Topics in Catalysis

, Volume 59, Issue 17–18, pp 1580–1588 | Cite as

On the Structure Sensitivity of Formic Acid Decomposition on Cu Catalysts

OriginalPaper

Abstract

Catalytic decomposition of formic acid (HCOOH) has attracted substantial attention since HCOOH is a major by-product in biomass reforming, a promising hydrogen carrier, and also a potential low temperature fuel cell feed. Despite the abundance of experimental studies for vapor-phase HCOOH decomposition on Cu catalysts, the reaction mechanism and its structure sensitivity is still under debate. In this work, self-consistent, periodic density functional theory calculations were performed on three model surfaces of copper—Cu(111), Cu(100) and Cu(211), and both the HCOO (formate)-mediated and COOH (carboxyl)-mediated pathways were investigated for HCOOH decomposition. The energetics of both pathways suggest that the HCOO-mediated route is more favorable than the COOH-mediated route on all three surfaces, and that HCOOH decomposition proceeds through two consecutive dehydrogenation steps via the HCOO intermediate followed by the recombinative desorption of H2. On all three surfaces, HCOO dehydrogenation is the likely rate determining step since it has the highest transition state energy and also the highest activation energy among the three catalytic steps in the HCOO pathway. The reaction is structure sensitive on Cu catalysts since the examined three Cu facets have dramatically different binding strengths for the key intermediate HCOO and varied barriers for the likely rate determining step—HCOO dehydrogenation. Cu(100) and Cu(211) bind HCOO much more strongly than Cu(111), and they are also characterized by potential energy surfaces that are lower in energy than that for the Cu(111) facet. Coadsorbed HCOO and H represents the most stable state along the reaction coordinate, indicating that, under reaction conditions, there might be a substantial surface coverage of the HCOO intermediate, especially at under-coordinated step, corner or defect sites. Therefore, under reaction conditions, HCOOH decomposition is predicted to occur most readily on the terrace sites of Cu nanoparticles. As a result, we hereby present an example of a fundamentally structure-sensitive reaction, which may present itself as structure-insensitive in typical varied particle-size experiments.

Keywords

HCOOH decomposition Structure sensitivity DFT Catalysis Copper 

1 Introduction

Decomposition of formic acid (HCOOH) is an important process since HCOOH is a by-product produced in large quantities in the formation of levulinic acid from hydroxyl-methyl-furfural (HMF) during the production of fuels from biomass resources [1]. The in situ catalytic dehydrogenation of HCOOH may provide hydrogen, required in hydrogenating levulinic acid to gamma-valerolactone (GVL) [2]. GVL is a valuable platform molecule with potential of producing both renewable fuels and chemicals. Also, HCOOH may be used directly as a fuel in direct formic acid fuel cells [3, 4, 5, 6] or as a hydrogen carrier [7, 8, 9] with a closed carbon cycle for other hydrogenation reactions.

The vapor-phase decomposition of HCOOH has been widely used to test the catalytic properties of various metals [10, 11, 12, 13], metal oxides [14, 15, 16] and alloys since the 1960s as HCOOH is one of the simplest organic molecules and carboxylic acids. HCOOH can decompose on metal surfaces through dehydrogenation and/or dehydration processes: dehydrogenation leads to carbon dioxide (CO2) and hydrogen (H2) products, while dehydration leads to production of water (H2O) and carbon monoxide (CO), the latter being a poisoning species for noble metal catalysts such as Pt and Pd. The two decomposition pathways could be linked by a water gas shift (WGS) reaction. Cu catalysts have been reported to selectively decompose HCOOH via dehydrogenation to CO2 and H2 [17], accompanied by lack of CO in the products, which suggests that there is no WGS involvement in this chemistry. Further, temperature programmed reaction studies of HCOOH on various single crystal surfaces of Cu clearly rule out the occurrence of the WGS reaction during HCOOH decomposition on Cu catalysts [18, 19, 20, 21]. Spectroscopic studies of this reaction on Cu catalysts show the presence of a stable formate (HCOO) intermediate [21] on the catalyst surface that results from dissociation of the acidic hydrogen from HCOOH. Formate has also been proposed as a surface intermediate in several key catalytic reactions, including the WGS reaction [22, 23] and methanol synthesis [24].

Despite the large amount of experimental work concerning HCOOH decomposition on Cu catalysts, there is still an ongoing debate on the reaction mechanism and its structure sensitivity. Iglesia and Boudart [17] measured similar activation energies (94.5–100 kJ/mol) for HCOOH decomposition on Cu catalysts supported by various materials. These values are also similar to those measured on different preferentially oriented and polycrystalline Cu catalysts by other researchers [25, 26, 27]. Based on these findings, together with the observed insensitivity of the turnover rates to the particle size and to the nature of the catalyst support, they argued that HCOOH decomposition on Cu was structure insensitive. In contrast, Nakamura and coworkers [28] claimed that HCOOH decomposition on Cu catalysts was structure sensitive with dramatically different activation energies being observed for dehydrogenation of HCOO on Cu(111) and Cu(110), although formate formation from CO2 was structure insensitive when comparing these two Cu surfaces. Hu and Boyd [29] also found a strong dependence of the adsorption energy of HCOO on the surface structure of Cu; the adsorption energy of HCOO decreases in the order Cu(110) > Cu(100) > Cu(111). Bowker and other researchers [20, 30] reported that HCOOH deprotonates to HCOO on the clean Cu(110) and Cu(100) surfaces, but not on the clean Cu(111) surface where the presence of atomic oxygen is critical for formate to be formed.

A first-principles investigation of vapor-phase HCOOH decomposition on different Cu facets can help to elucidate the reaction mechanism as well as to obtain a better understanding of the behavior of Cu catalysts in terms of activity and structure sensitivity. In contrast to the abundant experimental studies, there is a lack of systematic theoretical studies for HCOOH decomposition on Cu surfaces. However, several elementary steps involved in the process are common to methanol synthesis and WGS reactions and have been investigated theoretically. In terms of shared reaction intermediates, prior work combining density functional theory (DFT) calculations, experimental kinetic studies, and microkinetic modeling showed that HCOO a formed on the surface of Cu [22] and Pt [23] catalysts during the WGS reaction but this HCOO intermediate is only a spectator species, whereas the reaction proceeds via a carboxyl (COOH)-mediated pathway. COOH is also a possible intermediate in the course of the HCOOH decomposition reaction through dissociation of the carbonic hydrogen from HCOOH. In a previous study of CO/CO2 hydrogenation to methanol on Cu, Grabow and Mavrikakis [31] found that HCOOH is a relevant reactive intermediate and it prefers to decompose through the HCOO-mediated route on Cu(111). In this work, density functional theory (DFT) calculations were performed on two additional Cu model surfaces [Cu(100) and Cu(211)], exploring both COOH- and HCOO-mediated pathways and comparing with the previous results on Cu(111) to elucidate the reaction mechanism and its structure sensitivity nature on these Cu surfaces.

2 Computational Methods

Periodic, self-consistent density functional theory calculations were performed with PW91-GGA [32, 33] exchange correlation functional using the DACAPO [34, 35] total energy code. Results on Cu(111) surface are taken from a previous work [31]. The methods used are restated here for clarity. The Cu(111) surface was modeled by a three-layer slab using a (3 × 3) unit cell, repeated in a super cell geometry with five equivalent layers of vacuum (~10.6 Å) between two successive metal slabs. Since the surface relaxation effects have been shown to be negligible for similar systems [36, 37], Cu atoms on Cu(111) surface were fixed in their bulk truncated positions during the calculation. The Cu(100) surface was modeled by a four-layer slab using a (3 × 3) unit cell with 11.0 Å of vacuum spacing separating the periodic slabs and the optimization was carried out by relaxing the top two layers. The Cu(211) slab was constructed using a (1 × 3) unit cell and consisted of nine Cu layers (having a terrace three atoms deep and three atoms wide). Successive slabs were separated by a vacuum equivalent to 12 Cu layers (~12.1 Å) and the top four layers of the slab were allowed to relax during the calculation. The surface Brillouin zone was sampled at 54 Chadi-Cohen [38] k-points for Cu(111) and using a (4 × 4 × 1) Monkhorst–Pack grid [39] for Cu(100) and Cu(211) surfaces. Ultrasoft Vanderbilt pseudopotentials [40] were utilized to describe core electron interactions, and the Kohn–Sham one-electron valence states were expanded on the basis of plane waves with kinetic energy below 25 Ry. The electron density was determined by iterative diagonalization of the Kohn–Sham Hamiltonian, Fermi population of the Kohn–Sham states (kBT = 0.1 eV), and the Pulay mixing of the resulting electronic density. [41] All total energies were extrapolated to kBT = 0 eV. Adsorption was permitted on only one of the two exposed surfaces, and the electrostatic potential [42] was adjusted accordingly. Structures were fully relaxed until the Hellmann–Feynman forces acting on the atoms were smaller than 0.05 eV/Å. We calculated a lattice constant of 3.66 Å for bulk Cu, in good agreement with the experimental value 3.61 Å [43].

Binding energy (BE) of a surface intermediate was calculated with respect to the clean slab and the corresponding adsorbate (intermediate) in the gas phase. All the BE values, activation energies and heats of reactions in this work were reported with zero point energy (ZPE) corrections that were calculated by assuming a quantum harmonic oscillator possessing the calculated vibrational frequencies. The vibrational frequencies were calculated by numerical differentiation of forces using a second-order finite difference approach with a step-size of 0.015 Å. [44] Binding energies, activation energies and reaction energies without ZPE corrections can be found in the Supplementary Material. All activation energy barriers and reaction energies reported were relative to the reactant and product states at infinite separation. Minimum energy paths and activation energy barriers for all elementary steps were calculated using the climbing image nudged elastic band method (CI-NEB) [45]. The minimum energy path for each elementary step was discretized by at least seven images, including the initial and final state. Convergence of the NEB calculations was reached when the magnitude of the force on all images was less than 0.1 eV/Å, except for the hydrogen recombination reaction, where a stricter convergence criterion (0.05 eV/Å) was used. The transition states (TS) were confirmed by vibrational frequency calculations yielding a single imaginary frequency along the reaction coordinate.

3 Results and Discussion

In a previous publication [46], a comprehensive reaction network consisting of seventeen elementary steps was proposed for HCOOH decomposition on Au catalysts. Three pathways were explored: HCOO pathway, COOH pathway and HCO (formyl) pathway; see Scheme 1. The HCO intermediate is obtained from dehydroxylation of HCOOH, which is found to have a significantly higher activation energy compared with the formation of the other two intermediates HCOO and COOH on low-index Au surfaces. The same conclusion can also be reached for Cu(111), based on the results from our previous work [31] on methanol synthesis. For this reason, this HCO pathway was neglected in the present study, and a reduced reaction network with five intermediates (Table 1) and seven key elementary steps (Table 2) was explored on Cu(100) and Cu(211) surfaces. For the Cu(111) surface, BE values of intermediates, activation energies and reaction energies of elementary steps have been reported in the previous methanol synthesis work [31] and were corrected using the ZPE in this study—summarized in Tables 1 and 2 together with the newly calculated results on Cu(100) and Cu(211).
Scheme 1

Reaction pathways of HCOOH decomposition on Cu catalysts. Red arrows represent the HCOO pathway; green arrows represent the COOH pathway; blue arrow represents the HCO pathway. The shared elementary step (recombinative desorption of H2) for HCOO and COOH pathways is indicated by the black arrow

Table 1

ZPE-corrected binding energies (BEs) on clean Cu(111), Cu(100) and Cu(211) facets

Species

Cu(111)a

Cu(100)

Cu(211)

Adsorption site

BE (eV)

Adsorption site

BE (eV)

Adsorption site

BE (eV)

H

Fcc

−2.26

Hollow

−2.27

Fcc, terrace

−2.38

CO2

Physisorbed

−0.06

Physisorbed

−0.05

Physisorbed

−0.09

HCOO

Top–top

−2.57

Top–top

−2.95

Top–top, edge

−3.17

COOH

Top–top

−1.44

Bridge–bridge

−1.74

Top–top, edge

−1.90

HCOOH

Top

−0.16

Top

−0.32

Top, edge

−0.47

aBEs on Cu(111) are taken from [31], but were corrected with ZPEs here

Table 2

ZPE-corrected reaction energies (∆E) and activation energies (Ea) on clean Cu(111), Cu(100) and Cu(211) facets

No.

Reaction

Cu(111)a

Cu(100)

Cu(211)

∆E (eV)

Ea (eV)

∆E (eV)

Ea (eV)

∆E (eV)

Ea (eV)

1

HCOOH(g) + * ↔ HCOOH*

−0.16

−0.32

−0.47

2

HCOOH* + 2* ↔ HCOO** + H*

−0.33

0.48

−0.57

0.42

−0.74

0.41

3

HCOOH* + 2* ↔ COOH** + H*

0.49

1.13

0.35

0.94

0.22

1.06

4

HCOO** ↔ CO2* + H*

0.15

0.95

0.52

1.21

0.60

1.47

5

COOH** ↔ CO2* + H*

−0.68

0.98

−0.39

1.12

−0.36

1.08

6

2H* ↔ H2(g) + 2*

0.23

0.74

0.25

0.72

0.47

0.97

7

CO2* ↔ CO2(g) + *

0.06

0.05

0.09

aReaction energies and activation energies on Cu(111) are taken from [31], but were corrected with ZPEs here

3.1 Structure and Adsorption Energetics of Reaction Intermediates

The most stable adsorption configurations of the five intermediates studied on the three Cu facets are shown in Fig. 1. Atomic hydrogen preferentially binds at the three fold fcc site of Cu(111) with a binding energy of −2.26 eV. Similar binding energy of H (−2.27 eV) is found on Cu(100) at its most favorable fourfold hollow site. The threefold fcc site, closest to the step edge, is the preferred adsorption site for H on Cu(211); the binding strength is slightly stronger than that on Cu(111) and Cu(100) at −2.38 eV. Carbon dioxide exhibits no site preference on all three Cu surfaces and retains its gas-phase linear geometry with weak binding energies (weaker than −0.1 eV), suggesting only physisorption on Cu.
Fig. 1

Most stable adsorption configurations of reaction intermediates on clean Cu(111) [31], Cu(100) and Cu(211) facets. For each intermediate, both cross-sectional (left) and top (right) views are shown. Cu, C, O and H atoms are represented by pink, grey, red and blue spheres

Carboxyl binds to two Cu atoms on the Cu(111) surface through its C and O atoms with the C–O bond almost parallel to the surface and O–H bond pointing towards the surface; the BE is calculated to be −1.44 eV. A similar adsorption configuration is found on the Cu(211) surface at the step edge. On Cu(100), however, COOH binds to two opposite bridge sites in a square encompassing a hollow site. COOH binds more strongly on Cu(100) and Cu(211) than on Cu(111) by 0.30 and 0.46 eV, respectively. On all three surfaces, formate binds in a bidentate configuration with both of its O atoms bound to adjacent top sites; step-edge top sites are preferred for HCOO on Cu(211). The calculated BEs of HCOO are −2.57, −2.95, and −3.17 eV on Cu(111), Cu(100), and Cu(211), respectively. The most stable configuration for formic acid binds to the top site on all three surfaces through its O atom with the C–H bond pointing away from the surface, and the O–H bond pointing towards the surface. On Cu(211), HCOOH binds to the top site on the step edge and the O–H bond is pointing towards the step foot atoms on the terrace. The binding strength of HCOOH increases in the order Cu(111) < Cu(100) < Cu(211), with BE values of −0.16, −0.32, and −0.47 eV on the three Cu surfaces respectively.

With the exception of CO2, which is physisorbed on all three surfaces, all intermediates prefer to bind to sites on the step edge of Cu(211). The magnitudes of the BEs of reaction intermediates on the three Cu surfaces are observed to decrease in the order Cu(211) > Cu(100) > Cu(111), in agreement with the general notion that adsorbates tend to exhibit stronger binding to more open facets.

3.2 Elementary Steps: Reaction Energies and Activation Energies

In this section, we will describe the characteristics of the minimum energy path identified for each of the elementary steps considered in this study. The configurations of the transition states in each minimum energy path are shown in Fig. 2, and the respective reaction energies and activation energies are summarized in Table 2. HCO formation from dehydroxylation of HCOOH on Cu(111) has a reaction energy of 1.10 eV [31] and an activation energy of 1.52 eV [31], which is more than three times higher than the activation energy of HCOO formation from HCOOH and 0.39 eV higher than COOH formation from HCOOH on Cu(111). Thus HCOOH is not likely to decompose through the HCO intermediate. Furthermore, the decomposition of HCO would lead to CO production while there is experimental evidence [17] that CO2 and H2 are the only products of HCOOH decomposition on Cu catalysts. Therefore, HCO pathway may not contribute to the overall reaction and was not studied on Cu(100) and Cu(211).
Fig. 2

Cross-sectional (left) and top (right) views of the transition state configurations for the elementary steps on Cu(111), Cu(100) and Cu(211) surfaces. Cu, C, O and H atoms site are represented by pink, grey, red and blue spheres

3.2.1 HCOOH* + 2* → HCOO** + H*

HCOOH decomposition to HCOO proceeds from the most stable configuration of HCOOH with O–H bond-breaking taking place over a bridge site on Cu(111) and Cu(100), and an off-top site on the step edge of the Cu(211) surface. This reaction is exothermic on all three Cu surfaces with reaction energies −0.33, −0.57 and −0.74 eV, increasing in magnitude in the order Cu(111) < Cu(100) < Cu(211), due to the much stronger binding of reaction product HCOO on the more open facets. Similar activation energies in the range of 0.41–0.48 eV, however, are found on all three Cu surfaces, indicating a rather weak structure-sensitivity of the O–H activation in HCOOH on Cu, further evidenced by the similar configurations of the transition states on the three surfaces.

3.2.2 HCOOH* + 2* → COOH** + H*

C–H bond-breaking in HCOOH, yielding adsorbed COOH and atomic hydrogen, involves a rotation of the reactant molecule such that the C-H bond is pointing towards the surface. At the transition state, C–H bond scission occurs over a top site where the product COOH readily adsorbs through its C atom after the reaction and the produced H atom adsorbs on the nearest fcc or bridge sites on Cu(111) and Cu(100), respectively. On the Cu(211) surface, the C-H bond is broken over the top site on the step edge; after the reaction, COOH adsorbs on two adjacent top sites of the step edge while H adsorbs on the hollow site at the step. In contrast to the HCOOH decomposition to HCOO, COOH formation from HCOOH is an endothermic reaction on all three surfaces, presumably because of the higher energy of adsorbed COOH than adsorbed HCOO. The activation energy of this reaction step varies slightly across the three surfaces, being 1.13, 0.94 and 1.06 eV on Cu(111), Cu(100) and Cu(211), respectively. As COOH formation has a much higher (more than 0.5 eV higher) activation energy than HCOO formation from HCOOH, Cu will preferentially break the O–H bond in HCOOH to form HCOO on all three surfaces.

3.2.3 HCOO** → CO2* + H*

Similar to the C–H scission in HCOOH, C-H bond scission in HCOO also involves a rotation of the molecule such that the C–H bond points towards the surface. One Cu–O bond is already broken at the transition state, with the C-H bond-breaking taking place over a bridge site on Cu(111) and Cu(100), and the bridge site on the step of Cu(211). This reaction is endothermic on all three surfaces with reaction energies being 0.15, 0.52 and 0.60 eV on Cu(111), Cu(100) and Cu(211), respectively. Both reaction energy (all, endothermic) and activation energy increase in the order Cu(111) < Cu(100) < Cu(211), indicating that this is a structure sensitive reaction on Cu surfaces. There is an increase of ~0.26 eV in the activation energy of HCOO decomposition each time we go from Cu(111) (0.95 eV) to Cu(100) (1.21 eV) and to Cu(211) (1.47 eV), presumably because of the stronger binding of HCOO, the reactant, on the more open facets. The structure-sensitive character found for this reaction step is in agreement with Nakamura’s findings that HCOO dehydrogenation has notably different activation energies on Cu(111) and Cu(110) [28]. On Cu(111), the activation energy of HCOO decomposition measured by Nakamura is 108 kJ/mol [28] (~1.12 eV), comparable to our calculated value 0.95 eV. The activation energy of this step is much higher than that of the HCOO formation, indicating HCOO decomposition is probably the rate limiting step in the HCOO-mediated pathway for HCOOH decomposition.

3.2.4 COOH** → CO2* + H*

As the O–H bond in COOH points towards the surface in its lowest-energy configuration, COOH decomposition proceeds directly from the most stable configuration with the O–H bond-breaking taking place over the bridge site of all three Cu surfaces. This reaction is exothermic, and activation energy barriers are slightly different on the three surfaces, with values of 0.98, 1.12 and 1.08 eV on Cu(111), Cu(100) and Cu(211), respectively. The similar activation energies of this reaction on the three Cu surfaces are probably due to the similar transition states seen on these surfaces, as shown in Fig. 2. COOH decomposition has comparable barriers as HCOO decomposition on Cu(111) and Cu(100) surfaces while it is much easier than HCOO decomposition on Cu(211), 1.08 eV versus 1.47 eV, respectively.

3.2.5 H* + H* → H2(g) + 2*

H2 recombinative desorption starts with two H atoms adsorbed on adjacent fcc and hcp sites on the Cu(111) surface with H–H bond formation taking place over the bridge site, while the reaction starts with two H atoms adsorbed on two adjacent bridge sites on Cu(100) and Cu(211) with H–H bond formation over the off-top and top sites, respectively. Cu(111) and Cu(100) have similar activation energies, 0.74 and 0.72 eV, and reaction energies (0.23 and 0.25 eV on Cu(111) and Cu(100), respectively) for H2 recombination, while both energy values are higher on the Cu(211) surface (Ea = 0.97 eV; ∆E = 0.47 eV). This difference is entirely due to the difference in the binding strength of H, the reactant, on different surfaces, as the activation energy of the reverse reaction (H2 dissociation) is practically the same on all three surfaces at ca. 0.5 eV.

3.3 Potential Energy Surfaces (PES)

The thermochemistry and activation energy barriers of the elementary steps described in the previous sections were used to plot the potential energy surfaces (PESs) for the three Cu facets, see Fig. 3. The PESs shown in Fig. 3a–c compare the HCOO- and COOH-mediated pathways on the three Cu facets respectively. It is clear from the PESs that the HCOO-mediated pathway is more favorable than the COOH-mediated pathway for HCOOH decomposition on Cu(111), Cu(100) and Cu(211), due to the substantially lower TS energies in the HCOO-mediated path. Figure 3(d) compares the most favorable HCOO-mediated pathway on the three Cu facets. On all three Cu facets, HCOO decomposition has a higher TS energy and also a higher activation energy than HCOO formation from HCOOH in the HCOO-mediated pathway. Though HCOO decomposition has a similar TS energy to that for hydrogen recombination, its activation energy is much higher than hydrogen recombination (by ca. 0.2–0.5 eV). Thus, HCOO decomposition is likely to be the rate limiting step for HCOOH decomposition.
Fig. 3

PESs of HCOOH decomposition reaction via the HCOO- and COOH-mediated pathways on a Cu(111), b Cu(100), c Cu(211), and d a comparison of the most favorable HCOO-mediated pathway on all three facets of Cu

The PES of the HCOO-mediated pathway decreases in energy in the order Cu(111) > Cu(100) > Cu(211). For the HCOO-mediated pathway, Cu(100) and Cu(211) show similar TS energies (within ca. 0.2 eV) which are lower than that on Cu(111). Cu(211) binds intermediates more strongly than the Cu(100) surface, and accordingly shows lower energies for the adsorbed states and subsequently higher activation energy barriers than those on Cu(100). Since HCOO decomposition is likely the rate limiting step among the three catalytic steps, and Cu(211) has a similar TS energy for HCOO decomposition as on Cu(100) but much higher activation energy, it is likely that Cu(211) surface is less active than Cu(100) for HCOOH decomposition. On the PES, coadsorbed HCOO and H represents the most stable state, and the subsequent decomposition reaction of HCOO has the highest activation energy among the three catalytic steps. Therefore, these surfaces are likely to be partially covered by HCOO, especially on the Cu(100) and Cu(211) surfaces, which bind HCOO more strongly than Cu(111) by 0.38 and 0.60 eV, respectively. As a result, HCOOH decomposition may take place more readily on the terraces of the Cu catalysts, while the under-coordinated step sites and defect sites may be blocked by strongly adsorbed HCOO. Assuming that HCOO dehydrogenation is the rate limiting step and HCOO is the most abundant surface intermediate, a microkinetic analysis provided in the Supplementary Information rationalizes the rate expression which confirms the lower contributions from the less coordinated step/defect sites of Cu catalysts. The Cu catalysts used in Iglesia and Boudart’s study [17] contain relatively big nanoparticles with sizes 5–40 nm, within which range a small fraction of under-coordinated sites is expected and is potentially occupied by the HCOO intermediate; hence, the activity of Cu catalysts might come from the unoccupied terrace sites entirely. Accordingly, similar activation energies were observed for different particle-size catalysts. Their findings cannot differentiate the contributions from different types of sites (such as terrace, step, corner, defect sites) on Cu. To evaluate the contribution of under-coordinated sites to this chemistry, experiments should be conducted on Cu single crystals or smaller copper nanoparticles, where perimeter/corner/defect sites are present at a substantial percentage. It would also be necessary to substantiate these predictions from the DFT calculations using an experimentally validated full microkinetic model.

4 Conclusions

HCOOH decomposition was investigated using self-consistent, periodic DFT calculations on three Cu model surfaces—Cu(111), Cu(100) and Cu(211)—by exploring both HCOO-mediated and COOH-mediated routes. It is found that the HCOO-mediated route is energetically more favorable than the COOH-mediated route on all three Cu surfaces. For the HCOO-mediated route, HCOO decomposition is likely to be the rate determining step due to the fact that it has the highest TS energy as well as the highest activation energy barrier among the three catalytic steps. Cu(100) and Cu(211) show similar TS energies in the HCOO pathway, which are lower than those on Cu(111). While Cu(211) has similar TS energies as Cu(100), it binds the intermediates more strongly and has a higher activation energy for the likely rate limiting step (HCOO decomposition); hence, Cu(211) might be less active than the Cu(100) facet for HCOOH decomposition. Coadsorbed HCOO and H represents the most stable state on the PES, implying a surface partially covered with HCOO intermediate, especially at the under-coordinated step and defect sites. As a result, under realistic reaction conditions, HCOOH decomposition may be most facile on the terraces of the Cu catalysts and may show an invariance in turn-over-frequency as a function of nanoparticle size, as under-coordinated step/defect sites are likely poisoned by HCOO rendering them inactive. Yet, we showed here that HCOOH decomposition reaction on Cu surfaces is highly structure sensitive at the atomic scale level. We are currently exploring this reaction using a combined DFT, experiments and detailed microkinetic modeling approach to corroborate our tentative conclusions regarding the decreased, due to poisoning, importance of under-coordinated step or defect sites in HCOOH decomposition on Cu catalysts.

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)–Basic Energy Sciences (BES), Office of Chemical Sciences, grant DE-FG02-05ER15731. We thank Lars C. Grabow for performing the calculations on Cu(111), as reported originally in Ref. [31] and utilized here. Calculations were performed at supercomputing centers located at the Environmental Molecular Sciences Laboratory, which is sponsored by the DOE Office of Biological and Environmental Research at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory; Center for Nanoscale Materials at Argonne National Laboratory, supported by DOE contract DE-AC02-06CH11357; and National Energy Research Scientific Computing Center, supported by DOE contract DE-AC02-05CH11231. We thank Anthony Plauck, Luke Roling and Dr. Srinivas Rangarajan for carefully proofreading this manuscript.

Supplementary material

11244_2016_672_MOESM1_ESM.docx (38 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 39 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Alonso DM, Bond JQ, Dumesic JA (2010) Catalytic conversion of biomass to biofuels. Green Chem 12(9):1493–1513CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bozell JJ, Petersen GR (2010) Technology development for the production of biobased products from biorefinery carbohydrates-the US Department of Energy’s “Top 10” revisited. Green Chem 12(4):539–554CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Xingwen Y, Pickup PG (2011) Codeposited PtSb/C catalysts for direct formic acid fuel cells. J Power Sources 196(19):7951–7956CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Liu C, Chen M, Du C, Zhang J, Yin G, Shi P, Sun Y (2012) Durability of ordered mesoporous carbon supported Pt particles as catalysts for direct formic acid fuel cells. Int J Electrochem Sci 7(11):10592–10606Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Yinghui P, Ruiming Z, Blair SL (2009) Anode poisoning study in direct formic acid fuel cells. Electrochem Solid State Lett 12(3):B23–B26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Xingwen Y, Pickup PG (2008) Recent advances in direct formic acid fuel cells (DFAFC). J Power Sources 182(1):124–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Boddien A, Loges B, Junge H, Gaertner F, Noyes JR, Beller M (2009) Continuous hydrogen generation from formic acid: highly active and stable ruthenium catalysts. Adv Synth Catal 351(14–15):2517–2520CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fellay C, Yan N, Dyson PJ, Laurenczy G (2009) Selective formic acid decomposition for high-pressure hydrogen generation: a mechanistic study. Chem Eur J 15(15):3752–3760CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gan W, Dyson PJ, Laurenczy G (2009) Hydrogen storage and delivery: immobilization of a highly active homogeneous catalyst for the decomposition of formic acid to hydrogen and carbon dioxide. React Kinet Catal Lett 98(2):205–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Columbia MR, Thiel PA (1994) The interaction of formic-acid with transition metal surfaces, studied in ultrahigh vacuum. J Electroanal Chem 369(1–2):1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Madix RJ (1980) Surface reaction modifiers—general overview. Abstracts of Papers of the American Chemical Society 180 (Aug): 26Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Larson LA, Dickinson JT (1979) Decomposition of formic acid on Ru(1010). Surf Sci 84(1):17–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Solymosi F, Kiss J, Kovacs I (1987) Adsorption of HCOOH on Rh(111) and its reaction with preadsorbed oxygen. Surf Sci 192(1):47–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Senanayake SD, Mullins DR (2008) Redox pathways for HCOOH decomposition over CeO2 surfaces. J Phys Chem C 112(26):9744–9752CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kubota J, Bandara A, Wada A, Domen K, Hirose C (1996) IRAS study of formic acid decomposition on NiO(111)/Ni(111) surface: comparison of vacuum and catalytic conditions. Surf Sci 368:361–365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Dilara PA, Vohs JM (1993) TPD and HREELS investigation of the reaction of formic acid on ZrO2(100). J Phys Chem 97(49):12919–12923CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Iglesia E, Boudart M (1983) Decomposition of formic acid on copper, nickel, and copper–nickel alloys. 2. Catalytic and temperature-programmed decomposition of formic acid on Cu/SiO2, Cu/Al2O3, and Cu powder. J Catal 81(1):214–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bowker M, Madix RJ (1981) XPS, UPS and thermal desorption studies of the reactions of formaldehyde and formic acid with the Cu(110) surface. Surf Sci 102(2–3):542–565CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Marcinkowski MD, Murphy CJ, Liriano ML, Wasio NA, Lucci FR, Sykes ECH (2015) Microscopic view of the active sites for selective dehydrogenation of formic acid on Cu(111). ACS Catal 5(12):7371–7378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Youngs TGA, Haq S, Bowker M (2008) Formic acid adsorption and oxidation on Cu(110). Surf Sci 602(10):1775–1782CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bowker M, Haq S, Holroyd R, Parlett PM, Poulston S, Richardson N (1996) Spectroscopic and kinetic studies of formic acid adsorption on Cu(110). J Chem Soc Faraday Trans 92(23):4683–4686CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Gokhale AA, Dumesic JA, Mavrikakis M (2008) On the mechanism of low-temperature water gas shift reaction on copper. J Am Chem Soc 130(4):1402–1414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Grabow LC, Gokhale AA, Evans ST, Dumesic JA, Mavrikakis M (2008) Mechanism of the water gas shift reaction on Pt: first principles, experiments, and microkinetic modeling. J Phys Chem C 112(12):4608–4617CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Yang Y, Evans J, Rodriguez JA, White MG, Liu P (2010) Fundamental studies of methanol synthesis from CO2 hydrogenation on Cu(111), Cu clusters, and Cu/ZnO(000(1)over-bar). Phys Chem Chem Phys 12(33):9909–9917CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Quinn DF, Taylor D (1965) Decomposition of formic acid and methanol on copper–nickel alloys. J Chem Soc 5248–5251Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Rundell DN, Saltsburg HM, Smith WD (1980) the role of multiple gas-solid collisions in the catalytic decomposition of formic acid. Chem Eng Sci 35(5):1113–1119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Inglis HS, Taylor D (1969) Decomposition of formic acid on titanium, vanadium, chromium, manganese, iron, cobalt, nickel and copper. J Chem Soc Inorg Phys Theor 19:2985–2987CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Nakano H, Nakamura I, Fujitani T, Nakamura J (2001) Structure-dependent kinetics for synthesis and decomposition of formate species over Cu(111) and Cu(110) model catalysts. J Phys Chem B 105(7):1355–1365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Hu ZM, Boyd RJ (2000) Structure sensitivity and cluster size convergence for formate adsorption on copper surfaces: a DFT cluster model study. J Chem Phys 112(21):9562–9568CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Bowker M, Rowbotham E, Leibsle FM, Haq S (1996) The adsorption and decomposition of formic acid on Cu{110}. Surf Sci 349(2):97–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Grabow LC, Mavrikakis M (2011) Mechanism of methanol synthesis on Cu through CO2 and CO hydrogenation. ACS Catal 1(4):365–384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Perdew JP, Chevary JA, Vosko SH, Jackson KA, Pederson MR, Singh DJ, Fiolhais C (1992) Atoms, molecules, solids, and surfaces—application of the generalized gradient approximation for exchange and correlation. Phys Rev B 46(11):6671–6687CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Perdew JP, Wang Y (1992) Accurate and simple analytic representation of the electron-gas correlation-energy. Phys Rev B 45(23):13244–13249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Greeley J, Norskov JK, Mavrikakis M (2002) Electronic structure and catalysis on metal surfaces. Annu Rev Phys Chem 53:319–348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Hammer B, Hansen LB, Norskov JK (1999) Improved adsorption energetics within density-functional theory using revised Perdew–Burke–Ernzerhof functionals. Phys Rev B 59(11):7413–7421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Greeley J, Mavrikakis M (2002) Methanol decomposition on Cu(111): a DFT study. J Catal 208(2):291–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Herron JA, Scaranto J, Ferrin P, Li S, Mavrikakis M (2014) Trends in formic acid decomposition on model transition metal surfaces: a density functional theory study. ACS Catal 4(12):4434–4445CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Chadi DJ, Cohen ML (1973) Special points in Brillouin zone. Physical Review B 8(12):5747–5753CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Monkhorst HJ, Pack JD (1976) Special points for Brillouin-zone integrations. Phys Rev B 13(12):5188–5192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Vanderbilt D (1990) Soft self-consistent pseudopotentials in a generalized eigenvalue formalism. Phys Rev B 41(11):7892–7895CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Kresse G, Furthmuller J (1996) Efficiency of ab initio total energy calculations for metals and semiconductors using a plane-wave basis set. Comput Mater Sci 6(1):15–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Bengtsson L (1999) Dipole correction for surface supercell calculations. Phys Rev B 59(19):12301–12304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Straumanis ME, Yu LS (1969) Lattice parameters, densities, expansion coefficients and perfection of structure of Cu and of Cu-In alpha phase. Acta Crystallogr Sect A (Cryst Phys Diffract Theor Gen Crystallogr) A25:676–682CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Greeley J, Mavrikakis M (2003) A first-principles study of surface and subsurface H on and in Ni(111): diffusional properties and coverage-dependent behavior. Surf Sci 540(2–3):215–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Henkelman G, Uberuaga BP, Jonsson H (2000) A climbing image nudged elastic band method for finding saddle points and minimum energy paths. J Chem Phys 113(22):9901–9904CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Singh S, Li S, Carrasquillo-Flores R, Alba-Rubio AC, Dumesic JA, Mavrikakis M (2014) Formic acid decomposition on Au catalysts: DFT, microkinetic modeling, and reaction kinetics experiments. AIChE J 60(4):1303–1319CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Chemical and Biological EngineeringUniversity of Wisconsin-MadisonMadisonUSA

Personalised recommendations