4.7 Review

A review of anion exchange membranes prepared via Friedel-Crafts reaction for fuel cell and water electrolysis

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HYDROGEN ENERGY
卷 48, 期 66, 页码 25830-25858

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2023.03.2990360-3199

关键词

Anion exchange membranes; Water electrolysis; Fuel cell; Friedel-Crafts reaction

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This review article provides a comprehensive literature survey for anion exchange membranes (AEMs) prepared via Friedel-Crafts reaction. The fundamentals of the reaction and different types of AEMs were discussed. The performance of fuel cells and water electrolysis was investigated. Challenges and research implications for future investigations were addressed.
Hydrogen is considered a potential, clean, and renewable energy for the future. Anion exchange membranes (AEMs) are significant components in AEM fuel cells and water electrolysis, crucial devices in the hydrogen industry. Friedel-Crafts (F-C) reaction has been widely used in preparing AEMs due to its versatility, high catalytic efficiency, relatively mild reaction conditions, etc. This review article provides a comprehensive literature survey for AEMs prepared via Friedel-Crafts reaction. Firstly, the fundamentals of the F-C reaction were introduced in detail, including the category, mechanism, catalyst and chloromethylating agent. Different types of AEMs, including polysulfones (PSUs), poly(arylene ether)s (PAEs), poly(ether ketones) (PEKs), and poly(2,6- dimethyl-1,4-phenylene oxide) (PPO), etc. were discussed. The cell performance of fuel cells and water electrolysis was investigated and analyzed. Finally, this review addresses the current challenges facing the development of AEM and proposed research implications for future investigations.& COPY; 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of Hydrogen Energy Publications LLC. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/ licenses/by/4.0/).

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