Establishing Korean Terminology for Electrochemical Electrodes: Distinguishing Function-Based Terms from Potential-Based Terms

Engineering notes

Engineering notes will be added by the Power for Solar editorial team.

Chinese explanation / 中文解读

中文解读待补充：本站会优先为光伏效率、钙钛矿太阳能电池、储能技术、太阳能热利用、BIPV、并网技术等高价值论文补充中文说明。

Original abstract

Electrochemistry underpins energy storage, energy conversion, and environmental processes; therefore, precise electrode terminology is essential for both science education and industrial communication. In Korea, however, long-standing translation practices for anode and cathode have produced recurring conceptual confusion in classrooms, journals, and technical documents. The root cause is that two distinct categories of terms, function-based terms and potential-based terms, have not been consistently separated in Korean translation. Historically, Michael Faraday introduced anode and cathode as theory-neutral terms denoting the surfaces through which electric current, according to the convention of his time, enters and leaves the decomposing body. They were not introduced as fixed polarity labels. Modern IUPAC definitions follow this functional logic: anode is the electrode at which oxidation occurs, and cathode is the electrode at which reduction occurs, independently of electrode polarity. Consequently, during discharge in a galvanic cell, the anode is the negative electrode, whereas in an electrolytic cell the electrode connected to the positive terminal of the external power supply is the anode. In rechargeable batteries, the same physical electrode alternates between anodic and cathodic roles during charge and discharge, which makes function-based names inherently variable for a fixed material. To address this variability, battery standards and industrial documents widely use positive electrode and negative electrode as potential-based terms for fixed electrode materials and cell components. IEC 60050-482 likewise specifies that the anode is the negative electrode during discharge and the positive electrode during charge, while the cathode shows the opposite correspondence. A comparison of Korea, China, and Japan reveals three distinct patterns. China institutionalizes the distinction between 阳极/阴极 as function-based terms and 正极/负极 as potential-based terms in national battery standards such as GB/T 2900.41-2008. Japanese standards, including JIS K 0213:2014, explicitly describe context-dependent correspondences, while the Japanese electrochemistry community has long discussed the need for clear separation. Korea already has function-based definitions in the Korean Chemical Society terminology glossary and battery terminology standards in KS C IEC 60050-482, yet a consistent operational principle separating function-based terms from potential-based terms has not been firmly established across education, academia, and industry. On this basis, this paper proposes three principles: 1) anode and cathode should be used as function-based terms and translated as 애노드/산화전극 and 캐소드/환원전극, respectively. 2) positive electrode and negative electrode should be used as potential-based terms and translated as 양극(또는 정극) and 음극(또는 부극), respectively. 3) the symbols (+) and (−) should be used as polarity markers for electrodes or terminals, not as fixed equivalents of anode and cathode. Adopting these principles can improve conceptual clarity in electrochemistry education, increase precision in industrial communication, and reduce translation errors in international scientific exchange.

Links and sources

• PDF from original source

Comments