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
Ayşe BAYRAKÇEKEN YURTCAN
Pages
1227–1243
Publication Date
2022-11-01
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/cm2 and power density of 0.191 W/cm2 , and 10wt.% PDMS with a current density of 344.52 mA/cm2 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 (PEMFCs).
📊
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/cm2 and power density of 0.191 W/cm2 , and 10wt.% PDMS with a current density of 344.52 mA/cm2 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:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Water management is one of the obstacles in the development and commercialization of proton exchange membrane fuel cells (PEMFCs). 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 (GDL) 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 more 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/cm2 and power density of 0.191 W/cm2 , and 10wt.% PDMS with a current density of 344.52 mA/cm2 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. (2022). 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/601866

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (12)

  1. Tiliakos A, Trefilov AM, Tanasă E, Balan A, Stamatin I. Laser-induced graphene as the microporous layer in proton exchange membrane fuel cells. Applied Surface Science 2020
  2. 144096. doi: 10.1016/j.apsusc.2019.144096 2. Bezerra CW, Zhang L, Lee K, Liu H, Marques ABL et al. A review of Fe–N/C and Co–N/C catalysts for the oxygen reduction reaction. Electrochimica Acta 2008
  3. 53 (15): 4937-4951. doi: 10.1016/j.electacta.2008.02.012 3. Cao TF, Lin H, Chen L, He YL, Tao WQ. Numerical investigation of the coupled water and thermal management in PEM fuel cell. Applied Energy 2013
  4. doi: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2013.02.031 4. Wee J-H, Lee K-Y, Kim SH. Fabrication methods for low-Pt-loading electrocatalysts in proton exchange membrane fuel cell systems. Journal of Power Sources 2007
  5. 165 (2): 667-677. doi:10.1016/j.jpowsour.2006.12.051 5. Das E, Yurtcan AB. Effect of carbon ratio in the polypyrrole/carbon composite catalyst support on PEM fuel cell performance. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 2016
  6. 41 (30): 13171-13179. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2016.05.167 6. Mehta V, Cooper JS. Review and analysis of PEM fuel cell design and manufacturing. Journal of Power Sources 2003
  7. 114 (1): 32-53. doi: 10.1016/S0378-7753(02)00542-6 7. Kumar A, Zhang Y, Liu W, Sun X. The chemistry, recent advancements and activity descriptors for macrocycles based electrocatalysts in oxygen reduction reaction. Coordination Chemistry Reviews 2020
  8. 213047. doi: 10.1016/j.ccr.2019.213047 8. Rahimian P, Battrell L, Anderson R, Zhu N, Johnson E et al. Investigation of time dependent water droplet dynamics on porous fuel cell material via synchrotron based X-ray imaging technique. Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science 2018
  9. doi: 10.1016/j. expthermflusci.2018.04.021 9. Ozden A, Shahgaldi S, Li X, Hamdullahpur F. A review of gas diffusion layers for proton exchange membrane fuel cells—with a focus on characteristics, characterization techniques, materials and designs. Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 2019
  10. doi: 10.1016/j.pecs.2019.05.002 10. Jiao K, Li X. Water transport in polymer electrolyte membrane fuel cells. Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 2011
  11. doi: 10.1016/j.pecs.2010.06.002 11. Zhan Z, Wang C, Fu W, Pan M. Visualization of water transport in a transparent PEMFC. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 2012
  12. 37 (1): 1094-1105. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2011.02.081 12. Cheah MJ, Kevrekidis IG, Benziger JB. Wa