4.8 Article

Mitigation of chromium poisoning of cathodes in solid oxide fuel cells employing CuMn1.8O4 spinel coating on metallic interconnect

Journal

JOURNAL OF POWER SOURCES
Volume 376, Issue -, Pages 100-110

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpowsour.2017.11.069

Keywords

Solid oxide fuel cells; Cathode; Chromium poisoning; Copper manganese spinel coatings; Interconnects; Degradation

Funding

  1. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Fossil Energy [FE0023325]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Chromium poisoning is one of the major reasons for cathode performance degradation in solid oxide fuel cells (SOFCs). To mitigate the effect of Cr-poisoning, a protective coating on the surface of interconnect for suppressing Cr vaporization is necessary. Among the various coating materials, Cu-Mn spinel coating is considered to be a potential candidate due to their good thermal compatibility, high stability and good electronic conductivity at high temperature. In this study, Crofer 22 H meshes with no protective coating, those with commercial CuMn2O4 spinel coating and the ones with lab-developed CuMn1.8O4 spinel coating were investigated. The lab-developed CuMn1.8O4 spinel coating were deposited on Crofer 22 H mesh by electrophoretic deposition and densified by a reduction and re-oxidation process. With these different Crofer 22 H meshes (bare, CuMn2O4-coated, and CuMn1.8O4-coated), anode-supported SOFCs with Sr-doped LaMnO3-based cathode were electrochemically tested at 800 degrees C for total durations of up to 288 h. Comparing the mitigating effects of the two types of Cu-Mn spinel coatings on Cr-poisoning, it was found that the performance of the denser lab-developed CuMn1.8O4 spinel coating was distinctly better, showing no degradation in the cell electrochemical performance and significantly less Cr deposition near the cathode/electrolyte interface after the test.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available