4.5 Article

Perfluoroalkyl Phosphonic and Phosphinic Acids as Proton Conductors for Anhydrous Proton-Exchange Membranes

期刊

CHEMPHYSCHEM
卷 11, 期 13, 页码 2871-2878

出版社

WILEY-V C H VERLAG GMBH
DOI: 10.1002/cphc.201000184

关键词

activation energy; fuel cells; membranes phosphorous; proton conductors

资金

  1. United Sates Department of Energy (US DOE) [DE-FG36-06GO16031]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A study of proton-transport rates and mechanisms under anhydrous conditions using a series of acid model compounds, analogous to comb-branch perfluorinated ionomers functionalized with phosphonic, phosphinic, sulfonic, and carboxylic acid protogenic groups, is reported. Model compounds are characterized with respect to proton conductivity, viscosity, proton, and anion (conjugate base) self-diffusion coefficients, and Hammett acidity. The highest conductivities, and also the highest viscosities, are observed for the phosphonic and phosphinic acid model compounds. Arrhenius analysis of conductivity and viscosity for these two acids reveals much lower activation energies for ion transport than for viscous flow. Additionally, the proton self-diffusion coefficients are much higher than the conjugate-base self-diffusion coefficients for these two acids. Taken together, these data suggest that anhydrous proton transport in the phosphonic and phosphinic acid model compounds occurs primarily by a structure-diffusion, hopping-based mechanism rather than a vehicle mechanism. Further analysis of ionic conductivity and ion self-diffusion rates by using the Nernst-Einstein equation reveals that the phosphonic and phosphinic acid model compounds are relatively highly dissociated even under anhydrous conditions. In contrast, sulfonic and carboxylic acid-based systems exhibit relatively low degrees of dissociation under anhydrous conditions. These findings suggest that fluoroalkyl phosphonic and phosphinic acids are good candidates for further development as anhydrous, high-temperature proton conductors.

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

4.5
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