4.6 Article

Comparison of Carbon Supports in Anion Exchange Membrane Fuel Cells

Journal

MATERIALS
Volume 13, Issue 23, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ma13235370

Keywords

anion exchange membrane fuel cell; carbon support; cathode catalyst; multiwalled carbon nanotube

Funding

  1. Ministry of Science and Technology of Taiwan [MOST-108-3116-F-005-002]
  2. Ministry of Education, Taiwan, R.O.C. under the Higher Education Sprout Project

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Anion exchange membrane fuel cells (AEMFCs) are attractive alternatives to proton exchange membrane fuel cells due to their ability to employ nonprecious metals as catalysts, reducing the cost of AEMFC devices. This paper presents an experimental exploration of the carbon support material effects on AEMFC performance. The silver (Ag) nanoparticles supported on three types of carbon materials including acetylene carbon (AC), carbon black (CB), and multiwalled carbon nanotube (MWCNT)-Ag/AC, Ag/CB, and Ag/MWCNT, respectively-were prepared using the wet impregnation method. The silver loading in the catalysts was designed as 60 wt.% during the synthesizing process, which was examined using thermogravimetric analysis. The elemental composition of the prepared Ag/AC, Ag/CB, and Ag/MWCNT catalysts was confirmed using X-ray diffraction analysis. The nanoparticle size of Ag attached on carbon particles or carbon nanotubes, as observed by scanning electron microscopy (SEM), was around 50 nm. For the performance tests of a single AEMFC, the obtained results indicate that the maximum power density using Ag/MWCNT as the cathode catalyst (356.5 mW center dot cm(-2)) was higher than that using Ag/AC (329.3 mW center dot cm(-2)) and Ag/CB (256.6 mW center dot cm(-2)). The better cell performance obtained using a MWCNT support can be ascribed to the higher electrical conductivity and the larger electrochemical active surface area calculated from cyclic voltammetry measurements.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available