4.5 Article

A Critical Review on the Use of Ionic Liquids in Proton Exchange Membrane Fuel Cells

期刊

MEMBRANES
卷 12, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/membranes12020178

关键词

proton exchange membrane; fuel cells; ionic liquids; polymers; Nafion membrane

资金

  1. open access program (OAP) at the American University of Sharjah [OAP22-CEN-073]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper provides a comprehensive review on the incorporation of ionic liquids (ILs) into polymer blends and their utilization as proton exchange membranes (PEM). It discusses various conventional polymers that incorporate ILs and presents the methods of synthesis of IL/polymer composite membranes. The paper concludes that the presence of certain ILs can increase the conductivity of the PEM and enhance the performance of PEMFCs, but highlights the challenges of leakage and limited long-term thermal and mechanical stability.
This work provides a comprehensive review on the incorporation of ionic liquid (ILs) into polymer blends and their utilization as proton exchanges membranes (PEM). Various conventional polymers that incorporate ILs are discussed, such as Nafion, poly (vinylidene fluoride), polybenzimidazole, sulfonated poly (ether ether ketone), and sulfonated polyimide. The methods of synthesis of IL/polymer composite membranes are summarized and the role of ionic liquids as electrolytes and structure directing agents in PEM fuel cells (PEMFCs) is presented. In addition, the obstacles that are reported to impede the development of commercial polymerized IL membranes are highlighted in this work. The paper concludes that the presence of certain ILs can increase the conductivity of the PEM, and consequently, enhance the performance of PEMFCs. Nevertheless, the leakage of ILs from composite membranes as well as the limited long-term thermal and mechanical stability are considered as the main challenges that limit the employment of IL/polymer composite membranes in PEMFCs, especially for high-temperature applications.

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