4.8 Article

Effects of hydrophobic agent content in macro-porous substrates on the fracture behavior of the gas diffusion layer for proton exchange membrane fuel cells

期刊

JOURNAL OF POWER SOURCES
卷 270, 期 -, 页码 342-348

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpowsour.2014.07.122

关键词

Gas diffusion layer; Interfacial fracture energy; Double cantilever beam fracture mechanics test; Proton exchange membrane fuel cell

资金

  1. Hyundai Motor Company
  2. Global Frontier R&D Program on Center for Multiscale Energy System [2011-0031569]
  3. Basic Science Research Program of the National Research Foundation under the Ministry of Science, ICT & Future Planning, Korea [2012R1A1A1006072]
  4. National Research Foundation of Korea [2012R1A1A1006072] 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

Although the adhesion between the macro-porous substrate (MPS) and micro-porous layer (MPL) of a gas diffusion layer (GDL) is a critical factor that affects the reliability and durability of proton exchange membrane fuel cells, systematic studies quantifying the interfacial fracture energy of GDL have not yet been reported. Therefore, in this study, the interfacial fracture energy of GDLs with different contents of hydrophobic agents in the MPS is quantitatively measured. GDL samples with 0, 5, 10, and 20 wt% of hydrophobic agent content are tested using double cantilever beam fracture mechanics tests. It is observed that the interfacial fracture energy of the GDLs increases as the content of hydrophobic agent increases, due to more favorable interactions between the hydrophobic agents of the MPL and MPS. Optical microscope, scanning electron microscope, and energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscope analyses are performed on the bare and delaminated surfaces in order to investigate the mechanism of the interfacial fracture energy increase of the GDLs. (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

4.8
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