4.4 Article

Nafion reinforced with polyacrylonitrile nanofibers/zirconium-graphene oxide composite membrane for direct methanol fuel cell application

期刊

JOURNAL OF POLYMER RESEARCH
卷 29, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10965-021-02854-x

关键词

Fuel cell; Nafion (R); Nanofibers; Graphene oxide; Proton conductivity

资金

  1. University of South Africa (AQIP)
  2. National Research Foundation (NRF)
  3. Centre for Nanomaterials Science Research
  4. University of Johannesburg

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Electrospun PAN nanofibers decorated with ZrO2 and blended with graphene oxide nanofibers were used to improve the performance and conductivity of Nafion membrane in fuel cells. The modified composite membrane demonstrated higher proton conductivity and overall membrane properties, as well as superior fuel cell efficiency compared to commercial Nafion and existing literature. With lower methanol permeability and a proton conductivity of 5.46 x 10(-8) cm(2)/s and 0.46 mS/cm respectively, the Nafion-PAN/ZrO2-GO nanofiber membrane achieved a fuel cell performance of 75.9 mWcm(-2) at a current density of 250 mAcm(-2). The composite membrane shows potential for application in fuel cells.
Electrospun polyacrylonitrile (PAN) nanofibers decorated with ZrO2 then blended with graphene oxide nanofibers were used to enhance the fuel cell performance and the conductivity of Nafion (R) membrane. The modified membranes and the commercial membrane were synthesized by recast method. Nanocomposite's membranes had higher proton conductivity and overall membrane properties increased, and fuel cell efficiency than commercial Nafion (R) and similar work published in the literature (R). The Nafion (R)-PAN/ZrO2-GO nanofiber membrane had a lower methanol permeability and a proton conductivity of 5.46 x 10(-8) cm(2)/s and 0.46 mS/cm, respectively, with a fuel cell performance of 75.9 mWcm(-2) at a current density of 250 mAcm(-2). The composite membrane used in this study has potential for use in fuel cells.

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

4.4
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