Adsorption with direct interactions

The change in surface wettability (measured by the contact angle) with concentration for the three surfactants is plotted in Fig. 2.54 (Zhang and Manglik 2005). The contact angle reaches a lower plateau around the CMC where bilayers start to form on the surface. Wettability of non-ionic surfactants in aqueous solutions shows that the contact angle data attains a constant value much below CMC. Direct interactions of their polar chain are generally weak in non-ionics, and it is possible for them to build and rebuild adsorption layers below CMC. The reduced contact an-... 

Here we shall be concerned with the interaction of inacming diatomic molecules (H-/ 0.) with either types of potential energy wells The molecular InteractJjon (responsible for elastic and direct-inelastic scattering with extremely short residence times of the irpinglng molecules in the potential) and the chemisorptive interaction (leading to dissociative adsorption and associative desorption, reflectively, and associated with H (D) atoms trapped in the chemisorption potential for an appreci le time). 

In above sections the main attention has been paid to adsorption-caused change in electrophysical characteristics of semiconductor adsorbent caused by surface charging effects. However, as it was mentioned in section 1.6, the change in electrophysical characteristics of such adsorbents can be caused by other mechanisms, e.g. by direct interaction of absorbate with the surface defects provided (as in the case of oxide adsorbents) by superstoichiometric atoms of metals and oxygen... 

The low energy of activation of the change in electric conductivity of zinc oxide observed during adsorption of H-atoms ( 0.08 eV) [102] can correspond to the ionization energy of (0-H) -groups formed during direct interaction of H-atoms with O -ions of the lattice. 

Direct bonds between substrate and adsorbate are loosely divided into weak physical adsorption (physisorption), and stronger chemical bonding (chemisorption). We are here focusing on chemisorption cases, where strong substrate-adsorbate interactions make it reasonable to first consider the direct interactions between the adsorbate and the substrate. In physisorption, this interaction is likely to be competing with the interactions between neighbouring adsorbates which may be of similar strength. 

In numerical calculations of adsorption energies, however, expression (7) is mostly used. It is assumed that the two last terms of Eq. (11) are counterbalanced by the contribution of the repulsion forces (see Sec. IV,4). Expression (7) gives the interaction energy between two atoms. In order to evaluate the adsorption energy, the interaction energies of the adsorbed atom with all individual atoms of the adsorbent should be calculated and added together. This addition is allowed, as the dispersion forces are, at a first approximation, additive. If a molecule instead of an atom is adsorbed, the summation should be made for all atoms of the molecule. In the latter case we may sometimes expect deviations from the additive law. Many molecules show different polarizabilities in different directions. If the position of an adsorbed molecule is fixed, the angles of its various axes of polarizability with respect to the surface enter into the calculations (25). If, however, the molecule rotates freely, which is often the case in physical adsorption, this correction is not necessary. 

This detailed picture of the movement of the atom during manipulation was achieved with the aid of simulations [6]. The atom moves in a local potential minimum on the surface. This potential is the sum of the surface potential and the tip potential. The surface potential can be expressed by the migration barrier while the tip potential describes the direct interaction via chemical or electrostatic forces. The local potential minimum is not identical with the adsorption site, in the limit of close tip-atom separation this minimum always resides below the tip resulting in the sliding mode. The atom is slowly pushed/pulled by the tip out of the adsorption site until it jumps into the next local potential minimum. The jump to the next potential minimum proceeds on a timescale of picoseconds [7,8] whereas typical tip speeds are of the order of 0.5-2.5nm/s. 

---