4.7 Article

The anion conductivity of acid-doped polybenzimidazole membrane and utilization in mitigating the capacity decay of vanadium redox flow battery stacks

期刊

CHEMICAL ENGINEERING JOURNAL
卷 474, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE SA
DOI: 10.1016/j.cej.2023.145621

关键词

Vanadium redox flow battery; Capacity decay; PBI membrane; Anion exchange membrane; Mitigating capacity decay

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study, the researchers discovered that the acid-doped PBI membrane conducts both H+ and SO24- in vanadium redox flow batteries (VRFBs). They also found that the capacity decay features of VRFBs with the acid-doped PBI membrane exhibit the same trend as that of anion exchange membrane. By using a two-cell stack consisting of an acid-doped PBI membrane and an N212 membrane, they were able to mitigate capacity decay and significantly increase the accumulated discharge capacity.
Polybenzimidazole (PBI) membrane is one of the most promising proton exchange membranes for vanadium redox flow batteries (VRFBs) due to its excellent ion selectivity and stability. However, in this work, we first found the acid-doped PBI membrane conducts both H+ and SO24- in VRFBs. Besides, the capacity decay features of the VRFBs with acid-doped PBI membrane also present the same trend as that of anion exchange membrane, exhibiting an opposite direction of net electrolyte flux after long-term cycling than that of Nafion 212 (N212). Inspired by this finding, we build a VRFB two-cell stack consisting of an acid-doped PBI membrane and an N212 membrane to mitigate capacity decay. This method breaks the trade-off between voltage efficiency and capacity retention rate and significantly increases the accumulated discharge capacity by 119.77% compared to that with 2 pieces of N212 in 1000 cycles. This work deepens the understanding of the capacity decay mechanism of VRFB with different types of membranes and provides a simple yet highly effective strategy for mitigating the capacity decay of VRFB stacks.

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