A proton exchange membrane fuel cell (PEMFC) with reduced catalyst loading, specifically 0.2 mg/cm2 at the anode and 0.4 mg/cm2 at the cathode, was investigated using a twin inlet and twin outlet flow field configuration. The author conducted comparisons of voltage overpotential and maximum power output across various gas flow rates and humidification temperatures, contrasting these with results obtained from higher catalyst loading. Hydrogen flow rates of 80,100, and 120 mL/min were utilized, with adjustments made to oxygen levels to achieve stoichiometric ratios, as well as 50%, 100%, and 150% excess oxygen. Notably, at a hydrogen flow rate of 100 mL/min, the maximum power output occurred at an oxygen flow rate of 125 mL/min. The optimal ratio of hydrogen to oxygen was further explored across different humidification temperatures ranging from 60 to 100 ℃, inclusive of experiments conducted without humidification. Intermediate humidification temperatures yielded the best overall performance. We systematically assessed the voltage overpotential, maximum power point, and cell resistance under varying hydrogen-oxygen ratios and humidification temperatures. Our findings were compared with data obtained using higher catalyst loading configurations. The results obtained are validated by statistical analysis. The study demonstrates that the performance levels for reduced catalyst loading come close to that of higher catalyst loading configurations. Consequently, lower catalyst loading, which reduces the overall cost of the fuel cell, can be effectively employed in PEMFCs under specific operational parameters.
Citation: Sudesh Bekal. Experimental studies on the use of low catalyst loading in a proton exchange membrane fuel cell having twin inlet twin exit flow field[J]. AIMS Energy, 2025, 13(4): 819-847. doi: 10.3934/energy.2025030
A proton exchange membrane fuel cell (PEMFC) with reduced catalyst loading, specifically 0.2 mg/cm2 at the anode and 0.4 mg/cm2 at the cathode, was investigated using a twin inlet and twin outlet flow field configuration. The author conducted comparisons of voltage overpotential and maximum power output across various gas flow rates and humidification temperatures, contrasting these with results obtained from higher catalyst loading. Hydrogen flow rates of 80,100, and 120 mL/min were utilized, with adjustments made to oxygen levels to achieve stoichiometric ratios, as well as 50%, 100%, and 150% excess oxygen. Notably, at a hydrogen flow rate of 100 mL/min, the maximum power output occurred at an oxygen flow rate of 125 mL/min. The optimal ratio of hydrogen to oxygen was further explored across different humidification temperatures ranging from 60 to 100 ℃, inclusive of experiments conducted without humidification. Intermediate humidification temperatures yielded the best overall performance. We systematically assessed the voltage overpotential, maximum power point, and cell resistance under varying hydrogen-oxygen ratios and humidification temperatures. Our findings were compared with data obtained using higher catalyst loading configurations. The results obtained are validated by statistical analysis. The study demonstrates that the performance levels for reduced catalyst loading come close to that of higher catalyst loading configurations. Consequently, lower catalyst loading, which reduces the overall cost of the fuel cell, can be effectively employed in PEMFCs under specific operational parameters.
| [1] |
Agyekum EB, Ampah JD, Wilberforce T, et al. (2022) Research progress, trends, and current state of development on pemfc-new insights from a bibliometric analysis and characteristics of two decades of research output. Membranes 12: 1103. https://doi.org/10.3390/membranes12111103 doi: 10.3390/membranes12111103
|
| [2] |
Agyekum EB, Nutakor C, Agwa AM, et al. (2022) A critical review of renewable hydrogen production methods: Factors affecting their scale-up and its role in future energy generation. Membranes 12: 173. https://doi.org/10.3390/membranes12020173 doi: 10.3390/membranes12020173
|
| [3] |
Wang Y, Chen KS, Mishler J, et al. (2011) A review of polymer electrolyte membrane fuel cells: Technology, applications, and needs on fundamental research, Appl Energy 88: 981–1007. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2010.09.030 doi: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2010.09.030
|
| [4] | Solis BP, Cruz Argüello JC, Gómez BL, et al. (2019) Bibliometric analysis of the mass transport in a gas diffusion layer in PEM fuel cells. Sustainability 11: 6682. |
| [5] |
Ning F, Zhu X, Liu Y, et al. (2024) High safety fuel cells based on gas diffusion layer suppressed uneven current and thermal runaway. Adv Funct Mater 35: 2414081. https://doi.org/10.1002/adfm.202414081 doi: 10.1002/adfm.202414081
|
| [6] |
Sauermoser M, Kizilova N, Pollet BG, et al. (2020) Flow field patterns for proton exchange membrane fuel cells. Front Energy Res 8: 13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenrg.2020.00013 doi: 10.3389/fenrg.2020.00013
|
| [7] |
Suresh PV, Jayanti S, Deshpande AP, et al. (2011) An improved serpentine flow field with enhanced cross-flow for fuel cell applications. Int J Hydrogen Energy 36: 6067–6072. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2011.01.147 doi: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2011.01.147
|
| [8] |
Zhou Y, Meng K, Chen W, et al. (2023) Experimental performance of proton exchange membrane fuel cell with novel flow fields and numerical investigation of water-gas transport enhancement. Energy Convers Manage 281: 116865. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2023.116865 doi: 10.1016/j.enconman.2023.116865
|
| [9] |
Suarez C, Iranzo A, Toharias B, et al. (2022) Experimental and numerical Investigation on the design of a bioinspired PEM fuel cell. Energy 257: 124799. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2022.124799 doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2022.124799
|
| [10] |
Wen Q, He C, Ning F, et al. (2024) Engineering highly efficient root-inspired microporous layer for high-performance fuel cells. Chem Eng J 497: 154424. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2024.154424 doi: 10.1016/j.cej.2024.154424
|
| [11] |
Wang Y, Wang L, Ji X, et al. (2021) Experimental and numerical study of proton exchange membrane fuel cells with a novel compound flow field. ACS Omega 2021 6: 21892–21899. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsomega.1c01924 doi: 10.1021/acsomega.1c01924
|
| [12] |
Kahraman H, Orhan MF (2017) Flow field bipolar plates in a proton exchange membrane fuel cell: analysis & modeling. Energy Convers Manage 133: 363–384. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2016.10.053 doi: 10.1016/j.enconman.2016.10.053
|
| [13] |
Alabi AS, Popoola API, Popoola OM, et al. (2023) Materials for electrocatalysts in proton exchange membrane fuel cell: A brief review. Front Energy Res 11: 1091105. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenrg.2023.1091105 doi: 10.3389/fenrg.2023.1091105
|
| [14] |
Liu Y, Tian B, Ning F, et al. (2023) Hybrid 3d-ordered membrane electrode assembly (MEA) with highly stable structure, enlarged interface, and ultralow ir loading by doping nano TiO2 nanoparticles for water electrolyzer. Adv Energy Mater 14: 2303353. https://doi.org/10.1002/aenm.202303353 doi: 10.1002/aenm.202303353
|
| [15] | Sammes N (2006) Fuel cell technology—reaching towards commercialization. Spinger—Verlag, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-84628-207-1 |
| [16] |
Allwyn Blessing Johnson N, Sen AK, Das SK (2023) Effect of humidification and cell heating on the operational stability of polymer electrolyte membrane fuel cell. Int J Hydrogen Energy 48: 35267–35279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2023.05.269 doi: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2023.05.269
|
| [17] |
Chen X, Wang C, Xu J, et al. (2023) Membrane humidity control of proton exchange membrane fuel cell system using fractional-order PID strategy. Appl Energy 343: 121182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2023.121182 doi: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2023.121182
|
| [18] |
Hung AJ, Sung LY, Chen YH, et al. (2007) Operation-relevant modeling of an experimental proton exchange membrane fuel cell. J Power Sources 171: 728–737. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpowsour.2007.06.066 doi: 10.1016/j.jpowsour.2007.06.066
|
Figures(11) / Tables(7)
Sudesh Bekal. Experimental studies on the use of low catalyst loading in a proton exchange membrane fuel cell having twin inlet twin exit flow field[J]. AIMS Energy, 2025, 13(4): 819-847. doi: 10.3934/energy.2025030
DownLoad: