Assessing porosity of proton exchange membrane fuel cell gas diffusion layers by scanning electron microscope image analysis
► A new SEM method for determining 3D porosity of gas diffusion layers is introduced. ► Porosity type by material (macro, closed, or micro) is related to F.C. performance. ► Info is given that can’t be by other techniques, like MPL thickness and distribution. A gas diffusion layer (GDL) in a proton...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of power sources 2012-01, Vol.197, p.1-11 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | ► A new SEM method for determining 3D porosity of gas diffusion layers is introduced. ► Porosity type by material (macro, closed, or micro) is related to F.C. performance. ► Info is given that can’t be by other techniques, like MPL thickness and distribution.
A gas diffusion layer (GDL) in a proton exchange membrane fuel cell may consist of several, materials of different porosities, with each material serving a specific set of functions. For example, samples analyzed in this work consisted of a macro porous carbon paper substrate treated with a, hydrophobic wet proofing material in differing amounts, which was then coupled to a micro porous, layer. The porosities of four such GDLs were determined by using 2D scanning electron microscope (SEM) images to mathematically model the volumes filled by each solid in the 3D structures. Results, were then compared with mercury intrusion porosimetry (MIP) measurements to verify the accuracy, of the method. It was found that the use of SEM not only allowed for detailed porosity analysis of, separate porous materials within the GDL, but also porosity for the entire GDL could be calculated for, the seemingly complex structures with reasonable accuracy. With some basic geometric assumptions, and use of the superposition principle, the calculated results were accurate to less than a 2% absolute, difference of the porosity measured by MIP for each of the four samples analyzed. |
---|---|
ISSN: | 0378-7753 1873-2755 |
DOI: | 10.1016/j.jpowsour.2011.08.064 |