IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jcltec/v5y2023i1p5-93d1029239.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Functional and Environmental Performances of Novel Electrolytic Membranes for PEM Fuel Cells: A Lab-Scale Case Study

Author

Listed:
  • Matteo Di Virgilio

    (Department of Chemistry, Materials and Chemical Engineering “Giulio Natta”, Politecnico di Milano, Piazza Leonardo da Vinci 32, 20133 Milano, Italy)

  • Andrea Basso Peressut

    (Department of Chemistry, Materials and Chemical Engineering “Giulio Natta”, Politecnico di Milano, Piazza Leonardo da Vinci 32, 20133 Milano, Italy)

  • Valeria Arosio

    (Department of Chemistry, Materials and Chemical Engineering “Giulio Natta”, Politecnico di Milano, Piazza Leonardo da Vinci 32, 20133 Milano, Italy)

  • Alessandro Arrigoni

    (Joint Research Centre (JRC), European Commission, 1755 LE Petten, The Netherlands)

  • Saverio Latorrata

    (Department of Chemistry, Materials and Chemical Engineering “Giulio Natta”, Politecnico di Milano, Piazza Leonardo da Vinci 32, 20133 Milano, Italy)

  • Giovanni Dotelli

    (Department of Chemistry, Materials and Chemical Engineering “Giulio Natta”, Politecnico di Milano, Piazza Leonardo da Vinci 32, 20133 Milano, Italy)

Abstract

Despite being the most employed polymer electrolyte for proton exchange membrane fuel cells (PEMFCs), Nafion ® has several limitations: expensiveness, poor performance when exposed to temperatures higher than 80 °C, and its potential as a source of environmentally persistent and toxic compounds (i.e., per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, known as PFASs) when disposed of. This work explores the functional and environmental performances of three potential PFAS-free alternatives to Nafion ® as electrolytic membranes in PEMFCs: sulfonated graphene oxide (SGO), graphene oxide-naphthalene sulfonate (GONS), and borate-reinforced sulfonated graphene oxide (BSGO). Investigated via ATR-FTIR spectroscopy, TGA, and cross-sectional SEM, the membranes show an effective functionalization of GO and good thermal stability. Functional properties are determined via Ion Exchange Capacity (IEC) evaluation, Electrochemical Impedance Spectroscopy, and tensile tests. In terms of IEC, the innovative materials outperform Nafion ® 212. Proton conductivities at 80 °C of SGO (1.15 S cm −1 ) and GONS (1.71 S cm −1 ) are higher than that of the commercial electrolyte (0.56 S cm −1 ). At the same time, the membranes are investigated via Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) to uncover potential environmental hotspots. Results show that energy consumption during manufacture is the main environmental concern for the three membranes. A sensitivity analysis demonstrates that the impact could be significantly reduced if the production procedures were scaled up. Among the three alternatives, SGO shows the best trade-off between proton conductivity and environmental impact, even though performance results from real-life applications are needed to determine the actual environmental consequences of replacing Nafion ® in PEMFCs.

Suggested Citation

  • Matteo Di Virgilio & Andrea Basso Peressut & Valeria Arosio & Alessandro Arrigoni & Saverio Latorrata & Giovanni Dotelli, 2023. "Functional and Environmental Performances of Novel Electrolytic Membranes for PEM Fuel Cells: A Lab-Scale Case Study," Clean Technol., MDPI, vol. 5(1), pages 1-20, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jcltec:v:5:y:2023:i:1:p:5-93:d:1029239
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2571-8797/5/1/5/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2571-8797/5/1/5/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Alessandro Arrigoni & Valeria Arosio & Andrea Basso Peressut & Saverio Latorrata & Giovanni Dotelli, 2022. "Greenhouse Gas Implications of Extending the Service Life of PEM Fuel Cells for Automotive Applications: A Life Cycle Assessment," Clean Technol., MDPI, vol. 4(1), pages 1-17, February.
    2. Sheetal Gavankar & Sangwon Suh & Arturo A. Keller, 2015. "The Role of Scale and Technology Maturity in Life Cycle Assessment of Emerging Technologies: A Case Study on Carbon Nanotubes," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 19(1), pages 51-60, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Gianmarco Gottardo & Andrea Basso Peressut & Silvia Colnago & Saverio Latorrata & Luigi Piegari & Giovanni Dotelli, 2023. "LCA of a Proton Exchange Membrane Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle Considering Different Power System Architectures," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(19), pages 1-19, September.
    2. Nils Thonemann & Anna Schulte & Daniel Maga, 2020. "How to Conduct Prospective Life Cycle Assessment for Emerging Technologies? A Systematic Review and Methodological Guidance," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-23, February.
    3. Deidre Wolff & Svenja Weber & Tobias Graumann & Stefan Zebrowski & Nils Mainusch & Nikolas Dilger & Felipe Cerdas & Sabrina Zellmer, 2023. "An Environmental and Technical Evaluation of Vacuum-Based Thin Film Technologies: Lithium Niobate Coated Cathode Active Material for Use in All-Solid-State Battery Cells," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(3), pages 1-22, January.
    4. Sophie Sfez & Jo Dewulf & Wouter De Soete & Thomas Schaubroeck & Fabrice Mathieux & Dana Kralisch & Steven De Meester, 2017. "Toward a Framework for Resource Efficiency Evaluation in Industry: Recommendations for Research and Innovation Projects," Resources, MDPI, vol. 6(1), pages 1-23, January.
    5. Farrukh, Clare & Holgado, Maria, 2020. "Integrating sustainable value thinking into technology forecasting: A configurable toolset for early stage technology assessment," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 158(C).
    6. Mitchell K. van der Hulst & Mark A. J. Huijbregts & Niels van Loon & Mirjam Theelen & Lucinda Kootstra & Joseph D. Bergesen & Mara Hauck, 2020. "A systematic approach to assess the environmental impact of emerging technologies: A case study for the GHG footprint of CIGS solar photovoltaic laminate," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 24(6), pages 1234-1249, December.
    7. Antonio Nicolò Mancino & Carla Menale & Francesco Vellucci & Manlio Pasquali & Roberto Bubbico, 2023. "PEM Fuel Cell Applications in Road Transport," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(17), pages 1-27, August.
    8. Aikaterini Anastasopoulou & Robin Keijzer & Bhaskar Patil & Jürgen Lang & Gerard van Rooij & Volker Hessel, 2020. "Environmental impact assessment of plasma‐assisted and conventional ammonia synthesis routes," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 24(5), pages 1171-1185, October.
    9. Parisi, M.L. & Maranghi, S. & Vesce, L. & Sinicropi, A. & Di Carlo, A. & Basosi, R., 2020. "Prospective life cycle assessment of third-generation photovoltaics at the pre-industrial scale: A long-term scenario approach," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 121(C).
    10. Thonemann, Nils, 2020. "Environmental impacts of CO2-based chemical production: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 263(C).
    11. Bergesen, Joseph D. & Suh, Sangwon, 2016. "A framework for technological learning in the supply chain: A case study on CdTe photovoltaics," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 169(C), pages 721-728.
    12. Matthias Buyle & Amaryllis Audenaert & Pieter Billen & Katrien Boonen & Steven Van Passel, 2019. "The Future of Ex-Ante LCA? Lessons Learned and Practical Recommendations," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(19), pages 1-24, October.
    13. Steffi Weyand & Kotaro Kawajiri & Claudiu Mortan & Liselotte Schebek, 2023. "Scheme for generating upscaling scenarios of emerging functional materials based energy technologies in prospective LCA (UpFunMatLCA)," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 27(3), pages 676-692, June.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jcltec:v:5:y:2023:i:1:p:5-93:d:1029239. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.