Next Article in Journal
Photocatalytic Mineralization of Emerging Organic Contaminants Using Real and Simulated Effluents in Batch and Membrane Photoreactors
Previous Article in Journal
Study on Photocatalytic Peroxone Process for Treating Organic Pollutants in Leachate Based on Modified Carbon Quantum Dots
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Atomic-Scale Insights into Cu-Modified ZrO2 Catalysts: The Crucial Role of Surface Clusters in Phenol Carboxylation with CO2

by
Kaihua Zhang
1,
Sébastien Paul
2 and
Jérémie Zaffran
1,*
1
Eco-Efficient Products and Processes Laboratory (E2P2L), IRL 3464 CNRS-Syensqo, 3966 Jin Du Road, Xin Zhuang Ind. Zone, Shanghai 201108, China
2
Univ. Lille, CNRS, Centrale Lille, Univ. Artois, UMR 8181—UCCS—Unité de Catalyse et Chimie du Solide, F-59000 Lille, France
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Catalysts 2025, 15(9), 902; https://doi.org/10.3390/catal15090902
Submission received: 17 August 2025 / Revised: 5 September 2025 / Accepted: 15 September 2025 / Published: 18 September 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Predictive Modeling in Catalysis)

Abstract

The catalytic performance of metal oxide materials is profoundly influenced by both chemical composition and surface morphology, particularly at high dopant loadings where metallic clusters can form. Here, we use density functional theory (DFT) to elucidate how copper incorporation—either as isolated dopants or as surface clusters—modulates the mechanism and activity of ZrO2 catalysts in the direct carboxylation of phenol to para-hydroxybenzoic acid. Our results reveal that while Cu doping inhibits C–H bond activation, the presence of Cu clusters at the ZrO2 surface dramatically lowers the barrier for C–C coupling with CO2, owing to unique interfacial sites that facilitate substrate activation and CO2 bending. We show that the reaction mechanism shifts from an Eley–Rideal pathway on pure ZrO2 to a Langmuir–Hinshelwood mechanism on Cu-modified surfaces, with the rate-determining step depending on the Cu morphology. These findings demonstrate that even small amounts of metallic clusters can fundamentally alter catalytic pathways, providing actionable insights for the rational design of heterogeneous catalysts for selective aromatic carboxylation.

Graphical Abstract

1. Introduction

Catalysis plays a vital role in chemistry, accelerating industrial processes and steering them toward specific products [1]. Among the wide variety of catalysts available, supported nanoparticles are often favored due to their recyclability [2]. These catalysts can be composed of various types of material—including metals, metal oxides, metal carbides, or carbon-based systems—depending on the intended application [3,4]. To further tailor their catalytic properties, they are typically doped with specific chemical elements in controlled ratios [5]. While doping is generally expected to produce homogeneous solid solutions at the macroscale, the formation of very small clusters on nanoparticle surfaces is almost unavoidable, resulting in locally biphasic systems at the microscale [6]. Due to their restricted dimensions and inherent instability, such clusters are difficult to detect with conventional characterization techniques, especially when they are constituted of a very limited number of atoms [7,8]. Nevertheless, the most compelling evidence for their presence remains indirect, inferred from system reactivity, as the catalytic properties of clusters can differ significantly from those of monophasic doped systems [8,9].
Clusters are nanometric or sub-nanometric particles, typically consisting of only a few dozen atoms, and they possess geometric properties that differ significantly from conventional nanoparticles. While nanoparticles are usually well-crystallized with defined facet orientations, clusters often have irregular shapes with a high density of corners and edges. This abundance of surface defects is a key factor behind the remarkable activity and unique catalytic properties of clusters [10,11]. However, these defective structures are highly unstable and require extensive dispersion on various supports for stabilization, which also increases their specific surface area compared to larger nanoparticles [7,8,9]. Additionally, such catalytic systems promote optimal synergy between the adsorbed phase and the support during catalysis, as the small size of clusters maximizes the proportion of interfacial sites [12]. Beyond these configurational and geometric advantages, clusters are also notable for their distinct electronic properties. Parameters such as bandgap width, band edge positions, and the location of the d-band center are all strongly influenced by cluster size, which can impact the energetics of key reaction intermediates and overall surface reactivity [13]. Owing to these characteristics, clusters are widely used in various catalytic applications, particularly for activating molecules that are typically considered chemically inert, such as CO2 or aromatic rings [14,15].
In this manuscript, we aim to demonstrate how surface texture influences catalyst reactivity for a specific chemical composition, considering the direct carboxylation of phenol at Cu enriched ZrO2 as a model reaction. It is important to note that this catalyst is considered here solely as a theoretical model system for illustrative purposes and has not been tested experimentally. We selected this catalyst because various metal oxides have already been reported to facilitate the carboxylation of aromatic compounds [16], and copper is recognized for its effectiveness in CO2 activation [17]. Depending on the copper content, XPS characterization reveals different oxidation states of Cu in Cu-doped ZrO2: Cu2+ is predominant at low doping levels (<5 wt%), while Cu0 becomes apparent at higher doping levels (5–10 wt%) [18,19]. This suggests the potential coexistence of two distinct phases on the catalyst: a monophasic metal oxide system with Cu dissolved in ZrO2, and a mixed metal/metal oxide system featuring metallic Cu clusters deposited on the ZrO2 surface. Building on previous theoretical work using density functional theory (DFT), which established the reaction mechanism for phenol carboxylation on pure ZrO2 [20], we now investigate the effects of both Cu dopants and Cu clusters on the reaction mechanism and catalytic activity. In this work, we will examine both structural configurations of Zr(1−x)CuxO2 and evaluate two commonly discussed mechanisms in heterogeneous catalysis: the Langmuir–Hinshelwood (LH) and Eley–Rideal (ER) mechanisms. Finally, we will show the physical origins of the texture effect on surface activity are directly related to local geometric features of the surface, significantly modulating the stability of key reaction intermediates. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first computational and fundamental study comparing, for a specific metal element, the reactivity of metal dopants incorporated into metal oxide catalysts with that of metal clusters deposited on their surfaces, thereby unveiling reaction processes at the atomic scale.

2. Results and Discussion

In this section, we will first examine two major mechanisms commonly discussed in heterogeneous catalysis. We will then investigate the effects of doping and surface texture on surface reactivity.

2.1. The Langmuir–Hinshelwood Mechanism

The LH mechanism is a multistep process in which all reaction intermediates are strongly adsorbed on the catalyst surface [21]. For the direct carboxylation of phenol to p-HBZA, three main steps are identified (see Figure 1): (1) dissociation of the C–H bond at the para position relative to the phenol –OH group, forming an aryl radical; (2) C–C coupling between this intermediate and adsorbed CO2, yielding the para-hydroxybenzoate (p-HBZ) anion; and (3) hydrogenation of the carboxylate intermediate at the –COO group, resulting in the final carboxylic acid, para-hydroxybenzoic acid p-HBZA.
We evaluated the LH mechanism on both monophasic Cu–ZrO2 and biphasic Cu@ZrO2 systems. The optimized ball-and-stick structures are represented in Figure 2 for each elementary step reactant and product, as well as the corresponding reaction energies and activation barriers. For Cu–ZrO2, phenol is only weakly physisorbed, not strongly chemisorbed. Among the intermediates, the aryl radical binds to the Cu dopant via its carbon atom while the carboxylated products (p-HBZ and p-HBZA) interact with the catalyst through their carboxylic acid group, specifically binding their oxygen atoms to Zr surface atoms. This behavior is attributed to the lower oxidation state of Cu (+2) compared to Zr (+4), reflecting Cu’s lower oxophilicity [22]. Thermodynamic calculations indicate that only the C–C coupling step is exothermic (ΔE = −1.26 eV) and therefore thermodynamically favorable, whereas both C–H dissociation (ΔE = +0.24 eV) and O–H association (ΔE = +1.55 eV) are endothermic and thus not favored. Kinetic analysis supports these trends: the lowest activation barrier is found for the C–C coupling step (Ea = 1.23 eV), whereas the first and third steps have similar, higher barriers (Ea ≈ 1.80 eV). For the Cu@ZrO2 system, three distinct adsorption sites are available: the Cu cluster, the ZrO2 surface, and the Cu–ZrO2 interface. Notably, phenol does not stabilize on the metallic cluster and remains weakly adsorbed on the ZrO2 surface, allowing it to diffuse easily toward active sites. After C–H dissociation, the resulting aryl radical preferentially binds to the metal phase, while the dissociated hydrogen atom is co-adsorbed elsewhere on the cluster. This configuration is highly advantageous for reactivity, as CO2 is most stably adsorbed at the base of the cluster, precisely at the Cu–ZrO2 interface, which facilitates the C–C coupling step. The coexistence of metallic and oxide phases also promotes CO2 activation by assisting its bending: the carbon atom binds to Cu, while the oxygen atoms attach to two Zr centers. The carboxylated products (p-HBZ and p-HBZA) preferentially adsorb on ZrO2 near the cluster, which facilitates the final O–H association step, given that hydrogen adatoms are more stable on the metallic phase. In terms of reactivity, the initial and final steps on Cu@ZrO2 are less favorable, with high reaction energies (ΔE = +0.27 and +1.24 eV) and significant activation barriers (Ea = 1.25 and 1.72 eV). In contrast, the C–C coupling in the middle step is strongly favored, both thermodynamically (ΔE = −0.90 eV) and kinetically (Ea = 0.99 eV).

2.2. The Eley–Rideal Mechanism

The ER mechanism involves a single elementary step, where one reactant is strongly chemisorbed on the catalyst surface and the other is only weakly physisorbed nearby [23]. The reaction proceeds through a concerted transition state, with C–H dissociation, C–C coupling, and O–H association occurring simultaneously. As a result, if the process follows the ER mechanism, phenol and CO2 are directly converted to p-HBZA without forming any intermediates (see Figure 3).
We evaluated the ER mechanism on both monophasic Cu–ZrO2 and biphasic Cu@ZrO2 systems. The optimized ball-and-stick structures are represented in Figure 4 for each elementary step reactant and product, as well as the corresponding reaction energies and activation barriers. For Cu–ZrO2, the initial state features phenol physisorbed above the catalyst and CO2 chemisorbed nearby via one oxygen atom bonded to Zr. Initially, phenol lies parallel to the catalyst surface, but in the final state, the p-HBZA product is oriented orthogonally, with its carboxylic group strongly attached to the surface. In the Cu@ZrO2 system, CO2 is chemisorbed at the base of the Cu cluster, with phenol physisorbed above at the metal–metal oxide interface; the final p-HBZA product is adsorbed on the ZrO2 surface near the cluster. DFT calculations show that for Cu–ZrO2, the reaction energy and activation barrier are −0.16 eV and 1.84 eV, respectively. For Cu@ZrO2, these values are +0.49 eV and 2.46 eV, indicating a less favorable process in the latter case.

2.3. Assessing Cu Doping Effects and Surface Texture Influence on Catalytic Activity

As a result, our calculations indicate that the ER mechanism is not feasible when ZrO2 is enriched with Cu, either as a dopant or as a metallic cluster. This outcome differs from our previous study, where the ER mechanism was identified as the most likely pathway on pure ZrO2. Indeed, on undoped ZrO2, the process was found to be highly exothermic (ΔE = −0.33 eV) with a moderate activation barrier (Ea = 1.62 eV). However, the presence of Cu significantly raises the activation barriers, reaching up to 2.46 eV for Cu@ZrO2. Therefore, for the Zr(1-x)CuxO2 system, only the LH mechanism should be considered. Firstly, it is important to highlight that the third LH reaction step involving O–H association is not significantly influenced by the catalyst’s chemical composition (pure or Cu-enriched ZrO2) or by the surface texture (Cu as a dopant or as a cluster). Across all surfaces, the activation barriers remain high, between 1.70 and 1.90 eV, and the reaction energies are above +1.20 eV, indicating a strongly endothermic process. Nevertheless, although O–H association appears unfavorable on the Zr(1-x)CuxO2 surface, it should be noted that this step actually corresponds to the protonation of the carboxylate intermediate (p-HBZ) to form the carboxylic acid product (p-HBZA). This transformation can be easily achieved in aqueous solution at acidic pH [24] and, as such, should not be considered a limiting step. Consequently, the catalytic activity should be evaluated exclusively on the basis of based on C–H dissociation and C–C coupling steps, independently of O–H association. Let us now turn our attention to the first and second LH steps. Table 1 reveals that the introduction of Cu hinders C–H bond cleavage in the phenol aromatic ring, increasing the reaction energies by about 0.40 eV compared to pure ZrO2, and even raising the activation barrier up to 1.74 eV when Cu is incorporated as a dopant in the material structure (vs only 1.22 eV for the undoped catalyst). In contrast, the C–C coupling step shows a markedly different behavior. With the addition of Cu, C–C coupling becomes highly exothermic, and the activation barriers are dramatically reduced. The activation energy falls from 3.52 eV on pure ZrO2 to 1.23 eV on Cu–ZrO2, and drops even further to 0.99 eV on Cu@ZrO2. This demonstrates that enriching ZrO2 with Cu greatly facilitates C–C coupling, particularly in biphasic systems where metal oxide and metallic phases coexist. For greater clarity, we have also presented in Figure 5 the potential energy surface (PES) diagrams of the reaction on the three different surfaces for both LH and ER mechanisms.
These trends are generally attributed to electronic factors, particularly shifts in the d-band center that strongly depend on Cu morphology (see Section SI in the Supplementary Materials, SM) [25,26,27], thus impacting the adsorption energies of key intermediates differently when Cu is incorporated as a dopant in ZrO2 or when Cu is deposited as a cluster on the surface. However, in this case, the geometric features of the surface also play a crucial role in determining the system’s reactivity. Because Cu is less oxophilic than Zr—exhibiting an oxidation state of +2 compared to +4 for Zr—it has low solubility in the ZrO2 matrix, explaining why larger and more frequent metallic Cu clusters are observed experimentally at high doping ratios [18,19]. As a result, the oxygen coordination environment around Cu differs from that of Zr, increasing the bond distance between the Cu center and neighboring oxygen atoms and causing local geometric distortion (see Figure 6(a1,a2)). This has important implications for the C–H dissociation step, as the corresponding transition state is significantly destabilized on the Cu-doped surface. Consequently, the activation barrier is higher for Cu–ZrO2 than for pure ZrO2, while the phenol initial state remains only weakly physisorbed in both cases and is thus minimally affected by the catalyst. In contrast, the surface texture has a pronounced promoting effect on the C–C coupling step, especially when Cu is present as metallic clusters. In this configuration, the kinetic barrier drops dramatically from 3.52 eV on pure ZrO2 to 0.99 eV on Cu@ZrO2. This improvement is a direct consequence of the local biphasic nature of the catalyst. Specifically, in this topography, the CO2 molecule is adsorbed at the base of the metallic cluster on ZrO2, while the aryl radical is attached just above on Cu (see Figure 6(b1,b2)). Unlike on a flat, pure metal oxide surface where desorption is required, this arrangement allows the aryl radical to couple with CO2 without desorbing, resulting in a much more stable transition state. Additionally, this surface configuration helps maintain the bent conformation of CO2 by keeping its two oxygen atoms bonded to the ZrO2 phase while the carbon atom interacts with the Cu cluster, thereby activating the CO2 molecule. Overall, these observations highlight that both the chemical composition of the catalyst and the surface texture can alter the reaction mechanism. Specifically, while Cu shifts the preference from the ER mechanism (favored on pure ZrO2) to the LH mechanism, the rate-determining step is C-H dissociation both at Cu-ZrO2 and Cu@ZrO2, assuming the final O–H association step occurs in solution.

3. Materials and Computational Details

3.1. Materials

Our computational models were constructed based on data from our previous work on phenol carboxylation over pure ZrO2 [20], focusing on the monoclinic phase [28]. In that study, we demonstrated that the pristine material is inactive and that the presence of an oxygen vacancy is necessary to initiate the reaction process [20]. The original slab model, oriented along the (111) plane and containing an oxygen vacancy, consists of four metal oxide atomic layers with unit cell dimensions of 7.32 × 7.44 × 26.92 Å3. The Cu-doped ZrO2 system (Cu–ZrO2) was constructed by substituting the exposed Zr atom in the slab with a Cu atom, while maintaining the same p(1 × 1) cell and four-layer thickness as the pure material (see Figure 7a). Given the low doping ratio (1:15, Cu:Zr), the cell dimensions were assumed to remain largely unaffected by the dopant. For the Cu cluster supported on ZrO2 (Cu@ZrO2), a Cu22 cluster was generated from fcc Cu bulk cleaved along the (111) plane and adsorbed onto the original ZrO2 (111) surface with one oxygen vacancy (see Figure 7b). Prior to deposition, the cell dimensions were doubled in the x and y directions to prevent interactions between periodic images of the Cu cluster, resulting in a cell size of 14.64 × 14.87 × 26.93 Å3. Several adsorption modes and orientations were tested for the cluster, with only the most stable configuration retained. In this model, the ZrO2 slab thickness was reduced to two metal oxide layers to save computational time. In both Cu–ZrO2 and Cu@ZrO2 models, all atoms in the metal oxide layers were allowed to relax during geometry optimizations. While the dimensions of the atomistic model used for Cu-ZrO2 were already validated in our previous study on pure ZrO2 [20], we conducted additional tests on slab thickness and cluster size, as described in Section SII.1 of the SM, demonstrating that this geometry allows adsorption energies for Cu@ZrO2 to be converged to within 0.05 eV.

3.2. Computational Details

Spin-unpolarized calculations were performed using VASP 5.4 within the periodic DFT framework [29,30,31], employing the Perdew–Burke–Ernzerhof (PBE) exchange–correlation functional [32], as we have already demonstrated in previous work that the Hubbard correction and dispersion forces are irrelevant for this system [20]. Core and valence electron interactions were described using the projected augmented wave (PAW) method [33], with a plane-wave energy cutoff of 400 eV. For Brillouin zone sampling, Gamma-centered k-meshes of 3 × 3 × 1 and 1 × 1 × 1 points were used for Cu–ZrO2 and Cu@ZrO2, respectively, with both grids generated according to the Monkhorst–Pack scheme [34]. Electronic and ionic relaxations were converged to 10−6 eV and 0.05 eV/Å, respectively, with the conjugate gradient algorithm employed for optimizing intermediate states (IS). Transition states (TS) were located using the nudged elastic band (NEB) [35,36] and dimer methods [37,38]. The chosen computational parameters ensure that the adsorption energies are converged to within 0.05 eV with respect to the k-mesh density, and in the range of ~0.10 eV with respect to the plane-wave basis set (see Section SII.2 in the Supplementary Materials). Zero-point energy (ZPE) and entropic corrections were omitted, as only adsorbed phases were considered. For each reaction intermediate, extensive configurational pre-screening was performed, but only the most stable adsorption modes were included in the reactivity analysis. The structural coordinates of the various IS and TS involved in the different mechanisms are reported in the Supplementary Materials (Section SIII).

4. Conclusions

In conclusion, this paper demonstrates that both the chemical composition and surface texture of the catalyst are crucial in determining its reactivity. Indeed, in the direct carboxylation of phenol to p-HBZA over Cu-enriched ZrO2, the way Cu is incorporated plays a decisive role: when Cu is introduced as a dopant, C–H dissociation is inhibited, while the presence of Cu as metallic clusters on the surface significantly promotes C–C coupling with CO2. The overall reaction mechanism is thus influenced by both catalyst composition and surface topography. While the ER mechanism is favored on undoped ZrO2, introducing Cu shifts the preference to the LH mechanism, with C–H dissociation becoming the rate-determining step. Notably, only when Cu is dispersed as metallic clusters on the surface—rather than incorporated as a dopant—does the C–H cleavage barrier become lower than the ER barrier observed for the undoped catalyst. These results highlight that the coexistence of a metallic phase with a metal oxide phase is essential—even when only tiny clusters and minimal amounts of Cu are present—to activate both CO2 and aromatic rings, thereby enabling efficient phenol carboxylation. Although this study focused on a specific model system, we expect that the insights gained here can be extended to other metal oxide surfaces doped with various metallic elements. As such, this work provides valuable knowledge for understanding and rationalizing the catalytic properties of clusters at the atomic scale.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/catal15090902/s1: Section SI: Projected density of state analysis; Section SII: Model size and numerical parameter tests; Section SIII: Intermediate and transition state structural coordinates.

Author Contributions

Data acquisiton and analysis, K.Z.; conceptualization, supervision, investigation and writing, J.Z.; resources and funding acquisition, S.P. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

We acknowledge the French National Agency of Research (ANR), under grant ANR-21-CHIN-0005-01, for funding this work in the frame of the “PLASTILOOP 2.0” project, in collaboration with Centrale Lille and in partnership with Syensqo Company.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in this study are included in the article/Supplementary Materials. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Haber, J. Catalysis—Where Science and Industry Meet. Pure Appl. Chem. 1994, 66, 1597–1620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Miceli, M.; Frontera, P.; Macario, A.; Malara, A. Recovery/Reuse of Heterogeneous Supported Spent Catalysts. Catalysts 2021, 11, 591. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Li, B.; Cho, S.; Liu, Y.; Astruc, D. Introduction: Materials Challenges for Catalysis. APL Mater. 2023, 11, 090401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Zaera, F. Nanostructured Materials for Applications in Heterogeneous Catalysis. Chem. Soc. Rev. 2013, 42, 2746–2762. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Sun, Y.; Chen, G.; Xi, S.; Xu, Z.J. Catalytically Influential Features in Transition Metal Oxides. ACS Catal. 2021, 11, 13947–13954. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Rossell, M.D.; Abakumov, A.M.; Ramasse, Q.M.; Erni, R. Direct Evidence of Stacking Disorder in the Mixed Ionic-Electronic Conductor Sr4Fe6O12+δ. ACS Nano 2013, 7, 3078–3085. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Rong, H.; Ji, S.; Zhang, J.; Wang, D.; Li, Y. Synthetic Strategies of Supported Atomic Clusters for Heterogeneous Catalysis. Nat. Commun. 2020, 11, 5884. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Dong, C.; Li, Y.; Cheng, D.; Zhang, M.; Liu, J.; Wang, Y.-G.; Xiao, D.; Ma, D. Supported Metal Clusters: Fabrication and Application in Heterogeneous Catalysis. ACS Catal. 2020, 10, 11011–11045. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Heiz, U.; Bullock, E.L. Fundamental Aspects of Catalysis on Supported Metal Clusters. J. Mater. Chem. 2004, 14, 564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Li, X.; Mitchell, S.; Fang, Y.; Li, J.; Perez-Ramirez, J.; Lu, J. Advances in Heterogeneous Single-Cluster Catalysis. Nat. Rev. Chem. 2023, 7, 754–767. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Muetterties, E.L.; Krause, M.J. Catalysis by Molecular Metal Clusters. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. Engl. 1983, 22, 135–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Fan, R.; Zhang, Y.; Hu, Z.; Chen, C.; Shi, T.; Zheng, L.; Zhang, H.; Zhu, J.; Zhao, H.; Wang, G. Synergistic Catalysis of Cluster and Atomic Copper Induced by Copper-Silica Interface in Transfer-Hydrogenation. Nano Res. 2021, 14, 4601–4609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Liu, L.; Corma, A. Metal Catalysts for Heterogeneous Catalysis: From Single Atoms to Nanoclusters and Nanoparticles. Chem. Rev. 2018, 118, 4981–5079. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Szalay, M.; Buzsáki, D.; Barabás, J.; Faragó, E.; Janssens, E.; Nyulászi, L.; Höltzl, T. Screening of Transition Metal Doped Copper Clusters for CO2 Activation. Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 2021, 23, 21738–21747. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Molina, L.M.; López, M.J.; Alonso, J.A. Interaction of Aromatic Molecules with Small Gold Clusters. Chem. Phys. Lett. 2017, 684, 91–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Iijima, T.; Yamaguchi, T. K2CO3-Catalyzed Direct Synthesis of Salicylic Acid from Phenol and Supercritical CO2. Appl. Catal. A Gen. 2008, 345, 12–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Wang, S.; Du, G.; Xi, C. Copper-Catalyzed Carboxylation Reactions Using Carbon Dioxide. Org. Biomol. Chem. 2016, 14, 3666–3676. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Tada, S.; Katagiri, A.; Kiyota, K.; Honma, T.; Kamei, H.; Noriyuki, A.; Uchida, S.; Satokawa, S. Cu Species Incorporated into Amorphous ZrO2 with High Activity and Selectivity in CO2-to-Methanol Hydrogenation. J. Phys. Chem. C 2018, 122, 5430–5442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Yu, J.; Liu, S.; Mu, X.; Yang, G.; Luo, X.; Lester, E.; Wu, T. Cu-ZrO2 Catalysts with Highly Dispersed Cu Nanoclusters Derived from ZrO2@ HKUST-1 Composites for the Enhanced CO2 Hydrogenation to Methanol. Chem. Eng. J. 2021, 419, 129656. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Zhang, K.; Ma, C.; Paul, S.; Zaffran, J. Unveiling the Phenol Direct Carboxylation Reaction Mechanism at ZrO2 Surface. Mol. Catal. 2024, 569, 114606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Baxter, R.J.; Hu, P. Insight into Why the Langmuir–Hinshelwood Mechanism Is Generally Preferred. J. Chem. Phys. 2002, 116, 4379–4381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Kepp, K.P. A Quantitative Scale of Oxophilicity and Thiophilicity. Inorg. Chem. 2016, 55, 9461–9470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Prins, R. Eley–Rideal, the Other Mechanism. Top. Catal. 2018, 61, 714–721. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Watkins, A.R. Protonation of Aromatic Carboxylic Acids in the First Excited Singlet State. J. Chem. Soc. Faraday Trans. 1972, 68, 28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Wang, Z.; Shen, S.; Wang, J.; Zhong, W. Modulating the D-Band Center of Electrocatalysts for Enhanced Water Splitting. Chem. Eur. J. 2024, 30, e202402725. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Zhang, J.; Chen, C.; Zhang, R.; Wang, X.; Wei, Y.; Sun, M.; Liu, Z.; Ge, R.; Ma, M.; Tian, J. Size-Induced d Band Center Upshift of Copper for Efficient Nitrate Reduction to Ammonia. J. Colloid Interface Sci. 2024, 658, 934–942. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Lu, W.; Zhang, T.; Ding, R.; Zhai, Y.; Lu, X. Sub-Nano Copper Sites on SiO2 with Downshifted d-Band Centers Dominate Non-Radical Selective Oxidation of Benzene to Phenol. Nano Lett. 2025, 25, 10998–11004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Fukui, H.; Fujimoto, M.; Akahama, Y.; Sano-Furukawa, A.; Hattori, T. Structure Change of Monoclinic ZrO2 Baddeleyite Involving Softenings of Bulk Modulus and Atom Vibrations. Acta Cryst. 2019, 75, 742–749. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Hafner, J. Ab-initio simulations of Materials Using VASP: Density-functional Theory and Beyond. J. Comput. Chem. 2008, 29, 2044–2078. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Kresse, G.; Hafner, J. Ab Initio molecular Dynamics for Liquid Metals. Phys. Rev. B 1993, 47, 558–561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Kresse, G.; Hafner, J. Ab Initio molecular-Dynamics Simulation of the Liquid-Metal–Amorphous-Semiconductor Transition in Germanium. Phys. Rev. B 1994, 49, 14251–14269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Perdew, J.P.; Burke, K.; Ernzerhof, M. Generalized Gradient Approximation Made Simple. Phys. Rev. Lett. 1996, 77, 3865–3868. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Kresse, G.; Joubert, D. From Ultrasoft Pseudopotentials to the Projector Augmented-Wave Method. Phys. Rev. B 1999, 59, 1758–1775. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Monkhorst, H.J.; Pack, J.D. Special Points for Brillouin-Zone Integrations. Phys. Rev. B 1976, 13, 5188–5192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Henkelman, G.; Jónsson, H. Improved Tangent Estimate in the Nudged Elastic Band Method for Finding Minimum Energy Paths and Saddle Points. J. Chem. Phys. 2000, 113, 9978–9985. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Henkelman, G.; Uberuaga, B.P.; Jónsson, H. A Climbing Image Nudged Elastic Band Method for Finding Saddle Points and Minimum Energy Paths. J. Chem. Phys. 2000, 113, 9901–9904. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Heyden, A.; Bell, A.T.; Keil, F.J. Efficient Methods for Finding Transition States in Chemical Reactions: Comparison of Improved Dimer Method and Partitioned Rational Function Optimization Method. J. Chem. Phys. 2005, 123, 224101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Kästner, J.; Sherwood, P. Superlinearly Converging Dimer Method for Transition State Search. J. Chem. Phys. 2008, 128, 014106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Figure 1. The direct carboxylation of phenol into para-hydroxybenzoic acid according to the Langmuir–Hinshelwood mechanism in three step. Only the adsorbed phase is represented here. Aryl-rad, aryl radical intermediate; p-HBZ, para-hydroxybenzoate anion; p-HBZA, para-hydroxybenzoic acid; H*, H adatom.
Figure 1. The direct carboxylation of phenol into para-hydroxybenzoic acid according to the Langmuir–Hinshelwood mechanism in three step. Only the adsorbed phase is represented here. Aryl-rad, aryl radical intermediate; p-HBZ, para-hydroxybenzoate anion; p-HBZA, para-hydroxybenzoic acid; H*, H adatom.
Catalysts 15 00902 g001
Figure 2. Ball-and-stick representation of the phenol direct carboxylation into para-hydroxybenzoic acid according to the Langmuir–Hinshelwood mechanism at the Cu-doped ZrO2 surface (Cu-ZrO2) (a) in a top view perspective, and at the ZrO2-supported Cu22 cluster (Cu@ZrO2) (b) in a side view perspective.
Figure 2. Ball-and-stick representation of the phenol direct carboxylation into para-hydroxybenzoic acid according to the Langmuir–Hinshelwood mechanism at the Cu-doped ZrO2 surface (Cu-ZrO2) (a) in a top view perspective, and at the ZrO2-supported Cu22 cluster (Cu@ZrO2) (b) in a side view perspective.
Catalysts 15 00902 g002
Figure 3. The direct carboxylation of phenol into para-hydroxybenzoic acid according to the Eley–Rideal mechanism in a single concerted step. Only the adsorbed phase is represented here. p-HBZA, para-hydroxybenzoic acid.
Figure 3. The direct carboxylation of phenol into para-hydroxybenzoic acid according to the Eley–Rideal mechanism in a single concerted step. Only the adsorbed phase is represented here. p-HBZA, para-hydroxybenzoic acid.
Catalysts 15 00902 g003
Figure 4. Ball-and-stick representation of the phenol direct carboxylation into para-hydroxybenzoic acid according to the Eley–Rideal mechanism at the Cu-doped ZrO2 surface (Cu-ZrO2) (a) in a top view perspective, and at the ZrO2-supported Cu22 cluster (Cu@ZrO2) (b) in a side view perspective.
Figure 4. Ball-and-stick representation of the phenol direct carboxylation into para-hydroxybenzoic acid according to the Eley–Rideal mechanism at the Cu-doped ZrO2 surface (Cu-ZrO2) (a) in a top view perspective, and at the ZrO2-supported Cu22 cluster (Cu@ZrO2) (b) in a side view perspective.
Catalysts 15 00902 g004
Figure 5. Potential energy surface (PES) diagrams for the direct carboxylation of phenol on Cu-doped ZrO2 (Cu-ZrO2, in blue), Cu cluster deposited on ZrO2 (Cu@ZrO2, in orange), and pure ZrO2 (in green) surfaces, according to the Langmuir–Hinshelwood mechanism (a) and the Eley–Rideal mechanism (b). Reac., Reactant; Prod., Product; ISi, ith Intermediate State; TSi, ith Transition State.
Figure 5. Potential energy surface (PES) diagrams for the direct carboxylation of phenol on Cu-doped ZrO2 (Cu-ZrO2, in blue), Cu cluster deposited on ZrO2 (Cu@ZrO2, in orange), and pure ZrO2 (in green) surfaces, according to the Langmuir–Hinshelwood mechanism (a) and the Eley–Rideal mechanism (b). Reac., Reactant; Prod., Product; ISi, ith Intermediate State; TSi, ith Transition State.
Catalysts 15 00902 g005
Figure 6. Ball-and-stick representation of the transition states related to Langmuir–Hinshelwood first step (C–H breaking) at the pure ZrO2 surface (pure-ZrO2) and the Cu-doped ZrO2 surface (Cu-ZrO2) (a1,a2), and the LH second step (C–C coupling) at the pure ZrO2 surface (pure-ZrO2) the ZrO2-supported Cu22 cluster (Cu@ZrO2) (b1,b2).
Figure 6. Ball-and-stick representation of the transition states related to Langmuir–Hinshelwood first step (C–H breaking) at the pure ZrO2 surface (pure-ZrO2) and the Cu-doped ZrO2 surface (Cu-ZrO2) (a1,a2), and the LH second step (C–C coupling) at the pure ZrO2 surface (pure-ZrO2) the ZrO2-supported Cu22 cluster (Cu@ZrO2) (b1,b2).
Catalysts 15 00902 g006
Figure 7. Ball-and-stick representation of the bare slab models, related to Cu-doped ZrO2 surface (Cu-ZrO2) (a), and ZrO2-supported Cu22 cluster (Cu@ZrO2) (b), in a top and side view perspective. The symbol “*” indicates the location of the oxygen vacancy. For clarity, only the topmost metal oxide layer is shown.
Figure 7. Ball-and-stick representation of the bare slab models, related to Cu-doped ZrO2 surface (Cu-ZrO2) (a), and ZrO2-supported Cu22 cluster (Cu@ZrO2) (b), in a top and side view perspective. The symbol “*” indicates the location of the oxygen vacancy. For clarity, only the topmost metal oxide layer is shown.
Catalysts 15 00902 g007
Table 1. Reaction energies and activation barriers (ΔE/Ea) in eV, corresponding to the three individual steps of the Langmuir–Hinshelwood mechanism and the single concerted step of the Eley–Rideal mechanism. Similar computational parameters and slab models with identical oxygen vacancy densities were used for both Cu-ZrO2 and pure ZrO2.
Table 1. Reaction energies and activation barriers (ΔE/Ea) in eV, corresponding to the three individual steps of the Langmuir–Hinshelwood mechanism and the single concerted step of the Eley–Rideal mechanism. Similar computational parameters and slab models with identical oxygen vacancy densities were used for both Cu-ZrO2 and pure ZrO2.
Langmuir–HinshelwoodEley–Rideal
(ΔE/Ea) in eVStep 1
(C–H dissociation)
Step 2
(C–C coupling)
Step 3
(O–H association)
Concerted
Step
Cu-ZrO2+0.24/1.74−1.26/1.23+1.55/1.88−0.16/1.84
Cu@ZrO2+0.27/1.25−0.90/0.99+1.24/1.72+0.49/2.46
Pure ZrO2−0.18/1.22+0.12/3.52+1.40/1.76−0.33/1.62
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Zhang, K.; Paul, S.; Zaffran, J. Atomic-Scale Insights into Cu-Modified ZrO2 Catalysts: The Crucial Role of Surface Clusters in Phenol Carboxylation with CO2. Catalysts 2025, 15, 902. https://doi.org/10.3390/catal15090902

AMA Style

Zhang K, Paul S, Zaffran J. Atomic-Scale Insights into Cu-Modified ZrO2 Catalysts: The Crucial Role of Surface Clusters in Phenol Carboxylation with CO2. Catalysts. 2025; 15(9):902. https://doi.org/10.3390/catal15090902

Chicago/Turabian Style

Zhang, Kaihua, Sébastien Paul, and Jérémie Zaffran. 2025. "Atomic-Scale Insights into Cu-Modified ZrO2 Catalysts: The Crucial Role of Surface Clusters in Phenol Carboxylation with CO2" Catalysts 15, no. 9: 902. https://doi.org/10.3390/catal15090902

APA Style

Zhang, K., Paul, S., & Zaffran, J. (2025). Atomic-Scale Insights into Cu-Modified ZrO2 Catalysts: The Crucial Role of Surface Clusters in Phenol Carboxylation with CO2. Catalysts, 15(9), 902. https://doi.org/10.3390/catal15090902

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop