4.7 Article

Effect of cerium/18-crown-6-ether coordination complex OH• quencher on the properties of sulfonated poly(ether ether ketone) fuel cell electrolyte membranes

期刊

JOURNAL OF MEMBRANE SCIENCE
卷 469, 期 -, 页码 238-244

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.memsci.2014.06.044

关键词

Fuel cell; Membrane; Cerium; Oxidation stability; sPEEK

资金

  1. New & Renewable Energy R&D program of the Korea Institute of Energy Technology Evaluation and Planning (KETEP) - Korea government Ministry of Trade, Industry, and Energy [20113020030040]
  2. National Research Foundation of Korea Grant - Korean Government (MEST) [NRF-2009-0093033, NRF-2012R1A2A1A05026313]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The effect of cerium ions (Ce3+) on the anti-oxidation and other properties of sulfonated poly(ether ether ketone) (sPEEK) membrane was studied, as it quenches the hydroxyl radicals, the major oxidation promoter in fuel cell operation. Cerium (Ce) was introduced along with 18-crown-6-ether to form a coordination complex to prevent both the migration of Ce3+ ions from the membranes and the direct interaction with sulfonic acid groups in sPEEK. The chemical and physical structures of the composite membranes were investigated using FT-IR, H-1 NMR, SEM, EDX, and SAXS. As the concentration of Ce3+ ions increased, the distance between ion clusters of the membranes decreased by reduction of the strength of sulfonic acids interacted with the Ce3+ ions. The introduction of Ce3+ ions reduced the proton conductivity, but the presence of 18-crown-6-ether lessened the effect. According to Fenton's test, the pristine sPEEK membrane was completely degraded by oxidation in 24 h, but the composite membranes containing Ce3+/18-crown-6-ether complex were stable for up to 70 h. Other properties such as the thermal and mechanical stability and the water uptake were not noticeably affected by the presence of Ce3+ at the low concentration level of 2 mol% relative to sulfonic acid groups. (C) 2014 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