4.6 Article Proceedings Paper

Analysis of the role of the microporous layer in improving polymer electrolyte fuel cell performance

期刊

ELECTROCHIMICA ACTA
卷 268, 期 -, 页码 366-382

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.electacta.2018.02.100

关键词

-

资金

  1. Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
  2. Catalysis Research for Polymer Electrolyte Fuel Cell (CaRPE-FC)
  3. AFCC Automotive Fuel Cell Cooperation Corp.
  4. Canada Foundation for Innovation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A multi-dimensional, non-isothermal, two-phase numerical model is used to understand the role of the microporous layer (MPL) in improving polymer electrolyte fuel cell (PEFC) performance. The model is validated under varying operating conditions against experimental data from conventional PEFCs in literature and low loading electrodes measured in-house with and without an MPL. Under dry conditions, the MPL is found to have a minimal effect on cell performance, except for improving ohmic transport and performance stability. Under wet conditions, results show that the MPL increases the temperature in the catalyst coated membrane, thereby enhancing evaporation in the cathode and creating a larger sorbed water gradient across the membrane which results in improved water vapor transport out of the cathode and increased diffusion from cathode to anode, respectively. A mild improvement in performance is also observed due to improved in-plane diffusion once an MPL is introduced as a result of the smaller pore size and hydrophobic nature of the MPL. A parametric study suggests that gas diffusion layer and MPL thermal conductivity are the most critical parameters to improve fuel cell performance followed by thickness and hydrophilic percentage. Other microstructural parameters appear to have minimal effect. An optimal thermal conductivity and hydrophilic percentage exist that achieve optimal fuel cell performance under fully humidified conditions. (c) 2018 Elsevier Ltd. 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

4.6
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