2016
DOI: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.06.127
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Visualization of two-phase flow and temperature characteristics of an active liquid-feed direct methanol fuel cell with diverse flow fields

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
5

Citation Types

0
10
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 43 publications
(10 citation statements)
references
References 64 publications
0
10
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Moreover, CNT/E-HBM/PtRu@PBI showed higher power densities than commercial CB/PtRu due to the robust MOR activity and lower ohmic resistance (Figure 4c). Power density of CNT/E-HBM/ PtRu@PBI reached 100 mW cm À 2 with 4 M methanol (Figure 4d), which was higher compared to the recently reported literatures as shown in Figure 4e including electrocatalyst, [5,23] MEA structure [24] and membrane [25] designs. Fuel cell performance of CNT/E-HBM/PtRu@PBI measured with 4 M methanol was only 1.2 fold higher than power density tested with 1 M methanol, which was not consistent with MOR test in half-cell (Figure 3i) due to the following aspects: i) accelerated methanol crossover with concentrated methanol feeding in fuel cell test; ii) lower PtRu utilization efficiency and higher mass transfer resistance caused by a high catalyst loading (2 mg cm À 2 ) compared to a half-cell test with Pt loading of 15 μg cm À 2 .…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 57%
“…Moreover, CNT/E-HBM/PtRu@PBI showed higher power densities than commercial CB/PtRu due to the robust MOR activity and lower ohmic resistance (Figure 4c). Power density of CNT/E-HBM/ PtRu@PBI reached 100 mW cm À 2 with 4 M methanol (Figure 4d), which was higher compared to the recently reported literatures as shown in Figure 4e including electrocatalyst, [5,23] MEA structure [24] and membrane [25] designs. Fuel cell performance of CNT/E-HBM/PtRu@PBI measured with 4 M methanol was only 1.2 fold higher than power density tested with 1 M methanol, which was not consistent with MOR test in half-cell (Figure 3i) due to the following aspects: i) accelerated methanol crossover with concentrated methanol feeding in fuel cell test; ii) lower PtRu utilization efficiency and higher mass transfer resistance caused by a high catalyst loading (2 mg cm À 2 ) compared to a half-cell test with Pt loading of 15 μg cm À 2 .…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 57%
“…Yuan et al. also investigated the two‐phase flow characteristics inside the anode compartment of an active DMFC using parallel, serpentine and porous flow fields. They discovered that the serpentine flow field was superior for the removal of CO 2 bubbles from the anode.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Direct methanol fuel cells (DMFCs) use methanol as the reactant, which has the advantage of abundant fuel sources, low price, convenient operation, and easy miniaturization. It is suitable as a power source for portable devices [4,5].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%