MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2804618357 · doi:10.1149/2.1101807jes

Analysis of Inkjet Printed Catalyst Coated Membranes for Polymer Electrolyte Electrolyzers

2018· article· en· W2804618357 on OpenAlexafffund
Manas Mandal, Antoni Valls, Niklas Gangnus, Marc Secanell

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of The Electrochemical Society · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced battery technologies research
Canadian institutionsAlberta EnergyUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsDielectric spectroscopyMaterials scienceElectrolyteChemical engineeringScanning electron microscopeCyclic voltammetryAnodeElectrolysisMembraneElectrodeEnergy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopyMembrane electrode assemblyTafel equationElectrochemistryChemistryComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Inkjet printing (IJP) is studied as a novel fabrication method for catalyst coated membranes (CCMs) for polymer electrolyte electrolyzers. IrO 2 and Pt/C inks were deposited by IJP over the membrane to fabricate anode and cathode electrodes, respectively. Optical microscopy, scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDX) were used for ex-situ surface and thickness characterization of the anode catalyst layer (CL). SEM images show the CL is uniform and well adhered to the membrane. EDX images show even distribution of the catalyst and ionomer in the CL. Hydrogen cross-over, cyclic voltammetry (CV) and electrochemical impedance spectroscopy (EIS) tests were performed to estimate hydrogen cross-over, double layer capacitance (C dl ) and cell resistances. Cross-over results show that the membrane is not damaged during printing. A kinetic study revealed Tafel slopes similar to those in literature. Electrochemical performance tests showed that inkjet printed electrolyzer CCMs achieved 1 and 2 A/cm 2 current densities at average potentials of 1609 mV and 1696 mV (NRE211) and average of 1743 mV and 1977 mV (N117) respectively. The electrolyzer performance improved slightly when the printing piezo-voltage decreased but with a cost of higher fabrication time. The stability of the electrode was inline with literature data. The proposed electrodes outperform most of the previously reported electrolyzer data in the literature using commercial IrO 2 catalyst.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.250 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations42
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of The Electrochemical SocietySame topicAdvanced battery technologies researchFrench-language works237,207