4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

Performance analysis of Fe-N-C catalyst for DMFC cathodes: Effect of water saturation in the cathodic catalyst layer

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HYDROGEN ENERGY
卷 41, 期 47, 页码 22605-22618

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2016.06.060

关键词

Iron-phthalocyanine; Direct methanol fuel cell; Oxygen reduction reaction; Methanol tolerance; Multiphysics modeling; Water saturation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Iron phthalocyanine (FePc) was used as iron/nitrogen/carbon source and templated with an ordered mesoporous silica (SBA-15), followed by heat treatment and leaching of SiO2 with hydrofluoric acid (sacrificial method). The Fe-N-C catalyst was tested for the oxygen reduction reaction using a rotating disk electrode (three electrode configuration) in the presence of methanol at different concentrations. Furthermore, the catalystwas investigated in a single cell configuration of a direct methanol fuel cell (DMFC) under different methanol concentrations and temperatures. The optimal operating condition was found to be 1 M at 110 degrees C, reaching 11.2 mW cm(-2) using a commercial Pt-Ru black at the anode and the Fe-N-C at the cathode side. Interestingly, the cathodic catalyst was not dramatically affected by the presence of cross-overed methanol, showing only a 12% drop in maximum power density with the highest methanol concentration of 10 M at the anode. A 3D multiphysics model was implemented to further explain the experimental DMFC performance data using a commercial platform (Comsor (R) Multiphysics v4.4a). The model agreed with the experimental data, showing a direct relationship between water saturation, and oxygen consumption, consequently oxygen starvation at the cathodic catalytic layer. The model considered two phases on the cathode side computed by extended Darcy law within the catalytic layer and the gas diffusion layer domains. (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