4.8 Article

Preparation of low Pt loading electrodes on Nafion (Na+)-bonded carbon layer with galvanostatic pulses for PEMFC application

期刊

JOURNAL OF POWER SOURCES
卷 163, 期 1, 页码 349-356

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpowsour.2006.09.018

关键词

proton exchange membrane (PEM) fuel cells; galvanostatic pulse electrodeposition; Nafion-bonded carbon layer; low Pt loading; catalyst utilization efficiency

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Low Pt loading electrodes were prepared by galvanostatic pulse electrodeposition on a Nafion-bonded carbon layer. Since the electrodeposition of Pt in aqueous solution occurred only on carbon surface with some ion conductivity (Nation-Ne), it was possible to significantly reduce the thickness of the catalyst layer as well as the amount of Pt loading. Thus, it provided enhanced utilization efficiency of catalyst. This method consisted of a three-step procedure in the following order: deposition of Pt particles on a Nafion-bonded carbon layer, heat treatment, and a protonation process. The electrochemical surface areas of the Pt deposits were determined by cyclic voltammetry. Other physical properties of the deposit were characterized by transmission electron microscopy, X-ray diffraction measurements, and X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy. The amount of Pt deposit was determined by inductively coupled plasma-atomic emission spectroscopy. The performance of the prepared electrode was compared with conventional electrodes, which were prepared with 20 wt.% Pt/C from E-TEK. The performance of the membrane electrode assemblies employing electrodeposited electrodes (0.025 mg Pt cm(-2) on the anode and 0.3 mg Pt cm(-2) on the cathode) has shown competitively higher values than those of the conventional electrodes (0.3 mg Pt cm(-2) on both electrodes). These results indicate a noticeable increase in the catalyst utilization due to the deposition of Pt particles taking place only in the three-phase reaction zone. (c) 2006 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