4.6 Article

Design of sepiolite-supported ionogel-embedded composite membranes without proton carrier wastage for wide-temperature-range operation of proton exchange membrane fuel cells

期刊

JOURNAL OF MATERIALS CHEMISTRY A
卷 7, 期 25, 页码 15288-15301

出版社

ROYAL SOC CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1039/c9ta03666k

关键词

-

资金

  1. Natural Science Foundation of Hubei Province, China [2017CFB575, 2018CFB412]
  2. Laboratory of Green Materials for Light Industry [201710A14, 201806A07]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

For the application of proton exchange membrane fuel cells (PEMFCs) in a wide temperature range, an ionogel incorporated into poly(2,5-benzimidazole) (ABPBI) membranes with low phosphoric acid doping levels was designed. The natural sepiolite was first acid-treated to obtain one-dimensional silicon nanorods (SNRs) with a large specific surface area and a hierarchical porous structure. The SNRs were then filled with imidazolium ionic liquid (IL) to prepare IL@SNR ionogels. Analysis of related spectra and thermal behavior verified that the IL molecules were confined in the inner channels of SNRs. The as-prepared IL@SNRs were embedded in the ABPBI to form composite membranes (ABPBI/IL@SNRs) via in situ synthesis. By immobilizing proton conductors, the ABPBI/IL@SNR composite membranes markedly improved proton conductivity with low phosphoric acid doping levels in a wide temperature range. A single-cell based on 5 wt% IL@SNRs embedded in a composite membrane achieved a maximum power density of 0.15 and 0.28 W cm(-2) at 80 degrees C and 180 degrees C, respectively, with 0% RH. The proton conductivities were comparable to those of Nafion-based PEMFCs under the same temperature and humidity conditions and competed with those of reported polybenzimidazole-inorganic composite membrane-based PEMFCs at high temperatures. By using a facile method to prepare nanostructured fillers, the strategy of avoiding proton carrier wastage can be potentially used in the production of high-performance membranes for 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

4.6
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