ACS Publications. Most Trusted. Most Cited. Most Read
Oxygen-Induced Transformations of an FeO(111) Film on Pt(111): A Combined DFT and STM Study
My Activity

Figure 1Loading Img
  • Open Access
Article

Oxygen-Induced Transformations of an FeO(111) Film on Pt(111): A Combined DFT and STM Study
Click to copy article linkArticle link copied!

View Author Information
Dipartimento di Scienza dei Materiali, Università di Milano-Bicocca, via Cozzi 53, 20125 Milano, Italy, Abteilung Chemische Physik, Fritz-Haber-Institut, Faradayweg 4-6, 14195 Berlin, Germany, and CNRS, Institut des Nanosciences de Paris, and UPMC Université Paris 06, INSP, UMR 7588, 4 place Jussieu, 75252 Paris cedex 05, France
* Corresponding authors. E-mail: [email protected] (L.G.); [email protected] (S.S.).
†Università di Milano-Bicocca.
‡Fritz-Haber-Institut.
§CNRS, Institut des Nanosciences de Paris.
∥UPMC Université Paris 06.
Open PDF

The Journal of Physical Chemistry C

Cite this: J. Phys. Chem. C 2010, 114, 49, 21504–21509
Click to copy citationCitation copied!
https://doi.org/10.1021/jp1070105
Published November 12, 2010
Copyright © 2010 American Chemical Society

Abstract

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

The structural stability of an FeO(111) film supported on Pt(111) was studied by density functional theory (DFT) as a function of oxygen pressure. The results showed formation of O-rich phases at elevated O2 pressures and revealed a site specificity of the oxidation process within the coincidence (Moiré) structure between FeO(111) and Pt(111), ultimately resulting in an ordered pattern of O−Fe−O trilayer islands, as observed by scanning tunneling microscopy (STM). In addition, high resolution STM images revealed a (√3 × √3)R30° superstructure of the FeO2 islands with respect to pristine FeO(111). This structure is rationalized by DFT in terms of strong relaxations within the Fe sublayer and can be considered as an intermediate state of the FeO(111) transformation into an Fe2O3(0001) film.

Copyright © 2010 American Chemical Society

1 Introduction

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

Thin oxide films grown on metal substrates have attracted considerable attention for potential applications in microelectronics, magnetic devices, and catalysis. (1-6) Their peculiar physical and chemical properties often depend on the atomic structure of the interface between oxide and metal, which is in turn driven by the low coordination of atoms, the nature of bonds at the interface, as well as related elastic and polarity-driven effects. (7, 8) In addition, the structural and electronic properties of thin films are determined by charge transfers at the interface, changes in the metal work function upon oxide deposition, (9-11) and, specifically for transition metal oxides, the possibility of having cations in different oxidation states. (12) The synergy of all these effects gives rise to very complex phase diagrams of low-dimensional oxide structures supported on metals (see ref 13 and references therein).
The ultrathin films consisting of just a single layer of oxide often show structural and electronic properties different from their bulk counterparts. The limited thickness has also a strong impact on the properties of metal clusters deposited onto these films. For example, while remaining neutral on thicker films, Au atoms may be positively or negatively charged when supported on ultrathin oxide films. (-14-18) Therefore, for these systems, the thickness of the oxide film and the nature of the metal substrate play the decisive role. Very recently, it has been demonstrated that the film thickness matters not only for metal particles but also for gas phase molecules reacting at the surface. (19, 20) Indeed, bilayer FeO(111) films supported on Pt(111) have been shown to be much more active in low temperature CO oxidation than Pt(111). (21, 22) The proposed mechanism involves, prior to the reaction with CO, the transformation of the bilayer Fe−O film into a trilayer O−Fe−O (FeO2) film, that further catalyzes CO oxidation via a Mars−van Krevelen type mechanism. (21) Theoretical modeling (22) corroborated this scenario and suggested that the oxidation of the FeO film proceeds through activation of molecular oxygen by electrons that are transferred from the oxide/metal interface, thus resulting in O22− species, which ultimately dissociate to form an O−Fe−O film.
In the present study we aim at a deeper understanding of the oxidation of the FeO(111) film as a function of oxygen pressure and at a determination of the atomic structure of catalytically active O-rich films using density functional theory (DFT) and scanning tunneling microscopy (STM). The DFT results show that conditions under which the bilayer transforms into the trilayer film strongly depend on the region within the Moiré unit cell of the FeO(111)/Pt(111) film where oxidation takes place. The site specificity of the oxidation process can explain the experimentally observed formation of an ordered pattern of FeO2-x islands rather than of a continuous FeO2 film. Moreover, a high resolution STM study revealed a (√3 × √3)R30° superstructure of FeO2-x islands with respect to the pristine FeO film. This structure was rationalized by DFT in terms of buckling effects in the Fe sublayer and may be considered as an intermediate state toward the formation of an iron (23) or ferryl (Fe═O) (24) terminated Fe2O3(0001) film at elevated oxygen pressures.

2 Methods and Materials

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

The experiments were carried out in an ultrahigh vacuum (UHV) chamber equipped with low energy electron diffraction/Auger electron spectroscopy (LEED/AES), quadrupole mass-spectrometer, and STM. The preparation of the FeO(111) films includes vapor deposition of ∼1 × 1015 at/cm2 of Fe onto clean Pt(111) at 300 K and subsequent annealing in 10−6 mbar O2 at 1000 K for 2 min. The temperature was measured by a chromel−alumel thermocouple spot-welded to the edge of the Pt(111) crystal, which is in turn clamped to the Pt sample holder. For high pressure oxidation, the sample was transferred into the small (∼1l) cell pressurized to 20 mbar of O2 (99.999%) that was additionally cleaned using a cold trap kept at ∼150 K.
The computational setup is similar to the one used in our earlier studies of the FeO/Pt(111) system. (25, 17) We use the DFT + U approach to correct the inherent limitations of the method in describing late transition metal oxides with localized states. We adopt the approach of Dudarev et al., (26) with UFeJFe = 3 eV, as implemented in the VASP code. (27, 28) The present approach satisfactorily reproduces the properties of bulk FeO and Fe2O3, involving iron in formal Fe2+ and Fe3+ oxidation states, respectively. The calculations have been performed within the generalized gradient approximation using the Perdew−Wang 91 (PW91) functional, (29) a plane wave basis set with kinetic energy cut off of 400 eV, and the projector augmented wave method. (30, 31)
Due to the mismatch with the Pt substrate the FeO oxide bilayer forms a Moiré superstructure with a large periodicity (about 26 Å). (32-34) The three qualitatively different regions of the Moiré unit cell in the FeO/Pt(111) and FeO2/Pt(111) systems can be classified by the local registry of the Fe ions and the Pt(111) substrate. In the “Fe-fcc” region both Fe and interface O atoms are in 3-fold hollow positions with respect to the Pt(111) substrate. In the “Fe-hcp” region the O atoms in contact with the metal surface are on top of a surface Pt atom, while the Fe atoms adsorb in the hollow position. Finally, in the “Fe-top” region the interface O atoms are in the hollow positions and the Fe atoms are on top of a surface Pt.
In the present study we use two qualitatively different interface models, which have already been employed and described in detail in our previous works. (18, 25) For thermodynamic calculations we use a (2 × 2)-FeO(111) on (2 × 2)-Pt(111) pseudomorphic configuration for each of the high symmetry regions of the periodic Moiré cell: Fe-top, Fe-fcc, and Fe-hcp. Each of these regions is thus described separately by a specific unit cell, where the lattices are aligned and the Pt(111) substrate is expanded in order to match the oxide in-plane lattice parameter (a = 3.10 Å). Used in the past, (25, 35, 36) such a pseudomorphic model provides a local description of the substrate work function consistent with that obtained from most recent calculations including the full Moiré cell. (40) Using the (2 × 2) model we considered FeOx phases with x = 0.75, 1.00, 1.25, 1.50, 1.75, 2.00, and 2.25 by varying the number of oxygen atoms in the unit cell. The magnetic ordering in the considered iron oxides corresponds to a row-wise antiferromagnetic structure, RW-AF-(2 × 1), used previously in studies on FeO(111)/Pt(111). (25)
In order to account for the experimental (√3 × √3)R30° oxygen-rich structure we employ also a nonpseudomorphic interface model, obtained by the superposition of (√3 × √3)R30°-FeO(111) and (2 × 2)-Pt(111) structures. This model requires only a small (3%) distortion of the Pt(111) substrate to provide the matching between the two lattices at the experimental value of FeO(111) lattice parameters, and has been already successfully used for single atom adsorption onto FeO(111)/Pt(111). (18) In the nonpseudomorphic model, similarly to the real structure, the two lattices are not aligned and the three high symmetry regions (sites) are located along the cell diagonal. The considered magnetic ordering is antiferrimagnetic with 2/3 of cations with the same magnetization and 1/3 with opposite magnetization.
In the above models, the Pt(111) substrate is represented by five atomic layers and the oxide film is placed on one side of the metal slab. The slabs are separated by at least 10 Å of vacuum, and so-called dipole corrections are applied in order to eliminate the residual dipoles in the direction perpendicular to the surface. In the pseudomorphic model, in order to mimic the structural constraint of the Moiré superstructure, for the three configurations (Fe-top, Fe-hcp, Fe-fcc) the registry between the FeO and Pt lattices is maintained by fixing the lateral position of two out of four interface ions (oxygen for Fe-hcp registry; iron for Fe-top and Fe-fcc registry). Within this model all other coordinates of the oxide films and the vertical coordinates of the Pt atoms are allowed to relax. While necessarily approximate, such an approach maintains the local registry in the Moiré cell and enables a separate treatment of each of the three different regions. In the nonpseudomorphic model, all coordinates of the oxide and the vertical coordinates of the metal substrate are optimized. The atomic coordinates are relaxed until the residual forces become smaller than 0.01 eV/Å. The Brillouin zone of the pseudomorphic cell is sampled on a (5 × 5 × 1) Monkhorst−Pack grid, and a (6 × 6 × 1) grid is used for the nonpseudomorphic cell. Atomic charges are obtained within the decomposition scheme proposed by Bader. (37, 38)
Different stages of oxidation of the pristine FeO/Pt(111) film are described by imposing the chemical equilibrium between the oxide film and a reservoir of O2 molecules in the gas phase, at a given partial pressure and temperature, characterized by the chemical potential μO. The oxidation-induced variation of Gibbs free energy with respect to FeO/Pt(111), can be written as where y = 4(x − 1) for the pseudomorphic interface model. Following the usual procedure in ab initio thermodynamics, (39) ΔG is approximated by the difference of the corresponding 0 K total energies E(FeOx/Pt) − E(FeO/Pt) and of the chemical potential of gas phase oxygen containing the rotational and translational contributions only. As a reference, we choose the total energy of oxygen in an isolated oxygen molecule, namely μO(0 K, p) = 1/2E(O2) = 0. The oxygen chemical potential can be related to the partial pressure p and the temperature T of the oxygen gas by the expression where μO(T, p0) gives the tabulated temperature dependence at the pressure p0 = 1 atm. (39) The range of oxygen chemical potentials corresponding to realistic experimental conditions has been estimated as follows. The O-rich limit, approximated conventionally by equilibrium with molecular oxygen, corresponds in our case to μO ∼ 0 eV. The O-poor limit, where oxygen progressively leaves the oxide film and iron particles are formed, is approximated by equilibrium between FeO film and bulk iron, which corresponds in our case to μO ∼ −3 eV.

3 Results and Discussion

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

3.1 Experimental Results

Figure 1a,b shows 150 nm ×150 nm STM images of a FeO(111)/Pt(111) film before and after exposure to 20 mbar of O2 at 470 K for 10 min. It is clear that the oxidized surface (hereafter referred to as FeO2-x) exhibits the long-range periodicity very similar to that of FeO. This is also evident from the comparison of LEED patterns shown in the insets. However, in contrast to the pristine FeO films, where the Moiré superstructure is extremely well ordered, the oxidized surface shows a multidomain structure within the same terrace.

Figure 1

Figure 1. STM images of the FeO film before (a) and after (b) exposure to 20 mbar of O2 at 470 K for 10 min. Image size 150 nm ×150 nm, tunneling bias and current are 0.5 V and 0.7 nA (a), and 1 V and 0.7 nA (b), respectively. The insets show the corresponding LEED patterns at 60 eV. Randomly dispersed bright protrusions on these images are assigned to contaminations (primarily, carbon as judged by AES).

STM images of the samples oxidized at 300 K, where both pristine and reconstructed surfaces coexist, (22) reveal that the Moiré lattice on the oxidized FeO2-x patches is expanded by ∼3%, as compared to the FeO film. (On the fully oxidized surfaces formed at ∼450 K the expansion, as measured by STM, is apparently larger (up to 10%), although the uncertainty is higher, too.) Here, we have to recall that the Moiré pattern of FeO(111)/Pt(111) arises from the lattice mismatch between FeO(111) (aFeO ∼ 3.1 Å) and Pt(111) (aPt = 2.77 Å). Depending on the preparation, different coincidence structures have been observed using SPA (spot-profile analysis) LEED, such as (√84 × √84)R10.9° and (√91 × √91)R5.2°. (34) In general, there is an inverse relation between the lattice constants of the oxide layer and the Moiré superstructure: The smaller the lattice constant of FeO(111), the larger the Moiré cell, and vice versa. Therefore, the STM results suggest that the lattice constant of the FeO2-x film is slightly shorter than that of FeO(111). In order to verify this finding, we performed a comparative analysis of the LEED patterns where Pt and FeO diffraction spots are clearly distinguished. The analysis reveals that the lattice constant of the oxide film, indeed, decreases from 3.09 to 3.05 Å (or by ∼1.5%), on average, upon high-pressure oxidation. To accommodate these small changes while maintaining a coincidence superstructure, the transformation of the FeO film into the FeO2-x film must be accompanied by a small rotation with respect to the Pt(111) substrate, which is difficult to determine precisely with the conventional LEED apparatus used in our experiments. Nevertheless, these results can explain the multidomain morphology of the oxidized films, which apparently consists of domains rotated in a slightly different way (see Figure 1b).
The large scale STM images also reveal a considerably higher corrugation amplitude of the FeO2-x films (∼0.6 Å) as compared to the pristine FeO films (∼0.1 Å), both measured at low bias voltages. Tentatively, we propose that this effect may be assigned to the formation of well-ordered, planar O−Fe−O islands, rather than of a continuous FeO2 film, or to a wavelike buckling (rumpling) of the Fe and O sublayers, or both. High-resolution STM images revealed even more structural complexity of the oxidized films (see Figure 2). It has turned out that the FeO2-x island surfaces exhibit a (√3 × √3)R30° structure with respect to the pristine FeO(111) more clearly seen in Figure 2b.

Figure 2

Figure 2. (a) 50 nm ×50 nm STM image of the FeO film exposed to 14 mbar of O2 at 450 K for 10 min. The inset zooms in the (√3 × √3)R30° structure with respect to pristine FeO, which is more clearly observed in the image in part b, presented in the differentiated contrast, where both structures are resolved on the sample oxidized in 0.5 mbar for 10 min at 350 K. The unit cells are indicated. Tunneling bias and current are 0.25 V, 0.7 nA (a); 1.0 V, 0.7 nA (b); 0.1 V, 0.7 nA (inset), respectively.

To explain the observed STM contrast, one could, in principle, address the stoichiometry of the oxidized film. In order to create the (√3 × √)R30° structure within the ideal FeO2 film proposed in the model, one could remove 1/3 or 2/3 of the O atoms in the topmost close-packed O-layer. (Note that the amount of Fe does not change during oxidation.) This model would result in FeO1.66 and FeO1.33 stoichiometry, respectively. However, a thermal desorption spectroscopy (TDS) study (22) revealed two O2 desorption peaks (one at ∼840 K and another at ∼1170 K, the latter was virtually identical to the peak from pristine FeO) with a (0.8−0.9):1 ratio. This implies an FeO1.8 stoichiometry which is in good agreement with Auger spectroscopy data. Therefore, the TDS and AES results are inconsistent with models suggesting an oxygen deficiency in the topmost O-layer. The fact that the experimentally observed stoichiometry of the oxidized films is not exactly FeO2 could be explained by an incomplete transformation of the film as observed by STM.
In addition, we find that the observation of the (√3 × √3)R30° structure by STM is not limited to the particular tunneling conditions and bias polarity. This favors the conclusion that the STM contrast is determined by Fe rather than O species forming electronic states near the Fermi level. Therefore, the combined STM, TDS, and AES results suggest a buckling of the Fe layer upon oxidation.

3.2 Ab Initio Oxidation Thermodynamics of the FeO/Pt(111) Film

While the structural characteristics and the interaction with atomic hydrogen have been recently treated explicitly using the full Moiré cell, (40, 41) the size of the FeO(111)/Pt(111) Moiré pattern (about 26 Å) renders its direct use for ab initio thermodynamic calculations computationally prohibitive. To circumvent this difficulty, we perform separately the analysis of oxide phases in different regions of the Moiré pattern and link the results by the common reference to oxidation conditions (value of oxygen pressure), in order to construct a complete region-dependent phase diagram. This approach allows us to unravel the general physical mechanisms related to the structural transformation and in particular the site-dependent stabilization of the FeO2 phase.
The phase diagrams for a FeOx film in the three high symmetry regions of the Moiré pattern as a function of the oxygen chemical potential are shown in Figure 3. While several alternative configurations for each oxide stoichiometry x have been considered and optimized, only the most stable one for each x is plotted.

Figure 3

Figure 3. Oxidation-induced change of Gibbs free energy ΔG (eV) of the FeO/Pt(111) film as a function of oxygen chemical potential (eV), for the three high-symmetry regions of the Moiré cell. Each line represents the most stable structure for a given stoichiometry. The bold lines and the background colors represent the most stable structure for a given oxygen chemical potential.

As expected, the increase of oxygen partial pressure induces a progressive stabilization of the phases with higher oxygen content. Due to the considerable vacancy formation energy, only in extremely oxygen-poor conditions, μO < −3.0 eV, oxygen vacancies (violet line in Figure 3) appear in the FeO(111) film, in agreement with the experimental findings. (22)
The FeO film (orange line in Figure 3) is stable in a relatively large range of oxygen chemical potentials, but the stability window is quite sensitive to the region of the Moiré pattern. Indeed, it extends up to μO = −0.8 eV, −1.1 eV, and −1.5 eV, respectively, in the Fe-fcc, Fe-top, and Fe-hcp regions. Moreover, while in Fe-hcp and Fe-fcc the incorporation of oxygen into the pristine film stabilizes directly the oxygen-rich phase of FeO2 stoichiometry (red line in Figure 3), in the Fe-top region it involves a stable intermediate phase of Fe2O3 stoichiometry (blue line in Figure 3), for −1.1 eV < μO < −0.9 eV. Let us note that the precise stoichiometry of this phase may be partially biased by the use of the (2 × 2) model. Indeed, analogous calculations in the nonpseudomorphic (√3 × √3)R30° model provide evidence for an intermediate phase of an Fe3O4 stoichiometry.
Regardless of the region of the Moiré pattern, the FeO2 film has a trilayer structure with the three atomic layers in fcc stacking. While detailed structural and electronic characteristics of this phase will be discussed in the next section, let us point out that its enhanced stability in the Fe-hcp region is driven principally by short covalent Pt−O bonds, enabled by the preferential O on top of Pt geometry.
Finally, in all cases, adsorption of an additional oxygen atom on the FeO2 film requires extremely oxygen-rich conditions (μO > 0.5 eV, not shown), where it competes with the condensation of molecular oxygen on the surface. We note that two qualitatively different configurations are in competition for atomic oxygen adsorption. Either a ferryl (Fe═O) group is formed, causing a strong outward relaxation of the Fe atom, or a peroxo group is formed involving one oxygen atom in the surface layer of FeO2. Their relative stability depends on the region in the Moiré.
The above results clearly show that under given conditions several oxide phases of different structure and stoichiometry may compete and/or coexist within the Moiré pattern. In particular, at low oxygen pressure (μO ∼ −1.3 eV) one expects an ordered array of FeO2 islands, limited to the Fe-hcp regions of the FeO(111)/Pt(111) template. At somewhat higher oxygen pressure (μO ∼ −1.0 eV), these islands shall coexist with an intermediate oxide phase in the Fe-top regions of the Moiré pattern. Finally, beyond μO ∼ −1.0 eV, one expects the FeO2 trilayer to cover the entire Pt(111) surface. The experimental situation is of course much more complex, even if all kinetic considerations are put aside. Indeed, one may expect a progressive oxidation-driven change of local in-plane lattice parameters in the oxide layer, direct and substrate-mediated interactions between the different regions of the oxidizing pattern, and/or constraints due to finite sizes of the oxide structures. Additionally, structures present at different stages of the oxidation process may tend to change their local registry with the substrate in order to optimize the interface energy. This latter effect is clearly suggested by the strong preference for the on top Pt position of interfacial oxygen ions at the FeO2(111)/Pt(111) interface.

3.3 Ab Initio Characterization of the FeO2/Pt(111) Film

We now address the experimental results associated with the oxygen-rich islands, for which both the experimental (section 3.1) and the theoretical (section 3.2) results point toward formation of a trilayer structure with a formal FeO2 stoichiometry at the oxygen pressures and temperatures used in the experiments. In order to rationalize the experimentally observed (√3 × √3)R30° structure of the oxygen-rich islands, we adopt the nonpseudomorphic interface model with a (√3 × √3)R30°−FeO(111)//(2 × 2)-Pt(111) unit cell. Structural optimization shows that this coincidence cell enables all interfacial oxygen of the FeO2 trilayer to form a single short Pt−O bond, which is consistent with the stabilizing mechanism identified above.
Beyond this general feature, a careful structural optimization reveals the existence of two quasidegenerate structures of the FeO2 trilayer as shown in Figure 4 (hereafter referred to as “planar” and “buckled” structures). The small energy difference obtained from 0 K calculations (less than 0.04 eV/FeO2) may be hardly sufficient for a valid estimation of the actual stability under experimental conditions. Since additionally the energetics is very sensitive to the precise value of the in-plane lattice parameter and to the choice of U parameter in the DFT + U approach, in the following we present and discuss both structures.

Figure 4

Figure 4. Top and lateral views of the two quasidegenerated structures of the FeO2 trilayer: planar (a) and buckled (b). Platinum atoms are displayed as large (gray) spheres, oxygen atoms as intermediate size (red) spheres, and iron atoms as small (blue) spheres. Darker spheres represent oxygen and iron atoms in the topmost layer.

The “planar” FeO2 trilayer is only slightly distorted with respect to the (2 × 2) structure obtained with the pseudomorphic model. All Fe cations are 6-fold coordinated and are located at a similar distance from the Pt(111) surface, forming a nearly flat Fe sublayer (the intralayer corrugation is less than 0.08 Å) (see Figure 4). All anions in the oxide have three Fe neighbors. The film is asymmetric: The average Fe−O interlayer distance at the interface side (1.23 Å) is almost twice that at the surface (0.75 Å). The charge analysis provides evidence for a formal Fe3+ oxidation state of all iron ions and an electron transfer from the metal substrate, which enables a formal O2- valence of surface and interface oxygens. (8, 22)
Although the dipole moment due to the asymmetry of the planar FeO2 film considerably attenuates the effect, the electron transfer toward the oxide film enhances substantially (by 2.0 eV) the work function of planar FeO2/Pt with respect to a bare Pt(111) surface. At variance, in the FeO(111)/Pt(111) system, the large electronegativity of Pt drives the electrons toward the metal, and provokes an outward relaxation of the O layer, compensating the dipole moment due to the electron transfer. (11, 18) In this case, the small reduction of the work function with respect to the bare Pt(111) surface (−0.3 eV) is driven primarily by the compression of the electron density at the interface. The local density of states (LDOS) of the supported FeO2 film, shown in Figure 5, reveals a small separation between the top of the valence band of mixed Fe−O character and the bottom of the conduction band of essentially Fe 3d character (full, dashed, and dashed−dotted black lines in Figure 5). Antibonding states due to the covalent O−Pt bond at the interface can be seen in the LDOS of interfacial oxygen (full red line in Figure 5), in this low density region.

Figure 5

Figure 5. Densities of states of the two quasidegenerated structures of the FeO2 trilayer: planar (left) and buckled (right). The three black lines (solid, dashed, and dashed−dotted) represent the projection on the three inequivalent iron atoms in the unit cell. For the buckled structure, full black line corresponds to the 3-fold coordinated Fe.

The “buckled” FeO2 film undergoes a substantial local distortion. Two out of three cations in the unit cell remain 6-fold coordinated, but the third Fe ion flips outward almost at the height of the topmost oxygen layer (Figure 4). The resulting corrugation of the Fe atomic layer is large (0.87 Å), and the surface of the FeO2 film consists of a nearly flat structure of 3-fold coordinated Fe and O ions with a well pronounced (√3 × √3)R30° symmetry. All anions at the interface with Pt have two Fe neighbors only. Our results show that such a structural distortion is not associated with a substantial change of the electronic structure. In particular, the electron transfer at the interface and the oxidation state of all ions remain practically unaltered. We note that the outward buckling of the Fe sublayer enhances the asymmetry of the oxide film (separation between centers of gravity of positive and negative charges) and thus opposes the dipole moment due to the electron transfer toward the oxide film. As a consequence the work function of a buckled FeO2/Pt film is only 1.1 eV larger than that of the bare Pt(111) surface. In analogy to the adsorbate-induced rumpling inversion found in Pt-supported FeO(111) films, (18) we note that a similar buckling effect can be induced by adsorbates.
The structural buckling modifies the Fe-projected density of states (see Figure 5). The LDOS of the 3-fold coordinated cations (full black line in Figure 5) is considerably narrowed (majority valence d states) and shifted toward lower energies (minority conduction d states) with respect to the 6-fold coordinated ones (black dashed and dashed−dotted lines in Figure 5). This latter effect results in a small downward shift of the bottom of the conduction band of the FeO2 film.
Isodensity plots of electronic states in the [0, 1] V energy window, shown in Figure 6, are used to simulate STM images taken in the constant current mode at a bias of 1 V. Our results suggest that, at this bias, the STM images are dominated by ions in the topmost layer: surface oxygens in the case of planar film structure and both surface oxygens and the flipped Fe ion in the case of buckled film structure. In particular, the contribution of Fe ions is substantially different in the two structures. While in the planar structure Fe ions contribute only a little to the STM contrast, the 3-fold coordinated Fe atoms of the buckled structure are clearly visible and dominate the STM image at all biases (not shown). As a consequence, three spots per (√3 × √3)R30° unit cell are visible for the planar structure, while only one spot appears for the buckled one. Bearing in mind that STM images may depend on the precise tip configuration during the experiments, the simulated images are in fair agreement with the STM results (see Figure 2a) suggesting that the buckled surface may explain the experimentally observed (√3 × √3)R30° structure.

Figure 6

Figure 6. Simulated STM images for the two quasidegenerated structures of the FeO2 trilayer: planar (a) and buckled (b). Image size = 25 Å × 25 Å, Vbias = 1.0 V, and electron charge isodensity = 1 × 10−5 e/Å3. Experimental STM image (c) showing the (√3 × √3)R30° structure of an oxygen-rich island. Size 25 Å × 25 Å, bias 1 V, and current 0.7 nA.

Interestingly, the buckled film, with all the iron atoms in the formal Fe3+ oxidation state, approaches the structure of the Fe-terminated Fe2O3(0001) hematite. It is well-known that the formation of bulk Fe2O3 is thermodynamically favorable at high oxygen pressures. The surface termination of Fe2O3(0001) depends on the oxygen partial pressure (23) and may, under certain conditions, be ferryl (Fe═O) terminated. (24) The preliminary infrared spectroscopy results did not reveal either Fe or Fe═O surface species in our samples studied at relatively low oxidation temperatures (∼450 K). Therefore, we can consider the (√3 × √3)R30° structure as an intermediate state in the transformation of the FeO(111) into the Fe2O3(0001) film.

4 Conclusions

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

The oxidation of the FeO(111) film as a function of oxygen pressure was studied using STM and DFT. The DFT results show that conditions under which the bilayer FeO film transforms into the trilayer FeO2 film depend strongly on the region within the coincidence (Moiré) unit cell of FeO(111)/Pt(111). The results allow us to sketch a quite general mechanism, revealing a progressive oxidation of a patterned oxide film, where strongly region-dependent stability of oxide phases may lead to different iron oxidation states in different regions of the film, and, thus, to the formation of ordered oxide structures with different stoichiometries. Indeed, the strong site specificity of the FeO(111) oxidation process explains the experimentally observed formation of an ordered pattern of FeO2 islands. Moreover, a high resolution STM study reveals a (√3 × √3)R30° superstructure of the FeO2 islands with respect to the pristine FeO film. This structure was rationalized by DFT in terms of the preferred O on top of Pt interface registry associated with a buckling effect in the Fe sublayer. This buckled structure, where one out of three Fe atoms flips outward at the height of the topmost oxygen layer, may be considered as an intermediate state in the transformation of the FeO(111) into Fe2O3(0001) film.

Author Information

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

  • Corresponding Authors
    • L. Giordano - Dipartimento di Scienza dei Materiali, Università di Milano-Bicocca, via Cozzi 53, 20125 Milano, Italy, Abteilung Chemische Physik, Fritz-Haber-Institut, Faradayweg 4-6, 14195 Berlin, Germany, and CNRS, Institut des Nanosciences de Paris, and UPMC Université Paris 06, INSP, UMR 7588, 4 place Jussieu, 75252 Paris cedex 05, France Email: [email protected] [email protected]
    • S. Shaikhutdinov - Dipartimento di Scienza dei Materiali, Università di Milano-Bicocca, via Cozzi 53, 20125 Milano, Italy, Abteilung Chemische Physik, Fritz-Haber-Institut, Faradayweg 4-6, 14195 Berlin, Germany, and CNRS, Institut des Nanosciences de Paris, and UPMC Université Paris 06, INSP, UMR 7588, 4 place Jussieu, 75252 Paris cedex 05, France Email: [email protected] [email protected]
  • Authors
    • M. Lewandowski - Dipartimento di Scienza dei Materiali, Università di Milano-Bicocca, via Cozzi 53, 20125 Milano, Italy, Abteilung Chemische Physik, Fritz-Haber-Institut, Faradayweg 4-6, 14195 Berlin, Germany, and CNRS, Institut des Nanosciences de Paris, and UPMC Université Paris 06, INSP, UMR 7588, 4 place Jussieu, 75252 Paris cedex 05, France
    • I. M. N. Groot - Dipartimento di Scienza dei Materiali, Università di Milano-Bicocca, via Cozzi 53, 20125 Milano, Italy, Abteilung Chemische Physik, Fritz-Haber-Institut, Faradayweg 4-6, 14195 Berlin, Germany, and CNRS, Institut des Nanosciences de Paris, and UPMC Université Paris 06, INSP, UMR 7588, 4 place Jussieu, 75252 Paris cedex 05, France
    • Y.-N. Sun - Dipartimento di Scienza dei Materiali, Università di Milano-Bicocca, via Cozzi 53, 20125 Milano, Italy, Abteilung Chemische Physik, Fritz-Haber-Institut, Faradayweg 4-6, 14195 Berlin, Germany, and CNRS, Institut des Nanosciences de Paris, and UPMC Université Paris 06, INSP, UMR 7588, 4 place Jussieu, 75252 Paris cedex 05, France
    • J. Goniakowski - Dipartimento di Scienza dei Materiali, Università di Milano-Bicocca, via Cozzi 53, 20125 Milano, Italy, Abteilung Chemische Physik, Fritz-Haber-Institut, Faradayweg 4-6, 14195 Berlin, Germany, and CNRS, Institut des Nanosciences de Paris, and UPMC Université Paris 06, INSP, UMR 7588, 4 place Jussieu, 75252 Paris cedex 05, France
    • C. Noguera - Dipartimento di Scienza dei Materiali, Università di Milano-Bicocca, via Cozzi 53, 20125 Milano, Italy, Abteilung Chemische Physik, Fritz-Haber-Institut, Faradayweg 4-6, 14195 Berlin, Germany, and CNRS, Institut des Nanosciences de Paris, and UPMC Université Paris 06, INSP, UMR 7588, 4 place Jussieu, 75252 Paris cedex 05, France
    • G. Pacchioni - Dipartimento di Scienza dei Materiali, Università di Milano-Bicocca, via Cozzi 53, 20125 Milano, Italy, Abteilung Chemische Physik, Fritz-Haber-Institut, Faradayweg 4-6, 14195 Berlin, Germany, and CNRS, Institut des Nanosciences de Paris, and UPMC Université Paris 06, INSP, UMR 7588, 4 place Jussieu, 75252 Paris cedex 05, France
    • H.-J. Freund - Dipartimento di Scienza dei Materiali, Università di Milano-Bicocca, via Cozzi 53, 20125 Milano, Italy, Abteilung Chemische Physik, Fritz-Haber-Institut, Faradayweg 4-6, 14195 Berlin, Germany, and CNRS, Institut des Nanosciences de Paris, and UPMC Université Paris 06, INSP, UMR 7588, 4 place Jussieu, 75252 Paris cedex 05, France

Acknowledgment

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

We acknowledge support from the COST Action D41 Inorganic oxides: surfaces and interfaces. L.G. and G.P. acknowledge the support of the Barcelona Supercomputing Center for a generous CPU grant. The FHI team acknowledges support from DFG through the Cluster of Excellence UNICAT, coordinated by TU Berlin, and the Fonds der Chemischen Industrie.

References

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

This article references 41 other publications.

  1. 1
    Chambers, S. A.; Droubay, T. C.; Wang, C. M.; Rosso, K. N.; Heald, S. M.; Schwartz, D. A.; Kittilstveld, K. R.; Gamelin, D. R. Mater. Today 2006, 9, 28
  2. 2
    Parkin, S. S. P.; Kaiser, C.; Panchula, A.; Rice, P. M.; Hughes, B.; Samant, M.; Yang, S.-H. Nat. Mater. 2004, 3, 862
  3. 3
    Motoyama, Y.; Matsuzaki, H.; Murakami, H. IEEE Trans. Electron Devices 2001, 48, 1568
  4. 4
    Freund, H- J.; Pacchioni, G. Chem. Soc. Rev. 2008, 37, 2224
  5. 5
    Weber, L. F. IEEE Trans. Plasma Science 2006, 34, 268
  6. 6
    Matulevich, Y. T.; Vink, T. J.; Zeijlmans van Emmichoven, P. A. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2002, 89, 167601
  7. 7
    Nilius, N. Surf. Sci. Rep. 2009, 64, 595
  8. 8
    Goniakowski, J.; Giordano, L.; Noguera, C. Phys. Rev. B 2010, 81, 205404
  9. 9
    Giordano, L.; Cinquini, F.; Pacchioni, G. Phys. Rev. B 2006, 73045414
  10. 10
    Prada, S.; Martinez, U.; Pacchioni, G. Phys. Rev. B 2008, 78, 235423
  11. 11
    Goniakowski, J.; Noguera, C. Phys. Rev. B 2009, 79, 155433
  12. 12
    Netzer, F. P.; Allegretti, F.; Surnev, S. J. Vac. Sci. Technol., B 2010, 28, 1
  13. 13
    Netzer, F. P. Surf. Sci. 2010, 604, 485
  14. 14
    Pacchioni, G.; Giordano, L.; Baistrocchi, M. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2005, 94, 226104
  15. 15
    Sterrer, M.; Risse, T.; Martinez Pozzoni, U.; Giordano, L.; Heyde, M.; Rust, H.-P.; Pacchioni, G.; Freund, H.-J. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2007, 98, 096107
  16. 16
    Frondelius, P.; Hellman, A.; Honkala, K.; Häkkinen, H.; Grönbeck, H. Phys. Rev. B 2008, 78085426
  17. 17
    Giordano, L.; Pacchioni, G.; Goniakowski, J.; Nilius, N.; Rienks, E. D. L.; Freund, H.-J. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2008, 101026102
  18. 18
    Goniakowski, J.; Noguera, C.; Giordano, L.; Pacchioni, G. Phys. Rev. B 2009, 80, 125403
  19. 19
    Grönbeck, H. J. Phys. Chem. B 2006, 110, 11977
  20. 20
    Hellman, A.; Klacar, S.; Grönbeck, H. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2009, 131, 16636
  21. 21
    Sun, Y.-N.; Qin, Z.-H.; Lewandowski, M.; Carrasco, E.; Sterrer, M.; Shaikhutdinov, S.; Freund, H.-J. J. Catal. 2009, 266, 359
  22. 22
    Sun, Y.-N.; Giordano, L.; Goniakowski, J.; Lewandowski, M.; Qin, Z.-H.; Noguera, C.; Shaikhutdinov, S.; Pacchioni, G.; Freund, H.-J. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 2010, 49, 1
  23. 23
    Shaikhutdinov, S.; Weiss, W. Surf. Sci. 1999, 432, L627
  24. 24
    Lemire, C.; Bertarione, S.; Zecchina, A.; Scarano, D.; Chaka, A.; Shaikhutdinov, S.; Freund, H.-J. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2005, 94, 166101
  25. 25
    Giordano, L.; Pacchioni, G.; Goniakowski, J.; Nilius, N.; Rienks, E. D. L.; Freund, H.-J. Phys. Rev. B 2007, 76075416
  26. 26
    Dudarev, S. L.; Botton, G. A.; Savrasov, S. Y.; Humphreys, C. J.; Sutton, A. P. Phys. Rev. B 1998, 57, 1505
  27. 27
    Kresse, G.; Hafner, J. Phys. Rev. B 1993, 47, R558
  28. 28
    Kresse, G.; Furthmüller, J. Phys. Rev. B 1996, 54, 11169
  29. 29
    Perdew, J. P.; Chevary, J. A.; Vosko, S. H.; Jackson, K. A.; Pederson, M. R.; Singh, D. J.; Fiolhais, C. Phys. Rev. B 1992, 46, 6671
  30. 30
    Blöchl, P. E. Phys Rev. B 1994, 50, 17953
  31. 31
    Bengone, O.; Alouani, M.; Blöchl, P. E.; Hugel, J. Phys Rev. B 2000, 62, 16392
  32. 32
    Vurens, G. H.; Salmeron, M.; Somorjai, G. A. Surf. Sci. 1988, 201, 129
  33. 33
    Kim, Y. J.; Westphal, C.; Ynzunza, R. X.; Galloway, H. C.; Salmeron, M.; Van Hove, M. A.; Fadley, C. S. Phys. Rev. B 1997, 55, R13448
  34. 34
    Ritter, M.; Ranke, W.; Weiss, W. Phys. Rev. B 1998, 57, 7240
  35. 35
    Galloway, H. G.; Sautet, P.; Salmeron, M. Phys. Rev. B 1996, 54, R11145
  36. 36
    Merte, L. R.; Knudsen, J.; Grabow, L. C.; Vang, R. T.; Lægsgaard, E.; Mavrikakis, M.; Besenbacher, F. Surf. Sci. 2009, 603, L15
  37. 37
    Bader, R. F. W. Chem. Rev. 1991, 91, 893
  38. 38
    Henkelman, G.; Arnaldsson, A.; Jónsson, H. Comput. Mater. Sci. 2006, 36, 254
    Tang, W.; Sanville, E.; Henkelman, G. J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 2009, 21, 084204
  39. 39
    Reuter, K.; Scheffler, M. Phys. Rev. B 2001, 65035406
  40. 40
    Zhang, W.; Li, Z.; Luo, Y.; Yang, J. J. Phys. Chem. C 2009, 113, 8302
  41. 41
    Knudsen, J.; Merte, L. R.; Grabow, L. C.; Eichhorn, F. M.; Porsgaard, S.; Zeuthen, H.; Vang, R. T.; Lægsgaard, E.; Mavrikakis, M.; Besenbacher, F. Surf. Sci. 2010, 604, 11

Cited By

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

This article is cited by 94 publications.

  1. Gina Peschel, Alexander Fuhrich, Dietrich Menzel, Mirali Jahangirzadeh Varjovi, Sergio Tosoni, Hans-Joachim Freund. Growth and Structure of Ultrathin Iron Silicate and Iron Germanate Films. The Journal of Physical Chemistry C 2024, 128 (45) , 19423-19435. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jpcc.4c05601
  2. Jijin Yang, Eleonora Ascrizzi, Mattia Cattelan, Marco Nalesso, Leonardo Cielo, Peter Matvija, Francesco Sedona, Anna Maria Ferrari, Stefano Agnoli. Atomic-Scale View of Water Chemistry on Nanostructured Iron Oxide Films. Nano Letters 2024, 24 (40) , 12552-12559. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.nanolett.4c03521
  3. Ghada Missaoui, Piotr Igor Wemhoff, Claudine Noguera, Jacek Goniakowski, Niklas Nilius. Chromium Oxide Thin Films on Pt(111): An STM and DFT Excursion through the Phase Diagram. The Journal of Physical Chemistry C 2024, 128 (30) , 12726-12734. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jpcc.4c03483
  4. Qingfei Liu, Yangsheng Li, Xinfei Zhao, Bowen Zhu, Zhiyu Yi, Fan Yang, Xinhe Bao. Dynamic Structural Changes of Iron Oxide Nanostructures On Cu(111). The Journal of Physical Chemistry C 2022, 126 (4) , 2041-2048. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jpcc.1c08309
  5. Yang Liu, Aiai Zhang, Lei Xue, Heng Zhang, Yanheng Hao, Yan Wang, Jinfang Wu, Shanghong Zeng. Dual Active Sites of CO Adsorption and Activation over PtCu Alloy Nanocages for Preferential Oxidation of Carbon Monoxide. ACS Applied Energy Materials 2022, 5 (1) , 604-614. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsaem.1c03129
  6. Yangyang Li, Yunshang Zhang, Kun Qian, Weixin Huang. Metal–Support Interactions in Metal/Oxide Catalysts and Oxide–Metal Interactions in Oxide/Metal Inverse Catalysts. ACS Catalysis 2022, 12 (2) , 1268-1287. https://doi.org/10.1021/acscatal.1c04854
  7. Duane D. Miller, Jarrett Riley, Ranjani Siriwardane. Interaction of Methane with Calcium Ferrite in the Chemical Looping Partial Oxidation Application: Experimental and DFT Study. Energy & Fuels 2020, 34 (2) , 2193-2204. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.energyfuels.9b03623
  8. F. Aguilera-Granja, A. Ayuela. Magnetism and Distortions in Two-Dimensional Transition-Metal Dioxides: On the Quest for Intrinsic Magnetic Semiconductor Layers. The Journal of Physical Chemistry C 2020, 124 (4) , 2634-2643. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jpcc.9b06496
  9. Yijia Li, Kræn C. Adamsen, Lutz Lammich, Jeppe V. Lauritsen, Stefan Wendt. Atomic-Scale View of the Oxidation and Reduction of Supported Ultrathin FeO Islands. ACS Nano 2019, 13 (10) , 11632-11641. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsnano.9b05470
  10. Hengshan Qiu, Helmut Kuhlenbeck, Ernst Bauer, Hans-Joachim Freund. Gold-Decorated Biphase α-Fe2O3(0001): Activation by CO-Induced Surface Reduction. The Journal of Physical Chemistry C 2019, 123 (13) , 8221-8227. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jpcc.8b08521
  11. K. V. Larionov, D. G. Kvashnin, P. B. Sorokin. 2D FeO: A New Member in 2D Metal Oxide Family. The Journal of Physical Chemistry C 2018, 122 (30) , 17389-17394. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jpcc.8b06054
  12. Jakob Fester, Zhaozong Sun, Jonathan Rodríguez-Fernández, Alex Walton, and Jeppe V. Lauritsen . Phase Transitions of Cobalt Oxide Bilayers on Au(111) and Pt(111): The Role of Edge Sites and Substrate Interactions. The Journal of Physical Chemistry B 2018, 122 (2) , 561-571. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jpcb.7b04944
  13. Yun Liu, Yanxiao Ning, Liang Yu, Zhiwen Zhou, Qingfei Liu, Yi Zhang, Hao Chen, Jianping Xiao, Ping Liu, Fan Yang, and Xinhe Bao . Structure and Electronic Properties of Interface-Confined Oxide Nanostructures. ACS Nano 2017, 11 (11) , 11449-11458. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsnano.7b06164
  14. Antonio Ruiz Puigdollers, Philomena Schlexer, Sergio Tosoni, and Gianfranco Pacchioni . Increasing Oxide Reducibility: The Role of Metal/Oxide Interfaces in the Formation of Oxygen Vacancies. ACS Catalysis 2017, 7 (10) , 6493-6513. https://doi.org/10.1021/acscatal.7b01913
  15. Hao Chen, Yun Liu, Fan Yang, Mingming Wei, Xinfei Zhao, Yanxiao Ning, Qingfei Liu, Yi Zhang, Qiang Fu, and Xinhe Bao . Active Phase of FeOx/Pt Catalysts in Low-Temperature CO Oxidation and Preferential Oxidation of CO Reaction. The Journal of Physical Chemistry C 2017, 121 (19) , 10398-10405. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jpcc.7b01392
  16. Hans-Joachim Freund . The Surface Science of Catalysis and More, Using Ultrathin Oxide Films as Templates: A Perspective. Journal of the American Chemical Society 2016, 138 (29) , 8985-8996. https://doi.org/10.1021/jacs.6b05565
  17. Philipp N. Plessow, Michal Bajdich, Joshua Greene, Aleksandra Vojvodic, and Frank Abild-Pedersen . Trends in the Thermodynamic Stability of Ultrathin Supported Oxide Films. The Journal of Physical Chemistry C 2016, 120 (19) , 10351-10360. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jpcc.6b01404
  18. Vikram Mehar, Lindsay R. Merte, Juhee Choi, Mikhail Shipilin, Edvin Lundgren, and Jason F. Weaver . Adsorption of NO on FeOx Films Grown on Ag(111). The Journal of Physical Chemistry C 2016, 120 (17) , 9282-9291. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jpcc.6b01751
  19. Alex S. Walton, Jakob Fester, Michal Bajdich, Mohammad A. Arman, Jacek Osiecki, Jan Knudsen, Aleksandra Vojvodic, and Jeppe V. Lauritsen . Interface Controlled Oxidation States in Layered Cobalt Oxide Nanoislands on Gold. ACS Nano 2015, 9 (3) , 2445-2453. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsnano.5b00158
  20. Lindsay R. Merte, Mikhail Shipilin, Sara Ataran, Sara Blomberg, Chu Zhang, Anders Mikkelsen, Johan Gustafson, and Edvin Lundgren . Growth of Ultrathin Iron Oxide Films on Ag(100). The Journal of Physical Chemistry C 2015, 119 (5) , 2572-2582. https://doi.org/10.1021/jp511496w
  21. Helene Zeuthen, Wilhelmine Kudernatsch, Lindsay R. Merte, Luis K. Ono, Lutz Lammich, Flemming Besenbacher, and Stefan Wendt . Unraveling the Edge Structures of Platinum(111)-Supported Ultrathin FeO Islands: The Influence of Oxidation State. ACS Nano 2015, 9 (1) , 573-583. https://doi.org/10.1021/nn505890v
  22. Helene Zeuthen, Wilhelmine Kudernatsch, Guowen Peng, Lindsay R. Merte, Luis K. Ono, Lutz Lammich, Yunhai Bai, Lars C. Grabow, Manos Mavrikakis, Stefan Wendt, and Flemming Besenbacher . Structure of Stoichiometric and Oxygen-Rich Ultrathin FeO(111) Films Grown on Pd(111). The Journal of Physical Chemistry C 2013, 117 (29) , 15155-15163. https://doi.org/10.1021/jp4042638
  23. D. Phillip Woodruff . Quantitative Structural Studies Of Corundum and Rocksalt Oxide Surfaces. Chemical Reviews 2013, 113 (6) , 3863-3886. https://doi.org/10.1021/cr3002998
  24. Claudine Noguera and Jacek Goniakowski . Polarity in Oxide Nano-objects. Chemical Reviews 2013, 113 (6) , 4073-4105. https://doi.org/10.1021/cr3003032
  25. Svetlozar Surnev, Alessandro Fortunelli, and Falko P. Netzer . Structure–Property Relationship and Chemical Aspects of Oxide–Metal Hybrid Nanostructures. Chemical Reviews 2013, 113 (6) , 4314-4372. https://doi.org/10.1021/cr300307n
  26. Eric W. McFarland and Horia Metiu . Catalysis by Doped Oxides. Chemical Reviews 2013, 113 (6) , 4391-4427. https://doi.org/10.1021/cr300418s
  27. Lingshun Xu, Zongfang Wu, Wenhua Zhang, Yuekang Jin, Qing Yuan, Yunsheng Ma, and Weixin Huang . Oxygen Vacancy-Induced Novel Low-Temperature Water Splitting Reactions on FeO(111) Monolayer-Thick Film. The Journal of Physical Chemistry C 2012, 116 (43) , 22921-22929. https://doi.org/10.1021/jp307104a
  28. M. Monti, B. Santos, A. Mascaraque, O. Rodríguez de la Fuente, M. A. Niño, T. O. Menteş, A. Locatelli, K. F. McCarty, J. F. Marco, and J. de la Figuera . Oxidation Pathways in Bicomponent Ultrathin Iron Oxide Films. The Journal of Physical Chemistry C 2012, 116 (21) , 11539-11547. https://doi.org/10.1021/jp300702d
  29. Dapeng Sun, Xiang-Kui Gu, Runhai Ouyang, Hai-Yan Su, Qiang Fu, Xinhe Bao, and Wei-Xue Li . Theoretical Study of the Role of a Metal–Cation Ensemble at the Oxide–Metal Boundary on CO Oxidation. The Journal of Physical Chemistry C 2012, 116 (13) , 7491-7498. https://doi.org/10.1021/jp300924k
  30. S. Benedetti, N. Nilius, P. Torelli, G. Renaud, H.-J. Freund, and S. Valeri . Competition between Polar and Nonpolar Growth of MgO Thin Films on Au(111). The Journal of Physical Chemistry C 2011, 115 (46) , 23043-23049. https://doi.org/10.1021/jp207901a
  31. Franziska Ringleb, Yuichi Fujimori, Hui-Feng Wang, Hiroko Ariga, Esther Carrasco, Martin Sterrer, Hans-Joachim Freund, Livia Giordano, Gianfranco Pacchioni, and Jacek Goniakowski . Interaction of Water with FeO(111)/Pt(111): Environmental Effects and Influence of Oxygen. The Journal of Physical Chemistry C 2011, 115 (39) , 19328-19335. https://doi.org/10.1021/jp207332n
  32. Lindsay R. Merte, Jan Knudsen, Falk M. Eichhorn, Soeren Porsgaard, Helene Zeuthen, Lars C. Grabow, Erik Lægsgaard, Hendrik Bluhm, Miquel Salmeron, Manos Mavrikakis, and Flemming Besenbacher . CO-Induced Embedding of Pt Adatoms in a Partially Reduced FeOx Film on Pt(111). Journal of the American Chemical Society 2011, 133 (28) , 10692-10695. https://doi.org/10.1021/ja2015923
  33. Dorotea Gajdek, Harald J. Wallander, Giuseppe Abbondanza, Gary S. Harlow, Johan Gustafson, Sara Blomberg, Per‐Anders Carlsson, Justus Just, Edvin Lundgren, Lindsay R. Merte. Operando XANES Reveals the Chemical State of Iron‐Oxide Monolayers During Low‐Temperature CO Oxidation. ChemPhysChem 2024, https://doi.org/10.1002/cphc.202400835
  34. Bin Yang, Xiaochen Chen, Limin Guo, Lingxia Zhang. Catalyst architecture for metal–support interactions and its effects on heterogeneous reactions. Journal of Materials Chemistry A 2024, 12 (31) , 19861-19884. https://doi.org/10.1039/D4TA03423F
  35. Eleonora Ascrizzi, Jacek Goniakowski, Jijin Yang, Stefano Agnoli, Anna Maria Ferrari. DFT study of the moiré pattern of FeO monolayer on Au(111). Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics 2024, 26 (29) , 20103-20111. https://doi.org/10.1039/D4CP01546K
  36. Ghada Missaoui, Piotr Igor Wemhoff, Niklas Nilius. Atomic Scale Insights into Reversible Oxygen Storage in Vanadium Oxide Thin Films. ChemPhysChem 2024, 25 (13) https://doi.org/10.1002/cphc.202300988
  37. Di Zhou, Yan Zhou, Yong Li, Wenjie Shen. Nanostructured iron oxides for heterogeneous catalysis. EnergyChem 2024, 6 (4) , 100124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enchem.2024.100124
  38. Yuedie Zhang, Chang Liu, Weixia Wang, Junxiang Chenge, Xucong Li, Ping Cheng, Chunguang Chen, Yuanzheng Zhu, Shuping Zhang. Research progress of metal oxide supports for fuel cells electrocatalysts. ChemistrySelect 2024, 9 (11) https://doi.org/10.1002/slct.202400479
  39. Oscar Hurtado-Aular, Ricardo M. Ferullo, Patricia G. Belelli. CO2 activation and dissociation on the Fe2O3/Cu(111) inverse catalyst: A dispersion-corrected DFT study. Computational Materials Science 2024, 233 , 112741. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.commatsci.2023.112741
  40. J Goniakowski, P I Wemhoff, N Nilius, C Noguera. Stability and mixing behavior of vanadium-iron oxide monolayers on Pt(111) and Ru(0001) substrates. Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter 2023, 35 (41) , 414001. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-648X/ace01d
  41. Shih-Yung Huang, Yi-Ting Huang, Shuehlin Yau. The spatial structures of iron oxide formed on an ordered Pt(111) electrode in pH 3 sulfate and chloride media. Electrochimica Acta 2023, 462 , 142766. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electacta.2023.142766
  42. Hengjun Liu, Fangchao Gu, Xiancheng Sang, Yuanyuan Han, Feihu Zou, Zhaohui Li, Yufeng Qin, Li Cai, Yuanyuan Pan, Qiang Cao, Guo-xing Miao, Qiang Li. Surface Ferromagnetism of Fe O Nanoparticles Revealed by Operando Magnetoelectrochemical Measurements. Physical Review Applied 2023, 19 (5) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevApplied.19.054022
  43. Dairong Liu, Linfei Li, Buddhika S. A. Gedara, Michael Trenary, Nan Jiang. The selective blocking of potentially catalytically active sites on surface-supported iron oxide catalysts. Materials Chemistry Frontiers 2023, 7 (3) , 476-482. https://doi.org/10.1039/D2QM01025A
  44. Tomasz Ossowski, Ying Wang, Giovanni Carraro, Adam Kiejna, Mikołaj Lewandowski. Structure of mono- and bilayer FeO on Ru(0001): STM and DFT study. Journal of Magnetism and Magnetic Materials 2022, 546 , 168832. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmmm.2021.168832
  45. Thang P. Nguyen. Functionalized 2 D Nanomaterials for Miniaturized Analytical Devices. 2022, 153-179. https://doi.org/10.1002/9783527827213.ch8
  46. Yi Yan, Fengmin Zhong, Songyou Lian, Zumin Wang, Jiangyong Wang, Congkang Xu. Understanding the kinetics of Fe subsurface dissolution and surface segregation upon annealing Fe on Pd(111) in vacuum/oxygen environment. Applied Physics A 2022, 128 (2) https://doi.org/10.1007/s00339-022-05269-7
  47. Hui Huang, Wei Feng, Yu Chen. Two-dimensional biomaterials: material science, biological effect and biomedical engineering applications. Chemical Society Reviews 2021, 50 (20) , 11381-11485. https://doi.org/10.1039/D0CS01138J
  48. Yangsheng Li, Xinfei Zhao, Yi Cui, Fan Yang, Xinhe Bao. Oxidation-induced structural transition of two-dimensional iron oxide on Au(111). Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics 2021, 54 (20) , 204003. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6463/abe66d
  49. Ke Zhang, Linfei Li, Jacek Goniakowski, Claudine Noguera, Hans-Joachim Freund, Shamil Shaikhutdinov. Size effect in two-dimensional oxide-on-metal catalysts of CO oxidation and its connection to oxygen bonding: An experimental and theoretical approach. Journal of Catalysis 2021, 393 , 100-106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcat.2020.11.022
  50. Reza Vakili, Thomas J.A. Slater, Christopher Hardacre, Alex S. Walton, Xiaolei Fan. PtNi bimetallic structure supported on UiO-67 metal-organic framework (MOF) during CO oxidation. Journal of Catalysis 2020, 391 , 522-529. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcat.2020.09.013
  51. Ying Wang, Giovanni Carraro, Hubert Dawczak-Dębicki, Karol Synoradzki, Letizia Savio, Mikołaj Lewandowski. Reversible and irreversible structural changes in FeO/Ru(0 0 0 1) model catalyst subjected to atomic oxygen. Applied Surface Science 2020, 528 , 146032. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsusc.2020.146032
  52. Hans-Joachim Freund, Markus Heyde, Helmut Kuhlenbeck, Niklas Nilius, Thomas Risse, Thomas Schmidt, Shamil Shaikhutdinov, Martin Sterrer. Chapter model systems in heterogeneous catalysis at the atomic level: a personal view. Science China Chemistry 2020, 63 (4) , 426-447. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11426-019-9671-0
  53. Pär A. T. Olsson, Lindsay R. Merte, Henrik Grönbeck. Stability, magnetic order, and electronic properties of ultrathin Fe 3 O 4 nanosheets. Physical Review B 2020, 101 (15) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.101.155426
  54. Karim Khan, Ayesha Khan Tareen, Muhammad Aslam, Renheng Wang, Yupeng Zhang, Asif Mahmood, Zhengbiao Ouyang, Han Zhang, Zhongyi Guo. Recent developments in emerging two-dimensional materials and their applications. Journal of Materials Chemistry C 2020, 8 (2) , 387-440. https://doi.org/10.1039/C9TC04187G
  55. Hans-Joachim Freund, Markus Heyde, Helmut Kuhlenbeck, Niklas Nilius, Thomas Risse, Swetlana Schauermann, Thomas Schmidt, Shamil Shaikhutdinov, Martin Sterrer. Thin Oxide Films as Model Systems for Heterogeneous Catalysts. 2020, 267-328. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-46906-1_10
  56. Anthony Curto, Zhaozong Sun, Jonathan Rodríguez-Fernández, Liang Zhang, Ayush Parikh, Ting Tan, Jeppe V. Lauritsen, Aleksandra Vojvodic. Anisotropic iron-doping patterns in two-dimensional cobalt oxide nanoislands on Au(111). Nano Research 2019, 12 (9) , 2364-2372. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12274-019-2474-9
  57. Martin Sterrer, Niklas Nilius, Shamil Shaikhutdinov, Markus Heyde, Thomas Schmidt, Hans-Joachim Freund. Interaction of water with oxide thin film model systems. Journal of Materials Research 2019, 34 (3) , 360-378. https://doi.org/10.1557/jmr.2018.454
  58. Tong Yang, Ting Ting Song, Martin Callsen, Jun Zhou, Jian Wei Chai, Yuan Ping Feng, Shi Jie Wang, Ming Yang. Atomically Thin 2D Transition Metal Oxides: Structural Reconstruction, Interaction with Substrates, and Potential Applications. Advanced Materials Interfaces 2019, 6 (1) https://doi.org/10.1002/admi.201801160
  59. Gianfranco Pacchioni, Hans-Joachim Freund. Controlling the charge state of supported nanoparticles in catalysis: lessons from model systems. Chemical Society Reviews 2018, 47 (22) , 8474-8502. https://doi.org/10.1039/C8CS00152A
  60. Shamil Shaikhutdinov. Strong Metal–Support Interaction and Reactivity of Ultrathin Oxide Films. Catalysis Letters 2018, 148 (9) , 2627-2635. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10562-018-2499-9
  61. Natalia Michalak, Zygmunt Miłosz, Gina Peschel, Mauricio Prieto, Feng Xiong, Paweł Wojciechowski, Thomas Schmidt, Mikołaj Lewandowski. Symmetry-Induced Structuring of Ultrathin FeO and Fe3O4 Films on Pt(111) and Ru(0001). Nanomaterials 2018, 8 (9) , 719. https://doi.org/10.3390/nano8090719
  62. Ke Zhang, Linfei Li, Shamil Shaikhutdinov, Hans‐Joachim Freund. Carbon Monoxide Oxidation on Metal‐Supported Monolayer Oxide Films: Establishing Which Interface is Active. Angewandte Chemie 2018, 130 (5) , 1275-1279. https://doi.org/10.1002/ange.201710934
  63. Ke Zhang, Linfei Li, Shamil Shaikhutdinov, Hans‐Joachim Freund. Carbon Monoxide Oxidation on Metal‐Supported Monolayer Oxide Films: Establishing Which Interface is Active. Angewandte Chemie International Edition 2018, 57 (5) , 1261-1265. https://doi.org/10.1002/anie.201710934
  64. P. Luches. Ultrathin Transition Metal Oxide Films. 2018, 388-397. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-409547-2.12869-0
  65. Jakob Fester, Michal Bajdich, Alex S. Walton, Z. Sun, Philipp N. Plessow, Aleksandra Vojvodic, Jeppe V. Lauritsen. Comparative Analysis of Cobalt Oxide Nanoisland Stability and Edge Structures on Three Related Noble Metal Surfaces: Au(111), Pt(111) and Ag(111). Topics in Catalysis 2017, 60 (6-7) , 503-512. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11244-016-0708-6
  66. M. Shipilin, E. Lundgren, J. Gustafson, C. Zhang, F. Bertram, C. Nicklin, C. J. Heard, H. Grönbeck, F. Zhang, J. Choi, V. Mehar, J. F. Weaver, L. R. Merte. Fe Oxides on Ag Surfaces: Structure and Reactivity. Topics in Catalysis 2017, 60 (6-7) , 492-502. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11244-016-0714-8
  67. J. Fester, M. García-Melchor, A. S. Walton, M. Bajdich, Z. Li, L. Lammich, A. Vojvodic, J. V. Lauritsen. Edge reactivity and water-assisted dissociation on cobalt oxide nanoislands. Nature Communications 2017, 8 (1) https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms14169
  68. Yun Liu, Fan Yang, Yi Zhang, Jianping Xiao, Liang Yu, Qingfei Liu, Yanxiao Ning, Zhiwen Zhou, Hao Chen, Wugen Huang, Ping Liu, Xinhe Bao. Enhanced oxidation resistance of active nanostructures via dynamic size effect. Nature Communications 2017, 8 (1) https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms14459
  69. Xuefei Weng, Ke Zhang, Qiushi Pan, Yulia Martynova, Shamil Shaikhutdinov, Hans‐Joachim Freund. Support Effects on CO Oxidation on Metal‐supported Ultrathin FeO(1 1 1) Films. ChemCatChem 2017, 9 (4) , 705-712. https://doi.org/10.1002/cctc.201601447
  70. Jakob Fester, Alex Walton, Zheshen Li, Jeppe V. Lauritsen. Gold-supported two-dimensional cobalt oxyhydroxide (CoOOH) and multilayer cobalt oxide islands. Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics 2017, 19 (3) , 2425-2433. https://doi.org/10.1039/C6CP07901F
  71. Yang Lou, Jingyue Liu. A highly active Pt–Fe/γ-Al 2 O 3 catalyst for preferential oxidation of CO in excess of H 2 with a wide operation temperature window. Chemical Communications 2017, 53 (64) , 9020-9023. https://doi.org/10.1039/C7CC03787B
  72. Lindsay R. Merte, Yunhai Bai, Helene Zeuthen, Guowen Peng, Lutz Lammich, Flemming Besenbacher, Manos Mavrikakis, Stefan Wendt. Identification of O-rich structures on platinum(111)-supported ultrathin iron oxide films. Surface Science 2016, 652 , 261-268. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.susc.2015.12.031
  73. Lindsay R. Merte, Christopher J. Heard, Feng Zhang, Juhee Choi, Mikhail Shipilin, Johan Gustafson, Jason F. Weaver, Henrik Grönbeck, Edvin Lundgren. Tuning the Reactivity of Ultrathin Oxides: NO Adsorption on Monolayer FeO(111). Angewandte Chemie 2016, 128 (32) , 9413-9417. https://doi.org/10.1002/ange.201601647
  74. Lindsay R. Merte, Christopher J. Heard, Feng Zhang, Juhee Choi, Mikhail Shipilin, Johan Gustafson, Jason F. Weaver, Henrik Grönbeck, Edvin Lundgren. Tuning the Reactivity of Ultrathin Oxides: NO Adsorption on Monolayer FeO(111). Angewandte Chemie International Edition 2016, 55 (32) , 9267-9271. https://doi.org/10.1002/anie.201601647
  75. Niclas Johansson, Lindsay R. Merte, Elin Grånäs, Stefan Wendt, Jesper N. Andersen, Joachim Schnadt, Jan Knudsen. Oxidation of Ultrathin FeO(111) Grown on Pt(111): Spectroscopic Evidence for Hydroxylation. Topics in Catalysis 2016, 59 (5-7) , 506-515. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11244-015-0521-7
  76. Gareth S. Parkinson. Iron oxide surfaces. Surface Science Reports 2016, 71 (1) , 272-365. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surfrep.2016.02.001
  77. D. Kuhness, S. Pomp, V. Mankad, G. Barcaro, L. Sementa, A. Fortunelli, F.P. Netzer, S. Surnev. Two-dimensional iron oxide bi-and trilayer structures on Pd(100). Surface Science 2016, 645 , 13-22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.susc.2015.10.032
  78. Claudine Noguera, Jacek Goniakowski. Electrostatics and Polarity in 2D Oxides. 2016, 201-231. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-28332-6_7
  79. Qiushi Pan, Xuefei Weng, Mingshu Chen, Livia Giordano, Gianfranco Pacchioni, Claudine Noguera, Jacek Goniakowski, Shamil Shaikhutdinov, Hans‐Joachim Freund. Enhanced CO Oxidation on the Oxide/Metal Interface: From Ultra‐High Vacuum to Near‐Atmospheric Pressures. ChemCatChem 2015, 7 (17) , 2620-2627. https://doi.org/10.1002/cctc.201500394
  80. M. Cattelan, G. W. Peng, E. Cavaliere, L. Artiglia, A. Barinov, L. T. Roling, M. Favaro, I. Píš, S. Nappini, E. Magnano, F. Bondino, L. Gavioli, S. Agnoli, M. Mavrikakis, G. Granozzi. The nature of the Fe–graphene interface at the nanometer level. Nanoscale 2015, 7 (6) , 2450-2460. https://doi.org/10.1039/C4NR04956J
  81. Stefano Prada, Livia Giordano, Gianfranco Pacchioni, Claudine Noguera, Jacek Goniakowski. Properties of Pt-supported iron oxide ultra-thin films: Similarity of Hubbard-corrected and hybrid density functional theory description. The Journal of Chemical Physics 2014, 141 (14) https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4897196
  82. Livia Giordano, Gianfranco Pacchioni, Claudine Noguera, Jacek Goniakowski. Identification of Active Sites in a Realistic Model of Strong Metal–Support Interaction Catalysts: The Case of Platinum (1 1 1)‐Supported Iron Oxide Film. ChemCatChem 2014, 6 (1) , 185-190. https://doi.org/10.1002/cctc.201300642
  83. Yun Zhao, Guangxu Chen, Nanfeng Zheng, Gang Fu. Mechanisms for CO oxidation on Fe( iii )–OH–Pt interface: a DFT study. Faraday Discuss. 2014, 176 , 381-392. https://doi.org/10.1039/C4FD00144C
  84. Hans-Joachim Freund, Markus Heyde, Niklas Nilius, Swetlana Schauermann, Shamil Shaikhutdinov, Martin Sterrer. Model studies on heterogeneous catalysts at the atomic scale: From supported metal particles to two-dimensional zeolites. Journal of Catalysis 2013, 308 , 154-167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcat.2013.06.007
  85. Runhai Ouyang, Wei-Xue Li. Adsorbed CO induced change of the adsorption site and charge of Au adatoms on FeO(111)/Ru(0001). Chinese Journal of Catalysis 2013, 34 (10) , 1820-1825. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1872-2067(12)60664-0
  86. Yulia Martynova, Shamil Shaikhutdinov, Hans‐Joachim Freund. CO Oxidation on Metal‐Supported Ultrathin Oxide Films: What Makes Them Active?. ChemCatChem 2013, 5 (8) , 2162-2166. https://doi.org/10.1002/cctc.201300212
  87. Livia Giordano, Gianfranco Pacchioni, Claudine Noguera, Jacek Goniakowski. Spectroscopic Evidences of Charge Transfer Phenomena and Stabilization of Unusual Phases at Iron Oxide Monolayers Grown on Pt(111). Topics in Catalysis 2013, 56 (12) , 1074-1081. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11244-013-0072-8
  88. Dapeng SUN, Weixue LI. A first-principles study of the structure, electronic properties, and oxygen binding of FeO/Pt(111) and FeO2/Pt(111). Chinese Journal of Catalysis 2013, 34 (5) , 973-978. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1872-2067(12)60580-4
  89. Qiang Fu, Yunxi Yao, Xiaoguang Guo, Mingming Wei, Yanxiao Ning, Hongyang Liu, Fan Yang, Zhi Liu, Xinhe Bao. Reversible structural transformation of FeOx nanostructures on Pt under cycling redox conditions and its effect on oxidation catalysis. Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics 2013, 15 (35) , 14708. https://doi.org/10.1039/c3cp52587b
  90. Hong Xu, Qiang Fu, Xiaoguang Guo, Xinhe Bao. Architecture of PtCo Bimetallic Catalysts for Catalytic CO Oxidation. ChemCatChem 2012, 4 (10) , 1645-1652. https://doi.org/10.1002/cctc.201200255
  91. S. Shaikhutdinov, H.-J. Freund. Ultrathin Oxide Films on Metal Supports: Structure-Reactivity Relations. Annual Review of Physical Chemistry 2012, 63 (1) , 619-633. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-physchem-032511-143737
  92. N. Spiridis, D. Wilgocka-Ślęzak, K. Freindl, B. Figarska, T. Giela, E. Młyńczak, B. Strzelczyk, M. Zając, J. Korecki. Growth and electronic and magnetic structure of iron oxide films on Pt(111). Physical Review B 2012, 85 (7) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.85.075436
  93. Yu Lei, Mikolaj Lewandowski, Ying‐Na Sun, Yuichi Fujimori, Yulija Martynova, Irene M. N. Groot, Randall J. Meyer, Livia Giordano, Gianfranco Pacchioni, Jacek Goniakowski, Claudine Noguera, Shamil Shaikhutdinov, Hans‐Joachim Freund. CO+NO versus CO+O 2 Reaction on Monolayer FeO(111) Films on Pt(111). ChemCatChem 2011, 3 (4) , 671-674. https://doi.org/10.1002/cctc.201000388
  94. J. Goniakowski, C. Noguera. Polarity at the nanoscale. Physical Review B 2011, 83 (11) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.83.115413

The Journal of Physical Chemistry C

Cite this: J. Phys. Chem. C 2010, 114, 49, 21504–21509
Click to copy citationCitation copied!
https://doi.org/10.1021/jp1070105
Published November 12, 2010
Copyright © 2010 American Chemical Society

Article Views

3382

Altmetric

-

Citations

Learn about these metrics

Article Views are the COUNTER-compliant sum of full text article downloads since November 2008 (both PDF and HTML) across all institutions and individuals. These metrics are regularly updated to reflect usage leading up to the last few days.

Citations are the number of other articles citing this article, calculated by Crossref and updated daily. Find more information about Crossref citation counts.

The Altmetric Attention Score is a quantitative measure of the attention that a research article has received online. Clicking on the donut icon will load a page at altmetric.com with additional details about the score and the social media presence for the given article. Find more information on the Altmetric Attention Score and how the score is calculated.

  • Abstract

    Figure 1

    Figure 1. STM images of the FeO film before (a) and after (b) exposure to 20 mbar of O2 at 470 K for 10 min. Image size 150 nm ×150 nm, tunneling bias and current are 0.5 V and 0.7 nA (a), and 1 V and 0.7 nA (b), respectively. The insets show the corresponding LEED patterns at 60 eV. Randomly dispersed bright protrusions on these images are assigned to contaminations (primarily, carbon as judged by AES).

    Figure 2

    Figure 2. (a) 50 nm ×50 nm STM image of the FeO film exposed to 14 mbar of O2 at 450 K for 10 min. The inset zooms in the (√3 × √3)R30° structure with respect to pristine FeO, which is more clearly observed in the image in part b, presented in the differentiated contrast, where both structures are resolved on the sample oxidized in 0.5 mbar for 10 min at 350 K. The unit cells are indicated. Tunneling bias and current are 0.25 V, 0.7 nA (a); 1.0 V, 0.7 nA (b); 0.1 V, 0.7 nA (inset), respectively.

    Figure 3

    Figure 3. Oxidation-induced change of Gibbs free energy ΔG (eV) of the FeO/Pt(111) film as a function of oxygen chemical potential (eV), for the three high-symmetry regions of the Moiré cell. Each line represents the most stable structure for a given stoichiometry. The bold lines and the background colors represent the most stable structure for a given oxygen chemical potential.

    Figure 4

    Figure 4. Top and lateral views of the two quasidegenerated structures of the FeO2 trilayer: planar (a) and buckled (b). Platinum atoms are displayed as large (gray) spheres, oxygen atoms as intermediate size (red) spheres, and iron atoms as small (blue) spheres. Darker spheres represent oxygen and iron atoms in the topmost layer.

    Figure 5

    Figure 5. Densities of states of the two quasidegenerated structures of the FeO2 trilayer: planar (left) and buckled (right). The three black lines (solid, dashed, and dashed−dotted) represent the projection on the three inequivalent iron atoms in the unit cell. For the buckled structure, full black line corresponds to the 3-fold coordinated Fe.

    Figure 6

    Figure 6. Simulated STM images for the two quasidegenerated structures of the FeO2 trilayer: planar (a) and buckled (b). Image size = 25 Å × 25 Å, Vbias = 1.0 V, and electron charge isodensity = 1 × 10−5 e/Å3. Experimental STM image (c) showing the (√3 × √3)R30° structure of an oxygen-rich island. Size 25 Å × 25 Å, bias 1 V, and current 0.7 nA.

  • References


    This article references 41 other publications.

    1. 1
      Chambers, S. A.; Droubay, T. C.; Wang, C. M.; Rosso, K. N.; Heald, S. M.; Schwartz, D. A.; Kittilstveld, K. R.; Gamelin, D. R. Mater. Today 2006, 9, 28
    2. 2
      Parkin, S. S. P.; Kaiser, C.; Panchula, A.; Rice, P. M.; Hughes, B.; Samant, M.; Yang, S.-H. Nat. Mater. 2004, 3, 862
    3. 3
      Motoyama, Y.; Matsuzaki, H.; Murakami, H. IEEE Trans. Electron Devices 2001, 48, 1568
    4. 4
      Freund, H- J.; Pacchioni, G. Chem. Soc. Rev. 2008, 37, 2224
    5. 5
      Weber, L. F. IEEE Trans. Plasma Science 2006, 34, 268
    6. 6
      Matulevich, Y. T.; Vink, T. J.; Zeijlmans van Emmichoven, P. A. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2002, 89, 167601
    7. 7
      Nilius, N. Surf. Sci. Rep. 2009, 64, 595
    8. 8
      Goniakowski, J.; Giordano, L.; Noguera, C. Phys. Rev. B 2010, 81, 205404
    9. 9
      Giordano, L.; Cinquini, F.; Pacchioni, G. Phys. Rev. B 2006, 73045414
    10. 10
      Prada, S.; Martinez, U.; Pacchioni, G. Phys. Rev. B 2008, 78, 235423
    11. 11
      Goniakowski, J.; Noguera, C. Phys. Rev. B 2009, 79, 155433
    12. 12
      Netzer, F. P.; Allegretti, F.; Surnev, S. J. Vac. Sci. Technol., B 2010, 28, 1
    13. 13
      Netzer, F. P. Surf. Sci. 2010, 604, 485
    14. 14
      Pacchioni, G.; Giordano, L.; Baistrocchi, M. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2005, 94, 226104
    15. 15
      Sterrer, M.; Risse, T.; Martinez Pozzoni, U.; Giordano, L.; Heyde, M.; Rust, H.-P.; Pacchioni, G.; Freund, H.-J. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2007, 98, 096107
    16. 16
      Frondelius, P.; Hellman, A.; Honkala, K.; Häkkinen, H.; Grönbeck, H. Phys. Rev. B 2008, 78085426
    17. 17
      Giordano, L.; Pacchioni, G.; Goniakowski, J.; Nilius, N.; Rienks, E. D. L.; Freund, H.-J. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2008, 101026102
    18. 18
      Goniakowski, J.; Noguera, C.; Giordano, L.; Pacchioni, G. Phys. Rev. B 2009, 80, 125403
    19. 19
      Grönbeck, H. J. Phys. Chem. B 2006, 110, 11977
    20. 20
      Hellman, A.; Klacar, S.; Grönbeck, H. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2009, 131, 16636
    21. 21
      Sun, Y.-N.; Qin, Z.-H.; Lewandowski, M.; Carrasco, E.; Sterrer, M.; Shaikhutdinov, S.; Freund, H.-J. J. Catal. 2009, 266, 359
    22. 22
      Sun, Y.-N.; Giordano, L.; Goniakowski, J.; Lewandowski, M.; Qin, Z.-H.; Noguera, C.; Shaikhutdinov, S.; Pacchioni, G.; Freund, H.-J. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 2010, 49, 1
    23. 23
      Shaikhutdinov, S.; Weiss, W. Surf. Sci. 1999, 432, L627
    24. 24
      Lemire, C.; Bertarione, S.; Zecchina, A.; Scarano, D.; Chaka, A.; Shaikhutdinov, S.; Freund, H.-J. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2005, 94, 166101
    25. 25
      Giordano, L.; Pacchioni, G.; Goniakowski, J.; Nilius, N.; Rienks, E. D. L.; Freund, H.-J. Phys. Rev. B 2007, 76075416
    26. 26
      Dudarev, S. L.; Botton, G. A.; Savrasov, S. Y.; Humphreys, C. J.; Sutton, A. P. Phys. Rev. B 1998, 57, 1505
    27. 27
      Kresse, G.; Hafner, J. Phys. Rev. B 1993, 47, R558
    28. 28
      Kresse, G.; Furthmüller, J. Phys. Rev. B 1996, 54, 11169
    29. 29
      Perdew, J. P.; Chevary, J. A.; Vosko, S. H.; Jackson, K. A.; Pederson, M. R.; Singh, D. J.; Fiolhais, C. Phys. Rev. B 1992, 46, 6671
    30. 30
      Blöchl, P. E. Phys Rev. B 1994, 50, 17953
    31. 31
      Bengone, O.; Alouani, M.; Blöchl, P. E.; Hugel, J. Phys Rev. B 2000, 62, 16392
    32. 32
      Vurens, G. H.; Salmeron, M.; Somorjai, G. A. Surf. Sci. 1988, 201, 129
    33. 33
      Kim, Y. J.; Westphal, C.; Ynzunza, R. X.; Galloway, H. C.; Salmeron, M.; Van Hove, M. A.; Fadley, C. S. Phys. Rev. B 1997, 55, R13448
    34. 34
      Ritter, M.; Ranke, W.; Weiss, W. Phys. Rev. B 1998, 57, 7240
    35. 35
      Galloway, H. G.; Sautet, P.; Salmeron, M. Phys. Rev. B 1996, 54, R11145
    36. 36
      Merte, L. R.; Knudsen, J.; Grabow, L. C.; Vang, R. T.; Lægsgaard, E.; Mavrikakis, M.; Besenbacher, F. Surf. Sci. 2009, 603, L15
    37. 37
      Bader, R. F. W. Chem. Rev. 1991, 91, 893
    38. 38
      Henkelman, G.; Arnaldsson, A.; Jónsson, H. Comput. Mater. Sci. 2006, 36, 254
      Tang, W.; Sanville, E.; Henkelman, G. J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 2009, 21, 084204
    39. 39
      Reuter, K.; Scheffler, M. Phys. Rev. B 2001, 65035406
    40. 40
      Zhang, W.; Li, Z.; Luo, Y.; Yang, J. J. Phys. Chem. C 2009, 113, 8302
    41. 41
      Knudsen, J.; Merte, L. R.; Grabow, L. C.; Eichhorn, F. M.; Porsgaard, S.; Zeuthen, H.; Vang, R. T.; Lægsgaard, E.; Mavrikakis, M.; Besenbacher, F. Surf. Sci. 2010, 604, 11