4.7 Article

Synthesis, characterization and performance determination of an Ag@Pt/C electrocatalyst for the ORR in a PEM fuel cell

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HYDROGEN ENERGY
卷 41, 期 45, 页码 20720-20730

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2016.09.097

关键词

Core-shell; Electrocatalyst; Oxygen reduction; PEMFC; MEA

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Ag@Pt nanoparticles synthesized with different Ag/Pt mass ratios utilizing ultrasonic treatment method. These materials were supported on Vulcan XC-72 and utilized as cathode in a proton exchange membrane fuel cell (PEMFC). The morphology of this material characterized through the x-ray diffraction (XRD), induced coupled plasma atomic emission spectroscopy (ICP-OES) as well as; high resolution transmission electron microscopy (HRTEM) techniques. To begin with, it was proven that, the prepared Ag@Pt/C catalyst possessed a core-shell nanostructure. The electrochemical properties of this material investigated through the Cyclic Voltammetry (CV), linear sweep voltammetry (LSV) and Electrochemical Impedance Spectroscopy (EIS) in acidic media. Moreover; it was shown that, the Ag@Pt/C with Ag/Pt ratio of 1:3 possessed the largest electrochemical surface area (ESCA) of 67.8 m(2) g(-1) and its oxygen reduction activity proceeded through a 4e(-) reaction pathway. Furthermore; it was demonstrated that, the determined stability of the (1:3) Ag@Pt/C was significantly higher compared with those of other elctrocatalysts prepared at different Ag/Pt ratios in particular; to the one without the Ag element (i.e.; a commercial Pt/C one). Ultimately, the electrocatalytic behavior of the (1:3) Ag@Pt/C) investigated through a unit cell structure of a PEMFC and compared with that of a virgin commercial Pt/C cathode. It was observed that, the maximum power density of the MEA utilizing the (1:3) Ag@Pt/C electrocatalyst was 30% higher than that of the Pt/C. (C) 2016 Hydrogen Energy Publications LLC. Published by Elsevier Ltd. 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

4.7
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