4.7 Article

Novel technique for measuring oxygen crossover through the membrane in polymer electrolyte membrane fuel cells

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HYDROGEN ENERGY
卷 38, 期 21, 页码 8927-8933

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2013.04.142

关键词

Oxygen crossover; Polymer electrolyte membrane fuel cell; Permeability; Membrane degradation; Effective oxygen crossover ratio

资金

  1. IAMD of Seoul National University
  2. World Class University (WCU)
  3. National Research Laboratory (NRL) program of the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology
  4. New & Renewable Energy of the Korea institute of Energy Technology Evaluation and Planning (KETEP)
  5. Korea Government Ministry of Knowledge Economy [2011301003008A]
  6. Korea Evaluation Institute of Industrial Technology (KEIT) [2011301003008A] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study, the exact amount of oxygen crossover that reacts with hydrogen has been investigated using a mass spectrometer system. By measuring the amount of oxygen crossover that reacts with hydrogen, the exact amount of oxygen crossover that affects membrane degradation and/or water generation can be calculated under the fuel cell operating conditions. The amount of oxygen crossover that reacts with hydrogen is expressed as an effective oxygen crossover ratio, which is in a range between 0.927 and 0.933 under the fuel cell operating temperature conditions. This means that approximately 93% of the entire oxygen crossover through the membrane can affect membrane degradation and/or water generation at the anode catalyst layer. Thus, the effective oxygen crossover ratio should be considered as a novel index of oxygen crossover because it represents the exact amount of oxygen crossover that reacts with hydrogen. Copyright (C) 2013, 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