4.6 Article Proceedings Paper

High-Performance MEA Prepared by Direct Deposition of Platinum on the Gas Diffusion Layer Using an Atomic Layer Deposition Technique

期刊

ELECTROCHIMICA ACTA
卷 177, 期 -, 页码 168-173

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.electacta.2015.03.031

关键词

Atomic layer deposition; Membrane electrode assembly; Low Pt loading; Fuel cell

资金

  1. NSFC of China [11132004, U1301245, 51302091, 51102099]
  2. Guangdong Natural Science Foundation [S2012020011061]
  3. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (SCUT)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A high-performance membrane electrode assembly (MEA) with low platinum loading was successfully prepared using an atomic layer deposition (ALD) technique, in which the platinum was directly deposited on the gas diffusion layer to form the catalyst layer. MEAs were fabricated with an ALD-prepared electrode as the anode, and assembled with pretreated Nafion (R) membrane (Nafion (R) 117) and a commercial cathode. The MEAs were evaluated in a single-cell test station and characterized by cyclic voltammetry (CV), field-emission scanning electron microscope (FE-SEM), high-resolution transmission electron microscope (HRTEM) and grazing incident X-ray diffraction (XRD). The results revealed that the active component, Pt, was highly dispersed in the ALD anode, and the MEA with the ALD anode showed excellent activity and stability. The mass activity reached 4.80 kW g Pt-1, which was 2.53 times higher than that of the MEA with the anode prepared using the commercial catalyst and a conventional screen printing method. In 100 h of durability testing, the ALD-MEA exhibited excellent durability (98.2% voltage retention) compared with the CC-MEA (92.5% voltage retention) when the MEA was discharged at a current density of 400 mA cm(-2). The high performance, along with low platinum loading and high platinum utilization, make the ALD technique promising for use in PEM fuel cells. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. 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

4.6
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