Bipolar membranes (BPMs) are gaining interest in energy conversion technologies. These membranes are composed of cation- and anion-exchange layers, with an interfacial layer in between. This gives the freedom to operate in different conditions (pH, concentration, composition) at both sides. Such membranes are used in two operational modes, forward and reverse bias. BPMs have been implemented in various electrochemical applications, like water and CO2 electrolyzers, fuel cells, and flow batteries, while BPMs are historically designed for acid/base production. Therefore, current commercial BPMs are not optimized, as the conditions change per application. Although the ideal BPM has highly conductive layers, high water dissociation kinetics, long lifetime, and low ion crossover, each application has its own priorities to be competitive in its field. We describe the challenges and requirements for future BPMs, and identify existing developments that can be leveraged to develop BPMs toward the scale of practical applications.
Bipolar membranes (BPMs) are gaining interest in energy conversion technologies. These membranes are composed of cation- and anion-exchange layers, with an interfacial layer in between. This gives the freedom to operate in different conditions (pH, concentration, composition) at both sides. Such membranes are used in two operational modes, forward and reverse bias. BPMs have been implemented in various electrochemical applications, like water and CO2 electrolyzers, fuel cells, and flow batteries, while BPMs are historically designed for acid/base production. Therefore, current commercial BPMs are not optimized, as the conditions change per application. Although the ideal BPM has highly conductive layers, high water dissociation kinetics, long lifetime, and low ion crossover, each application has its own priorities to be competitive in its field. We describe the challenges and requirements for future BPMs, and identify existing developments that can be leveraged to develop BPMs toward the scale of practical applications.
Renewable energy conversion
technologies, including water electrolyzers, fuel cells, and photoelectrolytic
cells, have rapidly gained interest in the past decades. These electrochemical
technologies often use ion-exchange membranes as an electrolyte that
has three main functions: (1) allowing passage of ionic charge carrier
species, (2) separating reactants and/or products between the anode
and cathode, and (3) providing a controlled environment for electrode
reactions.[1,2] An ion-exchange membrane contains immobilized
ionic groups, facilitating the transport of, e.g., proton cations
in the case of cation-exchange membranes (CEMs) or hydroxide anions
in the case of anion-exchange membranes (AEMs). A third category of
ion-exchange membranes encompasses bipolar membranes (BPMs), which
were first introduced in the electrochemical field by Frilette (1956),[3] were traditionally applied to electrodialysis
applications, and have been receiving increasing attention in the
past decade for energy technology applications.[4,5] A
BPM is composed of a cation-exchange layer (CEL, transporting, e.g.,
H+) and an anion-exchange layer (AEL, transporting, e.g.,
OH–), which are laminated together. The abrupt transition
from CEL to AEL at the interface of the BPM involves a chemical process,
e.g., dissociation or association of the two active charge carriers,
H+ and OH–. The BPM prevents transport
of ions across both layers of the BPM, which provides the freedom
to operate in distinct electrolytes at either side.[6,7] The
interface layer (IL) between the two membrane layers features a catalyst
to promote the dissociation/association process in order to maintain
the supply or consumption of the ionic charge carriers from either
layer of the BPM.Several electrochemical energy technologies have
successfully implemented
a bipolar membrane (BPM), such as CO2 reduction, fuel cells,
water electrolyzers, photoelectrochemical cells, flow batteries, and
resource recovery, but none of the BPM-facilitated energy technologies
has reached industrial scale.Several applications
in electrochemical energy conversion technologies
have implemented a BPM as electrolyte, such as CO2 reduction,[8,9] fuel cells,[10] water electrolyzers,[11] photoelectrochemical cells,[12,13] flow batteries,[14] and resource recovery,
e.g., ammonia and carbon dioxide via BPM electrodialysis.[15,16] The choice for a BPM is made due to its intrinsic advantages compared
to a monopolar membrane (stability of electrolytes as total charge
is maintained, improved separation of products and/or reactant), but
often the available BPMs have some imperfections, leading to unwanted
behavior (ion crossover, blistering, high resistance, slow kinetics;
see further on). An ideal BPM should feature (1) high conductivity
of the individual bulk layers, (2) if applicable, fast chemical (dissociation
or association of water) kinetics at the interface, (3) high water
permeability, (4) long lifetime under operational current densities,
and (5) low parasitic (ion) crossover (see Figure a). As the BPM was originally developed for
producing acids and bases in, e.g., BPM electrodialysis, the membrane
properties have not been geared toward optimization in energy technologies.
Hence, embedding a BPM in electrochemical cells for energy conversion
is limited to the lab-scale stage.
Figure 1
(a) Schematic of components of an ideal
bipolar membrane (BPM),
with (1) high conductivity of the individual bulk layers, (2) fast
chemical kinetics at the interface via deposition of catalyst, (3)
high water permeability, (4) long lifetime under operational current
densities (not shown here), and (5) low ion crossover. (b) The BPM
can operate in two modes: reverse and forward bias. A BPM comprises
three interfaces of interest: two with the electrolyte/electrode and
membrane layer (1 and 3) and one between the membrane layers (2).
At each interface, a potential difference is created due to the change
in charge density, as described in the literature.[17,18] A BPM can also be used in a zero gap configuration (not shown here),
in which the membrane layer is in contact with the electrode. The
bars at the bottom of the image indicate the different applications
and their relative usage of each orientation (e.g., water electrolysis
is only performed in the reverse bias orientation, while CO2 reduction is predominantly used in reserve bias but has also been
studied in forward bias).
(a) Schematic of components of an ideal
bipolar membrane (BPM),
with (1) high conductivity of the individual bulk layers, (2) fast
chemical kinetics at the interface via deposition of catalyst, (3)
high water permeability, (4) long lifetime under operational current
densities (not shown here), and (5) low ion crossover. (b) The BPM
can operate in two modes: reverse and forward bias. A BPM comprises
three interfaces of interest: two with the electrolyte/electrode and
membrane layer (1 and 3) and one between the membrane layers (2).
At each interface, a potential difference is created due to the change
in charge density, as described in the literature.[17,18] A BPM can also be used in a zero gap configuration (not shown here),
in which the membrane layer is in contact with the electrode. The
bars at the bottom of the image indicate the different applications
and their relative usage of each orientation (e.g., water electrolysis
is only performed in the reverse bias orientation, while CO2 reduction is predominantly used in reserve bias but has also been
studied in forward bias).At the same time, a BPM
can offer a unique advantage to emerging
energy technologies, as it allows passage of protons through the CEL
on one side and hydroxide through the AEL on the other. In this way,
the BPM is capable of solving incompatibility issues: as for electrochemical
applications, like water and CO2 electrolysis, the optimal
pH differs for the two electrodes, and the BPM can bridge these variations,
allowing optimal conditions. Adding this degree of freedom to the
process setup favors individual optimization of separate compartments
and tuning of electrode chemistries and will, in the end, speed up
the development of industrial applications.Even though an ideal
BPM for energy technologies complies with
the same five characteristics as an ideal BPM for acid/base production,
the optimized realistic BPMs can be quite different. For example,
the high current density in water electrolyzers (200–400 mA
cm–2 for alkaline and 1–2 A cm–2 for PEM type) sets extremely high standards for the water dissociation
activity, water diffusion rate, and ion conductivity, while these
parameters are less stringent for resource recovery and photoelectrochemistry
that operate typically at 2 orders of magnitude lower current density.
Similarly, reducing (cat)ion crossover is key to mitigate salt formation
and ensure operational stability in the case of CO2 electrolysis,[19] while imperfect BPM selectivity would be acceptable
for water electrolysis, as the water dissociation is 2 orders of magnitude
larger than the co-ion crossover at high current densities typical
for electrolyzers,[20] and no crossover at
all would occur for gas-fed electrolyzers.The recent reviews
on BPMs by Pärnamäe et al. (2021)[21] and Giesbrecht and Freund (2020)[22] provide an excellent overview of the recent
achievements in the field, but do not address the improvements that
are required to implement BPMs in energy conversion technology applications
at industrially relevant conditions. In this Perspective, we analyze
what developments in BPM materials are already available, and what
will be still needed to successfully apply BPMs in electrochemical
energy technologies. We outline the BPM modes as applied in energy
technologies and provide a roadmap for improvements from a materials
point of view and in terms of operational conditions. Having established
that conditions and requirements of BPMs are strongly application-dependent,
we apply the outlined opportunities for improvement to the applications
of water electrolysis, CO2 electrolysis, resource recovery,
fuel cells, and batteries.Bipolar membranes, being made of
two opposite-charged layers, can
be operated at two modes of operation, depending on the direction
of the ion flow (Figure b). When the transport of cations and anions is directed toward the
interfacial layer, the operational mode is called forward bias. In
the opposing mode, a reverse bias is applied across the BPM, with
an outward transport of cations and anions. The terms forward and
reverse bias were, in analogy to the n-p junction, adopted for electrodialysis,
referring to the enrichment and depletion of ions in the IL, respectively.
For energy conversion technologies, the concerned cations and anions
are typically protons and hydroxides, respectively. The two operating
modes are hence accompanied by water formation (forward bias) and
dissociation (reverse bias) in the IL, as shown in Figure b. In some cases in the literature
where forward bias is used, other ionic species are transported to
the IL, and salts are formed.[18] For both
biases, a membrane–membrane voltage is established at the IL,
given by the Gibbs energy for water dissociation and the proton/hydroxide
activities. At standard conditions (i.e., protons at unit activity
in the CEL and hydroxide at unit activity in the AEL), the interfacial
potential is 0.83 V. However, the total (electrostatic) equilibrium
potential of the membrane depends on the surrounding electrolytes,
as Donnan potentials exist at each membrane interface (electrode/electrolyte–membrane
layer twice and IL).[23] The underlying thermodynamics
has been recently rationalized for the use of BPMs in water electrolysis[24] and for fuel cells.[25]A reverse bias is traditionally applied to BPMs, as this leverages
the enhanced water dissociation. In the reverse bias mode, ions are
removed from the IL, depleting the membrane of the mobile charges.
In order to maintain charge neutrality and to supply the required
ion current, the depletion of ions (proton and hydroxide) triggers
further water dissociation, in line with Le Chatelier’s principle.
The reverse bias has been demonstrated in acid/base production,[4] water electrolysis,[23] CO2 electrolysis,[8] and resource
recovery via pH swing.[16,26] The ion transport mechanism in
reverse bias has been well studied, in particular for extreme pH gradients
(i.e., pH 0 vs pH 14) and unbuffered (initially neutral) solutions.[17,23]In forward bias mode, an energy gain in the cell voltage can
be
acquired due to recombination reactions at the IL, with products like
salts[18] or water.[25,27,28] Potentially, the membrane voltage obtained
from water recombination is the same as the thermodynamic potential
for water dissociation and can be harvested as electrical energy in,
e.g., fuel cells or acid/base batteries.[14,25,29] Other studies opted for the forward bias
mode to mitigate CO2 crossover in water/CO2 electrolysis
cells.[30] Potential challenges in forward
bias mode are reduced stability (blistering), particularly in the
case of gas evolution at the interface, and decreasing ionic strength
in the electrolyte as charged species neutralize each other.[13]The membrane voltage consists of three
components: the earlier
discussed equilibrium potential, water dissociation reaction (WDR)
overpotential (in case of reverse bias), and ohmic losses of the individual
bulk layers (see Figure a). While the equilibrium potential depends on the environment, the
two other components should be as small as possible. For the individual
bulk layers, this implies maximizing the ion conductivity of the CEL
and AEL. At present, commercial BPMs show a significantly higher resistance
(typical area-specific resistances of 3–10 Ω cm2) than low-resistance membranes in electrolyzers. This is 2 orders
of magnitude higher than the total area-specific resistance the individual
layers could provide.[31] At 60–80
°C, the ion conductivity of a fully hydrated state-of-the-art
CEL (e.g., perfluorosulfonic acid membranes) in the H+ form
is typically above 0.1 S cm–1,[32] while that of an AEL (e.g., quaternary ammonium-functionalized
membranes) in the OH– form is slightly lower.[33] One of the explanations for this discrepancy
between the BPMs and low-resistance (monopolar) membranes is that
the thickness of commercial BPMs is almost an order of magnitude larger
than 25 μm. With a thickness of 25 μm of the individual
layers and a conductivity of 0.1 S cm–1 for both
layers (which translates to a total area-specific resistance for the
bulk layers of 50 mΩ cm2), an ohmic voltage drop
of just 10 mV across the bulk layers of the BPM at a current density
of 100 mA cm–2 is obtained. Further increasing the
current density to 500 and 1000 mA cm–2 would result
in a voltage drop of 50 and 100 mV, respectively. Also, there is partial
neutralization of the ionic groups due to support electrolyte entering
the membrane, which seems to be supported by the observation that
the area-specific resistance under reverse bias decreases with increasing
current density as a result of the higher rate of H+ and
OH– formation at the interface.[31] A third explanation is that additional contributions to
the resistance are in play that appear ohmic from the linearity of
the polarization curve but are connected to, e.g., kinetic losses
or mass transport limitations related to the WDR under reverse bias
operation. Electrochemical impedance spectroscopy studies have shed
light on the complexity of the polarization losses associated with
the water dissociation and ionic separation.[31,34] From an engineering point of view, making thinner CELs and AELs
using the latest technologies with high conductivity and selectivity
for H+ and OH–, respectively, would be
readily available to boost the BPM performance.
Figure 2
Voltage distribution
of an electrochemical cell (a) in a liquid–liquid
environment with extreme pH (favoring equilibrium voltage) and (b)
in a zero gap configuration. Membrane voltage consists of equilibrium
voltage, water dissociation reaction (WDR) overpotential, and ion-exchange
layers (data obtained from Chen et al., 2020, for (a)[36] and Shen et al., 2017, for (b),[37] where no data was available to discriminate the WDR overpotential
from ohmic losses of the ion-exchange layers). The membrane contributions,
together with the ohmic losses of the electrolytes (if applicable)
and voltage of the electrodes, result in the cell voltage.
Voltage distribution
of an electrochemical cell (a) in a liquid–liquid
environment with extreme pH (favoring equilibrium voltage) and (b)
in a zero gap configuration. Membrane voltage consists of equilibrium
voltage, water dissociation reaction (WDR) overpotential, and ion-exchange
layers (data obtained from Chen et al., 2020, for (a)[36] and Shen et al., 2017, for (b),[37] where no data was available to discriminate the WDR overpotential
from ohmic losses of the ion-exchange layers). The membrane contributions,
together with the ohmic losses of the electrolytes (if applicable)
and voltage of the electrodes, result in the cell voltage.Besides optimizing the resistance contribution of the individual
layers, also the IL requires improvement, as it contributes in a similar
order to the total membrane voltage by performing WDR when applied
in reverse bias (see Figure ). To obtain a BPM that can support currents in a technologically
relevant range (>100 mA cm–2) at a reasonable
cell
voltage, introduction of water dissociation catalysts at the IL is
necessary to further improve the kinetics. This was clearly demonstrated
by Oener et al. (2020),[35] based on a screening
of a large number of different metal oxides. Both membrane layers
at the IL have their own local pH and therefore optimal catalyst in
the form of metal-oxide nanoparticles (e.g., IrO2 at CEL
and NiO at the AEL interface side). This then lowers the water dissociation
overpotential to 10 mV at 20 mA cm–2.[35]To put the BPM-based energy losses in
perspective, as in the case
of a finite gap electrolysis cell (Figure a), reducing energy losses in the electrolyte
and electrode is even more important than lowering the BPM voltage.
Especially at higher current densities, the ohmic losses in the electrolyte
take a significant amount of the energy losses. Here, zero gap configurations
in combination with a membrane electrode assembly should be standard
procedure for some applications like water electrolysis to optimize
the overall performance (Figure b).[36] The need for novel
BPMs remains a necessity in these configurations, where on top of
the ohmic losses and WDR overpotentials, the water diffusion gets
limited at high current density and makes the membrane voltage increase
rapidly.At higher current densities, the diffusion rate of
water has to
be sufficient in order to avoid mass-transfer limitations, requiring
a high water permeance. Commercial BPMs show a limiting current density
of approximately 600 mA cm–2, which is equivalent
to a water flux of 6.2 μmol s–1 cm–2.[37] As applications like water electrolysis
may operate at higher current densities, newly designed BPMs require
a higher cutoff. The most straightforward route to tune the water
permeance is by the membrane thickness: thinner layers increase the
limiting water flux. In addition, a combination of highly hydrophilic
membrane surfaces with a highly active membrane interface could alleviate
the water transport limitations.To improve the lifetime of
BPMs, the AEL presents significantly
more challenges than the CEL because of the intrinsic instability
of common quaternary ammonium groups in alkaline environments. The
challenge originates from the basicity and nucleophilicity of the
hydroxide ion, which lead to different degradation mechanisms depending
on conditions and particular structure. Hoffmann β elimination
and different substitution or rearrangement reactions are commonly
reported.[38] This has triggered tremendous
research toward stable quaternary ammonium head groups within the
AEM community. The most successful degradation mitigation strategies
include steric hindrance[39] and integration
of cyclic configurational or geometric features that increase the
activation barrier of common degradation pathways.[40,41] Backbone stability is another concern, particularly for AELs based
on poly(arylene ethers) or other ether-linked backbone chemistries.[42] The recent development in the field is therefore
focusing on all-carbon-linked
structures devoid of labile ether linkages, such as polyphenylenes,[43] polycarbazoles,[44] polyfluorenes,[45] poly(arylene alkylenes),[41] or aliphatic polymers.[46]Another aspect of the chemical stability of the BPM is the
interfacial
compatibility between the AEL and CEL, which is an essential factor
that needs to be considered in the design phase of novel BPM structures.
First of all, good adhesion between the layers is needed to avoid
delamination and blistering. Interfacial compatibility is also needed
to be able to control and tune the depth, morphology, and composition
of the boundary region where the WDR occurs, which is the key to develop
high-performing BPMs.[35,37] Given that the AEL represents
the biggest challenge from a polymer electrolyte stability perspective,
a rational way forward to improve the interfacial properties is to
develop a CEL that is compatible with the most promising AEL chemistries
that are available. Using CELs based on perfluorosulfonic acid derivatives
is indeed attractive from a conductivity and stability point of view,
but interfacial compatibility and adhesion to high-performing AEL
chemistries are challenges. One way to mitigate adhesion limitations
involves the development of 3D CEL-AEL interfaces, which not only
increases the active contact area and overall water dissociation rate
but also physically anchors the individual layers and thereby improves
interfacial stability.[36,37]The final important feature
of an ideal BPM composition is low
ion crossover, i.e., unwanted transport of ionic species present in
the support electrolytes across both membrane layers. This lowers
the selectivity of the WDR and, therefore, reduces the chemical potential
of the surrounding electrolytes.[20] However,
this cannot be tuned independently from the previously discussed material
properties, in particular the catalyst (favoring WDR), morphology
of the interface, and thickness of the BPM. Tuning, e.g., ion-exchange
capacity, swelling, and nanomorphology will therefore also impact
the other components of an ideal BPM. In addition, operational parameters
(like surrounding environment, thickness, and current density) also
have a great impact.Lowering the thickness
of the membrane layers increases the conductance
and water permeance toward the IL, both enhancing the performance
of the BPM at high current densities. However, a thin membrane layer
also increases the ion crossover.[47] If
the thickness is doubled, the ion crossover through BPMs is more than
halved.[48] This requires a trade-off, as
shown in Figure .
Because cation crossover usually dominates anion crossover, asymmetry
in the membrane layer thickness is a potential lever to further balance
the water permeance and conductance at one hand, and ion crossover
at the other hand. In particular, the CEL can be made very thin while
still maintaining a high performance in terms of ion crossover, as
recently demonstrated via simulations.[17] The thickness of the AEL can also be reduced to boost the current
density,[49] but that affects the rejection
of co-ions by the BPM.[17] The recent pioneering
works by Mayerhöfer et al. (2020)[49] and Oener et al. (2021)[50] show that highly
asymmetric BPMs can support remarkably high currents, even in pure
water, when the BPM junctions are installed near the electrodes. This
mitigates mass transport limitations related to slow water diffusion,
and sufficiently high water dissociation rates can thus be reached
to maintain the steep pH gradient across the BPM interface, even in
pure water.
Figure 3
Effect of the thickness of the BPM (or its individual layers).
Thicker membranes negatively impact the conductance while improving
the water-splitting efficiency in favor of the WDR at the interface
layer (see the Supporting Information for
further explanation). Both parameters are influenced by the current
density, as the flux of H+ and OH– increases
faster than the flux of co-ions (schematically shown in (c)), resulting
in a higher water-splitting efficiency and conductance.
Effect of the thickness of the BPM (or its individual layers).
Thicker membranes negatively impact the conductance while improving
the water-splitting efficiency in favor of the WDR at the interface
layer (see the Supporting Information for
further explanation). Both parameters are influenced by the current
density, as the flux of H+ and OH– increases
faster than the flux of co-ions (schematically shown in (c)), resulting
in a higher water-splitting efficiency and conductance.As shown in Figure , the trade-off between rejection and conductance can be influenced
by a different operational parameter: current density. As increasing
the current density reduces the relative ion crossover significantly,[20] the optimal trade-off will be favored toward
lower thicknesses for applications that run at high current densities.
Another operational parameter is the environment surrounding the membrane.
Depending on the application, the membrane is contacted with a support
electrolyte on zero, one, or both sides of the membrane. If no support
electrolyte is used, substantial humidification of feed gases is needed
to provide enough water for the cell reactions (e.g., CO2 reduction) and to keep conducting ionic groups dissociated. The
type of electrolyte (or the absence of it) determines the local environment
and has a major influence on the membrane potential. While neutral
pH electrolytes result in a low thermodynamic potential, a high overpotential
for the WDR is generally created.[23] High
concentrations of ions other than H+ and OH– result in a complex distribution of ionic species across the membrane,
which compromises the Donnan potentials at the membrane–electrolyte
interface. Moreover, these additional electrolytes also affect the
ion conductivity of the individual layers of the membrane and the
transference number for the different ionic species.[23,51]To mitigate the lack of a sudden concentration jump at the
electrolyte–membrane
interface (resulting in high overpotentials) at near-neutral pH of
the surrounding electrolyte, two strategies can be applied: (1) The
diffusion of ionic species into the membrane layers can be accepted
and therefore shift the boundary of the interface toward the membrane–membrane
interface. This requires that catalysts at the BPM interface are geared
toward near-neutral pH conditions, for instance, using catalysts based
on graphene oxide[52] or metal–organic
frameworks.[53] (2) Alternatively, efforts
should be directed toward maintaining a sudden jump in pH at the membrane–electrolyte
interfaces, which directly yields a Donnan potential that compensates
the WDR potential. This sudden pH-jump at the membrane–electrolyte
interface requires flow strategies to reduce the concentration polarization
and membrane material with extremely high affinity for protons and
hydroxide ions over other ions. In principle, such a membrane material
exists in the form of an ice-based proton membrane but has obviously
limited practical (liquid) water possibilities.[54] Another option is operating with a pure water feed, avoiding
the presence of ionic species in the membrane layer and circumventing
the challenge to have strong relative affinity in multi-ionic systems.[49,50]The surrounding electrolytes affect not only the membrane
potential
but also the ion crossover across the membrane. This exchange of ionic
species compromises the water dissociation efficiency. This co-ion
transport can be reduced by the type of electrolytes based on their
ionic properties (valence, diffusion coefficient, size, etc.). Ions
with higher valence or ionic size show significantly lower crossover,
but the electrolytes with a higher ionic size typically feature a
lower conductivity and solubility.[20] Concentration
profiles of different ionic species in the BPM and their diffusion
and migration behavior as a function of current, temperature, and
electrolyte composition are limited to early efforts.[7,34] Electrochemical impedance spectroscopy in combination with ion speciation[31] at different conditions would allow for investigating
such properties.As the current density is one of the most influential
operational
parameters for tuning the BPM crossover and conductance, we have mapped
the different BPM applications on their typical current density. Figure shows the different
applications using a BPM with their relative current density and technology
readiness level (TRL), which is determined based on the number of
publications and conditions of BPM-facilitated systems in literature
and industry (see Table SI1 in the Supporting Information). For the latter, only BPM electrodialysis qualifies
as an industrially developed technology. The highest applied current
densities are found in water electrolysis (>500 mA cm–2),[37] while photoelectrochemistry operates
typically at 2 orders of magnitude lower.[55]
Figure 4
Schematic
of the different applications in function of the current
density and technology readiness level. The applications are, in order
of increasing current density, photoelectrochemistry (PEC), flow batteries,
bipolar membrane electrodialysis (BPMED, resource recovery), CO2 electrochemical reduction (CO2R), fuel cells (FC),
and water electrolysis (HER).
Schematic
of the different applications in function of the current
density and technology readiness level. The applications are, in order
of increasing current density, photoelectrochemistry (PEC), flow batteries,
bipolar membrane electrodialysis (BPMED, resource recovery), CO2 electrochemical reduction (CO2R), fuel cells (FC),
and water electrolysis (HER).The motivation for using a BPM in water electrolysis is directly
associated with the lack of consensus about the optimal pH in electrolyzers;
both acidic (PEM) and alkaline electrolyses are developed, each with
corresponding electrocatalysts. In the realm of Earth-abundant materials,
highly active oxygen evolution catalysts (e.g., Ni-based) operate
almost exclusively in alkaline media. For the hydrogen evolution reaction
in an acidic environment, platinum remains the state-of-the-art catalyst
material, although transition metal phosphides, for example, have
been demonstrated as potential substitutes.[56] BPM-based electrolyzers have successfully been demonstrated to combine
hydrogen evolution catalysts in acidic environments with oxygen evolution
catalysts in alkaline environments at laboratory scale. However, as
industrial electrolyzers typically operate between 100 and 1000 mA
cm–2, the commercial BPMs fail to provide sufficient
water dissociation kinetics to achieve energy-efficient water splitting.
With thinner and highly asymmetric BPMs, an opportunity is available
for BPM development for electrolysis, as demonstrated by Mayerhöfer
et al. (2020).[49] A cell with a BPM electrode
assembly (where the anode, integrated with an thin AEL, is in contact
with a Nafion membrane) achieved current densities as high as 8 A
cm–2 at 2.2 V. This points to further exploration
of highly asymmetric BPMs as a rational way forward.[49]As an alternative to targeting high current density
electrolysis,
photo-driven systems can be considered, which usually operate at a
low current density (typically 10 mA cm–2) due to
the limited solar radiation flux. For those cases when the operating
currents are very small, the high internal resistance of the BPMs
is no longer troublesome. However, three other challenges appear.
First, when making use of photoelectrodes in the system, a near-neutral
pH is often required to provide a realistic electrode lifetime. As
explained before, a near-neutral pH compromises the WDR efficiency
and membrane conductivity. Moreover, to allow the use of both a photocathode
and a photoanode, or a single photoelectrode with a non-transparent
photovoltaic cell behind, frontal illumination is needed, which requires
a transparent BPM. Such a transparent membrane has been presented
in literature already, with a transmission of 75%.[57] Third, at these low current densities, the ion crossover
can be up to 10% of the charge for near-neutral pH electrolytes, which
can be reduced by selecting electrolytes with high ionic sizes, as
the low conductivity has a limited effect on the performance.[20]Under CO2 electrolysis conditions,
the electrochemical
setup is similar to that of a water electrolyzer (including the benefit
of the anode catalyst optimization), with the addition of a CO2-rich feed, e.g., using a gas diffusion electrode and CO2 in the vapor phase, allowing us to overcome the mass transport
limitations in aqueous conditions.[58] One
of the biggest challenges with CO2 electrolyzers using
traditional AEMs is the parasitic CO2 crossover. When using
AEMs, bicarbonate ions are continuously generated at the cathode from
hydroxide ions (released from the electrochemical reaction) and CO2 (from the cathode feed). In CO2 electrolyzers
constructed around a BPM, on the other hand, parasitic CO2 transport can be completely eliminated, since the current is supported
by the water dissociation and ionic separation, as shown experimentally
in a liquid–liquid environment.[1] The use of a (bicarbonate) buffer in the catholyte improves the
CO2 reduction efficiency by suppressing the HER, but increases
the thickness of the reactor. Recent work shows that, by reducing
the acidity of the CEL, the buffer can be omitted as the HER is suppressed
(up to 40% increase in efficiency).[59] A
remaining challenge is to reach faradaic efficiencies (FEs) similar
to those in systems with an AEM, demanding further optimization of
the CEL. While attempts to directly deposit the catalyst on the membrane
layer reported a FE of 60% for CO at 25 mA cm–2,
possibly suffering from the high acidity of the CEL,[18] a viable method is to integrate a buffer (in various forms)
between the cathode and CEL in combination. One report showed high
FEs at current densities above 100 mA cm–2.[60] Another showed a similar setup, reaching 90%
FE toward formate at 500 mA cm–2.[61] Important in these cases is to minimize the thickness of
these buffer layers up to the order of 10 μm to reduce ohmic
losses. Another approach to suppress the competing hydrogen evolution
reaction at the cathode side under CO2 reduction conditions
is to adjust the local pH of the CEL near the electrode by adding
a weak-acid polymer layer.[59] In these designs,
the high membrane voltage remains a challenge, similarly as discussed
in the resource recovery section.In addition to usage of BPMs
in electrolyzers, BPMs can be utilized
for obtaining raw materials for energy technologies. Bipolar membrane
electrodialysis (BPMED) processes for recovery of resources like ammonia[15] and capture of CO2[16,62] present a promising alternative to the existing technologies. The
recovery of ammonia and CO2 ultimately leverages the ability
of BPMs to create a different pH in the concentrate stream compared
to a diluate stream, which makes it possible to combine concentration
and conversion to the desired product (e.g., NH3 and CO2(g)). At the same time, such a system is limited by the undesired
crossover of neutral species and proton/hydroxide crossover, showing
a current efficiency barely above 50% for the NH3 example.[15] This is mainly associated with poor selectivity
of membranes and the necessity to recirculate solutions to reach a
high effluent concentration.[26] The diffusion
of neutrally charged species like NH3, H3PO4, and CO2 (H2CO3) cannot
be solved with the same strategy of using asymmetric BPMs like in
other applications,[63] as charge selectivity
is invalid in this case.[15] Although the
concentration of ionic species can be larger than that of the neutral
species (especially for CO2 which has mediocre solubility
in aqueous solutions), the unhindered crossover of neutrally charged
species via diffusion can still exceed the crossover of ionic species
at low current densities (up to 40 mA cm–2 for the
example of 0.5 M phosphoric acid).[20] As
the crossover of such neutrally charged products like NH3 and CO2 is exclusively driven by diffusion, the crossover
can be balanced at the expense of conductance by tuning the degree
of cross-linking and thickness of the BPM.[47]Although the energy consumption at lab scale is competitive
with
that of other technologies (e.g., 19 kJ/gN for NH3 recovery with BPMED[15,26] against 30.6 kJ/gN with the classical ED[64]), further reducing
the energy input is required to compete with fossil routes for NH3 and C-based raw materials. Strategies would involve improving
stack design using thinner flow channels and, to some extent, using
BPMs with reduced overpotential at the IL for the near-neutral operating
pH in resource recovery. In BPMED systems for CO2 capture
(e.g., from seawater), the extra energy constraint due to undesired
water-splitting at the electrodes can be reduced by combined capture
and conversion cells[65] or reversible redox
couples (e.g., K3/K4[Fe(CN)6]) at
the electrodes.[62]BPM fuel cells
operating in the reverse bias mode are impractical
from electrode kinetics and catalyst material points of view.[10] Instead, the forward bias mode is a natural
option for BPM fuel cells, where hydrogen oxidation takes place near
the CEL and oxygen reduction near the AEL. The distinct proton concentrations
in the CEL and AEL are favorable for both reactions in terms of electrode
kinetics and catalyst selection. With the anode side at pH 0 and the
cathode side at pH 14, the standard redox potential difference of
a fuel cell operating in forward bias mode is 0.4 V, using both the
electrode potentials for their respective local pH. On top of that,
the potential across the interface within the BPM at a pH difference
of 14 is 0.83 V, which constitutes a positive bias to the cell voltage
so that a thermodynamic voltage of 1.23 V is obtainable.[25] Open-circuit voltages close to those normally
obtained for cells based on monopolar AEM and CEM chemistries (0.9–1.0
V) have been achieved when the BPM interfacial junctions were placed
very near the electrode surfaces.[10,25] In practice,
such cell designs have been obtained by, e.g., introducing the AEL
in the high-pH cathode catalyst layer and thereafter assembling the
cell with a thick CEL based on a conventional Nafion membrane.[10]Operation of fuel cells in the forward
bias meets an issue of parasitic
H2O transport and management. Water is supplied with oxygen
on the cathode in order to generate OH– and with
hydrogen on the anode to form hydrated protons (e.g., H3O+), which are the charge carriers through the AEL and
CEL, respectively. As a result, the amount of water produced in the
IL is at least 3 times that of the fuel cell reaction product. This,
on the one hand, opens the possibility to eliminate the humidification,
as demonstrated by Peng et al. (2015).[66] On the other hand, ineffectual removal of the water from the IL
may cause flooding and BPM delamination. However, this application
has good potential, because there are no other ions that could cross
over, as both sides have gas feed. The lack of published fuel cell
data with symmetric BPMs points toward the development of highly asymmetric
structures as the most rational way forward.The forward bias
mode is, alternating with the reverse bias mode,
also used in flow batteries. The first implementation of a BPM in
flow batteries was demonstrated in vanadium-metal hydride semi-flow
systems.[67] Such systems benefited from
the unique operability of BPMs in maintaining a pH gradient, resulting
in higher operating voltages of up to 2.4 V compared to the conventional
all-vanadium redox flow battery systems utilizing monopolar membranes
(∼1.2–1.3 V).[68] However,
the current density is low (<10 mA cm–2), which
results in ion crossover, calling for highly selective membrane designs.
Moreover, aqueous redox flow batteries sometimes produce highly oxidative
species, such as VO2+, Ce4+, and Br2, which directly oxidize the functional groups in membranes, particularly
the AEMs. Hence, the use of hydrocarbon BPMs with highly functional
and stable AELs can essentially enhance the cycle life and bring down
the capital cost.A more recent route for BPM-based batteries
is the acid/base flow
battery system, using a BPM in reverse bias to charge the fluids and
in forward bias for discharging.[14,29,69,70] Being charged from
a neutral NaCl solution into HCl and NaOH, the acid/base flow batteries
benefit from more abundant resources compared to the vanadium redox
flow batteries.[69] The discharge mode (in
forward bias) requires a membrane that is prone to water formation
at the BPM interface, similar to the conditions in fuel cells. However,
as the current densities in acid/base flow batteries are typically
at least an order of magnitude smaller than in fuel cells (Figure ), and as opportunities
for membrane thickness tuning exist, this seems realistic for future
BPM architectures. Another challenge is imposed by the supporting
electrolyte involved in this system, as co-ion leakage can occur,
particularly when working at high acid/base concentrations, potentially
forming salts in the BPM interface. Also, specific to this technology
is the relatively low power density of acid/base flow batteries (4–200
W m–2) compared to other flow battery systems,[14,29] which means this technology calls for highly conductive and low-cost
BPM materials. The priority for each membrane characteristic strongly
differs per application, due to different electrolyte conditions and
typical current densities that vary more than 2 orders of magnitude.In conclusion, the various electrochemical energy applications
demand an equally varying set of properties of the bipolar membrane.
Although BPMs have been used for decades in acid/base production,
no single energy conversion technology with a BPM has reached industrial
application. In general, the BPM should feature highly conductive
individual bulk layers, fast water dissociation or recombination kinetics
at the interface, a long lifetime, high water permeability, and a
low ion crossover. For each of these membrane characteristics, improvement
strategies are already available, via material enhancements or tuning
operational conditions, albeit often compromising another parameter.
However, the priority for each membrane characteristic strongly differs
per application, due to different electrolyte conditions and typical
current densities that vary more than 2 orders of magnitude. While
fuel cells, water, and CO2 electrolysis require fast kinetics
at the interface layer, low ion crossover is more important to batteries
and resource recovery. Hence, a dedicated approach to design BPMs
for each application is needed, to fabricate new BPM designs that
may be successfully implemented in industrial applications.
Authors: McLain Leonard; Lauren E Clarke; Antoni Forner-Cuenca; Steven M Brown; Fikile Brushett Journal: ChemSusChem Date: 2019-11-17 Impact factor: 8.928
Authors: Ragne Pärnamäe; Luigi Gurreri; Jan Post; Willem Johannes van Egmond; Andrea Culcasi; Michel Saakes; Jiajun Cen; Emil Goosen; Alessandro Tamburini; David A Vermaas; Michele Tedesco Journal: Membranes (Basel) Date: 2020-12-10
Authors: Marijn A Blommaert; Rezvan Sharifian; Namrata U Shah; Nathan T Nesbitt; Wilson A Smith; David A Vermaas Journal: J Mater Chem A Mater Date: 2021-03-11
Authors: Marijn A Blommaert; Siddhartha Subramanian; Kailun Yang; Wilson A Smith; David A Vermaas Journal: ACS Appl Mater Interfaces Date: 2021-12-20 Impact factor: 9.229
Authors: Kailun Yang; Mengran Li; Siddhartha Subramanian; Marijn A Blommaert; Wilson A Smith; Thomas Burdyny Journal: ACS Energy Lett Date: 2021-11-11 Impact factor: 23.101