ADSORPTION-DESORPTION KINETICS: A REVIEW OF A CLASSICAL PROBLEM arxiv:0802.2226v1 [cond-mat.stat-mech] 15 Feb 2008 S. Manzi, R.E. Belardinelli, G. Costanza V. D. Pereyra Departamento de Física, Instituto de Física Aplicada (INFAP), Universidad Nacional de San Luis, CONICET, Chacabuco 917, 5700 San Luis, Argentina Abstract In this work we have analyzed the adsorption-desorption kinetics in the framework of the lattice gas model. We have shown that the coefficients representing the transition probabilities must be carefully chosen even when they fulfill the principle of detailed balance, otherwise the observables arising from the kinetics present anomalous behavior. We have demonstrated that when the adsorption A i desorption D i coefficients are linearly related through a parameter γ, there are values of lateral interaction, V, that lead to bad behavior in the kinetics. We have shown a phase diagram for the allowed values of V γ, concluding that detailed balance does not guarantee a correct physical behavior of the observables obtained from the rate equations like adsorption isotherms, sticking coefficients thermal desorption spectra. Alternatively, we have introduced a description of the adsorptiondesorption processes based in a simple but consistent energetic argument that leads to a correct behavior of the observables without physical inconsistencies. e-mail: smanzi@unsl.edu.ar 1
1 INTRODUCTION The study of the kinetics of surface processes is of fundamental interest in the understing of heterogeneous catalysis other processes taking place in gas-solid interfaces. The kinetics are fundamentally determined by energy transfer. The rate of change in the adsorbate can be written as a difference between adsorption desorption terms. This can be made in a heuristic way or in the framework of a rigorous approach using the non-equilibrium thermodynamic theory [1-3]. If the adsorbate does not remain in a quasi-equilibrium state during desorption, then the description of the system through macroscopic variables is not enough it should be carried out an approach based on the non-equilibrium statistical mechanics that involves time-dependent distribution functions. The Kinetic Lattice Gas Model (KLGM) is an example of such a theory, it was set up in close analogy to the time dependent Ising model for magnetic systems, which was originally introduced by Glauber [4,5]. In the simplest form the KLGM is restricted to the submonolayer regime to the gas-solid system in which the surface structure the adsorption sites do not change with coverage [6]. However, further generalizations of the lattice-gas model have been made in the past to analyze for example: the multilayer lattice gas model to analyze simulate desorption data for Li Cs on Ru(0001) [7,8]; the influence of the precursor state in the adsorptiondesorption kinetics [3] other related problems [9]. The adsorption-desorption kinetics is usually described using the KLGM. The equilibrium the non-equilibrium properties can be obtained solving the rate equations for the coverage higher correlations. These equations can be rigorously calculated using the master equation approach (MEA), where adsorption, desorption, diffusion, reactions other mechanisms are introduced as Markovian processes through transition probabilities W, which must satisfy the principle of detailed balance. When the transition probabilities are written in terms of the occupation configurations of all neighboring sites, detailed balance imposes a set of restrictions on the coefficients of adsorption A i, desorption D i, diffusion C i, etc., as is discussed in a series of papers by H. J. Kreuzer co-workers [2,3,6,9], where the authors have introduced different kinetics according to the relations between those coefficients. In fact, when adsorption desorption processes are the only processes taken into account, they have assumed a linear relations A i = γd i 2
(where γ is a proportionality parameter). In such way the authors have obtained the adsorption-desorption kinetics calculating the sticking coefficients for different case, including Langmuir kinetics, sticking on rom adsorbate the influence of the intrinsic extrinsic precursors [3]. Moreover, very recently, S. H. Payne H. J. Kreuzer have discussed the one-dimensional diffusion with different lateral interaction, using the same methodology [10]. Although those coefficients satisfy the principle of detailed balance, the relation between them depends strongly on the lateral interaction energy V must be carefully analyzed according to the adsorption desorption processes, otherwise the results could not be general sometimes give an erroneous behavior in the kinetics. The aim of the present paper is to demonstrate that, even in the simplest one-dimensional case, linear relation between the adsorption desorption coefficients gives some inconsistencies, which are reflected in the bad behavior of the adsorption isotherms, sticking coefficients thermal desorption spectra. We analyze the problem in the framework of the one-dimensional KLGM version, showing the emerging phase diagrams (γ versus V), for different relations between A i D i. Forbidden regions appear for some values of the parameters. Alternatively, we introduce another approach based simple but coherent physical conditions obtaining the adsorption-desorption kinetic without inconsistencies. The outline of the rest of the work is as follows: In Section 2, we set up the KLGM, introducing the master equation writing the transition probabilities in terms of the occupation configurations of all neighboring sites. We also obtain the rate equation for the coverage the two nearest neighbor correlation. In Section 3, we analyze the adsorption -desorption kinetics for two different linear relations between the adsorption desorption parameters. According to the restriction imposed on the adsorption desorption probabilities, a phase diagram is obtained as a function of lateral interactions V the parameter γ. We analyze the behavior of the adsorption isotherms, sticking coefficients thermal desorption spectra for different values of V γ observing that those quantities are ill-behaved for the forbidden region in the corresponding phase diagram. In Section 4, we introduce two schemes to describe the adsorption- 3
desorption kinetics. They are based on simple arguments related to the adsorption desorption activation energies. In both cases the behavior of the observables is physically correct without inconsistencies. Finally, in Section 5 we give our conclusions. 2 THE KINETIC LATTICE GAS MODEL AND THE MASTER EQUATION To set up the KLGM one restricts the analysis to a gas-solid system in which all relevant processes, like diffusion, adsorption, desorption, reactions, etc., are Markovian. One assumes that the system can be divided into cells, labeled i, for which one introduces microscopic variables n i = 1 or 0 depending on whether cell i is occupied by an adsorbed gas particles or not. The connection with magnetic systems is made by a transformation to spin variables σ i = 2n i 1. To introduce the dynamic of the system one writes down a model Hamiltonian H = (E s µ) i n i + 1 2 V ij n i n j +... (1) Here E s isasingle particleenergy, V isthe two particle interaction between nearest neighbors ij µ is the chemical potential. Interactions between next nearest neighbors etc., many particle interactions can be easily added to eq.(1). One introduces a function P(n,t) which gives the probability that a given microscopic configuration n = (n 1,n 2,...,n N ) is realized at time t, where N is the total number of adsorption sites on the surface. It satisfies a master equation, dp(n;t) = [W(n;n )P(n ;t) W(n ;n)p(n;t)] (2) n where W(n ; n) is the transition probability that the microstate n changes into n per unit time. It satisfies detailed balance W(n ;n)p 0 (n) = W(n;n )P 0 (n ) (3) 4
where P 0 (n) = Z 1 exp( βh(n)) (4) is the equilibrium probability Z is the partition function given by Z = {n}e βh(n) (5) where β = 1/k B T; k B T are the Boltzmann constant the absolute temperature, respectively. In principle, W(n ; n) must be calculated from a Hamiltonian that includes, in addition to (1), coupling terms to the gas phase the solid that mediate mass energy exchange. Usually, one follows the procedure introduced by Glauber guesses an appropriate form for W(n ; n). One further assumes that the duration of an individual transition, e.g., hopping to a neighboring site, is much shorter than the residence time in the initial state. In this situation there will be only one transition at any given time we can write the total transition probability as a sum of individual terms. In order to analyze the simplest cases, let us consider the one-dimensional lattice gas with nearest-neighbors interactions where only direct adsorption desorption processes are taken into account (no other processes are considered), in this case, the transition probability can be written as, W ad des (n ;n) = [w a (1 n i )(A 0 +A 1 (n i 1 +n i+1 )+A 2 n i 1 n i+1 ) i + w d n i (D 0 +D 1 (n i 1 +n i+1 )+D 2 n i 1 n i+1 )] δ(n í,1 n i )Π j i δ(n j,n j ) (6) Here adsorption into site i occurs if n i = 0 initially, with a rate controlled by prospective neighbors if A i 0. The Kronecker delta for sites j i excludes multiple transitions. Detailed balance imposes a set of restrictions on the coefficients A n D n. Thus, if there is only one adparticle present, say in site i, so that n i = 1 other n i = 0, j i, then (3) gives, w d D 0 exp[ β(e s µ)] = A 0 w a (7) 5
so that w d D 0 w a A 0 = e β(es µ). (8) Note that w a w d cannot be fixed by detailed balance, because they contain the information about the energy exchange with the solid in the adsorption desorption processes, which is not in the static lattice gas Hamiltonian. However, if one consider that w a = w d = w 0, by comparison with the phenomenological expression for adsorption, one can identify it as w 0 = S 0 (T) Pλa s h, (9) where P is the pressure in the gas phase above the surface, a s is the area of a surface unit cell λ = h/ 2πmk B T is the thermal wavelength of the adparticle with mass m. S 0 (T) is the temperature-dependent sticking coefficient at zero coverage. It contains the dynamic information about the energy transfer from the adsorbing particle to the solid which gives rise to its temperature dependence, for instance, an exponential Boltzmann factor for activated adsorption. It can be calculated only on the basis of a dynamic theory that accounts for the coupling of the adparticles to the vibrational electronic degrees of freedom of the substrate, must be postulated ad hoc within the context of the kinetic lattice gas model. To get the other coefficients in (6) we next specify that a particle is already adsorbed next to the site participating in adsorption or desorption, providing that all the other sites are empty, then we get A 0 +A 1 = (D 0 +D 1 )e β(es+v µ) (10) From situations where two neighboring sites are occupied one gets A 0 +2A 1 +A 2 = (D 0 +2D 1 +D 2 )e β(es+2v µ) (11) The longer-ranged interaction introduces similar constraints on the other coefficients. Each such constraints introduces two new coefficients. However, detailed balance provides only half the number of relations to fix these unknown coefficients in the transition probabilities. Again, the static (lattice 6
gas) Hamiltonian cannot completely dictate the kind of kinetics possible in the system. As it is pointed out in references [3,6,9], any functional relation between the A D coefficients must be postulated ad hoc, or calculated from a microscopic Hamiltonian that accounts for coupling of the adsorbate to the lattice or electronic degrees of freedom of the substrate. Beside the conditions imposed by detailed balance, there are more restrictions on the coefficients not observed before. To obtain these constraints, it is necessary to analyze the evolution of the adsorbate defining the coverage by θ(t) = 1 N n i P(n;t) (12) i n one gets its equation of motion by multiplying the master equation (2) (now restricted to states n only) by n i summing over all sites. This will introduce on its right h side n-site correlation functions which will be siteindependent provided that the adsorbate remains homogeneous throughout its time evolution. Thus one can obtain the following expression for the coverage, dθ dt = w 0A 0 [E +2Ā1NE +Ā2NEN] w 0 D 0 [N +2 D 1 NN + D 2 NNN] (13) where Āi = A i A 0 D i = D i D 0. Similarly for the two-site correlation function defined as one gets NN(t) = 1 N n i n i+1 P(n;t), (14) i n dnn dt = 2w 0 A 0 [(1+Ā1)NE +(Ā1 +Ā2)NEN] 2w 0 D 0 [(1+ D 1 )NN +( D 1 + D 2 )NNN], (15) where E = 1 θ (16) is the probability that a site is empty. Also, it is easy to see that 7
NE = θ NN = 1 n i (1 n i+1 )P(n;t) (17) N i n represents the conditional probability that, out of two neighboring sites, one is empty one is occupied, NEN = 1 N n i 1 (1 n i )n i+1 P(n;t) (18) i n is the conditional probability that one site is empty its two nearest neighbors are occupied NEE = 1 N n i 1 (1 n i )(1 n i+1 )P(n;t) (19) i n represent the conditional probability that one empty site has one empty nearest neighbors, while the other is occupied. Using the following identities [11] E = NEN +2NEE +EEE (20) NE = NEE +NEN (21) one can obtain easily an alternative expression for eq. (13), namely dθ dt = w 0 A 0 [EEE +2(1+Ā1)NEE +(1+2Ā1 +Ā2)NEN] w 0 D 0 [ENE +2(1+ D 1 )NNE +(1+2 D 1 + D 2 )NNN] (22) for eq. (15) dnn dt = 2w 0 A 0 [(1+Ā1)NEE +(1+2Ā1 +Ā2)NEN] 2w 0 D 0 [(1+ D 1 )NNE +(1+2 D 1 + D 2 )NNN]. (23) Note that EEE, NEE NEN are mutually exclusive conditional probabilities. A similar situation happens with ENE, NNE NNN. Therefore 8
each of the parenthesis in eqs. (22, 23) must be positive, given the following inequalities Q 1 ads = (1+Ā1) 0, (24) Q 2 ads = (1+2Ā1 +Ā2) 0, (25) Q 1 des = (1+ D 1 ) 0 (26) Q 2 des = (1+2 D 1 + D 2 ) 0. (27) It it easy to see that eqs.(24-27) impose new restrictions on the A i D i coefficients. In the next section, we analyze different cases. 3 LINEAR RELATIONS BETWEEN AD- SORPTION AND DESORPTION COEFFI- CIENTS In references [3,5,9] it is proposed a linear relationship between the A i D i coefficients is proposed A i = γd i (28) where γ is a proportionality coefficient. From detailed balance one gets, D 1 = exp[βv] 1 1 γexp[βv] (29) D 2 = exp[2βv] 1 1 γexp[2βv] 2D 1 (30) 9
replacing (28-30) in (24-27) one can obtain the following relation for the adsorption coefficients, Q 1 ads = (1 γ) 1 γexp(βv) (31) Q 2 ads = Similarly for the desorption coefficients (1 γ) 1 γexp(2βv). (32) Q 1 des = (1 γ)exp(βv) 1 γexp(βv) (33) Q 2 des = (1 γ)exp(2βv) 1 γexp(2βv). (34) The relations given in eqs.(31-34) define a region in the space (γ, V). In Figure 1, the corresponding phase diagram is shown. Region I (allowed region) corresponds to those values of γ V which make all the coefficients in eqs.(33-36) greater than zero. Region II corresponds to those values of the parameter which make Q 1 ads 0, Q 1 des 0, Q 2 ads < 0 Q 2 des < 0 (intermediate region). Region III corresponds to those values γ V which make negative all the coefficients, Q 1 ads < 0, Q 2 ads < 0, Q 1 des < 0 Q 2 des < 0 (forbidden region). In what follows, we analyze the equilibrium non-equilibrium quantities, adsorption isotherms, sticking coefficients thermal desorption spectra for the three regions in order to check the validity of those arguments. In particular, the adsorption isotherms are obtained by equating to zero eqs.(22, 23) solving either exact or numerically the resulting algebraic equations. All the analytical results are compared with Monte Carlo simulations. In Figure 2, the adsorption isotherms for different values of the parameter γ for attractive (2 a) repulsive (2 b) lateral interactions, corresponding to the three regions, are showed. As one can observe, the analytical curves obtained for those values of the parameters belonging to region I, are in agreement with MC simulations do not present any singular behavior. However, for those values of the parameters corresponding to region II III, the resulting analytical curves do not agree with MC simulations present some singularities. Particularly, the derivative of the isotherms have a discontinuity 10
in both cases (region II III) for attractive repulsive interactions. It is important to emphasize that this is a one-dimensional system no singularity must be present in the behavior of the adsorption isotherms its derivative. In Figure 3 a) 3 b), we have shown the sticking coefficient S(θ,T) as a function of coverage θ, for the same values of the parameters given in Fig. 2. The analytical curves are obtained from eq.(22) neglecting the desorption term. They are in agreement with the simulation only for values of the parameters corresponding to region I. Moreover, for those values of the parameters corresponding to region III, the sticking coefficient becomes negative (analytical curve) it cannot be reproduced by the MC simulations. In Figure 4 a) 4 b), we have shown the immobile thermal programmed desorption (TPD) spectra for both attractive repulsive interactions. All the TPD curves are obtained solving the rate equations for the first four correlations (in the present paper we have only shown the rate equations for the first second correlations), with initial coverage θ 0 = 0.9. The analytical TPD spectra coincide with MC simulation for values of V γ corresponding to region I. However, for those values of the parameters corresponding to region III, both the analytical simulated curves are illbehaved. In Figure 5, we show the immobile TPD spectra for a fixed value of repulsive lateral interaction different values of the parameter γ. As one can observe, for γ = 0 (Langmuir kinetic in the framework of the present description) the TPD curve presents three peaks. The peak corresponding to the lowest temperature is due to the desorption of those particles surrounded by two occupied nearest neighbor. The central peak, is originated by particles interacting with only one occupied nearest neighbor. Finally, the highest temperature peak, is due to the desorption of isolated particles. However, for γ 0 the TPD spectra present at most two peaks. In the case of TPD curves with two peaks, shows that the lowest temperature peaks is due to the contribution of the desorption of particles surrounded by one or two occupied nearest neighbor, while the highest temperature peak is due to the desorption of isolated particles. Note that, in this context, only for γ 0 the kinetics is valid for the whole range of lateral interaction energy. However, for repulsive lateral interaction between adsorbed particles, the immobile TPD spectra do not present the 11
characteristic three peaks. The so-called interaction kinetics (A r = D r ) introduced in reference [3], belongs to region I, as expected. Other possible choice of the parameters A i D i which fulfill the detailed balance leads to a new formulation of the adsorption-desorption kinetics are, A 2 = γa 1 (35) D 2 = γd 1 (36) Considering only nearest neighbor interactions one can replace (35) (36) in equations (10) (11) find the following expressions for the coefficients A 1 = (2+γ)exp[ βv] (1+γ)exp[ 2βV] 1 (2+γ)(1 exp[ βv]) (37) D 1 = (1+γ)exp[βV] (2+γ)+exp[ βv]. (38) (2+γ)(1 exp[ βv] Replacing the values of these parameters in eqs. (24-27) one can obtain the following expression for the adsorption coefficients Q 1 ads = (1+γ)(1 exp( 2βV)) (2+γ)(1 exp( βv)) (39) Q 2 ads = (1+γ)exp( βv). (40) Similarly for the desorption coefficients one gets Q 1 des = (1+γ)(1 exp( 2βV)) (2+γ)(1 exp( βv)) 12 exp(βv) (41)
Q 2 des = (1+γ)exp(βV). (42) In Figure 6, the three different regions corresponding to the phase diagram obtained from eqs.(24-27) are shown. Region I (allowed region) corresponds to those values of γ V which make all the coefficients greater than zero, thus Q 1 ads 0, Q 2 ads 0, Q 1 des 0 Q 2 des 0. Region II corresponds to those values of the parameter which make Q 1 ads 0, Q1 des 0, Q2 ads < 0 Q 2 des < 0 (intermediate region). Region III corresponds to those values γ V which make all the coefficients negative, Q 1 ads < 0, Q2 ads < 0, Q1 des < 0 Q 2 des < 0 (forbidden region). In Figure 7 a) 7 b) the adsorption isotherms for different values of the parameters corresponding to the three regions are shown. In Figure 8 a) 8 b), the sticking coefficient is plotted as a function of coverage for similar conditions. In Figure 9 the TPD spectra for different values of γ for attractive (a) repulsive (b) lateral interactions are plotted. In this case, the three peaks for repulsive lateral interaction cannot be reproduced for any values V γ. The analysis of the curves is the same as in the latter case. Langmuir kinetics is defined only for one point in the phase diagram (γ = 0, V = 0). Although the physical meaning of the relations given in eqs. (37, 38) is not clear, its is perfectly valid in view that they fulfill the detailed balance. Clearly, the principle of detailed balance is not enough to guarantee the correct behavior of the kinetics deeper analysis must be done to choose the functional relation between A D coefficients. 4 THE A- AND D- COEFFICIENTS AND CONSIDERATIONS ABOUT THE ACTIVA- TION ENERGIES In order to formulate the problem of the adsorption-desorption kinetics based on energetic considerations, let us introduce two possible schemes. In the first one, the activation energy for the adsorption desorption processes will depend on the difference between the energies of the initial final stages. Then the probability of adsorption can be written as, 13
P ads = exp[ β(e s E g )] (43) where E g is the energy of a particle in the gas phase, usually taken as E g = 0 (see the schematic representation of the adsorption potential in Figure 10 a). Equivalently the probability of desorption is given by hence, P des = exp[ β(e g E s )] (44) In this way, one can write P des = 1 P ads (45) A 0 = 1 D 0, (46) 1+Ā1 = 1 1+ D 1 (47) 1+2Ā1 +Ā2 = 1 1+2 D 1 + D 2. (48) After some algebra, one can obtain the following expression for the A D coefficients: A 1 = exp[ β(e s µ)/2](exp[ βv/2] 1) (49) D 1 = exp[β(e s µ)/2](exp[βv/2] 1) (50) A 2 = exp[ β(e s µ)/2](exp[ βv/2] 1) 2 (51) 14
D 2 = exp[β(e s µ)/2](exp[βv/2] 1) 2. (52) These expressions for the coefficients allow an adsorption-desorption kinetics without physical inconsistencies. In the framework of this formulation, Langmuir kinetics arises only for V = 0. In the second scheme one considers that the particle must overcome the energy barrier represented by E a in order to be adsorbed. Similarly, to be desorbed it must reach the energy barrier E d (see Figure 10 b). They are related by E d = E a E s (53) Additionally, let us suppose that the adsorption desorption energies barriers are modified by the lateral interaction V in different way, through a linear perturbation E a = E a +αv E d = E d +δv, where α δ are free parameters. In that way, the A- D- coefficients can be written as, A 0 = e βea, (54) D 0 = e β(ea Es), (55) A 1 = e βea [e βαv 1], (56) D 1 = e β(ea Es) [e βδv 1], (57) A 2 = e βea [e βαv 1] 2, (58) 15
The detailed balance imposes that D 2 = e β(ea Es) [e βδv 1] 2. (59) α+δ = 1. (60) In this case, one can calculate the adsorption isotherms, sticking coefficients thermal desorption spectra for different values of the parameters lateral interactions. The limits α = 0 δ = 0 correspond to the cases where the lateral interaction affect only adsorption or desorption. For both formulations the adsorption isotherms, sticking coefficients TPD spectra are well behaved which means that do not present any singularity are physically consistent. 5 CONCLUSIONS In this work, we have re-examined the adsorption-desorption kinetics in the framework of the kinetic lattice gas model. We have consider the simplest one dimensional KLGM version where only adsorption desorption processes are take into account. The master equation approach has been used to derive the rate equations for coverage higher correlations, which gives the equilibrium non-equilibrium properties of the system. It is well known that when transition probabilities are written in terms of the occupation configurations of all neighboring sites, detailed balance imposes a set of restrictions on the coefficients of adsorption A i desorption D i. On the other h, it is also well known that it is necessary to introduce functional relations between those coefficients, either postulated ad-hoc or calculated from first principles using a microscopic Hamiltonian. The most usual scenario has been to consider the introduction of a linear relationship between A D. However, this election, as well as other simple relationship between the coefficients, are rather restrictive because not all the values of the energy interactions linear parameter are allowed, as is shown in the present article. Moreover, the kinetics obtained for some values of the parameters are wrong, or at least, the equilibrium non-equilibrium observable(adsorption isotherms, sticking coefficient TPD spectra) present anomalous behavior. 16
We have obtained the additional conditions that the A D parameters must fulfill we have shown the phase diagram, interaction energies versus γ, as well as the adsorption isotherms, sticking coefficient TPD spectra for two different model. Three well-defined regions emerge from the phase diagrams in both cases: (i) The allowed region, where the adsorption-desorption kinetics is well behaved, i.e., the isotherms, sticking coefficients the TPD spectra are well behaved. It is also observed that Langmuir (A i = 0) interaction kinetics (A i = D i ) belongs to this region. (ii) The intermediate region, where the adsorption isotherms present some singularities (their derivatives are discontinuous) the sticking coefficient calculated by analytical method does not agree with MC simulations. (iii) The forbidden region, where the adsorption isotherms behaves like in region II sticking coefficients are negative. As a general conclusion, the principle of detailed balance is not enough to guarantee the correct behavior of the kinetics a deeper analysis must be done in order to choose the functional relation between the A D coefficients a revision of the adsorption-desorption kinetics, including terms of diffusion reaction, should be done in one higher dimensions. Particularly, in those case including multilayer adsorption, the influence of the precursor state in the adsorption-desorption kinetics should be studied. Finally, we present an alternative description of the kinetics, introducing new coefficients related to the adsorption desorption energy. Those coefficients are easily obtained based in simple physical arguments. The corresponding kinetics does not present any anomalous behavior. 6 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We thank Prof. G. Zgrablich for reading the manuscript. This work is partially supported by the CONICET (Argentina). 17
7 REFERENCES [1 ] H. J. Kreuzer, Z. W. Gortel, Physisorption Kinetics, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1986. [2 ]H.J.Kreuzer, S.H.Payne, Equilibriadynamicsofgasadsorptionon heterogenous solid surfaces, in: W. Rudzinski, W. A. Steele, G. Zgrablich (Eds.), Studies in Surfaces Science Catalysis, Vol. 104, Elsevier, 1997, p.153, references therein. [3 ] H. J. Kreuzer, J. Chem. Phys. 104 (1996) 9593. [4 ] R. J. Glauber, J. Math. Phys. 4 (1963) 294. [5 ] K. Kawasaki, in: C. Domb, M. S. Green (Eds.), Phase Transitions Critical Phenomena, vol. 2, Academic Press, New York, 1972, p.443. [6 ] H. J. Kreuzer, J. Zhang, Appl. Phys. A51 (1990) 183. [7 ] S. H. Payne, H. A. McKay, H. J. Kreuzer, M. Gierer, H. Bludau, H. Over, G. Ertl, Phys. Rev. B54 (1996) 5073. [8 ] S.H. Payne, G. Ledue, J.C. Michael, H.J. Kreuzer, Surf. Sci. 512(2002) 151. [9 ] S. H. Payne, H. J. Kreuzer, M. Kinne, R. Denecke, H. -P. Steinruck, Surf. Sci. 513 (2002) 174. [10 ] S. H. Payne, H. J. Kreuzer, Phys. Rev. B75 (2007) 115403. [11 ] D. ben-avraham, J. Kohler, Phys. Rev. A45 (1992) 8358. 18
[Figure 1 ]: Phase diagram γ versus V/k B T corresponding to eq.(28). [Figure 2 ]: Adsorption isotherms for different values of the parameter γ fixed value of attractive (a) V/k B T = 1 repulsive (b) V/k B T = 2 lateral interactions. The analytical results are represented by lines, while the Monte Carlo simulations are represented by symbols. [Figure 3 ]: Sticking coefficients for different values of the parameter γ fixed value of attractive (a) V/k B T = 1 repulsive (b) V/k B T = 2 lateral interactions. The analytical results are represented by lines, while the Monte Carlo simulations are represented by symbols. [Figure 4 ]: Immobile TPD for different values of the parameter γ fixed value of attractive (a) repulsive (b) lateral interactions. The analytical results are represented by lines, while the Monte Carlo simulations are represented by symbols. [Figure 5 ]: Immobile TPD spectra for a fixed value of repulsive lateral interaction different values of the parameter γ. [Figure 6 ]: Phase diagram γ versus V/k B T corresponding to eqs.(35, 36). [Figure 7 ]: Adsorption isotherms for different values of the parameter γ fixed value of attractive (a) V/k B T = 1 repulsive (b) V/k B T = 2, lateral interactions. The analytical results are represented by lines, while the Monte Carlo simulations are represented by symbols. [Figure 8 ]: Sticking coefficients for different values of the parameter γ fixed value of attractive (a) V/k B T = 1 repulsive (b) V/k B T = 2, lateral interactions. The analytical results are represented by lines, while the Monte Carlo simulations are represented by symbols. [Figure 9 ]: Immobile TPD for different values of the parameter γ fixed value of attractive (a) repulsive (b) lateral interactions. The analytical results are represented by lines, while the Monte Carlo simulations are represented by symbols. [Figure 10 ]: Schematic representation of the energetic profile corresponding to (a) the first scheme (b) second scheme. 19