Click here to load reader
Upload
jose-abad
View
216
Download
2
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Surface Science 549 (2004) 134–142
www.elsevier.com/locate/susc
Dissociative adsorption of NO on TiO2(1 1 0) argonion bombarded surfaces
Jose Abad *, Oliver B€oohme, Elisa Rom�aan
Institute of Materials Science of Madrid, ICMM-CSIC, Cantoblanco, 28049 Madrid, Spain
Received 6 August 2003; accepted for publication 17 November 2003
Abstract
The interaction of NO with TiO2(1 1 0) Arþ-ion-bombarded surfaces has been studied by X-ray photoelectron
spectroscopy, ultraviolet photoelectron spectroscopy, Auger electron spectroscopy. Surfaces with different degrees of
defects have been characterized by monitoring the evolution of the electronic structure of the surface, with the aim of
studying the influence of the surface defects on the interaction with NO. The interaction was studied for exposures up to
500 L. However, the main effects occur already in the first 10 L. The exposure of the surfaces to NO resulted in the
removal of defect sites without adsorption of N.
� 2003 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Titanium oxide; Nitrogen oxides; X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy; Visible and ultraviolet photoelectron spectroscopy;
Auger electron spectroscopy; Oxidation
1. Introduction
The interaction of NO with TiO2 has recently
received much attention, due to the interesting
applications of this system in catalysis [1], photo-
catalysis [2–4], and NO sensors [5,6]. Boccuzzi et al.
[7] have studied the adsorption of NO on TiO2
powders using Fourier transform infrared (FTIR)
spectroscopy concluding that NO molecules aredissociated on reduced TiO2 surfaces. On the other
hand, Sorescu et al. [8], using the Thermal Pro-
grammed Desorption (TPD) technique and theo-
retical calculations, have studied the adsorption of
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +34-91-334-9000; fax: +34-91-
372-0623.
E-mail address: [email protected] (J. Abad).
0039-6028/$ - see front matter � 2003 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserv
doi:10.1016/j.susc.2003.11.031
NO at 118 K on oxidized TiO2(1 1 0) surfaces,concluding that molecular NO adsorbs weakly and
desorbs at 127 K.
Lu et al. [9] have studied the interaction at 100–
250 K between NO and reduced TiO2(1 1 0) single
crystal surfaces, using TPD technique. Surface
defect sites were created by thermal annealing.
They concluded that desorption takes place at 120
K for molecular NO, at 169 K for molecular N2Obonded on (Ti3þ) defects, and at 250 K for
molecular N2O bonded on steps. Li et al. [10] have
theoretically studied the adsorption of NO on a
TiO2(1 1 0)-(1 · 1) surface defect and conclude thatNO is adsorbed between two fourfold coordinated
Ti3þ sites. However, to our knowledge, no exper-
imental study has been made on the interaction of
NO with TiO2(1 1 0) single crystals at room tem-perature.
ed.
J. Abad et al. / Surface Science 549 (2004) 134–142 135
It is known that defects play a fundamental role
in the interaction of molecules with oxide surfaces,
since defects act as active sites for the adsorption
and dissociation of molecules on the surface. In
TiO2(1 1 0) surfaces, these defects, mainly Ti3þ
species (oxygen vacancies), appear in ultravioletphotoelectron spectroscopy (UPS) as band gap
states at 0.7 eV below the conduction band edge
[1,11,12], in ELS as an energy loss peak in the
region of 1–2 eV related with Ti3d–Ti3d transi-
tions [1,11], and in X-ray photoelectron spectro-
scopy (XPS) as a shoulder in the lower binding
energy side of the Ti 2p line [1,12,13].
In this paper, we study the interaction of NOwith TiO2(1 1 0) stoichiometric and Ar
þ-ion-bom-
barded surfaces, at room temperature (RT). This
sputtering preferably removes O and produces
topographically complex surfaces (disordered de-
fects), with Ti3þ and Ti2þ species appearing in
several layers inside the material, depending on the
sputtering conditions. In this work we present for
the first time a study of the adsorption of NO onTiO2(1 1 0) surfaces with different subsurface de-
fect densities at room temperature, combining
techniques with different information depths (XPS,
AES, and UPS), with the aim of studying the
importance of surface and subsurface defects in
the surface reactivity.
Table 1
Sputtering conditions for surfaces I and II
Energy
[keV]
Current density
[lA/cm2]
Time
[min]
Surface I 0.5 0.5 40
Surface II 0.5 0.5 85
0.8 0.8 30
Initial: Stoichiometric TiO2(1 1 0)-(1· 1) single crystal surface.
2. Experimental
Experiments were carried out in an ultra-high
vacuum (UHV) vessel with a base pressure of
2 · 10�10 mbar. The system was equipped with the
necessary instrumentation to perform Auger elec-
tron spectroscopy (AES), ELS, XPS, UPS, and
LEED. The UHV system was also fitted with anion gun for sample cleaning and preparation, and
a quadruple mass spectrometer to check the purity
of NO and Ar.
TiO2(1 1 0) rutile single crystals (10 · 10 · 1 mm3
and both sides polished), provided by PI-KEM
Ltd., UK, were used in this study. The sample was
attached to a Ta holder with resistive heating. The
surfaces were cleaned by repeated cycles of 3 keVArþ ion bombardment (the angle of incidence of
the ion gun relative to sample normal was 70�) at
room temperature for 30 min followed by 1–2 h of
heating to 800 K, until no impurities were detected
by AES and XPS. The sample temperature was
measured using an optical pyrometer. After this
treatment the sample exhibited a sharp (1 · 1)LEED pattern.Three types of surfaces were investigated in
these experiments: the stoichiometric (1 1 0)-(1 · 1)surface, and two sputtered surfaces. In order to
prepare samples with different surface and sub-
surface defects, the crystal was bombarded with
Arþ ions at the conditions indicated in Table 1.
Surface II was prepared starting from the steady
state corresponding to the conditions of surface I(increasing the sputtering time until 85 min) since a
steady state is always reached where the removal
of O and Ti from the surface is determined by the
composition of the bulk [14]. All the surfaces were
exposed to NO at 1–7 · 10�8 mbar for the lowerdoses and 3 · 10�7 mbar for the highest dose, insequential doses up to 500 Langmuir (L) (1
L¼ 1.33 · 10�6 mbar s).AE, UP, XP, and EL spectra were taken using a
double-pass cylindrical mirror analyzer (CMA).
Auger spectra were performed with an electron
beam energy of 3 keV and a current of 33 nA. EL
spectra were carried out with incident beam ener-
gies of 100 and 250 eV, varying the current in the
range 1–5 nA. Nonmonochromatized MgKa
(1253.6 eV) X-rays were used in XPS. Narrow-scan spectra were taken at an analyzer pass energy
of 50 eV, providing a resolution of 1 eV. Before
the XPS data were analyzed, the contribution of
the MgKa satellite lines were subtracted and the
spectra were subjected to a Shirley background
subtraction formalism. The spectra were normal-
ized to the integral intensity of the Ti 2p peak of
the stoichiometric sample, since the density of Ti in
Table 2
Binding energies, areas and FWHM for Gaussian fits of XP Ti 2p spectra
Sample Peak Binding energy
(eV)
FWHM (eV) % of Ti 2p3=2
TiO2(1 1 0)-(1· 1) Ti 2p3=2(a) Ti4þ 458.5 1.8 100
Satellite 461.0 2.6
Ti 2p1=2 (Ti4þ) 464.2 2.4
TiO2(1 1 0) surface I Ti 2p3=2 Clean After 500 L NO
(a) Ti4þ 458.5 2.2 63 78
(b) Ti3þ 456.8 2.2 27 14
(c) Ti2þ 455.4 2.2 10 8
Satellite 461.0 3.3
Ti 2p1=2 (Ti4þ) 464.2 3.0
TiO2(1 1 0) surface II Ti 2p3=2(d) Ti4þ 458.5 2.2 54 69
(e) Ti3þ 456.8 2.2 35 24
(f) Ti2þ 455.4 2.2 11 7
Satellite 461.0 3.3
Ti 2p1=2 (Ti4þ) 464.2 3.0
136 J. Abad et al. / Surface Science 549 (2004) 134–142
the sputtered layers is comparable to that of thefull-oxidized surfaces [14]. Fitting of the Ti 2p
peaks was performed using Gaussian doublets
with a spin-orbit splitting of 5.7 eV and intensity
ratio of approximately 0.5, in agreement with the
literature [15–17]. The full widths at half maximum
(FWHM) were fixed and broadening in sputtered
samples taken into account [18], see Table 2. The
fitting with Gaussian functions is justified, in ourcase, because of the limited resolution (1 eV) of the
energy analyzer [19]. UP spectra were excited with
He I (21.2 eV) and He II (40.8 eV) radiation. Data
were recorded with a resolution of 0.3 eV for He I
valence band spectra, 0.1 eV for the work function
(/) measurements, and 0.2 eV for the He II valenceband spectra. The position of the Fermi level was
determined from the spectrum of a Ta foil at-tached to the sample.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Characterization of the clean surfaces
In Fig. 1, XP Ti 2p spectra fitted with Gaussianpeaks are shown for the clean surfaces: (c) stoi-
chiometric surface, (b) surface I and (a) surface II
(open circles are experimental data and solidcurves are Gaussian fits). Ti species present in
sputtered surfaces are Ti4þ, Ti3þ and Ti2þ. The
difference in binding energy between Ti3þ and Ti4þ
is 1.7 eV [13,20] and that between Ti2þ and Ti4þ is
3.1 eV [13,20]. For the best fit of the experimental
data it was necessary to introduce a satellite
(dotted curves in Fig. 1) located at 2.5 eV from the
Ti4þ 2p3=2 peak, see Table 2; corresponding satel-lites of Ti3þ and Ti2þ species are not shown for
reasons of clarity [21].
In Table 2, binding energies, normalized inten-
sities, and FWHM are shown for the different
species in Ti 2p lines fitted with Gaussian peaks. As
we can also observe in Fig. 1, the amount of Ti4þ
species decreases whereas the Ti3þ and Ti2þ species
increase in amounts depending on the sputteringconditions. From these data, we can calculate the
extent of reduction d which is related to the O/Tiratio of the surface by d ¼ 2� 0:5 · (O/Ti). Theparameter d is calculated by summing the fractionsof cations in each oxidation state, weighted by the
difference in valence state relative to Ti(IV)¼Ti4þ[22,23]: d ¼ 0:01 · [Ti3þ] + 0.02 · [Ti2þ] ¼ 4 )0.04 · [Ti4þ] ) 0.03 · [Ti3þ] ) 0.02 · [Ti2þ] ¼ 4 ) 2 ·(O/Ti), where [Tinþ] are the percentages in Table 2.
These parameters are useful to characterize the
Fig. 1. Ti 2p XP spectra fitted with Gaussian peaks: (a) clean
surface II, (b) clean surface I and (c) stoichiometric clean sur-
face. Open circles are the original data, solid peaks are the
Gaussian peaks and dotted curves are satellite peaks. See Table
2 for details.
Fig. 2. UP He I spectra for clean surfaces. Inset shows defect
band gap states.
J. Abad et al. / Surface Science 549 (2004) 134–142 137
average oxidation state of the surface. The values
of d for surfaces I and II were 0.5 and 0.6, respec-tively. The corresponding O/Ti ratios for surfaces I
and II were 1.75 and 1.70, respectively. These val-
ues are comparable to those in the literature for
similar sputtering conditions [13,14,24]. Thus, thedifference Dd of 0.1 between the two defective
samples studied corresponds to an average de-
crease (DO/Ti) of 0.05 oxygen atoms per Ti withinthe near-surface region probed by XPS, i.e., about
3% of all the O. However, the change in oxygen
concentration at the surface between surfaces I and
II is evidently greater than 3%. We estimate the
fraction of the Ti 2p signal from the topmostmonolayer (ML) in about 14% [25] of the total.
When the average oxygen decrease is normalized
by this value, i.e., ascribing all the O loss to the
surface ML, we obtain 21% of oxygen decrease
between surfaces I and II. However, if we ascribe
all the O loss to the first two surface ML, we obtain
a difference of 11%. This last value is in agreementwith UPS data, see below.
In Fig. 2, valence-band UP He-I spectra are
shown for the clean surfaces: stoichiometric (1 · 1)surface, surface I, and surface II. In the inset of
Fig. 2, the region of the band-gap defect states is
shown in detail. The TiO2(1 1 0) valence band is
derived mainly from O 2p orbitals. However, there
is hybridization between O 2p and Ti 3d orbitals,and the valence band spectrum has been qualita-
tively decomposed into bonding (r) and nonbond-ing (p) components [26,27]. The main difference inthe valence band for the stoichiometric (1 · 1)surface is a pronounced valley around 7 eV while
in sputtered surfaces this valley does not exist
[11,28,29]. The stoichiometric surface has higher
emission intensity from O 2p nonbonding orbitals(lower binding energy) and lower emission inten-
sity from bonding orbitals (higher binding energy).
The emission intensity ratio between bonding and
nonbonding orbitals is very sensitive to Ti 3d
population [26,30,31]. Thereby, the emission de-
crease of the nonbonding orbitals in Fig. 2, indi-
cates that oxygen vacancies have been produced
Fig. 3. Ti 2p XP spectra fitted with Gaussian peaks: (a) clean
surface II, (b) surface II after 2 L of NO and (c) surface II after
500 L of NO. Notation is the same as in Fig. 1.
138 J. Abad et al. / Surface Science 549 (2004) 134–142
on the surface (surface reduction), and the Ti 3d
population has increased. This point is confirmed
by the emission increase of the band gap states for
sputtered surfaces, inset of Fig. 2. Band gap states
are of Ti 3d character [1].
From the normalization of curves reported inFig. 2, it can be observed that the defect-induced
band-gap emission defects for surface I is around
13% less than for surface II, while the O 2p emis-
sion is increased in the same amount. We can also
observe that the top of the valence band moves
away from the Fermi level by 0.2 eV for surface I
and 0.4 eV for surface II with respect to the stoi-
chiometric surface. This is consistent with previousresults reported by Henrich et al. [11].
It is known that sputtering of the stoichiometric
(1 1 0) surface decreases its work function, due to
an increase in the surface free electron concentra-
tion [28]. In the present study, the work function
change (D/) with respect to the stoichiometric
surface measured for surfaces I and II were )0.4and )0.7 eV, respectively.To summarize, the stoichiometric surface is
characterized by the presence of Ti4þ and the ab-
sence of Ti3þ and Ti2þ species (XPS results) and
the absence of band gap states (UPS results).
Surfaces I and II are characterized by the presence
of Ti3þ and Ti2þ species and band gap states.
Analyzing the XPS and UPS results, we observe
that the amount of defects probed by XPS (7.3 MLor 23.7 �AA [25]) for both surfaces is very similar (the
difference is 3%). However, if we consider a model
in which the defects are located in the first two ML
the difference in the amount of defects between the
two surfaces is about 11%. The information depth
of the UPS technique is about 1.4 ML (4.5 �AA)[25,32,33] and the difference in the amount of de-
fects between both surfaces is 13%, in goodagreement with XPS results. Therefore, UPS and
XPS data show that the difference in the amount
of defects between both surfaces is located mainly
in the first two ML.
3.2. NO on TiO2(1 1 0) surfaces
The stoichiometric single crystal surface showedno interaction with NO at room temperature, even
at the highest exposure tested, 500 L. This result is
consistent with a previous study of NO on
TiO2(1 1 0) surfaces [8,9]. They reported that NO
bonds weakly in a molecular adsorption state and
desorbs at 120 K.
Regarding the bombarded surfaces I and II
(with different amount of defects), we have ob-served that both surfaces behaved in a similar way
upon exposure of NO: Attenuation of Ti3þ and
Ti2þ species and no N features were detected even
after 500 L NO exposure. In Fig. 3, Ti 2p XP
spectra fitted with Gaussian peaks are shown for
surface II at the following conditions: (a) clean, (b)
dosed with 2 L of NO and (c) dosed with 500 L of
NO (open circles are experimental data, solidcurves correspond to Tinþ species, and dotted
curves are satellite peaks of Ti4þ). Ti 2p XP spectra
J. Abad et al. / Surface Science 549 (2004) 134–142 139
for surface I exposed to NO are not shown because
their behavior is similar to that of surface II. As we
can clearly see in Fig. 3, Ti4þ species increase
(while Ti3þ and Ti2þ species decrease) with expo-
sure to NO. The relative Ti concentrations in each
oxidation state following NO adsorption are pre-sented in Table 2. It should be noted that even
after 500 L exposure, suboxides remain about 60%
of their initial clean-surface value, for both sur-
faces.
In order to check the presence of N at the sur-
face, AES measurements were performed because
AES is expected to be more sensitive to adsorbed
N than XPS, partly due to its has lower detectionlimit [34]. Fig. 4 shows Auger Ti LMM and Ti
LMV transitions for clean surface II and after 500
L of NO. The Auger electron emission from N (N
KVV at 379 eV [35]) occurs at an energy that
overlaps the Ti LMM transition, this fact com-
plicates the quantitative aspects of AES studies of
N on TiO2. However, we can qualitatively estimate
the presence of N on the surface by comparing theline shape of Auger spectra before and after
adsorption of NO. Fig. 4 shows that there are no
changes in the line shape of Ti LMM transition
after NO exposure in the N region. The main
deference is in the high-energy side of the Ti LMV
Auger transition, where a decrease in the intensity
is observed. This transition shows a pronounced
sensitivity to detect small amounts of point defects
Fig. 4. Ti LMM and Ti LMV Auger transitions for the clean
surface II and after 500 L of NO.
[13]. Thus, the behavior observed could be attrib-
uted to a depopulation of the Ti 3d electrons after
NO exposure.
In Fig. 5, the valence-band He I and He II UP
spectra for surface II exposed up to 500 L of NO is
shown. Surface I showed a similar behavior (notshown). The largest change in the spectra occurred
at 2 L of NO. The spectra show a significant de-
crease in the signal of the defect band-gap states,
that has not completely disappeared after the
higher dose studied (500 L). This is revealed in
more detail in the inset (a) of Fig. 5. For the first 2
L, there is also an upward band bending of 0.2 eV
(this band bending is lower for surface I) and anincreased emission in the region of 5 eV binding
energy (O 2p nonbonding orbitals), relative to the
clean surface.
Molecular NO in the gas phase is characterized
by 1p and 5r (�15.6 eV) and the 2p (9.3 eV) va-lence orbitals with respect to the vacuum level [36].
After adsorption on the TiO2 surface, these states
are expected to appear at 10.4 and 4.1 eV withrespect to the TiO2 Fermi level (subtraction of
work function 5.2 eV). However, no significant
change in the valence band emission in the vicinity
Fig. 5. UP He I spectra for the surface II exposed to NO. Inset
(a) shows defect band gap states and inset (b) shows UP He II
spectra for the surface II exposed to 500 L of NO.
Fig. 7. Work function change (D/) variation with NO exposure
for the surface II.
140 J. Abad et al. / Surface Science 549 (2004) 134–142
of 10 eV was observed, see Fig. 5. All the results
indicate dissociative adsorption of NO at defects
sites, followed by the incorporation of O into the
surface, oxidation of Ti3þ and Ti2þ cations to Ti4þ
and N going in the gas phase, although from the
present data we can not determine the mechanismfor N desorption.
A summary of the NO adsorption experiments
for surfaces I and II is shown in Figs. 6 and 7. Fig.
6 (upper part) shows the evolution of the O/Ti
ratio (computed from the extent of reduction (d)defined in Section 3.1) as a function of NO expo-
sure for both sputtered surfaces. In the first 10 L
the O/Ti ratio shows a rapid increase, followed bya slower increase which does not lead to the ex-
pected value of 2 even at the highest exposure of
Fig. 6. Upper part, evolution of the O/Ti ratio from XPS as a
function of NO exposure for both sputtered surfaces. Lower
part, evolution of the normalized intensity of UPS He I defect
band gap state with NO exposure for both sputtered surfaces.
Lines are drawn to guide the eye.
the experiment, 500 L Fig. 6 (upper part). The
maximum values obtained at this stage were 1.8and 1.85 for surfaces I and II, respectively. The O/
Ti ratio increased with NO dosage, indicating that
oxygen adsorbs on these surfaces at 300 K. It can
be noticed that the difference between both sur-
faces remains constant. These findings suggest that
the adsorbate was not able to eliminate all the Tidþ
sites in the surface and subsurface probed by XPS
(7.3 ML or 23.7 �AA) and confirms the presence ofsubsurface defects, see below.
Fig. 6 (lower part) shows the area of the Ti 3d
defect states normalized by the area of the Ti 3d
state of surface II as a function of NO exposure,
for both sputtered surfaces. The almost complete
overlap of two curves after 2 L of NO should be
noted. In addition, at 10 L the intensity of the Ti
3d state is reduced down to 30% of the referencevalue (it is initial value for surface II), and at 500 L
it corresponds to 20% of that value for both sur-
faces. These results show that NO was able to
eliminate Ti3þ defects in the UPS penetration
depth (1.4 ML or 4.5 �AA). These results are quali-tatively similar to those reported in the literature
[37] for the adsorption of electronegative mole-
cules such as O2, SO2 and N2O, which can removesurface defects. Defect intensities were greatly re-
duced after exposing the argon defective surface to
the above-mentioned molecules up to about 10 L
exposure. Above this value the reaction became
weaker. For the Ti 3d emission intensity to fall to
J. Abad et al. / Surface Science 549 (2004) 134–142 141
5% of its clean surface value, this requires for
example 107 L of O2 but only 10 L of SO2 [38,39].
However, Rodr�ııguez et al. [40] found that after adose of 10 L of NO2 at 300 K the Ti 2p spectra
resemble a full stoichiometric surface. This differ-
ence between O2, SO2, N2O, NO2 and NO reac-tivity could be explained with the difference in
electron affinity EAO2 ¼ 0:45 eV, EASO2 ¼ 1:11 eV,EAN2O ¼ 0:22 eV, EANO2 ¼ 2:273 eV whereas
electron affinity for NO is 0.026 eV [41]. Since
there is an extra electron associated with each Ti3þ
defect site, it seems reasonable that the interaction
could occur through a charge transfer from the
defect to an electronegative molecule. This elec-tron transfer effect is also observed in the work
function increase. The work function of surface II
relative to the stoichiometric surface (D/) changesas a function of NO exposure, as reported in Fig. 7
(the curve is not shown for surface I because D/change is inside the error bars). D/ shows a
maximum increase of 0.4 eV with NO exposures
indicating that electrons were transferred from thesurface defect sites to the adsorbed species. The
evolution of D/ undergoes saturation at 10 L, but
/ does not recover the value of the stoichiometric
surface even after 500 L NO exposure.
4. Conclusions
The interaction of NO with stoichiometric
(1 · 1) and two kinds of defective TiO2(1 1 0) sur-
face have been studied by XPS, UPS, AES, and
LEED at room temperature. It has been shownthat defects are crucial in the interaction of NO
with TiO2. No reaction was observed on the defect
free TiO2(1 1 0)-(1 · 1) surface exposed up to 500L. On the defective surfaces, the present results
show that NO heals the Ti3þ defect. No N signa-
ture was seen on the surface after defect healing by
NO indicating that this occurs through dissocia-
tion. Above 10 L the reaction becomes quite weak,primarily because there is no longer a significant
number of defect-created Ti3þ cations on top of
the surface with which NO can react. In addi-
tion, NO does not interact with subsurface defects
in the penetration information depth of XPS
(23.7 �AA).
Acknowledgements
The authors acknowledge the support from
Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cient�ııficas(CSIC) and ESPE Dental AG.
References
[1] V.E. Henrich, P.A. Cox, The Surface Science of Metal
Oxides, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1994.
[2] H. Yamashita, Y. Ichihashi, S.G. Zhang, Y. Matsumura,
Y. Souma, T. Tatsumi, M. Anpo, Appl. Surf. Sci. 121/122
(1997) 305.
[3] C.N. Rusu, J.T. Yates Jr., J. Phys. Chem. B 104 (2000)
1729.
[4] J. Zhang, T. Ayusawa, M. Minagawa, K. Kinugawa, H.
Yamashita, M. Matsuoka, M. Anpo, J. Catal. 198 (2001) 1.
[5] J. Huusko, V. Lantto, H. Torvela, Sens. Actuators B 16
(1993) 245.
[6] F. Boccuzzi, E. Guglielminotti, Sens. Actuators B 21 (1994)
27.
[7] F. Boccuzzi, E. Guglielminotti, G. Spoto, Surf. Sci. 251/
252 (1991) 1069.
[8] D.C. Sorescu, C.N. Rusu, J.T. Yates Jr., J. Phys. Chem. B
104 (2000) 4408.
[9] G. Lu, A. Linsebigler, J.T. Yates Jr., J. Phys. Chem. 98
(1994) 11733.
[10] J. Li, L. Wu, Y. Zhang, Chem. Phys. Lett. 342 (2001) 249.
[11] V.E. Henrich, G. Dresselhaus, H.J. Zeiger, Phys. Rev. Lett.
36 (1976) 1335.
[12] U. Diebold, Surf. Sci. Rep. 48 (2003) 53.
[13] W. G€oopel, J.A. Anderson, D. Frankel, M. Jaehnig, K.
Phillips, J.A. Sch€aafer, G. Rocker, Surf. Sci. 139 (1984)
333.
[14] V.S. Lusvardi, M.A. Barteau, J.G. Chen, J. Eng Jr., B.
Fr€uuhberger, A. Teplyakov, Surf. Sci. 397 (1998) 237.
[15] C.D. Wagner, W.M. Riggs, L.E. Davis, J.F. Moulder, G.E.
Muilenberg (Eds.), Handbook of X-ray Photoelectron
Spectroscopy, Perkin–Elmer Corporation, Physical Elec-
tronics Division, Eden Prairie, MN, 1980.
[16] S. P�eetigny, H. Most�eefa-Sba, B. Domenichini, E. Les-niewska, A. Steinbrunn, S. Bourgeois, Surf. Sci. 410 (1998)
250.
[17] D. Briggs, M.P. Seah (Eds.), Practical Surface Analysis,
second ed., Auger and X-ray Photoelectron Spectroscopy,
vol. 1, Wiley, New York, 1990.
[18] C.N. Sayers, N.R. Armstrong, Surf. Sci. 77 (1978) 301.
[19] J.C. Vickerman, Surface Analysis––the Principal Tech-
niques, John Wiley and Sons, Chichester, 1997, p. 57.
[20] L.-Q. Wang, D.R. Baer, M.H. Engelhard, Surf. Sci. 320
(1994) 295.
[21] M. Oku, H. Matsuta, K. Wagatsuma, Y. Waseda, S.
Kohiki, J. Electron. Spectrosc. Related Phenom. 105 (1999)
211.
142 J. Abad et al. / Surface Science 549 (2004) 134–142
[22] H. Most�eefa-Sba, B. Domenichini, S. Bourgeois, Surf. Sci.
437 (1999) 107.
[23] H. Idris, K.G. Pierce, M.A. Barteau, J. Am. Chem. Soc.
116 (1994) 3063.
[24] G.B. Hoflund, H.L. Yin, A.L.J. Grogan, D.A. Asbury, H.
Yoneyama, O. Ikeda, H. Tamura, Langmuir 4 (1988) 346.
[25] H. Tokutaka, K. Nishimori, H. Hayashi, Surf. Sci. 149
(1985) 349.
[26] Z. Zhang, S. Jeng, V.E. Henrich, Phys. Rev. B 43 (1991)
12004.
[27] A.K. See, M. Thayer, R.A. Bartynski, Phys. Rev. B 47
(1993) 13722.
[28] Y.W. Chung, W.J. Lo, G.A. Somorjai, Surf. Sci. 64 (1977)
588.
[29] C.C. Kao, S.C. Tsai, M.K. Bahl, Y.W. Chung, W.J. Lo,
Surf. Sci. 95 (1980) 1.
[30] S. Munnix, M. Schemeits, Phys. Rev. B 30 (1984) 2202.
[31] C.R. Wang, Y.S. Xu, Surf. Sci. 219 (1989) L537.
[32] D. Briggs, Handbook of X-ray and Ultraviolet Photoelec-
tron Spectroscopy, Heyden & Son Ltd., London, 1977.
[33] J.H.D. Eland, Photoelectron Spectroscopy, Butterworth &
Co. Ltd., London, 1974.
[34] C.R. Brundle, J. Vac. Sci. Technol. A 11 (1974) 212.
[35] L.E. Davis, N.C. MacDonald, P.W. Palmberg, G.E. Riach,
R.E. Weber (Eds.), Handbook of Auger Electron Spec-
troscopy, Perkin–Elmer Corporation, Physical Electronics
Division, Eden Prairie, MN, 1976.
[36] K. Siegbahn, C. Nordling, G. Johansson, J. Hedman, P.F.
Hed�een, K. Hamrin, U. Gelius, T. Bergmark, L.O. Werme,
R. Manne, Y. Baer, ESCA Applied to Free Molecules,
North Holland, Amsterdam, 1971, p. 74.
[37] A.N. Shultz, W.M. Hetherington III, D.R. Baer, L.-Q.
Wang, M.H. Engelhard, Surf. Sci. 392 (1997) 1.
[38] R.H. Tait, R.V. Kasowski, Phys. Rev. B 20 (1979) 5178.
[39] K.E. Smith, J.L. Mackay, V.E. Henrich, Phys. Rev. B 35
(1987) 5822.
[40] J.A. Rodriguez, T. Jirsak, G. Liu, J. Hrbek, J. Dvorak, A.
Maiti, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 123 (2001) 9567.
[41] D.R. Lide, CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics,
CRC Press LLC, London, 2001–2002.