The CO dissociation leads to C+O and the feasibility of the process is determined by their difference in energy, ΔE, listed in Tables Another way of analyzing the TM surface preferences towards CO dissociation is a parity plot of the energy barrier, Ea, against the CO desorption energy, seized here as minus the Eads. The question mark here would be whether it would be easier for an adsorbed CO molecule to desorb or dissociate into C+O. This competitive process is represented in Fig. and reveals that, on most fcc TM surfaces, CO would preferentially desorb, except for the Ni (001) surface. On the other hand, on most bcc surfaces, CO would be prompted to dissociate, except for Fe (011) and (111) surfaces. Some bcc TM surfaces, such as Nb and Mo (111), are in the equilibrium line where dissociation and desorption compete. Finally, as found in previous analyses, hcp TMs show scattered trends depending on whether it is an early, middle, or late TM. It is worth mentioning that Tc (112 ̅ 0) and Re (0001) surfaces, which would walk the parity line, where both CO desorption and dissociation are kinetically equally likely.