Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Impact of CeOx Additives on Cathode Catalyst Layer Poisoning

2013, ECS Transactions

The impact of CeOx crystallite size on CeOx dissolution was investigated. Three CeOx additives were prepared having crystallite sizes of 6, 13, or 25 nm. An ex-situ method was developed to evaluate the chemical stability of these three CeOx samples, as well as one commercially available CeOx. It was determined that surface area, rather than crystallite size, is the best predictor of chemical stability. In-situ membrane electrode assembly (MEA) testing of the four CeOx additives demonstrated that prior to accelerated stress testing (AST), negligible dissolution of the CeOx additives occurs. Following AST cycling, it was found that end of life (EOL) performance was identical regardless of differences in total CeOx dissolution observed from the ex-situ testing. Finally, it was shown that increasing the anode RH during AST cycling leads to significantly higher EOL performance losses which was attributed to increased CeOx dissolution.

Abstract #1303, 224th ECS Meeting, © 2013 The Electrochemical Society Impact of CeOx additives on cathode catalyst layer poisoning While these antioxidants greatly improve membrane lifetime, they have a deleterious impact on performance, particularly when the cathode is degraded4. Specifically, the antioxidant cations (released as Ce3+/Ce4+ through dissolution in the case of CeOx) will accumulate in the cathode catalyst layer through strong interactions with the sulfonate in the ionomer. These cations then compete with protons for sulfonate sites in the CCL, leading to increased CCL ionic resistance and a subsequent loss in performance. This effect is more evident once the cathode has degraded as the reaction distribution shifts towards the cathode-GDL interface. Controlling the rate of CeOx dissolution is therefore of great importance, as it may be possible to maintain sufficient Ce cations for free radical scavenging, while minimizing the impact of these cations on the CCL. Therefore, this presentation focuses on the impact of CeOx crystallite size on dissolution rate. Three different CeOx samples were synthesized, and characterized using XRD and gas sorption (Table 1). Table 1 Physical properties of the three CeOx samples, and one commercial CeOx sample. Crystallite BET Surface Sample* Size (111) Area (m2/g) Commercial 30 nm 55 CeOx 800 oC 25 nm 9 CeOx 600 oC 13 nm 30 CeOx 200 oC 6 nm 98 * The temperature refers to the calcination temperature used during the synthesis of the particles. The chemical stabilities of these CeOx samples were investigated in 1 M H2SO4 using UV-visible spectroscopy to monitor the concentration of Ce3+/Ce4+ cations. The trend in chemical stability was found to be: CeOx 800 oC > CeOx 600 o C > Commercial > CeOx 200 oC (Fig. 1a and Fig. 1b). [Ce3+] (mmol) 2.5 CeOx 200 oC 2 CeOx 600 oC 1.5 CeOx 800 oC 1 0.5 0 24 h 1 day heating 2 day heating 3 day heating [Ce4+] mmol vs. time 10 [Ce4+] (mmol) During normal operation of proton exchange membrane fuel cells (PEMFCs), free radicals (OH., OOH., H.) are formed which attack the membrane leading to significant performance loss, and eventual membrane failure due to pinhole and/or crack formation1-2. In an effort to reduce this commonly observed mode of membrane degradation, the addition of free radical scavengers into the anode catalyst layer (ACL), cathode catalyst layer (CCL), and/or the membrane has been investigated3. These free radical scavengers are typically salts (such as Mn2+ or Ce3+)3, or oxides such as CeO22. Through OCV accelerated stress testing (designed to stress the membrane), it has been demonstrated that these additives can greatly increase membrane lifetime by consuming free radicals before they are able to attack the membrane3. Commercial (a) Commercial CeOx 200 oC 8 CeOx 600 oC 6 CeOx 800 oC 4 2 0 24 h 1 day heating 2 day heating 3 day heating (b) Figure 1 Concentration vs. time for (a) Ce3+ and (b) Ce4+ cations as a result of CeOx dissolution in 1 M H2SO4. In-situ testing was then performed by incorporating the CeOx additives into the anode catalyst layer of a membrane electrode assembly (MEA). Accelerated stress testing (AST) was then performed on each MEA (1.3 V upper potential limit, 0.6 V lower potential limit for 4700 cycles) to evaluate the impact of the CeOx additives on end of life (EOL) performance. Significantly, despite the clear differences in chemical stability found through ex-situ testing, no difference in EOL performance was observed among the MEAs prepared using the four different CeOx additives. This may suggest that at the loadings used for this study, the CCL becomes saturated with Ce cations even with the most stable CeOx, prepared at 800 oC. Finally, the impact of relative humidity (RH) was also investigated. By varying the anode RH between 50 and 100 %, it was determined that anode RH has a large impact on EOL performance of the MEAs containing CeOx. The effect is believed to be related to the dissolution rate of CeOx, 21 % O2 Polarization Curves CeOx 800 oC (100 % anode RH) CeOx 800 oC (50 % anode RH) 900.0 Cell Voltage (mV) Dustin Banham1, Siyu Ye1, Tommy Cheng1, Shanna Knights1, S. Michael Stewart2, and Fernando Garzon3 1 Ballard Power Systems, 9000 Glenlyon Parkway, Burnaby, BC V5J 5J8, Canada 2 Department of Chemical Engineering, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico 3 Sensors and Electrochemical Devices, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, New Mexico [Ce3+] mmol vs. time 3 700.0 Before cycling 500.0 300.0 After 4700 cycles 100.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 Current Density (A/cm2) 2.0 2.5 Figure 2 Polarization curves obtained before and after cycling to 4700 cycles under 100 % anode RH (squares) or 50 % anode RH (triangles). Acknowledgements We gratefully acknowledge the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Fuel cell Technologies, for financial support, and the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) for the scholarship support of DB. The authors also thank Alan Young for many helpful discussions. References 1. L. Gubler, S. Dockheer, W. Koppenol, J. Electrochem. Soc., 2011, 158 (7), B755-B769. 2. L. Gubler, W. Koppenol, J. Electrochem. Soc., 2012, 159 (2), B211-B218. 3. F. Coms, H. Liu, J. Owejan, ECS Trans. 2008, 16 (2), 1735-1747. 4. T. Cheng, S. Wessel, S. Knights, J. Electrochem. Soc., 2013, 160 (1), F27-F33.