Effect of Dispersion Method on Ink Rheology and Microstructure of Microporous Layer for PEMFCs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the modern design of proton exchange membrane fuel cells (PEMFCs), a microporous layer (MPL) is often introduced between the gas diffusion layer and catalyst layer to facilitate water management and reduce contact resistance. In this study, an experimental investigation of MPL fabrication, particularly on ink preparation, is carried out to assess the relationship between ink properties and MPL’s microstructure. Two dispersion methods for ink preparation, i.e., sonication and ball-milling, are employed. Rheological and agglomerate size measurements of the inks are performed. Structural properties of the MPL are characterized by the Brunauer–Emmett–Teller method. The MPL inks prepared by ball-milling and sonication dispersion are found to have different rheological properties. The viscosity of ball-milled inks is around 20 mPa·s, whereas for sonicated inks it is about one order of magnitude lower. The surface cracks of the MPL by ball-milling appear to be more extensive and fewer in number than those by sonication. A distinct layer structure forms when the inks are dispersed by ball-milling, whereas sonicated inks penetrate the gas diffusion substrate. The MPL fabricated by a ball-milled ink for 2 h has the most uniform microstructural characteristics among the cases tested.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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".