Application of response surface methodology to optimize direct alcohol fuel cell power density for greener energy production

Abstract

Please cite this article as: Charoen K, Prapainainar C, Sureeyatanapas P, Suwannaphisit T, Wongamornpitak K, Kongkachuichay P, Holmes SM, Prapainainar P, Application of response surface methodology to optimize direct alcohol fuel cell power density for greener energy production, Journal of Cleaner Production (2016Production ( ), doi: 10.1016Production ( /j.jclepro.2016 This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain. AbstractEnergy production from direct alcohol fuel cells depends strongly on the operating conditions. In this research, the aim was to find the best conditions of direct methanol fuel cells (DMFC) and direct ethanol fuel cells (DEFC) to obtain the maximum power density with the response surface method using Program Design Expert 7.0.0. M A N U S C R I P T A C C E P T E D ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPTThree related independent variables, including operating temperature in the range of 30-70°C, alcohol flow rate in the range of 5-50 ml/min, and alcohol concentration in the range of 0.5-3 M, were covered. Nafion117 was used as an electrolyte and Pt-Ru and Pt were used as catalysts in anode and cathode, respectively. The effect of those variables on the maximum power density was illustrated in the form of quadratic models which predicted the appropriate operating conditions. The Nafion membrane was modified by adding mordenite (MOR) to improve its alcohol permeability. The result from response revealed that the higher operating temperatures and higher alcohol concentrations led to an increase in maximum power density, in both the DMFC and DEFC. The DMFC had a higher maximum power density and greater current than the DEFC had. This was because methanol was easier to oxidize than ethanol In addition, it was found that the MOR content of 1.47 wt% in the Nafion composite membrane reduced the alcohol permeability

A novel comprehensive procedure for determination of optimum operating conditions for cleaner energy production system

“…Temperature controller with thermocouple and electric heaters was used to control the operating temperature. Digital multimeter was used to measure the voltage output from the fuel cell …”

“…Thus, DEFC possesses to have higher power density when compared with DMFC. However, the effect of 2 moles of carbon dioxide is again neglected because it can be consumed again by plants for photosynthesis …”

“…MOR adsorbs water over alcohol and allows smooth flow of protons from anode to cathode. In addition, Nafion composite membrane of MOR has higher thermal stability in acidic environments …”

Investigating plant root effects on soil electrical conductivity: An integrated field monitoring and statistical modelling approach

“…which is commonly used in RSR modelling due to construction efficiency and simplicity (Charoen et al, 2017). Here, symbol ε denotes the modelling (or approximation) error, EC(·) denotes the output response (i.e.…”

Optimization of the PEMFC operating parameters for cathode in the presence of PtCo/CVD graphene using factorial design

“…DoE approach finds dependencies between variable factors and helps to set parameter values where optimum performance is obtained with minimal number of experiments. 2,[24][25][26] Several researchers have investigated the influence of various parameters, ie, temperature, [27][28][29][30][31][32] reactant pressure, 27,30,31 reactant flow rate, [27][28][29][30][31] and humidity, 30-32 on fuel cell performance by DoE. Generally, design methods such as factorial design, 18,[33][34][35][36][37][38] Taguchi, 26,39 and response surface 24,28,34,[40][41][42] are used.…”