4.5 Article

A Comparative Study of Conditioning Methods for Hydrocarbon-Based Proton-Exchange Membrane Fuel Cells for Improved Performance

期刊

ENERGY TECHNOLOGY
卷 -, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

WILEY-V C H VERLAG GMBH
DOI: 10.1002/ente.202300202

关键词

conditioning; fluorine-free hydrocarbon ionomers; fuel cells; voltage recovery

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Recent advances in hydrocarbon-based proton-exchange membrane fuel cells have improved voltage recovery (VR) through optimizing materials. This study introduces a VR protocol specifically designed for hydrocarbon-based fuel cells, resulting in a 100% increase in mass activity after only 1 hour. The proposed protocol is also effective for Nafion catalyst layers and significantly reduces conditioning time.
Recent advances in developing hydrocarbon-based proton-exchange membrane fuel cells have focused on optimizing materials. Voltage recovery (VR) has shown notable improvements for perfluorosulfonic acid-based fuel cells. This study is the first to present a VR protocol designed specifically for hydrocarbon-based fuel cells. The proposed protocol involves 100 voltage steps at 0.08 and 0.12 V, lasting 20 s each, at 80 degrees C, under backpressure and oversaturated conditions. The effectiveness of the protocol is compared to other protocols, including one proposed by the US Department of Energy (DOE) and another VR from the literature. The VR protocol results in a 100% increase in the mass activity of the fully hydrocarbon-based fuel cells after only 1 h, while the DOE protocol leads to no improvement, and another established protocol requires 3 h to show a 70% increase. The proposed protocol is also effective for Nafion catalyst layers. The H-2/air performance at 0.7 V of the fully hydrocarbon-based fuel cells increases by 21%, resulting in a current density of 0.9 A cm(-2), similar to the Nafion reference. This suggests that the proposed protocol is highly effective and significantly reduces the conditioning time, which can be a significant cost factor.

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