Advertisement

Journal of Applied Electrochemistry

, Volume 48, Issue 6, pp 701–711 | Cite as

Effect of the MEA design on the performance of PEMWE single cells with different sizes

  • Christoph Immerz
  • Martin Paidar
  • Georgios Papakonstantinou
  • Boris Bensmann
  • Tomas Bystron
  • Tanja Vidakovic-Koch
  • Karel Bouzek
  • Kai Sundmacher
  • Richard Hanke-Rauschenbach
Research Article
  • 294 Downloads

Abstract

In the field of polymer electrolyte membrane water electrolysis (PEMWE), a significant amount of excellent scientific results has been generated during the past decades. However, the comparability and reproducibility of these results between different cell types and different laboratories is not always straightforward. In this contribution, an exemplary ring experiment on the single-cell level compares the performances of three cell types: the differential cell (\({4}{\text { cm}^{2}}\)) and two integral cells: an elongated cell (\({50.4}{\text { cm}}\times {0.45}{\text { cm}}\)) and a circular cell (\({63.5}{\text { cm}^{2}}\)). Therefore bi- and trilateral experiments were carried out with differently prepared catalyst-coated membranes (CCMs) and porous transport layers (PTLs) as well as with an alternative catalyst-coated electrode (CCE) concept in three laboratories. This contribution aims to evaluate the grade of systemic inequality, which still permits a comparison of individual parameters. The comparison of CCM preparation methods showed no significant influence on the initial electrochemical characteristics. An HCl etching of the anode PTLs in two different cells confirmed to be a useful treatment for the reduction of Ohmic losses in PEMWE cells. Self-made CCEs could not serve as an alternative concept, owing to their inadequate contact between the electrode and the membrane, which was observed in three laboratories as well. The general compatibility between the different cells was proven by the observation of a phenomenon in one laboratory that could be reproduced in one or two other laboratories. In this context, the size and geometry of the single cells did not influence the performance, indicating that up to the present measuring range and with sufficient water feed rates, the different single cells were functioning comparably.

Graphical Abstract

Keywords

PEM electrolysis Ring experiment Cell size variation Validation of cell comparison 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The financial support by German Research Foundation (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, DFG) within the framework of the projects grants HA 6841/2-1 and SU 189/7-1 and the Grant Agency of the Czech Republic within the framework of the Project No. 15-02407J is gratefully acknowledged. GP, TVK and KS acknowledge strongly the financial support of MaxNetEnergy Network. The authors thank Ameya Krishna Bysani for carrying out the experiments at the MPI Magdeburg.

References

  1. 1.
    Buttler A, Spliethoff H (2017) Current status of water electrolysis for energy storage, grid balancing and sector coupling via power-to-gas and power-to-liquids: a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 82:2440–2454CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Rozain C, Mayousse E, Guillet N, Millet P (2016) Influence of iridium oxide loadings on the performance of PEM water electrolysis cells: Part I Pure IrO2-based anodes. Appl Catal B 182(Supplement C):153–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Millet P, Mbemba N, Grigoriev S, Fateev V, Aukauloo A, Etivant C (2011) Electrochemical performances of PEM water electrolysis cells and perspectives. Int J Hydrog Energy 36(6):4134–4142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lee BS, Park HY, Choi I, Cho MK, Kim HJ, Yoo SJ, Henkensmeier D, Kim JY, Nam SW, Park S, Lee KY, Jang JH (2016) Polarization characteristics of a low catalyst loading PEM water electrolyzer operating at elevated temperature. J Power Sources 309(Supplement C):127–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fouda-Onana F, Chandesris M, Médeau V, Chelghoum S, Thoby D, Guillet N (2016) Investigation on the degradation of MEAs for PEM water electrolysers part I: Effects of testing conditions on MEA performances and membrane properties. Int J Hydrog Energy 41(38):16,627–16,636CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fallisch A, Schellhase L, Fresko J, Zechmeister M, Zedda M, Ohlmann J, Zielke L, Paust N, Smolinka T (2017) Investigation on PEM water electrolysis cell design and components for a HyCon solar hydrogen generator. Int J Hydrog Energy 42(19):13,544–13,553CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Verdin B, Fouda-Onana F, Germe S, Serre G, Jacques P, Millet P (2017) Operando current mapping on PEM water electrolysis cells. Influence of mechanical stress. Int J Hydrog Energy 42(41):25,848–25,859CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Trinke P, Bensmann B, Hanke-Rauschenbach R (2017) Current density effect on hydrogen permeation in PEM water electrolyzers. Int J Hydrog Energy 42(21):14,355–14,366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ito H, Miyazaki N, Ishida M, Nakano A (2016) Cross-permeation and consumption of hydrogen during proton exchange membrane electrolysis. Int J Hydrog Energy 41(45):20439–20446CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Danilovic N, Ayers KE, Capuano C, Renner JN, Wiles L, Pertoso M (2016) (Plenary) Challenges in Going from Laboratory to Megawatt Scale PEM Electrolysis. ECS Trans 75(14):395–402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mališ J, Mazúr P, Paidar M, Bystroň T, Bouzek K (2016) Nafion 117 stability under conditions of PEM water electrolysis at elevated temperature and pressure. Int J Hydrog Energy 41(4):2177–2188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Krýsa J, Kule L, Mráz R, Roušar I (1996) Effect of coating thickness and surface treatment of titanium on the properties of IrO2-Ta2O5 anodes. J Appl Electrochem 26(10):999–1005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bystroň T, Paidar M, Bouzek K (2017) Enhancing PEM water electrolysis efficiency by reducing the extent of Ti gas diffusion layer passivation. J Appl ElectrochemGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ito H, Maeda T, Nakano A, Kato A, Yoshida T (2013) Influence of pore structural properties of current collectors on the performance of proton exchange membrane electrolyzer. Electrochim Acta 100(Supplement C):242–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sung CC, Liu CY, Cheng CC (2014) Performance improvement by a glue-functioned Nafion layer coating on gas diffusion electrodes in PEM fuel cells. Int J Hydrog Energy 39(22):11700–11705CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Klingele M, Breitwieser M, Zengerle R, Thiele S (2015) Direct deposition of proton exchange membranes enabling high performance hydrogen fuel cells. J Mater Chem A 3:11239–11245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Neyerlin KC, Gu W, Jorne J, Gasteiger HA (2006) Determination of Catalyst Unique Parameters for the Oxygen Reduction Reaction in a PEMFC. J Electrochem Soc 153(10):A1955–A1963CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ito H, Maeda T, Nakano A, Hwang CM, Ishida M, Kato A, Yoshida T (2012) Experimental study on porous current collectors of PEM electrolyzers. Int J Hydrog Energy 37(9):7418–7428CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christoph Immerz
    • 1
  • Martin Paidar
    • 2
  • Georgios Papakonstantinou
    • 3
  • Boris Bensmann
    • 1
  • Tomas Bystron
    • 2
  • Tanja Vidakovic-Koch
    • 3
  • Karel Bouzek
    • 2
  • Kai Sundmacher
    • 3
  • Richard Hanke-Rauschenbach
    • 1
  1. 1.Leibniz Universiät HannoverHannoverGermany
  2. 2.Department of Inorganic TechnologyUniversity of Chemistry and Technology PraguePrague 6Czech Republic
  3. 3.Department Process Systems EngineeringMax Planck Institute for Dynamics of Complex Technical SystemsMagdeburgGermany

Personalised recommendations