Surface electron density of states

Because the X-ray photons may eject electrons from a depth of over 10 atomic layers, mainly the bulk density of states is obtained in this way. The electron density of states for surface atoms should be different from that in the bulk because the bonding environment for surface atoms is different in their number of nearest neighbors, relaxation or reconstruction, and anisotropy of bonding that could give rise to 

---

In Eq. (10.1), Pjjj( ) is the surface electronic density of states. the interaction Hamiltonian, cp. the adsorbate atomic orbital, xp-g a metal surface orbital, and a the energy of an adsorbate orbital. The tight-binding overlap energy between adsorbate and surface atomic orbital is described as f and that between two metal atomic orbitals as f. As the adsorbate atomic orbital energy equals the Fermi level energy and metal orbitals are half-filled, a simple expression results for the interaction energy ... 

Schematic illustration of the electronic structure of the adsorption complex that consists of an adatom atomic orbital of energy cr that interacts with overlap energy p with a surface atom that is part of a simple cubic lattice. The surface electron density of states is represented by It has a...

Fig. 34a, b. d-valence electron distribution at the (100) surface, a. d and dy lobes, b. Schematic sketch of surface electron density of states [37]... 

The valence band structure of very small metal crystallites is expected to differ from that of an infinite crystal for a number of reasons (a) with a ratio of surface to bulk atoms approaching unity (ca. 2 nm diameter), the potential seen by the nearly free valence electrons will be very different from the periodic potential of an infinite crystal (b) surface states, if they exist, would be expected to dominate the electronic density of states (DOS) (c) the electronic DOS of very small metal crystallites on a support surface will be affected by the metal-support interactions. It is essential to determine at what crystallite size (or number of atoms per crystallite) the electronic density of sates begins to depart from that of the infinite crystal, as the material state of the catalyst particle can affect changes in the surface thermodynamics which may control the catalysis and electro-catalysis of heterogeneous reactions as well as the physical properties of the catalyst particle [26]. 

Very useful information concerning the surface of emersed electrodes, however, can be deduced from UPS spectra directly, like the electronic density of states at the Fermi level, the position of the valence band with respect to the Fermi level or possible band gap states. The valence band of UPD metals might help to explain the respective optical data (see Sections 3.2.1 and 3.2.5). 

In addition to the acoustical modes and MSo, we observe in the first half of the Brillouin zone a weak optical mode MS7 at 19-20 me V. This particular mode has also been observed by Stroscio et with electron energy loss spectrocopy. According to Persson et the surface phonon density of states along the FX-direction is a region of depleted density of states, which they call pseudo band gap, inside which the resonance mode MS7 peals of. This behavior is explained in Fig. 16 (a) top view of a (110) surface (b) and (c) schematic plot of Ae structure of the layers in a plane normal to the (110) surface and containing the (110) and (100) directions, respectively. Along the (110) direction each bulk atom has six nearest neighbors in a lattice plane, while in the (100) direction it has only four. As exemplified in Fig. 17, where inelastic... 

Since the electron density is a continuous function across the interatomic surface, the two atoms that form the surface must have the same distribution of electrons over this face. The most stable structures will be those which require the least amount of redistribution of electron density when the free atoms come together, that is, they will be formed between atoms that have similar surface electron densities. This idea is related to the valence matching principle (Rule 4.2) which states that the most stable bonds are formed between ions that have similar bonding strengths. The bonding strength is thus related to the surface electron density of the ion. 

The charge transfer induced polarizability of a surface atom is closely related to the electronic density of states of the atom as can be seen by... 

Figure 4.5 shows solutions to the Newns-Anderson model using a semi-elliptical model for the chemisorption function. The solution is shown for different surface projected density of states, nd(e), with increasing d band centers sd. For a given metal the band width and center are coupled because the number of d electrons must be conserved. 

Here N(sQ is the electron density of states on the Fermi surface for one direction of spin, is the effective volume of phonon generation, is the point contact form factor, averaged over the Fermi surface. It should be noted that point contacts of sizes d > l, d l can work also in diffusive or thermal current regimes [5] and are used for the study of EPI, phase transitions, superconductivity and other interesting physical phenomena. 

Electrons photoemitted from the valence and conductions bands are detected as a function of energy to measure the electronic density of states near the surface. This gives information on the bonding of adsorbates to the surface (see ARUPS). 

Figure 39 Some calculated characteristics of H2 on Mg(0001), after Ref. 87. Top schematic potential energy curve. P = physisorption minimum M = chemisorbed molecule B = chemisorbed atoms A and D are transition states for chemisorption and dissociation. Bottom development of the one-electron density of states at certain characteristic points. M and M2 correspond to two molecular chemisorption points, different distances from the surface. The dashed line is the au density, moving to lower energy as the dissociation proceeds.

It has been emphasized that STM is sensitive to topography convoluted with the electronic density of states. Spectroscopic characterization of surface states by STM is a challening field of research to be intensified for a better understanding of the chemical reactivity of interfaces. There are still fundamental effects which could be clarified definitively by direct observation. The characterization of transport properties, as demonstrated in Sec. 6, is complementary to STM and STS, and the combination of several techniques should provide a comprehensive description of charge transfer at electrodes. 

Since most "surface-sensitive" techniques sample at least a few atomic planes into the sample, it is difficult to experimentally separate the electronic structure of the outermost plane of atoms from that of the planes below. Theoretical calculations are able to clearly separate surface from bulk electronic structure, of course it is common to calculate a separate electronic density-of-states for each plane in the crystal structure ("layer density-of-states"). Significant changes from the bulk electronic structure are sometimes found for the surface planes in calculations. However, it is difficult to confirm those results experimentally [1]. In some oxides, the bandgap at the surface has been observed to narrow compared to that of the bulk. The measured core-level binding energies of partially coordinated surface atoms are often shifted, by as much as an eV, from their bulk values [32] these are referred to as "surface core-level shifts". However, the experimental separation of surface from bulk electronic structure is at present far from satisfactory. 

---