Understanding and adopting an appropriate electrochemistry language will foster constructive collaborations among battery research community members with diverse scientific backgrounds.
In contemporary human societies, the adoption of a common and shared scientific language enables saving money, resources and lives1. For this reason, during academic studies in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM), the first thing students learn is the basic terminology. This enables them to communicate effectively with other scientists. For example, in chemistry, students learn how to recognize and identify the symbol of the element cobalt (that is, Co) and how this is different from the molecular formula of carbon monoxide (that is, CO). This basic example highlights the importance of using accurate and precise terminology and notation in STEM disciplines.
Credit: skynesher / E+ / Getty Images
However, this is not always the case in electrochemistry which, more often than not, is considered a niche branch of chemistry. Indeed, although electrochemistry combines chemistry and electricity to “do all sorts of things”2, widespread basic knowledge of terminology or notation is often lacking compared to other fields of chemistry. These aspects possibly stem from the fact that electrochemistry is treated as a multidisciplinary branch of chemistry where researchers with diverse backgrounds work independently on specific topics. Thus, the lack of an interdisciplinary focus, where researchers rely on shared knowledge, acts as a main stumbling block for adopting shared terminology or notation. As a result, nowadays, electrochemistry is also not widely taught at the academic level3, even though “electrochemistry really changed chemistry” and “it increased the scope of chemistry terrifically,” as Professor Allen J. Bard, a pioneer of modern electrochemistry, stated in 20152.
If we look at the various sub-disciplines of electrochemistry, electrochemical energy storage research, and predominantly battery research, is one of the areas most affected by this lack of rigorous use of proper terminology and notation. One straightforward example is the widespread use of the terms ‘anode’ and ‘cathode’ to describe negative and positive electrodes, respectively. Indeed, for rechargeable batteries, the positive electrode is the cathode during the cell discharge and the anode during the cell charge. Similarly, the negative electrode is the anode during the cell discharge and the cathode during the cell charge. Although the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) strongly recommends using the terms positive and negative electrodes4, most of the research on rechargeable batteries adopts the terms anode and cathode for both charge and discharge processes.
Another example is the confusion surrounding the terms ‘potential’ and ‘voltage’. Many researchers working on batteries use these terms interchangeably. However, the IUPAC defines and suggests specific terminology such as ‘electrode potential’ or ‘applied potential’ (to distinguish how an electric potential is measured) and deprecates the use of the term ‘voltage’5.
Also, another interesting case is when research articles report the energy content of a single electrode despite this aspect violating a fundamental rule of electrochemistry, which states that at least two electrodes are always needed for a redox reaction to take place in an electrochemical system. Surprisingly, the use of the most appropriate terminology and notation to communicate advancement in battery research is still a matter of debate (although not the main focus) during question time at battery conferences6.
These examples show the importance for battery researchers to use a common basic language containing correct terminology and notation. This aspect is particularly relevant now, as various scientists with different backgrounds (for example, chemistry, physics, engineering, biology, crystallography, and data science) are applying electrochemistry knowledge to accelerate the decarbonization of human activities.
Electrochemical systems are numerous and complex, and if a common language is not used, there is a risk of describing and reporting the same scientific observations differently, thus jeopardizing the efforts of advancing knowledge.
We at Nature Nanotechnology strongly support the use of proper scientific terminology and notation as recommended by IUPAC, the only worldwide recognized authority on chemical terminology, nomenclature, notation, and definitions7. For this reason, we will be paying more attention to correct terminology usage during editing prior to publication. In doing this, we hope to contribute to the creation of a common and shared language for electrochemistry science and technology to foster research and development in the present interdisciplinary research community.
