Next Article in Journal / Special Issue
Exergy Analysis of an Intermediate Temperature Solid Oxide Fuel Cell-Gas Turbine Hybrid System Fed with Ethanol
Previous Article in Journal
Adsorption of Thiophenic Compounds from Model Diesel Fuel Using Copper and Nickel Impregnated Activated Carbons
Previous Article in Special Issue
A Revisit to the Hydrogen Desorption/Absorption Behaviors of LiAlH4/LiBH4: Effects of Catalysts
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Experimental Characterization of the Poisoning Effects of Methanol-Based Reformate Impurities on a PBI-Based High Temperature PEM Fuel Cell

Department of Energy Technology, Aalborg University, Pontoppidanstræde 101, Aalborg East 9220, Denmark
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Energies 2012, 5(11), 4251-4267; https://doi.org/10.3390/en5114251
Submission received: 3 August 2012 / Revised: 9 October 2012 / Accepted: 18 October 2012 / Published: 24 October 2012
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Hydrogen Energy and Fuel Cells)

Abstract

:
In this work the effects of reformate gas impurities on a H3PO4-doped polybenzimidazole (PBI) membrane-based high temperature proton exchange membrane fuel cell (HT-PEMFC) are studied. A unit cell assembly with a BASF Celtec®-P2100 high temperature membrane electrode assembly (MEA) of 45 cm2 active surface area is investigated by means of impedance spectroscopy. The concentrations in the anode feed gas of all impurities, unconverted methanol-water vapor mixture, CO and CO2 were varied along with current density according to a multilevel factorial design of experiments. Results show that all the impurities degrade the performance, with CO being the most degrading agent and CO2 the least. The factorial analysis shows that there is interdependence among the effects of the different factors considered. This interdependence suggests, for example, that tolerances to concentrations of CO above 2% may be compromised by the presence in the anode feed of CO2. Methanol has a poisoning effect on the fuel cell at all the tested feed ratios, and the performance drop is found to be proportional to the amount of methanol in feed gas. The effects are more pronounced when other impurities are also present in the feed gas, especially at higher methanol concentrations.

1. Introduction

For fuel cell applications, methanol allows more practical energy storage compared to either compressed or liquid hydrogen. It is liquid at room temperature, and therefore, it can use existing gasoline infrastructure with only few modifications [1,2]. This makes its storage and distribution much less complex than the required hydrogen infrastructure. Unlike natural gas, gasoline and other fossil fuel sources of hydrogen, it can be CO2 neutral if prepared from renewable from various biomass sources such as wood, forest waste, peat, municipal solid wastes, sewage and even chemical recycling of CO2 in the atmosphere [3,4].
Moreover, owing to its lower-energy chemical bonds, i.e., the absence of C-C bonds, methanol has the advantage of requiring lower reforming temperatures of about 250 to 300 °C compared to other hydrocarbon fuels, where the required temperature is 800 to 900 °C [5]. The methanol reforming temperature can further be reduced to around 200 °C, comparable to the operating temperatures of an HT-PEMFC, with good conversion efficiencies and low CO contents, but lower hydrogen yield [6]. This is desirable as it opens new opportunities, making methanol increasingly proposed for on-board reforming to hydrogen and carbon dioxide for indirect methanol fuel cells, including HT-PEMFC [6,7,8].
In spite of all these compelling advantages that methanol has over other sources of hydrogen for use in fuel cells, the outcome of its steam reforming process is not clean hydrogen. It is hydrogen-rich mixture of gases and vapors, known as reformate gas, that contains a number of impurities with potential poisoning effects on a fuel cell. These impurities are CO, CO2 and unconverted methanol and water vapor mixture.
Recently, research has been focusing on characterizing the poisoning effects of CO and CO2 in both low and high temperature PEM fuel cells, in order to understand the mechanisms by which they affect the performance of fuel cells [9,10,11,12,13]. It is widely recognized that CO is the main catalyst poison amongst the impurities in a reformate gas. It adsorbs at the surface of platinum electro-catalysts and occupies active sites that could otherwise be used for catalysis [11]. Tolerance of PEM fuel cells to the poisoning effect of CO increases with an increase in temperature, one among several advantages of HT-PEMFCs (operating optimally between 160 to 180 °C) over low temperature PEM fuel cells (operating below 100 °C, typically around 80 °C). This is because increase in temperature favors H2 adsorption over CO adsorption on Pt, due to the less exothermic nature of H2 [11]. Moreover, increase in temperature promotes the electro-oxidation of the adsorbed CO into CO2 [14,15], which is much less poisonous to the catalyst.
However, despite all the research recently done on the poisoning effects of CO and CO2, studies on the possible poisoning effects of methanol vapor on HT-PEMFC are extremely scarce. The only knowledge about the effects of methanol on a PEM membrane comes from studies on direct methanol fuel cells (DMFCs), where crossover through the membrane with subsequent oxidation on the cathode side is the main mechanism by which performance is degraded [16]. Such an effect may be expected in PBI-based HT-PEMFCs as well, but this needs further investigation.
The present work addresses these issues and adds the effects of unconverted methanol-water vapor mixtures to the array of impurities to make the study of HT-PEMFC characterization more comprehensive. Degradation in this work is defined as the loss in fuel cell performance, both reversible and irreversible one. Degradation can be caused by catalytic degradation, surface adsorption of impurities on the Pt surface or by means of Pt sintering, both manifested as losses of active electro-catalyst surface area (ECSA); or by membrane degradation, mainly phosphoric acid leaching and other unidentified mechanisms that can be caused by methanol-water vapor mixture.

2. Methodology

In the following the experimental setup, a brief summary of impedance spectroscopy applied to fuel cells, and the experimental procedures are described.

2.1. Experimental Set-up

In Figure 1 the complete setup used to characterize the effects of reformate gas impurities in an HT-PEMFC is illustrated. It consists of a unit HT-PEM fuel cell assembly, mass flow controllers and a vapor delivery system. A typical H3PO4-doped PBI-based MEA for HT-PEMFC, BASF Celtec®- P2100 MEA, with an active surface area of 45 cm2 was employed. The MEA was sandwiched between graphite composite flow plates of serpentine flow channels.
Figure 1. Experimental setup.
Figure 1. Experimental setup.
Energies 05 04251 g001
The mass flow controllers allow the entry into the fuel cell of the gaseous species involved, H2 gas, CO2, and CO on the anode side and air on the cathode side. It has to be said that the anode gases are not preheated before entering the anode. In reality in a system where reformate mixture is directly fed to the anode from a reformer, the gases are expected to be at the same temperature as the vapor constituents while entering the fuel cell. This is suspected to have negative effects, as CO adsorbs easier on the Pt-surface at lower temperatures. However, we expect this effect to be minor, since the fuel cell’s operating temperature is kept constant by means of four electrical heaters, whose heating power we believe is enough to minimize such undesired effects, and the gases would reach the cell temperature as soon as they are supplied.
A vapor delivery system was designed for the remaining constituents of the reformate gas, unconverted methanol vapor along with water vapor. This system, composed of a small high precision dosing pump and an electrically heated evaporator, delivers the vapor mixture in a controlled manner and at a fixed steam to carbon ratio. It was described in detail in our previous work [17].
The setup is entirely controlled and monitored by a control program in a LabView® environment, and impedance measurements were done using separate Gamry FC350 hardware and control software. Apart from the vapor delivery system, the setup is identical to the one described in [9].

2.2. Impedance Spectroscopy

Impedance spectroscopy, also known as electrochemical impedance spectroscopy (EIS) or AC impedance, is a technique of characterization of electrochemical devices. It is done by measuring the electrical response of a material to small induced signal perturbances. These are then analysed to obtain useful information about the behavior of the device under various conditions.
Impedance is a complex function that can be calculated by Equation (1), using the amplitudes of the current, the voltage and the phase shift:
Z = (V0 e j(ωtφ))/(I0 ej(ωt)) = (V0 e−jφ)/I0 = Z0 (cosφ − j sinφ)
In Equation (1), Z [Ω] is the complex impedance response of the system, V0 [V] and I0 [A] are the voltage and current signal amplitudes respectively, ω [rad/s] is the signal frequency and φ [rad] is the voltage phase shift. Impedance has a real part (Z0 cosφ) and imaginary part (Z0 j sinφ). The information is normally presented on a Nyquist curve with real part on the horizontal axis and the imaginary on the vertical axis.
EIS was recently used extensively for optimization, characterization and diagnostics of fuel cells [18,19,20,21,22,23]. The different processes that occur in a cell respond differently to perturbances over a broad range of frequencies. In fact, if a fuel cell is perturbed on a broad range of frequencies, at low frequency the effects on slower processes with longer time constant like diffusion will be registered. At higher frequency however, effects on charge transfer would be sensed as they are much faster and have a much shorter time constant. The technique is described in detail in [24,25] for general application and in [18] for PEM fuel cells in particular.
One of the main advantages of EIS is that it is not intrusive and can be performed in-situ. It is a detailed technique with which information about different processes in the electrochemical device can be obtained with only little perturbation and since the perturbances are very small compared to the measured DC voltage or current, changes within the cell are minimal [26]. In a PEM fuel cell an AC perturbance of ~5% of the measured DC value can be suitably used [27].
In order to translate impedance measurement into more comprehensible figures and extract meaningful information, the analysis of data is typically done by fitting the measured data to an equivalent circuit model (EC) or a model based on physical properties that can reasonably represent the fuel cell under investigation. For better insight into the correct use of equivalent circuit modeling the reader is referred to [18,24,25].

2.3. Experimental Procedure

The fuel cell was allowed to break-in, at 0.2 A/cm2 (9 A), 160 °C for 100 hours, during which the stoichiometric ratios of hydrogen, λH2 and air, λAir were kept constant at 2.5 and 3.5, respectively. A multilevel factorial design of experiments was chosen for thorough investigation of the effects of the different factors and their interdependence. Four factors, namely current density, concentration of methanol-water vapor mixture, CO concentration and CO2 concentration were varied. The different factors and how they were varied in increasing levels is summarized in Table 1.
Table 1. The different factors and their levels used for the factorial design of experiments.
Table 1. The different factors and their levels used for the factorial design of experiments.
FactorsLevels
Current Density [A/cm2]0.220.330.44
CO [% by volume]012
CO2 [% by volume]020
CH3OH-H2O (g) [% by volume]0510
Temperature was kept constant at 160 °C throughout the duration of the experiments. The runs were not randomized in order to avoid too much disruption of the steady-state operation, which would lead to longer waiting times between successive runs and perhaps to a premature failure of the fuel cell. Therefore, according to experience, factors that affect the equilibrium state the least were allowed to vary the most and the degree of contamination was made to increase progressively in time. This way a maximum number of allowable runs were achieved. At current density of 0.44 A/cm2, measurements were limited to 5% methanol-water vapour mixture and 1% CO to avoid instability. Instability of the steady state equilibrium is observed in [28] at high CO concentrations.
In the process, the fuel cell continued to degrade, which inevitably changes the starting points for the different measurements at the different feed gas compositions and operation conditions. To avoid this, tests on as many identical unit cell test stations as the number of test points in a controlled environment would be required at prohibitive costs. In this work, the focus is on performing a preliminary qualitative study on the nature of the effects of the change in impurities concentration and not the magnitudes of the effects. Therefore, an accelerated approach is used to obtain a general understanding of the effects of all the impurities in a methanol reformate gas and the interactions among them. To achieve an accelerated degradation, all the reformate impurities were considered as stressors and varied during tests. As can be seen in Table 1, CO concentrations were tested up to 2%, CO2 was tested up to 20% and methanol-water vapour mixture was tested up to 10% by volume of the anode feed composition.
Methanol steam reforming over CuO/ZnO/Al2O3 catalyst takes place according to three reactions [29], one of which is the desired reforming reaction [Equation (2)] and the other two are undesired; methanol decomposition [Equation (3)] and a reverse water gas shift reaction (RWGS) [Equation (4)]. The latter two need to be limited as they produce CO, which is the most poisonous among the constituents of a reformate gas. Considering the overall reaction [Equation (2)], which is the algebraic sum of the other two, the products of a complete reforming process are CO2 and H2 with a trace of CO, whose amount depends on the operating temperature and the molar ratio of H2O/CH3OH (S/C). The three reactions are given below:
CH3OH + H2O → CO2 + 3H2
CH3OH ↔ CO + 2H2
CO2 + H2 ↔ CO + H2O
Usually an S/C ratio greater than 1 is used to minimize CO formation, leading to excess water vapour in the reformer output. Pan and Wang [30] found around 74.5% H2 and 1% CO in dry gas composition with near 100% methanol conversion at S/C = 1.2. When lower reforming temperatures are desired for easier integration of fuel cells and reforming systems or for internal reforming, the methanol conversion could be significantly reduced and the reformate gas may contain unconverted methanol as seen in [31]. In the current work a rather high methanol content of 5%–10% by volume in feed gas is tested for an accelerated test and S/C ratio of 1 is considered as it gives the highest methanol concentration in water vapour in the reformate mixture.
For the same reason, due to the qualitative nature of the study, EIS alone is used in this work, which as mentioned above is a powerful tool for such kind of analysis. The use of polarization curves in conjunction with EIS is advisable when the performance of a fuel cell is to be analysed quantitatively, but this is not the case in the current work. A galvanostatic EIS is used, in which a perturbing AC current sinusoidal is applied and the voltage response is registered. For this, an AC sinusoidal of 0.5 A was applied, which is equal to 5% of the lowest current value (10 A) tested. This allows linearity assumption to hold for all measurements. Impedance spectra were acquired at different fuel cell operating conditions, while H2 gas and air stoichiometric ratios were kept constant at 1.5 and 4, respectively. Measurements were done in the frequency range between 10 kHz and 1 Hz, and 10 points per decade were recorded.
For analysis and interpretation of impedance data, an EC model shown in Figure 2 was chosen. It is composed of lumped resistance (R) in series with two circuits, each comprising a resistance and a constant phase element (CPE) in parallel to each other. Ohmic resistance (Rohmic), which is represented by the high frequency intercept on the horizontal axis, corresponds to the ohmic losses of the fuel cell, which are mainly due to the electrolyte resistance and contact resistances between interfaces. The other two resistances, high frequency resistance (Rhf) and intermediate-low frequency resistances (Rif) that form two arcs when put in parallel with the respective CPEs, are charge transfer resistances between electrode and electrolyte interfaces for high frequency range (10 kHz to ~125 Hz) and intermediate-low frequency range (~125 Hz to 1 Hz), respectively, and are sometimes controversially split between anode and cathode contributions.
Figure 2. Equivalent circuit with constant phase elements (CPE) used in this work.
Figure 2. Equivalent circuit with constant phase elements (CPE) used in this work.
Energies 05 04251 g002
Constant phase elements are used instead of double layer capacitances to achieve better fits, and their exponential coefficients, α were kept constant at 0.75 for all the fits. Only resistances are allowed to change in the fitting software, ZViewTM (Scribner Associates, Inc., Southern Pines, NC, USA). The software employs complex non-linear-least-square (CNLS) method for fitting and error estimation. For a better understanding of CNLS one can refer to [32]. The quality of the fit between the measured impedance data and the equivalent circuit model of choice is shown in Figure 3.
Figure 3. Fitting between measured impedance data and the chosen equivalent circuit model.
Figure 3. Fitting between measured impedance data and the chosen equivalent circuit model.
Energies 05 04251 g003

3. Results and Discussion

The results are divided into two subsections. In the first subsection, a general analysis on the mean values of the fitted data is presented, in which the interdependence among factors is also investigated. Then, analysis was made on fitted resistance values according to the progression in which tests were conducted. To assist in the analysis histograms were used to illustrate the trends of resistances for the different frequency ranges.

3.1. Analysis of Factors Interdependency

First, the main effects of the various factors were analysed based on mean values of the fitted resistances, then interactions among factors were assessed. Figure 4 illustrates the main effects of methanol-water vapor mixture, CO, CO2 and current density for the different regions of the frequency sweep.
From a main effects point of view, the results confirm that CO has the most severe poisoning effects of all the impurities in the whole range of frequency sweep. For Rhf and Rif, this is in agreement with the existing notion that CO adsorbs on the Pt-surface and takes up active catalyst area. While there is not a clear explanation why the same effects are observed for Rohmic, similar results are observed in [9], where the high frequency intercept that represents Rohmic moves to the right when CO is added.
Figure 4. Main effects of each factor at 160 °C. (a) Ohmic resistance; (b) High frequency resistance; (c) Intermediate -low frequency resistance.
Figure 4. Main effects of each factor at 160 °C. (a) Ohmic resistance; (b) High frequency resistance; (c) Intermediate -low frequency resistance.
Energies 05 04251 g004
This could imply that CO somehow affects the PBI polymer membrane as well. In Figure 4, even though not significant, a small overall loss in fuel cell performance due to CO2 is also seen. This could be either mere dilution of the reactants or some other CO2 poisoning mechanisms are at play.
The interaction plots in Figure 5 show some interdependence between CO and CO2, where the interaction seems not to exist for CO concentration below 1%, but is significant for CO concentration of 2%. Bhatia and Wang [33] found that the combined effects of trace quantities of CO and hydrogen dilution have an extremely detrimental effect on the performance of a LT-PEMFC. In our case the interaction is most significant for Rhf and Rif, [Figure 5(b,c)], and negligible for Rohmic, [Figure 5(a)]. Some interdependence among the effects of these two gases is also seen in [28]. In LT-PEMFCs the opposite is reported, where the losses due to CO2 are the largest when the CO content is small [13,34]. Since the main CO2 poisoning mechanism in LT-PEMFCs is through CO formation by RWGS, it could be that this effect decreases due to shift in equilibrium direction in the presence of CO or simply the effects of CO2 are too small to be noticed compared to those of CO as LT-PEMFCs are very sensitive to CO. However, In HT-PEMFCs the worst effects of CO2 are observed in the presence of CO [9], specifically 2% CO in our case. The main reason to this kind of interaction might be the same seen in [33], where the combined effects of CO and hydrogen dilution have detrimental effects on the performance of the fuel cell. This could be the result of reduced number of H2 molecules per active catalyst area.
In addition, methanol-water vapor mixture, which is normally excluded from characterization tests, seems to have a poisoning effect at all frequency sweeps. The increase in vapor mixture concentration causes resistances to increase as in the case of CO and CO2, with minimal increase, comparable to that of CO2 observed for Rohmic and Rif. The increase is a little more pronounced for Rhf, especially when the concentration of methanol-water vapor mixture in anode feed gas is raised to 10% by volume. There is not much that can be found in the literature about the effects of methanol on HT-PEMFCs. It is reported that it is permeable, mainly via diffusion through H3PO4-doped PBI membranes [35,36], and that it electro-oxidises on the surface of Pt electrodes [37,38]. Moreover, methanol is known to undergo dehydrogenation on Pt surface according to the reaction below [37]:
CH3OH + Pt → Pt−CO + 4H+ +4e
As a consequence, the effects are interdependent with the effects of the other factors, especially with that of CO2, as can be seen in Figure 5. As there are intermediate formations during methanol electro-oxidation on Pt-catalyst [39,40], the interaction could be with methanol itself or with the possible non-CO complex intermediates, such as formaldehyde and formic acid. The reason the interaction disappears in the case of 10% methanol could be, because the effects of CO2 are overwhelmed by that of methanol at such high concentrations.
Current density also has its main effects, and little interdependence with some of the impurities as can be seen in Figure 4 and Figure 5. Increase in current density causes decrease in resistance, with the effect being a little more pronounced in going from 0.22 A/cm2 to 0.33 A/cm2 than from 0.33 A/cm2 to 0.44 A/cm2. It does not show significant interdependence with the other factors as most of the trends are parallel to each other in the interaction plots in Figure 5. An exception is seen on its interaction with methanol-water vapor mixture in affecting Rohmic, in the presence of 10% by volume of vapor mixture and in going from current densities of 0.33 A/cm2 (15 A) to 0.44 A/cm2 (20 A). Since no interactions are seen at lower vapor mixture and lower current densities, and since the values of the factors were progressively increased, the effects of degradation cannot be overruled in the interdependence between these two factors.
Finally, it can be said that the collective effects of impurities on the performance of the fuel cell are greater than the arithmetic sum of effects in most cases. This is attributable to the possible reactions among impurities and their intermediates, and catalyst surface adsorptions of complex intermediate formations from the electro-oxidation of methanol on the catalyst surface.
Figure 5. Interaction of effects among the different factors at 160 °C. (a) Ohmic resistance; (b) High frequency resistance; (c) Intermediate -low frequency resistance.
Figure 5. Interaction of effects among the different factors at 160 °C. (a) Ohmic resistance; (b) High frequency resistance; (c) Intermediate -low frequency resistance.
Energies 05 04251 g005aEnergies 05 04251 g005b

3.2. Progressive EIS Analysis

3.2.1. Current Density and CO2

As already noted in other studies current density has the effect of increasing the activity in a fuel cell [19,27]. In Figure 6 it can be seen that as current density increases from 0.22 A/cm2 (10 A) to 0.33 A/cm2 (15 A) and then 0.44 A/cm2 (20 A), the total impedance decreases and both the real and imaginary components of the impedance drop causing the semi-circles to shrink.
Figure 6. The effect of current density on a PBI-based HT-PEMFC operating at 160 °C both in the absence and in the presence of CO2.
Figure 6. The effect of current density on a PBI-based HT-PEMFC operating at 160 °C both in the absence and in the presence of CO2.
Energies 05 04251 g006
Figure 6 shows that the effects of current density remain almost the same, both in the case of pure H2 gas and when 20% of the anode feed is CO2. The only exception is seen at 0.22 A/cm2, where the high frequency semi-circle is slightly shifted to the left in the presence of 20% CO2, while the low frequency one remains unaltered. This shows that CO2 alone does not have significant effect on the losses of a fuel cell, especially in this case, where the stoichiometric ratios and operating temperature are relatively high. It is reported that CO2 is not completely inert and it loosely binds to Pt surface, and in the case of LT-PEMFC its poisoning effects increase with the increase in temperature as the kinetics of the RWGS increase to produce more CO [34]. This is not seen in HT-PEMFCs, possibly because the negative effects of the increase in RWGS kinetics is counteracted by the decrease in preferential CO adsorption and removal by electro-oxidation of adsorbed species at higher temperatures.
The histograms in Figure 7 and Figure 8 show that change in current density has little or no effects on Rohmic and Rhf. Similar negligible effect on Rhf are also seen in [41]. Concerning Rohmic however, according to [19] there is increase in water production with increase in current density which may enhance the conductivity of the PBI-based membrane. This would imply a decrease in Rohmic, which is not seen in this study, except for a very slight decrease in going from 0.22 A/cm2 to 0.33 A/cm2. Consequently, most of the effects of current density are displayed on Rif. This may be attributed to the increase in the flow of gases, as the hydrogen demand is calculated based on Faraday’s law, in which more current corresponds to more hydrogen, and therefore more air.
Figure 7. The effect of methanol on a PBI-based HT-PEMFC operating at 160 °C with changing CO2 content and current density. (a) Ohmic resistance; (b) High frequency resistance; (c) Intermediate -low frequency resistance.
Figure 7. The effect of methanol on a PBI-based HT-PEMFC operating at 160 °C with changing CO2 content and current density. (a) Ohmic resistance; (b) High frequency resistance; (c) Intermediate -low frequency resistance.
Energies 05 04251 g007

3.2.2. Current Density, CO2 and Methanol

From the main effects in Figure 4, it is seen that increase in the concentration of methanol causes increase in resistance in all frequency ranges. If we look closely into the fitted results we can see the different trends for different operating conditions and obtain some insight on the electrochemistry behind the effects.
The fits as displayed in Figure 7 show the effect of methanol at 160 °C, where in Figure 7(a) methanol seems to increase the Rohmic for most of the operating conditions, with an exception at the highest current density, 0.44 A/cm2. There is a slight decrease in the beginning as methanol is introduced. This could be because of the water vapor contained in the mixture, which is said to enhance the proton conduction of the PBI-based membranes [35]. However, this is seen only in the chronologically earlier measurements in the presence of methanol. Continued introduction of methanol on the other hand results in increased resistances, instead of enhancing the proton conductivity of the membrane.
High frequency resistance in Figure 7(b) is where the poisoning effects of methanol are most clearly visible. Here, resistances increase with increase in methanol vapor concentration for all operating conditions almost linearly. This could be because methanol undergoes some reactions or adsorbs on the anode side, where high frequency activities dominate. One of these reactions could be the dehydrogenation reaction mentioned above [Equation (5)] that gives rise to intermediate CO formation, which may adsorb on the Pt surface and reduce the electro-active catalyst area. The performance drop could also be due to methanol crossover with subsequent electro-oxidation on the surface of platinum, as in the case of DMFCs [16].
Intermediate-low frequency resistance in Figure 7(c) also has similar trend as that of Rhf with increase in methanol content. However, it is interesting to notice that 5% methanol in the anode feed gas seems to have no effect in the absence of CO2. This changes when CO2 and methanol vapor are both present in the feed gas, where there is an evident increase in Rif for 5% vapor mixture, but the effect of further increase in methanol content to 10% is negligible. The same phenomenon is also seen to a smaller extent for Rhf in Figure 7(b). In short, it can be said that unlike in the case of pure hydrogen the effects of CO2 are not insignificant when methanol-water vapor mixture is present in the feed gas.
Figure 8. The effect of methanol on a PBI-based HT-PEMFC operating at 160 °C and in the presence of 1% by volume of CO with changing CO2 content and current density. (a) Ohmic resistance; (b) High frequency resistance; (c) Intermediate -low frequency resistance.
Figure 8. The effect of methanol on a PBI-based HT-PEMFC operating at 160 °C and in the presence of 1% by volume of CO with changing CO2 content and current density. (a) Ohmic resistance; (b) High frequency resistance; (c) Intermediate -low frequency resistance.
Energies 05 04251 g008

3.2.3. Current Density, CO2, CH3OH-H2O mixture, and CO

It can be seen in Figure 8 that the trends are similar to those without CO, where there is a general increase in resistances with increase in methanol content. This similar trend of the resistances with increase in methanol suggests the absence of interdependence between the effects of methanol and CO. This was apparent also from the interaction plots in Figure 5. However, the effects of both methanol and CO are dependent on the presence of CO2, and since CO2 content was varied equally in both cases, they each contribute to the sum of effects irrespective of the presence of the other.
A closer look at the data reveals that the addition of CO causes all resistances to sharply increase at all frequency sweeps compared to the former case, where only methanol-water vapor mixture and CO2 were present. The increase is on average 8.6% for Rohmic, 69% for Rhf and 61% for Rif, confirming that the effects of CO are the most severe to HT-PEMFC, despite their relatively high tolerance to CO poisoning. In Figure 8(b) it can be seen that the effects are most clearly visible for Rhf, mainly because CO affects mainly Pt electro-catalyst [11]. It adsorbs on the active Pt sites of the electrodes, both anode and cathode (maybe through CO crossover) and inhibits the respective half-cell reactions, without affecting so much the proton conductivity of the electrolyte. The effect of CO poisoning on both anode and cathode is also reported in [15].

4. Conclusions

In an experimental characterization of a PBI-based HT-PEMFC, the effects of impurities from methanol steam reforming were investigated by means of EIS. It was found that all the impurities present in the reformate gas, that is CO, CO2 and methanol-water vapor mixture, have poisoning effects on the fuel cell. This is true whether they are introduced individually or collectively as a mixed stream of gases and vapors. The results confirm that CO is the impurity with the most severe poisoning effects, while CO2 has only minor effects, if present alone. High concentrations of methanol-water vapor mixture also degrade the performance of the fuel cell, and this should be considered when optimizing the operating parameters of reformate gas-fed HT-PEMFCs.
Factorial analysis shows some of the possible interdependence among the effects of the different impurities. The interaction is most important for CO and CO2 at CO concentration of 2% by volume, suggesting that tolerance to CO of a PBI-based HT-PEMFC is reduced in the presence of CO2. The study shows also a small interdependence among the effects of methanol-water vapor mixture and CO2. Therefore, it can be said that the collective effects of impurities on the performance of the fuel cell are greater than the arithmetic sum of effects in most cases.
The interaction among effects obtained in this study gives an invaluable qualitative insight into the tolerable mixes of impurities for optimizing the operating parameters of an HT-PEMFC. This can be an input for tweaking the performance and selectivity of both the fuel cell and the methanol reforming processor. For a more complete picture of all factors, future work should include the history effect of time and its interdependence with the other factors.

References

  1. Ji, X.; Yan, L.; Zhu, S.; Zhang, L.; Lu, W. Methanol distribution and electroosmotic drag in hydrated poly(perfluorosulfonic) acid membrane. J. Phys. Chem. B 2008, 112, 15616–15627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Ogden, J.M.; Steinbugler, M.M.; Kreutz, T.G. A comparison of hydrogen, methanol and gasoline as fuels for fuel cell vehicles: implications for vehicle design and infrastructure development. J. Power Sources 1999, 79, 143–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Bromberg, L.; Cheng, W.K. Methanol as an Alternative Transportation Fuel in the U.S.: Options for Sustainable and/or Energy-Secure Transportation; Technical Report for Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Sloan Laboratories for Automotive and Aircraft Engines: Cambridge, MA, USA, November 2010. [Google Scholar]
  4. Olah, G.A.; Goeppert, A.; Prakash, G.K. S. Beyond Oil and Gas: The Methanol Economy, 2nd ed.; Wiley-VCH: Weinheim, Germany, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  5. Methanex Corporation®. Technical Information and Safe Handling Guide for Methanol; Vancouver, Canada, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  6. Pan, C.; He, R.; Li, Q.; Jensen, J.O.; Bjerrum, N.J.; Hjulmand, H.A.; Jensen, A.B. Integration of high temperature PEM fuel cells with a methanol reformer. J. Power Sources 2005, 145, 392–398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Ouzounidou, M.; Ipsakis, D.; Voutetakis, S.; Papadopoulou, S.; Seferlis, P. A Combined methanol autothermal steam reforming and PEM fuel cell pilot plant unit: Experimental and simulation studies. Energy 2009, 34, 1733–1743. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Bhatia, K.K. Study of Methanol Reforming Polymer Electrolyte Fuel Cell System. Ph.D. Thesis, College of Engineering, The Graduate School, The Pennsylvania State University, PA, USA, August 2004. [Google Scholar]
  9. Andreasen, S.J.; Vang, J.R.; Kær, S.K. High temperature PEM fuel cell performance characterisation with CO and CO2 using electrochemical impedance spectroscopy. Int. J. Hydrog. Energy 2011, 3, 9815–9830. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Du, B.; Pollard, R.; Elter, J.F.; Ramani, M. Polymer Electrolyte Fuel Cell Durability; Buchi, F.N., Inaba, M., Schmidt, T.J., Eds.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2009; pp. 341–366. [Google Scholar]
  11. Zhang, J.; Xie, Z.; Zhang, J.; Tang, Y.; Song, C.; Navessin, T.; Shi, Z.; Song, D.; Wang, H.; Wilkinson, D.P.; et al. High Temperature PEM Fuel Cells. J. Power Sources 2006, 160, 872–891. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Das, S.K.; Reis, A.; Berry, K. Experimental evaluation of CO poisoning on the performance of a high temperature proton exchange membrane fuel cell. J. Power Sources 2009, 193, 691–698. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Yan, W.M.; Chu, H.S.; Lu, M.X.; Weng, F.B.; Jung, G.B.; Lee, C.Y. Degradation of Proton Exchange Membrane Fuel Cells Due to CO and CO2 Poisoning. J. Power Sources 2009, 188, 141–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Bellows, R.; Marucchi-Soos, E.; Buckley, D. Analysis of reaction kinetics for carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide on polycrystalline platinum relative to fuel cell operation. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 1996, 3, 1235–1242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Cheng, X.; Shi, Z.; Glass, N.; Zhang, L.; Zhang, J.; Song, D.; Liu, Z.S.; Wang, H.; Shen, J. A review of PEM hydrogen fuel cell contamination: Impacts, mechanisms, and mitigation. J. Power Sources 2007, 165, 739–756. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Du, C.; Zhao, T.; Yang, W. Effect of methanol crossover on the cathode behavior of a DMFC: A half-cell investigation. Electrochim. Acta 2007, 52, 5266–5271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Araya, S.S.; Kær, S.K.; Andreasen, S.J. Vapor delivery systems for the study of the effects of reformate gas impurities in HT-PEM fuel cells. J. Fuel Cell Sci. Technol. 2012, 9, 015001–015006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Yuan, X.Z.; Song, C.; Wang, H.; Zhang, J. Electrochemical Impedance Spectroscopy in PEM Fuel Cells: Fundamentals and Applications; Springer: London, UK, 2010; pp. 139–191. [Google Scholar]
  19. Mamlouk, M.; Scott, K. Analysis of high temperature polymer electrolyte membrane fuel cell electrodes using electrochemical impedance spectroscopy. Electrochim. Acta 2011, 56, 5493–5512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Zhang, J.; Zhang, L.; Bezerra, C.W.; Li, H.; Xia, Z.; Zhang, J.; Marques, A.L.; Marques, E.P. EIS assisted performance analysis of non-noble metal electro-catalyst (FeN/C)-based PEM fuel cells in the temperature range of 23–80 °C. Electrochim. Acta 2009, 54, 1737–1743. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Asghari, S.; Mokmeli, A.; Samavati, M. Study of PEM fuel cell performance by electrochemical impedance spectroscopy. Int. J. Hydrog. Energy 2010, 35, 9283–9290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Fouquet, N.; Doulet, C.; Nouillant, C.; Tanguy, G.D.; Bouamama, B.O. Model based PEM fuel cell state-of-health monitoring via AC impedance measurements. J. Power Sources 2006, 159, 905–913. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Pattamarat, K.; Hunsom, M. Testing of PEM fuel cell performance by electrochemical impedance spectroscopy: Optimum condition for low relative humidification cathode. Korean J. Chem. Eng. 2008, 25, 245–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Barsoukov, E.; Macdonald, J.R. Impedance Spectroscopy: Theory, Experiment, and Applications, 2nd ed.; Wiley-Interscience: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  25. Orazem, M.E.; Tribollet, B. Electrochemical Impedance Spectroscopy; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  26. Monk, P. Fundamentals of Electroanalytical Chemistry, Analytical Techniques in the Sciences; John Wiley & Sons: Chichester, West Sussex, England, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  27. Yuan, X.; Wang, H.; Sun, J.C.; Zhang, J. AC impedance technique in PEM fuel cell diagnosis–A review. Int. J. Hydrog. Energy 2007, 32, 4365–4380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Andreasen, S.J.; Mosbæk, R.; Vang, J.R.; Kær, S.K.; Araya, S.S. EIS characterization of the poisoning effects of CO and CO2 on a PBI based HT-PEM fuel cell. In Proceeding of the 8th International Conference on Fuel Cell Science, Engineering and Technology, New York, NY, USA, 14–16 June 2010; pp. 27–36.
  29. Peppley, B.A.; Amphlett, J.C.; Kearns, L.M.; Mann, R.F. Methanol-Steam reforming on Cu/ZnO/Al2O3. Part 1: the Reaction Network. Appl. Catal. 1999, 179, 21–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Pan, L.; Wang, S. Modeling of a compact plate-fin reformer for methanol steam reforming in fuel cell systems. Chem. Eng. J. 2005, 108, 51–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Agrell, J.; Birgersson, H.; Boutonnet, M. Steam reforming of methanol over a Cu/ZnO/Al2O3 catalyst: A kinetic analysis and strategies for suppression of CO formation. J. Power Sources 2002, 106, 249–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Tsai, Y.T.; Whitmore, D. Nonlinear least-squares analyses of complex impedance and admittance data for solid electrolytes. Solid State Ion. 1982, 7, 129–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Bhatia, K.K.; Wang, C.Y. Transient carbon monoxide poisoning of a polymer electrolyte fuel cell operating on diluted hydrogen feed. Electrochim. Acta 2004, 49, 2333–2341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. De Bruijn, F.A.; Papageorgopoulos, D.C.; Sitters, E.F.; Janssen, G.J.M. The Influence of Carbon Dioxide on PEM Fuel Cell Anodes. J. Power Sources 2002, 110, 117–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Daletou, M.K.; Kallitsis, J.K.; Voyiatzis, G.; Neophytides, S.G. The interaction of water vapors with H3PO4 imbibed electrolyte based on PBI/polysulfone copolymer blends. J. Memb. Sci. 2009, 326, 76–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Li, Q.; Jensen, J.O.; Savinell, R.F.; Bjerrum, N.J. High temperature proton exchange membranes based on polybenzimidazoles for fuel cells. Prog. Polym. Sci. 2009, 34, 449–477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Sriramulu, S.; Jarvi, T.; Stuve, E. Reaction Mechanism and Dynamics of Methanol Electrooxidation on Platinum (111). J. Electroanal. Chem. 1999, 467, 132–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Spendelow, J.; Babu, P.; Wieckowski, A. Electrocatalytic oxidation of carbon monoxide and methanol on platinum surfaces decorated with ruthenium. Curr. Opin. Solid State Mater. Sci. 2005, 9, 37–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Cao, D.; Lu, G.Q.; Wieckowski, A.; Wasileski, S.A.; Neurock, M. Mechanisms of methanol decomposition on platinum: A combined experimental and ab initio approach. J. Phys. Chem. B 2005, 109, 11622–11633. [Google Scholar]
  40. Iwasita, T. Electrocatalysis of methanol oxidation. Electrochim Acta 2002, 47, 3663–3674. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Makharia, R.; Mathias, M.F.; Baker, D.R. Measurement of catalyst layer electrolyte resistance in PEFCs using electrochemical impedance spectroscopy. J. Electrochem. Soc. 2005, 152, 970–977. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Araya, S.S.; Andreasen, S.J.; Kær, S.K. Experimental Characterization of the Poisoning Effects of Methanol-Based Reformate Impurities on a PBI-Based High Temperature PEM Fuel Cell. Energies 2012, 5, 4251-4267. https://doi.org/10.3390/en5114251

AMA Style

Araya SS, Andreasen SJ, Kær SK. Experimental Characterization of the Poisoning Effects of Methanol-Based Reformate Impurities on a PBI-Based High Temperature PEM Fuel Cell. Energies. 2012; 5(11):4251-4267. https://doi.org/10.3390/en5114251

Chicago/Turabian Style

Araya, Samuel Simon, Søren Juhl Andreasen, and Søren Knudsen Kær. 2012. "Experimental Characterization of the Poisoning Effects of Methanol-Based Reformate Impurities on a PBI-Based High Temperature PEM Fuel Cell" Energies 5, no. 11: 4251-4267. https://doi.org/10.3390/en5114251

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop