No abstract

The ionomer content in catalyst layers has a marked influence on direct methanol fuel cell (DMFC) performance. In an anode which contains unsupported PtRu as the catalyst, the recast ionomer may not always be necessary because the protonic conductivity of hydrous RuOx, the presence of which is inferred from the X-ray diffraction pattern, may be sufficient to allow effective utilization of catalyst sites. To examine interpenetration of catalyst and membrane material as a possible explanation for the lack of an apparent need of added ionomer, ultramicrotomed thin sections of the membrane-electrode assembly (MEA) were examined by scanning electron microscopy. Microscopic examination of such MEA cross sections revealed significant porosity in layers made by mixing unsupported catalysts with recast ionomer. Images of such sections did not reveal significant interpenetration, supporting the interpretation that hydrous RuOx may by itself provide sufficient protonic conductivity in PtRu catalyst layers prepared with no added ionomer. In contrast we show that the presence of recast ionomer in DMFC cathodes based on unsupported Pt as the catalyst is essential for optimum DMFC performance, because the recast ionomer is the primary source of protonic conductivity in the latter case. Having shown its potential function as proton conductor, we stress that Ru oxide is apparently not the key for maximizing DMFC anodic activity.

No abstract

No abstract

The differences in the electrochemical behavior of a rapidly solidified, two-phase (matrix and dispersoid) Al-based alloy containing Fe, V, and Si (FVSO812 alloy) and the bulk form of its matrix and dispersoid phases were investigated in sulfuric acid. FVSO812 exhibited generally higher electrochemical activity than the matrix material due to the presence of the very active dispersoid phase in the alloy. Impedance studies indicated that the properties of thin films formed on the FVSO812 and matrix substrates during only 5 mm of anodization are similar, whereas the film formed on the alloy during 2.5 h of anodization was substantially less resistive and contained a thinner and/or damaged underlying barrier oxide compared to a comparable film formed on the matrix. Compared to the classical structure of porous Al oxide films with underlying barrier oxide, the oxide film on FV50812, as seen by TEM, was thinner; with an intermittent barrier oxide underlying a porous oxide of contorted morphology. Evidence is seen for the loss of dispersoids from the oxide film, leaving voids throughout its structure, perhaps the reason for its lack of physical adherence and its limiting thickness.