The outline workshop timetable is as below:
Day 1 draft timetable
9:30 Opening remarks
9:45 Scene-setting: 10 minute summaries of research topics (i)-(v) (see below) 10:45 break 11:15 Split into groups to discuss topics (i)-(v) [one topic per group] 12:30 lunch 14:00 Summarise outcome of discussions on research topics (i)-(v) 15:00 Scene-setting: 10 minute summaries of research topics (vi)-(x) 16:00 Split into groups to discuss topics (vi)-(x), including a break [one topic per group] 17:30 Summarise outcome of discussions on research topics (vi)-(x) 18:30 End of day 1, dinner (7pm)Day 2 draft timetable
8:30 Opening remarks
9:00 Split into groups to discuss topics (xi)-(xiv) 10:15 break 10:45 Summarise outcome of discussions on topics (xi)-(xiv) 12:00 lunch 13:00 Opening remarks for afternoon 13:10 Split into groups to discuss topics (xv)-(xiii) 14:30 Break 14:45 Summarise outcome of discussions on topics (xv)-(xiii) 15:45 Overall summary of workshop, future actions 16:00 End of day 2, departure.The workshop programme is as below.
Programme for Day 1
“Big” questions in electrochemistry, and what is/isn’t being addressed from the UK perspective:
1. The electrical double-layer: although essential for any electrochemical system, this environment is still quite poorly understood, e.g. quantitative models of capacitance are often found to be lacking. To address this: which structural probes of electrode/electrolyte interfaces can be applied (e.g. to more unusual interfaces such as those involving metal oxides or ionic liquids?) How generally applicable are such probes, or are they likely to be restricted to idealised “model” systems?
Discussion Chair: Tim Albrecht (Birmingham)
2. Which space and/or time-resolved methods (e.g. spectroscopic, microscopic) are relevant to electrochemical systems? Do we need to develop new methods, or adapt existing advanced methods, to electrochemical interfaces? If so, what time/spatial resolution could we achieve, either “theoretically” or “usefully”? Why are such approaches not used more routinely in the UK? For example, what more can be expected from large-scale facilities, notably synchrotron and/or neutron studies? Could more electrochemical work be undertaken at Diamond (and other synchrotron facilities)?
Discussion Chair: Laurence Hardwick (Liverpool)
3. What are the current computational challenges with respect to accurate simulation of electrochemical systems? Electrochemical systems are reaching a level of complexity which means that quantitative description of their behaviour is likely to be beyond the reach of many analytical theories. A solution to this is to pursue more integrated computational/experimental studies. How can machine learning methods be applied to the analysis of data derived from electrochemical experiments? Such methods are applied more routinely in structure-property prediction of materials and in, for example, image analysis in microscopy: could electrochemical experiments be revolutionised by bringing such levels of automation to bear?
Discussion Chair: Ivan Scivetti (STFC)
4. What part
could the UK play in driving electrocatalysis from a fundamental perspective? The focus is often on the electrode materials, but electrolyte also plays an important role in dictating selectivity. A rational approach to electrocatalyst discovery, considering both “halves” of the electrochemical interface, would be a step-change. This again relates back to Q(1) about the electrical double-layer. An open discussion on this topic should lead to blue-skies thinking about which “other” (non-hydrogen) energy vectors to focus on – e.g. carbon dioxide (the “CO2 chem” network exists, but is not specifically focussed on electrochem).
Discussion Chair: Ifan Stephens (Imperial)
5. Electrochemical coatings. The electrodeposition approach is one of the most plausible ones to make surface coatings, as it makes it possible to design and obtain coatings with different microstructure, thickness, adhesion, and mechanical/physical/chemical/catalytic and biological properties for specific needs. The RSC Surface Coating interest group is very active and influential. What are the new trends and developments in electrochemical coating space?
Discussion Chair: Upul Wijayantha (Loughborough)
6. Semiconductor electrochemistry/photoelectrochemistry. This is a very important area with obvious applications: how does it fare in the UK compared to the international competition?
Discussion Chair: Anna Hankin (Imperial)
7. Electrochemistry as a tool to produce tunable/stimuli-responsive materials:
is this under-represented in the UK?
Discussion Chair: Alexei Kornyshev (Imperial)
8. The Faraday Challenge is focussed (mainly) on lithium ion batteries, in the automobile context – although the most recent wave of projects includes activity on sodium ion and lithium/sulfur batteries. Is there enough space/support for smaller (i.e. regular responsive mode) projects on more “exotic” battery chemistry?
Discussion Chair: Lee Johnson (Nottingham)
9. Does electrosynthesis have a high enough profile in the UK? If not, why not – is it a challenge for the electrochemistry community to address, or is it a matter for synthetic chemists? Most probably, this will require input from both communities, ideally working with industry to enable rapid uptake of electrosynthetic methods
Discussion Chair: TBC
10. In the UK, links between electrochemistry and biochemistry are mainly focussed on
enzyme electrochemistry (e.g. protein film voltammetry). Are other areas of bio-electrochemistry
(e.g. neuroscience, ion channels?) overlooked?
Discussion Chair: Eileen Yu (Loughborough)
Programme for Day 2 (morning)
The current academic/funding environment:
11. Training: is electrochemistry prominent enough in UK undergraduate (chemistry) courses? Which institutions teach it well, and which teach it less well – presumably (but not necessarily) there is a correlation between the number of electrochemists in a department and those in the former category? More generally: How much electrochemistry should be taught at UG level, given the expected relevance of electrochemical energy storage and conversion in the (hopefully near) future? Are we teaching enough now?
Discussion Chair: Katherine Holt (UCL)
12. “Philosophically” where is electrochemistry going? Is it not really a part of chemistry any more – given the “pull” from applications, will it be more aligned with engineering and/or materials science in future? In any case, what background does a student beginning a PhD in electrochemistry ideally have? How much Mathematics, Physics and Computer science should they know, at the expense of Chemical knowledge?
Discussion Chair: Rob Dryfe (Manchester)
13. Even if electrochemistry is still regarded as a core part of chemistry, should it emphasise its foundations in physical chemistry or its applications in analytical chemistry and/or materials/energy conversion?
14. What is the role for electroanalysis? Can it compete with mass spectrometry and/or spectroscopy (e.g. NMR), or in future will it only be useful for a few, very specific applications? Is the relatively “niche” uptake of electroanalytical methods “in the field” due to their intrinsic limitations or lack of wider knowledge/training?
Discussion Chair: Julie Macpherson (Warwick)
15. Interfaces with other disciplines: historically, historically, many electrochemists have had a background in Physics (e.g. R. Dogonadze) or Chemical Engineering (J.S. Newman) – is enough done at the interface with these disciplines (and indeed others, e.g. Materials Science)? How much electrochemistry is/should be taught in these subjects? For example, Chemical Engineering should, arguably, feature much more electrochemical training in its undergraduate curricula, as we should be moving from an “internal combustion” to an “electrochemically-powered” society. Chemists alone will not have the background to cover all aspects of the “Energiewende”.
16. What can/should be done to make younger academics feel part of an “electrochemistry” community, rather than a more diffuse “energy materials” one? Some consideration could be given to the wider funding landscape in electrochemistry: how do we make the UK an attractive home for incoming international expertise and/or early career researchers? In particular, how can we support those making the step into independence in a funding landscape dominated by large challenge driven (application) funding mechanisms?
Discussion Chair: Mark Symes (Glasgow)
17. CDTs: electrochemistry didn’t feature strongly in the successful bids from the most recent CDT round. It is timely to consider this, given that a new call for CDTs (in the Autumn) has just been announced by EPSRC. Which electrochemically-focussed bids could be developed? How many bids could there be and how does one avoid “exclusion”, given that there will be a finite number of centres, involving a finite number of institutions?
18. Considering the discussion on CDTs, is there a training need for “more PhD level” electrochemists, or are present numbers about right? And, what sort of training should be offered, given that the background of the ideal “starting electrochemist” should probably encompass more than just chemistry?
