Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39138249›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2024

Characterisation of hydraulic properties of commercial gas diffusion layers: Toray, SGL, MGL, woven carbon cloth.

Grace Esu-Ejemot Aquah, Daniel Niblett, Javad Shokri, Vahid Niasar

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Grace Esu-Ejemot AquahDepartment of Chemical Engineering, University of Manchester, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK.
Daniel NiblettSchool of Engineering, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE1 7RU, UK.
Javad ShokriDepartment of Chemical Engineering, University of Manchester, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK.
Vahid NiasarDepartment of Chemical Engineering, University of Manchester, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK. vahid.niasar@manchester.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9472-555X

Funding

MPR | Petroleum Technology Development Fund (PTDF) PTDF/ED/OSS/PHD/GE A/1768/2020PHD076
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study utilises computational fluid dynamics simulations with the OpenFOAM computational framework to investigate and compare the in-plane and through-plane permeability properties of four different gas diffusion layers (GDLs). Also the through-plane water and air relative permeability values and water saturations at different rates were simulated. Permeability analysis enhances our understanding of fluid flow, ways to decrease pressure loss in the GDL, and methods to enhance oxygen concentration at the catalyst layer interface through convection. The analysis reveals that the investigated GDL materials have spatial heterogeneity of porosity and permeability, especially in the Sigracet SGL 25 BA GDL. However, the porosity and permeability of the Toray TGP-H 060 and AvCarb 370 MGL GDLs exhibit less variations. The two-phase flow studies on GDL saturation show that at the same water injection flowrate, the AvCarb 370 MGL GDL has the largest remaining water saturation, with Sigracet SGL 25 BA GDL being the less saturated GDL among the four investigated GDLs. The compression from the ribs significantly affected the in-plane permeabilities of both Toray TGP-H 060 and especially impacted Sigracet SGL 25 BA GDL. This impact was expected as the pore size distribution varied significantly in the areas under the ribs versus the channel.

Indexed as

Computational fluid dynamicsGas diffusion layerHydraulic permeabilityPore-scale simulation

Identifiers

PMID39138249
PMCPMC11322176

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.