MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416600020 · doi:10.1149/ma2025-02412027mtgabs

Deciphering Oxygen Diffusion Resistance in the PEM Fuel Cell Cathode

2025· article· W4416600020 on OpenAlexaff
Gonzalo Alfonso Almeida Pazmiño, Ian Garvie, Lazar Cvijovic, Faezeh Rahbarshendi, Trevor Jones, Amir M. Niroumand, Erik Kjeang

Bibliographic record

VenueECS Meeting Abstracts · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldEngineering
TopicFuel Cells and Related Materials
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProton exchange membrane fuel cellCathodeLimiting currentOxygen transportKnudsen diffusionOxygenDiffusionCurrent (fluid)Analytical Chemistry (journal)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Quantifying gas diffusion resistance in proton exchange membrane fuel cells (PEMFCs), particularly on the cathode side, is crucial for performance optimization. Oxygen must diffuse from the gas channel through porous transport layers to reach the active sites in the cathode catalyst layer, where the oxygen reduction reaction (ORR) occurs. The multi-layered structure of the membrane electrode assembly (MEA) creates a complex mass transport environment governed by both pressure-dependent molecular diffusion and pressure-independent Knudsen diffusion, which are determined by the molecular mean free path ( λ ) and the pore size ( d p ) of the layers [1]. Consequently, the total O 2 transport resistance ( R d ) consists of both a pressure-dependent component ( R P ) and a pressure-independent component ( R NP ) [2], [3]. Most existing theoretical and experimental studies focus on oxygen transport under low oxygen concentrations (c O 2 ) and low current densities ( i ) to minimize liquid water formation, often assuming ideal water management [4]. However, these conditions do not reflect real PEMFC operation, where air serves as the cathode reactant and liquid water accumulates at high current densities. Few studies assess oxygen transport under both dry and wet conditions [5]. Moreover, the widely used limiting current density method (LCM) is time-consuming, requiring extensive data collection and relying on subjective user interpretation when it comes to determining the exact value of the limiting current density. In this work, we systematically evaluate oxygen transport resistance at the PEMFC cathode under standard operating conditions using Greenlight Innovation’s novel polarization data acquisition methodology [6]. This approach employs closed-form solutions to extract polarization parameters from a limited set of fuel cell polarization data while validating the reliability of both the data and the derived parameters. Unlike conventional LCM, this method provides a closed-form solution for calculating R d across any current density regime under conditions that closely resemble real-world PEMFC operation, as illustrated in Fig. 1. This work begins with the physical characterization of the MEA to measure the thickness and pore size distribution of the diffusion media and cathode catalyst layer. These measurements allow us to calculate the Knudsen number, Kn d (λ ,d p ), which determines the dominant oxygen diffusion mechanism in each layer. Next, polarization curves are obtained at different pressures, enabling us to analyze R d as a function of i to visualize how oxygen transport resistance varies between dry and wet operating conditions. Additionally, plotting R d against pressure ( P ) allows us to distinguish between R P ( i ) and R NP ( i ) components. Our findings reveal a dynamic shift in dominant R d with i , highlighting a transition from gas-phase diffusion limitations to water-induced transport obstacles. This refined characterization provides deeper insight into the interplay between diffusion mechanisms within the gas diffusion media and catalyst layers, offering a more comprehensive understanding of mass transport phenomena in PEMFCs 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)0.001
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
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.209 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueECS Meeting AbstractsSame topicFuel Cells and Related MaterialsFrench-language works237,207