Korean Chemical Engineering Research

  • 제57권4호
  • /
  • Pages.507-511
  • /
  • 2019
  • /
  • 0304-128X(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2233-9558(eISSN)
한국화학공학회 (The Korean Institute of Chemical Engineers)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

고분자전해질연료전지에서 수소투과도 측정법의 비교

Comparison of Measurement Method of Hydrogen Permeability in Proton Exchange Membrane Fuel Cell

  • Oh, So-Hydong (Department of Chemical Engineering, Sunchon National University) ;
  • Yun, Jeawon (Department of Chemical Engineering, Sunchon National University) ;
  • Lee, Daewoong (Department of Chemical Engineering, Sunchon National University) ;
  • Park, Kwonpil (Department of Chemical Engineering, Sunchon National University)
  • 투고 : 2019.02.27
  • 심사 : 2019.04.16
  • 발행 : 2019.08.01
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

고분자전해질 연료전지(PEMFC)의 고분자막 내구성을 평가하는데 수소투과도가 많이 사용되고 있다. 수소투과도를 쉽게 측정하는 방법으로 선형 주사 전압 측정법(Linear Sweep Voltammetry, LSV)이 주로 사용된다. 연구자마다 LSV 측정 방법에 차이가 있어 연구 결과를 비교하기가 어려울 때가 많다. 그래서 본 연구에서는 측정하기 어렵지만 정확한 값이라고 할 수 있는 기체 크로마토그래프에 의한 수소투과도와 DOE와 NEDO의 LSV 방법을 비교하여 정확성을 확인하고자 하였다. 온도와 상대습도를 변화시키며 수소투과도를 측정해 비교했을 때, DOE LSV 방법이 GC 방법과 비교해 오차 범위 5%이하의 정확성을 보였다. NEDO LSV 방법은 DOE방법과 같이 0.3V의 전류 값으로 수소투과전류밀도를 결정했을 때 오차는 감소하였다.

Hydrogen permeability is widely used to evaluate the polymer membrane durability of polymer electrolyte fuel cells (PEMFC). Linear sweep voltammetry (LSV) is mainly used to measure hydrogen permeability easily. There are many differences in LSV measurement method among researchers, and it is often difficult to compare the results. Therefore, in this study, we tried to confirm the accuracy by comparing the hydrogen permeability of LSV method and gas chromatograph which is difficult to measure but accurate value. The LSV method used the DOE and NEDO methods. When the hydrogen permeability was measured by varying the temperature and the relative humidity, the DOE LSV method showed an accuracy of less than 5% in the error range compared with the GC method. In the NEDO LSV method, the error was reduced when the hydrogen permeation current density was determined at the current value of 0.3 V as the DOE method.

키워드

HHGHHL_2019_v57n4_507_f0001.png 이미지

Fig. 1. Gas chromatograph (a) and calibration curve of hydrogen (b).

HHGHHL_2019_v57n4_507_f0002.png 이미지

Fig. 2. Hydrogen permeability data by (a) GC (b) LSV by DOE method (c) LSV by NEDO method.

HHGHHL_2019_v57n4_507_f0003.png 이미지

Fig. 3. Comparison of hydrogen fluxes measured by GC and LSVs (HCCD).

HHGHHL_2019_v57n4_507_f0004.png 이미지

Fig. 4. Correctness increase of NEDO LSV method by determining HCCD at 0.3 V.

HHGHHL_2019_v57n4_507_f0005.png 이미지

Fig. 5. Change of hydrogen permeability according to temperature measured by (a) GC (b) DOE LSV.

HHGHHL_2019_v57n4_507_f0006.png 이미지

Fig. 6. Change of hydrogen permeability coefficient according to temperature variation.

HHGHHL_2019_v57n4_507_f0007.png 이미지

Fig. 7. Comparison of Arrhenius plots from data measured by GC and LSVs (DOE).

Table 1. Comparison of DOE LSV method and the NEDO LSV method

HHGHHL_2019_v57n4_507_t0001.png 이미지

Table 2. Comparison of hydrogen flux(mL/min*cm2) measured by GC and LSVs

HHGHHL_2019_v57n4_507_t0002.png 이미지

참고문헌

  1. Williams, M. C., Strakey, J. P. and Surdoval, W. A., "The U. S. Department of Energy, Office of Fossil Energy Stationary Fuel cell Program," J. Power Sources, 143(1-2), 191-196(2005). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpowsour.2004.12.003
  2. Perry, M. L. and Fuller, T. F., "A Historical Perspective of Fuel Cell Technology in the 20th Century," J. Electrochem. Soc, 149(7), S59-S67(2002). https://doi.org/10.1149/1.1488651
  3. Wilkinson, D. P. and St-Pierre, J., in: W. Vielstich, H. A. Gasteiger. A. Lamm (Eds.). Handbook of Fuel Cell: Fundamentals Technology and Applications, Vol. 3, John Wiley & Sons Ltd., Chichester, England, 611-612(2003).
  4. Wilson, M. S., Garzon, F. H., Sickafus, K. E. and Gottesfeld, S. "Surface Area Loss of Supported Platinum in Polymer Electrolyte Fuel Cells," J. Electrochem. Soc., 140, 2872-2877(1993). https://doi.org/10.1149/1.2220925
  5. Knights, S. D., Colbow, K. M., St-Pierre, J. and Wilkinson, D. P., "Aging Mechanism and lifetime of PEFC and DMFC," J. Power Sources, 127, 127-134(2004). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpowsour.2003.09.033
  6. Luo, Z., Li, D., Tang, H., Pan, M. and Ruan, R., "Degradation Behavior of Membrane-electrode-assembly Materials in 10-cell PEMFC Stack," Int. J. Hydrogen Energy, 31, 1838-1854(2006). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2006.05.006
  7. Pozio, A., Silva R. F., Francesco, M. D. and Giorgi, L., "Nafion Degradation in PEFCs from End Plate Iron Contamination," Electrochim. Acta, 48, 1543-1548(2003). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0013-4686(03)00026-4
  8. Xie, J., Wood III, D. L., Wayne, D. N., Zawodinski, T. A., Atanassov, P. and Borup, R. L., "Durability of PEFCs at High Humidity Conditions," J. Electrochem. Soc., 152, A104-A113(2005). https://doi.org/10.1149/1.1830355
  9. Curtin, D. E., Lousenberg, R. D., Henry, T, J., Tangeman, P. C. and Tisack, M. E., "Advanced Materials of Improved PEMFC Performance and Life," J. Power Sources, 131, 41-48(2004). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpowsour.2004.01.023
  10. Collier, A., Wang, H., Yaun, X., Zhang, J. and Wilison, D. P., "Degradation of Polymer Electrolyte Membranes," Int. J. Hydrogen Energy, 31, 1838-1854(2006). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2006.05.006
  11. Jeong, J. J., Jeong, J. H., Kim, S. H., Ahn, B. K., Ko, J. J. and Park, K. P., "Measurement of Hydrogen Crossover by Gas Chromatograph in PEMFC," Korean Chem. Eng. Res., 52(4), 425-429 (2014). https://doi.org/10.9713/kcer.2014.52.4.425
  12. Lee, H., Kim, T. H., Sim, W. J., Kim, S. H., Ahn, B. K., Lim, T. W. and Park, K. P., "Pinhole Formation in PEMFC Membrane After Electrochemical Degradation and Wet/dry Cycling Test," Korean J. Chem. Eng., 28, 487-491(2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11814-010-0381-6
  13. Jeong, J. J., Jeong, J. H., Kim, S. H., Ahn, B. K., Ko, J. J. and Park, K. P., "Measurement of Hydrogen Crossover during PEMFC Operation," Korean Chem. Eng. Res., 53(4), 412-416(2015). https://doi.org/10.9713/kcer.2015.53.4.412
  14. Oh, S. H., Hwang, B. C., Lee, M. S., Lee, D. H., and Park K. P., "Comparison of Hydrogen Crossover Current Density by Analysis Method of Linear Sweep Voltammetry (LSV) in Proton Exchange Membrane Fuel Cells," Korean Chem. Eng. Res., 56(2), 151-155 (2018). https://doi.org/10.9713/KCER.2018.56.2.151
  15. U.S. Department of Energy and U.S. DRIVE Fuel Cell Technical Team, "Protocols for Testing PEM Fuel Cells and Fuel Cell Components," Multi-Year Research, Development and Demonstration Plan, 2016 Fuel Cell Section.
  16. Daido University, Ritsumeikian Univ., Tokyo Institute of Technology, Japan Automobile Research Ins., "Cell Evaluation and Analysis Protocol Guidline," NEDO, Development of PEFC Technologies for Commercial Promotion-PEFC Evaluation Project, January 30(2014).