AI Chat Paper
Note: Please note that the following content is generated by AMiner AI. SciOpen does not take any responsibility related to this content.
{{lang === 'zh_CN' ? '文章概述' : 'Summary'}}
{{lang === 'en_US' ? '中' : 'Eng'}}
Chat more with AI
PDF (2.5 MB)
Collect
Submit Manuscript AI Chat Paper
Show Outline
Outline
Show full outline
Hide outline
Outline
Show full outline
Hide outline
Research Article

The difference of the ionomer–catalyst interfaces for poly(aryl piperidinium) hydroxide exchange membrane fuel cells and proton exchange membrane fuel cells

Xuerui Liu1,2,§Xingdong Wang3,§Chanyu Zhang1,§Yun Cai4Bowen Chen1,2Dongyue Xin1,2Xiaoxiao Jin1,2Wei Zhu1,2Klaus Wippermann5Hui Li1( )Ruiyu Li4( )Zhongbin Zhuang1,2,6 ( )
Beijing Advanced Innovation Center for Soft Matter Science and Engineering, Beijing University of Chemical Technology, Beijing 100029, China
State Key Lab of Organic-Inorganic Composites, Beijing University of Chemical Technology, Beijing 100029, China
Research Institute of Petroleum Processing, SINOPEC, Beijing 100083, China
DeepHytec Co., Ltd., Shenzhen 518118, China
Institute of Energy and Climate Research (IEK-14), Forschungszentrum Jülich GmbH, Jülich 52425, Germany
Beijing Key Laboratory of Energy Environmental Catalysis, Beijing University of Chemical Technology, Beijing 100029, China

§ Xuerui Liu, Xingdong Wang, and Chanyu Zhang contributed equally to this work.

Show Author Information

Abstract

The microstructures of the ionomer–catalyst interfaces in the catalyst layers are important for the fuel cell performance because they determine the distribution of the active triple-phase boundaries. Here, we investigate the ionomer–catalyst interactions in hydroxide exchange membrane fuel cells (HEMFCs) using poly(aryl piperidinium) and compare them with proton exchange membrane fuel cells (PEMFCs). It is found that different catalyst layer microstructures are between the two types of fuel cell. The ionomer/carbon (I/C) ratio does not have a remarkable impact on the HEMFC performance, while it has a strong impact on the PEMFC performance, indicating the weaker interaction between the HEMFC ionomer and catalyst. Molecular dynamics simulations demonstrate that the HEMFC ionomer tends to distribute on the carbon support, unlike the PEMFC ionomer, which heavily covers the Pt nanoparticles. These results suggest that the poisoning effect of the ionomer on the catalyst is much weaker in HEMFCs, and the improved ionomer/catalyst interaction is beneficial for the HEMFC performances.

Graphical Abstract

Weaker ionomer–catalyst interaction is found in hydroxide exchange membrane fuel cells than that in proton exchange membrane fuel cells, and the quaternary ammonium-based ionomer tends to distribute on the carbon support rather than Pt nanoparticles, which makes the hydroxide exchange membrane fuel cells with less reactive triple phase boundaries in the catalyst layer.

Electronic Supplementary Material

Download File(s)
6584_ESM.pdf (861.4 KB)

References

【1】
【1】
 
 
Nano Research
Pages 6102-6110

{{item.num}}

Comments on this article

Go to comment

< Back to all reports

Review Status: {{reviewData.commendedNum}} Commended , {{reviewData.revisionRequiredNum}} Revision Required , {{reviewData.notCommendedNum}} Not Commended Under Peer Review

Review Comment

Close
Close
Cite this article:
Liu X, Wang X, Zhang C, et al. The difference of the ionomer–catalyst interfaces for poly(aryl piperidinium) hydroxide exchange membrane fuel cells and proton exchange membrane fuel cells. Nano Research, 2024, 17(7): 6102-6110. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12274-024-6584-7
Topics:

1597

Views

195

Downloads

8

Crossref

8

Web of Science

8

Scopus

0

CSCD

Received: 24 January 2024
Revised: 21 February 2024
Accepted: 22 February 2024
Published: 13 April 2024
© Tsinghua University Press 2024