4.8 Article

In-situ preparation of low Pt loading multi rhombic-pyramidal Pt-Pd catalyst layer for high-performance proton exchange membrane fuel cells

期刊

JOURNAL OF POWER SOURCES
卷 556, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpowsour.2022.232445

关键词

PEM fuel cell; Catalyst layer; Alloy catalyst; Pt-Pd; In-situ growth

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The catalyst layer (CL) plays a crucial role in the performance of proton exchange membrane fuel cells (PEMFCs). In this study, a mild and simplified strategy is used to in-situ grow Pt-Pd alloy catalysts on the gas diffusion layer (GDL) as CLs for PEMFCs. The optimal atomic ratio of Pt/Pd is determined to be 1/2, which exhibits excellent cell performance and stability.
The catalyst layer (CL) is the only electrochemical reaction site in proton exchange membrane fuel cells (PEMFCs), decisive in their performance. Herein, a mild and simplified strategy is implemented into the in-situ growth of Pt-Pd alloy catalysts on the gas diffusion layer (GDL) as the CLs for PEMFCs. Pt/C is used as the nucleation site to assist the in-situ growth of the Pt-Pd CL. The as-prepared Pt-Pd CL behaves as a multi rhombic-pyramidal structure, which are evenly distributed on the GDL surface. The effect of the Pt/Pd atomic ratio on the electrocatalytic activity is investigated through a single-cell performance test, and the optimal atomic ratio is determined to be 1/2, which exhibits excellent cell performance and low activation polarization loss. Meanwhile, the single-cell test results reveal that Pt1Pd2 CL reaches optimal performance at a loading of 0.122 mg cm(-2) (similar to 0.06 mg(Pt) cm(-2)), with a peak Pt-specific power density of 14.23 W mg(-1) (6.81 W mg(-1) in PtPd), approxi-mately 3.96 times that of a commercial Pt/C CL (0.2 mg(Pt) cm(-2)). Furthermore, Pt1Pd2 CL shows significantly better stability than the commercial Pt/C CL, indicating that the in-situ preparation of the Pt-based CL has an excellent prospect for the commercial development of PEMFCs.

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

4.8
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