Class Statistics
What are Oxide Oxygen-Evolution Catalysts?
Oxide oxygen-evolution catalysts represent a critical class of materials engineered to facilitate the oxygen-evolution reaction (OER), a complex four-electron transfer process that serves as the primary kinetic bottleneck in water electrolysis. Because the OER requires significant overpotential to overcome high activation energy barriers, these catalysts are essential for improving the energy efficiency of green hydrogen production. Chemically, this class encompasses two distinct categories: noble metal oxides and earth-abundant transition metal oxides. Rutile-structured iridium oxide (IrO2) and ruthenium oxide (RuO2) are the traditional benchmarks due to their exceptional intrinsic activity and stability in acidic environments, though their scarcity and high cost limit widespread industrial scaling. Consequently, significant research focus has shifted toward earth-abundant alternatives, primarily based on nickel, cobalt, and iron oxides or oxyhydroxides. These materials are often doped or structured at the nanoscale to enhance their surface area and electronic conductivity. The performance of these oxides is governed by the adsorption energies of oxygenated intermediates on the metal sites, a relationship often described by volcano plots. By optimizing the electronic structure of the metal-oxygen bonds, researchers aim to lower the reaction barrier, thereby reducing the electricity consumption required to split water. As the global transition toward renewable energy intensifies, the development of robust, cost-effective oxide catalysts remains a cornerstone for making hydrogen a viable, carbon-neutral fuel source. These materials are not only vital for current proton-exchange membrane electrolyzers but are also being adapted for alkaline systems, where earth-abundant oxides demonstrate superior durability and performance.
Top Oxide Oxygen-Evolution Catalysts
Ranked by data richness — literature synthesis coverage, multi-source DFT corroboration, and patent activity.
| Formula | Band Gap | Best EAH (eV/atom) | Stability | DFT Sources | Recipes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fe3O4 | 0.24–1.41 eV | 0.0000 | Metastable | 1 | 28 |
| LiMn2O4 | 0.02–1.22 eV | 0.0000 | Stable | 1 | 386 |
| CoO2 | 0.01–1.25 eV | 0.0000 | Stable | 1 | 27 |
| LiMnO2 | 0.02–1.99 eV | 0.0000 | Stable | 1 | 23 |
| LiCoO2 | 0.17–2.50 eV | 0.0000 | Stable | 1 | 157 |
| CaFe2O4 | 0.98–2.26 eV | 0.0119 | Metastable | 1 | 21 |
| LaMnO3 | 0.03–1.69 eV | 0.0000 | Stable | 1 | 141 |
| CaMnO3 | 0.21–2.00 eV | 0.0000 | Stable | 1 | 27 |
| Al2NiO4 | 0.86–3.60 eV | 0.0000 | Metastable | 1 | 24 |
| LiNiO2 | 0.02–0.82 eV | 0.0000 | Stable | 1 | 88 |
| La2NiO4 | 0.53–2.19 eV | 0.0435 | Metastable | 1 | 62 |
| Ca2Fe2O5 | 0.32–1.05 eV | 0.0000 | Stable | 1 | 19 |
| LaNiO3 | 0.36–0.54 eV | 0.0000 | Stable | 1 | 69 |
| Al2CoO4 | 0.74–3.22 eV | 0.0000 | Metastable | 1 | 21 |
| SrRuO3 | 0.45–0.60 eV | 0.0000 | Stable | 1 | 24 |
| LiFeO2 | 1.04–1.78 eV | 0.0000 | Stable | 1 | 20 |
| Li2MnO3 | 0.61–2.08 eV | 0.0000 | Stable | 1 | 57 |
| BiFeO3 | 0.15–1.81 eV | 0.0016 | Near hull (likely stable) | — | 322 |
| FeBiO3 | 1.13–1.52 eV | 0.0092 | Metastable | 1 | 322 |
| SrMnO3 | 0.31–1.79 eV | 0.0000 | Stable | 1 | 24 |
| LaFeO3 | 0.29–2.23 eV | 0.0000 | Stable | 1 | 131 |
| Fe2NiO4 | 1.23–1.38 eV | 0.0000 | Metastable | 1 | 137 |
| NiO | 0.52–2.80 eV | 0.0000 | Unstable | 1 | 16 |
| LaCoO3 | 0.28–1.70 eV | 0.0000 | Stable | 1 | 126 |
| Fe2O4Zn | 0.67–1.69 eV | 0.0000 | On hull (stable) | — | 95 |
| YMnO3 | 0.38 eV | 0.0000 | Stable | 1 | 44 |
| SrFeO3 | 0.71–0.76 eV | 0.0000 | Stable | 1 | 45 |
| YFeO3 | 0.58–2.27 eV | 0.0000 | Stable | 1 | 20 |
| FeCuO2 | 0.50–1.06 eV | 0.0000 | Stable | 1 | 23 |
| Fe2MgO4 | 0.15–1.99 eV | 0.0000 | On hull (stable) | — | 56 |
| PrMnO3 | 0.33 eV | 0.0000 | Stable | 1 | 20 |
| Mg(FeO2)2 | 0.60–1.42 eV | 0.0000 | On hull (stable) | — | 56 |
| MnO3Sr | 0.95 eV | 0.0000 | On hull (stable) | — | 24 |
| Fe2CoO4 | 0.69 eV | 0.0000 | Metastable | 1 | 148 |
| Fe2CuO4 | 0.24 eV | 0.0000 | Stable | 1 | 63 |
| Mn2ZnO4 | 0.06–0.92 eV | 0.0000 | Stable | 1 | 19 |
| Zn(FeO2)2 | 0.63–1.32 eV | 0.0000 | On hull (stable) | — | 95 |
| FeLaO3 | 0.88–1.95 eV | 0.0000 | On hull (stable) | — | 131 |
| CoLiO2 | 0.44–2.01 eV | 0.0000 | On hull (stable) | — | 157 |
| LiFe5O8 | 1.45 eV | 0.0068 | Stable | 1 | 43 |
| BaFe12O19 | 0.83–1.22 eV | 0.0031 | Near hull (likely stable) | — | 132 |
| Ca(FeO2)2 | 1.33–1.43 eV | 0.0000 | On hull (stable) | — | 21 |
| FeO3Y | 0.64–1.59 eV | 0.0087 | Near hull (likely stable) | — | 20 |
| MnO3Y | 0.04–1.60 eV | 0.0000 | On hull (stable) | — | 44 |
| CoLaO3 | 0.28–1.00 eV | 0.0000 | On hull (stable) | — | 126 |
| Mn(FeO2)2 | 0.24–0.83 eV | 0.0000 | On hull (stable) | — | 23 |
| CoFe2O4 | 0.54–1.55 eV | 0.0102 | Near hull (likely stable) | — | 148 |
| Fe2MnO4 | 0.57–1.32 eV | 0.0000 | On hull (stable) | — | 23 |
| Fe12O19Sr | 1.03–1.14 eV | 0.0725 | Metastable | — | 76 |
| CuFeO2 | 0.82 eV | 0.0000 | On hull (stable) | — | 23 |
Frequently Asked Questions
How many oxide oxygen-evolution catalysts are in the database?
10,558 oxide oxygen-evolution catalysts are tracked, of which 1 have multi-source DFT validation and 1,212 have documented synthesis routes.
What is the most data-rich oxide oxygen-evolution catalyst?
Which oxide oxygen-evolution catalyst has the widest band gap?
Why is the oxygen-evolution reaction considered a bottleneck?
What is the primary difference between noble metal oxides and earth-abundant oxides?
How do researchers improve the performance of these catalysts?
Are these catalysts suitable for both acidic and alkaline electrolyzers?
Related Research
Lithium iron phosphate battery vs NMC: how LFP and NMC 811 cathodes compare on energy density, cycle life, thermal safety, cost, and cobalt and nickel use.
What makes a mineral critical, the 17 rare earth elements and their uses, who mines and refines them, battery mineral concentration, and how recycling can help.
How lithium-ion battery recycling works: black mass, pyrometallurgy vs hydrometallurgy vs direct recycling, LFP economics, and EU recovery targets.
A catalog of interpretation errors and compute failure modes from our materials discovery pipeline: thermostat overshoot (625K target / 750K actual), MACE artifacts on perovskites, PBE bandgaps presented without HSE correction, metallic DFPT results, phonon instabilities, 53 files with THz vs cm⁻¹ confusion, and more.
Every single Modal QE DFPT and HSE06 result from our April 2026 GPU compute campaign was an error payload, not usable data. 13 files landed on the volume with status ERROR, PSEUDO_ERROR, SCF_FAILED, DFPT_FAILED, PARSE_ERROR, or NOT_CONVERGED. The honest-null pattern in our ledger is what saved rankings from corruption.
Lithium cobalt oxide dominated consumer electronics for decades, but scaling it to electric vehicles reveals fundamental structural, thermal, and economic failures. We analyzed 47 computational studies and 12 experimental datasets — nearly 15,000 structural relaxations and 1,200+ cells — to show why no amount of engineering can overcome LCO physics for automotive applications.
Related Material Classes
Screen oxide oxygen-evolution catalysts computationally
Evaluate stability, supply-chain risk, and patent whitespace before committing lab resources.
Explore the Platform →