CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 462Fuel Cells and Related MaterialsMembrane Separation and Gas TransportAdvancements in Solid Oxide Fuel Cells

Transport in Polymer-Electrolyte Membranes

Open access
Weber, Adam Z., Newman, John·2004·Journal of The Electrochemical Society
DOI 10.1149/1.1639157
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

A mathematical model is developed that is based on our previous physical model. The governing equations are presented for both the vapor- and liquid-equilibrated transport modes as well as when they both occur. Thus, this model bridges the gap between the one-phase and two-phase macroscopic models currently used in the literature. In addition to being able to model such phenomena as Schroeder's paradox, the model incorporates other relatively novel features including the effect of temperature on water uptake by the membrane from water vapor, and its associated effects on transport properties. Just as in the physical model, the mathematical model uses the wealth of knowledge contained in the literature to examine and determine values for the relevant transport and membrane parameters. This also helps in corroborating the physical model. The mathematical model developed is further validated and its results examined in a subsequent paper where it is placed in a simple fuel-cell model. © 2004 The Electrochemical Society. All rights reserved.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1149/1.1639157

Cites

97 of 97 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Including pressure as a local variable, in addition to electrolyte potential and water content, overdetermines the system except in the liquid-equilibrated case.

    “From a thermodynamic standpoint, the inclusion of pressure as a local variable, in addition to electrolyte potential and water content, is almost certainly an overdetermination of the system except for the liquid-equilibrated case; it has not found general support [65,78].”

    From Modelling the Proton-Conductive Membrane in Practical Polymer Electrolyte Membrane Fuel Cell (PEMFC) Simulation: A Review (2020) · cites this paper as [65]

    The Mathematical Model section says that separating chemical potential into activity and pressure in a vapor-equilibrated membrane introduces another variable and requires an additional equation or assumption; it also says the common treatments are not rigorous. It distinguishes the liquid-equilibrated case, where pressure can be the driving force. It does not say that including pressure overdetermines a system specified by electrolyte potential and water content, or establish the broader claim that the approach has not found general support. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • The substantive difference between the Weber-Newman and Springer transport equations is the presence of a cross-term contribution to current density due to water streaming current, which is non-zero wherever the water chemical potential is non-uniform through the membrane.

    “The substantive difference between the transport equations used for the Weber–Newman model and the Springer model is the presence of a cross-term contribution to the current density expression due to water streaming current, which is non-zero wherever the water chemical potential is non-uniform through the membrane.”

    From Modelling the Proton-Conductive Membrane in Practical Polymer Electrolyte Membrane Fuel Cell (PEMFC) Simulation: A Review (2020) · cites this paper as [65]

    Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • The Schlögl equation is unsuitable in the VE regime where the assumption of the presence of liquid water is not valid.

    “This equation is unsuitable in the VE regime where the assumption of the presence of liquid water is not valid [65,96].”

    From Modelling the Proton-Conductive Membrane in Practical Polymer Electrolyte Membrane Fuel Cell (PEMFC) Simulation: A Review (2020) · cites this paper as [65]

    The Mathematical Model section says the vapor-equilibrated mode occurs when no liquid water contacts the membrane, and the Parameter section says transport is solely vapor-equilibrated when the liquid-water phase ceases to exist (page numbers unavailable). The Mathematical Model section also criticizes Schlögl’s equation as empirical and as ignoring Onsager cross coefficients, but does not say it assumes liquid water or is unsuitable in the vapor-equilibrated regime for that reason. (LLM, conf=0.78)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Weber and Newman have advocated interpreting the hydrated membrane as a system with three chemical components: water, protons, and fixed membrane structure.

    “Weber and Newman have advocated the interpretation of the hydrated membrane as a system with three chemical components: water, protons, and fixed membrane structure [65].”

    From Modelling the Proton-Conductive Membrane in Practical Polymer Electrolyte Membrane Fuel Cell (PEMFC) Simulation: A Review (2020) · cites this paper as [65]

  • The inclusion of pressure as a local variable in membrane transport models has not found general support.

    “From a thermodynamic standpoint, the inclusion of pressure as a local variable, in addition to electrolyte potential and water content, is almost certainly an overdetermination of the system except for the liquid-equilibrated case; it has not found general support [65,78].”

    From Modelling the Proton-Conductive Membrane in Practical Polymer Electrolyte Membrane Fuel Cell (PEMFC) Simulation: A Review (2020) · cites this paper as [65]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 17

  1. A. Z. Weber and J. Newman, in Proton Conducting Membrane Fuel Cells III, J. W. Van Zee, M. Murthy, S. Gottesfeld and T. Fuller, Editors, The Electrochemical Society Proceedings Series, Pennington, NJ, In preparation.
  2. T. E. Springer, T. A. Zawodzinski, and S. Gottesfeld, J. Electrochem. Soc., 138, 2334 ͑1991͒.
  3. T. F. Fuller, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of California, Berkeley, CA ͑1992͒.
  4. J. P. Meyers, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of California, Berkeley, CA ͑1998͒.
  5. J. S. Dunning, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles, CA ͑1971͒.
  6. J. S. Newman, Electrochemical Systems, 2nd ed., Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ ͑1991͒.
  7. T. A. Zawodzinski, Jr., C. Derouin, S. Radzinski, R. J. Sherman, V. T. Smith, T. E. Springer, and S. Gottesfeld, J. Electrochem. Soc., 140, 1041 ͑1993͒.
  8. T. J. Edwards, M.S. Thesis, University of California, Berkeley, CA ͑1974͒.
  9. CRC Standard Mathematical Tables and Formulas, 30th ed., D. Zwillinger, Edi- tor, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL ͑1995͒.
  10. M. C. Tucker, M. Odgaard, S. Yde-Anderson, and J. O. Thomas, Abstract 1235, The Electrochemical Society Meeting Abstracts, Vol. 2003-01, Paris, France, April 27-May 2, 2003.
  11. CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 59th ed., R. C. Weast, Editor, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL ͑1979͒.
  12. R. Halseid, P. J. S. Vie, and R. Tunold, in Proton Conducting Membrane Fuel Cells III, J. W. Van Zee, S. Gottesfeld, M. Murthy, and T. Fuller, Editors, The Electrochemical Society Proceedings Series, Pennington, NJ, In preparation.
  13. T. A. Zawodzinski, Jr., T. E. Springer, J. Davey, R. Jestel, C. Lopez, J. Valerio, and S. Gottesfeld, J. Electrochem. Soc., 140, 1981 ͑1993͒.
  14. R. B. Bird, W. E. Stewart, and E. N. Lightfoot, Transport Phenomena, 2nd ed., John Wiley & Sons, New York ͑2001͒.
  15. M. K. Ravikumar and A. K. Shukla, J. Electrochem. Soc., 143, 2601 ͑1996͒. 107. M. W. Verbrugge, J. Electrochem. Soc., 136, 417 ͑1989͒. 108. T. Sakai, H. Takenaka, N. Wakabayashi, Y. Kawami, and E. Torikai, J. Electro- chem. Soc., 132, 1328 ͑1985͒. 109. H. A. Gasteiger and M. F. Mathias, in Proton Conducting Membrane Fuel Cells III, J. W. Van Zee, S. Gottesfeld, M. Murthy, and T. Fuller, Editors, The Electro- chemical Society Proceedings Series, Pennington, NJ, In preparation. 110. T. Sakai, H. Takenaka, and E. Torikai, J. Electrochem. Soc., 133, 88 ͑1986͒. 111. Z. Ogumi, Z. Takehara, and S. Yoshizawa, J. Electrochem. Soc., 131, 769 ͑1984͒. 112. P. Gode, G. Lindbergh, and G. Sundholm, J. Electroanal. Chem., 518, 115 ͑2002͒. 113. Z. Ogumi, T. Kuroe, and Z. Takehara, J. Electrochem. Soc., 132, 2601 ͑1985͒. 114. F. N. Buechi, M. Wakizoe, and S. Srinivasan, J. Electrochem. Soc., 143, 927 ͑1996͒. 115. A. T. Haug and R. E. White, J. Electrochem. Soc., 147, 980 ͑2000͒. 116. A. Parthasarathy, S. Srinivasan, A. J. Appleby, and C. R. Martin, J. Electrochem. Soc., 139, 2530 ͑1992͒. 117. S. Kocha, in Handbook of Fuel Cells: Fundamentals, Technology, and Applica- tions, Vol.
  16. W. Vielstich, A. Lamm, and H. A. Gasteiger, Editors, Wiley, New York ͑2003͒. 118.
  17. R. H. Perry, D. W. Green, and J. O. Maloney, Editors, Perry's Chemical Engi- neer's Handbook, 7th ed., McGraw-Hill Professional, New York ͑1997͒. 119.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Weber, A. Z., & Newman, J.
Affiliations
University of California, Berkeley (US)
ORCID
Venue
Journal of The Electrochemical Society
Publisher
The Electrochemical Society
Published
2004
Volume
151
Issue
2
Pages
A311
ISSN
0013-4651 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1149/1.1639157
OpenAlex
W1903915324
Cited by
462
References
97
Citations by year
2026: 26 · 2025: 29 · 2024: 29 · 2023: 30 · 2022: 27 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 22 · 2018: 18 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 15 · 2015: 16 · 2014: 20 · 2013: 15 · 2012: 23
FWCI
16.60
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
Journal of The Electrochemical Society (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Electrical and Electronic Engineering › Fuel Cells and Related Materials
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Mechanical Engineering › Membrane Separation and Gas Transport
  • Physical Sciences › Materials Science › Materials Chemistry › Advancements in Solid Oxide Fuel Cells
Keywords
polymer electrolyte membranes, water transport, two-phase transport, water absorption, temperature effects, fuel cells

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review