| Literature DB >> 35480954 |
Mohanraj Vinothkannan1, Ae Rhan Kim2, Dong Jin Yoo1,2.
Abstract
Proton-exchange membrane fuel cells (PEMFCs) have received great attention as a potential alternative energy device for internal combustion engines due to their high conversion efficiency compared to other fuel cells. The main hindrance for the wide commercial adoption of PEMFCs is the high cost, low proton conductivity, and high fuel permeability of the state-of-the-art Nafion membrane. Typically, to improve the Nafion membrane, a wide range of strategies have been developed, in which efforts on the incorporation of carbon nanomaterial (CN)-based fillers are highly imperative. Even though many research endeavors have been achieved in relation to CN-based fillers applicable for Nafion, still their collective summary has rarely been reported. This review aims to outline the mechanisms involved in proton conduction in proton-exchange membranes (PEMs) and the significant requirements of PEMs for PEMFCs. This review also emphasizes the improvements achieved in the proton conductivity, fuel barrier properties, and PEMFC performance of Nafion membranes by incorporating carbon nanotubes, graphene oxide, and fullerene as additives. This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry.Entities:
Year: 2021 PMID: 35480954 PMCID: PMC9033471 DOI: 10.1039/d1ra00685a
Source DB: PubMed Journal: RSC Adv ISSN: 2046-2069 Impact factor: 4.036
Fig. 1Schematic breakdown of the global generation of energy.
Fig. 2Schematic representation of the working components of a single PEMFC.
Overview of the structure–property relationship of various PEMs used in PEMFCs[27,28]
| PEM category | Structure | Advantages | Disadvantages |
|---|---|---|---|
| Perfluorinated membrane (Nafion) | (i) Polytetrafluoroethylene backbone | (i) Excellent proton conductivity at low temperature (<80 °C and hydrated condition) | (i) Proton conductivity decline at high temperature and low RH |
| (ii) Perfluorinated pendent side chains ending with SO3H groups | (ii) Good chemical and mechanical stability | (ii) High H2/methanol crossover | |
| (iii) High cost | |||
| Partially fluorinated membranes | (i) Fluorocarbon backbone | (i) Low cost | (i) Low durability compared to perfluorinated membranes |
| (ii) Hydrocarbon or aromatic side chain grafted onto the backbone | (ii) Low H2 or methanol crossover | (ii) Low PEMFC performance, but performance can be tuned by suitable modification | |
| (iii) Backbones with good-anti free radical oxidation | |||
| Fully hydrocarbon or non-fluorinated membranes | (i) Aromatic hydrocarbon backbones functionalized with polar or SO3H groups | (i) More cost effective than perfluorinated membranes | (i) Low durability compared to perfluorinated membranes |
| (ii) Proton conductivity can be tuned based on the degree of sulfonation | (ii) High swelling degree | ||
| (iii) High mechanical integrity | |||
| Acid–base hybrid membrane | (i) Integration of acidic component into the base polymer matrix or integration of base component into the acid polymer matrix | (i) Good chemical and thermal stability | (i) Poor durability under PEMFC operating conditions |
| (ii) High proton conductivity compared to perfluorinated membranes | |||
| Ionic liquid-based membranes | (i) Obtained by organic cation and an organic/inorganic anion, fluorocarbon backbone, hydrocarbon or aromatic side chain grafted onto the backbone | (i) High chemical, electrochemical and thermal stability | (i) Difficult to get a solid electrolyte membrane |
| (ii) High proton conductivity under low RH | |||
| (iii) Non-volatile |
Fig. 3Chemical structure of the Nafion membrane.
Fig. 4Schematic representation for CCG and CCM. Reused from ref. 107 with permission from Elsevier, 2009.
Fig. 5PEMFC performance and durability of plain Nafion, Nafion/CeO2-ACNT, and Nafion 212 membranes: (a, c) at 60 °C and 100% RH and (b, d) at 60 °C and 20% RH. Reproduced from ref. 73 with permission from the American Chemical Society, 2019.
Fig. 6SEM images of (a) bare Nafion and (b1 and b2) Nafion/S-graphene membranes. AFM images and corresponding line profiles of (c, e) bare Nafion and (d, f) Nafion/S-graphene membranes. Reproduced from ref. 55 with permission from the American Chemical Society, 2016.
Fig. 7(a) Current–voltage characteristics of the plain Nafion and composite membranes; (b) H2 permeability of the plain Nafion and composite membranes; (c) PEMFC performance at 70 °C and 100% RH with black curve = plain Nafion and orange curve = Nafion/Fe3O4-SGO membranes and at 120 °C and 25% RH with red curve = plain Nafion and blue curve = Nafion/Fe3O4-SGO membranes; (d) durability test of the plain Nafion and Nafion/Fe3O4-SGO membranes. Reproduced from ref. 54 published by the Royal Society of Chemistry, 2018.
Fig. 8SEM images of GO-laminated Nafion 115 membranes at different magnitudes: (left) before hot-pressing and (right) after hot-pressing. Reproduced from ref. 149 with permission from Elsevier, 2013.
Fig. 9Schematic illustration of the proton and methanol transports through the SGO-SiO2/Nafion membrane. Reproduced from ref. 150 with permission from the Royal Society of Chemistry, 2014.
Fig. 10(a) LSV studies of methanol crossover through the bare Nafion and Nafion/FF composite membranes; (b) DMFC polarization plots of bare Nafion and Nafion/FF composite membranes quantified at 60 °C. Reproduced from ref. 57 with permission from Elsevier, 2016.
Fig. 11(a) Stress–strain curves and (b) PEMFC durability curves (quantified at 60 °C and 100% RH) of the Nafion and Nafion/CeO2–TiC membranes. Reproduced from ref. 74 with permission from the American Chemical Society, 2020.