Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2021 Apr 22.
Published in final edited form as: Chem Rev. 2020 Mar 27;120(8):3749–3786. doi: 10.1021/acs.chemrev.9b00717

Table 3.

Performance comparison of a reported conventional PEM fuel cell, previously reported mediated cathode fuel cell systems, and results from Davies and coworkers.63

System Cathode material Cathode reaction Liquid Electrolyte OCP (V) Cell voltage @ 0.2 A/cm2 (V) Cell voltage @ 1 A/cm2 (V) Max power (W/cm2) Ref.
Conventional PEMFC Pt/C O2 + 4 e− + 4 H+ → 2 H2O None 0.96 0.81 0.67 ≥ 0.83 23
Mediated cathode (HNO3) N-doped carbon NO3− + 2 e− + 2 H+ → NO2− + H2O 5 M HNO3 1.04 0.95 0.46 0.51 129
Mediated cathode (POM) carbon VO2+ + e− → VO2+ 0.45 M POMa 0.83 0.68 0.46 0.51 96
Mediated cathode (POM) carbon VO2+ + e− → VO2+ 0.3 M HV3 @ 0.05 VIV 0.99 0.9 0.72 1 63
Mediated cathode (POM) carbon VO2+ + e− → VO2+ 0.3 M HV3 @ 0.65 VIV 0.78 0.72 0.5 0.58 63
Mediated cathode (POM) carbon VO2+ + e− → VO2+ 0.3 M HV3 @ steady stateb 0.81 0.73 – 0.36 63, 102
Mediated cathode (POM) carbon VO2+ + e− → VO2+ 0.3 M NaV4 @ steady stateb 0.80 0.75 0.53 0.58 63, 102
a

POM identity was not disclosed

b

Steady-state data was calculated from regeneration rates and cell data