4.5 Article

Durability of carbon nanofiber (CNF) & carbon nanotube (CNT) as catalyst support for Proton Exchange Membrane Fuel Cells

期刊

SOLID STATE IONICS
卷 231, 期 -, 页码 94-101

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ssi.2012.11.020

关键词

CNF; CNT; Catalyst support; PEM fuel cells; Durability

资金

  1. Danish PSO-PEM fuel cell durability project [2007-1-7156]
  2. Nanouramea project (DASTI) [09-064272]
  3. Nanouramea project (Academy of Finland) [124671, 124769]
  4. Academy of Finland (AKA) [124671, 124769, 124769, 124671] Funding Source: Academy of Finland (AKA)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Durability issues have recently been given much attention in Proton Exchange Membrane Fuel Cell (PEMFC) research. It gives fundamental definition for cell life time, capital cost, system stability and technique reliability. Loss of catalyst surface area due to corrosion of supporting material (normally carbon black) is one of the essential degradation mechanisms during cell operation. In this work, durability of carbon nanofibers (CNF) & carbon nanotubes (CNT) as alternative platinum catalyst supports for Proton Exchange Membrane Fuel Cells (PEMFCs) was assessed. Platinized CNF and CNT using a standard polyol method were prepared and fabricated as cathodes of Membrane Electrode Assemblies (MEA) for PEMFC. Both the catalysts as such and the MEAs made out of them were evaluated regarding to thermal and electrochemical stabilities using traditional carbon black (Vulcan XC72) as a reference. Thermal gravimetric analysis (TGA), cyclic voltammetry (CV), polarization curve and impedance spectroscopy were applied on the samples under accelerated stress conditions. The carbon nano-materials demonstrated better stability as a support for nano-sized platinum catalyst under PEMFC related operating conditions. Due to different morphology of the nano carbons compared to Vulcan XC 72 the electrode structures may still need optimization to improve the overall cell performance. (c) 2012 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

4.5
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