SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Turkish Journal of Chemistry / 2020 / Cilt: 44 - Sayı: 5

Water management improvement in PEM fuel cells via addition of PDMS or APTES polymers to the catalyst layer

Hande UNGAN
Ayse BAYRAKCEKEN YURTCAN
Pages
1227–1243
Publication Date
2020-10-26
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Fuel cells with 5wt.% APTES with a current density of 321.31 mA/cm(2) and power density of 0.191 W/cm(2), and 10wt.% PDMS with a current density of 344.52 mA/cm(2) and power density of 0.205 W/cm(2) were the best performing fuel cells at 0.6V.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Water management is one of the obstacles in the development and commercialization of proton exchange membrane fuel cells (PEW:Cs).
📊
Key Findings & Data:Sufficient humidification of the membrane directly affects the PEM fuel cell performance.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Fuel cells with 5wt.% APTES with a current density of 321.31 mA/cm(2) and power density of 0.191 W/cm(2), and 10wt.% PDMS with a current density of 344.52 mA/cm(2) and power density of 0.205 W/cm(2) were the best performing fuel cells at 0.6V.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:PEM fuel cell · water management · PDMS

Abstract

Water management is one of the obstacles in the development and commercialization of proton exchange membrane fuel cells (PEW:Cs). Sufficient humidification of the membrane directly affects the PEM fuel cell performance. Therefore, 2 different hydrophobic polymers, polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS) and (3-Aminopropyl) triethoxysilane (APTES), were tested at different percentages (5, 10, and 20 wt.%) in the catalyst layer. The solution was loaded onto the surface of a 25 BC gas diffusion layer (GDIL) via the spraying method. The performance of the obtained fuel cells was compared with the performance of the commercial catalyst. Characterizations of each surface, including different amounts of PDMS and APTES, were performed via scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and energy dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDX) analyses. Molecular bond characterization was examined via Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR) analysis and surface hydrophobicity was measured via contact angle measurements. The performance of the fuel cells was evaluated at the PEM fuel cell test station and the 2 hydrophobic polymers were compared. Surfaces containing APTES were found to be snore hydrophobic. Fuel cells with PDMS performed better when compared to those with APTES. Fuel cells with 5wt.% APTES with a current density of 321.31 mA/cm(2) and power density of 0.191 W/cm(2), and 10wt.% PDMS with a current density of 344.52 mA/cm(2) and power density of 0.205 W/cm(2) were the best performing fuel cells at 0.6V.

🔖

Cite This Article

UNGAN, H., YURTCAN, A. B. (2020). Water management improvement in PEM fuel cells via addition of PDMS or APTES polymers to the catalyst layer. Turkish Journal of Chemistry, Cilt: 44 - Sayı: 5, 1227–1243. https://ajindex.com/articles/208814

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (5)

  1. Aneja KS, 2015,
  2. NANOSCALE, V7, P17879, DOI 10.1039/c5nr04702a Arslan G, 2006, TURK J CHEM, V30, P203. Avcioglu GS, 2016, INT J HYDROGEN ENERG, V41, P10010, DOI 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2016.03.048 Avcioglu GS, 2015, INT J HYDROGEN ENERG, V40, P7720, DOI 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2015.02.004 Bezerra CWB, 2008, ELECTROCHIM ACTA, V53, P4937, DOI 10.1016/j.electacta.2008.02.012 Cabasso I, 1998,
  3. Google Patents, Patent No. [5,783,325, 5783325] Cao TF, 2013, APPL ENERG, V112, P1115, DOI 10.1016/j.apenergy.2013.02.031 Cheah MJ, 2013,
  4. LANGMUIR, V29, P15122, DOI 10.1021/la403057k Das E, 2016, INT J HYDROGEN ENERG, V41, P13171, DOI 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2016.05.167 Dicks A.L., 2018, FUEL CELL SYSTEMS EX. Friedmann R, 2010, J ELECTROCHEM SOC, V157, pB260, DOI 10.1149/1.3264628 Friedmann R, 2008, ECS TRANSACTIONS, V16, P2021, DOI 10.1149/1.2982042 Jankauskaite V, 2019,
  5. COATINGS, V9, DOI 10.3390/coatings9010036 Jiao K, 2011, PROG ENERG COMBUST, V37, P221, DOI 10.1016/j.pecs.2010.06.002 Kumar A, 2020, COORDIN CHEM REV, V402, DOI 10.1016/j.ccr.2019.213047 Li KQ, 2014, COLLOID SURFACE A, V445, P111, DOI 10.1016/j.colsurfa.2014.01.024 Lim C, 2004, ELECTROCHIM ACTA, V49, P4149, DOI 10.1016/j.electacta.2004.04.009 Lin GY, 2005, J ELECTROCHEM SOC, V152, pA1942, DOI 10.1149/1.2006487 Martin AJ, 2009, J POWER SOURCES, V192, P14, DOI 10.1016/j.jpowsour.2008.10.104 Martin S, 2010, J POWER SOURCES, V195, P2443, DOI 10.1016/j.jpowsour.2009.11.092 Mehta V, 2003, J POWER SOURCES, V114, P32, DOI 10.1016/S0378-7753(02)00542-6 Moreira J, 2003, INT J HYDROGEN ENERG, V28, P625, DOI 10.1016/S0360-3199(02)00143-X Nguyen TV, 2006, ECS T, V1, P501. Ozden A, 2019, PROG ENERG COMBUST, V74, P50, DOI 10.1016/j.pecs.2019.05.002 Ozturk A, 2017, INT J HYDROGEN ENERG, V42, P6250, DOI 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2016.11.041 Park GG, 2004, J POWER SOURCES, V131, P182, DOI 10.1016/j.jpowsour.2003.12.037 Park S, 2006, J POWER SOURCES, V163, P357, DOI 10.1016/j.jpowsour.2006.09.020 Park SB, 2012, INT J PRECIS ENG MAN, V13, P1145, DOI 10.1007/s12541-012-0152-x Paul DR, 2010, PROG POLYM SCI, V35, P893, DOI 10.1016/j.progpolymsci.2010.03.004 Radev I, 2012, INT J HYDROGEN ENERG, V37, P11862, DOI 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2012.05.027 Rahimian P, 2018, EXP THERM FLUID SCI, V97, P237, DOI 10.1016/j.expthermflusci.2018.04.021 Rogers JA, 2005, MATER TODAY, V8, P50, DOI 10.1016/S1369-7021(05)00702-9 Salahuddin M, 2018, INT J HYDROGEN ENERG, V43, P11530, DOI 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2017.07.229 Shahgaldi S, 2019, ELECTROCHIM ACTA, V299, P809, DOI 10.1