4.5 Article

A Double-Bridge Channel Shape of a Membraneless Microfluidic Fuel Cell

期刊

ENERGIES
卷 14, 期 21, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/en14216973

关键词

membraneless microfluidic fuel cell (MMFC); double-bridge channel; mass transport losses; mixing region; numerical model

资金

  1. National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) - Korean government (MSIT) [2019R1A2C1007657]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A novel double-bridge shape was proposed for a membraneless microfluidic fuel cell, leading to improved electrochemical performance. Parameter studies showed that adjusting different channel parameters could optimize power density and enhance energy conversion efficiency in the fuel cell.
A double-bridge shape is proposed as a novel flow channel cross-sectional shape of a membraneless microfluidic fuel cell, and its electrochemical performance was analyzed with a numerical model. A membraneless microfluidic fuel cell (MMFC) is a micro/nano-scale fuel cell with better economic and commercial viability with the elimination of the polymer electrolyte membrane. The numerical model involves the Navier-Stokes, Butler-Volmer, and mass transport equations. The results from the numerical model were validated with the experimental results for a single-bridge channel. The proposed MMFC with double-bridge flow channel shape performed better in comparison to the single-bridge channel shape. A parametric study for the double-bridge channel was performed using three sub-channel widths with the fixed total channel width and the bridge height. The performance of the MMFC varied most significantly with the variation in the width of the inner channel among the sub-channel widths, and the power density increased with this channel width because of the reduced width of the mixing layer in the inner channel. The bridge height significantly affected the performance, and at a bridge height at 90% of the channel height, a higher peak power density of 171%was achieved compared to the reference channel.

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