4.6 Article

Engineered Catalyst Support with Improved Durability at Higher Weight Percentage of Platinum

Journal

JOURNAL OF THE ELECTROCHEMICAL SOCIETY
Volume 170, Issue 11, Pages -

Publisher

ELECTROCHEMICAL SOC INC
DOI: 10.1149/1945-7111/ad0668

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Proton Exchange Membrane (PEM) fuel cells are an efficient and durable electrochemical power source for heavy duty vehicles. By using higher weight percent of platinum and engineered catalyst support materials, the catalyst layer thickness can be reduced to improve performance.
Proton Exchange Membrane (PEM) fuel cells are a suitable electrochemical power source for heavy duty vehicle (HDV) applications due to their high efficiency and durability. The cathode of the fuel cell uses a higher geometric loading of platinum (similar to 0.2 to 0.4 mgPt/cm2) for the electrocatalysis of the kinetically sluggish Oxygen Reduction Reaction (ORR) which requires higher weight percent loading of the metal (similar to 50%) on the carbon support to decrease the catalyst layer thickness and hence, the reactant transport losses. The conventionally used supports for platinum catalyst, such as the KetjenBlackTM type high surface area carbon (HSC) features limited mesopore area for the dispersion of Pt nanoparticles leading to increased aggregation and poor durability. Here, we show a new class of carbon materials known as the Engineered Catalyst Support (ECS) developed by Pajarito Powder with higher mesopore fraction for the dispersion of higher weight percentage of Pt nanoparticles. ECS materials can disperse up to 50% Pt by weight of the catalyst thereby enabling lower catalyst layer thickness with higher performance retained after durability test. A comprehensive set of physico-chemical and electrochemical studies in membrane electrode assembly (MEA) are reported to understand the performance and durability of Pt/ECS catalysts.

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