MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3117791242 · doi:10.1149/ma2020-0261040mtgabs

Flow Geometry of the Electrolyte and Gas Bubble Formation in Redox Flow Batteries - a Synchrotron Imaging Study

2020· article· en· W3117791242 on OpenAlexaff
László Eifert, Nico Bevilacqua, Kerstin Köble, Kieran F. Fahy, Liusheng Xiao, Min Li, Kangjun Duan, Aimy Bazylak, Pang‐Chieh Sui, Roswitha Zeis

Bibliographic record

VenueECS Meeting Abstracts · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced battery technologies research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of VictoriaUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsElectrolyteAnodeElectrodeRedoxFlow batterySaturation (graph theory)VanadiumMaterials scienceHydrogenPorosityBubbleChemistryAnalytical Chemistry (journal)Chemical engineeringInorganic chemistryComposite materialMechanicsChromatography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Two major limitations of Vanadium Redox Flow Batteries (VRFBs) are (1) The transport losses of getting the electrolyte into the electrode and to the reaction sites with minimum resistance and (2) Lack of access to all reaction sites due to relatively low saturation levels of the electrolyte. 1,2 Although the porous carbon electrodes have high porosity, a large pressure may be required to pump the electrolyte through the electrode during operation. A key factor that influences the saturation and pumping pressure is the design of flow fields. 3 Also, the presence of hydrogen bubbles can affect the saturation of the carbon electrode, which is formed as a parasitic side product of the V 3+ reduction reaction at the anode in VRFBs. 4 This affects the efficiency and stability of the VRFB cells. Besides mixed potentials, the Hydrogen bubbles could also damage the pore structure of the electrode and create an inaccessible surface area where otherwise the reaction would occur. To investigate the formation of gas bubbles inside the small pores of the carbon electrode, as well as the influence of flow geometry, we present a novel vanadium redox flow full-cell (Fig. 1(a)) that facilitates synchrotron X-ray imaging. 5 Three different flow geometries, i.e., serpentine, interdigitated, and flow-through, were tested as shown in Fig. 1(b). During the experiment, the electrolyte was injected into the cell using a peristaltic pump. Radiography was conducted during the injection process to track the flow of the electrolyte through the electrode and to calculate the average saturation for each flow geometry. Further experiments include the potential-dependent changes of the saturation and the 3D-visualization of the hydrogen bubble formation during constant potential measurements via tomography (Fig. 1(c)). This setup offers great flexibility in designing experiments for redox flow batteries, allowing the investigation of various electrode materials with different compression ratios and flow geometries under potential control. In the future, the measurements will help us develop theoretical models for a better understanding of the multiphase and interfacial flow phenomena within the porous electrode. These experiments are essential for the evaluation and optimization of electrode materials and manifolds currently being used in VRFBs. References N. Bevilacqua et al., J. Power Sources , 439 , 227071 (2019) https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S037877531931064X. R. Banerjee, N. Bevilacqua, L. Eifert, and R. Zeis, J. Energy Storage , 21 , 163–171 (2019) https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352152X18305851. R. M. Darling and M. L. Perry, J. Electrochem. Soc. , 161 , A1381–A1387 (2014) http://jes.ecsdl.org/lookup/doi/10.1149/2.0941409jes. L. Eifert, Z. Jusys, R. J. Behm, and R. Zeis, Carbon N. Y. , 158 , 580–587 (2020) https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0008622319311546. L. Eifert et al., ChemSusChem , cssc.202000541 (2020) https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/cssc.202000541. Figure 1

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.159
Threshold uncertainty score0.487

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.224 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueECS Meeting AbstractsSame topicAdvanced battery technologies researchFrench-language works237,207