2013
DOI: 10.1039/c3cs35487c
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Asymmetric Marcus–Hush theory for voltammetry

Abstract: The current state-of-the-art in modeling the rate of electron transfer between an electroactive species and an electrode is reviewed. Experimental studies show that neither the ubiquitous Butler-Volmer model nor the more modern symmetric Marcus-Hush model are able to satisfactorily reproduce the experimental voltammetry for both solution-phase and surface-bound redox couples. These experimental deviations indicate the need for revision of the simplifying approximations used in the above models. Within this con… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

3
113
0

Year Published

2014
2014
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 119 publications
(116 citation statements)
references
References 49 publications
3
113
0
Order By: Relevance
“…This may not hold as a general rule given the different charge of the reduced and oxidised species, and various theoretical approaches have been considered to overcome this limitation of the sMH formalism. Among them, the use of the asymmetric version of the Marcus theory has been recently applied to heterogeneous electron transfer processes by Compton et al …”
Section: Section 2: Challenging Butler–volmer Theorymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This may not hold as a general rule given the different charge of the reduced and oxidised species, and various theoretical approaches have been considered to overcome this limitation of the sMH formalism. Among them, the use of the asymmetric version of the Marcus theory has been recently applied to heterogeneous electron transfer processes by Compton et al …”
Section: Section 2: Challenging Butler–volmer Theorymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…[44] Given that the porous granules were added at the beginning of tests, the first few data points were very likely influenced by the wetting process that changes the effective contact surface area. It should be noted that the above analysis is restricted to the situation where interfacial charge transfer is the rate limiting step and E E RM O NVP O − is small.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…[34][35][36] The charge transport (CT) rate constant, k CT , can be evaluated by the following eqn (2): The charge transport rate can be calculated using the Marcus-Hush theory.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%