Materials Today Energy 29 (2022) 101123

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Materials Today Energy

journal homepage: www.journals.elsevier.com/materials-today-energy/

How properly are we interpreting the Tafel lines in energy conversion

electrocatalysis?
Sengeni Anantharaj a, b, *, Suguru Noda a, b
a
Department of Applied Chemistry, School of Advanced Science and Engineering, Waseda University, 3-4-1 Okubo, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo 169-8555, Japan
b
Waseda Research Institute for Science and Engineering, Waseda University, 3-4-1 Okubo, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo 169-8555, Japan

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Tafel analysis is one of the most important ways of screening all energy conversion electrocatalysis as it
Received 12 July 2022 helps to get information on activity (via exchange current density) and mechanism (via Tafel slope).
Received in revised form Inappropriate methods of constructing Tafel plots combined with improper interpretation of Tafel pa-
7 August 2022
rameters (especially Tafel slopes) are clouding the literature more recently than ever because of the
Accepted 9 August 2022
Available online 18 August 2022
unawareness in handling electrochemical characterization data in the research community. Hence, this
perspective is dedicated to give a deep discussion on how to properly interpret Tafel lines in water
splitting electrocatalysis that can also be adopted for analyzing the Tafel characteristics of other energy
Keywords:
Tafel analysis
conversion reactions.
Tafel slope © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Exchange current density
Tafel constant
Water electrolysis

1. Introduction
Water electrosplitting catalysis is on the top of energy research
in recent years ever since the need for H2 generated in an eco-
friendlier way is realized by witnessing the negative impacts of
increased CO2 emission on climate patterns all across the world [1].
The current cost-efficient method producing H2 in bulk is methane
steam reforming but does not help to avoid or reduce CO2 emission
[2]. Surplus electric energy obtained from renewables is used for
powering water electrolysers; the produced H2 is called the ‘green
H2’ [3]. Though the surplus of power is used, it is essential to ensure
that the electrolysers operate with the best energy efficiency they
can in order not to lose higher energy than what one can possibly
get back by utilizing the produced H2. This is where the electro-
catalysis of half-cell reactions of water electrolysis (oxygen evolu-
tion reaction (OER) at anode and hydrogen evolution reaction
(HER) at cathode) comes into the picture [4,5]. Among the 100þ
elements in the periodic table, there are only a small number of
elements and the compounds thereof that can catalyze HER and
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: ananth@aoni.waseda.jp, anantharaj1402@gmail.com
(S. Anantharaj), noda@waeda.jp (S. Noda).
OER efficiently [5]. There are metal hydroxides [6], oxides [7], sul-
fides [8], selenides [9], tellurides [10], carbides [11], phosphides
[12], nitrides [11], borides [13], and intermetallics [14] made of
these elements in order to maximize their activity in terms of both
intrinsically and extensively in which studying the in situ evolution
of active sites is recently gaining significant interests [15e17]. To
screen whether or not a given element/compound is active for HER/
OER or any other electrocatalysis, activity, selectivity, and stability
of it are tested using various voltammetry techniques [18,19]. Ac-
tivity, in particular, has been reported using several markers
(basically an overpotential or current density at a given potential)
depending on the current normalization method and each of which
has their own merits and demerits [18]. One of such markers is the
exchange current density (j0 ) that is the absolute value of the cur-
rent of the redox reaction in both directions flowing across the
catalysteelectrolyte interface at zero overpotential (i.e., at equi-
librium potential) [20]. This is obtained from the intercept of the
Tafel line at equilibrium potential. Tafel analysis, besides giving an
important activity marker, provides valuable information on
mechanism of the reaction under study by revealing the rate
determining step (RDS). With some assumptions (discussed in later
parts), Tafel analysis can even be opted for calculating the Tafel
constant (in V) which is essentially the overpotential at a unit

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mtener.2022.101123
2468-6069/© 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
S. Anantharaj and S. Noda Materials Today Energy 29 (2022) 101123

current density (mostly at 1 mA/cm2 as this is what generally used Hence, Eq. (1) can be approximated as in Eq. (10) and can further be
in water splitting electrocatalysis because all known catalysts modified into Eq. (3).
deliver current density of this order and rarely over 1000 mA/cm2) n ð1aÞnF h o
and number of electrons transferred in the RDS [21]. Unfortunately, j ¼ j0 e RT (1')
as with every rapidly growing fields of research, accumulation of
poorly acquired and interpreted data in the literature is more . ð1aÞnF h
common now with water splitting electrocatalysis too. In recent j j0 ¼ e RT

years, researchers specializing in electrochemistry have been

advising the best practices of screening and interpreting electro-
ð1  aÞnF h
chemical characterization data [22,23]. In this perspective, we aim lnðjÞ  ln ðj0 Þ ¼
RT
to establish the fundamentals of Tafel analysis in water splitting
electrocatalysis focusing on how it is done? How it is interpreted?
RT RT
and the ways in which it can be utilized better to know the char- h¼  lnðj0 Þ þ lnðjÞ (3)
acteristics of a given electrocatalyst. ð1  aÞnF ð1  aÞnF
Similarly, when E « Erev and h « 0, the second exponential term of
ð1aÞnF h
Eq. (1) (i.e., e RT ) becomes 0. Hence, Eq. (1) can be approximated
2. Tafel analysis: an overview as in Equation (100 ) and can further be modified into Eq. (4).
n anF h
o
Currentepotential relationship for a simple redox reaction is j ¼ j0  e RT (1'')
well represented by the ButlereVolmer equation (equation (1))
which literally gives the sum of both forward and backward re- . anF h
actions of a redox couple (hence, the opposite signs) [24]. j j0 ¼ e RT
n anF h ð1aÞnF h
o
j ¼ j0  e RT þ e RT (1) anF h
lnðjÞ  ln ðj0 Þ ¼ 
RT
In the above equation, symbols j, j0 , a, n, and h stand, respec-
tively, for total current (forward þ backward), exchange current RT RT
density (the absolute current density of the redox reaction at zero h¼ lnðj0 Þ  lnðjÞ (4)
anF anF
overpotential), transfer coefficient, number of electrons transferred
during the oxidation/reduction of a single molecule, and over- Eqs. (3) and (4) are generally simplified into Eqs. (5) and (6)
potential, while F, R, and T have their traditional meaning (Faraday's where it is analogous to the equation of a straight line (y ¼ mx þ c).
constant, the universal gas constant, and the absolute tempera-
ture). At potentials much closer to the equilibrium potential, the
h ¼ a þ b logðjÞ (5)
anF h
total current becomes equal to the product of and j0 and Eq. (1)
RT
h ¼ a  b logðjÞ (6)
transforms to Eq. (2) (Fig. 1).

In the above Eqs. (5) and (6) a is 2:303RT
anF log ðj0 which means that
anF h
j ¼ j0 (2) the intercept of the linear line (i.e., The Tafel line) which can be
RT obtained by plotting h against logðjÞ can be converted into the ex-
In contrast, when the overpotential is considerably higher, change current density (j0 ) of the catalyst. Similarly, b is equivalent
either oxidation (when E » Erev) or reduction (when E « Erev) to 2:303RT
anF and is the slope (i.e., Tafel slope) providing invaluable
dominates and Eq. (1) transforms into the Famous Tafel equations information on the reaction mechanism and telling us how efficient
for oxidation and reduction given as Eqs. (3) and (4). When E » Erev,
anF h
and h »0, the first exponential term of Eq. (1)(i.e., e RT ) becomes 0.

Fig. 1. Illustration showing the current-potential relationship at BeV and Tafel regions. Fig. 2. The versatility of Tafel analysis in energy conversion electrocatalysis.

2
S. Anantharaj and S. Noda Materials Today Energy 29 (2022) 101123

[25]. In addition, when the current density is equal to 1 mA/cm2, a

becomes equal to h and is expressed in V.
At this point, a is called as the Tafel constant that can also be
used as an activity descriptor like j0 [21]. There are two things that
the ButlereVolmer theory did not account for are: (1) the coverage
dependence of Tafel slope and (2) the change in Tafel slope with the
change in overpotential [20]. In general, it is assumed that the
coverage of the adsorbed intermediate of RDS is equal to 0 or 1,
which is possible only when the potential/current is under a
steady-state conditions. This is also the reason why one should
always use currentepotential data obtained using a steady-state
technique to construct a Tafel plot rather than the polarization
curves obtained from transient techniques such as cyclic voltam-
metry (CV) and linear sweep voltammetry in which neither the
potential applied nor the current recorded would be in a steady
state. We have very recently shown the effect of using LSV and CV
responses for extracting Tafel parameters in comparison with the
steady-state data derived Tafel plots [22]. In which, it was proven
that by lowering the scan rate, one may obtain a closer Tafel slope
but never the exchange current density. Hence, it was concluded
that using the steady-state responses for Tafel analysis is inevitable.

3. What does tafel analysis offer us?

Tafel analysis is a wonderful tool giving us insights on both ac-

Fig. 3. (a) Tafel lines showing three different possibilities with Tafel slope, exchange
current density, and Tafel constant. (b) Variation of Tafel constant and Tafel slope with
the Co:Ni ratio. Reproduced from Ref. [22] (Copyright 2018, American Chemical
Society).
tivity and kinetics at the same time which no other known method
of analysis can. In principle, Tafel analysis gives us the following
four markers in addition to the kinetic and mechanistic insights
(Fig. 2): (1) exchange current density (j0 ), (2) transfer coefficient
(a), (3) Tafel constant (h at unit current density hj¼1 ), and (4) Tafel
slope (2:303RT
anF ). Of these markers, j0 and Tafel constant are activity
descriptors, whereas Tafel slope and a are the descriptors of ki-
netics. Tafel slopes are used to predict the RDS and a are used to
denote how facile is the reaction on the given catalytic surface.

3.1. Exchange current density (j0 )

is the reaction under scan. The same information can also be used
to extract the transfer coefficient (a) if the value of n is known or As described earlier briefly, it is the total current flowing across
the product of a and n when the value of n is not known exactly the interface when the potential is equal to the reversible or

Table 1
Comparing Tafel slopes, Tafel constants, and j0 of a selected catalysts from the literature with at least two identical descriptors and judging them based on their Tafel constant
values. Reproduced with modifications from Ref. [22] (Copyright 2018, American Chemical Society).

Catalyst Tafel Constant Tafel Slope Reference

With the same Tafel Constants

MoS2/CFP 0.205 59.8* Wang et al.[28]
MoS2/Au 0.206 68 Finn et al.[29]
Mo2C/CNT-G 0.07 58 Youn et al.[30]
MoS2/G 0.071 41* Asadi et al.[31]

Catalyst Exchange Current Density Tafel Constant Reference

With the same exchange current densities

Mo2N/CNT-G 0.00394 0.101 Youn et al.[30]
Mo2N (Soybean Protein Derived) 0.0037 0.09* Chen et al.[32]

Catalyst Tafel Slope Tafel Constant Reference

With the same Tafel slopes

MoS2/Mo 68 0.173 68 0.173* Finn et al.[29]
MoS2/Au 68 0.206 Finn et al.[29]
MoP2/CC 63.6 0.005* Chen et al.[33]
Mo2N (Soybean Protein Derived) 62.7 0.09 Chen et al.[33]
Mo2C/GC 62.6 0.119 Cui et al.[34]
Mo2C/CNT-G 58 0.07 Youn et al.[30]
Mo2C/AC 57.5 0.057* Zhang et al.[35]
MoS2/G 41 0.071* Asadi et al.[31]
MoSx/GCNT 41 0.101 Pham et al.[36]

Tafel constant values were originally calculated by Murthy and co-workers from the data supplied in cited reports [21]. The better catalyst in each category of comparison is
marked with an asterisk mark in red.

3
S. Anantharaj and S. Noda Materials Today Energy 29 (2022) 101123

Fig. 4. (a) OER LSVs of activated Co foil with different scan rates. (bec) Tafel lines derived from the same. (d) The plot showing the scan rate dependence of Tafel slope and exchange
current density. (e) Sampled current voltammogram of the same Co foil with and without iR drop. (f) Tafel line of the same derived from SCV. Reproduced from Ref. 23 (Copyright
2021, American Chemical Society).

equilibrium potential of the reaction [26]. In general, higher the j0 , reaction [25]. For a given redox reaction, the probability for both
better the activity. The intercept of a Tafel line at equilibrium po- forward and backward reactions to occur is high at or near the
tential is expressed in Eq. (7). equilibrium potential. Since Tafel slopes are obtained at over-
  potentials larger than 120 mV (the value obtained from 2:303RT
anF when
2:303RT
Intercept @Erev ¼ log j0 (7) n is 1), the probability of having the fraction of transfer coefficient
anF favoring the opposite reaction is very low. Hence, any value of a
Rearranging the Eq. (7) as Eq. (8) and taking the antilog of the determined from the modified equation of Tafel slope (Eq. (9)) will
same, one can easily obtain j0 . be the transfer coefficient of the electrocatalytic reaction under
scan.
 anF
log ðj0 ¼ Erev (8)
2:303RT 2:303RT
Tafel slope ¼
anF

2:303RT
3.2. Transfer coefficient ðaÞ a¼ (9)
ðTafel slopeÞ nF
Transfer coefficient is defined as the fraction of interfacial po- Nonetheless, finding out a is not that easy particularly when the
tential (different from applied potential) that favors the reaction value of n is unknown. However, the absolute rate theory of elec-
under study, and the remaining fraction is what favors the opposite tron transfer (i.e., Marcus theory) finds that the transfer of more
4
S. Anantharaj and S. Noda Materials Today Energy 29 (2022) 101123

Fig. 5. (a) Calculated Tafel slopes when n ranges from 1 to 8 and a is assumed to be 0.5 always. (b) Calculated n values for a random set of Tafel slopes (15, 25, 50, 75, 100, 125, 150,
175, and 200 mV/dec) showing a non-integral value of n which is impossible. (c) Calculated a values for the same random set as (b) of Tafel slopes showing a can have values higher
than 1 which is also impossible. (d) Calculated na for the same set of random Tafel slopes avoiding the issues with n being a non-integer and a having values higher than 1. Note that
the calculated data of a in (c) and na in (d) are the same because the former was calculated assuming that n ¼ 1. Explicit difference between a and na could be observed when there
is a transfer of more than 1 electron in the RDS, which is usually the case with electrocatalysts having ultralow Tafel slopes.

than one electron in a concerted manner in the same elementary
step is highly improbable [27]. Also, electrons can never be trans-
ferred in fractions. Hence, it is more than safe to assume that the
value of n is always 1. In cases, when the probability of transfer of
more than one electron, the product of n and a can be used to find
out how efficient is the catalytic interface in catalyzing the said
reaction. This can also be easily obtained from the Tafel slope by the
application of Eq. (10).
2:303RT
na ¼
ðTafel slopeÞ F
3.3. Tafel constant
Tafel constant hj¼1 is an activity descriptor which is basically
the overpotential at unit current density. Since mA/cm2 is the
commonly used unit of current density in electrocatalytic water
splitting, it can be said that Tafel constant is the overpotential at
which the catalyst delivers 1 mA/cm2. This value thus can be
used as an alternative activity descriptor for comparing catalysts
having the same j0 or the same Tafel slope and is impossible to be
compared using the latter. In addition, j0 cannot be determined
always with high precision as the extrapolation of the Tafel line
to the reversible relies strongly on the type of activity under use,
capacitance and iR drop corrections. However, identifying the
potential at 1 mA/cm2 is much easier and therefore can easily be
determined with high accuracy. Conversely, when the Tafel
constants are the same, j0 and Tafel slope can be used to compare
the given set of catalysts. Murthy and co-workers [21] have
shown this taking CoSe2 and NiSe2 as HER electrocatalysts and
they also showed the variation in Tafel constant as the Co:Ni ratio
of Co(1-x)NixSe2 varied (Fig. 3aeb). A selective analysis of reports
on different catalytic electrodes (comprising of the same core
catalyst) with almost the same Tafel slopes, j0 , and Tafel con-
(10)
stants was also done by the same group and shown how the
facileness of the reaction on different catalytic electrodes can be
predicted. Table 1 shows the examples where such closeness in
Tafel slopes, j0 ; and Tafel constants was encountered and how
they were judged to be better in comparison with others.
3.4. Tafel slope
This is the most widely extracted information from Tafel
analysis and has always been in use for predicting mechanism
and finding out the facileness of the reaction. Ways of obtaining
accurate Tafel slopes and factors affecting the slope values were
extensively presented earlier by many. Hence, in this part, two
important things related to Tafel slope determination and their
accuracy are briefly reiterated. In our recent viewpoint [22], we
5
S. Anantharaj and S. Noda
Fig. 6. Catalyst loading dependent overpotential at 10 mA/cm2 (a) and Tafel slope (b)
for the NiO-modified GC electrode. Reproduced from Ref. 18 (Copyright 2019, American
Chemical Society).
showed experimentally how transient techniques derived polari-
zation curves falsify Tafel slopes and j0 even with the lowest scan
rate possible and showed that only steady-state data can be the
most precise for deriving accurate Tafel parameters (Fig. 4aee).
Besides, the assumption of extreme surface coverage (0 or 1) of
intermediates in RDS is far from reality and can never be seen
with the potential and current recorded using a transient tech-
nique. This was shown by Shinagawa and co-workers for H and
O-involving energy conversion reactions.9 Besides, the depen-
dence of Tafel slope on potential and its implication on the
change in a are something that were not reported in many
studies.
3.4.1. What to expect as tafel slopes in HER and OER and what do
they infer?
In general, pretty much anything. However, most of the Tafel
slopes ever reported were in the range of 30e120 mV/dec. Mean-
while, Tafel slopes as low as 17 mV/dec and higher than 150 mV/dec
are also not very uncommon. Similarly, if we assume that a remains
to be 0.5 always and only n changes in integral values (i.e., as 1, 2, 3,
4, etc.), the Tafel slopes that one can obtain at room temperature
(298 K) with 96,485C/mol as the value of Faraday constant are 118,
59, 39, and 29 as shown in Fig. 5a.
This means that Tafel slopes lower than 20 mV/dec should be
involving in an RDS in which there is a simultaneous transfer 6þ
6
Materials Today Energy 29 (2022) 101123
electrons and for Tafel slopes higher than 120 mV/dec, n must be of
a fractional value (i.e., less than 1). Also, Tafel slopes, other than the
ones obtained for the integral n values, are also commonly wit-
nessed in electrocatalytic water splitting. These Tafel slopes which
when converted into n assuming a are always equal to 0.5 would
result in non-integer values of n (see Fig. 5b for a few randomly
chosen Tafel slope values that would result in non-integer n values
if a is assumed to be 0.5 always). It is known that electrons can
never be transferred in fractional values in an elementary step of a
redox reaction, and the absolute rate theory of electron transfer
teaches that the transfer of more than 1 electron at a time is highly
improbable. If this is the case, a can be calculated by assuming that
n is always equal to 1 for the same set of random Tafel slopes
(Fig. 5c) chosen for the calculation of n assuming a is 0.5 above in
Fig. 5b. By definition, a can only have a value from 0 to 1. However,
Fig. 5c indicates that for Tafel slopes lesser than 60 mV/dec and
when n is assumed to be always 1 as dictated by the Marcus theory,
a tends to have values higher than 1 which is impossible. This
implies that when an interface exhibits a Tafel slope lesser than
60 mV/dec, the value of n must have increased from 1 to higher
integer values, so that the value of a will remain with 0e1 range.
Since one cannot be sure about n is being always 1 and can also not
assume a is 0.5 for all the cases, it will be highly difficult to find one
of these two (n and a) with a relatively higher precision just from
the Tafel slope.
This also makes the prediction of the number of electrons
transferred in an RDS impossible and adds further difficulties in
scaling the efficiency of the catalytic interface in terms of a. It is
mainly because no one will ever know what the value of a for the
given catalyst is and how will it change or not depending on the
applied potential. Hence, a safer way to report the kinetic
facileness in terms of n and a is to project the product of both as
shown in Fig. 5d. To avoid showing the same value for na as that
of a in Fig. 5c (as n in this case was assumed to be 1 always), we
chose another set of random Tafel slopes. In this way, one does
neither have to find discrepancies with the Marcus theory pre-
dicted high improbability for the transfer of more than one
electron in a single elementary step nor be confused with a
values being higher than 1. To sum up, it is possible to get any
value of Tafel slope in electrocatalytic water splitting (in fact, in
any electrocatalytic reaction), but it needs to be understood that
it is the a and n that vary mutually to satisfy the conditions of
a ¼ 0e1, and n is mostly 1 and can be a higher integral value
depending on how low the Tafel slope is. However, most of the
lowest Tafel slopes reported in many recent reports are results of
measuring them in an inappropriate region which most
commonly is the region closer to the reversible potential of the
reaction or the region that corresponds to the decades of activity
of smaller magnitudes (such as 0.1e1.0 mA/cm2 and
1.0e10.0 mA/cm2 where capacitance current can be as much as
the catalytic current and causing huge errors). This means that a
very high value of na is highly improbable if all the conditions
required by a proper Tafel analysis are met.
3.4.2. Effect of catalyst loading on tafel slope
The loading of the catalyst should, in theory, not affect the value
of Tafel slope for a catalyst. However, in practice, a strong depen-
dence of Tafel slope on catalyst loading is inevitably witnessed
almost every single time. This is mainly because of the use of
geometrical area normalized activity used in Tafel analysis. As the
catalyst loading has direct influence on geometrical area normal-
ized activity, any increase in the loading of the catalyst will also
increase the activity.
S. Anantharaj and S. Noda
Fig. 7. Generally followed practices (a) vs. the best practices (b) in constructing Tafel lines and analysis of the same are depicted schematically.
This means that one can simply achieve a lesser Tafel slope value
by increasing the loading of the catalyst. This effect was shown in
one of our earlier studies where NiO/GC electrode with increasing
loading was studied (Fig. 6aeb) [37]. As can be seen from Fig. 6, the
increasing loading led to lowering overpotential at 10 mA/cm2 and
the Tafel slope values were lowered down to 93 mV/dec from
117 mV/dec. To avoid this issue, using ECSA normalized activity
with capacitance and Faradaic efficiency correction is the only way
besides following other recommended practices to be followed in a
proper Tafel analysis.
4. Dos and don'ts in tafel analysis
Having established the descriptors of Tafel analysis and their
inferences, it is now essential to know the best practices in
acquiring and analyzing the Tafel lines. As introduced earlier, it is
always important to use the steady-state data for the construction
of Tafel plots in order to find out the precise values of descriptors
resulting from Tafel analysis. One should also be mindful of the
region in which they take the slope. In general, the region farther by
anF when n is 1 and a is assumed to be 0.5)
120 mV (equivalent to 2:303RT
from the equilibrium potential which is where the logarithmic
current will be linear with the overpotential, and all the afore-
mentioned descriptors of Tafel analysis can be accurately deter-
mined. Most of the time when a very low value of Tafel slope was
reported, it was found to have calculated in regions much closer to
7
Materials Today Energy 29 (2022) 101123
the reversible potential of the reaction. Hence, to get appropriately
acquired and analyzed Tafel parameters, the following practices are
recommended.
In acquiring Tafel lines;
 Never using polarization curves obtained from transient
techniques
o Because the transient polarization curves never represent the
steady-state no matter what the scan rate is and hence,
achieving 0 or 1 for the surface coverage is impossible for the
Tafel analysis to be valid. In addition, 100% iR compensation is
not always possible with the polarization curves from LSV/CV.
 Always ensuring that overpotential is 100% free from iR drop
o The basis of Tafel analysis is the BeV theory which was built
based on the assumption that the overpotential is free from iR
drop and hence, 100% iR correction is to be ensured at all the
times where the polarization response to be used in Tafel
analysis is obtained using a controlled-potential method such
as CA.
 Choosing the region farther by 120 mV from the equilibrium
potential
o It is to ensure that the current contribution from the opposite
reaction to the reaction under study is less than 1%. In case of
reactions with a very high onset overpotentials such as OER
and ORR, this may not be necessary but for others with very
small onset overpotentials (such as HER and HOR), it is
essential. The value of 120 mV is suggested to be safe by
S. Anantharaj and S. Noda
assuming that the opposite reaction occurs following a
mechanism in which the rate limiting step is a one electron
transfer step with a charge transfer coefficient of 0.5 (so that
the Tafel slope will be 118 mV/dec).
 Measuring the slope over a linear region covering at least two
decades
o Because the mechanism of the reaction under study and rate
limiting step may change depending the potential region as
most of the electrocatalysts evolve in situ as the potential
changes. Hence, to detect such changes in mechanism and
rate limiting steps, it is essential to cover at least two decades
of activity.
In analyzing Tafel lines:
 Understanding that any number can pop out as Tafel slope.
 Calculating number of electrons transferred in an RDS with a
medieval assumption of a is being 0.5 always is inappropriate.
 For any value of a calculated Tafel slope, it is the a and n that
changes mutually to maintain conditions: (1) a could have a
value only between 0 and 1 and (2) the probability for n being 1
is very high.
 For Tafel slopes lesser than 60 mV/dec, n is higher than 1 and is
an integral value and to satisfy this condition, the value of a is
adjusted.
 Reporting na is a safer way of expressing the kinetics than
reporting a and or n separately.
 Tafel constant (expressed in V) is an alternative descriptor of
activity for comparing catalysts having the same or much closer
Tafel slopes or j0 values.
 j0 values are obscured to a greater extent when polarization
curves from transient techniques are used for Tafel analysis even
with 100% iR compensation.
Fig. 7aeb depicts the difference between the generally followed
questionable practice and the best practice recommended to be
followed.
5. Conclusions and outlook
To conclude, Tafel analysis is an inevitable tool in the field of
electrocatalysis but when the corresponding Tafel lines are ac-
quired and analyzed appropriately. This perspective has summa-
rized the fundamentals, descriptors resulting from Tafel analysis,
uses of these descriptors, and the ways in which Tafel lines are to be
acquired and analyzed in an acceptable way to ensure that the Tafel
descriptors are more precise. This will also help the early career
researchers to realize the significance of appropriate Tafel analysis
and correlation thereby ensuring no more clouding of unwittingly
falsified Tafel plots and unknowingly mistook meanings of the
same in the literature.
CRediT author statement
Sengeni Anantharaj: Conceptualization, Methodology, Valida-
tion, Formal analysis, Investigation, Data curation, Writing e
Original draft, Writing e review and editing, Visualization, Super-
vision, Project administration, Funding acquisition. Suguru Noda:
Review and editing, Visualization, Supervision, Project adminis-
tration, Resources, Funding acquisition.
8
Materials Today Energy 29 (2022) 101123
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing
financial interests or personal relationships that could have
appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
Data availability
Data will be made available on request.
Acknowledgments
This work was supported by the Grant-in-Aid for Researchers of
Research Institute for Science and Engineering, Waseda University,
Japan. The authors acknowledge Dr. P. Esakki Karthik of Hanyang
University for a fruitful discussion.
References
[1] S. Anantharaj, S. Noda, V.R.R. Jothi, S.C. Yi, M. Driess, P.W. Menezes, Strategies
and perspectives to catch the missing pieces in energy-efficient hydrogen
evolution reaction in alkaline media, Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 60 (2021)
18981e19006, https://doi.org/10.1002/anie.202015738.
[2] B. Dou, H. Zhang, Y. Song, L. Zhao, B. Jiang, M. He, C. Ruan, H. Chen, Y. Xu,
Hydrogen production from the thermochemical conversion of biomass: issues
and challenges, Sustain. Energy Fuels 3 (2019) 314e342, https://doi.org/
10.1039/c8se00535d.
[3] Y. Shi, B. Zhang, Recent advances in transition metal phosphide nano-
materials: synthesis and applications in hydrogen evolution reaction, Chem.
Soc. Rev. 45 (2016) 1529e1541, https://doi.org/10.1039/C5CS00434A.
[4] S. Anantharaj, S. Noda, Amorphous catalysts and electrochemical water
splitting: an untold story of harmony, Small 16 (2020), 1905779, https://
doi.org/10.1002/smll.201905779.
[5] N.-T. Suen, S.-F. Hung, Q. Quan, N. Zhang, Y.-J. Xu, H.M. Chen, Electrocatalysis
for the oxygen evolution reaction: recent development and future perspec-
tives, Chem. Soc. Rev. 46 (2017) 337e365, https://doi.org/10.1039/
C6CS00328A.
[6] E. Fabbri, A. Habereder, K. Waltar, R. Ko € tz, T.J. Schmidt, R. Kotz, T.J. Schmidt,
R. Ko€tz, T.J. Schmidt, R. Kotz, T.J. Schmidt, Developments and perspectives of
oxide-based catalysts for the oxygen evolution reaction, Catal. Sci. Technol. 4
(2014) 3800e3821, https://doi.org/10.1039/C4CY00669K.
[7] Y. Cheng, S.P. Jiang, Advances in electrocatalysts for oxygen evolution reaction
of water electrolysis-from metal oxides to carbon nanotubes, Prog. Nat. Sci.
Mater. Int. 25 (2015) 545e553, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pnsc.2015.11.008.
[8] J.D. Benck, T.R. Hellstern, J. Kibsgaard, P. Chakthranont, T.F. Jaramillo, Cata-
lyzing the hydrogen evolution reaction (HER) with molybdenum sulfide
nanomaterials, ACS Catal. 4 (2014) 3957e3971, https://doi.org/10.1021/
cs500923c.
[9] D. Li, H. Liu, L. Feng, A Review on advanced FeNi-based catalysts for water
splitting reaction, Energy Fuel. 34 (11) (2020) 13491e13522, https://doi.org/
10.1021/acs.energyfuels.0c03084.
[10] X. Chia, Z. Sofer, J. Luxa, M. Pumera, Layered noble metal dichalcogenides:
tailoring electrochemical and catalytic properties, ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces
9 (2017) 25587e25599, https://doi.org/10.1021/acsami.7b05083.
[11] W.F. Chen, J.T. Muckerman, E. Fujita, Recent developments in transition metal
carbides and nitrides as hydrogen evolution electrocatalysts, Chem. Commun
49 (2013) 8896e8909, https://doi.org/10.1039/c3cc44076a.
[12] A. Dutta, A.K. Samantara, S.K. Dutta, B.K. Jena, N. Pradhan, Surface-oxidized
dicobalt phosphide nanoneedles as a nonprecious, durable, and efficient OER
catalyst, ACS Energy Lett. (2016) 169e174, https://doi.org/10.1021/
acsenergylett.6b00144.
[13] S. Gupta, M.K. Patel, A. Miotello, N. Patel, Metal boride-based catalysts for
electrochemical water-splitting: a Review, Adv. Funct. Mater. 30 (2020),
1906481, https://doi.org/10.1002/adfm.201906481.
[14] A. Jiang, J. Chen, S. Liu, Z. Wang, Q. Li, D. Xia, M. Dong, Intermetallic rhodium
alloy nanoparticles for electrocatalysis, ACS Appl. Nano Mater. 4 (2021)
13716e13723, https://doi.org/10.1021/acsanm.1c03128.
[15] Y. Yang, Y. Yang, Y. Liu, S. Zhao, Z. Tang, Metaleorganic frameworks for
electrocatalysis: beyond their derivatives, Small Sci 1 (2021), 2100015,
https://doi.org/10.1002/smsc.202100015.
[16] R. Luo, Z. Qian, L. Xing, C. Du, G. Yin, S. Zhao, L. Du, Re-looking into the active
moieties of metal X-ides (X- ¼ phosph-, sulf-, nitr-, and carb-) toward oxygen
evolution reaction, Adv. Funct. Mater. 31 (2021), 2102918, https://doi.org/
10.1002/adfm.202102918.
S. Anantharaj and S. Noda
[17] S. Zhao, Y. Yang, Z. Tang, Insight into structural evolution, active sites, and
stability of heterogeneous electrocatalysts, Angew. Chemie. 134 (2022),
https://doi.org/10.1002/ange.202110186.
[18] D. Voiry, M. Chhowalla, Y. Gogotsi, Y. Li, R.M. Penner, R.E. Schaak, Best prac-
tices for reporting electrocatalytic performance of nanomaterials, ACS Nano
12 (2018) 9635e9638, https://doi.org/10.1021/acsnano.8b07700.
[19] W. Zheng, M. Liu, L.Y.S. Lee, Best practices in using foam-type electrodes for
electrocatalytic performance benchmark, ACS Energy Lett. 5 (2020)
3260e3264, https://doi.org/10.1021/acsenergylett.0c01958.
[20] T. Shinagawa, A.T. Garcia-Esparza, K. Takanabe, Insight on Tafel slopes from a
microkinetic analysis of aqueous electrocatalysis for energy conversion, Sci.
Rep. 5 (2015), 13801, https://doi.org/10.1038/srep13801.
[21] A. Prasad Murthy, J. Theerthagiri, J. Madhavan, Insights on Tafel constant in
the analysis of hydrogen evolution reaction, J. Phys. Chem. C 122 (2018)
23943e23949, https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jpcc.8b07763.
[22] S. Anantharaj, S. Noda, M. Driess, P.W. Menezes, The pitfalls of using poten-
tiodynamic polarization curves for Tafel analysis in electrocatalytic water
splitting, ACS Energy Lett. 6 (2021) 1607e1611, https://doi.org/10.1021/
acsenergylett.1c00608.
[23] S. Anantharaj, P.E. Karthik, S. Noda, The significance of properly reporting
turnover frequency in electrocatalysis research, Angew. Chemie - Int. Ed. 60
(2021) 23051e23067, https://doi.org/10.1002/anie.202110352.
[24] J.O. (John O. Bockris, A.K.N. Reddy, M.E. Gamboa-Aldeco, Modern Electro-
chemistry, Plenum Press, 1998.
[25] R. Guidelli, R.G. Compton, J.M. Feliu, E. Gileadi, J. Lipkowski, W. Schmickler,
S. Trasatti, Defining the transfer coefficient in electrochemistry: an assess-
ment (IUPAC Technical Report), Pure Appl. Chem. 86 (2014) 245e258, https://
doi.org/10.1515/pac-2014-5026.
[26] J.O. Bockris, Kinetics of activation controlled consecutive electrochemical re-
actions: anodic evolution of oxygen, J. Chem. Phys. 24 (1956) 817e827,
https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1742616.
[27] T.P. Silverstein, Marcus theory: thermodynamics CAN control the kinetics of
electron transfer reactions, J. Chem. Educ. 89 (2012) 1159e1167, https://
doi.org/10.1021/ed1007712.
[28] H. Wang, D. Kong, P. Johanes, J.J. Cha, G. Zheng, K. Yan, N. Liu, Y. Cui, MoSe2
and WSe2 nanofilms with vertically aligned molecular layers on curved and
Materials Today Energy 29 (2022) 101123
rough surfaces, Nano Lett. 13 (2013) 3426e3433, https://doi.org/10.1021/
nl401944f.
[29] S.T. Finn, J.E. Macdonald, Contact and support considerations in the hydrogen
evolution reaction activity of petaled MoS2 electrodes, ACS Appl. Mater. In-
terfaces 8 (2016) 25185e25192, https://doi.org/10.1021/acsami.6b05101.
[30] D.H. Youn, S. Han, J.Y. Kim, J.Y. Kim, H. Park, S.H. Choi, J.S. Lee, Highly active
and stable hydrogen evolution electrocatalysts based on molybdenum com-
pounds on carbon nanotube-graphene hybrid support, ACS Nano 8 (2014)
5164e5173, https://doi.org/10.1021/nn5012144.
[31] A. Behranginia, M. Asadi, C. Liu, P. Yasaei, B. Kumar, P. Phillips, T. Foroozan,
J.C. Waranius, K. Kim, J. Abiade, R.F. Klie, L.A. Curtiss, A. Salehi-Khojin, Highly
efficient hydrogen evolution reaction using crystalline layered
three-dimensional molybdenum disulfides grown on graphene film, Chem.
Mater. 28 (2016) 549e555, https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.chemmater.5b03997.
[32] W. Chen, S. Iyer, S. Iyer, K. Sasaki, C. Wang, Y. Zhu, J.T. Muckerman, E. Fujita,
Biomass-derived electrocatalytic composites for hydrogen evolution, Energy
Environ. Sci. 6 (2013) 1818e1826, https://doi.org/10.1039/c3ee40596f.
[33] W.F. Chen, S. Iyer, S. Iyer, K. Sasaki, C.H. Wang, Y. Zhu, J.T. Muckerman,
E. Fujita, Biomass-derived electrocatalytic composites for hydrogen evolution,
Energy Environ. Sci. 6 (2013) 1818e1826, https://doi.org/10.1039/
c3ee40596f.
[34] W. Cui, N. Cheng, Q. Liu, C. Ge, A.M. Asiri, X. Sun, Mo2C nanoparticles deco-
rated graphitic carbon sheets: biopolymer-derived solid-state synthesis and
application as an efficient electrocatalyst for hydrogen generation, ACS Catal.
4 (2014) 2658e2661, https://doi.org/10.1021/cs5005294.
[35] K. Zhang, C. Li, Y. Zhao, X. Yu, Y. Chen, Porous one-dimensional Mo2C-
amorphous carbon composites: high-efficient and durable electrocatalysts for
hydrogen generation, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 17 (2015) 16609e16614,
https://doi.org/10.1039/c5cp02028j.
[36] K.C. Pham, Y.H. Chang, D.S. McPhail, C. Mattevi, A.T.S. Wee, D.H.C. Chua,
Amorphous molybdenum sulfide on graphene-carbon nanotube hybrids as
highly active hydrogen evolution reaction catalysts, ACS Appl. Mater. In-
terfaces 8 (2016) 5961e5971, https://doi.org/10.1021/acsami.5b09690.
[37] S. Anantharaj, S. Kundu, Do the evaluation parameters reflect intrinsic activity
of electrocatalysts in electrochemical water splitting? ACS Energy Lett. 4
(2019) 1260e1264, https://doi.org/10.1021/acsenergylett.9b00686.