4.6 Article

Connecting Fuel Cell Catalyst Nanostructure and Accessibility Using Quantitative Cryo-STEM Tomography

期刊

JOURNAL OF THE ELECTROCHEMICAL SOCIETY
卷 165, 期 3, 页码 F173-F180

出版社

ELECTROCHEMICAL SOC INC
DOI: 10.1149/2.0541803jes

关键词

-

资金

  1. GM
  2. US DOE EERE [DE-EE0007271]
  3. NSF Graduate Research Fellowship [DGE-1650441]
  4. NSFMRSEC program [DMR 1120296]
  5. Honda

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Further reduction of Pt in hydrogen fuel cells is hampered by reactant transport losses near the catalyst surface, especially for degraded catalysts. Strategically mitigating these performance losses requires an improved understanding of the catalyst nanostructure, which controls local transport and catalyst durability. We apply cryo-tomography in a scanning transmission electron microscope (STEM) to quantify the three-dimensional structure of carbon-supported Pt catalysts and correlate to their electrochemical accessibility. We present results for two carbon supports: Vulcan, a compact support with a large majority of Pt observed on the exterior, and HSC, a porous support with a majority of Pt observed within interior carbon pores, which have relatively constrictive openings. Increasing Pt content shifts the Pt distribution to the exterior on both carbon supports. By correlating to the electrochemical surface area, we find that all Pt surface area is accessible to protons in liquid. However, the interior Pt fraction quantitatively tracks Pt utilization losses at low humidity, indicating that the interior Pt is inaccessible to the proton-conducting ionomer, likely because narrow carbon pore openings block ionomer infiltration. These results imply different proton transport mechanisms for interior and exterior Pt, and quantitatively describe the catalyst structure, supporting development of transport and durability models. (C) The Author(s) 2018. Published by ECS. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

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