4.7 Article

Experimental investigation of carbon monoxide poisoning effect on a PBI/H3PO4 high temperature polymer electrolyte membrane fuel cell: Influence of anode humidification and carbon dioxide

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HYDROGEN ENERGY
卷 40, 期 43, 页码 14932-14941

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2015.09.056

关键词

High temperature PEM fuel cell; CO poisoning; CO2; Anode humidification

资金

  1. Danish Energy Technology and Research and Demonstration program under the COBRA-II project [64012-0257]
  2. Danish Strategic Research Council under the 4M project (Energy and Environment grant) [12-132710]
  3. China Scholarship Council (CSC)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The PBI/H3PO4 high temperature (HT) PEM fuel cell is often fueled with H-2-rich reformates which typically contain impurities such as CO, CO2 and water vapor. CO in the concentration level of several percent can cause apparent loss in performance of the HT-PEM fuel cell. In this study the influences of CO2 and water content in anode stream on CO poisoning of a HT-PEM fuel cell were investigated. Polarization curves and electrochemical impedance spectra were measured to quantify the performance loss caused by CO poisoning under different conditions. The experimental results suggest that higher anode humidity level reduced the cell performance loss caused by CO poisoning. When the fuel cell was operated with pure H-2, the cell performance was not significantly affect by the change in anode dew point temperature in the range of room temperature and 60 degrees C. CO2 in anode stream resulted in slight decrease in performance of the fuel cell operated with pure H-2 due to dilution effect. Whereas it can significantly deteriorate the cell performance loss caused by CO poisoning. Lastly, the CO poisoning effect on cell performance with presence of CO2 was proved to be relieved by anode humidification. Copyright (C) 2015, Hydrogen Energy Publications, LLC. Published by 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

4.7
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