4.7 Article

Novel epoxy-based cross-linked polybenzimidazole for high temperature proton exchange membrane fuel cells

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HYDROGEN ENERGY
卷 36, 期 14, 页码 8412-8421

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2011.03.147

关键词

Cross-linked; Epoxy; Polybenzimidazole; Proton exchange membrane

资金

  1. National Nature Science Foundation of China [21074044]
  2. Science and Technology Development Plan of Jilin Province [20100110]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

An approach has been proposed to prepare the reinforced phosphoric acid (PA) doped cross-linked polybenzimidazole membranes for high temperature proton exchange membrane fuel cells (HT-PEMFCs), using 1,3-bis(2,3-epoxypropoxy)-2,2-dimethylpropane (NGDE) as the cross-linker. FT-IR measurement and solubility test showed the successful completion of the crosslinking reaction. The resulting cross-linked membranes exhibited improved mechanical strength, making it possible to obtain higher phosphoric acid doping levels and therefore relatively high proton conductivity. Moreover, the oxidative stability of the cross-linked membranes was significantly enhanced. For instance, in Fenton's reagent (3% H2O2 solution, 4 ppm Fe2+, 70 degrees C), the cross-linked PBI-NGDE-20% membrane did not break into pieces and kept its shape for more than 480 h and its remaining weight percent was approximately 65%. In addition, the thermal stability was sufficient enough within the operation temperature of PBI-based fuel cells. The cross-linked PBI-NGDE-X% (X is the weight percent of epoxy resin in the cross-linked membranes) membranes displayed relatively high proton conductivity under anhydrous conditions. For instance, PBI-NGDE-5% membrane with acid uptake of 193% exhibited a proton conductivity of 0.017 S cm(-1) at 200 degrees C. All the results indicated that it may be a suitable candidate for applications in HT-PEMFCs. Copyright (C) 2011, Hydrogen Energy Publications, LLC. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据