Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36529979›Full record

ArticleJournal of chemical theory and computation2023

SBH17: Benchmark Database of Barrier Heights for Dissociative Chemisorption on Transition Metal Surfaces.

T Tchakoua, N Gerrits, E W F Smeets, G-J Kroes

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of chemical theory and computation, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Capitalistic Chemistry.The journal of physical chemistry. C, Nanomaterials and interfaces · 2025
    Review
  4. Review
  5. Improving Molecule-Metal Surface Reaction Networks Using the Meta-Generalized Gradient Approximation: COThe journal of physical chemistry. C, Nanomaterials and interfaces · 2024
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Simulating Highly Activated Sticking of HThe journal of physical chemistry. C, Nanomaterials and interfaces · 2023
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

T TchakouaLeiden Institute of Chemistry, Gorlaeus Laboratories, Leiden University, P.O. Box 9502, 2300 RALeiden, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-9364-8700
N GerritsLeiden Institute of Chemistry, Gorlaeus Laboratories, Leiden University, P.O. Box 9502, 2300 RALeiden, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-5405-7860
E W F SmeetsLeiden Institute of Chemistry, Gorlaeus Laboratories, Leiden University, P.O. Box 9502, 2300 RALeiden, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-0111-087X
G-J KroesLeiden Institute of Chemistry, Gorlaeus Laboratories, Leiden University, P.O. Box 9502, 2300 RALeiden, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-4913-4689

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Accurate barriers for rate controlling elementary reactions on metal surfaces are key to understanding, controlling, and predicting the rate of heterogeneously catalyzed processes. While barrier heights for gas phase reactions have been extensively benchmarked, dissociative chemisorption barriers for the reactions of molecules on metal surfaces have received much less attention. The first database called SBH10 and containing 10 entries was recently constructed based on the specific reaction parameter approach to density functional theory (SRP-DFT) and experimental results. We have now constructed a new and improved database (SBH17) containing 17 entries based on SRP-DFT and experiments. For this new SBH17 benchmark study, we have tested three algorithms (high, medium, and light) for calculating barrier heights for dissociative chemisorption on metals, which we have named for the amount of computational effort involved in their use. We test the performance of 14 density functionals at the GGA, GGA+vdW-DF, and meta-GGA rungs. Our results show that, in contrast with the previous SBH10 study where the BEEF-vdW-DF2 functional seemed to be most accurate, the workhorse functional PBE and the MS2 density functional are the most accurate of the GGA and meta-GGA functionals tested. Of the GGA+vdW functionals tested, the SRP32-vdW-DF1 functional is the most accurate. Additionally, we found that the medium algorithm is accurate enough for assessing the performance of the density functionals tested, while it avoids geometry optimizations of minimum barrier geometries for each density functional tested. The medium algorithm does require metal lattice constants and interlayer distances that are optimized separately for each functional. While these are avoided in the light algorithm, this algorithm is found not to give a reliable description of functional performance. The combination of relative ease of use and demonstrated reliability of the medium algorithm will likely pave the way for incorporation of the SBH17 database in larger databases used for testing new density functionals and electronic structure methods.

Identifiers

PMID36529979
PMCPMC9835835

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.