Understanding the Source of Error in First-Principles-Based Micro-Kinetic Modeling: Density Functional Theory Calculations Versus the Mean-Field Approximation

Yuqi Yang,Tonghao Shen,Xin Xu
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jpcc.3c01710
2023-01-01
Abstract:First-principles-based micro-kinetic modeling has becomean essentialtool in the rational design of heterogeneous catalysts. Currently,most theoretical understandings and predictions are provided by thismodel, which combines results from density functional theory (DFT)calculations at the generalized gradient approximation level withthe simulations using the mean-field micro-kinetic modeling (MF-MKM).In spite of its popularity and success in the catalyst design andscreening, sometimes this combination yields undesired predictionsthat significantly deviate from experimental observations. It is,therefore, important to understand its success and failure and tolocate the bottleneck of applying/improving the conventional MF-MKM.To this end, we have compared the errors that come from differentDFT functionals with those introduced by the MF approximations againstthe kinetic Monte Carlo (KMC) results for the Pt-catalyzed water gasshift reaction system. It was found that the shape of the volcanomap is less sensitive to the differences in the DFT functionals, eventhough their predictions of the key energetic parameters are distinctlydifferent. On the other hand, the top of the volcano map, the detailedmechanism, as well as some key kinetic properties are markedly affectedby the change of the energetic data. In comparison, the traditionalMF-MKM that neglects the adsorbate-adsorbate interactions totallyfails to describe the reaction kinetics. The inclusion of the adsorbate-adsorbateinteraction effect can significantly improve the performance of theMF-MKM, which results in largely similar predictions to the referencedata provided by KMC simulations. Nevertheless, the missing spatialcorrelation in the MF treatment can lead to an improper descriptionin the high coverage region. Our analyses demonstrate that the accuracyof the MKM might not always be improved by only modifying the DFT-calculatedenergetic parameters, and close attention should be paid to the kineticsimulation method employed, particularly when quantitative kineticproperties are to be expected.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?