4.7 Article

An overview of the proton conductivity of nafion membranes through a statistical analysis

期刊

JOURNAL OF MEMBRANE SCIENCE
卷 504, 期 -, 页码 1-9

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.memsci.2015.12.065

关键词

Nafion membrane; Statistical analysis; Proton conductivity; Water uptake

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [21374117, 21404105]
  2. Major State Basic Research Development Program [2015CB655302]
  3. One Hundred Person Project of the Chinese Academy of Sciences

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Proton conductivity of Nafion membranes, the key feature for their application in proton exchange membrane fuel cells, has been reported in many works. It becomes necessary to assemble these massive reports to present an overview for further development guidelines. We apply an exhaustive search and retrieve 3539 records from 310 original reports. These records are dumped into a database and a statistical analysis is carried out to establish the overview. The histogram, the trend, the temperature, the relative humidity and fillers related to the proton conductivity of Nafion membranes are investigated. There is not always positive progress in recent 13 years to improve the proton conductivity of Nafion membranes. The proton conductivity can be fitted using a simple exponentially increasing function for relative humidity dependence, and the Arrhenius equation for temperature dependence with acceptable correlation confidence. Water contents in membranes from vapor can be well depicted by Brunauer-Emmett-Teller equation, and they have reasonable correlation with proton conductivities. Inorganic fillers usually provide better enhancement in proton conductivity than organic fillers, which is a result of the former have better water-holding capability. Fillers that can facilitate the formation of percolated water channel with less tortuosity have high probability to significantly improve the proton conductivity of Nafion membranes. (C) 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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