4.8 Article

Carbon-supported Pt nanowire as novel cathode catalysts for proton exchange membrane fuel cells

期刊

JOURNAL OF POWER SOURCES
卷 262, 期 -, 页码 488-493

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpowsour.2014.04.004

关键词

Carbon-supported platinum nanowires (PtNW/C); Durability; Oxygen reduction reaction (ORR); Membrane electrode assembly (MEA); Proton exchange membrane fuel cells (PEMFCs)

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [21206128]
  2. International Postdoctoral Exchange Fellowship Program China [201372]
  3. China MoST [2012AA110501]
  4. Henkel Professorship of Tongji University

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Carbon-supported platinum nanowires (PtNW/C) are successfully synthesized by a simple and inexpensive template-free methodology and demonstrated as novel, suitable cathode electrode materials for proton exchange membrane fuel cell (PEMFC) applications. The synthesis conditions, such as the amount of reducing agent and reaction time, were investigated to investigate the effect on the nanostructures and activities of the PtNW/C catalysts. High-resolution transmission electron microscopy (TEM) results show that the formic acid facilitated reduction is capable of producing uniformly distributed 1-dimensional PtNW with an average cross-sectional diameter of 4.0 +/- 0.2 nm and length of 20-40 nm. Investigation of the electrocatalytic activity by half-cell electrochemical testing reveals that PtNVVIC catalyst demonstrates significant oxygen reduction reaction (ORR) activity, superior to that of commercially available Pt/C. Using a loading of 0.4 mgpt cm(-2) PtNVV/C as the cathode catalyst, a maximum power density of 748.8 mW cm(-2) in a 50 cm(2) single cell of commercial Pt/C. In addition, accelerated degradation testing (ADT) showed that the PtNW/C catalyst exhibits better durability than commercial Pt/C, rendering PtNW/C as a promising replacement to conventional Pt/C as cathode electrocatalysts for PEMFCs applications. (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