4.6 Article

Determining electrochemically active surface area in PEM fuel cell electrodes with electrochemical impedance spectroscopy and its application to catalyst durability

Journal

ELECTROCHIMICA ACTA
Volume 114, Issue -, Pages 278-284

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.electacta.2013.10.050

Keywords

PEM fuel cell; Electrochemical impedance spectroscopy; Accelerated degradation testing protocol; Degradation mechanisms; Electrochemically active surface area; Pseudo-capacitance

Funding

  1. Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) of Canada
  2. UOIT

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Here we have derived a simple expression to relate faradaic pseudo-capacitance, C-F, determined by electrochemical impedance spectroscopy to the electrochemically active surface area (ECSA) of Pt electrocatalysts. To test this expression, two commercially available Pt/C catalysts were subjected to accelerated degradation testing protocol (ADTP) during which catalyst layer health was assessed using cyclic voltammetry (CV) and EIS to monitor the degradation process. CF was determined by acquiring the EIS response at two different DC bias potentials: the first at a bias potential where the faradaic process was present, and the second at a bias potential where only double layer capacitance was present which enables accurate tracking of changes in CF throughout the ADTP. A near-identical decay profile for both ECSA (determined by CV)and CF(determined by EIS) was observed, providing an excellent fit to the derived expression. Using the EIS model, similar potential-dependant proportionality constants were determined for hydrogen adsorption/desorption on each catalyst indicating that they are universally applicable across Pt catalysts. These constants can therefore be used to effectively determine ECSA values without performing CV measurements. (C) 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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