In the Acknowledgements
I would also like to acknowledge Tom Beebe, George Darling, Gerhard
Ertl, Peter Maitlis, Hari Manoharan, David Walton and Anja Wellner for
providing figures. Thanks to Scott Anderson, Eric Borguet, Maggie
Dudley, Laura Ford,
Soon-Ku Hong, Weixin Huang, Bruce Koel, Lynne Koker, David Mills, and
Pat Thiel for
bringing various typographical
errors to my attention.
Chapter 1
p. 19 Should read:
In Fig. 1.13(a) the metal has donated charge to the semiconductor
space-charge region. The enhanced charge density in the space-charge
region corresponds to an accumulation layer. In Fig. 1.13(b) charge
transfer has occurred
in the opposite direction. Because the electron density in this region
is lower than in the bulk, this type of space-charge region is know as
a depletion layer.
Fig. 1.1. The second layer in the fcc(110) lattice is misplaced. It
should look like the following:
Fig. 1.3 (a) hcp(0001) = (001).
Chapter 2
p. 48 Eqs. (2.21) and (2.22)
should have a –1 in the numerator.
(2.21)
(2.22)
p. 51. The caption to Fig. 2.16 still contains an error:
(a) (c) (i) fcc(100)–(2x2)
Fig. 2.7 Reproduced with permission from R. Becker and R. Wolkow,
Semiconductor Surfaces: Silicon, in Scannning Tunnelling Microscopy
(Eds.: J. A. Stroscio, W. J. Kaiser), Academic Press, Boston, 1993, p.
193. (c) 1993 Academic Press
Chapter 3
In Exercise 3.14, typo in book reads S_{d} instead of
s_{ 0}.
Fig. 3.12 The interaction strength of chemisorbed O and how it varies
across a row of transition metals. In the upper panel, the good
agreement between experimental and theoretical results is shown. In the
lower panel, the linear relationship between interaction strength and
the d band centre is demonstrated. Source of data for experimental
results: I. Toyoshima, G. A. Somorjai, Catal. Rev – Sci. Eng., 19
(1979) 105. Reprinted with permission from B. Hammer and J.K.
Nørskov,
Theoretical surface science and catalysis – Calculations and concepts,
Adv. Catal., Vol. 45 (Eds.: B. C. Gates, H. Knözinger), Academic
Press,
Boston, 2000, p. 71. (c) 2000 Academic Press.
Chapter 4
pp. 179–180. The discussion should simply be improved. This correction
messes with the subsequent equation numbers.
To define more precisely what we mean by the activation energy and how
it relates to the PES, we turn to Fig. 4.5. First we note, as shown by
Fowler and Guggenheim [1], that the activation energy, in this case E_{des}, is given by the
difference between the mean energy of the reactants 〈E〉_{R} and the mean energy
of the molecules in the transition state 〈E〉_{‡}
[1] R. H. Fowler and E. A. Guggenheim, Statistical Thermodynamics.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1939.
(4.52)
Since both 〈E〉_{R} and
〈E〉_{‡} are
temperature dependent, E_{des}
is, in principle, also temperature dependent. The classical
barrier height on the PES is . E_{des}
is not simply related to . As can be seen in Fig. 4.5, the
two energies are identical at 0 K. At any other temperature, E_{des} and are
different, though they likely have similar values.
To account for this expected temperature dependence, it is useful to
introduce a more general mathematical definition of the activation
energy of desorption
. (4.53)
Frequently it is found that Eq. (4.53) obeys the form
. (4.54)
p. 185 "The coverage at time t is given by integrating Eq. (4.61) (see
also Exercise 4.2)
(4.63)
where ε is the exposure. The coverage is linearly proportional to the
exposure only if the sticking coefficient is constant as a function of
coverage, which is often true at very low coverage, for metal on metal
adsorption or condensation onto multilayer films."
p. 197–198 "First-order desorption leads to asymmetric peaks.
Second-order desorption leads to symmetric peaks."
p. 203
4.6 Consider precursor mediated adsorption through an equilibrated
precursor state. The activation barrier to desorption out of the
precursor is E_{des}
and the activation barrier separating the precursor from the
chemisorbed state is E_{a}.
Prove mathematically that in precursor mediated adsorption, if E_{des} > E_{a}, increasing the
surface temperature decreases the sticking coefficient and if E_{des} < E_{a}, increasing T_{s} favours sticking.
Chapter 6
p. 250, line 8
A tensile force pulls away from the interface.
p. 280 Fig. 6.15. Panel (a) is incorrect but then you can't
see it anyway.