Breathable electrode structure and method for use in water splitting

Information

  • Patent Grant
  • 10577700
  • Patent Number
    10,577,700
  • Date Filed
    Friday, September 28, 2018
    5 years ago
  • Date Issued
    Tuesday, March 3, 2020
    4 years ago
Abstract
The present invention relates to a water splitting cell having at least one electrode comprising a porous membrane, wherein gas produced at the electrode diffuses out of the cell via the porous membrane, separating the gas from the reaction at the electrode without bubble formation.
Description
FIELD OF INVENTION

The present invention relates to the field of electro-chemistry, particularly electrodes and electrolytic reactions.


In one form, the invention relates to a novel electrode.


In one particular aspect the present invention is suitable for use in water splitting processes.


In another particular aspect the present invention there is provided a method for directly separating gases in an electrolytic reaction such as water splitting.


In another aspect of the present invention there is provided a water splitting device.


It will be convenient to hereinafter describe the invention in relation to water splitting, however it should be appreciated that the present invention is not limited to that use only.


BACKGROUND ART

It is to be appreciated that any discussion of documents, devices, acts or knowledge in this specification is included to explain the context of the present invention. Further, the discussion throughout this specification comes about due to the realisation of the inventor and/or the identification of certain related art problems by the inventor. Moreover, any discussion of material such as documents, devices, acts or knowledge in this specification is included to explain the context of the invention in terms of the inventor's knowledge and experience and, accordingly, any such discussion should not be taken as an admission that any of the material forms part of the prior art base or the common general knowledge in the relevant art in Australia, or elsewhere, on or before the priority date of the disclosure and claims herein.


The overall reaction of water splitting, 2H2O→2H2+O2, produces O2 and H2 gases as end products. These gases need to be kept separate for later individual use and to avoid production of an explosive gas mixture (Tributsch H. Photovoltaic hydrogen generation Int J Hydrogen Energy 2008; 33:5911-30). There are several approaches to the design of devices that can maintain separation of the two gases during electrolysis, for example the use of a membrane to separate the electrode compartments. This also minimizes cross-over of dissolved gases from one electrode to be recycled at other electrode (Ioroi T, Oku T, Yasuda K, Kumagai N, Miyazaki Y. Influence of PTFE coating on gas diffusion backing for unitized regenerative polymer electrolyte fuel cells. J Power Sources 2003; 124:385-9; and Marangio F, Pagani M, Santarelli M, Cali M, Concept of a high pressure PEM electrolyser prototype. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2011; 36:7807-15.


Although the gases can be separated, new issues arise with these technologies e.g. cost, mechanical properties, high resistance through the membrane and ultra pure water is needed for proper operation (Nieminen J, Dincer I, Naterer G. Comparative performance analysis of PEM and solid oxide steam electrolysers. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2010; 35:10842-50). Alkaline zero gap electrolysers using OH conducting membranes are also being considered (Pletcher D, Li X. Prospects for alkaline zero gap water electrolysers for hydrogen production. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2011; 36:15089-104).


In the traditional alkaline electrolyser, where a diaphragm is the only separator, bubble formation inside and between the electrode and the separator is the major cause of transport resistance. A number of suggestions on bubble management have been made e.g. use of mechanical circulation of the electrolyte, use of (stable) additives to reduce surface tension of the electrolyte so the bubble can leave the system easier and modification of the electrode surface properties to be less attractive to the gas bubbles (Zeng K, Zhang D. Recent progress in alkaline water electrolysis for hydrogen production and applications. Prog Energy Combust Sci 2010; 36:307-26.)


One of the features of the O2 evolution reaction is that the dissolved oxygen concentration at the electrode has to build up to a level sufficient to nucleate and form small, high-pressure bubbles. According to Laplace's equation: P=2γ/r, where P is pressure in the bubble, γ is the surface tension and r the radius of the bubble, near the surface of an electrolyte, O2 bubbles with 0.1 μm radius need to have a pressure of 14 atm at 25° C. The concentrations required not only produce overpotential at the electrode (and thus inefficiencies in water splitting), but also represent a very reactive environment that challenges the long term stability of many catalysts.


Several reports have described efforts to improve water splitting cell efficiency by addition of sacrificial agents or co-catalysts, modification of catalyst crystal structures and morphology, and specific surface area (Kudo A, Miseki Y. Heterogeneous photocatalyst materials for water splitting. Chem Soc Rev 2009; 38:253-78; Kato H, Asakura K, Kudo A. Highly efficient water splitting into H2 and O2 over lanthanum-doped NaTaO3 photocatalysts with high crystallinity and surface nanostructure. J Am Chem Soc 2003; 125:3082-9; and Osterloh F E. Inorganic materials as catalysts for photochemical splitting of water. Chem Mater 2008; 20:35-54.)


A few reports have designed novel electrode architectures at the nano- or micro-scopic scales to enhance cell performance (Mohapatra S K, Misra M, Mahajan V K, Raja K S. Design of a highly efficient photoelectrolytic cell for hydrogen generation by water splitting: Application of TiO2-xCx nanotubes as a photoanode and Pt/TiO2 nanotubes as a cathode. J Phys Chem C 2007; 111:8677-85; and Yin Y, Jin Z, Hou F. Enhanced solar water-splitting efficiency using core/sheath heterostructure CdS/TiO2 nanotube arrays. Nanotechnology 2007; 18).


Also, there have been attempts to separate the gases using different flow streams of the electrolyte in a planar microfabricated device, but the device efficiency was not high (Jiang L, Myer B, Tellefsen K, Pau S. A planar microfabricated electrolyzer for hydrogen and oxygen generation. J Power Sources 2009; 188:256-60). It appears that improvements, based on modification of the electrode structure, to rapidly remove the O2 from the cell before the bubble is formed, has not yet been widely considered. The traditional gas diffusion electrodes (GDE) of the type used in fuel cells have a tendency to continue to form O2 bubbles when operating in water splitting devices (Ioroi T, Oku T, Yasuda K, Kumagai N, Miyazaki Y. Influence of PTFE coating on gas diffusion backing for unitized regenerative polymer electrolyte fuel cells. J Power Sources 2003; 124:385-9). Moreover, these electrodes are not stable under water oxidation (WO) condition, the carbon being rapidly oxidized at the potentials involved in WO (Chaparro A M, Mueller N, Atienza C, Daza L. Study of electrochemical instabilities of PEMFC electrodes in aqueous solution by means of membrane inlet mass spectrometry. J Electroanal Chem 2006; 591:69-73; and Jang S E, Kim H. Effect of water electrolysis catalysts on carbon corrosion in polymer electrolyte membrane fuel cells. J Am Chem Soc 2010; 132:14700-1.)


In other prior art work a hydrophobic gas porous membrane (Goretex®) has been used to develop an efficient three phase-interface structure for an air-electrode (Winther-Jensen B, Winther-Jensen O, Forsyth M, MacFarlane DR. High rates of oxygen reduction over a vapour phase-polymerized PEDOT electrode. Science 2008; 321:671-4). The advantage of this, as a substrate for an electrode, is that gas can diffuse through the membrane, but liquid water cannot, and that an efficient three-phase interface can be maintained during operation. The fact that the cell responds linearly to the O2 content in the supplied gas in the O2 reduction reaction clearly proved that efficient gas transportation through the electrode was achieved.


SUMMARY OF INVENTION

An object of the present invention is to provide a device, method and process for the use of a hydrophobic membrane for electrolysis to directly separate the evolved gases from the electrolyte solution.


Another object is to improve the efficiency of electrolytic reactions such as water splitting.


A further object of the present invention is to alleviate at least one disadvantage associated with the related art.


It is an object of the embodiments described herein to overcome or alleviate at least one of the above noted drawbacks of related art systems or to at least provide a useful alternative to related art systems.


In a first aspect of embodiments described herein there is provided a water splitting cell having at least one electrode comprising a porous membrane, wherein gas produced at the at least one electrode diffuses out of the cell via the porous membrane.


The removal of produced gas across the porous membrane results in a device capable of separating the gas from the reaction at the electrode. Note that the porous membrane may also be a porous gas permeable membrane, if the appropriate phase interface can be established. Greater than 90% of the gas produced at the at least one electrode can be removed from the cell across the porous membrane. Desirably, and greater than 95% and greater than 99% of the gas produced can be removed across the porous membrane.


The removal of gas from the reaction at the electrode without substantial bubble formation permits the water splitting reaction to be achieved with a substantially lower over potential, thereby increasing the efficiency of the water splitting cell.


By the term “without substantial bubble formation” it will be understood that we mean without substantial formation of bubbles visible to the naked eye. All bubbles are “formed” very small and then grow as this is the preferred state because it lowers the pressure in the bubble (according to Laplace's equation: P=2γ/r, where P is pressure in the bubble, γ is the surface tension and r the radius of the bubble). Small bubbles can easily fuse to form bigger ones, thus leading to a range of bubble sizes. The water splitting cell may be capable of operating without the substantial formation of gas bubbles greater than 125 μm in diameter. In some embodiments, the water splitting cell is capable of operating without the substantial formation of bubbles greater than 100 μm in diameter and without the formation of bubbles greater than 50 μm in diameter. The water splitting cell may, in particular embodiments permit operation without the formation of gas bubbles. Separating the gas from the active area of the electrode without substantial bubble formation facilitates the efficient operation of the water splitting cell.


In a second aspect of embodiments described herein there is provided a water splitting cell having a cathode comprising a porous membrane, wherein H2 gas produced at the cathode diffuses out of the cell via the porous membrane, separating the H2 gas from the cathodic reaction without bubble formation.


In a third aspect of embodiments described herein there is provided a water splitting cell having an anode comprising a porous membrane, wherein O2 gas produced at the anode diffuses out of the cell via the porous membrane, separating the O2 gas from the anodic reaction without bubble formation.


In a fourth aspect of embodiments described herein there is provided a water splitting cell having:

    • a cathode comprising a first porous membrane,
    • an anode comprising a second porous membrane,
    • at least one electrolyte for immersion of the anode and the cathode,


      wherein gas is produced at the electrodes without bubble formation and diffuses out of the cell via the porous membranes.


In a fifth aspect of embodiments described herein there is provided an electrode for water splitting comprising a porous membrane associated with a model catalyst.


In a sixth aspect of embodiments described herein there is provided a water splitting device according to the present invention comprising a porous membrane associated with a model catalyst.


This catalyst may be chosen from known catalysts according to the reaction occurring on the electrode. Generally precious metals such as platinum, gold and palladium can be used. Further, suitable catalysts for water oxidation include: rare elements such as Ru and Ir complexes, Mn complexes which have been studied extensively as models of the oxygen-evolution-catalyst (OEC) but none of them is a pure photo-catalyst, and abundant metals complexes such as Fe, NiOx and Co (See for example, X. Liu, F. Wang, Transition metal complexes that catalyze oxygen formation from water: 1979-2010, Coordination Chemistry Reviews 256 (2012) 1115-1136; P. Du, R. Eisenberg, Catalysts made of earth-abundant elements (Co, Ni, Fe) for water splitting: Recent progress and future challenges, Energy and Environmental Science 5 (2012) 6012-6021; and M. W. Kanan, D. G. Nocera, In situ formation of an oxygen-evolving catalyst in neutral water containing phosphate and Co2+, Science 321 (2008) 1072-1075.


For increasing stability, such metal-oxide catalysts may be containing an additional element such as phosphorous. For water reduction, conducting polymers such as poly(3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene) and polypyrrole, Co, Ni, a few Fe complexes and MoSx have been reported as catalysts for water reduction reaction. (P. Du, R. Eisenberg, Catalysts made of earth-abundant elements (Co, Ni, Fe) for water splitting: Recent progress and future challenges, Energy and Environmental Science 5 (2012) 6012-6021; B. Winther-Jensen, K. Fraser, C. Ong, M. Forsyth, D. R. MacFarlane, Conducting polymer composite materials for hydrogen generation, Advanced Materials 22 (2010) 1727-1730; J. Chen, J. Huang, G. F. Swiegers, C. O. Too, G. G. Wallace, A readily-prepared electrocatalytic coating that is more active than platinum for hydrogen generation in 1 M strong acid, Chemical Communications 10 (2004) 308-309; Y. Hou, B. L. Abrams, P. C. K. Vesborg, M. E. Bjorrketun, K. Herbst, L. Bech, A. M. Setti, C. D. Damsgaard, T. Pedersen, O. Hansen, J. Rossmeisl, S. Dahl, J. K. Norskov, I. Chorkendorff, Bioinspired molecular co-catalysts bonded to a silicon photocathode for solar hydrogen evolution, Nature Materials 10 (2011) 434-438.) The choice of catalyst will depend on operating conditions such as temperature, salinity and pH of the electrolyte.


In another embodiment the catalyst is platinum deposited on the porous membrane.


The cell of the present invention not only separates the gases and decreases gas cross-over in the cell, but also facilitates a more favourable environment for the operation of the catalyst. In general, increasing partial pressure of O2 in an electrolytic cell causes increasing degradation of the catalyst, particularly the anode catalyst. Hence the removal of O2 according to the present invention reduces this effect, permitting the use of (photo) catalysts previously unsuitable such as CdS, CdSe, and GaAs.


In one embodiment, the catalyst is tuned to produce the gas (hydrogen or oxygen) at a rate that matches the flux across the membrane in order to enable complete or near complete withdrawal of the gases without substantial bubble formation.


It is desirable that the advancing contact angle of the porous membrane with the electrolyte is greater than 90°.


In another embodiment the porous membrane is a hydrophobic membrane. Suitable membranes may have various pore sizes and pore shapes and be manufactured from various hydrophobic materials. The membranes may have a pore size less than 0.5 μm, less than 0.1 μm or worse than 0.05 μm.


In another embodiment, the porous membrane may or may not be hydrophobic in nature but be coated with a thin film of hydrophobic material. Suitable hydrophobic material may be rather or silicone and enhance the wet ability of the porous membrane whilst still providing the requisite degree of breathability (having a sufficient flux of the gas across the membrane). Other suitable thin-film coatings may be selected from the group consisting of silicone-fluoropolymer, polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS) or its copolymers, PDD-TFE (perfluoro-2, 2-dimethyl-1, 3-dioxole with tetrafluoroethylene) and combinations thereof.


In another embodiment, the porous membrane comprises hydrophobic, conducting carbon material such as carbon fibre, graphene or carbon nanotubules.


The Young-Laplace equation defining the capillary pressure, Pc, can be used as guidance for selection of materials and pore size for the membrane. It states that the capillary pressure (pc) is proportional to the surface tension (γ) and inversely proportional to the effective radius (r) of the interface, it also depends on the wetting contact angle (8) of the liquid on the surface of the capillary.







p
c

=


2

γ





cos





θ

r





As the contact angle approach 90° the capillary pressure goes towards zero (and eventually changes sign) resulting in wetting of the membrane. This is theoretically limiting possible membrane materials to those with a contact angle above 90°. Table 1 lists average surface tension and water contact angles for common hydrophobic polymers. It should be taken into account that the production method and material grade can result in some variation in contact angle. For example, for polystyrene contact angles up to 98° has been reported whereas the average is below 90°. It will be apparent to those skilled in the that only the part of the membrane that is in direct contact with water needs to have the needed high contact angle and that this can be obtained for example, by coating one side of a (hydrophilic) membrane with one of the polymers from the list below. Some carbon materials (e.g. carbon fibre) have a contact angle higher than 90° and may therefore be used directly as a conducting hydrophobic membrane. However, adequate catalysts will have to be coated onto these carbon materials.











TABLE 1






Surface Tension (γ)
Contact


Polymer Name
mJ/m2
Angle

















Polyvinyl fluoride (PVF)
32.7
84.5


Polyvinyl chloride (PVC)
37.9
85.6


Nylon 8,8
34
86


Nylon 9,9
34
86


Polystyrene (PS)
34
87.4


Polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF)
31.6
89


Poly n-butyl methacrylate (PnBMA)
29.8
91


Polytrifluoroethylene
26.5
92


Nylon 10,10
32
94


Polybutadiene
29.3
96


Polyethylene (PE)
31.6
96


Polychlorotrifluoroethylene (PCTFE)
30.8
99.3


Polypropylene (PP)
30.5
102.1


Polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS)
20.1
107.2


Poly t-butyl methacrylate (PtBMA)
18.1
108.1


Fluorinated ethylene propylene (FEP)
19.1
108.5


Hexatriacontane
20.6
108.5


Paraffin
24.8
108.9


Polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE)
19.4
109.2


Poly(hexafluoropropylene)
16.9
112


Polyisobutylene (PIB, butyl rubber)
27
112.1









For example, with reference to the Young-Laplace equation above, for a polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) membrane in contact with liquid water, the contact angles are typically 100-115° (http://www.accudynetest.com/polymer_surface_data/ptfe.pdf). The surface tension of water is typically 0.07197 N/m at 25° C. (http://en.wikipedia.orq/wiki/Surface_tension). If the water contains an electrolyte such as 1 M KOH, then the surface tension of the water typically increases to 0.07480 N/m (according to the scientific paper entitled “Surface tension of aqueous electrolyte solutions at high concentrations—representation and prediction” in Chemical and Engineering Science, Volume 56 (2001), pages 2879-2888, by authors Zhibao Li and Benjamin C.-Y. Lu). Applying these parameters to the Washburn equation yields the following data:

















Contact






Angle of
Pressure to
Pressure to
Pressure to


Pore size of
the liquid with
wet/dewet
wet/dewet
wet/dewet


membrane,
the membrane,
pore, Pa
pore,
pore,


micrometers
degrees
(N/m2)
Pa (bar)
Pa (psi)



















10
115
6322
0.06
0.9


5
115
12645
0.13
1.8


1
115
63224
0.63
9.2


0.5
115
126447
1.26
18.3


0.3
115
210746
2.11
30.6


0.1
115
632237
6.32
91.7


0.05
115
1264474
12.64
183.3


0.025
115
2528948
25.29
366.7


0.013
115
4863361
48.63
705.2


0.01
115
6322369
63.22
916.7


10
100
2598
0.03
0.4


5
100
5196
0.05
0.8


1
100
25978
0.26
3.8


0.5
100
51956
0.52
7.5


0.3
100
86593
0.87
12.6


0.1
100
259778
2.60
37.7


0.05
100
519555
5.20
75.3


0.025
100
1039111
10.39
150.7


0.013
100
1998290
19.98
289.8


0.01
100
2597777
25.98
376.7









The calculated capillary pressure of the membranes tested and found to be suitable are ranging from −2500 Pa (Mitex (PTFE)) to −132000 Pa (Celgard 880 (PE)) and thereby underlining the large design freedom for the choice of membranes. The negative sign of the pressure values indicates that the capillary pressure is directed out of the pore and thereby preventing flooding of the membrane. These pressure values corresponds well with measurements obtained from PTFE coated carbon paper membranes (“Capillary pressures in carbon paper gas diffusion layers having hydrophilic and hydrophobic pores” Liang Hao, Ping Cheng, International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 55 (2012) 133-139). In an embodiment the capillary pressure of the membrane will be below −5000 Pa. For systems where water is dispersed or dissolved in a hydrophobic electrolytes the considerations regarding capillary pressure will still be valid, but in this case a hydrophilic membrane must be used to avoid solvent penetration into the membrane.


Combining the electrode of the present invention with catalysts and photocatalysts of various types e.g. non-precious metal and metal oxides allows greater scope for fabrication of cost efficient and straightforward water splitting electrolytic devices.


Other aspects and forms are disclosed in the specification and/or defined in the appended claims, forming a part of the description of the invention.


In essence, embodiments of the present invention stem from the realization that a breathable electrode structure can be used to directly separate gases in an electrolytic reaction.


Advantages provided by the water splitting cell and electrodes of the present invention comprise the following:

    • efficient removal of gases from the water splitting reaction with concomitant improvement in the efficiency of the system;
    • the direct separation of gases negates the need for a separator;
    • production of high purity gases;
    • reduces the potential for produced hydrogen to be oxidised at the anode and for produced oxygen to be reduced at the cathode;
    • provides a more favourable environment for the operation of the catalyst;
    • facilitates use of otherwise unsuitable catalysts that would be degraded as partial pressure of O2 increases;
    • the direct separation of gases decreases gas cross over and thereby enhances columbic efficiency; and
    • the combination of the electrode with optimised catalysed and photocatalysts provides opportunities for fabrication of more cost efficient electrolytic devices


Further scope of applicability of embodiments of the present invention will become apparent from the detailed description given hereinafter. However, it should be understood that the detailed description and specific examples, while indicating preferred embodiments of the invention, are given by way of illustration only, since various changes and modifications within the spirit and scope of the disclosure herein will become apparent to those skilled in the art from this detailed description.





BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

Further disclosure, objects, advantages and aspects of preferred and other embodiments of the present application may be better understood by those skilled in the relevant art by reference to the following description of embodiments taken in conjunction with the accompanying drawings, which are given by way of illustration only, and thus are not limitative of the disclosure herein, and in which:



FIG. 1a is a schematic of the experimental set-up showing the reference electrode 1, anode 3, cathode 4, and oxygen probe 5 relative to the electrolysis chamber 6 on the left, attached to the gas collection chamber 7 on the right (half breathing cell); FIG. 1b illustrates gas and ion movements in an aqueous electrolyte 11 relative to the cathode 10 and anode 12 corresponding to the set-up shown in FIG. 1a; and FIG. 1c illustrates gas and ion movements in a full breathing cell. The black rectangles in FIG. 1b and FIG. 1c indicated the Micro-Oxygen Electrode position;



FIG. 2 illustrates O2 measurement behind the different Pt-coated membranes (Au/Goretex® 21, Au/Mitex™ 10 μm 22 and GDE 23);



FIG. 3 illustrates O2 measurements above the electrolyte (O2 front 30) and behind the membrane in the adjacent chamber (O2 back 32) after commencement of the application of 10 mA 34;



FIG. 4 is a series of scanning electron micrographs (SEM) of Pt-coated Au/Goretex® (FIG. 4(c)), Au/Mitex™ 10 μm (FIG. 4(b)) and GDE (FIG. 4(a)). (Scale bars: left column—100 μm, middle column—10 μm and right column—10 nm).



FIG. 5 illustrates O2 measurement behind the different membranes coated with Pt: polyethylene Celgard 880 (40), polypropylene mesh (41) and non-woven polypropylene (42). 10 mA is applied where indicated (45).



FIG. 6 is a plot of DO (mV) against time (min) illustrating O2 evolution of the back chamber during shining of light and during evacuation using CdS/Ti/Au/Goretex. The peaks appearing in the graph correspond to 13 min ΔDO 42 mV (50), 13 min ΔDO 40 mV (51), 18 min ΔDO 49 mV (52), 12 min ΔDO 47 mV (53), 12 min ΔDO 52 mV (54) and 12 min ΔDO 53 mV (55). Measurements were taken with light off and N2 and O2 admitted to the chamber (56), with the light on and N2 out (57) then O2 out (58)



FIG. 7 is a plot of O2 evolution rate over light exposed time (min) for CdS/Ti/Au/Goretex membrane (60) and Ti/Au/Gortex membrane (61).





EXAMPLES

The invention will be further described with reference to the following non-limiting examples. More specifically, three membrane electrodes with different morphology and pore sizes and shapes were prepared and studied. Platinum, the most well studied catalyst was used as the model catalyst material. However the electrodes of the present invention should not be interpreted as being limited to this catalyst and can be operated with many catalysts.


Membrane Treatment and Pt Coating


PTFE membranes (Goretex®) was obtained from Gore Inc and Mitex™ (10 μm) was obtained from Millipore. Au mylar (2.5 Ohm/square) was purchased from CPFilms Inc. Maleic anhydride was obtained from Sigma-Aldrich. Preparation of the Goretex®, Mitex™, polyethylene (PE) and polypropylene (PP) membranes prior to Pt coating was similar to previous work described by Winther-Jensen et al entitled ‘High rates of oxygen reduction over a vapor phase-polymerized PEDOT electrode’ in Science 2008; 321:671-4. Maleic anhydride was grafted onto the hydrophobic surface of the membranes to ensure good bonding to the gold conducting layer, using plasma polymerisation as earlier reported in the aforementioned article and by Ademovic Z et al, in and article entitled ‘Surface modification of PET films using pulsed AC plasma polymerisation aimed at preventing protein adsorption’ in Plasma Processes Polym 2005; 2:53-63. The gold was sputtered onto the plasma treated membranes and its thickness was optimised to give a surface resistance ˜5 Ohm/sq. The Pt was then sputtered on top of the gold layer at 28-30 mA for 60 sec. A traditional GDE was also studied for comparison; this was an ionomer free (LT-140EW-30% Pt on Vulcan XC-72, 0.5 mg cm−2) from E-TEK and used as supplied. SEM images were obtained using a JEOL 7100F Field Emission Gun Scanning Electron Microscope at 5 kV.


Electrode Assembly


The membrane was sandwiched with a gold strip using a conventional laminator. A 0.7 cm2 window in the laminate allowed access for electrolyte to the Pt coated side of the membrane and for the gas to breathe out to the adjacent chamber when mounted on the test cell with double-sided adhesive tape (FIG. 1).


Experimental Set-Up and Gas Measurement


Sodium p-toluene sulphonate (from Sigma Aldrich) 0.05 M pH 4 was used as an electrolyte. 30 ml of electrolyte was used in the test cell leaving 30 ml gas space above the electrolyte. A three electrode cell was set-up using a saturated calomel reference electrode (SCE) and carbon rod or Pt counter electrode. A multi-channel potentiostat (VMP2 from Princeton Applied Research) was used for the constant-current electrolysis. The distance between the electrodes is 1.5 cm and the potential during operation of all working electrodes was typically ˜2-2.4 V vs SCE.


The Micro-Oxygen Electrode was purchased from eDAQ and used to monitor O2 evolution from the electrolysis reactions. It was calibrated at 21% O2 in air and 0% O2 in pure nitrogen gas. The slope from the calibration was 10.3 mV equals 1% O2. The amount of H2 was measured using gas chromatography (SRI 310C, MS-5A column, TCD, Ar carrier).


Results


The test cell was set up as shown in Scheme 1. Firstly, the experiments were focused on WO. Pt coated membrane was used as the anode and the liberated O2 was monitored using a Micro-Oxygen Electrode placed in the chamber (60 ml) on the back side of the membrane (Scheme 1). Several seconds after 10 mA current was applied to the cell, bubbles started to form on the counter electrode (carbon rod). On the anode side, bubbles were not observed on the working area when Goretex® membrane was used. This suggested that the major portion of the O2 was able to escape to the back side of the membrane. Some bubble formation was observed on the working area when the other membranes were used. The O2 content of the back side chamber steadily increased during electrolysis for both Pt-coated Au/Goretex® and Au/Mitex™ electrodes, but remained unchanged for the GDE (FIG. 2), suggesting no O2 production in the latter case. The studies by Chaparro et al (Chaparro A M, Mueller N, Atienza C, Daza L. Study of electrochemical instabilities of PEMFC electrodes in aqueous solution by means of membrane inlet mass spectrometry. J Electroanal Chem 2006; 591:69-73) and Jang and Kim (Jang S E, Kim H. Effect of water electrolysis catalysts on carbon corrosion in polymer electrolyte membrane fuel cells. J Am Chem Soc 2010; 132:14700-1) support this observation with the GDE as they showed the electrochemical oxidation of carbon on the GDE in presence of water at oxidative potentials (Chaparro A M, Mueller N, Atienza C, Daza L. Study of electrochemical instabilities of PEMFC electrodes in aqueous solution by means of membrane inlet mass spectrometry. J Electroanal Chem 2006; 591:69-73; and Jang S E, Kim H. Effect of water electrolysis catalysts on carbon corrosion in polymer electrolyte membrane fuel cells. J Am Chem Soc 2010; 132:14700-1).


The O2 evolution rate from the Pt-coated Au/Goretex® electrode was the highest, indicating that the coated Goretex® electrode is the most efficient in emitting gaseous O2 from the WO reaction.


Further investigation was performed by monitoring the O2 evolution in the head space above the electrolyte, in the front chamber, during water splitting with the Pt-coated Au/Goretex® electrode. The result (FIG. 3) showed no measurable increase in O2 above the electrolyte, indicating a very high efficiency in removing it into the back chamber. The Faradaic efficiency in these experiments was 90±3%.


In order to understand the “breathing” ability of each membrane, scanning electron microscopy was performed as shown in FIG. 4.


As expected, Pt nanoparticles were well distributed on the membrane surfaces. The images of the GDE showed dense, packed structure with Pt nanoparticles ranging from 65 to 100 nm. The size of the sputtered Pt nanoparticles was in the range of 30-40 nm on Mitex™ and Goretex® membranes. The Mitex™ 10 μm images showed inconsistent pore size and distribution, whereas Goretex® has a fine pore size (˜1×10 μm) with consistent distribution. The Goretex® structure is believed to contribute to its higher performance observed in the water splitting experiments.


As a control experiment, a non-porous substrate consisting of Pt-coated Au mylar was used as an anode in a single chamber set-up with the oxygen probe placed above the electrolyte. The O2 produced in this experiment was much lower (0.48 μmol/min) than when using the Pt-coated Au/Goretex® (1.35 μmol/min) in the two chambers set-up. The Faradaic efficiency from this control experiment was only 31%. This indicates the degree of oxygen shuttling between the electrodes that are present in this cell configuration, having no separator, when a non-porous electrode is used.


In another experiment the Pt-coated Au mylar was used as the anode and Pt-coated Au/Goretex® as the cathode, ie as the H2 producing electrode. There was no H2 bubble formation observed on the cathode. The Faradaic efficiency of O2 evolution in this experiment was 61%. When Pt-coated Au/Goretex® electrodes were used for both anode and cathode, so that both gases were removed from the cell, the Faradaic efficiency was increased to 92%. H2 detected in this experiment was found to be close to 2:1 stoichiometric ratio within measurement error (±7%). This suggests that in an optimized cell and gas flow configuration it may be practical to avoid the use of a separator in these cells.


Although Goretex® initially was found to be the best among the three membranes tested, certainly there are membranes with different hydrophobicity and various pore sizes and shapes which can be used. A number of these possibilities were tested in an additional experiment. Here polyethylene (PE, Celgard 880 (0.1×1μ poresize)) and polypropylene (PP) mesh (5μ poresize) and PP non-woven (5μ poresize) membranes were tested in similar way as described above (see FIG. 5). The Celgard 880 performed nearly as good as the Goretex® as seen from the increase in oxygen measured on the back chamber of the setup, which correspond to a faradaic efficiency of 82%. The two PP membranes were less efficient (51% and 41% respectively), however clearly showed that this material can be used for the membrane structure.


Stability Test of CdS on Ti/Au/Goretex and Baseline Test Using Ti/Au/Goretex.


CdS/Ti/Au/Goretex or Ti/Au/Goretex (0.5 cm2) was laminated and sandwiched between two plastic bottles. The front chamber was filled up with 0.05 M NaPTS pH 6.75 30 ml. An oxygen sensor was placed in the gas chamber. Black cloth was used to cover the plastic chamber to protect the light directly shining on the DO probe. Asahi lamp was used to shine the light on the sample. Each data point was collected after the following procedure: N2 gas was used to purged the electrolyte for about 15 min or until stable baseline was achieved and in the same time O2 was flushed into the back chamber, immediately after removal of N2 (and the hole was sealed) the light was shone on the sample for 7 min, O2 was then removed (and the hole was sealed) with the light continued to shine for another 5 min. This process has been repeated for 39 cycles. The O2 increased was monitored and typical graph was shown in FIG. 6.


The data was then plotted as the rate of O2 increased (increased in O2 reading over, typically, 12 min light exposure) versus light exposed time (FIG. 7). From FIG. 7 it can be seen that the O2 evolution rate from CdS/Ti/Au/Goretex electrode was higher than from the Ti/Au/Goretex baseline and stable for more than 8 hours. This result should be compared to the usual degradation of CdS within several minutes under light/oxygen evolution.


The surface treatment, using polyacid and plasma polymerisation, is also a vital step to ensure a good cohesion between the catalyst and the membrane. It also opens the route to deposit the catalyst onto hydrophobic membranes. The possibility of merging this technology with some of the non-precious metal and metal oxide catalysts (Pletcher D, Li X. Prospects for alkaline zero gap water electrolysers for hydrogen production. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2011; 36:15089-104) that have limited possible use in PEM electrolysers will lead to a facile and cost efficient water splitting device. It is also possible to use this approach to enhance the lifetime of photo-active electro-catalysts, many of which are sensitive to the presence of oxygen bubbles.


While this invention has been described in connection with specific embodiments thereof, it will be understood that it is capable of further modification(s). This application is intended to cover any variations uses or adaptations of the invention following in general, the principles of the invention and including such departures from the present disclosure as come within known or customary practice within the art to which the invention pertains and as may be applied to the essential features hereinbefore set forth.


As the present invention may be embodied in several forms without departing from the spirit of the essential characteristics of the invention, it should be understood that the above described embodiments are not to limit the present invention unless otherwise specified, but rather should be construed broadly within the spirit and scope of the invention as defined in the appended claims. The described embodiments are to be considered in all respects as illustrative only and not restrictive.


Various modifications and equivalent arrangements are intended to be included within the spirit and scope of the invention and appended claims. Therefore, the specific embodiments are to be understood to be illustrative of the many ways in which the principles of the present invention may be practiced. In the following claims, means-plus-function clauses are intended to cover structures as performing the defined function and not only structural equivalents, but also equivalent structures.


“Comprises/comprising” and “includes/including” when used in this specification is taken to specify the presence of stated features, integers, steps or components but does not preclude the presence or addition of one or more other features, integers, steps, components or groups thereof. Thus, unless the context clearly requires otherwise, throughout the description and the claims, the words ‘comprise’, ‘comprising’, ‘includes’, ‘including’ and the like are to be construed in an inclusive sense as opposed to an exclusive or exhaustive sense; that is to say, in the sense of “including, but not limited to”.

Claims
  • 1. A method of splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen in a water-splitting electrolysis cell, the method comprising: combining a first electrode having a conducting layer on a surface of a porous gas-permeable hydrophobic polymer membrane and a catalyst over the conducting layer with a counter-electrode in an electrochemical cell containing an aqueous electrolyte;applying a current to the electrochemical cell to produce hydrogen gas and oxygen gas from the aqueous electrolyte; andseparately collecting the produced hydrogen gas directly from the first electrode and oxygen gas from the counter-electrode.
  • 2. The method of claim 1, wherein collecting the hydrogen gas comprises collecting the hydrogen gas directly from the porous gas-permeable hydrophobic polymer membrane.
  • 3. The method of claim 1, wherein the conducting layer is gold.
  • 4. The method of claim 1, further comprising performing a surface treatment on the porous gas-permeable hydrophobic polymer membrane prior to applying the conducting layer to the surface.
  • 5. The method of claim 4, wherein the surface treatment comprises a plasma treatment.
  • 6. The method of claim 4, wherein the surface treatment comprises a polyacid treatment.
  • 7. The method of claim 6, wherein the surface treatment comprises treating the membrane with maleic anhydride.
  • 8. The method of claim 1, wherein the catalyst layer comprises platinum.
  • 9. The method of claim 1, wherein the catalyst is a metal or a metal compound.
  • 10. The method of claim 9, wherein the catalyst comprises one or more of the following: Pd, Ru, Ir, Mn, Fe, Ni, Co, NiOx, Mn complexes, Fe complexes, MoSx, CdS, CdSe, and GaAs.
  • 11. The method of claim 1, wherein the polymer membrane is a polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) membrane.
  • 12. The method of claim 1, wherein the polymer membrane comprises one or more of polyethylene (PE), polypropylene (PP), poly n-butyl methacrylate (PnBMA), polytrifluoroethylene, nylon, polybutadiene, and polychlorotrifluoroethylene (PCTFE).
  • 13. The method of claim 1, wherein the polymer membrane comprises one or more of polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS), poly t-butyl methacrylate (PtBMA), fluorinated ethylene propylene (FEP), hexatriacontane, paraffin, poly(hexafluoropropylene), and polyisobutylene (PIB, butyl rubber).
  • 14. The method of claim 1, wherein the porous membrane has a pore size of less than 0.5 μm.
  • 15. The method of claim 14, wherein the porous membrane has a pore size of less than 0.1 μm.
  • 16. The method of claim 15, wherein the porous membrane has a pore size of less than 0.05 μm.
  • 17. The method of claim 1, wherein the porous membrane has a contact angle greater than 90°.
  • 18. The method of claim 1, wherein the porous membrane has a contact angle from 100° to 115°.
CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS

This application is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 14/406,797, which is a United States national phase of international patent application No. PCT/AU2012/000668, filed Jun. 12, 2012, the entire disclosures of which are hereby incorporated herein by reference.

US Referenced Citations (206)
Number Name Date Kind
1721407 Rodolphe Jul 1929 A
3284243 Von Sturm Nov 1966 A
3342639 Rodolphe Sep 1967 A
3410770 Buechler Nov 1968 A
3553029 Kordesch et al. Jan 1971 A
3697410 Johnson et al. Oct 1972 A
3847567 Kalina Nov 1974 A
3854994 Binder et al. Dec 1974 A
3905884 Parenti, Jr. et al. Sep 1975 A
3923629 Shaffer Dec 1975 A
3980545 De Lachaux et al. Sep 1976 A
4020389 Dickson et al. Apr 1977 A
4042481 Kelly Aug 1977 A
4048383 Clifford Sep 1977 A
4077863 Nasser Mar 1978 A
4086155 Jonville Apr 1978 A
4091176 Alfenaar May 1978 A
4091177 Heffler May 1978 A
4299682 Oda et al. Nov 1981 A
4394244 Divisek et al. Jul 1983 A
4407907 Takamura et al. Oct 1983 A
4431494 Mcintyre Feb 1984 A
4432859 Andreassen et al. Feb 1984 A
4451347 Wullenweber May 1984 A
4526818 Hoshikawa et al. Jul 1985 A
4564427 Gruver et al. Jan 1986 A
4568442 Goldsmith Feb 1986 A
4581116 Plowman et al. Apr 1986 A
4585532 Martin et al. Apr 1986 A
4586999 Goldsmith et al. May 1986 A
4650554 Gordon Mar 1987 A
4656103 Reichman et al. Apr 1987 A
4684353 Desouza Aug 1987 A
4720331 Billings Jan 1988 A
4722773 Plowman et al. Feb 1988 A
4790915 Winsel et al. Dec 1988 A
4846952 Gardner, Sr. et al. Jul 1989 A
4865925 Ludwig et al. Sep 1989 A
4895634 Giuffre et al. Jan 1990 A
4936972 Lohberg Jun 1990 A
5104497 Tetzlaff et al. Apr 1992 A
5169612 Nielsen Dec 1992 A
5242765 Naimer et al. Sep 1993 A
5300206 Allen et al. Apr 1994 A
5336570 Dodge, Jr. Aug 1994 A
5376253 Rychen et al. Dec 1994 A
5395501 Rohrbacker et al. Mar 1995 A
5396253 Chia Mar 1995 A
5423967 Kunimatsu et al. Jun 1995 A
5538608 Furuya Jul 1996 A
5650058 Wenske Jul 1997 A
5650243 Ferment Jul 1997 A
5693202 Gestermann et al. Dec 1997 A
5843297 Schmid et al. Dec 1998 A
5998057 Koschany Dec 1999 A
6008449 Cole Dec 1999 A
6033549 Peinecke et al. Mar 2000 A
6045942 Miekka et al. Apr 2000 A
6110334 Lohrberg Aug 2000 A
6127061 You-Keung et al. Oct 2000 A
6165332 Gestermann et al. Dec 2000 A
6203676 Phillips et al. Mar 2001 B1
6317248 Agrawal et al. Nov 2001 B1
6368473 Furuya et al. Apr 2002 B1
6444347 Ouvry et al. Sep 2002 B1
6503656 Bannai et al. Jan 2003 B1
6733639 Busse et al. May 2004 B2
7001688 Ito et al. Feb 2006 B2
7049803 Dörner et al. May 2006 B2
7220513 Rohwer et al. May 2007 B2
7229944 Shao-horn et al. Jun 2007 B2
7245414 Liang et al. Jul 2007 B2
7314539 Brand et al. Jan 2008 B2
7326329 Gomez Feb 2008 B2
7357852 Woudenberg et al. Apr 2008 B2
7459065 Kelly et al. Dec 2008 B2
7498099 Otohata et al. Mar 2009 B2
7651602 Helmke et al. Jan 2010 B2
8123915 Richards et al. Feb 2012 B2
8182959 Du et al. May 2012 B2
8241818 Ji Aug 2012 B2
8329008 Maekawa et al. Dec 2012 B2
8349151 Schmitt et al. Jan 2013 B2
8349165 Tanaka et al. Jan 2013 B2
8940151 Hartvigsen et al. Jan 2015 B1
9252449 Shinohara et al. Feb 2016 B2
9708719 Swiegers et al. Jul 2017 B2
9871255 Swiegers et al. Jan 2018 B2
9938627 Winther-Jensen et al. Apr 2018 B2
10026967 Swiegers et al. Jul 2018 B2
10224552 Bulan et al. Mar 2019 B2
10297834 Swiegers et al. May 2019 B2
10355283 Swiegers et al. Jul 2019 B2
20020068215 Hamada et al. Jun 2002 A1
20020150812 Kaz et al. Oct 2002 A1
20020153262 Uno et al. Oct 2002 A1
20030035990 Washima Feb 2003 A1
20030162072 Oosterkamp Aug 2003 A1
20040040838 Helmke et al. Mar 2004 A1
20040229107 Smedley Nov 2004 A1
20040262153 Pinter et al. Dec 2004 A1
20050003255 Shimizu et al. Jan 2005 A1
20050036941 Bae et al. Feb 2005 A1
20050106450 Castro et al. May 2005 A1
20050126924 Gomez Jun 2005 A1
20050130023 Lebowitz et al. Jun 2005 A1
20060228606 Fiebig et al. Oct 2006 A1
20060272698 Durvasula Dec 2006 A1
20070015040 Li et al. Jan 2007 A1
20070080069 Melosi Apr 2007 A1
20070099072 Hennige et al. May 2007 A1
20070131556 Lambie Jun 2007 A1
20070196702 Sridhar et al. Aug 2007 A1
20070231669 Ghosh Oct 2007 A1
20070246351 Smola et al. Oct 2007 A1
20070289707 Rohland et al. Dec 2007 A1
20080014491 Yajima et al. Jan 2008 A1
20080032181 Yamamoto Feb 2008 A1
20080070076 Makita et al. Mar 2008 A1
20080155813 Dopp et al. Jul 2008 A1
20080160357 Pashley et al. Jul 2008 A1
20080169188 Gil et al. Jul 2008 A1
20080206615 Nicotera et al. Aug 2008 A1
20080223439 Deng et al. Sep 2008 A1
20080226966 Dillard et al. Sep 2008 A1
20080248350 Little et al. Oct 2008 A1
20080264780 Kato et al. Oct 2008 A1
20080311463 Park et al. Dec 2008 A1
20090000574 Sugimasa et al. Jan 2009 A1
20090008261 Kotzeva et al. Jan 2009 A1
20090035631 Zagaja et al. Feb 2009 A1
20090052129 Tsai Feb 2009 A1
20090061267 Monzyk et al. Mar 2009 A1
20090078568 Ramaswami et al. Mar 2009 A1
20090081501 Vu et al. Mar 2009 A1
20090101521 Bayer et al. Apr 2009 A1
20090151150 Ayala et al. Jun 2009 A1
20090152118 Sugimasa et al. Jun 2009 A1
20090153465 Shinn et al. Jun 2009 A1
20090162714 Nakanishi et al. Jun 2009 A1
20090165933 Lösch et al. Jul 2009 A1
20090233153 Carlisle et al. Sep 2009 A1
20090272648 Pratt Nov 2009 A1
20090294283 Norman et al. Dec 2009 A1
20090305084 Crookes et al. Dec 2009 A1
20090325014 Newkirk Dec 2009 A1
20100009232 Rajantie et al. Jan 2010 A1
20100032221 Storey Feb 2010 A1
20100039594 Golan et al. Feb 2010 A1
20100130776 Christensen et al. May 2010 A1
20100155258 Kirk et al. Jun 2010 A1
20100196800 Markoski et al. Aug 2010 A1
20100219077 Sohn Sep 2010 A1
20100288647 Highgate Nov 2010 A1
20100314038 Tanuma Dec 2010 A1
20100314261 Perry Dec 2010 A1
20110024289 Bulan et al. Feb 2011 A1
20110042228 Hinatsu et al. Feb 2011 A1
20110229790 Sato et al. Sep 2011 A1
20110233072 Deptala et al. Sep 2011 A1
20110244358 Yamauchi et al. Oct 2011 A1
20110253526 McAlister Oct 2011 A1
20110311903 Bulan et al. Dec 2011 A1
20120003552 Barnett et al. Jan 2012 A1
20120009331 Kwon et al. Jan 2012 A1
20120021303 Amendola et al. Jan 2012 A1
20120028154 Owejan et al. Feb 2012 A1
20120040254 Amendola et al. Feb 2012 A1
20120115049 Rinzler et al. May 2012 A1
20120149789 Greenbaum Jun 2012 A1
20120183879 Okada et al. Jul 2012 A1
20120237848 Mittelsteadt et al. Sep 2012 A1
20120308807 Edwards Dec 2012 A1
20120321988 Sharman Dec 2012 A1
20130017414 He Jan 2013 A1
20130017470 Hotta et al. Jan 2013 A1
20130078536 Bulan et al. Mar 2013 A1
20130092532 Monzyk et al. Apr 2013 A1
20130101923 Darling Apr 2013 A1
20130183591 Dickson Jul 2013 A1
20130189592 Roumi et al. Jul 2013 A1
20130206609 Anagnostopoulos Aug 2013 A1
20130313126 Raatschen et al. Nov 2013 A1
20140048423 Swiegers et al. Feb 2014 A1
20150001067 Mantai et al. Jan 2015 A1
20150013225 Al-muhaish et al. Jan 2015 A1
20150041410 Niksa et al. Feb 2015 A1
20150047988 Kettner et al. Feb 2015 A1
20150151985 Johnson et al. Jun 2015 A1
20150222002 Graves et al. Aug 2015 A1
20150292094 Swiegers et al. Oct 2015 A1
20150349350 Liu et al. Dec 2015 A1
20160121752 Takeyama May 2016 A1
20160312370 Swiegers et al. Oct 2016 A1
20160322649 Swiegers et al. Nov 2016 A1
20160376173 Swiegers et al. Dec 2016 A1
20170200561 Swiegers et al. Jul 2017 A1
20170356094 Winther-Jensen et al. Dec 2017 A1
20180138517 Swiegers et al. May 2018 A1
20180363151 Swiegers et al. Dec 2018 A1
20180363154 Swiegers et al. Dec 2018 A1
20180371630 Swiegers et al. Dec 2018 A1
20190006695 Swiegers et al. Jan 2019 A1
20190027759 Swiegers et al. Jan 2019 A1
20190157685 Swiegers et al. May 2019 A1
20190256991 Swiegers et al. Aug 2019 A1
Foreign Referenced Citations (87)
Number Date Country
2062739 Dec 1990 CA
1333579 Dec 1994 CA
2238738 Apr 2010 CA
101906642 Dec 2010 CN
29823321 Aug 1999 DE
0014596 Sep 1983 EP
0047792 Dec 1988 EP
0144002 Jan 1989 EP
0580072 Jan 1994 EP
1843415 Oct 2007 EP
1985727 Oct 2008 EP
1658652 Jan 2011 EP
1337690 Apr 2011 EP
2877731 Jan 2007 FR
679334 Sep 1952 GB
957168 May 1964 GB
1267619 Mar 1972 GB
1367810 Sep 1974 GB
1387794 Mar 1975 GB
1542690 Mar 1979 GB
S5375173 Jul 1978 JP
S5687684 Jul 1981 JP
S58516 Jan 1983 JP
H05198319 Aug 1993 JP
H05266932 Oct 1993 JP
H0737559 Feb 1995 JP
H0754181 Feb 1995 JP
H07211323 Aug 1995 JP
H07258877 Oct 1995 JP
H081165 Jan 1996 JP
H08264186 Oct 1996 JP
H08325772 Dec 1996 JP
H1142481 Feb 1999 JP
3051893 Jun 2000 JP
3072333 Jul 2000 JP
3122734 Jan 2001 JP
3324943 Sep 2002 JP
2004225148 Aug 2004 JP
2004250736 Sep 2004 JP
2004292284 Oct 2004 JP
2007526948 Sep 2007 JP
2012036413 Feb 2012 JP
2012041578 Mar 2012 JP
5040097 Oct 2012 JP
93804 May 2010 RU
WO 1981000032 Jan 1981 WO
WO 2000034184 Jun 2000 WO
WO 2000044057 Jul 2000 WO
WO 2001066362 Sep 2001 WO
WO 2001071842 Sep 2001 WO
WO 2001085635 Nov 2001 WO
WO 2002014224 Feb 2002 WO
WO 2002025324 Mar 2002 WO
WO 2002038833 May 2002 WO
WO 2003042430 May 2003 WO
WO 2003047011 Jun 2003 WO
WO 2004003645 Jan 2004 WO
WO 2004076721 Sep 2004 WO
WO 2007002989 Jan 2007 WO
WO 2008036962 Mar 2008 WO
WO 2009015127 Jan 2009 WO
WO 2011089904 Jul 2011 WO
WO 2011094295 Aug 2011 WO
WO 2011146558 Nov 2011 WO
WO 2012023535 Feb 2012 WO
WO 2012075546 Jun 2012 WO
WO 2012122600 Sep 2012 WO
WO 2013037902 Mar 2013 WO
WO 2013066331 May 2013 WO
WO 2013185163 Dec 2013 WO
WO 2013185169 Dec 2013 WO
WO 2013185170 Dec 2013 WO
WO 2014082170 Jun 2014 WO
WO 2014088628 Jun 2014 WO
WO 2015013764 Feb 2015 WO
WO 2015013765 Feb 2015 WO
WO 2015013766 Feb 2015 WO
WO 2015013767 Feb 2015 WO
WO 2015085363 Jun 2015 WO
WO 2015085364 Jun 2015 WO
WO 2015085369 Jun 2015 WO
WO 2017100841 Jun 2017 WO
WO 2017100842 Jun 2017 WO
WO 2017100845 Jun 2017 WO
WO 2017100846 Jun 2017 WO
WO 2018213889 Nov 2018 WO
WO 2018213891 Nov 2018 WO
Non-Patent Literature Citations (62)
Entry
Chaparro et al., Study of electrochemical instabilities of PEMFC electrodes in aqueous solution by means of membrane inlet mass spectrometry, Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry 591 (2006), pp. 69-73.
International Search Report and Written Opinion of the ISA/AU for PCT/AU2012/000668 dated Jul. 17, 2012, 11 pages.
Ioroi et al., Influence of PTFE coating on gas diffusion backing for unitized regenerative polymer electrolyte fuel cells, Journal of Power Sources 124 (2003), pp. 385-389.
Jang et al., Effect of water electrolysis catalysts on carbon corrosion in polymer electrolyte membrane fuel cells, J. Am. Chem. Soc. (2010), 132, 14700-701.
Jiang et al., A planar microfabricated electrolyzer for hydrogen and oxygen generation, Journal of Power Sources 188 (2009), pp. 256-260.
Kato et al., Highly efficient water splitting into H2 and O2 over lanthanum-doped NaTaO3 photocatalysts with high crystallinity and surface nanostructure, J. Am. Chem. Soc. (2003), 125, 3082-3089.
Kudo et al., Heterogeneous photocatalyst materials for water splitting, Chem. Soc. Rev., 2009, 38, pp. 253-278.
Marangio et al., Concept of a high pressure PEM electrolyser prototype, International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 36 (2011), pp. 7807-7815.
Marini et al., Advanced alkaline water electrolysis, Elsevier Ltd. (2012), pp. 384-391.
Mohapatra et al., Design of a highly efficient photoelectric cell for hydrogen generation by water splitting: application of TiO2-xCx nanotubes as a photoanode and Pt/TiO2 nanotubes as a cathode, J. Phys. Chem. C2007, 111, pp. 8677-8685.
Nieminen et al., Comparative performance analysis of PEM and solid oxide steam electrolysers, International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 35 (2010), pp. 10842-10850.
Osterloh, Inorganic materials as catalysts for photochemical splitting of water, Chem. Mater. 2008, 20, pp. 35-54.
Pletcher et al., Prospects for alkaline zero gap water electrolysers for hydrogen production, International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 36 (2011), pp. 15089-15104.
Tributsch, Photovoltaic hydrogen generation, International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 33 (2008), pp. 5911-5930.
USPTO, Non-Final Office Action dated Mar. 23, 2017 in U.S. Appl. No. 14/407,014, 9 pages.
USPTO, Final Office Action dated Aug. 17, 2017 in U.S. Appl. No. 14/407,014, 9 pages.
Winther-Jensen et al., High rates of oxygen reduction over a vapor phase-polymerized PEDOT electrode, Science 321, Aug. 2008, pp. 671-674.
Winther-Jensen et al. (2012) “Towards hydrogen production using a breathable electrode structure to directly separate gases in the water splitting reaction,” Elsevier Ltd., International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 37: 8185-8189.
Yin et al., Enhanced solar water-splitting efficiency using core/sheath heterostructure CdS/TiO2 nanotube arrays, Nanotechnology 18 (2007) 495608, pp. 1-6.
Zeng et al., Recent progress in alkaline water electrolysis for hydrogen production and applications, Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 36 (2010, pp. 307-326.
Bolwin et al. (1995) “Preparation of porous electrodes and laminated electrode-membrane structures for polymer electrolyte fuel cells (PEFC),” Solid State Ionics 77: 324-330.
Brimblecombe et al. (2010) “A tandem water-splitting devise based on a bio-inspired manganese catalyst,” Chemistry and Sustainability 3:1146-1150.
Brimblecombe et al. (2010) “Solar driven water oxidation by a bioinspired manganese molecular catalyst,” J Am Chem Soc. 132(9):2892-2894.
Brussieux et al. (2011) “Controlled Electorchemical Gas Bubble Release from Electrodes Entirely and Partially Covered with Hydrophobic Materials,” Electrochemica Acta 56: 7194-7201.
De Gregorio et al. (2005) “A PTFE membrane for the in situ extraction of dissolved gases in natural waters: Theory and applications,” Geochemistry Geophysics Geosystems 6(9): 1-13.
Extended European Search Report, dated Jul. 22, 2019, corresponding to European Application No. 16874136.1 (filed Dec. 14, 2016), related to the present application, 6 pp.
Gillespie et al. (2015) “Performance evaluation of a membraneless divergent electrode-flow-through (DEFT) alkaline electrolyser based on optimisation of electrolytic flow and electrode gap,” Journal of Power Sources 293: 228-235.
Guo et al. (2009) “Chemical power sources battery principle and manufacturing technology,” Central South University Press, 1st ed: 8 pp.
International Search Report and Written Opinion of the ISA/AU for PCT/AU2013/000616 dated Jul. 10, 2013, 10 pages.
Kadyk et al. (Dec. 2016) “How to Enhance Gas Removal from Porous Electrodes?,” Scientific Reports 6: 1-14.
Maxwell (2012) “Passive Gas-Liquid Sepration Using Hydrophobic Porous Polymer Membranes: A study on the Effect of Operating Pressure on Membrane Area Requirement,” Univ. North Florida Graduate Thesis, 63 pp.
Notice of Allowance and Fee(s) Due, dated May 24, 2019, corresponding to U.S. Appl. No. 15/468,770, 7 pp.
Office Action issued by the Mexican Patent Office regarding related Mexican Patent Application No. MX/E/2017/048895, dated Oct. 16, 2017, 3 pages.
PCT International Search Report and Written Opinion dated Mar. 2, 2017 for PCT/AU2016/051234, 8 pp.
Search Report issued in European Application No. EP 16184214 dated Oct. 26, 2016 (5 pages).
U.S. Patent Office, Office Action dated Oct. 27, 2017 | U.S. Appl. No. 14/406,797, 9 pages.
U.S. Office Action, dated Jul. 16, 2019, corresponding to U.S. Appl. No. 15/850,279, 4 pp.
Vermeiren et al. (2009) “Electrode diaphragm electrode assembly for alkaline water electrolysers,” Int'l Journal of Hydrogen Energy 34: 9305-9315.
Wagner et al. (publicly available Dec. 2017) “An Electrochemical Cell with Gortex-based Electrodes Capable of Extracting Pure Hydrogen from Highly Dilute Hydrogen-Methan Mixtures,” Energy Environ. Sci. 11: 172-184 (published 2018).
Winther-Jensen et al. (2010) “Conducting Polymer Composite Materials for Hydrogen Generation,” Advanced Materials 22: 1727-1730.
U.S. Appl. No. 13/992,983, filed Oct. 28, 2013.
U.S. Appl. No. 14/406,797, filed Mar. 2, 2015.
U.S. Appl. No. 14/407,014, filed Dec. 10, 2014.
U.S. Appl. No. 14/564,910, filed Dec. 9, 2014.
U.S. Appl. No. 14/908,258, filed Jan. 28, 2016.
U.S. Appl. No. 14/908,334, filed Jan. 28, 2016.
U.S. Appl. No. 14/908,352, filed Jan. 28, 2016.
U.S. Appl. No. 14/908,444, filed Jan. 28, 2016.
U.S. Appl. No. 15/103,026, filed Jun. 9, 2016.
U.S. Appl. No. 15/103,042, filed Jun. 9, 2016.
U.S. Appl. No. 15/103,052, filed Jun. 9, 2016.
U.S. Appl. No. 15/468,770, filed Mar. 24, 2017.
U.S. Appl. No. 15/638,780, filed Jun. 30, 2017.
U.S. Appl. No. 15/850,279, filed Dec. 21, 2017.
U.S. Appl. No. 16/010,842, filed Jun. 18, 2018.
U.S. Appl. No. 16/061,975, filed Jun. 13, 2018.
U.S. Appl. No. 16/061,910, filed Jun. 13, 2018.
U.S. Appl. No. 16/062,019, filed Jun. 13, 2018.
U.S. Appl. No. 16/062,063, filed Jun. 13, 2018.
U.S. Appl. No. 16/198,477, filed Nov. 21, 2018.
U.S. Appl. No. 16/259,632, filed Jan. 28, 2019.
U.S. Appl. No. 14/406,797, filed Mar. 9, 2015.
Related Publications (1)
Number Date Country
20190093244 A1 Mar 2019 US
Continuations (1)
Number Date Country
Parent 14406797 US
Child 16146353 US