Erratum to: The Kinetics of CO Oxidation by Adsorbed Oxygen on Well-Defined Gold Particles on TiO 2 (110)
- PDF / 1,598,041 Bytes
- 1 Pages / 595.276 x 790.866 pts Page_size
- 26 Downloads / 180 Views
ERRATUM
Erratum to: The Kinetics of CO Oxidation by Adsorbed Oxygen on Well-Defined Gold Particles on TiO2(110) V. Bondzie • S. C. Parker • Charles T. Campbell
Published online: 26 August 2011 Ó Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011
Erratum to: Catal Lett 63:143–151 (1999) DOI 10.1023/A:1019012903936 On page 149, the text of this paper reads: ‘‘Using simple Redhead analysis [28] and assuming first order desorption kinetics and a pre-exponential factor for desorption of 5.5 9 1012 s-1 from a closely related O/Au system [22], we estimate desorption activation energies ranging from 124.7 kJ/mol (for the *1-atom thick islands) to 90.4 kJ/mol (for the 6-atom thick islands). Since the activation energy for desorption generally follows the same trend as the adsorption energy (and they are equal for nonactivated adsorption), we conclude that the *34.3 kJ/mol higher activation energy on the thinnest particles corresponds to a larger adsorption energy (i.e., considerably more stable Oa) on the thinnest particles of Au.’’ There was a calculation error here, and these three energies must be changed so that this text instead reads: ‘‘Using simple Redhead analysis [28] and assuming first order desorption kinetics and a pre-exponential factor for
desorption of 5.5 9 1012 s-1 from a closely related O/Au system [22], we estimate desorption activation energies ranging from 190 kJ/mol (for the *1-atom thick islands) to 139 kJ/mol (for the 6-atom thick islands). Since the activation energy for desorption generally follows the same trend as the adsorption energy (and they are equal for nonactivated adsorption), we conclude that the *51 kJ/mol higher activation energy on the thinnest particles corresponds to a larger adsorption energy (i.e., considerably more stable Oa) on the thinnest particles of Au.’’ Correspondingly, the value of ‘‘34.3 kJ/mol’’ appearing in three other places (on Figure 9, in the right-hand column of page 149 and the left-hand column of page 150) all must be corrected also to be ‘‘51 kJ/mol’’. Similarly, the value ‘‘[17.2 kJ/mol’’ appearing in two places (on Figure 10 and in the left-hand column of page 150) must be corrected in both places to be ‘‘[25 kJ/mol’’. The authors thank Dr. Beatriz Roldan Cuenya for pointing out this error.
The online version of the original article can be found under doi:10.1023/A:1019012903936. V. Bondzie S. C. Parker C. T. Campbell (&) Department of Chemistry, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195-1700, USA e-mail: [email protected]
123
Data Loading...
