4.5 Article

Optimizing Catalyst Loading Ratio between the Anode and Cathode for Ultralow Catalyst Usage in Polymer Electrolyte Membrane Fuel Cell

期刊

ENERGY TECHNOLOGY
卷 9, 期 7, 页码 -

出版社

WILEY-V C H VERLAG GMBH
DOI: 10.1002/ente.202100113

关键词

catalyst loading; department of energy target; fuel cells; membranes; optimized ratio

资金

  1. Korea Electric Power Corporation [R19XO01-29]
  2. Incheon National University

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The U.S. Department of Energy sets the target Pt catalyst loading at 0.125 mg(Pt) cm(-2) for both cathode and anode in order to ensure the economic viability of PEMFC. Experimental results show that a membrane electrode assembly with 70% catalyst loading on the cathode side exhibits the highest performance, with a maximum power density of 643 mW cm(-2).
With increasing demand for high-efficiency and clean energy sources, the polymer electrolyte membrane fuel cell (PEMFC) has received attention in a wide range of fields including transportation and back-up power. For securing the economic viability of PEMFC, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) provides the target of the total Pt catalyst loading as 0.125 mg(Pt) cm(-2) on both cathode and anode, which is much less than that currently used (>0.25 mg(Pt) cm(-2) for cathode). An optimized ratio of catalyst loading between the anode and cathode with a fixed Pt catalyst loading according to the DOE target is figured out by conducting diverse electrochemical measurements with varying the catalyst loading ratio in single-cells. Among the experimental set, the membrane electrode assembly (MEA) with 70% catalyst loading on the cathode side shows the highest performance with the maximum power density of 643 mW cm(-2), while the MEA with 90% catalyst loading on the cathode side exhibits inferior performance. Experimental results are validated by suggesting the theoretical model, which was established based on considering both the electrochemical kinetics of hydrogen oxidation and oxygen reduction reaction.

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