4.7 Article

Preparation of Nafion/sulfonated poly(phenylsilsesquioxane) nanocomposite as high temperature proton exchange membranes

期刊

JOURNAL OF MEMBRANE SCIENCE
卷 322, 期 2, 页码 466-474

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.memsci.2008.05.075

关键词

direct dimethyl ether fuel cell; composite membrane; proton conductivity; Nafion; sulfonated poly phenylmethyl silsesquioxane

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Nafion/sulfonated poly(phenylmethyl silsesquioxane) (sPPSQ) composite membranes are fabricated using homogeneous dispersive mixing and a solvent casting method for direct dimethyl ether fuel cell (DDMEFC) applications operated above 100 degrees C. The inorganic conducting filler, sPPSQ significantly affects the characteristics in the nanocomposite membranes by functionalization with an organic sulfonic acid to PPSQ. Moreover, sPPSQ content plays an important role in membrane properties such as microstructure, proton conductivity, fuel crossover, and single cell performance test. With increasing sPPSQ content in the nanocomposite membrane, the proton conductivity increased and fuel crossover decreased. However, in a higher temperature range above 110 degrees C, Nafion/sPPSQ 5 wt.% composite membrane has the highest proton conductivity. Also. the DME permeability for the composite membrane with higher sPPSQ content increased sharply. The excessive sPPSQ content caused a large aggregation of inorganic fillers, leading to the deterioration of membrane properties. In this study, the optimal sPPSQ content for maximizing the DDMEFC performance was 5 wt.%. Our nanocomposite membranes demonstrated proton conductivities as high as 1.57 x 10(-1) S/cm at 120 degrees C, which is higher than that of Nafion. The cell performances were compared to Nafion/sPPSQ composite membrane with Nafion 115, and the composite membrane with sPPSQ yielded better cell performance than Nafion 115 at temperatures ranging from 100 to 120 degrees C and at pressures from 1 to 2 bar. (c) 2008 Elsevier B.V. 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