Some thoughts about reporting the electrocatalytic performance of nanomaterials

Journal article

In reading the ever expanding literature on electrocatalysts, we have become startled by the weakness of the electrochemistry often presented, which in some (many?) cases entirely negates the value of the work. In particular, we have been stimulated to consider the topic of this article by an Editorial (D. Voiry et al., 2018) in ACS Nano which recently provided ‘guidance’ on the ‘best practices’ for the measuring and reporting the activity of new electrocatalytic materials. From an electrochemical perspective, at least, contrasting views need to be presented since the suggestions provided are, in places, at odds with conventional wisdom or, more bluntly stated, simply wrong! In the following we do not seek to provide an alternative set of ‘best practice guidelines’ nor a ‘set of materials characterisation requisites’ – this is likely ultimately an appropriate activity for an IUPAC committee – but rather correct, amplify and develop the discussion provided by the editors of ACS Nano highlighting areas where we believe additional input is desirable and helpful. We focus on six topics that relate to recommendations made. In each section we start by making a brief statement that we believe is correct but different to that made by D. Voiry et al. This statement is then followed by a more in depth discussion and exploration of the issue at hand.

Authors: Li, D; Batchelor-Mcauley, C; Compton, RG

• Publication status: Published
• Peer review status: Peer reviewed
• Publisher: Elsevier
• Journal: Applied Materials Today
• Volume: 18
• Issue: March 2020
• Article number: 100404
• Publication date: 2019-07-19
• Acceptance date: 2019-05-24
• DOI: 10.1016/j.apmt.2019.05.011
• ISSN: 2352-9407
• Language: English
• Keywords: characterisation of nanomaterials; standard potential; overpotential; onset potential; exchange current density; electrochemical surface area; tafel analysis