4.7 Article

Novel side-chain-type sulfonated diphenyl-based poly(arylene ether sulfone)s with a hydrogen-bonded network as proton exchange membranes

期刊

POLYMER CHEMISTRY
卷 6, 期 32, 页码 5911-5920

出版社

ROYAL SOC CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1039/c5py00700c

关键词

-

资金

  1. Natural Science Foundation of China [21474036, 21374034]
  2. Science and Technology Development Plan of Jilin Province [20130522138JH]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A new bisphenol monomer, 3,3',5,5'-tetramethoxy-4,4'-dihydroxybiphenyl, was synthesized and copolymerized to prepare diphenyl-based poly(arylene ether sulfone) copolymers containing tetra-methoxy groups (MOPAES). After converting the methoxy group to the reactive hydroxyl group, the resulting sidechain-type sulfonated copolymers (SOPAES) with a hydrogen bonded network were obtained by a sulfobutylation reaction. The copolymers were characterized and confirmed by H-1 NMR, FT-IR, thermogravimetric analysis (TGA) and small-angle X-ray scattering. The water uptake, proton and methanol transport properties of the resulting membranes were also determined for fuel cell applications. These SOPAES series membranes showed high proton conductivity in the range of 0.032-0.054 and 0.084-0.142 S cm(-1) at 25 and 80 degrees C under hydrated conditions, respectively. SOPAES-40 (IEC = 1.38 mequiv. g(-1)) showed comparable proton conductivity with Nafion 117 in the hydrated state. The methanol permeability of these membranes was in the range of 1.58-4.29 x 10(-7) cm(2) s(-1), which is much lower than Nafion (1.55 x 10(-6) cm(2) s(-1)). It should be noted that the intra/inter hydrogen bonds formed between sulfonic acid and hydroxyl groups or between hydroxyl and hydroxyl groups improved the mechanical properties and reduced the methanol permeability of the membranes effectively. A combination of suitable proton conductivity, low water uptake, and low methanol crossover for selected SOPAES indicates that they are good candidates as proton exchange membrane materials for fuel cells.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据