Rde technique

F1384 Journal of The Electrochemical Society, 162 (12) F1384-F1396 (2015)
Oxygen Reduction Reaction Measurements on Platinum
Electrocatalysts Utilizing Rotating Disk Electrode Technique
II. Influence of Ink Formulation, Catalyst Layer Uniformity and Thickness
Kazuma Shinozaki,a,b,c,∗,z
Jason W. Zack,a
Svitlana Pylypenko,a,b
Bryan S. Pivovar,a,∗∗
and Shyam S. Kochaa,∗∗,z
aNational Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, Colorado 80401, USA
bDepartment of Chemistry, Colorado School of Mines, Golden, Colorado 80401, USA
cToyota Central R&D Labs., Inc., Nagakute, Aichi 480-1192 Japan
Platinum electrocatalysts supported on high surface area and Vulcan carbon blacks (Pt/HSC, Pt/V) were characterized in rotating
disk electrode (RDE) setups for electrochemical area (ECA) and oxygen reduction reaction (ORR) area specific activity (SA) and
mass specific activity (MA) at 0.9 V. Films fabricated using several ink formulations and film-drying techniques were characterized
for a statistically significant number of independent samples. The highest quality Pt/HSC films exhibited MA 870 ± 91 mA/mgPt
and SA 864 ± 56 μA/cm2
Pt while Pt/V had MA 706 ± 42 mA/mgPt and SA 1120 ± 70 μA/cm2
Pt when measured in 0.1 M HClO4,
20 mV/s, 100 kPa O2 and 23 ± 2◦C. An enhancement factor of 2.8 in the measured SA was observable on eliminating Nafion ionomer
and employing extremely thin, uniform films (∼4.5 μg/cm2
Pt) of Pt/HSC. The ECA for Pt/HSC (99 ± 7 m2/gPt) and Pt/V (65 ±
5 m2/gPt) were statistically invariant and insensitive to film uniformity/thickness/fabrication technique; accordingly, enhancements
in MA are wholly attributable to increases in SA. Impedance measurements coupled with scanning electron microscopy were used to
de-convolute the losses within the catalyst layer and ascribed to the catalyst layer resistance, oxygen diffusion, and sulfonate anion
adsorption/blocking. The ramifications of these results for proton exchange membrane fuel cells have also been examined.
© The Author(s) 2015. Published by ECS. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons
Attribution 4.0 License (CC BY, http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted reuse of the work in any
medium, provided the original work is properly cited. [DOI: 10.1149/2.0551512jes] All rights reserved.
Manuscript submitted June 1, 2015; revised manuscript received August 31, 2015. Published September 17, 2015. This was Paper
1239 presented at the San Francisco, California, Meeting of the Society, October 27–November 1, 2013.
With the initiation of commercialization of automotive proton ex-
change membrane fuel cells (PEMFCs) rapidly approaching, a reduc-
tion in the cathode platinum electrocatalyst loading by a factor of ∼4,
while maintaining the performance, has become imperative to meet
the cost targets (∼10 gPt/100 kW stack; ∼$50/gPt).1–3
A technique to
rapidly screen novel advanced electrocatalysts that are typically syn-
thesized in mg batches is indispensable to researchers pursuing this
objective. Over the last two decades, commercially obtainable rotat-
ing disk electrode (RDE) systems have gained in popularity since they
can be conveniently adapted for deposition of catalyst films on glassy
carbon (GC) disks. The modified thin film RDE (TF-RDE) technique
is well suited for the screening of oxygen reduction reaction (ORR)
catalyst candidates as a first step to limit the time and expense invested
in an expensive scale-up of catalyst synthesis and a necessarily time-
consuming and elaborate evaluation in a practical subscale PEMFC
platform.
A survey of the TF-RDE literature is indispensable in delineating
the evolution of the technique from its beginnings to its current status
and future as a standard method for screening electrocatalysts. For
early works starting from the initiating work to obtain kinetic infor-
mation for high surface area catalysts using rotating electrode system
reported by Stonehart and Ross in 1976,4
Gasteiger and Schmidt pro-
vide an excellent detailed review.5
The TF-RDE technique reported
22 years after the initiating work owes its inception to the seminal
work of Gloaguen et al. in 19946
who elucidated a method for fab-
ricating electrodes using Nafion-based Pt/V inks to obtain the SA
and MA. They analyzed Pt/V catalyst layers having 1.1 μm and
5.6 μm thicknesses (calculated for a mixed catalyst/ionomer layer)
using ORR Tafel analysis coupled with a macro-homogeneous model
(uniformly distributed catalytic sites and electrolyte) to account for O2
diffusion within the catalyst layer. For thinner films, they concluded
that kinetic parameters were extractable directly from Tafel plots at
low current densities after applying the Koutecký-Levich (K-L) cor-
rection for O2 diffusion in the bulk electrolyte. Chien et al.7
were
some of the first researchers who investigated mass transport through
∗Electrochemical Society Student Member.
∗∗Electrochemical Society Active Member.
z
E-mails: shinozaki@mosk.tytlabs.co.jp; shyam.kocha@nrel.gov
a polymer film coated on RDE by applying the K-L equation with-
out modification for film contribution. Later, Gough et al.8,9
treated
the mass transport resistance on poly-Pt RDE disks coated with an
ionomer film by introducing an additional term in the K-L equation,
viz., 1/if = 1/(–neFDfCf/δf), where ne, F, Df, Cf, δf represent electron
number, Faraday’s constant, diffusivity and solubility of a reactant in
the film, and film thickness respectively. Gottesfeld et al.10
were the
first to invoke the 1/if term to de-convolute Df and Cf of O2 from
steady-state currents (limiting currents) and transient currents (LSVs)
for thick recast Nafion films on roughened poly-Pt disks; Lawson
et al.11
followed this work using solution-processed Nafion on poly-
Pt. Watanabe et al.12
studied the effect of Nafion cap thickness (on
bulk poly-Pt) on the magnitude of the H2 and O2 diffusion limiting
currents and ascertained that the limiting currents were not affected
for film thicknesses <0.2 μm.
Following these findings on the impact of Nafion caps on bulk
electrodes, Schmidt et al.13
proceeded to refine the technique to ob-
tain kinetics on high surface area catalysts and named it as TF-RDE
technique. Their film formation process included depositing a Pt/C
catalyst ink on GC, drying, and lastly deposition of an aliquot of
Nafion ionomer producing a capped structure (∼7 μg/cm2
Pt, thick-
ness <∼10 μm by microscopy). They argued that their measured
kinetic currents (ik) bypassed the necessity for mathematical model-
ing employed by Gloaguen et al.6
They conducted a limiting current
study for Nafion cap thickness between 0.1–15 μm (calculated from
Nafion density 2.0 g/cm3
and geometrical area) and determined that
the H2 diffusion resistance became negligible for cap thicknesses be-
low 0.5 μm. The ensuing work of Gojkovic et al.14
involved a broader
set of experiments for Pt/C catalysts mixed in with Nafion that were
also analyzed using the K-L modification (1/if). They explored the
ORR kinetics for Pt supported on various carbon black supports in 0.1
M H2SO4, H3PO4, HClO4 and NaOH. Paulus et al.15
subsequently
extended the study of Schmidt et al.13
to ORR kinetics with Pt/V
(14 μg/cm2
Pt) and inferred from the magnitude of limiting currents
that when using <0.2 μm Nafion caps (profilometer) O2 diffusion
losses can be safely disregarded. Higuchi et al.16
fabricated catalyst
films with low loadings of 1.37–9.66 μg/cm2
Pt and calculated thick-
ness ∼0.03 μm. They asserted that the Nafion cap thickness needed
to be <0.1 μm to obtain ORR kinetics but did not support their claims
) unless CC License in place (see abstract).ecsdl.org/site/terms_useaddress. Redistribution subject to ECS terms of use (see192.174.37.50Downloaded on 2016-01-20 to IP

Journal of The Electrochemical Society, 162 (12) F1384-F1396 (2015) F1385
with SA values under comparable conditions to the work of Paulus
et al.15
In employing Nafion caps, researchers often implicitly postu-
late a discrete Nafion film located over the catalyst layer and calculate
a hypothetical cap thickness based on density and volume of ionomer
used. These assumptions are unrealistic and only applicable when
present over a smooth non-porous bulk material like poly-Pt; for a
porous Pt/C catalyst layer, the aliquot of Nafion used to form a cap
penetrates and distributes itself over the depth of the catalyst layer.
Additionally, the literature does not offer adequate descriptions of the
admittedly non-trivial measurement of the thickness and uniformity
of the catalyst layer itself until very recently.17
Nevertheless, the refinement and advanced implementation of the
TF-RDE technique reported by the groups discussed so far6,13–16
has
had a profound influence in the field of electrocatalyst characterization
leading to its widespread adoption. TF-RDE has been use to determine
the ORR activity of Pt-alloy catalysts,18–26
core-shell catalysts,27–32
ex-
tended thin film structures,19–21,33,34
non-precious metal catalysts,35–41
Pt on alternative supports,42,43
as well as particle size effects,14,17,44–50
oxygen reaction order,15,51
activation energy, durability,27,31,32,42,51–60
Pt surface oxidation,61,62
and peroxide formation (RRDE).36,63–67
One of the few systematic studies that engaged in optimizing the
catalyst ink to improve film properties is that by Takahashi et al.51
Conventional inks used to fabricate TF-RDE electrodes are normally
formulated by sonication of inks composed of the electrocatalyst,
water, alcohol and Nafion ionomer. Takahashi et al.51
varied the pro-
portion of water to isopropanol (IPA) and sonication times to obtain
optimal IPA contents that resulted in ECAs that were markedly higher
by ∼20% compared to IPA-free inks. They also highlighted the fact
that an arbitrary ink formulation was unlikely to produce good quality
films for different catalysts.
In a series of three papers, Garsany et al.68–70
highlighted a number
of issues relating to catalyst layer quality. They showed that the so-
called ‘coffee ring’ structure71
observed for catalyst layers fabricated
using stationary techniques could be significantly reduced by deposit-
ing the ink on an inverted RDE rotator. The catalyst layers fabricated
by the rotational drying technique resulted in improvements in SA
at 0.9 V by as much as a factor of 1.9 (no iR correction). In recent
advancements, Ke et al.17
employed a novel, proprietary automated
ink-dispensing device capable of depositing thousands of ‘nanoliter
sized droplets’ onto the GC to generate a series of Nafion-based uni-
form catalyst layers of varying thickness. They reported an increase
in SA at 0.9 V by a factor of ∼1.4 (no iR correction) when the loading
was reduced from 70.4 μgPt/cm2
to 3.91 μgPt/cm2
.
The ionomer in the catalyst layer has been characterized to have
a micelle-like structure composed of a PTFE backbone with –SO3H
pendant mobile side chains that differ from both thin ionomer con-
tinuous films and free acids. The ionomer has also been postulated to
consist of discontinuous fragments that form a non-uniform coating
on nano-particle platinum dispersed on carbon black and is highly
influenced by interfacial interactions. Although some studies have
discussed a blocking effect by Nafion10,11,72–74
as well as a higher O2
solubility,10,11,75
specific adsorption of the sulfonate anion has been
traditionally disregarded in both descriptive and mathematical mod-
els. Recently, Subbaraman et al.76,77
in a series of publications have
reported observing irreversible peaks attributable to sulfonate anion
adsorption on either HUPD region or double layer region on well-
defined Pt and poly-Pt surfaces, combined with a positive shift in the
onset of oxides and ORR activity loss. The activity loss on Pt(111),
(110) and (100) surfaces by ionomer paralleled that observed at bare
Pt surfaces in sulfuric acid solution and they drew the conclusion that
sulfonate anion adsorption was the main source of ORR activity loss.
They also report on a similar but less pronounced effect on the 3M
nanostructured thin film (NSTF, ∼10 m2
/g) catalysts with the extent
of loss following the sequence Pt(111)>poly-Pt>NSTF. Several com-
plementary studies have reported the detrimental effects of sulfonate
anion adsorption.78–80
A common factor in a majority of the TF-RDE studies for Pt/C
catalysts encountered in the literature is the incorporation of Nafion
ionomer either mixed in with the catalyst ink formulation or applied as
a cap over the dried catalyst film on RDE disk.6,13–15,17,48–51,61,62,69,81–84
However, the ORR activity values that are measured with added Nafion
represent a complex, poorly defined, and variable electrochemical
interface that can be represented as “Pt/C | discontinuous Nafion film
soaked in 0.1 M HClO4, free 0.1 M HClO4”. We use this notation to
describe two parallel interfaces, Pt/C in contact with HClO4 soaked
Nafion and Pt/C directly in contact with free HClO4 as shown in Fig.
S1 (supplementary information, SI). Previous ionomer cap studies
have predominantly addressed O2 diffusion within the Nafion cap and
the need to minimize the cap thickness to directly obtain kinetic values
from the basic K-L expression without incorporation of the additional
term (1/if) corresponding to film resistance. Although it is a well-
established fact that a calculated Nafion cap thickness <0.1–0.2 μm
has no measurable effect on the O2 limiting current,15,16
it does not
imply that the ionomer impact on ORR kinetics can be disregarded.
Current status of TF-RDE technique.— Our discussion of the TF-
RDE literature delineates the evolution of the technique through: i) the
development of an ink mixed with Nafion that produced fairly thick
catalyst layers, ii) understanding the impact of Nafion film thickness
(cap) on diffusion limiting currents, iii) improvements in ink disper-
sion, and, iv) advancements in catalyst layer quality. Despite all these
advancements, there continues to be a spread in the ORR activity
reported using TF-RDE; the absence of a baseline for Pt/C obtained
using an established protocol and best practices for catalyst layer fabri-
cation leads to difficulties in benchmarking novel catalyst candidates.
It is evident that values of “kinetic currents” and “activity” reported
in the literature actually represent a “measured activity” that may not
be completely free from losses associated with O2 diffusion, protonic
resistances ‘within the catalyst layer’ as well as blocking/adsorption
by species at the catalyst-electrolyte interface.15,17,69,85–87
Focus of this study.— The objectives of this study are: i) to ob-
tain the ORR activity using conventional and advanced film fabrica-
tion techniques with statistically significant number of samples using
down-selected protocols established and defined in Part I, and under-
stand the difference in measured ORR activity;88
ii) to obtain ‘true’
kinetics on Nafion-free catalyst layers (Pt/C | free 0.1 M HClO4 inter-
face), iii) to understand the impact of Nafion ionomer on the activity,
and, lastly iv) to emphasize the implications of ionomer adsorption in
PEMFCs and the causes for differences in the absolute magnitude of
activity between MEAs and TF-RDE.
Experimental
Catalysts, chemicals and reactant gases.— Two commercial TKK
Pt/C electrocatalysts, namely, TEC10E50E (Pt/HSC; 132.6 m2
/gPt CO
chemisorption) and TEC10V50E (Pt/V; 77.6 m2
/gPt CO chemisorp-
tion) were employed. Deionized (DI) water, IPA, Nafion solution,
conc. sulfuric acid, Nochromix, alumina dispersion, and reactant gases
used in this study have identical specifications as detailed in Part I of
this manuscript.88
A non-ionic surfactant (Triton X-100, Sigma, #T-
9284) was incorporated into surfactant-based ink formulations. 70%
perchloric acid sourced from Veritas Doubly Distilled (GFS chemi-
cals) for poly-Pt studies and Superior Reagent (ACS) (GFS chemicals)
for Pt/C studies were diluted to prepare electrolytes in this work.
Instrumentation.— Details of the specifications of microbalance,
AutoLab potentiostats, as well as Pine rotators, rotator shafts, GC and
poly-Pt electrode tips (φ = 5 mm, 0.196 cm2
) are specified in Part I of
this manuscript.88
A bath sonicator (FS30H, Fisher Scientific, output:
42 kHz, 100 W) as well as a horn sonicator (S-4000, QSONICA, LLC.,
output: 20 kHz, 600 W max) were employed in the preparation of
catalyst inks. An optical microscope (AM4815ZT Dino-Lite Edge,
Dino-Lite Digital Microscope) was routinely used to facilitate low-
resolution inspection of catalyst layers on GC. JEOL JSM-7000F
Field Emission Microscope with EDAX Genesis Energy Dispersive
X-Ray Spectrometer was employed to conduct secondary electron
microscopy (SEM) and energy dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDX)

Table I. Schematic representation of the potential profile and
detailed protocol for conditioning of Pt/C electrocatalysts in 0.1
M HClO4 at 100 kPa.
Gas N2
Temperature (◦C) 23
Rotation Rate (rpm) 1600–2500
Potential Range (V vs. RHE) 0.025–1.2
Scan Rate (mV/s) 500
Potential Cycle Number 50–100
and detailed examination and analysis of the distribution of catalyst
on GC.
Electrochemical cell apparatus.— The electrochemical cell design
(130 mL; counter electrode, CE: Pt gauze; reference electrode, RE:
reversible hydrogen electrode, RHE; working electrode, WE: GC with
catalyst layer or bulk poly-Pt disk) as well as detailed cleaning proce-
dure that includes acid/oxidizing agent soak and subsequent 3–6 DI
water rinses are exhaustively described in Part I of this manuscript.88
The cell was repeatedly rinsed with dilute HClO4 solution 2–3 times
prior to being filled with a measured amount for experimentation.
Electrochemical measurements.— Protocols for break-in/
conditioning, CVs and ORR I-V curve measurements (Tables I–III)
that were established based on comprehensive experimental studies
were reported in Part I,88
and have been meticulously adhered to in
this manuscript except when clearly stated otherwise. Correction for
background (b.g.) currents and solution resistance (Rsoln) were applied
to all electrochemical data. All measurements were conducted at 23
± 2◦
C; ORR kinetic currents have been corrected to 100 kPa O2
and the SA (μA/cm2
Pt) and MA (mA/mgPt) reported at 0.9 V vs.
RHE.15,89,90
Electrochemical impedance spectra were acquired for RDE cata-
lyst layers using a frequency response analyzer (FRA, AutoLab) at
a constant potential (0.1–0.9 V) under N2 atmosphere (2500 rpm) or
O2 atmosphere (1600 rpm) with a 5 mV amplitude voltage perturba-
tion. The potential was initially set to 0.1 V for 5 sec and subsequently
stepped to a desired potential (0.45 V unless stated otherwise) and held
for 5 sec prior to measurement of the impedance spectrum. Impedance
spectra (single sine measurement) were obtained in frequency range
from 10 kHz to 0.1 Hz with a sampling rate of 5 or 10 points/decade.
The spectra under N2 atmosphere were fitted with a transmission line
model by using Z view software (Scribner) to obtain catalyst layer
protonic resistance. In order to obtain spectra for a wider frequency
regime that includes fast kinetics as well as slower diffusion processes
that compete with adsorption processes, the multi sine measurement
(15 waves) was conducted. The spectra were collected at constant
DC current (0.51–3.57 mA/cm2
) under O2 atmosphere (10 μA/cm2
amplitude, 0.1 Hz to 10 kHz, 1 point/decade, 1600 rpm). The catalyst
was first reduced by setting the potential to –0.01 V for 3 sec; after
switching to galvanostatic mode, the current was stepped to a desired
value followed by acquisition of the spectrum under pseudo-steady
state conditions.
Ink formulation/catalyst layer fabrication.— Ink formulations dis-
cussed in the work may be classified into Nafion-based (N) and Nafion-
free (NF) formulations. The accompanying film drying processes may
be described as: stationary (S), rotational (R), air dry (AD) and IPA
atmosphere dry (IPAD); drying was either carried out at 23 ± 2◦
C
or in an oven at 40◦
C. The nomenclature for the different combina-
tions of ink formulation and film drying can thus be represented by
the following acronyms: i) Nafion-based Stationary Air Drying (N-
SAD); ii) Nafion-free Stationary Air Drying (NF-SAD), iii) Nafion-
based Rotational Air Drying (N-RAD), iv) Nafion-free Stationary
IPA drying (NF-SIPAD). The quality of the catalyst layers on GC tips
were monitored using an optical microscope as a standard practice
(Fig. S2, SI). Both Pt/HSC and Pt/V catalysts were evaluated with the
four catalyst layer fabrication techniques.
Nafion-based catalyst layers.—N-SAD, N-RAD techniques.— An
example of standard ink formulation for the preparation of a cata-
lyst layer with a loading of 18 μg/cm2
Pt pipetted onto the GC with a
10 μL aliquot is as follows. Catalyst inks were prepared by mixing
7.6 mg Pt/C catalyst powder with 7.6 mL DI water, 2.4 mL IPA, and
40 μL of 5 wt% Nafion solution.86,87
The sample bottles contain-
ing inks were placed in an ice bath and dispersed either using bath
Table II. Schematic representation of the potential profile and detailed protocol for ECA measurement of Pt/C electrocatalysts in 0.1 M HClO4
at 100 kPa.
Gas N2
Rotation Rate (rpm) 0
Potential Range (V vs. RHE) 0.025–1.0
Scan Rate (mV/s) 20
Number of Cycles 3
Scan Type Linear (Analog)
HUPD Charge Estimation Adsorption (∼0.05–∼0.4 V)
Table III. Schematic representation of the potential profile and protocol for ORR activity measurement of Pt/C electrocatalysts in 0.1 M HClO4
at 100 kPa.
Gas N2 or O2
Rotation Rate (rpm) 1600
Potential Range (V vs. RHE) −0.01 to 1.0 (Anodic)
Scan Rate (mV/s) 20
Rsoln Measurement Method i-interrupter or EIS [high frequency resistance (HFR)]
iRsoln Compensation Positive Feedback
Background Correction iO2 – iN2

sonication (100 W, 20 min) or horn sonication (6 W, 30 s). For the
N-SAD technique, the GC tip with the aliquot of ink was placed on a
custom-built stainless steel holder and air dried at 40◦
C in an oven.86
For the N-RAD technique, the aliquot of ink was pipetted onto the
GC tip mounted on an inverted rotator shaft (while gently spinning at
0–100 rpm); the rotator speed was gradually raised to 700 rpm and
the ink allowed to dry over 15 min in air at 23 ± 2◦
C.68
Nafion-free catalyst layers.—NF-SAD technique.— An example
of standard ink formulation for the preparation of a catalyst layer
with a loading of 18 μg/cm2
Pt pipetted onto the GC with a 10 μL
aliquot is as follows. For the NF-SAD technique, Pt/HSC catalyst
inks were prepared by mixing 7.6 mg catalyst powder with 6.5 mL DI
water, 3.5 mL IPA and 2.5 μL of 10 times diluted TRITON X-100.86
Pt/V catalyst inks were prepared by mixing 7.6 mg catalyst powder
with 6.5 mL DI water and 3.5 mL IPA with no added surfactant. The
sample bottle containing catalyst inks were placed in an ice bath to
form a dispersion using horn sonication (6 W, 60 s). For the NF-SAD
technique, the GC tip with the aliquot was placed on a custom-built
stainless steel holder and air dried at 40◦
C in an oven.86
For the case
of extremely low loadings of 4.5 μg/cm2
Pt, a 2.5 μL aliquot was
deposited to obtain thin uniform catalyst layers comparable to that
obtained by applying the NF-SIPAD technique described below.
Nafion-free catalyst layers.—NF-SIPAD technique.— An example
of standard ink formulation for the preparation of a catalyst layer with
a loading of 4.5 μg/cm2
Pt pipetted onto the GC with a 5 μL aliquot is
as follows. For NF-SIPAD technique, Pt/C catalyst inks were prepared
by mixing 7.6 mg catalyst powder with 7.6 mL DI water, 2.4 mL IPA.87
The catalyst inks were placed in an ice bath to form a dispersion using
horn sonication (6 W, 30 s). The aliquot of ink was subsequently
pipetted onto the GC disk placed on a custom-built stainless steel
holder and positioned in a beaker (400 mL) filled with 5 mL of IPA.
The beaker was sealed with a polymer film that was perforated (Fig.
S3, SI). The beaker with the electrodes and IPA were placed in an oven
heated to 40◦
C to gradually (∼3 hours) dry the inks under IPA vapor
(∼13 kPa) and form the catalyst layer.16,87
The NF-SIPAD technique
resulted in the thinnest and most uniform films.
Results
Foundation for ink formulation/film fabrication.— Before pro-
ceeding to discuss the details of the specific techniques that we have
developed and modified recently, we describe the general understand-
ing that we have gained in our work from refinements in ink formula-
tion and dispersion. Both Pt/HSC and Pt/V were candidate catalysts
for all of the techniques discussed in the present study. At the outset,
we embarked on an evaluation of a large number of electrodes using
inks incorporating only Pt/C and water to investigate if the typical
constituents used (IPA, Nafion ionomer) were absolutely essential.
Although we observed sporadic high values for the SA (0.9 V, 25◦
C,
100 kPa and 20 mV/s), we encountered great difficulty in obtaining
reproducible results with a low spread (number of samples: n = 44,
sample mean: ¯x = 450 μA/cm2
Pt, sample standard deviation: s = 130
μA/cm2
Pt, relative standard deviation: RSD = 30%). We re-introduced
IPA, (and Nafion for some techniques) progressively in an attempt to
obtain narrower Gaussian distributions for ORR parameters. An IPA
content of about 24% was found to result in optimally dispersed inks
and confirmed the findings of Takahashi et al.51
and resulted in peak
ECA values approaching 100 m2
/gPt for Pt/HSC. Thereafter, we con-
ducted a methodical study of the impact of ionomer (ionomer to carbon
weight ratio: I/C 0–1.4) in the catalyst ink as shown in Fig. 1; based
on the flattening of the response, an I/C ratio of 0.5 was selected for
techniques where Nafion was incorporated. Nafion-free films required
the development of new drying techniques and the introduction of a
non-ionic surfactant viz., Triton X-100 that will be discussed in the
section devoted to Nafion-free catalyst layers. A systematic study of
the effect of Pt loading (LPt 4–80 μg/cm2
Pt) (and hence thickness) was
also performed, but since the results are specific to a particular film
0
200
400
600
800
0 0.5 1 1.5
I/C ratio
SA (µA/cm2
Pt)
ECA (m2
/gPt)
Figure 1. Influence of the I/C ratio on the ECA and SA at 0.9 V of Pt/HSC
(18 μgPt/cm2). All measurements conducted in 0.1 M HClO4 at 20 mV/s.
fabrication technique, they will be discussed later. One of the studies
that we pursued was the influence of the type, intensity and duration
of ultra-sonication of the catalyst inks. During sonication under am-
bient conditions, heat is generated and the temperature of catalyst ink
rises noticeably resulting in lower (by ∼30%) ECA values. Placing
the sample bottles completely in an ice-water bath during the sonica-
tion process was found to mitigate the thermally induced degradation
of smaller Pt particles. Figure 2 depicts the change in ECA, SA and
MA for measurements performed on films fabricated from inks that
were sonicated with and without an ice-water bath. In cases where
the more aggressive horn sonication was applied, raising sonication
intensities resulted in increasingly deleterious effects observable as
a loss in ECA and activity (Fig. 2) as previously reported by Pollet
et al.91
Based on our observations, an ice bath was consistently em-
ployed for ink preparation; a bath sonication time of ∼20 min and/or
a horn sonication intensity of ∼6 W for 30 s was typically used in our
studies.
Nafion-based stationary air dry (N-SAD) technique.— A series of
ink formulations having varying formulation/aliquot volume/Pt load-
ings were systematically evaluated to arrive at an optimal ink formu-
lation for the N-SAD technique expressible as Pt/C:water:IPA:Nafion
= 7.6 mg:7.6 mL:2.4 mL:40 μL (10 μL aliquot, 18 μgPt/cm2
). The
aliquot of ink is pipetted onto the GC disk and the film dried in an oven
at 40◦
C under air atmosphere. Major groups have reported using sim-
ilar techniques in the literature and obtained fairly similar ORR activ-
ity results despite variations in the measurement protocol.17,48,51,68,85,86
Figure S4 (SI) illustrates SEM images for Pt/HSC that illustrates film
non-uniformity/coffee ring and complemented with EDAX images
that show elemental maps of Pt and F. Additionally, SEM images for
Pt/HSC at low magnification of the entire electrode (a), central region
(b), and peripheral region (c) for each of the techniques are depicted
0
100
200
300
400
100 100 6 12 18
Bath Horn
Sonication Output [W]
SA (µA/cm2
Pt)
ECA (m2
/gPt)
MA (mA/mgPt)
w/ ice
w/o ice
Figure 2. Impact of cooling of catalyst ink using an ice bath during sonication
as well as sonicator type and sonication time on ECA, SA and MA of Pt/HSC
fabricated using the N-SAD technique.

0
5
10
15
20
Frequency/#
SA @ 0.9 V (µA/cm2
Pt)
N-SAD
N-RAD
NF-SAD
NF-SIPAD
0
5
10
15
20
100 300 500 700 900 1100 1300
Frequency/#
SA @ 0.9 V (µA/cm2
Pt)
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
= =
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
(a) Pt/HSC
(b) Pt/V
Figure 3. Gaussian distributions for the SA of (a) Pt/HSC and (b) Pt/V catalyst
layers fabricated using N-SAD, N-RAD, NF-SAD, NF-SIPAD techniques.
Number of independent samples ‘n’, mean ‘¯x’ and standard deviation ‘s’ for
each of the distributions are as labeled. ORR activity measured in 0.1 M HClO4
under the following conditions: 1600 rpm, 20 mV/s, −0.01 to 1.0 V, anodic
sweep.
in Fig. S5 (SI). Figure 3 depicts Gaussian distributions for the SA of
Pt/HSC and Pt/V films prepared using the standard ink formulation
for N-SAD technique and measured using the protocol established in
Part I.88
For all histograms presented in this work, the bar widths were
determined based on chi-squared tests for 95% confidence interval.
Magnitudes of ECA, SA and MA can be found in Tables IV and V.
Nafion-based rotational air dry (N-RAD) technique.— In order to
suppress the coffee ring effect dominant in stationary drying meth-
ods, we applied a rotational drying technique originally introduced
by Garsany et al.70
A series of ink formulations having varying for-
mulation/aliquot volume/Pt loadings were systematically evaluated to
arrive at an optimal ink formulation for the N-RAD technique ex-
pressible as Pt/C:water:IPA:Nafion = 7.6 mg:7.6 mL:2.4 mL:40 μL
(10 μL aliquot, 18 μgPt/cm2
). The aliquot of ink is deposited on an
inverted rotator shaft and dried in air at 23◦
C for 15 min. Based on a
trial and error approach, we found rotation speeds in the range 500–
800 rpm were ideal to obtain the best quality films. Figure 3 shows
Gaussian distributions for the specific activity for Pt/HSC and Pt/V
films prepared using the standard ink formulation for N-RAD tech-
nique measured using the protocol established in Part I.88
The N-RAD
technique produces films with higher uniformity than N-SAD tech-
nique in the central region although a narrower coffee ring is still
observed; it is also the most conducive technique for fabricating films
with higher loadings/thicknesses (Fig S5, SI). Magnitudes of ECA,
SA and MA can be found in Tables IV and V.
Nafion-free catalyst layers.— Our first attempt to alter the ink
composition involved the elimination of Nafion ionomer mixed in the
ink. Ionomer incorporation in the catalyst ink was hitherto thought
to provide functions of a binder and enhance dispersion; however, a
binder was not essential for adhesion of the catalyst to the GC. Low
loaded ionomer free catalyst (≤∼18 μgPt/cm2
) was found to adhere
with sufficient strength so that no flaking or loss of catalyst occurred
during measurements for ORR activity evaluation at room tempera-
ture. In fact, the catalyst layer exhibits as high initial ECA as that of
Nafion-based catalyst layers coupled with a lower ECA loss than that
of Nafion-based catalyst layers after a potential cycling durability tests
Table IV. Comparison of the ECA, SA and MA at 0.9 V vs. RHE in 0.1 M HClO4, 100 kPa O2, for 46 wt% Pt/HSC (TKK) catalyst layers fabricated
in-house (N-SAD, N-RAD, NF-SAD, NF-SIPAD) with literature.
LPt
(μgPt/cm2) I/C
Drying
condition
# of
samples
ECA
(m2/gPt) T (◦C)
Scan rate
(mV/s)
Potential
range (V) Corrections
SA
(μA/cm2
Pt)
MA
(mA/mgPt) Ref.
18 0.5 (mixed) Stationary, air 28 98 ± 6 23 20 −0.01→1.0 iRsoln, b.g. 311 ± 37 303 ± 33 This work
12.7 0.3−0.8
(mixed)
Stationary, air 2 80 60 20 0→1.0 b.g. 305a 242a 85
17.3 0.5 (mixed) Stationary, air 10 91 25 10 0.2→1.2 b.g. 292 266 51
11.7 0.65 (mixed) Stationary, air — 79 30 20 0.06 (30s)→1 b.g. 360 ± 70b 280b 17
9.9 0.96 (cap) Stationary, air 3 96 25 10 0.1→1.1 iRsoln, b.g. 360 ± 20 340 ± 20 95
14 1.4 (cap) Stationary,
EtOH
— 71 25 10 0.05→1.2 none 310c 220c 96
18 0.5 (mixed) Rotational, air 49 99 ± 5 23 20 −0.01→1.0 iRsoln, b.g. 485 ± 50 477 ± 42 This work
20 0.9 (added to
ink droplet)
Rotational (w/
EG) →vaccum
— 84 25 25 0.05→1.1 iRsoln, b.g. 602 ± 75 507 ± 77 84
3.91 1.9 (mixed) Stationary
(3 nL/droplet),
air
— 79 30 20 0.06 (30s)→1 b.g. 570 ± 30b 450b 17
18 0 Stationary, air 34 98 ± 5 23 20 −0.01→1.0 iRsoln, b.g. 597 ± 45 586 ± 52 This work
4.5 0 Stationary, IPA 44 101 ± 7 23 20 −0.01→1.0 iRsoln, b.g. 864 ± 56 870 ± 91 This work
14 0 Stationary, N2
stream
> 8 74 r.t. 50 0.05→1.1 iRsoln, b.g. 490 374 47
6.4−7.4 0 Stationary, air > 4 79 25 10 0.03→1.1 b.g. 355 ± 12
(560d)
280 ± 10
(460d)
97
a 1.15 times correction was applied for background subtraction based on the statement in the manuscript.85
b SA was extracted from Fig. 10 in Ke et al.17 and 1.12 times correction was applied to covert the extracted SA at 10 mV/s to that at 20 mV/s based on the
statement in the manuscript. MA was calculated from the SA and ECA.
c SA and MA were extracted from Fig. 6 in the manuscript.96
d SA when iRsoln correction is applied assuming the correction factor (1.57) reported for the same catalyst and measurement protocol in Kim et al.95 by the
same group.
EtOH: ethanol. EG: ethylene glycol. cap: Nafion is deposited after drying catalyst on GCs. mixed: Nafion is incorporated in catalyst ink and sonicated.
added to ink droplet: Nafion solution is added to an aliquot of catalyst ink on GCs. b.g.: background current subtraction, iRsoln: iRsoln correction.

Table V. Comparison of the ECA, SA and MA at 0.9 V vs. RHE in 0.1 M HClO4, 100 kPa O2, for 46 wt% Pt/Vulcan (TKK) catalyst layers
fabricated in-home (N-SAD, N-RAD, NF-SAD, NF-SIPAD) with literature.
Manufacturer Pt wt%
LPt
(μgPt/cm2) I/C
drying
condition
# of
samples
ECA
(m2/gPt) T (◦C)
Scan rate
(mV/s)
Potential
range (V)
SA
(μA/cm2
Pt)
MA
(mA/mgPt) Ref.
TKK 46.4 18 0.5 Stationary, air 42 66 ± 4 23 20 −0.01→1.0 548 ± 86 363 ± 63 This work
TKK 46.4 18 0.5 Rotational, air 29 72 ± 3 23 20 −0.01→1.0 670 ± 25 482 ± 24 This work
TKK 46.4 18 0 Stationary, air 20 63 ± 4 23 20 −0.01→1.0 1050 ± 120 661 ± 78 This work
TKK 46.4 4.5 0 Stationary,
IPA
20 63 ± 3 23 20 −0.01→1.0 1120 ± 70 706 ± 42 This work
E-TEK 19.7 20 0.5 Rotational, air 7 63 ± 2 30 20 0.05→1.03 746 ± 26 470 ± 27 69
JM 40 20 0.5 Rotational, air 5 49 ± 1 30 20 0.05→1.03 725 ± 26 359 ± 14 68
JM 40 20 0.5 Rotational, air 5 48 ± 2 30 20 0.05→1.03 696 ± 27 332 ± 26 68
IP 46.6 20 0.5 Rotational, air 5 80 ± 1 30 20 0.05→1.03 527 ± 35 414 ± 27 68
IP 46.6 20 0.5 Rotational, air 5 83 ± 2 30 20 0.05→1.03 460 ± 34 386 ± 27 68
JM: Johnson Matthey, IP: Ion Power. All data are corrected for background current and iRsoln. Nafion ionomer is mixed in ink dispersion and sonicated for
the samples with I/C 0.5.
under N2 atmosphere (30,000 cycles at 23◦
C, 0.60–1.0 V, 500 mV/s,
triangular wave, 0 rpm). Higher loadings or thicker non-uniform films
flake off more easily. Although binding of catalyst to GC was not an
issue with the loading (≤∼18 μgPt/cm2
), for Pt/HSC, the quality of
the dispersion was severely diminished with the absence of ionomer.
After substantial experimentation, harsher horn-sonication was intro-
duced and a non-ionic surfactant, Triton X-100 was added to obtain
well-dispersed inks and uniform films on the GC. An adverse effect of
the surfactant was that the films tended to wash off when immersed in
the electrolyte and rotated during experiments. A systematic and sig-
nificant dilution of surfactant led to an optimum (x10 dilution of Triton
X-100 with water, 2.5 μL in 10 mL ink) where a good dispersion and
well-adhered films were simultaneously achieved.
Nafion-free stationary air dry (NF-SAD) technique.— A se-
ries of ink formulations having varying formulation/aliquot vol-
ume/Pt loadings were systematically evaluated to arrive at an op-
timal ink formulation for the NF-SAD technique expressible as
Pt/C:water:IPA:surfactant = 7.6 mg:6.5 mL:3.5 mL:2.5 μL (10 μL
aliquot, 18 μgPt/cm2
). The aliquot of ink is pipetted onto the GC disk
and the film dried in an oven at 40◦
C under air atmosphere. The film
quality and uniformity using the NF-SAD technique can be seen in the
SEMs (Fig. S5, SI). The NF-SAD technique, despite the presence of
a coffee ring, resulted in higher ORR SA by a factor of 1.9 compared
to N-SAD films. The ECA, however, stayed invariant at ∼100 m2
/gPt.
Figure 3 shows Gaussian distributions for the SA for Pt/HSC and Pt/V
films prepared using the standard formulation for NF-SAD technique
measured using the protocol established in Part I.88
Unfortunately, for
Pt/V, the introduction of surfactant produced a deleterious effect com-
parable to that produced by ionomer and activity improvement was not
observable. As a result, we reformulated the inks and eliminated the
surfactant for Pt/V. The resulting surfactant and Nafion-free Pt/V inks
produced films with higher SA (x1.9) compared to that of N-SAD Pt/V.
Magnitudes of ECA, SA and MA can be found in Tables IV and V.
Nafion-free stationary IPA dry (NF-SIPAD) technique.— Lastly,
in our attempt to obtain the highest measurable activity, we re-
fined and developed two stationary techniques that both produced
thin films with greatly improved uniformity. A series of ink for-
mulations having varying formulation/aliquot volume/Pt loadings
were systematically evaluated to arrive at an optimal ink for-
mulation for the NF-SIPAD technique expressible as Pt/C:water:
IPA = 3.8 mg:7.6 mL:2.4 mL (5 μL aliquot, 4.5 μgPt/cm2
). The
aliquot of ink is pipetted onto the GC disk and the film dried in an
oven at 40◦
C under IPA atmosphere.16,87
Films prepared using the NF-
SIPAD technique (Pt/HSC and Pt/V) are extremely thin and uniform
in the central region with almost no coffee ring as observed in the SEM
images (Fig. S5, SI). Pt/V (carbon black, ∼240 m2
/g) inks, in general,
form more uniformly distributed films than Pt/HSC (carbon black,
800 m2
/g) most likely due to their lower carbon black surface area.
High quality SIPAD films are more difficult to obtain consistently
since the elevated proportion of IPA in the ink results in a decreased
surface tension which in turn causes the ink to spill outside the GC and
re-deposit on the PTFE. Such samples that had incomplete coverage
with catalyst after drying were rejected based on visual inspection. An
alternative technique that we employed in some cases is essentially a
low loading variation of surfactant-based NF-SAD technique. A se-
ries of ink formulations having varying formulation/aliquot volume/Pt
loadings was evaluated to arrive at a standard for the second technique
that can be expressed as Pt/C:water:IPA:10x-diluted-surfactant = 7.6
mg:7.6 mL:2.4 mL:2.5 μL (2.5 μL aliquot, 4.5 μgPt/cm2
). The aliquot
of ink is pipetted onto the GC disk and the film dried in an oven at
40◦
C under air atmosphere. Figure 3 shows Gaussian distributions for
the SA for Pt/HSC and Pt/V films prepared using the standard ink
formulation for NF-SIPAD technique measured using the protocol es-
tablished in Part I.88
Magnitudes of ECA, SA and MA can be found
in Tables IV and V.
Consolidated magnitudes of ECA, SA, MA and ilim.— Regardless
of the film fabrication technique and inclusion of ionomer, the magni-
tude of the ECA for catalyst layers remained remarkably unchanged
within measurement error. Sources of error introduced in ECA mea-
surements originate from weight measurements of catalyst, evapora-
tion of IPA from the ink during horn sonication, pipetting accuracy,
dissolution/detachment of extremely small Pt nanoparticles during
sonication, as well as those associated with the selection of the inflec-
tion point in HUPD integration. A combined Gaussian distribution for
samples evaluated using all techniques as well as sub-distributions for
each technique are presented in Fig. 4. The combined average ECA
0
5
10
15
20
25
40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Frequency/#
ECA (m2/gPt)
N-SAD
N-RAD
NF-SAD
NF-SIPAD
all methods
Pt/HSC
Pt/V
Figure 4. Gaussian distributions for the ECA of Pt/HSC and Pt/V catalyst
layers on GC fabricated using N-SAD, NF-SAD, N-RAD and NF-SIPAD
techniques. Gaussians representing the combined data (n = 155 for Pt/HSC
and n = 111 for Pt/V) depicted by solid lines.

0
2
4
6
8
10
0
500
1000
1500
N-SAD N-RAD NF-SAD NF-SIPAD
ilim
ECA,SA,MA
SA (µA/cm2
Pt)
ECA (m2
/gPt)
MA (mA/mgPt)
ilim
(mA/cm2
)
0
2
4
6
8
10
0
500
1000
1500
N-SAD N-RAD NF-SAD NF-SIPAD
ilim
ECA,SA,MA
SA (µA/cm2
Pt)
ECA (m2
/gPt)
MA (mA/mgPt)
ilim
(mA/cm2
)
(a)
(b)
Figure 5. ECA, SA and MA at 0.9 V in 0.1 M HClO4 for (a) Pt/HSC, and
(b) Pt/V catalyst layers fabricated using N-SAD, NF-SAD, N-RAD and NF-
SIPAD techniques for 20–49 independent samples.
for Pt/HSC for 155 samples fabricated using standard N-SAD, NF-
SAD, N-RAD and NF-SIPAD techniques was 99 ± 6 m2
/gPt, while
corresponding values for Pt/V for 111 samples was 67 ± 5 m2
/gPt. All
ECA values in Fig. 4 are based on HUPD integration, however, we con-
ducted CO stripping measurements on a limited number of samples to
corroborate magnitude of the ECA and found the CO stripping charge
was ∼1.9–2.0 times the corresponding HUPD charge as expected.92
A
notable corollary of the observed technique-independent ECA is that
changes in measured MA (due to film quality) are solely the outcome
of a concomitant change in measured SA.
Figure 5 concisely consolidates the ECA, SA, MA and ilim for
Pt/HSC and Pt/V catalysts evaluated using different fabrication tech-
niques and indisputably substantiates the enhancement in measured
MA for uniform, thin films with a high degree of reproducibility. The
measured SA for electrodes prepared by the NF-SIPAD techniques is
2.8 times higher for Pt/HSC and 2.0 times higher for Pt/V than the con-
ventional stationary drying, N-SAD, technique commonly reported in
the literature. The O2 diffusion limiting currents in RDE studies are
recognized to be function of the rotation speed and the geometric area
(poly-Pt) or coverage and distribution of catalyst over the geometric
area (Pt/C). Additionally, a discrete Nafion film >0.2 μm (for an O2
diffusion boundary layer in the electrolyte δd ∼15 μm, 1600 rpm)
present over the catalyst layer introduces an O2 diffusion resistance
proportional to 1/if to attenuate the limiting current.15,16
The limiting
currents for Pt/HSC and Pt/V catalyst layers show no discernible trend
(Pt/HSC: 5.8 ± 0.2 mA/cm2
, n = 155; Pt/V: 5.9 ± 0.1 mA/cm2
, n =
111) or dependence on fabrication technique within the limits of error.
The limiting currents for Pt/HSC and Pt/V are comparable to that for
a poly-Pt (6.06 ± 0.02 mA/cm2
, n = 30) as well as a calculated values
at 1600 rpm (5.99 mA/cm2
) using kinematic viscosity (1.009×10–2
cm2
/s93
), solubility (1.26 mol/dm393
) and diffusivity (1.90 × 10–5
cm2
/s94
). Lastly, we have tabulated ORR activity results (Table IV
and V) from this work and pertinent literature17,47,51,68,69,84,85,95–97
ex-
haustively detailing test conditions and film fabrication techniques
where possible.
Effect of I/C ratio and loading.— We conducted RDE experiments
using inks having various I/C ratios in the range 0–30; a precipitous
Figure 6. Dependence of the ECA, SA at 0.9 V, ilim on Pt loading. All ORR
measurements conducted in 0.1 M HClO4 for Pt/HSC catalyst films (N-RAD
technique).
loss in the ECA was observed (not shown) only at excessive I/C
ratios ∼30, with 80% loss for N-SAD and 60% loss for N-RAD
techniques; no noticeable losses were observable at lower ionomer
contents within experimental error. Using exclusively the N-RAD
technique that is suitable for fabricating films over a wide range of
thickness, we conducted an extensive study of the loading/thickness
(Fig. 6) to identify the sources of the losses within the catalyst layer.
The limiting current and ECA are fairly constant over the range of
catalyst loadings (4.5–144 μgPt/cm2
) albeit a small drop in limiting
current noticeable at very low loadings is ascribable to incomplete
coverage of the GC with catalyst. The SA stays relatively flat until a
loading of 50 μgPt/cm2
is reached, at which point a downward trend
emerges.
Electrochemical impedance spectroscopy (EIS).— A majority of
researchers have applied EIS to bulk smooth metal surfaces and TF-
RDEs with the primary goal of understanding fundamental ORR ki-
netic parameters and the double layer capacitance.44,50,83,98–106
At-
tempts to study kinetics have generally been hampered by difficulties
in de-convoluting overlapping time constants of kinetics from O2 dif-
fusion. Two notable studies on EIS applied to Pt/C catalyst layers
in RDE setups include the work of Easton et al.107
focused on H+
resistance within the RDE catalyst layer for relatively high loadings
while the work of Perez et al.44
coupled experiments with modeling
in an attempt to separate kinetics from O2 diffusion.
We have applied EIS to obtain the Rsoln, electronic resistance
(Re−,cl), protonic resistance (RH+,cl) and ionomer distribution within
the catalyst layer, and double layer capacitance (Cdl) using an uni-
form RC ‘transmission line’ model with additional parallel complex
impedance elements to simulate kinetics and mass transport faradaic
processes (under O2, air), when necessary, as shown in Fig. 7.108,109
However, significant contribution from bulk diffusion persists even at
0.9 V making it extremely difficult to separate kinetics from O2 diffu-
sion as discussed later. Thus, our results on EIS are restricted primarily
to inert atmospheres as we encounter overlapping time constants as-
sociated with oxide coverage on Pt, trace impurities in electrolyte, O2
diffusion in conjunction with a time dependent response resulting in
unresolved complexities arising in our analyses.
EIS—Catalyst layer electronic resistance (Re−,cl ).— Since the
electronic conductivity of carbon black is extremely high (10’s of
S/cm110
), it has been conventionally assumed that the contribution
of electronic resistances in the 10 μm cathode catalyst layers of
PEMFCs is inconsequential. If electronic resistances in the catalyst
layer (RDE) were comparable to the ionomer resistance, they would
manifest at the high frequency real intercept of the Nyquist plot
(Fig. 7c) as follows (when contact resistance Re−,contact = 0):111
H F R = Rsoln +Rcombined [1]

GC
e
acid
H
+
O2
dRe ,cl
dCdl
dZ
Re ,contact
Rsoln
dRH
+
,cl
0
5
10
15
20
0 10 20
0
1
2
3
4 5 6
0
5
10
15
20
0 10 20
0
1
2
3
4 5 6
_
+ , −
N2
O2
, Rct
O2
, Rct
+ RO _diff2
(a)
(b)
(c)
Figure 7. (a) Equivalent electric circuit of transmission line model for TF-
RDE that describes the general case of Rsoln, uniformly distributed capacitance
per unit length (dCdl), the reaction/diffusion related impedance (dZ) (gray)
as well as protonic resistance (dRH+,cl) and electronic resistance (dRe−,cl),
representing the impedances in the catalyst layer, and Re−,contact. (b) Schematic
of catalyst layer on a GC disk depicting the reactant gas, proton and electron
pathways. (c) Nyquist plot that describes curves under N2 and O2; real part of
the 45o response corresponds to RH+,cl-eff when Re−,cl is negligibly small.
where Rcombined can be expressed with Re−,cl and RH+,cl as
1
Rcombined
=
1
Re−,cl
+
1
RH+,cl
[2]
Eq. 1 can be reduced to Rsoln when Re−,cl is negligible. Figure 8 de-
picts EIS spectra for poly-Pt at 0.1 V and Pt/C at 0.1, 0.45 and 0.9 V;
impedance attributable to electronic resistance was not detected at
high frequencies after accounting for the solution resistance. The lack
of dependence with potential suggests that oxide formation on Pt has
an imperceptible effect on Re−,cl, and we do not anticipate apprecia-
ble electronic resistances in the catalyst layer or contact resistances
between the catalyst and the GC surface for reasonable I/C ratios.
EIS—Catalyst layer protonic resistance (RH+,cl).— The catalyst
layer on the RDE GC is composed of Pt/C covered with a discontin-
uous Nafion film soaked in 0.1 M HClO4 with a porous structure that
is completely flooded with acid electrolyte. Hinged on the underlying
premise that the RDE catalyst layers are extremely thin, the associ-
ated resistance has been seldom studied comprehensively. In practice,
0
2
4
6
8
10
0 2 4 6 8 10
HFR
= Rsoln
+Rcombined
poly-Pt
0.10 V
0.10 V
0.45 V
0.90 V
Pt/HSC
Figure 8. Nyquist plots of impedance spectra (3 repeats) measured under N2
for poly-Pt and Pt/HSC catalyst layer (18 μgPt/cm2) fabricated using N-SAD
technique. 0.1 M HClO4 electrolytes from a single source were employed for
all experiments.
the catalyst layers can range in thickness from ∼0.2–6 μm (4.5–18
μgPt/cm2
) over the geometric area especially for non-uniform films
having a ‘coffee ring’ structure. EIS spectra corresponding to the data
shown in Fig. 6 are presented in Fig. 9a as a Nyquist plot with an inset
depicting the non-linear trend of analyzed catalyst layer resistance as
a function of loading. The extracted values of effective catalyst layer
protonic resistance (RH+,cl-eff = RH+,cl/3) fall in the range ∼0.4–
1.6 · cm2
for loadings ∼4.5–144 μgPt/cm2
in 0.1 M HClO4. The
response of the catalyst layer to reactant gas and potential is informa-
tive and detailed in Fig. 9b. The protonic resistance extracted from
the high frequency 45◦
segment of the spectra (5 kHz–5 Hz at 0.1
V, 5 kHz–30 Hz at ≥0.45 V) is found to be independent of both
reactant and potential. Under N2 at low frequencies, a purely capac-
itive response is observable at low reducing potentials (0.1–0.45 V)
0
2
4
6
8
10
0 2 4 6 8 10
144 µgPt/cm2
108 µgPt/cm2
4.5−72 µgPt/cm2
RH
+
,cl-eff
0
1
2
0 50 100 150
RH+,cl-eff(2)
Pt loading (µgPt/cm2)
0
5
10
15
20
0 5 10 15 20
0.10 V
0.45 V
0.90 V
0.45 V
0.60 V
0.85 V
0.90 V
N2
O2
(a)
(b)
Figure 9. (a) Dependence of catalyst layer resistance on Pt loading. (b)
Nyquist plot showing convergence of N2 and O2 data at higher frequencies.
All EIS measurements conducted in 0.1 M HClO4 for Pt/HSC catalyst films
(N-RAD technique for (a), N-SAD technique for (b), I/C 0.5).

0.80
0.85
0.90
0.95
1.00
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Potential(Vvs.RHE)
SA (mA/cm2
Pt)
poly-Pt
Pt/V
36 µgPt/cm2
4.518
Figure 10. ORR I-V curves at 400 rpm in 0.1 M HClO4 for poly-Pt and Pt/V
catalyst layers fabricated using NF-SIPAD (4.5 μgPt/cm2) and NF-RAD (18
and 36 μgPt/cm2).
corresponding with an oxide-free Pt surface. As the potentials are
raised (0.45–0.9 V), the response of the oxide covered Pt manifests
as a tilted semi-circular arc that represents the emergence of a time
constant related to adsorption/desorption processes that have not been
taken into account in this work. Lastly, under O2 at potentials >0.6 V
and low frequencies (<30 Hz), overlapping time constants associated
with larger charge transfer resistance (Rct) and O2 diffusion resistance
(RO2_diff) appear. Thus, the catalyst layer resistance can be obtained
from EIS spectra at any potential although we advocate the use of
reducing potentials under N2 for facile extraction of RH+,cl-eff. The
effective protonic conductivity of the catalyst layer is anticipated to
be dominated by the conductivity of 0.1 M HClO4 since the ionomer
(nm thickness112–115
) is soaked in it.75
Since RH+,cl-eff is directly pro-
portional to the acid conductivity (hence acid molarity) it confirms
our interpretation that the real intercept of the Nyquist plot does in-
deed provide a measure of the catalyst layer resistance. Likewise,
RH+,cl-eff was to be almost identical in both perchloric and sulfuric
acids in the range 0.004–0.5 M (not shown). It is worth noting that
a pure ORR kinetic response emerges around ∼30–2 Hz but signifi-
cant overlap with O2 diffusion at lower frequencies renders it difficult
to de-convolute the individual components. Prolonged oxide growth
and impurity adsorption from electrolyte interferes with our ability to
carry out constant current steady-state measurements (constant iRsoln
loss and O2 flux from the bulk) as they are accompanied by a low fre-
quency time constant that broadens with time. The typical RH+,cl-eff
for catalyst layers produced by the four different techniques (Fig. S6,
SI) ranges from ∼0.1 · cm2
to ∼1.5 · cm2
(RN-SAD > RN-RAD ≈
RNF-SAD > RNF-SIPAD).
EIS—Catalyst layer oxygen diffusion.— A series of reasonably
uniform films of Nafion-free Pt/V (NF-SIPAD) in a narrow loading
and thickness range of 4.5–36 μgPt/cm2
were fabricated and the cor-
responding Tafel plots are depicted in Fig. 10. At 0.9 V, the SA for
4.5 μgPt/cm2
Pt/V layers is independent of the rotation rate (Fig. S7,
SI) coupled with an I-V profile that approaches poly-Pt (∼zero film
thickness); the O2 diffusion losses can be safely disregarded at 0.9 V
allowing us to draw the conclusion that thin uniform films fabricated
by the NF-SIPAD technique provides a true measure of the ORR
kinetics.
We estimated the O2 diffusion of the non-uniform catalyst layers
using the magnitude of protonic resistance (RH+,cl-eff) obtained from
EIS in combination with an ‘effective thickness’ from SEM images.
Figure 11a is a schematic representation of the procedure used to
estimate the effective thickness on uniform and non-uniform catalyst
layers, and Fig. 11b shows the correlation between the effective cat-
alyst layer thickness and protonic resistance obtained from EIS. It
should be pointed out that ∼70% of the catalyst is located at the cof-
fee ring band for films fabricated by the N-SAD technique in contrast
to negligible amounts for NF-SIPAD films. The effective thickness
was calculated from thickness and the vol% of its thickness (vol%
0
0.5
1
1.5
0 1 2 3 4
vol% weighted thickness (µm)
2T
3T
2T
1T
vol% weighted thickness
= 3Tx60vol%+2Tx20vol%+1Tx20vol%
= 2.4T
vol% weighted thickness
= 2Tx100vol%
= 2T
(a)
(b)
Figure 11. (a) Schematic representation of vol% weighted effective catalyst
layer thickness estimation procedure for uniform and non-uniform catalyst
films. (b) effective (vol% weighted) estimated from SEM images vs. catalyst
layer effective protonic resistance for Pt/HSC and Pt/V.
weighted thickness) to account for longer diffusion paths in non-
uniform films. Figure 12 depicts SEM images of tilted catalyst layer
samples used to parameters used to estimate the effective thickness.
Non-uniform films exhibit a thick coffee ring structure at the periphery
of GC while the rest of the central GC area has a relatively constant
thickness; the effective thickness was determined from dimensions of
these two areas. Although our estimation process involves approxima-
tions, the resultant porosity of the catalyst layers (65–75%), calculated
from the total volume of the catalyst layer, carbon and ionomer load-
ing, and carbon and ionomer densities (2 g/cm3
), agrees closely with
that reported in literature for MEAs of PEMFCs.108,113
We conducted additional studies on catalyst layers fabricated by
the four techniques for ORR activity in 0.1 M and 0.5 M H2SO4 to
probe the effect of thickness in the presence of strong anion adsorption
((Bi)sulfate anions). In the presence of sulfuric acid, the losses due to
anion adsorption are overwhelming but we continue to clearly observe
additional losses that are proportional to thickness of the catalyst layers
of films.
Discussion
Activity losses within the catalyst layer.— The film fabrication
techniques described in the Results section yield catalyst layers that
exhibit a broad range of properties in terms of thickness and distri-
bution of catalyst agglomerates and ionomer over the GC geometric
area. As mentioned before, researchers have provided guidelines re-
stricting the allowable thickness of the Nafion cap (δf <0.2 μm for δd
∼15 μm at 1600 rpm) to prevent suppression of O2 diffusion limiting
currents. It has been implicitly assumed in past studies that the catalyst
layer is fairly uniform and losses solely ‘outside the catalyst layer’
have been identified and corrected. Specifically, corrections have been
conventionally applied to account for O2 diffusion in bulk electrolyte,
background correction, and solution resistance while losses ‘within
the catalyst layer’ have been generally overlooked. It should be strik-
ingly evident from our results that achieving predicted diffusion lim-
iting currents is a necessary but not sufficient condition for a loss-free
kinetic measurement. In the light of these results, we propose that prior
assumptions are not valid, in that, both the incorporation of Nafion
ionomer and the effective film thickness can significantly depress the
measured ORR activity. Accordingly, losses ‘within the catalyst layer’
must be scrutinized and quantified in relation to film quality to obtain a

1.4 µm
2.7 µm
6.1 µm
0.5 µm
3.7 µm
0.3 µm
0.6 µm
Pt/HSC N-SAD
Pt/HSC N-RAD
(1b) (1c)
(2b) (2c)
Pt/HSC NF-SIPAD (3b) (3c)
Pt/V NF-SIPAD (4b) (4c)
(1a)
(2a)
(3a)
(4a)
x1k x2k
x1k x2k
x950 x3k
x1.5k x2.5k
x23
x23
x23
x23
Figure 12. Catalyst layer thickness estimation from tilted sample SEM images: Pt/HSC (1) N-SAD, (2) N-RAD, (3) NF-IPAD, (4) Pt/V NF-SIPAD, (a) entire
area, (b) edge area, (c) near edge area. Catalyst removed over a narrow band (horizontal arrows) to facilitate observation and analysis of catalyst layer thickness
for each local area.
true measure of catalyst activity. It is worth pointing out that MEAs of
PEMFCs are routinely and systematically investigated and analyzed
to account for over-potential losses in the cathode catalyst layer; anal-
ogous investigations have not been implemented for TF-RDE catalyst
layers (except for the flooded macro homogeneous model6
and flooded
agglomerate model44
to simulate O2 diffusion). Prior to embarking on
a detailed analysis to identify, resolve and separate loss contributions
‘within the catalyst layer’, we attempt a qualitative assessment of the
symptoms of losses from ORR I-V curve profiles.
Typical bulk poly-Pt disks having roughness factors ∼1.2–1.4 may
be postulated to physically approximate films approaching zero thick-
ness; the applicability of this treatment becomes evident when Tafel
plots (and inset I-Vs) for bulk poly-Pt are compared with representative
profiles for catalyst layers fabricated by the different techniques and
having finite thicknesses and non-uniformity as depicted in Fig. 13.
ORR I-V profiles for poly-Pt approach ideal behavior with respect
to Tafel slopes and the sharp transition from mixed kinetic/diffusion
regime to O2 diffusion limiting currents. The Tafel slope for the ultra-
thin uniform film fabricated using the NF-SIPAD technique closely
follows poly-Pt in the kinetic regime with a minor departure that
is barely detectable in the transition regime to the limiting current
(Fig. 13 inset). It would be a reasonable interpretation that ultra-thin
films fabricated by NF-SIPAD technique allow us to extract a true
measure of the kinetic current at lower current densities where ORR
activity values are reported. In contrast, for the N-SAD technique,
a significant divergence from poly-Pt profile is observable and thus
demands detailed investigation and analysis of losses. The deeper
meaning and fundamental implications of the magnitude of (single
0.80
0.85
0.90
0.95
1.00
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Potential(Vvs.RHE)
SA (mA/cm2
Pt)
poly-Pt
N-SAD
N-RAD
NF-SAD
NF-SIPAD
-7
-5
-3
-1
I(mA/cm2)
V
Figure 13. ORR Tafel plots of poly-Pt and Pt/HSC catalyst layers fabricated
using N-SAD, NF-SAD, N-RAD and NF-SIPAD techniques. ORR activity
measured in 0.1 M HClO4 under the following conditions: 1600 rpm, 20
mV/s, −0.01 to 1.0 V, anodic sweep.

0
200
400
600
800
1000
SA@0.9V(µA/cm2
Pt)
K-L, b.g. & iRsoln
O2_diff-cl
Ads./blocking
iRH
+
,cl-eff
Figure 14. Breakdown of SA losses at 0.9 V for Pt/HSC catalyst layers fab-
ricated using N-SAD, N-RAD, NF-SAD, NF-SIPAD techniques. N-RAD and
NF-SAD catalyst layers had identical thickness and N-SAD and N-RAD layers
had identical I/C ratio.
and double) Tafel slopes for bulk poly-Pt and Pt/C have been exten-
sively debated over decades and continue to be a contentious subject;
for the purposes of this work, we have confined ourselves to a quali-
tative analysis. It should also be apparent that the absolute magnitude
Tafel slopes have fundamental significance only after corrections have
been made for losses ‘within the catalyst layer’.
Breakdown of losses within the catalyst layer.— Prior to this anal-
ysis, all data were corrected for losses incurred ‘outside the catalyst
layer’ related to the solution resistance, K-L, and b.g. current correc-
tions. To identify and de-convolute the losses, and account for the
varying magnitude of the measured electrochemical activity, we uti-
lized the magnitude of Re−,cl, RH+,cl-eff and estimates of O2 diffusion
from EIS results. Figure 14 elucidates the breakdown of losses for
identical samples as shown in Fig. 13 associated with the measured
kinetic currents (gray), losses associated with the catalyst layer re-
sistance (orange), ionomer adsorption/blocking related losses (green)
and O2 diffusion (blue) for each of the four film fabrication tech-
niques at a fixed potential of interest viz., 0.9 V. In all cases, the
effective catalyst layer resistance (RH+,cl-eff) was extracted directly
from the EIS measurements and used to correct the loss due to the
ohmic drop. Although the magnitude of the catalyst layer resistance
is large, the currents in RDE studies especially at 0.9 V are low, re-
sulting in a non-negligible finite loss (orange bars) due to iRH+,cl-eff
at 0.9 V.
The NF-SIPAD technique produces the thinnest and most uniform
catalyst layers and results in the highest kinetic currents (Pt/HSC)
that have been reported; consequently, the ORR I-V profiles closely
resemble that of poly-Pt and the loss due to iRH+,cl-eff at 0.9 V is
negligible. We also conducted limited experiments using an automated
nano-liter ink deposition system identical to that used by Ke et al.17
to
fabricate extremely thin and highly uniform films. The SA obtained
using NF-SIPAD technique was comparable to that obtained with
the automated system. Thus, for the purposes of this discussion, we
assume that these films are free from contributions arising from O2
diffusion as well as anion adsorption/blocking. A departure from these
values observed for various films fabricated by other techniques can
therefore be assigned to losses arising within the catalyst layer. The
primary difference between catalyst layers fabricated by the NF-SAD
technique (4.5 μgPt/cm2
) and the NF-SIPAD technique (18 μgPt/cm2
)
arises from the effective thickness of the two films. Using inductive
reasoning, we can directly attribute the residual difference between
these two techniques (after correction for iRH+,cl-eff) to O2 diffusion
losses.
The loss contribution from the interaction of Pt with ionomer can
be separated as follows. Catalyst layers fabricated by the NF-SAD
and N-RAD techniques (18 μgPt/cm2
) exhibit nearly identical catalyst
layer resistances, which in turn is a measure of O2 diffusion loss. As-
signing identical O2 diffusion losses, the residual difference between
these two techniques can then be credited to ionomer-related losses
(∼150 μA/cm2
Pt). The magnitude of the ionomer-related losses can
be substantiated from the plots of SA vs. effective catalyst layer resis-
tance/effective thickness with and without ionomer (∼200 μA/cm2
Pt)
as well as SA as a function of ionomer cap as exemplified in Fig. S8
(SI).
Catalyst layers fabricated by the N-RAD and N-SAD techniques
share identical ionomer related losses (I/C 0.5) but suffer from dissim-
ilar O2 diffusion losses due to significant differences in the degree of
non-uniformity and hence effective thicknesses. Therefore, the resid-
ual difference from the kinetic currents obtained from the N-RAD
and N-SAD technique can be attributed to higher O2 diffusion for the
N-SAD technique due to its thick and highly non-uniform coffee ring
films. To further support our argument, we correlated the effective
catalyst layer resistance for the various catalyst layers to O2 diffusion.
It was found that N-SAD films have 2.5x the effective thickness as the
N-RAD technique and the NF-SAD films corroborating the validity
of our analysis. Thus, using estimates obtained from various diag-
nostics and induction, we have obtained a reasonable break-down of
losses within the RDE catalyst layers having varying film properties
fabricated by different techniques.
Implications for PEMFCs.— A comprehensive paper85
originated
from General Motors in which the status of baseline Pt/C catalyst
activity (in RDE and subscale PEMFC platforms) as well as target
performance projected for successful automotive commercialization
was delineated. They compared the ORR activity (for identical cata-
lysts) in TF-RDE and MEAs of PEMFCs under quite different con-
ditions (0.9 V, 60◦
C, 100 kPa, 20 mV/s in 0.1 M HClO4 vs. 0.9 V,
80◦
C, 103 kPa, 100% RH and 15 min/point) to obtain MA values that
ranged from 200 mA/mgPt to 160 mA/mgPt. Based on these results,
they argued that the ORR activity obtained from RDE experiments
measured in non-adsorbing electrolytes such as 0.1 M HClO4 was a
valid predictor of the performance in PEMFCs incorporating PFSA
ionomers in their catalyst layers. Previously, Paulus et al.15
had also
conducted a detailed analysis to demonstrate equivalence between
the measured ORR activity in their RDE studies in 0.5 M HClO4
to the kinetic limit reported for PEMFCs by Wilson et al.;116
they
rationalized a factor of 3x higher activity found in PEMFCs to a 3x
higher O2 solubility in recast Nafion. Bearing in mind the significant
differences between RDE and PEMFC electrode, electrolyte, mea-
surement protocol and operating conditions, it is debatable whether
the absolute magnitudes of activity measured in the two systems can
be compared meaningfully. Firstly, the evaluation protocols are vastly
different between RDE and MEA studies and cannot be reconciled. As
emphasized in part I of this manuscript and literature,117
the measured
activity strongly depends on temperature, scan rate, scan direction
and initial potential. Scan rates employed for activity measurements
in RDE studies are in contrast to pseudo-steady state measurements
in fuel cells, in part, due to the facile poisoning of the Pt catalyst by
the perchloric acid electrolyte. For a given rotation speed (impurity
flux), the impact of poisoning and activity loss is accelerated at low
Pt loadings (low roughness factor) leading to additional complexities.
Secondly, although the catalyst layer structure in MEAs and Nafion-
based RDE films is analogous w.r.t. porosity and ionomer coverage,
the pores of the RDE films are completely flooded with acid. Over
and above, significant O2 diffusion losses are present within the cata-
lyst layer in the Nafion-based thick RDE films (Fig. 14, N-SAD) that
are typically left uncorrected. Based on the discussion above, neither
Nafion-based nor Nafion-free catalyst layers can be expected to re-
sult in ORR activities having comparable absolute magnitudes to that
in MEAs of PEMFCs. Nevertheless, rough trends in ORR specific
activity for some Pt based catalysts in RDEs and MEAs (e.g. PtCo/C,
PtNi/C) have been found to be consistent.20,51,117–120
Any departure
that may be observed between RDE and MEA trends may be ascribed
to due to thick non-uniform films in some RDE studies as well as the
detrimental effect of base metal leachants on the limited protonic sites
of the ionomer in the cathode catalyst layer.85

A critical and unresolved challenge in PEMFCs that has arisen with
the attempts at reducing Pt loading and cost is the lower than projected
peak power for cathodes incorporating ultra-low Pt loadings. The issue
is being studied intensively and different groups114,121–125
have identi-
fied several possible routes including catalyst interaction with Nafion.
In MEAs of PEMFCs, since it is not possible to carry out an investi-
gation in the absence of ionomer (ionomer is indispensable for proton
conduction), the contribution of the ionomer adsorption/blocking can-
not be easily examined. In our studies it is possible to include Nafion
ionomer in the catalyst layer of RDEs to partially simulate the envi-
ronment of Pt in MEAs (as a function of potential) and quantify the
percentage loss in kinetics due to adsorption/blocking. A similar phe-
nomenon along with kinetic losses at peak power may be predicted to
take place in MEAs of PEMFCs.
Conclusions
We draw the following conclusions from the key experimental
findings and analysis discussed in the paper:
1. The ORR activity for Pt/HSC films fabricated using the NF-
SIPAD technique was determined to be: MA 870 ± 91 mA/mgPt
and SA 864 ± 56 μA/cm2
Pt; and corresponding values for Pt/V
were: MA 706 ± 42 mA/mgPt and SA 1120 ± 70 μA/cm2
Pt
measured in 0.1 M HClO4 at 20 mV/s, 100 kPa O2 and 23◦
C.
This corresponds to a three-fold enhancement of measured SA
and MA compared to the traditional N-SAD technique widely
used in the literature.
2. On comparing Nafion-based and Nafion-free Pt/HSC and Pt/V
catalyst layers for RDE evaluation of the SA using N-SAD, N-
RAD and NF-SIPAD techniques, it was found that the repro-
ducibility was higher for N-RAD (Pt/HSC: 29 samples, 10%
RSD, Pt/V: 49 samples, 4% RSD) and NF-SIPAD (Pt/HSC: 44
samples, 7% RSD, Pt/V: 20 samples, 6% RSD) techniques as
compared to traditional N-SAD (Pt/HSC: 28 samples, 12% RSD,
Pt/V: 42 samples, 16% RSD). The RAD technique was least
influenced by operator skill while the SIPAD technique was sen-
sitive to operator skill, precise leveling of the sample holder and
humidity.
3. A breakdown of losses based on EIS, SEM, and electrochemi-
cal measurements reveals that O2 diffusion through thick non-
uniform films and Nafion ionomer adsorption have a deleterious
effect on ORR kinetics on Pt/HSC catalyst. Due to the variability
in these losses, the conventional N-SAD technique may not be
the best predictor of activity trends.
4. Nafion-free catalyst layers fabricated using the NF-SIPAD tech-
nique have thinnest and most uniform films and results in the
highest measured SA at given scan rate. The negligibly low cata-
lyst layer resistance and I-V profiles that approach poly-Pt leads
us to believe that we are approaching a true measure of kinetics.
5. It is not possible to predict the absolute value of ORR activity in
MEAs of PEMFCs based on the absolute values obtained from
TF-RDE studies, even for identical protocols, based on the dis-
similarities of the Pt | Electrolyte interface in the two systems
and poisoning from electrolyte in RDE experiments. However,
the trends in activity between the two systems have generally
been shown to be valid for Pt based catalysts.
Acknowledgments
Shyam S. Kocha gratefully acknowledges funding from the U.S.
Department of Energy, Fuel Cells Technologies Program under Con-
tract No. DE-AC36-08-GO28308 to the National Renewable Energy
Laboratory (NREL). Kazuma Shinozaki greatly acknowledges his
Ph.D advisor Dr. Ryan Richards (Colorado School of Mines, CSM),
Dr. Yu Morimoto, Tatsuya Hatanaka and Dr. Masaya Kawasumi (Toy-
ota Central R&D Labs., Inc., TCRDL)) for advice on his thesis work.
Kazuma Shinozaki’s stay at NREL and CSM was funded by TCRDL.
We thank Dr. Bruce E. Liebert (University of Hawai’i) for discus-
sions on EIS measurements, Dr. Jung Yi for sharing his expertise on
EIS modeling and Dr. Guido Bender for electrical equivalent circuit
schematics. We would also like to thank Dr. Yannick Garsany for
consulting on the rotation air dry (RAD) technique.
List of Symbols
n number of samples
¯x sample mean
s sample standard deviation
if O2 diffusion limiting current within ionomer/membrane
film
ik kinetic current, mA/cm2
ne number of electrons transferred
F Faraday’s constant,
Df diffusivity of a reactant in the membrane
δf membrane thickness
δd boundary (diffusion) layer thickness in bulk electrolyte
LPt Pt loading on glassy carbon substrate, μgPt/cm2
Rsoln solution resistance, · cm2
Cdl double layer capacitance, F/g
Rcombined combined resistance of Re−,cl and RH+,cl, · cm2
RH+,cl catalyst layer protonic resistance, · cm2
RH
+
,cl-eff effective catalyst layer protonic resistance (=RH
+
,cl/3),
· cm2
Re−,cl catalyst layer electronic resistance, · cm2
Re−,contact contact resistance, · cm2
Rct charge transfer resistance, · cm2
RO2 diff O2 diffusion resistance, · cm2
References
1. D. Papageorgopoulos, Annu. Merit Rev. Proc. Fuel Cells (2014) http://www.
hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/review14/fc000_papageorgopoulos_2014_o.pdf.
2. S. S. Kocha, in Polymer Electrolyte Fuel Cell Degradation, M. Mench,
E. C. Kumbur, and T. N. Veziroglu, Editors, p. 89, Elsevier Inc. (2012).
3. A. Iiyama, K. Shinohara, S. Iguchi, and A. Daimaru, in Handbook of Fuel Cells:
Advances in Electrocatalysis, Materials, Diagnostics and Durability, W. Vielstich,
H. A. Gasteiger, and H. Yokokawa, Editors, p. 1090, Wiley, Chichester, UK (2009).
4. P. Stonehart and P. N. Ross, Electrochim. Acta, 21, 441 (1976).
5. T. J. Schmidt and H. A. Gasteiger, in Handbook of Fuel Cells – Fundamentals,
Technology and Applications, W. Vielstich, H. A. Gasteiger, and A. Lamm, Editors,
p. 316, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd (2003).
6. F. Gloaguen, F. Andolfatto, R. Durand, and P. Ozil, J. Appl. Electrochem., 24, 863
(1994).
7. Y. W. Chien, C. L. Olson, and T. D. Sokoloski, J. Pharm. Sci., 62, 435 (1973).
8. D. A. Gough and J. K. Leypoldt, Anal. Chem., 51, 439 (1979).
9. D. A. Gough and J. K. Leypoldt, Anal. Chem., 52, 1126 (1980).
10. S. Gottesfeld, I. D. Raistrick, and S. Srinivasan, J. Electrochem. Soc., 134, 1455
(1987).
11. D. R. Lawson, L. D. Whiteley, C. R. Martin, M. N. Szentirmay, and J. I. Song, J.
Electrochem. Soc., 135, 2247 (1988).
12. M. Watanabe, H. Igarashi, and K. Yosioka, Electrochim. Acta, 40, 329 (1995).
13. T. J. Schmidt, H. A. Gasteiger, G. D. Stab, D. M. Kolb, and R. J. Behm, J. Elec-
trochem. Soc., 145, 2354 (1998).
14. S. L. Gojković, S. K. Zecevic, and R. F. Savinell, J. Electrochem. Soc., 145, 3713
(1998).
15. U. A. Paulus, T. J. Schmidt, H. A. Gasteiger, and R. J. Behm, J. Electroanal. Chem.,
495, 134 (2001).
16. E. Higuchi, H. Uchida, and M. Watanabe, J. Electroanal. Chem., 583, 69 (2005).
17. K. Ke, K. Hiroshima, Y. Kamitaka, T. Hatanaka, and Y. Morimoto, Electrochim.
Acta, 72, 120 (2012).
18. U. A. Paulus, A. Wokaun, G. G. Scherer, T. J. Schmidt, V. Stamenkovic,
N. M. Markovic, and P. N. Ross, Electrochim. Acta, 47, 3787 (2002).
19. V. R. Stamenkovic, B. S. Mun, M. Arenz, K. J. J. Mayrhofer, C. A. Lucas, G. Wang,
P. N. Ross, and N. M. Markovic, Nat. Mater., 6, 241 (2007).
20. D. van der Vliet, C. Wang, M. Debe, R. Atanasoski, N. M. Markovic, and
V. R. Stamenkovic, Electrochim. Acta, 56, 8695 (2011).
21. D. F. van der Vliet, C. Wang, D. Tripkovic, D. Strmcnik, X. F. Zhang, M. K. Debe,
R. T. Atanasoski, N. M. Markovic, and V. R. Stamenkovic, Nat. Mater., 11, 1051
(2012).
22. C. Wang, D. Li, M. Chi, J. Pearson, R. B. Rankin, J. Greeley, Z. Duan, G. Wang,
D. van der Vliet, K. L. More, N. M. Markovic, and V. R. Stamenkovic, J. Phys.
Chem. Lett., 3, 1668 (2012).
23. J. Wu and H. Yang, Acc. Chem. Res., 46, 1848 (2013).
24. Y. Kang and C. B. Murray, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 132, 7568 (2010).

25. T. Ioroi and K. Yasuda, J. Electrochem. Soc., 152, A1917 (2005).
26. P. Hernandez-Fernandez, F. Masini, D. N. McCarthy, C. E. Strebel, D. Friebel,
D. Deiana, P. Malacrida, A. Nierhoff, A. Bodin, A. M. Wise, J. H. Nielsen,
T. W. Hansen, A. Nilsson, I. E. L. Stephens, and I. Chorkendorff, Nat. Chem., 6,
732 (2014).
27. K. Sasaki, H. Naohara, Y. Cai, Y. M. Choi, P. Liu, M. B. Vukmirovic, J. X. Wang,
and R. R. Adzic, Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. Engl., 49, 8602 (2010).
28. J. Zhang, F. H. B. Lima, M. H. Shao, K. Sasaki, J. X. Wang, J. Hanson, and
R. R. Adzic, J. Phys. Chem. B, 109, 22701 (2005).
29. Y. Zhang, C. Ma, Y. Zhu, R. Si, Y. Cai, J. X. Wang, and R. R. Adzic, Catal. Today,
202, 50 (2013).
30. K. J. J. Mayrhofer, V. Juhart, K. Hartl, M. Hanzlik, and M. Arenz, Angew. Chem.
Int. Ed. Engl., 48, 3529 (2009).
31. M. Inaba, H. Ito, H. Tsuji, T. Wada, M. Banno, H. Yamada, M. Saito, and A. Tasaka,
ECS Trans., 33, 231 (2010).
32. J. X. Wang, C. Ma, Y. Choi, D. Su, Y. Zhu, P. Liu, R. Si, M. B. Vukmirovic, Y. Zhang,
and R. R. Adzic, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 133, 13551 (2011).
33. S. M. Alia, G. Zhang, D. Kisailus, D. Li, S. Gu, K. Jensen, and Y. Yan, Adv. Funct.
Mater., 20, 3742 (2010).
34. A. B. Papandrew, R. W. Atkinson, G. A. Goenaga, S. S. Kocha, J. W. Zack,
B. S. Pivovar, and T. A. Zawodzinski, J. Electrochem. Soc., 160, F848 (2013).
35. T. S. Olson, B. Blizanac, B. Piela, J. R. Davey, P. Zelenay, and P. Atanassov, Fuel
Cells, 9, 547 (2009).
36. J. M. Ziegelbauer, T. S. Olson, S. Pylypenko, F. Alamgir, C. Jaye, P. Atanassov, and
S. Mukerjee, J. Phys. Chem. C, 112, 8839 (2008).
37. G. Wu, K. L. More, C. M. Johnston, and P. Zelenay, Science (80-.)., 332, 443 (2011).
38. H. T. Chung, J. H. Won, and P. Zelenay, Nat. Commun., 4, 1922 (2013).
39. F. Jaouen and J.-P. Dodelet, J. Phys. Chem. C, 113, 15433 (2009).
40. A. Ishihara, M. Tamura, K. Matsuzawa, S. Mitsushima, and K. Ota, Electrochim.
Acta, 55, 7581 (2010).
41. K. Ota, Y. Ohgi, K.-D. Nam, K. Matsuzawa, S. Mitsushima, and A. Ishihara, J.
Power Sources, 196, 5256 (2011).
42. T. Ioroi, T. Akita, M. Asahi, S. Yamazaki, Z. Siroma, N. Fujiwara, and K. Yasuda,
J. Power Sources, 223, 183 (2013).
43. T. Ioroi, T. Akita, S. Yamazaki, Z. Siroma, N. Fujiwara, and K. Yasuda, J. Elec-
trochem. Soc., 158, C329 (2011).
44. J. Perez, E. R. Gonzalez, and E. A. Ticianelli, Electrochim. Acta, 44, 1329 (1998).
45. A. Kabbabi, F. Gloaguen, F. Andolfatto, and R. Durand, J. Electroanal. Chem., 373,
251 (1994).
46. H. Ye, J. A. Crooks, and R. M. Crooks, Langmuir, 23, 11901 (2007).
47. M. Nesselberger, S. Ashton, J. C. Meier, I. Katsounaros, K. J. J. Mayrhofer, and
M. Arenz, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 133, 17428 (2011).
48. K. J. J. Mayrhofer, D. Strmcnik, B. B. Blizanac, V. Stamenkovic, M. Arenz, and
N. M. Markovic, Electrochim. Acta, 53, 3181 (2008).
49. K. J. J. Mayrhofer, B. B. Blizanac, M. Arenz, V. R. Stamenkovic, P. N. Ross, and
N. M. Markovic, J. Phys. Chem. B, 109, 14433 (2005).
50. O. Antoine, Y. Bultel, and R. Durand, J. Electroanal. Chem., 499, 85 (2001).
51. I. Takahashi and S. S. Kocha, J. Power Sources, 195, 6312 (2010).
52. J. Zhang, K. Sasaki, E. Sutter, and R. R. Adzic, Science, 315, 220 (2007).
53. K. J. J. Mayrhofer, J. C. Meier, S. J. Ashton, G. K. H. Wiberg, F. Kraus, M. Hanzlik,
and M. Arenz, Electrochem. commun., 10, 1144 (2008).
54. M. Inaba and H. Daimon, ECS Trans., 50, 65 (2013).
55. K. J. J. Mayrhofer, S. J. Ashton, J. C. Meier, G. K. H. Wiberg, M. Hanzlik, and
M. Arenz, J. Power Sources, 185, 734 (2008).
56. T. Nagai, H. Murata, and Y. Morimoto, ECS Trans., 50, 1539 (2013).
57. K. Hartl, M. Nesselberger, K. J. J. Mayrhofer, S. Kunz, F. F. Schweinberger,
G. Kwon, M. Hanzlik, U. Heiz, and M. Arenz, Electrochim. Acta, 56, 810 (2010).
58. B. Merzougui and S. Swathirajan, J. Electrochem. Soc., 153, A2220 (2006).
59. K. Hartl, M. Hanzlik, and M. Arenz, Energy Environ. Sci., 4, 234 (2011).
60. A. Zana, J. Speder, M. Roefzaad, L. Altmann, M. Baumer, and M. Arenz, J. Elec-
trochem. Soc., 160, F608 (2013).
61. T. Nagai, H. Murata, and Y. Morimoto, ECS Trans., 33, 125 (2010).
62. S. Sugawara, K. Tsujita, S. Mitsushima, K. Shinohara, and K. Ota, Electrocatalysis,
2, 60 (2010).
63. M. Inaba, H. Yamada, J. Tokunaga, and A. Tasaka, Electrochem. Solid-State Lett.,
7, A474 (2004).
64. M. Inaba, M. Ando, A. Hatanaka, A. Nomoto, K. Matsuzawa, A. Tasaka,
T. Kinumoto, Y. Iriyama, and Z. Ogumi, Electrochim. Acta, 52, 1632 (2006).
65. O. Antoine and R. Durand, J. Appl. Electrochem., 30, 839 (2000).
66. V. A. Sethuraman, J. W. Weidner, A. T. Haug, S. Motupally, and L. V. Protsailo, J.
Electrochem. Soc., 155, B50 (2008).
67. K. Ke, T. Hatanaka, and Y. Morimoto, Electrochim. Acta, 56, 2098 (2011).
68. Y. Garsany, I. L. Singer, and K. E. Swider-Lyons, J. Electroanal. Chem., 662, 396
(2011).
69. Y. Garsany, J. Ge, J. St-Pierre, R. Rocheleau, and K. E. Swider-Lyons, J. Elec-
trochem. Soc., 161, F628 (2014).
70. Y. Garsany, O. A. Baturina, K. E. Swider-Lyons, and S. S. Kocha, Anal. Chem., 82,
6321 (2010).
71. P. J. Yunker, T. Still, M. A. Lohr, and A. G. Yodh, Nature, 476, 308 (2011).
72. D. Chu, D. Tryk, D. Gervasio, and E. B. Yeager, J. Electroanal. Chem. Interfacial
Electrochem., 272, 277 (1989).
73. F. A. Uribe, T. E. Springer, and G. Shimshon, J. Electrochem. Soc., 139, 765 (1992).
74. H. Yano, E. Higuchi, H. Uchida, and M. Watanabe, J. Phys. Chem. B, 110, 16544
(2006).
75. S. K. Zecevic, J. S. Wainright, M. H. Litt, S. L. Gojković, and R. F. Savinell, J.
Electrochem. Soc., 144, 2973 (1997).
76. R. Subbaraman, D. Strmcnik, V. Stamenkovic, and N. M. Markovic, J. Phys. Chem.
C, 114, 8414 (2010).
77. R. Subbaraman, D. Strmcnik, A. P. Paulikas, V. R. Stamenkovic, and
N. M. Markovic, Chemphyschem, 11, 2825 (2010).
78. A. M. Gómez-Mar´ın, A. Berná, and J. M. Feliu, J. Phys. Chem. C, 114, 20130
(2010).
79. M. Ahmed, D. Morgan, G. A. Attard, E. Wright, D. Thompsett, and J. Sharman, J.
Phys. Chem. C, 115, 17020 (2011).
80. K. Kodama, A. Shinohara, N. Hasegawa, K. Shinozaki, R. Jinnouchi, T. Suzuki,
T. Hatanaka, and Y. Morimoto, J. Electrochem. Soc., 161, F649 (2014).
81. C. Wang, M. Chi, D. Li, D. Strmcnik, D. van der Vliet, G. Wang, V. Komanicky,
K.-C. Chang, A. P. Paulikas, D. Tripkovic, J. Pearson, K. L. More, N. M. Markovic,
and V. R. Stamenkovic, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 133, 14396 (2011).
82. K. Sasaki, Y. Mo, J. X. Wang, M. Balasubramanian, F. Uribe, J. McBreen, and
R. R. Adzic, Electrochim. Acta, 48, 3841 (2003).
83. G. A. Ragoisha, N. P. Osipovich, A. S. Bondarenko, J. Zhang, S. Kocha, and
A. Iiyama, J. Solid State Electrochem., 14, 531 (2010).
84. O. J. Curnick, B. G. Pollet, and P. M. Mendes, RSC Adv., 2, 8368 (2012).
85. H. A. Gasteiger, S. S. Kocha, B. Sompalli, and F. T. Wagner, Appl. Catal. B Environ.,
56, 9 (2005).
86. S. S. Kocha, J. W. Zack, S. M. Alia, K. C. Neyerlin, and B. S. Pivovar, ECS Trans.,
50, 1475 (2012).
87. K. Shinozaki, B. S. Pivovar, and S. S. Kocha, ECS Trans., 58, 15 (2013).
88. K. Shinozaki, J. W. Zack, R. M. Richards, B. S. Pivovar, and S. S. Kocha, J. Elec-
trochem. Soc., 162, F1144 (2015).
89. A. Damjanovic and V. Brusic, Electrochim. Acta, 12, 615 (1967).
90. N. M. Marković, R. R. Adˇzić, B. D. Cahan, and E. B. Yeager, J. Electroanal. Chem.,
377, 249 (1994).
91. B. G. Pollet and J. T. E. Goh, Electrochim. Acta, 128, 292 (2014).
92. K. Shinozaki, H. Yamada, and Y. Morimoto, J. Electrochem. Soc., 158, B467
(2011).
93. N. M. Markovic, H. A. Gasteiger, and P. N. Ross, J. Phys. Chem., 99, 3411 (1995).
94. K. E. Gubbins and R. D. Walker, J. Electrochem. Soc., 112, 469 (1965).
95. J. Kim, S. W. Lee, C. Carlton, and Y. Shao-Horn, Electrochem. Solid-State Lett., 14,
B110 (2011).
96. E. Higuchi, A. Taguchi, K. Hayashi, and H. Inoue, J. Electroanal. Chem., 663, 84
(2011).
97. W. Sheng, S. Chen, E. Vescovo, and Y. Shao-Horn, J. Electrochem. Soc., 159, B96
(2012).
98. A. Lasia, J. Electroanal. Chem., 428, 155 (1997).
99. F. Dion and A. Lasia, J. Electroanal. Chem., 475, 28 (1999).
100. T. Pajkossy and D. M. Kolb, Electrochim. Acta, 46, 3063 (2001).
101. E. Sibert, R. Faure, and R. Durand, J. Electroanal. Chem., 515, 71 (2001).
102. W. Pell, A. Zolfaghari, and B. Conway, J. Electroanal. Chem., 532, 13 (2002).
103. Z. Kerner, T. Pajkossy, L. A. Kibler, and D. M. Kolb, Electrochem. commun., 4, 787
(2002).
104. T. Pajkossy and D. M. Kolb, Electrochem. commun., 5, 283 (2003).
105. T. Pajkossy and D. M. Kolb, Electrochim. Acta, 53, 7403 (2008).
106. A. S. Bondarenko, I. E. L. Stephens, H. A. Hansen, F. J. Pérez-Alonso, V. Tripkovic,
T. P. Johansson, J. Rossmeisl, J. K. Nørskov, and I. Chorkendorff, Langmuir, 27,
2058 (2011).
107. E. B. Easton and P. G. Pickup, Electrochim. Acta, 50, 2469 (2005).
108. Y. Liu, M. W. Murphy, D. R. Baker, W. Gu, C. Ji, J. Jorne, and H. A. Gasteiger, J.
Electrochem. Soc., 156, B970 (2009).
109. M. C. Lefebvre, R. B. Martin, and P. G. Pickup, Electrochem. Solid-State Lett., 2,
259 (1999).
110. K. Kinoshita, Carbon: Electrochemical and Physicochemical Properties, 1st ed.,
Wiley-Interscience, New York, (1988), p. 560.
111. G. Li and P. G. Pickup, J. Electrochem. Soc., 150, C745 (2003).
112. H. Iden, A. Ohma, and K. Shinohara, J. Electrochem. Soc., 156, B1078 (2009).
113. T. Suzuki, S. Tsushima, and S. Hirai, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy, 36, 12361
(2011).
114. T. Suzuki, K. Kudo, and Y. Morimoto, J. Power Sources, 222, 379 (2013).
115. M. Lopez-Haro, L. Guétaz, T. Printemps, A. Morin, S. Escribano, P.-H. Jouneau,
P. Bayle-Guillemaud, F. Chandezon, and G. Gebel, Nat. Commun., 5, 5229
(2014).
116. M. S. Wilson and S. Gottesfeld, J. Appl. Electrochem., 22, 1 (1992).
117. Y. Huang, J. Zhang, A. Kongkanand, F. T. Wagner, J. C. M. Li, and J. Jorne, J.
Electrochem. Soc., 161, F10 (2013).
118. U. A. Paulus, A. Wokaun, G. G. Scherer, T. J. Schmidt, V. Stamenkovic,
V. Radmilovic, N. M. Markovic, and P. N. Ross, J. Phys. Chem. B, 106, 4181
(2002).
119. S. Mukerjee and S. Srinivasan, J. Electroanal. Chem., 357, 201 (1993).
120. P. Yu, M. Pemberton, and P. Plasse, J. Power Sources, 144, 11 (2005).
121. A. Ohma, T. Mashio, K. Sato, H. Iden, Y. Ono, K. Sakai, K. Akizuki, S. Takaichi,
and K. Shinohara, Electrochim. Acta, 56, 10832 (2011).
122. N. Nonoyama, S. Okazaki, A. Z. Weber, Y. Ikogi, and T. Yoshida, J. Electrochem.
Soc., 158, B416 (2011).
123. J. P. Owejan, J. E. Owejan, and W. Gu, J. Electrochem. Soc., 160, F824 (2013).
124. W. Yoon and A. Z. Weber, J. Electrochem. Soc., 158, B1007 (2011).
125. H. Iden, S. Takaichi, Y. Furuya, T. Mashio, Y. Ono, and A. Ohma, J. Electroanal.
Chem., 694, 37 (2013).

Rde technique

More Related Content

What's hot (18)

Similar to Rde technique (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Rde technique