4.8 Article

Experimental dissection of oxygen transport resistance in the components of a polymer electrolyte membrane fuel cell

期刊

JOURNAL OF POWER SOURCES
卷 345, 期 -, 页码 67-77

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpowsour.2017.01.087

关键词

Oxygen transport resistance; Limiting current density; Ionomer; Gas diffusion layer; Micro porous layer; Catalyst layer

资金

  1. New AMP
  2. Renewable Energy Core Technology Program of the Korea Institute of Energy Technology Evaluation and Planning (KETEP)
  3. Ministry of Trade, Industry AMP
  4. Energy, Republic of Korea [20143010031880]
  5. Korea Evaluation Institute of Industrial Technology (KEIT) [20143010031880] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Oxygen transport resistance is a major obstacle for obtaining high performance in a polymer electrolyte membrane fuel cell (PEMFC). To distinguish the major components that inhibit oxygen transport, an experimental method is established to dissect the oxygen transport resistance of the components of the PEMFC, such as the substrate, micro-porous layer (MPL), catalyst layer, and ionomer film. The Knudsen numbers are calculated to determine the types of diffusion mechanisms at each layer by measuring the pore sizes with either mercury porosimetry or BET analysis. At the under-saturated condition where condensation is mostly absent, the molecular diffusion resistance is dissected by changing the type of inert gas, and ionomer film permeation is separated by varying the inlet gas humidity. Moreover, the presence of the MPL and the variability of the substrate thickness allow the oxygen transport resistance at each component of a PEMFC to be dissected. At a low relative humidity of 50% and lower, an ionomer film had the largest resistance, while the contribution of the MPL was largest for the other humidification conditions. (C) 2017 Elsevier B.V. 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

4.8
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