4.7 Article

Blending polybenzimidazole with an anion exchange polymer increases the efficiency of vanadium redox flow batteries

Journal

JOURNAL OF MEMBRANE SCIENCE
Volume 580, Issue -, Pages 110-116

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.memsci.2019.03.014

Keywords

VRFB; Polybenzimidazole; FAA3; Blend membranes

Funding

  1. German-Korean joint SME R&D projects program of MOTIE/KIAT [20151732]
  2. Korea Institute of Energy Technology Evaluation and Planning
  3. Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy of the Republic of Korea [20172420108550]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

PBI membranes are recently discussed as stable, well performing membranes for vanadium redox flow batteries (VRFB). Blending meta-PBI with an anion exchange polymer (FAA3i) slightly reduces the coulomb efficiency from 99.7 to 97.8%, but strongly increases the voltage efficiency from 82.5 to 88.2%, leading to an increased energy efficiency (86.2% at 80mAcm(-2)), exceeding that of meta-PBI (82.2%) and N212 (83%). Apparently, since the conductivity of sulfuric acid has a maximum around a concentration of 3.8 M, the concentration of the absorbed acid has a dominant influence on the conductivity. Addition of FAA3i decreases the concentration of the acid absorbed by PBI membranes. Furthermore, an ex-situ stability test in 1.5M V5+ solutions in 2M sulfuric acid for 87 days showed a very high stability for meta-PBI and Nafion 212, while the commercial FAA3 membrane disintegrated into pieces. Blending of meta-PBI and FAA3 decreased the stability, as proven by formation of V4+, but all tested blend membranes retained their membrane shape and could still be handled. Blending with FAA3 reduces the tensile strength and Young's modulus of meta-PBI, and doping with sulfuric acid leads to a further decrease in the mechanical strength. However, an acid doped PF-21 still showed a tensile strength of 37 MPa and a Young's modulus of 0.7 GPa.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available