Why shouldn't double-layer capacitance (Cdl) be always trusted to justify Faradaic electrocatalytic activity differences?

Sengeni Anantharaj*, Hisashi Sugime, Suguru Noda

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

3 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Electrocatalytic water splitting activity trend is mainly justified using two activity markers namely the electrochemical surface area measured in terms of double-layer capacitance (Cdl) and the charge transfer resistance (Rct). In general, a better active catalyst always tends to have higher Cdl and lower Rct. The non-Faradaic Cdl has so far been shown to match with the Faradaic catalytic activity trend. Nonetheless, emphasizing its non-Faradaic origin and the fact that all ion adsorption and desorption sites should not necessarily be electrocatalytically active sites, we show here a strong disagreement between non-Faradaic Cdl and Faradaic oxygen evolution reaction (OER) activity trend between stainless steel (SS) and bleached stainless steel (BSS). BSS apparently exhibited higher Cdl due to increased OER inactive iron oxide contents on the surface while significantly losing its OER activity. This study, therefore, questions the credibility of using non-Faradaic Cdl to justify the purely Faradaic electrocatalytic activity trend.

Original languageEnglish
Article number115842
JournalJournal of Electroanalytical Chemistry
Volume903
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2021 Dec 15

Keywords

  • Double layer capacitance
  • Electrocatalysis
  • Intrinsic activity
  • Oxygen evolution reaction
  • Water splitting

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Analytical Chemistry
  • Chemical Engineering(all)
  • Electrochemistry

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Why shouldn't double-layer capacitance (Cdl) be always trusted to justify Faradaic electrocatalytic activity differences?'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this