Water Movement Direction through an Anion Exchange Membrane Fuel Cell Exerted By Gas Humidity and Flow Rate: A Simulation Study
Authors: Leon Sotelo Maria Isabel Isabel , Valentín Reyes Jonathan , Romero Tatiana , Perez Tzayam , Nava José L. 
Published: November 2022

The growing demand for clean energy generation has been urged due to the threat of climate change by greenhouse emissions (1 kg of CO2 per 1 kW h of generated electricity). In 2021, the electricity generation rose to 1530 TW h, 62% coming from fossil fuels [1]. To lower this significant fossil fuels usage, the development and use of alternative energy sources and green fuels have reached a formidable level of interest. Renewable solar and wind energy sources are currently available; however, those appear to be limited by natural fluctuations in energy production relegated to day- and night-time wheatear or geographical regions [2]. Electrochemical energy storage and conversion technologies can be employed to minimize production variations as an alternative to this limitation. The anion-exchange membrane fuel cell (AEMFC) is an excellent alternative for energy generation due to its air CO2-free emissions, low-cost electrocatalyst used at the cathode, and industrial-scale membrane production [3]. The design of a fuel cell involves several tightly interrelated factors, such as electrode and membrane materials, reactor geometry, and characterization of the reaction environment in terms of the momentum, mass and heat transport, electrode kinetics, and current distribution, to find the best operational conditions to reach a suitable energy efficiency [4]. In either case, the present work deals with designing a hybrid flow-field single-fuel cell. The monopolar anode plate is a multiple-serpentine flow field that benefits the water drainage. On the other hand, the cathode plate is an interdigitated leaf-type flow field that might ensure an efficient gas reactant distribution over the entire electrode geometric area.
A two-phase flow CFD simulation is performed to analyze the influence of the flow field patterns on the mass transport processes in the electrodes. Moreover, the water movement direction through the membrane as a function of the operational conditions is presented. The commercial code COMSOL Multiphysics was used to solve the transport equations through the finite element method.
In the experimental field, the water movement direction between the anodic and cathodic sides shows the capability to favor the electro-osmotic drag (EOD) or the diffusion water transport mechanism under different gas flow rates and humidities, as shown in Figure 1a. Accordingly, the results demonstrated that the EOD predominance was promoted when low symmetric flow rates (125 cm3 min-1 for anode and cathode) were used in the AEMFC. On the contrary, the water diffusion dominance appears under asymmetric flow rates between anode and cathode (125 and 250 cm3 min-1, respectively). The different tested relative humidities do not influence the water direction once the flow rates are given. The AEMFC performance was affected by the water transport mechanism, giving lower peak power densities for EOD-dominated systems (35.2 mW cm-2, in Figure 1b) than those obtained by diffusion (62.8 mW cm-2, in Figure 1c). The most suitable operating condition is for water diffusion dominance at non-saturated streams, where a decrease in performance is experienced as the flow becomes saturated (at higher humidifier temperature). A close agreement between simulation and experimental results was obtained regarding current-potential curves and water movement through the membrane dictated by electro-osmotic drag and water diffusion.
References:
[1] Electricity Market Report – January 2022, International Energy Agency, Paris (2022)
[2] Z. Yang, J. Zhang, M.C.W. Kinter-Meyer, X. Lu, D. Choi, J.P. Lemmon and J. Liu, Chem. Rev. 111 (2011) 3577
[3] R. Gutru, Z. Turtayeva, F. Xu, G. Maranzana, B. Vigolo and A. Desforges, Int. J. Hydrog. Energy 45 (2020) 19642
[4] L. F. Castañeda, F. F. Rivera, T. Pérez and J. L. Nava, Curr.
Opin. Electrochem. 16 (2019) 75.

Figure 1