A Comparison of Felt-Type and Paper-Type Gas Diffusion Layers for Polymer Electrolyte Membrane Fuel Cell Applications Using X-Ray Techniques
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This work presents a comparison between carbon felt-type and paper-type gas diffusion layers (GDLs) for polymer electrolyte membrane (PEM) fuel cells in terms of the similarities and the differences between their microstructures and the corresponding manner in which liquid water accumulated within the microstructures during operation. X-ray computed tomography (CT) was used to investigate the microstructure of single-layered GDLs (without a microporous layer (MPL)) and bilayered GDLs (with an MPL). In-operando synchrotron X-ray radiography was used to visualize the GDL liquid water accumulation during fuel cell operation as a function of current density. The felt-type GDLs studied here exhibited a more uniform porosity in the core regions, and the carbon fibers in the substrate were more prone to MPL intrusion. More liquid water accumulated in the felt-type GDLs during fuel cell operation; however, when differentiating between the microstructural impact of felt and paper GDLs, the presence of an MPL in bilayered GDLs was the most influential factor in liquid water management.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".