. Fig. 26 shows the differences of the effective adsorption potentials in the models based on collisions and on transition states for various surface coverages. These curves represent the averaged values of the potential curves corresponding to the local environments of the particles participating in the elementary process. Fig. 27 shows the local configurations of the neighbouring particles around a site where adsorption takes place without dissociation on lattices with z = 4 and 6 nearest neighbours. While describing the adsorption equilibrium when particles are in their ground states, this produces a change of the adsorption heat Q with surface coverage. This is due both to the lateral interactions and to the energetics of the transition state ED(O) (see Fig. 26a). If one assumes that the lateral interactions do not influence the transition state, one arrives then at another dependence ED(O) (see Fig. 26 b). Such an assumption corresponds to the conditions of the model of collisions, since then the adsorption activation energy EA(O) does not depend on the surface coverage 0. In transition state theory, EA(O) turns out to be a function of the surface coverage even

if EA(O= O) = O.

233 v(e)

a

E D (0)

A (0) e

Q(1)

/

O(O),

/ .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Figure 26. Potential curves for the model transition state (part a) and the impact model (part b). EA and ED are the adsorption and desorption activation energies, Q is the heat of adsorption, and I is the distance from the surface (horizontal axis of the figure).

4.2. Principles of t h e calculation of the a d s o r p t i o n rate Most often, the effects of lateral interactions are treated in terms of the lattice gas model. The particles localized on the sites of the lattice interact with each other if their separation does not exceed the radius R of the interaction potential. The energetic parameters of the adsorbed particles, being in the ground state, can be expressed as e(r) where r is the number of the coordination circle (in two dimensions) around any site (Fig.28). In the lattice model, the distance can be conveniently measured by the numbers denoting the coordination circles, 1 _< r _< R. The interaction of an activated adsorption-desorption complex (adsorption and desorption have the same activated complex) with the neighbouring particles in their ground state at a distance r, can be expressed as e(r). In consequence, the effective energy of activation of adsorption is a function of the difference =

_

234 n=O

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

5

~=1

n=O

6

Figure 27. The local configurations of neighboring admolecules around any central site (re=l) for the planar lattices z = 4 and 6 [40,49]. The theoretical description of adsorption, taking account of the interaction of nearest neighbours and based on the model of collision, was given by Roberts [133]. (The first calculation of TDS was carried out by Toya [134]). Analogous expressions for the model of the transition states were obtained much later independently in 1974 by Adams [135] and by Tovbin and Fedyanin [136-138]. In paper [135], the interactions between the nearest neighbours are considered. In papers [136-138], a more complex potential was discussed: a direct interaction between nearest neighbours and a collective interaction with the remaining adsorbed particles. A detailed review of the papers from 1937 to 1990 dealing with the kinetics of surface processes (adsorption, desorption and surface migration) and based on the lattice gas model, was given in paper [40]. Most of these papers are concerned with homogeneous surfaces. Here, we consider the basic factors influencing the kinetics of adsorption processes on homogeneous surfaces. These factors can be divided into two groups. The first group of factors characterize the physical properties of an adsorbent-adsorbate system calculated from kinetic equations. These properties include the lateral interaction potentials, the aggregated (phase) state of the adsorbed layer, and the surface mobility of the adsorbed particles. The second group of factors characterizes the accuracy of the calculated physical parameters. The most difficult problem in describing non-ideal adsorption systems lies in the fact that these systems possess cooperative properties whose calculation is a traditional many-body problem [109, 110]. Such problems seldom have an exact solution. For practical purposes one has to use approximate methods. One of the main difficulties of the theory of

235 non-ideal adsorption systems consists in the choice of an approximate method and in the estimated accuracy of the results obtained. We shall discuss this problem here in detail because it is quite important for the description of kinetics on heterogeneous surfaces. The many-body problem dscussed above concerns adsorption not only on homogeneous surfaces but also heterogeneous ones. In order to understand such complicated situations, one has to analyze the advantages and disadvantages of various methods of calculating the effects of lateral interactions for simple cases.

gl

1

2

3

r~ fxJ

r~ gxJ

g3

9

4

7 6 5 10 Figure 28. The neighboring sites belonging to various (r) coordination spheres g~ are indicated for a central site f. For the central pair of sites f,g, the sites (1-6) belong to the nearest neighbors of the unified first coordination sphere, and the sites (7-10) are second neighbors. The rate of desorption of non-dissociating molecules on a homogeneous surface can be expressed as:

UD=--KDOS(O i R , z ) ,

KD = K~ exp[-/~E~] ,

(40)

where KD is the desorption rate constant defined in (10), the function S(0 I R,z) describes the non-ideality of an adsorbed system by taking account of: 1) the structure of the surface (z is the number of the nearest neighbours); 2)the radius of the pair potential for lateral interactions R: 3) the model of the elementary process (for the model of collisions e*(r) = 0, whereas for transition state theory, e*(r) ~: 0); and 4) the calculation of the probabilities of the various configurations of neighbouring particle. If n is the number of the configuration, calculation of the probabilities 8z+x(n) introduces certain assumptions that make it possible to close the systems of equations with respect to the probability of the probable single, binary etc. configurations. Fig. 29 shows schematically the result of applying approximate methods of calculating the probability 0z+l(n) for four approximations: chaotic, polynomial, quasi-chemical and an approximate calculation via indirect correlations. The latter is the best, followed by the quasi-chemical approximation. The method of calculating the probability of triplet configurations can be related either to the superposition approximation [141] or to the approximation proposed by Hill [142]. In the

236 chaotic approximation the probabilities of the many-particles configurations are expressed by the singlet probabilities 8q (= 8). Effects of the correlations between the interacting particles are absent. However, this situation can be treated by different approximations: the mean field approximation [143-145] or a special chaotic approximation [146, 147]. In the polynomial approximation [148] one calculates the effects of the interactions between nearest neighbour particles though equations that are closed with respect to the function 81. In the quasi-chemical approximation [149-151], the values 8z+l(n) are closed through 81 and 82, which is why we then calculate the effects of the direct correlations between the interacting particles.

oj iO

On

io--o i o--Ok

Ok

J

3..........

~ i

e

k

~

oj

e

iO

0

Ok

k

Oe jO

io

Ok

% 0 P

o~ P

O

in

In

i p

rn ~ j O

Ok Oe

iO 0 P

O m

/ ~

e p

Figure 29. The schemes of the many-particles configuration probabilities for admolecules on planar lattices with z = 4 and 6 in various approximations: 1 is for the mean field and chaotic approximations, 2 is for the polynomial approximation, 3, for the quasi-chemical approximation, and 4 takes account of indirect correlations; o denotes 81, o-o, 62, triangles denote 83 [40,49]. For nearest neighbours (R = 1) the function accounting for non-ideality of an adsorption system S(8 [ R,z) takes, in the chaotic approximation (CA), the mean field approxi-

237 mation (MFA), and the quasi chemical approximation (QCA), the following forms: S(0 I R,z) =

(1 + xO) z , x = exp(/~Ee)- 1 , (CA) exp(/~zEeO) , ~ = [(1 - 20) 9. - 40(1 - 0)exp(fle))] 1/2 ( M F A ) (1 + xt) ~ , t = 1 - 2(1 - 0)/(1 + or), (QCA)

(41)

In the polynomial approximation, the function S(O ] R, z) has a more complicated form [135, 138, 49] which is not discussed here. However, we shall discuss certain peculiarities of the TDS curves that are connected with the effects of correlations and the application of the lattice gas models to analyze experimental systems. A more detailed discussion is given in [40]. 0

0.5

1

1.0

12

0.5

r 1.0 Figure 30. The concentration dependencies of the heats of chemisorption in various approximations for z = 4, r = [Q(O)-Q(O)]/[Q(O)-Q(1)]; 1 denotes PA, 2 denotes QCA, 3 denotes MFA, 4 denotes CA [147]. The differences in the methods of calculating the effects of correlations are reflected in the concentration dependencies of the adsorption heats (Fig. 30) and of the rates of desorption (Fig. 31). These figures show the relation between Q(0) and In Up(O) for the various approximations. The existence of correlations results in the appearance of points of inflection in those curves (if there are no correlations, then there are no points of inflection). The TDS curves calculated using these approximations are shown in Fig. 32 [118]. The main difference between the approximations considered here and those where the effects of correlation are ignored, consists in the existence of split TDS. The absence of correlations leads to curves with a maximum of one peak. One should observe significant

238 differences in the positions and heights of the maxima in the chaotic approximation relative to the MFA. The existence of correlations affects the splitting of the spectrum and the number of peaks is equal to (k + 1), where k is the number of the points of bending of the functions Q(0) and in UD(O).This is the main reason that, in the chaotic approximation, the coverage dependence of the adsorption heat Q(0) is strongly non-linear (curve 4). The linear dependence predicted by MFA (curve 3). (Curve 1 in the polynomial approximation) is situated nearer to curve 3 than to curve 4, but anyhow there is a splitting in it. 0

20

]

0.5 ,

!

I

1.0 I

!

O

12

-4 -!I In V 2

Figure 31. The influence of the lateral interaction of admolecules upon the concentration dependence of the desorption rate when ~e = -5, ~Se = 5:1 is MFA, 2 is PA, 3 is QCA, 4 is CA

[147].

The non-ideality of an adsorption system S depends upon the difference 6e. In equation (3), repulsion between molecules corresponds to a negative e(1). If the interaction of an activated complex with the neighbouring molecules is the same as that between adsorbed particles in the ground state, then S = 1 and the kinetics of desorption is equivalent to an ideal adsorption system, regardless of the method of approximation. Fig. 33 shows TDS curves calculated in the QCA for various values of the parameters of the lateral interaction and the energy of activation for desorption at zero coverage. The width of the TDS turns out to be proportional to the value of 6e, with an increase of 6e producing

239 a stronger splitting of the TDS, and a decrease in the temperature of the initial TDS, with a corresponding increase of the share of the particles desorbing at lower temperature values.

d_..~e dT 0.4

0.2

300

400

500

600

T

Figure 32. TDS curves for 80 = 0.9 in the approximations-polynomial (1), quasi-chemical (2), chaotic (3), and mean field (4) for g~9 = 1012 s -z, E D = 126 kJ/mol, e = -16.8 kJ/mol, e* = -8.4 kJ/mol, b = 50 K/s, z = 4 [147]. Repulsion between nearest neighbours is typical for chemisorption systems and results in a decrease of Q(0) with increasing coverage 0). In such systems the condition [ e~ I__0. To physical adsorption there corresponds attraction to nearest neighbours which leads to an increase of the heat of adsorption with increasing surface coverage. In such a case, e, e* > 0. However the effects of the repolarization of the binding (decrease of

240 the binding with the surface coverage and increase of the binding with the neighbouring particle) can lead to the situation where e > e* and. vice versus. An increase of the parameter e at *e = const, provokes an increase of the splitting of the spectrum (Curves 4-6), but its width remains constant. Curves 4 and 8 correspond to e* = 0. In this case the width of the spectrum is maximized. The diminishing energy of activation E~9 moves the spectrum toward lower temperatures and makes it possible to increase the splitting of the spectrum due to an increase of the contribution of the lateral interactions to the energy of adsorbent-adsorbate binding z~e/E~9 , E~9 ,~ Q(O = 0)). dO 0.4~- dT

0.3

0.2

0.1

0 300 600 900 1200 Figure 33. TDS in the quasi-chemical approximation, z = 4, b = 50 K/s, 00 = 0.9. 21]ae energy perameters are given in Kelvins. Curves 1 and 2: ED = 15- 103, ~e = 103, e = - 2 . 1 0 3 (1) and -103 (2). Curve 3: ED = 20.103, ~e = 103, e = -2-103. For the other curves (4-8), ED = 30-103. For curves 4-6, ~e = 10 3, e = --103 (4), --2.103 (5), -3-103 (6). Curve 7 is obtained with ~e = 0 at any E. Curve 8: e = -3-103, ~e = 3.103 [147]. Curve 5 qualitatively reproduces features of the experimental TDS curve for the C O / W system[152]. (This fact was not mentioned in paper [134].) By coincidence, the TDS curves calculated in [147] correspond to the experimental data for the systems C o / M o ( l O 0 ) [153], and on a series of metals [154], C s / W [156], etc.

241

4.3. P r a c t i c a l a p p l i c a b i l i t y of t h e cluster m e t h o d s A detailed analysis of the papers published in the years 1970-1980 [40] shows that the calculation of the interaction between nearest neighbours can assure only a qualitative description of the experimental TDS curves. For quantitative agreement, it is indispensable to use the full set of lateral interactions. This conclusion is physically obvious, because the contributions of the nearest neighbours amount to 60 to 80% of the total energy of binding of a particle with its neighbours in any condensed phase. For the first time, a quantitative description of the kinetics of the desorption of atoms from the surface of tungsten [156-158] was given by considering both the direct interactions between nearest neighbours and the collective interaction with all the remaining adsorbed molecules [136,137]. The rates of desorption (Fig.34) obtained from the experimental TDS curves were estimated for 840 K and compared with calculations done using three approximations at f l s - - -3.6. The contribution from the collective interactions was equal to 30% of the total and the marked areas in Fig. 34 correspond to the permitted values of the parameter ~c~. g which range from -0,38 to 0. That comparison shows that the approximations, after taking account of the effects of correlations, lead to considerably better agreement with the experimental data than those ignoring the correlations.

0.5

1.0

0

..

0

-8

I-.-!

I--4 1

-24 "

fp'Ar 3

In V

Figure 34. The desorption rates K/W for T=840 K, calculated for the chaotic (1), polynomial (2), and quasi-chemical (3) approximations [137], V = U ( ~ ) / U ( O = 1); symbols denote experimental values of the desorption rates with their errors [156-158].

0

~"

0

I~

~

,.~"

,-,-

'

0

---.;'l

0

,

~

~

0

v

0

0

0

....

0

.-'I.

i l

0

v

,_..

~-- ~

,..,

~.

',I.,

~

'_.

-,

i,0

--,

~

v

~

~

i

0

"

o

,---, 0

o -' ~--'

~

EE

~

(D~cl

~ 0

L,O

o

0

o

243

rl

dO dT 1.0

O.

0

200

1

2

350

3

4

5

400

450

500

550

Figure 36. Experimental (1) and calculated (2-4) TDS curves for C O / P t ( l l l ) , corresponding to the versions 2-4 of the interaction parameters in Table 2. Inset" the concentration dependence of the sticking coefficient r/(0): curve (p) - calculation, the another curve - experiment,[159]. A satisfactory qualitative agreement with experiment is obtained when one includes interactions with the first and second neighbours [159] in the description of the data for desorption of Co~It(Ill) [160], 02/Ir(lll) [160] and 02/Pt(lll) [161] (Fig. 35). The values of the lateral interaction parameters that lead to a quantitative description of the TDS have been collected for a series of systems in Table 2. These parameters correspond to the initial values 00 < 8*, where 8" is the maximum measured value of the initial surface coverage. Calculations [159, 168] have been carried out without applying special optimization procedures (see for example [169]). The search for the parameters was ended when the deviation between the experimental and calculated curves was less than 3-5%. The accuracy of the experimental data does not allow one to ask for still more accuracy. The procedure used for estimating the parameters is not precise enough. For the system Co/Pt(lll), several sets of parameters were obtained, all corresponding to a given accuracy in the description of the experimental TDS curves, but the procedure of carrying out such calculations proves that for a quantitative description of the experimental data one needs, as a minimum, calculations of the contributions for the first and second neighbours. The indispensability of including the contributions not only from the nearest neighbours, but also from more distant neighbours, has been shown in the description of

244 the rate of adsorption [159]. The concentration dependencies of the rate of adsorption are even more sensitive to contributions from further neighbours. For the system Co/Pt(111), a comparison of two procedures for searching for the lateral parameters was carried out. In the first case, the parameters e(r) and e'(r) were determined from the TDS curves and accordingly, the concentration dependencies of the sticking coefficient was evaluated (variants 1-3). In the second case, these parameters were determined from the sticking coefficients, and the TDS curves were calculated (variant 4). In the first case, the calculated sticking coefficients were in poor quantitative agreement with the experimental data. In the second case the agreement was much better (see. curve 3 in Fig. 36). In the supplement in Fig. 36 the experimental and calculated concentration dependencies of the sticking coefficients are given. -1

dO dT

0.8

0.4

0.5

1

~..~

0.1

!

I

I

I

400

500

600

700 T,K

Figure 37. TDS calculated with (solid lines) and without (broken lines) taking account of ordering, R = 1, e =-8.4 (Curves 1) and-12.6 (Curves 2) kJ/mol with e* = e/2. The phase diagrams (broken line -exact calculation) and the trajectory 0(T) in the thermodesorption process [174] are given in the inset. From general physical ideas it follows that the contribution from the more distant neighbours can not surpass the contribution of the nearest neighbours. Anyhow, their role in the kinetics of the adsorption processes is essential. The analysis of of their influence on the TDS curves [168] showed that: 1) the width of the spectrum is proportional to the value ~r=lnz(r)~e(r); 2) a consideration of the attraction with the second neighbours for chemisorption systems brings about an increase in the the splitting of the spectrum; and 3)

245 the corresponding changes in the contribution from the second neighbours (i10-15%) can considerably shift the positions of the maxima and minima of TDS to higher temperatures. At the same time, the contributions from the second and following neighbours do not split the spectrum additionally, so that the number of peaks in the spectrum is determined by the interactions with the nearest neighbours. Strictly speaking this concerns the curves with 60 -~ 1 for values of the parameters which are distant from their critical values for the splitting of the TDS. These conclusions, of great importance for the interpretation of TDS, were drawn not only in the QCA but also in the calculation of the indirect correlations [170], as well as in all recent calculations [40,171]. Finally, it should be pointed out that contributions from the second and following neighbours show a strong influence on the state of the multilayer film. The phase transformations connected with the ordered phases in these films and also with the stratification of the ordered or disordered phases, lead to changes in the character of the distribution of adsorbed particles on a homogeneous surface. Instead of a homogeneous distribution of the particles on the surface, there is a locally heterogeneous distribution in the presence of ordered phases and macro-heterogeneous in the presence of the stratification of the disordered phases. As a consequence of these changes of state, there are also changes in the character of the local surroundings of the particles in the phases and, correspondingly, of the rate of adsorption. A direct calculation of the rate should precede the calculation of the phase diagram of the adsorbed particles in order to determine the number and amounts of the phases present at a given temperature, density of the monolayer film (0) and potential of lateral interaction [172-174]. Fig.37 shows TDS curves obtained using the quasi-chemical approximation without calculation of ordering of the type C(2 x 2) on the (100) crystal face for non-dissociating particles. In the supplement, the phase diagram of this ordered system is shown, as calculated in the quasi-chemical approximation, and in an exact calculation [139] taking account of only nearest neighbours interactions (R = 1). The ordering phase transition significantly changes the shape of the TDS curves (the arrows show the disorder-order and order-disorder transitions occurring during thermal desorption). The splitting of the spectrum considerably increases (the minimum decreases), the high-temperature peak becomes sharp, and the low-temperature peak can have shoulders, the nature of which is not connected with the existence of an additional state. The attraction with second neighbours increases the range of existence of the ordered state and the shoulders cannot be observed on the rapidly increasing front of the low-temperature peak [40,174]. The indispensability of the calculation of the phase changes while considering the kinetics of adsorption was illustrated by the description of the desorption of Hg atoms from the (100) surface of W [175, 176]. That system is characterized by the presence of a common edge for a family of the curves with different initial values of 00, which indicates two-dimensional condensation of the adsorbed atoms. Previously, the existence of such a common edge was explained on the basis of double-layer models [40, 177, 178]. The calculation of a condensed phase allows to one explain the existence of a common edge, if equations (40), (41) for a monolayer model along with the quasi-chemical approximation at c*(1) = ~(1)/2 [179]. The authors [175, 176] described their experimental data using equation (39) where ED(8)(= Q(0))is the adsorption heat, calculated in the quasi-chemical approximation [180]. As a result of that description, these authors arrived at the values: K~ = 10x6 cek-Xr; ~Hg-Hg(1) = 5.85KJ/mole; and E~ = 172KJ/mole. However, their in-

246

7

I !

/ /

I I I I I I I I |

,t1,I10 I

I i I !

3

, I

I I

II I

50

630

590 T,K

Figure 38. The TDS curves for the system Hg/W(100) coincide with the experimental data (broken curves)when calculated with 801 < 8 < 802 (1-6), 8o1 ,,~ 0.45 and 8~) ,,~ 0.8 [175]; they deviate from the experimental data at 80 = 0.99 (7) [179]. teraction parameters did not assure the creation of islands of Hg atoms[176], the existence of which was found in Monte-Carlo simulations. In this way, the thermodynamic and kinetic characteristics of the adsorption system were not selfconsistent. The calculation of the condensation of the Hg atoms lead us to a satisfactory agreement with the experimental data [175, 176] (Fig.38) at other values of the energetic parameters E~ = 136.5K J/mole, eHg-Hg(1) = lO.4gJ/mole, K g = 1013 cek -1, e*Hg_Hg(1)/eHg_Hg = 0.55 [179]. The parameters obtained have reasonable values: an increase of the attraction eHg-gg results in condensation in the range of temperatures investigated and allows the anomalously great value of K~ to decrease by three orders of magnitude and consequently, a considerable decrease in the estimated value of the energy of activation for desorption E~ was observed. Thus, the values of the parameters obtained lead to consistency between thermodynamic and kinetic adsorption properties. The deviation of the calculations from experiment can be observed only at 80 ~- 1. It is possible that this is connected with the formation of the second layer of adsorbed atoms which is ignored in the model.

4.4. Calculations using cluster methods Cluster methods of calculation of the equilibrated distribution of the particles have some well-known limitations [181-183]: in the critical areas of phase transitions they give only qualitative descriptions, with differences in predictions of critical temperatures from the exact values by 15-30%. (e.g. for the (100) face, the exact value (~e) = 1.78, and the

247 quasi-chemical approximation gives the value 1.38). In adsorption, the concentration of the adsorbed particles changes over a broad range and in many situations, the trajectory of thermal desorption O(T) crosses areas with various states of aggregation. Thus, there appears a question: how well can the cluster methods describe the kinetics of adsorption? A review should give a comparison with analogous calculations carried out with the help of other methods that assure a more precise calculation of the effect of correlation. Monte Carlo simulations belongs to such methods as well as the matrix method. Monte Carlo simulation is at present a fundamental method of calculation in statistical physics (see for example [184, 185]). The algorithm is simple enough and the computations allow one to investigate lattices, containing up to 106 sites. In many situations the difference between the solution obtained in this way and the exact value is insignificant. The matrix method of investigating lattice systems, allows to one obtain an exact solution for a periodically repeating representation of the lattice [186, 187, 139]. In general, with the help of those methods one can investigate a slab of sites of width L, where L is the number of lattice parameters. In certain situations,one can investigate the thermodynamic limit at L ~ ~ [188, 139, 140]. As mentioned in paper [189], in the absence of phase transitions the numerical analysis of a small slab when L > 4 gives practically the same results as for the macroscopic L. This was a good reason to apply this method to the construction of a scaling procedure for values of L corresponding to the critical range of phase transitions. Such an approach increases possibilities of calculating effects of correlation in studies of surface phenomena and for the construction of phase diagrams [172, 173]. While applying the two methods to investigate the kinetics of adsorption, one can basically evaluate the reliability of the results obtained by cluster methods. For the first time, the calculation of the kinetics of desorption by the Monte Carlo method was reported in ref. [190], and the matrix method for L > 1, in ref. [191]. For a comparison of the calculations of the adsorption kinetics carried out with the help of cluster methods and with matrix and Monte Carlo method, it is indispensable to view the differences in two ways. The first one is connected with the influence of the neighbouring particles (through the non-ideality of the adsorption system SD(O[R,z)) upon the local rate of the elementary process. The second aspect is connected with the influence of the state of aggregation of the adsorbed monolayer. Usually, the influence of these two factors cannot be separated. Equation (41) shows that in the quasi-chemical approximation, the influence of the neighbouring particles is manifested through/92 = /?It which represents the probability of finding two neighbouring particles together. Depending on the level of accuracy of calculation of this function, the same accuracy is required to calculate the contribution from the lateral interaction. The exact solution for/92 is known only for 19 = 0.5 [139, 140]. Fig. 39 shows the comparison of the exact dependence 09(~e) for interactions of nearest neighbours with an analogous dependence obtained by the approximate cluster methods. With increasing interaction, the difference between curves 2 and 3 increases. The calculation of indirect correlations considerably diminishes this difference and the curves become similar, though the difference still remains observable. This is obvious because phase transformations occur with increasing interactions, and the character of the distribution of the particles changes. In consequence, the expressions for/92 and/93 calculated without taking into account the change of the aggregate state of the system are not exact. Considering the ordering of the particles (with the formation of a C(2 • 2)

248 structure) even without taking into account indirect correlations (curve 4)) considerably improves the agreement between 82 calculated in the quasi-chemical approximation with the exact solution. It was observed [49], that considering both the ordering of particles and the indirect correlations leads to an approximate relation 82(fie) which differs from the exact solution by only several %. An analogous influence on the accuracy of calculation of 62(~e) by the cluster method shows the effect of stratification of the particles in the case of attraction between adsorbed particles.

O2

0.5- -

5 1

0.3-

I

-3

I

I

i

-l

1

I

I

3

Figure 39. The dependence of 02 on ~e for 0 = 0.5 on a planar square lattice, calculated by various approximate methods: 1, with indirect correlations in t-he quasi-chemical approximation, 2, exact solution (after Onsager), 3, quasi-chemical approximation, 4, with ordering in quasi-chemical approximation, 5, taking account of two-dimensional condensation in the quasi-chemical approximation [40,49]. The duster methods assure a satisfactory accuracy of the description of the local distribution of the interacting particles with any interaction. It is just this fact which determines the non-ideality SD(8[R,z) and in consequence, an accurate local description of the kinetics of adsorption. The solution of the problem of calculating the aggregate state of the adsorbed layer is more complicated. For a correct description of the critical region, it is indispensable to decrease the phase transition region in comparison to the exact solutions (see the supplement for Fig. 37). This effect of the cluster methods is usually avoided by using phase diagrams obtained by applying some other theoretical methods or determined from

249 experimental data while applying the law of corresponding states (see the example in [195]). An analogous problem exists, however, in the matrix methods. These methods cannot basically describe the change of aggregation even when the calculation is made for large (but finite) values of L [140]. Scaling procedures on L give approximate results, even if they are additionally controlled by the fluctuations in the correlation functions 0~(r) [172]. In Monte Carlo simulations, the problem lies in searching a compromise between the necessity of increasing the number of the sites of the lattice (in order to allow "renormalization-group" transformations) with the assurance of attaining the equilibrium state on the lattice. If we consider that while calculating TDS curves such a procedure should be applied at every comparatively small temporary change of temperature, keeping these conditions correctly demands much care even with contemporary computers. I

I

I

I

Noool

1

_=

i 400

500

400

50O

400

500

T,K

Figure 40. Thermal desorption spectra calculated o using a combination of quasi-chemical and mean-field approximations (curves 1), the Monte Carlo method (curves 2) and the transfer-matrix technique (curves 3) for g ~ = 10x5 s-x, E~9 = 35 kcal/mol and different laterm interactions: ex = -1.4 and e2 = -0.6 (a), ex = -2.0 and e2 = 0 (b),ex = -2.6 and e2 = 0.6 kcal/mol (c). The initial coverage is equal to unity and the heating rate is 40 K/s. The inset (upper right) shows adsorbed particles (dark circles) on a square lattice [191]. Comparison of the results obtained using cluster methods and the Monte Carlo method was carried out in a large number of studies. Looking at the results (see [40]), one can conclude that in the majority of cases, the calculations basically agree with one another. This agreements has a quantitative character when the calculations are carried out for the entire range of a phase transition, while they have only a qualitative character in the cases where phase transitions occur. It is, however, necessary to emphasize that in all cases the Monte Carlo calculations are comparable with calculations done using the

250 analytical expression of type (40), (41) where the aggregate state of the adsorbed particles is considered even when the comparison was carried out outside of the expected range of applicability of the expressions (40) and (41)).

a

b 35 o

2

~

400

3o

25

500

T,K

0.2

0.6

O

Figure 41. Part (a)" thermal desorption spectra for a square lattice calculated for K~9 = 1014 s -1, ED = 35 kcal/mol, b = 50 K/s, and E = - 2 kcal/mol (see fig. 5c [197]). (b) The coverage dependence of the desorption activation energy for (fig. 5f [197]). Curve "c" corresponds to the repulsion of only nearest neighbors (the case under consideration). The other curves reflect the contribution of triple interactions.

Q 1

23-

21-

19-

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

O

Figure 42. The heat of adsorption of repulsive molecules (z = 4, e = - 2 , Q(0 = 0) = 23 kcal/mol) in the quasi-chemical approximation taking account of ordering (1) [198] and without taking ordering into consideration (2); curve 3 - calculation by the matrix method [199].

251 In order to illustrate the current state of the problem, we limit our considerations to the calculation of the characteristics of the ordering of type c(2 x 2). Paper [196] reported on the calculation of the TDS curves by Monte Carlo and then in the quasi-chemical approximation without considering of the effect of ordering. The main conclusion of the paper consists in the statement that in the range beyond the phase transitions, both methods give practically the same results, but in the range where the phase transitions occur, their results differ. Moreover, in the Monte Carlo method one can see the a qualitatively new effect which is the presence of an intermediate peak that cannot be obtained when one uses the quasi-chemical approximation. However, in paper [191] these calculations were also compared with calculations based on the matrix method (see Fig. 40). The results show that the intermediate peak is not observed, and that it was due to an incorrect Monte Carlo calculation. In spite of the qualitative agreement of the matrix method with the quasi-chemical approximation, one can observe considerable differences; in the matrix method, the minimum is more profound and the peaks are sharper. Such a result (for strongly separated peaks) can be obtained from the quasi-chemical approximation with explicit considering of ordering [159]. The peaks, however, are a bit more diffuse than in the matrix method, and the low-temperature peak has a jagged structure as shown in Fig. 37. The absence of the jagged structure in the matrix method means that the phase transition of the ordering has not been taken into account. In paper [197], the Monte Carlo calculation no longer contains the additional peak and the TDS curve is similar to the TDS of paper [191]. The ED(0), however, (see Fig. 41), strongly differs from the isosteric heat of adsorption Q(8) (Fig. 42) [198]. Fig. 42 also shows the curve of Q(0) calculated by the matrix method [199]. In these calculations [191,196,197], the collision model was applied. In this model either ED(6) = Q(O) or the curve of ED(0) is similar to the function In UD(O). (The difference is related to the two possible methods of determination of ED(O), see [39,40]). The function In Up(O) has break at the points of the phase transition [159] which also is absent in Fig. 41. Thus, these Monte Carlo and matrix calculations do not give the ordered state. In the fundamentals of the matrix method there is assumed the impossibility of describing the ordered state for finite L (calculations [191] executed at L = 4). That is why instead of a sharp jump at the point of the phase transition, a bend in the line appears in the function Q(0). With increasing L, Q(8) does not change its character. Finally, both methods give artificial effects. The cluster method assures the appearance of a jump in the heat of adsorption at the point of the phase transition, but after that jump we have QCM(~) > Q(~ - 0). The matrix method not only does not give the jump Q(O) at the phase transition, but also leads to the value QMM(O)> Q ( 0 - 0) (an increase of L to 12 keeps these artificial effects [200]), even though QcM(O) > QMM(O). The flattened character of the curves of Q(O) is expressed in the shape of the TDS: the jagged structure of the low-temperature peak disappears and the high-temperature peak has a flattened maximum. These differences are mainly observed near the critical temperatures ([ /~e ]> 1.7). With increasing repulsions between the molecules ([ f~e ]> 3), the cluster method and the matrix calculation give practically the same results. Fig.43 shows the rates of desorption, calculated using both methods [199] for the transition state. The generalization of the matrix method assures the inclusion of the interactions of the activated complex with its neighbours, and was presented in paper [201].

252 Thus, the description of even a simple adsorption system having c(2 x 2) ordering on a homogeneous surface leads to difficulties when applying any method. Outside the critical range, the cluster method is not inferior in its accuracy in comparison to the matrix method and to Monte Carlo. The calculations carried by the cluster method are 2 to 3 orders of magnitude faster than either of the other two. Of course, within the critical ranges it is better to use the combined methods (see [40]) but this is a separate question not considered here. For interactions on heterogeneous surfaces, the problem becomes much more complicated, and the use of the cluster methods [40-49] gives a possibility of considering lateral interactions with the same degree of accuracy as they provide for homogeneous surfaces. lg

S

65-

6

43-

f

2b-

-1 -2 -3 ~4 i

0

I

I

I

I

I

0.5

I

I

I

I

O

1.0

Figure 43. Concentration dependence of the desorption rate for z = 4. ~e(1) --2 (1-4) and -5 (5-6); ~(2) - 0 (~,4-6) ~ d - ~ / 3 ~ ( ~ ) (2,3); c(~) - 0 (~,2,5) and ~(~)/2 (3,4,6), r-X ~nd 2. The solid lines are given by the quasi-chemical approximation, and the broken lines by the matrix method [199].

253 5. T H E T H E O R Y O F A D S O R P T I O N ON HETEROGENEOUS SURFACES

WITH LATERAL INTERACTIONS

5.1. The problem of calculating lateral interactions Real adsorbent surfaces are characterized by a large variety of compositions and structures which depend on the preparation of these materials. Their surfaces are heterogeneous and in many cases, the description of adsorption on them over a wide range of gas pressures and temperatures, will require that one consider the effects of lateral interaction. Even between nearest neighbours, this involves a complex analysis of the whole adsorption system. The state of occupancy of any lattice site (denoted as "f') depends on the type of the site, as well as on the occupancy of its nearest neighbours, which depend in turn on the type and state of occupancy of the more distant neighbours h, including also the lattice site f, from which the consideration began. As a result, the probability of localization of a molecule on a particular site depends not only on the type of this site, but also on the types of the vicinal sites. Then, depending on the required accuracy of the evaluation of the effect of the distribution of vicinal sites upon the local filling at each lattice site, different approaches to the description of the equilibrium distribution of the particles and the kinetics of adsorption will be required. On a homogeneous surface, the distribution of the of adparticles depends on the structure of the surface and the potential of intermolecular interaction. On heterogeneous surfaces an additional effect is observed that is connected with different adsorption and kinetic features for different lattice sites as well as their spatial distribution on the surface. Changing the spatial character of the distribution of different lattice sites (at a fixed number), yields surfaces differing in their adsorption and kinetic characteristics. Obviously for very low coverages where the contribution of lateral interactions can be neglected, such surfaces will be indistinguishable in adsorption experiments. However, at higher coverages where the contribution of lateral interactions cannot be neglected, these interactions will influence the course of adsorption. The theory of adsorption taking simultaneous account of the effects of surface heterogeneity and of lateral interactions on the equilibrium and kinetic characteristics of adsorption has been discussed in [41-45]. This theory makes it possible to consider the local properties of individual surface lattice sites, and leads to macroscopic expressions

,I ,1 i f a] hi

hi

h2

gl

fig 4

g3

f

g31 l~

h 4, g4: h 3 14

gl

=~

h2 f

g3 ha

h2

g2 f

ti 4

g2

11 81]

12

f 13

ha

gJi 14

Figure 44. The sites g, h and 1 are first, second, and third neighbors of the central site f. The mapping of a fragment o~ the surface onto a cluster consisting ot one central site and its nearest neighbors ( R=I )[202].

254 for properties such as isotherms, heats, adsorption rates, desorption, surface migration etc. by considering the local coverages of surface sites. In order to estimate these local coverages, there were constructed systems of algebraic (for equilibrium) and kinetic (for nonequilibrium distribution of molecules) equations. Several levels of the description of adsorption exist for heterogeneous surfaces. These describe the probability of coverage of individual surface sites. Although the considered fragment of the surface is small, it allows for a precise estimate of the effect of the spatial distribution of sites on the adsorption processes. At the next level, which is a cluster description of the surface, it allows for recognition of the local surface structure. In this case, only nearest neighbor correlations are retained in the distributions of sites of different types. A third level coupled description of the surface is produced by mapping in terms of site pairs. Such description is least exact when the surface is expressed in terms of individual sites, where lateral interactions of vicinal molecules can become impossible. The minimum dimensions of the fragments and clusters as well as the distances between individual site pairs cannot be smaller than the range R of the lateral interaction. In order to estimate macroscopic characteristics of adsorption, one must average the local characteristics for different fragments, clusters or site pairs of different types. For this purpose, it is necessary to introduce approximate distribution functions of fragments, clusters, and site pairs that characterize the structure of a heterogeneous surface. The binary distribution function fqp(r) for r = 1 was already discussed when the adsorption kinetics of dissociating molecules on heterogeneous surfaces in the absence of lateral interactions was described. Analogous functions were introduced also for distances r < R. The second level of the models introduces the cluster distribution functions f(qmR) describing the probability of finding a cluster on the surface containing the central site around which there are locahzed at the distance r mqp(r) sites of p-type, 1 _< q p >_ t where t is the number of site types; the symbol mR denotes the totality mqv(r) 1 > p > t 1 > q > t 1 >_ r > R. The condition of normalization of the cluster function and the relations between the choices of mqp(r) are given by: t

f(q{m}R) = fq bq

~

rr~(r) = 2q(r)

(42)

p=l

where bq is the total number of different choices of mqp(r) for central site q for different surface clusters, 2q(r) is i the number of vicinal sites in the r - th coordination shell of site q. A detailed description of different distribution functions and examples of the construction of adsorption isotherms and heats is given in [49]. In the following sections of this article we will review the results of the applications of this theory, mainly by presenting examples of the estimation of desorption processes.

5.2. Kinetic equations of adsorption. In the case of heterogeneous surfaces, the parameters of the lateral interactions between different adsorbed molecules may depend on the type of sites on which these molecules are locahzed. For this reason we will denote these parameters for the pairs of molecules localized on q and p sites at distance r by %~(r). The interaction of an activated complex localized above q site with vicinal adsorbed molecules localized above q site at distance r will be denoted by %~(r). For physical adsorption, the dependence on the site type is

255 significantly smaller than for chemisorption. In the final expressions we will assume that e~(r) = e(r). Macroscopic values of adsorption and adsorption rates for the case of non-dissociating molecules localized on a heterogeneous surface are expressed by the equations (11) in which the local rates of elementary processes including lateral interactions are given by A = K ~ P ( 1 -- 8q) Sq A Uq

D = KqD 8qSq D Uq

(43)

where therate constants K {'D are defined by equation (12), and the s~'D function includes the effect of the non-ideality of the adsorption system on the rate of elementary processes. In the absence of lateral interactions, this function is unity and equation (43) reduces to equation (12). For homogenous surfaces, the equation defin