4.5 Article

Durability of Alternative Metal Oxide Supports for Application at a Proton-Exchange Membrane Fuel Cell Cathode-Comparison of Antimony- and Niobium-Doped Tin Oxide

期刊

ENERGIES
卷 13, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/en13020403

关键词

proton-exchange membrane fuel cell; durability; degradation mechanism; metal oxide support; antimony-doped tin oxide; niobium-doped tin oxide; loose tube

资金

  1. French National Research Agency through the SURICAT project [ANR-12-PRGE-007]
  2. uropean Union's Seventh Framework Program for the Fuel Cells and Hydrogen Joint Technology Initiative [325239]
  3. European Research Council under the European Union's Seventh Framework Programme (FP/2007-2013) / ERC Grant [306682]
  4. French IUF

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study, the resistance to corrosion of niobium-doped tin dioxide (Nb-doped SnO2, NTO) and antimony-doped tin oxide (Sb-doped SnO2, ATO) supports has been probed for proton-exchange membrane fuel cell (PEMFC) application. To achieve this goal, ATO or NTO supports with loose-tube (fiber-in-tube) morphology were synthesized using electrospinning and decorated with platinum (Pt) nanoparticles. These cathode catalysts were submitted to two different electrochemical tests, an accelerated stress test following the EU Harmonised Test Protocols for PEMFC in a single cell configuration and an 850 h test in real air-breathing PEMFC systems. In both cases, the dissolution of the doping element was measured either by inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ICP-MS) performed on the exhaust water or by energy dispersive X-ray spectrometry (X-EDS) analysis on ultramicrotomed membrane electrode assembly (MEA), and correlated to the performance losses upon ageing. It appears that the NTO-based support leads to lower performances than the ATO-based one, mainly owing to the low electronic conductivity of NTO. However, in the case of ATO, dissolution of the Sb doping element is non-negligible and represents a major issue from a stability point-of-view.

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