PEMEC performance evaluation through experimental analysis of operating conditions by response surface methodology (RSM)

Year 2023, Volume: 7 Issue: 1, 16 - 21, 20.03.2023

Safiye Nur Özdemir , İmdat Taymaz , Emin Okumuş , Fatmagül Boyacı

https://doi.org/10.26701/ems.1203924

Abstract

The optimum current value of the proton exchange membrane electrolysis cell (PEM-EC) mainly depends on various operational factors, such as temperature, operating pressure, water flow rate, and membrane water content. Therefore, this study aims to maximize performance related to the current of PEM-EC by determining the optimal operating conditions of the PEM electrolysis cell having a 9 cm² active layer. In this regard, response surface methodology (RSM) and central composite design (CCD) were applied using Design-Expert (trial version) software to identify the optimal combination of operating variables such as temperature, pump speed, and cell voltage. Temperature, pump speed, and cell voltage were the independent variables to have ranged from 40-80 °C, 1-8, and 1.8-2.3 V, respectively. Also, the individual and combined effects of operational parameters on cell performance will be included in this study by ANOVA (analysis of variance). The optimal parameters are 80 °C, 1, and 2.3 V, respectively, temperature, pump speed, and cell voltage corresponding to the maximum current output of PEM-EC. This RSM tool found that the maximum current was 16.778 A. In addition, it was concluded that the most influential parameter on cell performance was the cell voltage, followed by the temperature.

Keywords

PEM electrolysis cell, Operational conditions, Optimization, Response surface methodology (RSM)

Supporting Institution

TUBITAK MARMARA RESEARCH CENTER

Project Number

PN: 5212A01

Thanks

This study was supported by the Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey (TUBITAK, PN: 5212A01) and the Turkish Energy, Nuclear, and Mineral Research Agency (TENMAK).

References

• [1] Grigoriev, S., Porembsky, V., Fateev, V. (2006). Pure hydrogen production by PEM electrolysis for hydrogen energy. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 31(2):171–175, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2005.04.038
• [2] Shiva Kumar, S., Himabindu, V. (2019). Hydrogen production by PEM water electrolysis – A review. In Materials Science for Energy Technologies, 2(3):442-454, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mset.2019.03.002
• [3] Ruiz Diaz, D., Valenzuela, E., Wang, Y. (2022). A component-level model of polymer electrolyte membrane electrolysis cells for hydrogen production. Applied Energy, 321:119398, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2022.119398
• [4] Yilmaz, C., Kanoglu, M. (2014). Thermodynamic evaluation of geothermal energy powered hydrogen production by PEM water electrolysis. Energy, 69:592–602, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2014.03.054
• [5] Garcia-Navarro, J., Schulze, M., Friedrich, K. (2019). Measuring and modeling mass transport losses in proton exchange membrane water electrolyzers using electrochemical impedance spectroscopy. Journal of Power Sources, 431:189–204, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpowsour.2019.05.027
• [6] Grigoriev, S., Kalinnikov, A., Millet, P., Porembsky, V., Fateev, V. (2010). Mathematical modeling of high-pressure PEM water electrolysis. Journal of Applied Electrochemistry, 40(5):921–932, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10800-009-0031-z
• [7] Parra-Restrepo, J., Bligny, R., Dillet, J., Didierjean, S., Stemmelen, D., Moyne, C., Degiovanni, A., Maranzana, G. (2020). Influence of the porous transport layer properties on the mass and charge transfer in a segmented PEM electrolyzer. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 45(15):8094–8106, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2020.01.100
• [8] Peng, L., Wei, Z. (2020). Catalyst Engineering for Electrochemical Energy Conversion from Water to Water: Water Electrolysis and the Hydrogen Fuel Cell. In Engineering, 6(6):653–679, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eng.2019.07.028
• [9] Liso, V., Savoia, G., Araya, S., Cinti, G., Kær, S. (2018). Modelling and experimental analysis of a polymer electrolyte membrane water electrolysis cell at different operating temperatures. Energies, 11(12), https://doi.org/10.3390/en11123273
• [10] Abdin, Z., Webb, C., Gray, E. (2015). Modelling and simulation of a proton exchange membrane (PEM) electrolyser cell. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 40(39):13243–13257. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2015.07.129
• [11] Afshari, E., Khodabakhsh, S., Jahantigh, N., Toghyani, S. (2021). Performance assessment of gas crossover phenomenon and water transport mechanism in high pressure PEM electrolyzer. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 46(19):11029–11040. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2020.10.180
• [12] Santarelli, M., Medina, P., Calì, M. (2009). Fitting regression model and experimental validation for a high-pressure PEM electrolyzer. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 34(6):2519–2530. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2008.11.036
• [13] Upadhyay, M., Kim, A., Paramanantham, S., Kim, H., Lim, D., Lee, S., Moon, S., Lim, H. (2022). Three-dimensional CFD simulation of proton exchange membrane water electrolyser: Performance assessment under different condition. Applied Energy, 306(PA):118016, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2021.118016
• [14] Lin, R., Lu, Y., Xu, J., Huo, J., Cai, X. (2022). Investigation on performance of proton exchange membrane electrolyzer with different flow field structures. Applied Energy, 326:120011, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2022.120011
• [15] Lee, H., Yesuraj, J., Kim, K. (2022). Parametric study to optimize proton exchange membrane electrolyzer cells. Applied Energy, 314:118928, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2022.118928
• [16] Lickert, T., Kiermaier, M., Bromberger, K., Ghinaiya, J., Metz, S., Fallisch, A., Smolinka, T. (2020). On the influence of the anodic porous transport layer on PEM electrolysis performance at high current densities. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 45(11):6047–6058. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2019.12.204