MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4242221148 · doi:10.1149/ma2017-02/32/1369

The Impacts of Microporous Layer Degradation on Liquid Water Distributions in Polymer Electrolyte Membrane Fuel Cells Using Synchrotron Imaging

2017· article· en· W4242221148 on OpenAlexaff
Hang Liu, Michael G. George, Roswitha Zeis, Matthias Messerschmidt, Joachim Scholta, Aimy Bazylak

Bibliographic record

VenueECS Meeting Abstracts · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFuel Cells and Related Materials
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProton exchange membrane fuel cellMicroporous materialMaterials scienceChemical engineeringElectrolyteDurabilityWater transportDegradation (telecommunications)Composite materialChemistryFuel cellsEnvironmental scienceWater flowEnvironmental engineeringElectrode

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The polymer electrolyte membrane (PEM) fuel cell, featuring high power density and zero-local emissions, is a favorable candidate for replacing the traditional internal combustion engine in automotive vehicles. The gas diffusion layer (GDL) in the PEM fuel cell facilitates water management and transport of reactant gases. The GDL is typically coated with a microporous layer (MPL) to improve water management and minimize contact resistance at the catalyst layer/GDL interface, further enhancing overall cell performance (1, 2). Achieving long-term durability is one of the major obstacles to the realization of commercial success for PEM fuel cells. The majority of PEM fuel cell durability research has been focused on the impacts of catalyst layer and membrane degradation on the cell performance, rather than the GDL. However, high quantities of liquid water accumulation in the GDL were reported in a fuel cell with aged (degraded) GDLs compared to a fuel cell with pristine GDLs, leading to significant performance losses through increased mass transport resistance (3). Furthermore, the MPL experienced up to twice the mass loss from the carbon substrate attributed to a carbon-corrosion based accelerated degradation protocol (4). Therefore, a clear understanding of the effects of MPL degradation on the liquid water behavior via in operando visualization is essential. In this study, as-received pristine GDLs were immersed into a heated hydrogen peroxide solution to perform an accelerated degradation process. The porosity distributions of pristine and degraded GDLs were characterized using desktop micro-computed tomography. Pristine and degraded GDLs were then assembled identically in a customized fuel cell for performance comparison and in operando liquid water visualizations conducted using synchrotron X-ray radiography. Synchrotron X-ray radiography has been demonstrated as a highly precise and accurate tool for in operando visualizing liquid water distribution in PEM fuel cells (5). It was found that the presence of the MPL was beneficial for water management in the GDL, further enhancing the cell performance. However, the MPL itself was more prone to degradation (compared to the substrate), leading to significant performance losses. Figure 1 presents the experimental through-plane liquid water distributions in pristine and degraded Sigracet 29 BC GDLs at an operating current density of 2.0 A/cm2. The leftmost location (x = 0 μm) represents the through-plane position of the catalyst layer/MPL interface and the rightmost location (x= 162.5 μm) represents the through-plane position of GDL/flow field interface. Degradation of the MPL resulted in higher quantities of liquid water in the MPL region, as well as in the carbon substrate region. The impacts of MPL degradation on liquid water behavior will be presented in this work, further highlighting impacts of degradation on liquid water management in long-term fuel cell operation. Reference: 1. J. Lee, J. Hinebaugh and A. Bazylak, J.Power Sources., 227(2013). 2. I. Zenyuk, E. Kumbur and S. Litster, J.Power Sources., 241(2013). 3. H. Liu, M. G. George, N. Ge, R. Banerjee, S. Chevalier, J. Lee, P. Shrestha, D. Muirhead, J. Hinebaugh, R. Zeis, M. Messerschmidt, J. Scholta and A. Bazylak, ECS Trans., 75,14(2016). 4. Liu H., George M.G., Messerschmidt M., Zeis R., Kramer D., Scholta J. and A. Bazylak, Journal of the Electrochemical Society.,(Submitted). 5. S. Chevalier, N. Ge, J. Lee, R. Banerjee, H. Liu, G. George, P. Shrestha, D. Muirhead, J. Hinebaugh and Y. Tabuchi, J.Power Sources., (2016). 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 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)0.000
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 score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.219 · 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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueECS Meeting Abstracts→Same topicFuel Cells and Related Materials→French-language works237,207→