% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded.  This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.

@ARTICLE{Karaoglan:866754,
      author       = {Karaoglan, Mustafa Umut and Coplan, Can Ozgur and Glüsen,
                      Andreas and Müller, Martin and Stolten, Detlef and Kuralay,
                      Nusret Sefa},
      title        = {{C}omparison of the {S}ingle-{C}ell {T}esting,
                      {S}hort-{S}tack {T}esting and {M}athematical {M}odeling
                      {M}ethods for a {D}irect {M}ethanol {F}uel {C}ell},
      journal      = {International journal of hydrogen energy},
      volume       = {46},
      number       = {6},
      issn         = {0360-3199},
      address      = {New York, NY [u.a.]},
      publisher    = {Elsevier},
      reportid     = {FZJ-2019-05823},
      pages        = {4844-4856},
      year         = {2021},
      abstract     = {In this paper, a comparison between direct methanol fuel
                      cell (DMFC) measurements performed on a single cell and a
                      short-stack, and the results of a mathematical model for a
                      DMFC, is presented. The testing of a short-stack, which
                      consists of 5 cells with an active area of 315 cm2, was
                      performed at various current densities, permeation current
                      densities, and cathode flow rates (CFR) in order to
                      determine the voltage outputs of each cell. Methanol
                      concentration and stack temperature results obtained from
                      short-stack testing were then integrated into the single
                      cell test and single cell mathematical model as the input
                      parameters. For the mathematical modelling, transport
                      equations originating from methanol, water, and oxygen were
                      coupled with the electrochemical relations. Therefore, a
                      comparison between these three methods is made in order to
                      gain a deeper understanding of the effects of the operating
                      parameters on DMFC performance. This study showed that the
                      model could describe experimental results well when lower
                      methanol concentrations (under 1.2 M) and temperature (under
                      60 °C) values are used as input parameters. The results
                      also show very good agreement at lower methanol permeation
                      rates and therefore lower temperatures. It is found that the
                      voltage output for a given current density is higher for the
                      theoretical model than that of the experimental studies; and
                      the differences in the results can be up to 0.04 V for a
                      cell. Previous article in issue},
      cin          = {IEK-14 / IEK-3},
      ddc          = {620},
      cid          = {I:(DE-Juel1)IEK-14-20191129 / I:(DE-Juel1)IEK-3-20101013},
      pnm          = {135 - Fuel Cells (POF3-135) / 1231 - Electrochemistry for
                      Hydrogen (POF4-123) / 1111 - Effective System Transformation
                      Pathways (POF4-111) / 1112 - Societally Feasible
                      Transformation Pathways (POF4-111)},
      pid          = {G:(DE-HGF)POF3-135 / G:(DE-HGF)POF4-1231 /
                      G:(DE-HGF)POF4-1111 / G:(DE-HGF)POF4-1112},
      typ          = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
      UT           = {WOS:000607531800016},
      doi          = {10.1016/j.ijhydene.2020.02.107},
      url          = {https://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/866754},
}