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

Sengeni Anantharaj*, Hisashi Sugime, Suguru Noda

*この研究の対応する著者

研究成果査読

抄録

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.

本文言語English
論文番号115842
ジャーナルJournal of Electroanalytical Chemistry
903
DOI
出版ステータスPublished - 2021 12 15

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • 分析化学
  • 化学工学(全般)
  • 電気化学

フィンガープリント

「Why shouldn't double-layer capacitance (C<sub>dl</sub>) be always trusted to justify Faradaic electrocatalytic activity differences?」の研究トピックを掘り下げます。これらがまとまってユニークなフィンガープリントを構成します。

引用スタイル