From Performance Boost to Degradation Mechanism: How Oxygen‐Enriched Cathode Operation Enhances Durability in PEMFCs
Source abstract
Abstract
ABSTRACT Oxygen concentration critically governs the oxygen reduction reaction rate in proton exchange membrane fuel cells (PEMFCs), influencing both performance and durability. This study systematically evaluated oxygen concentrations from 21% to 100% using electrochemical measurements, accelerated stress tests, and structural characterization. Results indicate that 45% oxygen provides the optimal performance–durability balance. Increasing oxygen from 21% to 45% significantly improved open‐circuit voltage, power density, and high‐current performance, reduced polarization losses, and lowered total resistance by over 50%, whereas further increases offered diminishing returns. In 150 h durability testing, H 2% –45%O 2 showed a voltage decay rate of 66.67 µV h − 1 , maximum power loss of 1.76%, total resistance increase of 7.25%, and ECSA loss of 0.68%, all markedly superior to H 2 –air operation. Microstructural analysis confirmed enhanced gas distribution and reduced catalyst degradation and Pt agglomeration. Moderate oxygen enrichment thus effectively balances performance with durability, offering practical guidance for optimizing PEMFC cathode gas supply.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Fuel Cells and Related Materials · Electrocatalysts for Energy Conversion · Advancements in Solid Oxide Fuel Cells
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
School of Energy and Power Engineering Huazhong University of Science and Technology Wuhan China
CleanTech One 1 CleanTech Loop Energy Research Institute at Nanyang Technological University (ERI@N) Singapore Singapore
Funding
National Natural Science Foundation of China
References (48)
Show source-provided references
1. 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2022.11.21210.1016/j.ijhydene.2022.11.212 ↗
2. 10.1016/j.energy.2024.13210010.1016/j.energy.2024.132100 ↗
3. 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2022.07.14210.1016/j.ijhydene.2022.07.142 ↗
4. 10.1016/j.cej.2021.13197410.1016/j.cej.2021.131974 ↗
5. 10.1080/15435075.2022.204050810.1080/15435075.2022.2040508 ↗
6. 10.1016/j.enconman.2021.11440410.1016/j.enconman.2021.114404 ↗
7. 10.1016/j.apenergy.2022.12041210.1016/j.apenergy.2022.120412 ↗
8. 10.1002/fuce.20170011510.1002/fuce.201700115 ↗
9. 10.1002/cite.20030614810.1002/cite.200306148 ↗
10. 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2004.03.03910.1016/j.ijhydene.2004.03.039 ↗
11. 10.1007/s11708‐011‐0153‐y10.1007/s11708‐011‐0153‐y ↗
12. 10.1002/fuce.20029000110.1002/fuce.200290001 ↗
13. 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2014.12.01510.1016/j.ijhydene.2014.12.015 ↗
14. 10.1002/er.730610.1002/er.7306 ↗
15. H.Ye F.Chen T.Li W.Shen S.Xu andS.Zhou “Effects on the Performance of Low Temperature Proton Exchange Membrane Fuel Cell (LT‐PEMFC) Using Oxygen Enrichment Air” inProceedings of the 10th Hydrogen Technology Convention Volume 2 (WHTC 2023). Springer Proceedings in Physics ed.H.Sun W.Pei Y.Dong H.Yu S.You 394(Springer 2024):134–139 https://doi.org/10.1007/978‐981‐99‐8585‐2_14.10.1007/978-981-99-8585-2_14 ↗
16. 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2022.11.14110.1016/j.ijhydene.2022.11.141 ↗
17. 10.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.2007.01.05610.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.2007.01.056 ↗
18. 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2024.03.28010.1016/j.ijhydene.2024.03.280 ↗
19. 10.1016/j.energy.2024.13333910.1016/j.energy.2024.133339 ↗
20. 10.1016/j.renene.2003.12.00610.1016/j.renene.2003.12.006 ↗
21. 10.1149/07514.0455ecst10.1149/07514.0455ecst ↗
22. 10.1016/j.jpowsour.2014.09.01210.1016/j.jpowsour.2014.09.012 ↗
23. 10.1016/j.jpowsour.2020.22898010.1016/j.jpowsour.2020.228980 ↗
24. 10.1002/advs.20251366610.1002/advs.202513666 ↗
25. 10.1016/j.jpowsour.2006.07.05810.1016/j.jpowsour.2006.07.058 ↗
26. 10.1016/j.enconman.2021.11406210.1016/j.enconman.2021.114062 ↗
27. 10.1016/j.electacta.2006.02.03310.1016/j.electacta.2006.02.033 ↗
28. 10.1002/aic.1245510.1002/aic.12455 ↗
29. 10.1016/j.energy.2016.03.04510.1016/j.energy.2016.03.045 ↗
30. 10.1002/fuce.20180015210.1002/fuce.201800152 ↗
31. 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2009.10.10510.1016/j.ijhydene.2009.10.105 ↗
32. 10.1016/j.renene.2024.11995010.1016/j.renene.2024.119950 ↗
33. 10.1016/j.apcatb.2018.08.04510.1016/j.apcatb.2018.08.045 ↗
34. 10.1016/j.nanoen.2015.06.03110.1016/j.nanoen.2015.06.031 ↗
35. 10.1016/j.enconman.2020.11356810.1016/j.enconman.2020.113568 ↗
36. 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2022.11.03610.1016/j.ijhydene.2022.11.036 ↗
37. 10.1016/j.enconman.2016.04.04310.1016/j.enconman.2016.04.043 ↗
38. 10.1021/acsami.0c0882910.1021/acsami.0c08829 ↗
39. 10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.11389510.1016/j.apenergy.2019.113895 ↗
40. 10.1021/cm401445h10.1021/cm401445h ↗
41. 10.1016/j.jpowsour.2010.06.02310.1016/j.jpowsour.2010.06.023 ↗
42. 10.1016/j.jpowsour.2012.01.03110.1016/j.jpowsour.2012.01.031 ↗
43. 10.1016/j.jpowsour.2012.01.07410.1016/j.jpowsour.2012.01.074 ↗
44. 10.1016/j.electacta.2014.12.02410.1016/j.electacta.2014.12.024 ↗
45. 10.1002/aenm.20180128410.1002/aenm.201801284 ↗
46. 10.1002/aesr.20220018010.1002/aesr.202200180 ↗
47. 10.1016/j.rser.2019.10928910.1016/j.rser.2019.109289 ↗
48. 10.1016/j.jpowsour.2013.03.03310.1016/j.jpowsour.2013.03.033 ↗