Journal of Power Sources 375 (2018) 158e169

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Power Sources

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jpowsour

Review of cell performance in anion exchange membrane fuel cells

Dario R. Dekel
The Wolfson Department of Chemical Engineering, Nancy & Stephan Grand Technion Energy Program (GTEP), Technion e Israel Institute of Technology,
Haifa, 3200003, Israel

h i g h l i g h t s g r a p h i c a l a b s t r a c t

AEMFC performance reported in the

literature is reviewed and
summarized.

New high records in AEMFC perfor-
mance were achieved in the past
three years.

High power densities of 0.5 and
>1 W cm2 (Pt-free and Pt catalysts)
were achieved.

Wide range of fuels exhibit promising
cell performance in direct fuel
AEMFCs.

Performance stability is the major
remaining challenge in AEMFCs.

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Anion exchange membrane fuel cells (AEMFCs) have recently received increasing attention since in
Received 4 June 2017 principle they allow for the use of non-precious metal catalysts, which dramatically reduces the cost per
Received in revised form kilowatt of power in fuel cell devices. Until not long ago, the main barrier in the development of AEMFCs
30 July 2017
was the availability of highly conductive anion exchange membranes (AEMs); however, improvements
Accepted 31 July 2017
Available online 4 August 2017
on this front in the past decade show that newly developed AEMs have already reached high levels of
conductivity, leading to satisfactory cell performance. In recent years, a growing number of research
studies have reported AEMFC performance results. In the last three years, new records in performance
Keywords:
Anion exchange membrane fuel cells
were achieved. Most of the literature reporting cell performance is based on hydrogen-AEMFCs, although
Cell performance an increasing number of studies have also reported the use of fuels others than hydrogen - such as al-
Performance stability cohols, non-alcohol C-based fuels, as well as N-based fuels. This article reviews the cell performance and
Review performance stability achieved in AEMFCs through the years since the first reports in the early 2000s.
Fuel diversity © 2017 The Author. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND
license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

1. Introduction [8e13], hydroxide exchange membrane fuel cells (HEMFCs)

Anion exchange membrane fuel cells (AEMFCs) have been
referred to in various ways in the research community. Most
common terms found in the literature are alkaline membrane fuel
cells (AMFCs) [1e7], solid (or solid-state) alkaline fuel cells (SAFCs)
E-mail address: dario@technion.ac.il.
[14e15], alkaline polymer electrolyte fuel cells (APEFCs) [16e18],
and polymer electrolyte alkaline fuel cells (PEAFCs) [19]. AEMFCs
have recently gained significant interest and are a current focus in
the fuel cell research community [20]. This is well illustrated in
Fig. 1, which shows the number of publications in the AEMFC field
since the year 2000. A continuous and rapid increase in the number
of publications can be seen, particularly since 2010. More than 2000
publications were reported on this technology over the years, while

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jpowsour.2017.07.117
0378-7753/© 2017 The Author. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
 D.R. Dekel / Journal of Power Sources 375 (2018) 158e169
Fig. 1. Number of research articles published on AEMFCs (a), and their distribution
according to their countries of origin (b). (Source: Web of Science. 2017* is an esti-
mation based on the number of articles published in the first months of the year).
the majority of them was recently published in just the past 5 years,
showing that this technology is currently a blooming research area
in fuel cell technology. Most of the studies in the AEMFC field have
been carried out in different countries around the world, with the
highest number of reports originating from China and the USA (see
Fig. 1).
The increased number of studies in the past few years indicates
a growing interest in the research community, driven by the several
advantages of the AEMFC technology over the currently commer-
cialized proton exchange membrane fuel cells (PEMFCs). Techni-
cally, AEMFCs are similar to PEMFCs, with the main difference being
that the solid membrane is an alkaline AEM instead of an acidic
PEM. With an AEM in an AEMFC, the OH anion is transported from
the cathode to the anode, opposite to the Hþ conduction direction
in a PEMFC (see Fig. 2). Although in principle both technologies are
similar, the use of an AEM creates an alkaline pH cell environment,
and therefore, the AEMFC offers several potential advantages over
the mature PEMFC technology. Among them, the following are
particularly noteworthy:
(a) Enhanced oxygen reduction catalysis, allowing for the use of
less expensive, Pt-free or precious group metal (PGM)-free
catalysts;
(b) Extended range of cell and stack materials stable in the fuel
cell environment;
(c) A wider choice of fuels in addition to pure hydrogen; and
(d) A wider range of less expensive polymer chemistry (fluori-
nated raw materials are not necessary).
As mentioned before, the use of an AEM in the fuel cell creates
an alkaline environment inside the cell. Therefore, the AEM is the
key differentiating element in the AEMFC device. AEMs are solid
polymer electrolytes that conduct anions, such as OH and car-
bonate anions, as they contain positively charged cationic groups
bounded to (or part of) a polymer backbone (see Fig. 2). Recent
years have seen extensive research on the preparation and prop-
erties of AEMs. Numerous studies on new chemistries have been
159
Fig. 2. Schematic of an AEMFC as compared to a PEMFC (top scheme), and of an AEM
based on a quaternary ammonium pendant functional group (bottom scheme).
reported. The different cationic functional groups and polymer
backbones used in typical AEMs for fuel cells are well summarized
in the literature [20e22]. Initially, most studies on AEMFCs focused
on the development of suitable AEMs, and only a small subset of
them reported data on cell performance and performance stability.
Before reviewing the state of the art in cell performance and
performance stability, it should be remarked that in an AEMFC, ions
and water are not transported in the same directions as in PEMFCs.
During the operation of an AEMFC, when ambient air is used,
several anions are present in the cell: HCO ¼ 
3 , CO3 , and OH . How-
ever, in an AEMFC operated at high current densities, the most
common anion species present across the membrane is the OH
[23], generated according to the electrochemical oxygen reduction
reaction (ORR) at the cathode:
½ O2 þ H2O þ2 e / 2 OH (1)
The OH is transported to the anode where, if hydrogen is used
as fuel, the following oxidation reaction takes place:
2 OH þ H2 / 2H2O þ 2 e (2)
In the overall reaction, both PEMFC and AEMFC produce water
as a byproduct. However, in contrast to PEMFC technology, in an
AEMFC water is generated at the anode (twice as much as in a
PEMFC, per electron), while at same time water is a reactant at the
cathode. This distinctive water transport scenario, together with
the high alkaline medium in AEMFCs, represent a unique feature of
AEMFCs. Fig. 3 shows a schematic drawing of these transport
characteristics in an AEMFC.
160 D.R. Dekel / Journal of Power Sources 375 (2018) 158e169

2. Performance of hydrogen-fueled AEMFCs

In spite of the large number of studies reported in the AEMFC

literature (Fig. 1), less than 10% of the publications show cell per-
formance results. However, enough data have been already re-
ported to note the consistent and positive progress of cell
performance achieved through the years.
Initially, the main concern in the AEMFC technology was the
relatively low conductivities of the AEMs. Indeed, in the first years
of development of AEMs for AEMFCs, the membrane anion con-
ductivities, as compared to the Hþ conductivity in their PEM
counterparts, were very low (5e20 mS cm1). These low conduc-
tivities were at the time explained by the fact that the diffusion
coefficient of Hþ ions is approximately four times higher than that
of OH ions, so it was believed that in order to reach similar con-
ductivities to the Hþ in PEMs, a much higher ion exchange capacity
was needed in AEMs. Based on the low-OH--conducting AEMs of
those first years of development, the first studies on AEMFC per-
formance were then reported. Among these pioneering works
showing polarization curves for electrolyte liquid-free AEMFCs,
were the studies published by Agel et al. [24] and by Varcoe and
Slade [25]. Fig. 4 shows the polarization curves described by the
authors.
Although the cell performance obtained in those very first
studies was low, these reports demonstrated for the first time that
the AEMFC concept was indeed feasible. At that time, these first
studies broke new ground for the following studies on AEMs for
fuel cells and encouraged further research on this new and prom-
ising field of fuel cell technology. In the first years of development,
to overcome the problem of limited OH conductivity, most of the
efforts in AEMFC research were devoted to the study and devel-
opment of new polymer chemistries (mainly backbones and func-
tional groups), in order to increase the final anion conductivity of
new and improved AEMs for fuel cell applications. Thanks to these
groundbreaking developments, significant advances were made
through the years, leading to more AEMFC tests showing cell per-
formance as more AEMs with higher conductivity were achieved.
Fig. 5 depicts a summary of all H2-AEMFC performances published
in the literature since the year 2000. Two main indicators were
plotted as a general indication of cell performance: peak power
Fig. 4. First cell performance tests appeared in early days of development of AEMFC
technology. Data adapted from Agel et al. [24] (black curves; reported AEM conduc-
tivity of 0.1 mS cm1) and from Varcoe and Slade [25] (red curves; reported AEM
conductivity of 14 mS cm1). (For interpretation of the references to colour in this
figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
density and limiting current density. Clearly, these indicators alone
are not enough to get a complete picture of the cell performance;
however, they provide solid evidence of the progress over the years.
In the period 2000e2017, nearly 100 research studies showing
H2-AEMFC performance data were published. All those studies
showed polarization curves at the beginning of the cell life. As can
be seen in Fig. 5, a continuous increase of higher performance data
was reported during the past few years, with new records achieved
in the past three years. Fig. 5c illustrates the relationship between
the two selected performance indicators (summarized in Fig. 5a
and b), from all performance data reported for AEMFCs during the
period 2000e2017. In contrast to the cell performance shown for
the first decade of research, recent results indeed confirm that the
reported AEMFC performance has made a significant progress.
Lately, several reports exhibited peak power densities above
700 mW cm2 and limiting current densities above 2 A cm2. Fig. 6
shows selected cell performance data (single cell polarization
curves and power density vs. current density) illustrating the rapid

Fig. 3. Schematic diagram of an H2-AEMFC and the main species transported through the cell.
 D.R. Dekel / Journal of Power Sources 375 (2018) 158e169 161

Fig. 6. Selected H2-AEMFC performance curves reported in the literature since 2000.
Data adapted from Ref. [26] (2006) [27], (2007) [28], (2010) [29], (2012) [30], (2013)
[31], (2015) [32], (2016) [33], (2017 orange), and [34] (2017 red). (For interpretation of
the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version
of this article.)

In Fig. 7 it can be seen that over the last decade, developments in

Fig. 5. (a) Peak power density and (b) limiting current density reported in the AEMFC
literature for hydrogen fuel; and (c) peak power density-limiting current density
summary plot of all AEMFC performance data published from the year 2000 up to the
present.
anion conducting polymers and membranes led to a significant
increase in OH conductivities that now approach the levels of Hþ
conductivity observed in low-pH PEM equivalents.
It is worth noting that the vast majority of AEMFC performance
reports in Fig. 5 were obtained using pure oxygen as the cathode
oxidant gas. The remaining performance studies in the literature
used air instead of pure oxygen; however, the air was either CO2-
free air (synthetic air, sometimes also called pure air), or CO2-

progress in AEMFC performance achieved throughout the years.

The chronological progress in cell performance in Fig. 6 looks
remarkable. In only a decade, the reported AEMFC performance
showed significant improvements. As a general indication, current
densities at 0.8 V increased from 40 to 70 mA cm2 in the publi-
cations up to the year 2007, to 450e620 mA cm2 in the years
2016e2017. Similarly, limiting current densities and peak power
densities increased from 60 to 220 mA cm2 and
20e120 mW cm2, to more than 2500 mA cm2 and
1000 mW cm2, respectively in the same period of time.
This striking performance improvement is mainly due to the
ongoing progress made in the development of AEMs with higher
anion conductivity. This progress is illustrated in Fig. 7, which
shows a summary of AEM conductivity values reported in the
literature in the past decade. Fig. 7. Anion conductivities reported in the literature for AEMs in the past decade.
162 D.R. Dekel / Journal of Power Sources 375 (2018) 158e169

filtered air (see Fig. 8).

The main reason for this very low number of performance tests
made with atmospheric air is the need to characterize the cell
performance without the negative effect of the carbonation process
when ambient air is fed to the cell. When using ambient air, the
carbonation process occurs because of the presence of CO2 [2], [35].
This carbonation process in the solid electrolyte AEMFC does not
include salt precipitation since cations in AEMs are fixed to the
membrane backbone; however, it causes a reduction in the anion
diffusion coefficient and anion conductivity [36], and in turn, a
reduction in cell performance [37]. Using a comprehensive nu-
merical model, it was recently demonstrated that while the cell
operating temperature has only a minor influence on the carbon-
ation process and on the total CO2 effect on the cell, the current
density has actually a significant effect [38]. It was found that the
impact of CO2 on AEMFC performance can be efficiently diminished
when operating the cell at current densities above 1 A cm2 [38].
Therefore, we may expect that more and more studies will soon be
able to show performance results at these high current densities,
allowing the use of ambient air in the AEMFC tests, without
detrimental performance due to the ambient CO2.
The ability of AEMFCs to reach these recommended high current
densities is recently demonstrated in a number of studies. Fig. 9
summarizes selected polarization curves showing the highest cell
performance reported in the literature for AEMFCs.
These selected polarization curves were published in the past Fig. 9. Best performing H2-AEMFCs from the literature. Adapted from refs. [15], [29]
three years (2014e2017). While highly active non-PGM catalysts for [32e34], and [38].
ORR were reported for AEMFCs (e.g. [4]), all data shown in Fig. 9 are
based on Pt as catalysts for ORR, similar to most of the AEMFC
performance data (see next section). As can be seen in Fig. 9, an high hydroxide conductivities of 60e132 mS cm1 (measured at
increasing number of reports show cells capable of operating at 60e80  C) were used, significantly helping to reach the high per-
high current densities. For instance, current densities ranging from formance achieved. As shown previously, these high conductivity
300 to 640 mA cm2 and as high as 800e2300 mA cm2 can be values are in the top 20% best values reported in the literature,
observed at 0.8 V and 0.6 V, respectively. achieved in the past five years of research (see Fig. 7).
Among the characteristics that seem to allow these cells to Second, in contrast to the research and development of highly
achieve the high performance shown in Fig. 9, we find the following conducting AEMs, research on catalysts for the hydrogen oxidation
common factors: (a) high anion conductivities of the ionomeric reaction (HOR) and on water management strategies for AEMFCs
materials (both membranes and ionomers); (b) highly active, PtRu has been a focus of investigation only in the past 3e4 years. In the
catalysts for the hydrogen oxidation reaction; and (c) improved field of HOR catalysts for AEMFCs, promising fundamental studies
water management strategies. Each of these factors is briefly dis- were carried out to improve the understanding of the challenge of
cussed in the next paragraphs. HOR in alkaline media [39e45] [38] [46]. Among the high perfor-
As already mentioned, AEM research on the development of mance cells shown in Fig. 9, the highest four are those where PtRu
higher anion conductivities was the focus all through the past alloy was used as an HOR catalyst. It was shown that PtRu alloys
decade. For the high performance cells shown in Fig. 9, AEMs with have an exchange current density 2 to 6 times higher than that of Pt
[44]. The reason for this is the oxophilic properties of Ru, which do
not just positively affect the hydrogen bonding energy on Pt sur-
face, but also provide an additional site for adsorption of the OH
species that promotes the hydrogen oxidation. Similar results may
also be obtained with the addition of oxophilic metals other than
Ru. For instance, a three-fold enhancement of the HOR activity in
alkaline was also achieved using PtNi alloy catalysts [47].
Finally, the third factor is the water management strategy used
in the cells. In the literature on AEMFCs, reports focused on water
management are very scarce. Yamaguchi and coworkers [12], for
instance, remarked on the critical importance of water manage-
ment strategy in AEMFCs. The authors experimentally showed that
the direction and the amount of water transport inside the cell are
strongly affected by the properties of the AEM, affecting in turn the
cell performance [12]. Moreover, some of the excellent perfor-
mance data shown in Fig. 9 were achieved in part thanks to the
optimization in the cell water management. For instance, Omasta
et al. carefully obtained the best possible membrane hydration by
balancing the factors affecting water transport through the cell,
Fig. 8. Relative number of studies reporting AEMFC performance data using different
cathode gas inlet: oxygen, CO2-free air (also called synthetic air, or pure air), filtered air
such as feed gas flow rates and relative humidities, and the relative
(<10 ppm CO2), or ambient air (atmospheric air, ~400 ppm CO2). hydrophobicity/hydrophilicity of the gas diffusion layers [34]. The
 D.R. Dekel / Journal of Power Sources 375 (2018) 158e169 163

delicate water balance needed to obtain the required hydration of

the cathode, while preventing anode electrode flooding and
maximizing cell performance has been discussed in detail [34]. In
addition, Kaspar et al. studied the effect of the MPL addition to the
gas diffusion layers in both electrodes, as well as the ionomer
loading at the catalyst layers and their effect on the water man-
agement of the cell [15].
Strengthening these experimental studies, a few insights in
AEMFC water management were also derived from theoretical
research. A few modeling studies have analyzed and predicted best
strategies for AEMFC water management [23] [48e54]. Reports
from different developed models agree that increasing cathode
humidity levels at the air/oxygen inlet, optimization of ionomer
content (mainly at cathode side), thinner AEMs, and higher cell
temperatures significantly increase AEMFC performance. A recent
modeling study also claimed to be capable of predicting time-
dependent performance for current densities ranging from zero
to above 2 A cm2 [55]. The model was validated against the
experimental polarization curve showed in Fig. 9 (Kaspar et al.
Fig. 10. Relative number of publications showing H2-AEMFC performance data using
[15]), as well as with time-dependent cell performance obtained
Pt and Pt-free catalysts in their electrodes.
from the same reference [15].
Owing to the particular characteristics of AEMFC (water con-
sumption at cathode and relative low water diffusivity through the [16] [57e59]. Fig. 11 summarizes the cell performance data re-
AEMs), the impact of RH in the oxygen/air inlet on cell performance ported in those studies.
was demonstrated to be significantly more important for cell per- From the summarized performance data shown in Fig. 11, we
formance operated at higher current densities, say above 1 A cm2 can distinguish between three different groups of cells that differ
[55]. Similarly, it was also shown that improved water management from the anode catalysts: those for which the power densities are
can be achieved by optimizing the ionomer content and ionomer below 100 mW cm2, those in the 100e200 mW cm2 range, and
properties at both AEMFC electrodes. For instance, asymmetric ion finally, above 300 mW cm2. In the first group, we can see AEMFC
exchange capacity (IEC) of the ionomers (cathode ionomer with performance based on PGM-free HOR catalysts [16], [59]. To the
higher IEC value than that used for the anode ionomer) improved best of our understanding, those studies are the only reports of
cell performance thanks to the reduction in OH ionic resistance AEMFC performance where the cell is completely free of PGM
obtained in the cathode electrode, while avoiding detrimental ef-
fects in the anode (e.g., ionomer dissolution, anode flooding) [55].
In summary, high hydroxide conducting AEMs, highly active
PtRu alloy HOR catalyst, and improved water management strate-
gies are the main common factors identified in the best performing
cells reported to date in Pt-based H2-AEMFCs. The performance of
H2-AEMFCs based on catalysts other than Pt is discussed in next
section.

3. Performance of Pt-free hydrogen-fueled AEMFCs

As mentioned before, the main advantage of AEMFC over PEMFC

is the enhanced ORR catalysis, allowing for the use of less expen-
sive, Pt-free catalysts. Whereas research on Pt-free ORR catalysts in
alkali has now begun, studies on the Pt-free HOR catalysts for
AEMFCs constitute a relatively unexplored field. While the kinetics
of the HOR in PEMFCs is so fast that the cell voltage losses at the
anode are usually considered negligible [56], this is not the case in
the alkaline AEMFCs. In the AEMFC, the anode catalysis is a chal-
lenge due to the slow kinetics of the HOR at the high-pH medium of
the cell [40]. It was reported that the exchange current densities on
carbon-supported Pt electrodes is decreased by approximately two
orders of magnitude when moving from low (pH ¼ 0) to high pH
(pH ¼ 13) [43]. This is one of the reasons why there are a few re-
ports showing AEMFC performance with non-Pt catalysts at the
cathode, but only a very limited number of reports showing AEMFC
performance with Pt-free catalysts for both ORR and HOR. Fig. 10
shows the total relative number of papers showing Pt and Pt-free
catalysts used for ORR and HOR, among all published articles
with AEMFC performance data.
To the best of our knowledge, there are only a very few research Fig. 11. AEMFC performance data reported with Pt-free catalysts in both anode and
studies reported in the literature of AEMFCs showing performance cathode electrodes. Data adapted from Refs. [4] [16] [57e59]. Inserts show a zoom-in
data of cells completely free of Pt (in both anode and cathode) [4] area in the 0e120 mA cm2 current density range.
164 D.R. Dekel / Journal of Power Sources 375 (2018) 158e169

catalysts. These pioneering reports were very meaningful for the
technology, as they proved for the first time the feasibility of
AEMFCs to operate without any PGMs. In the second group, we can
see Pt-free catalysts. Although the performance of those cells is
higher than the PGM-free based HOR catalysts, they contain Pd
catalysts, and the improvement in performance is not large enough
to justify its use. However, in the third group, new types of Pd-
based bifunctional catalysts, doped with Ni [4] or with CeO2 [58]
were reported to significantly increase the HOR activity of the
catalyst, reaching new records in Pt-free AEMFC performance. The
Pd-decorated CeO2 bifunctional catalyst was also shown to exhibit
higher stability properties [57], making them suitable for highly
stable Pt-free AEMFCs.
This section presented a review of H2-AEMFC performance. Cell
performance significantly increased in the past decade, and now
approaches that of the mature PEMFC technology. Specifically,
recent reports of Pt-free AEMFCs show promising performance
results, which are similar to the research reported for the PEMFC
based on Pt-free catalysts. However, as mentioned before, all the
studies summarized in this review report performance data at the
beginning of cell test. There are only very few works showing
performance stability of AEMFCs. These reports are summarized in
the next section.
4. H2-AEMFC performance stability
As shown in the previous section, an increasing number of
studies succeeded to show good performance from cells made of
improved materials developed for this technology. Nevertheless,
and in spite of the nearly 100 published reports with AEMFC per-
formance test data, there are very few studies on cell performance
stability. Fig. 12 summarizes AEMFC performance stability data in
the literature since the 2000s.
Performance stability studies were reported as operational tests
of AEMFCs at constant current density or at constant voltage,
expressing the resulting performance stability data as cell voltage
versus time (Fig. 12a), cell current density or cell power density
versus time (Fig. 12b). To summarize all the literature data into
Fig. 12 and facilitate comparison, the reported performance sta-
bility data were normalized by the voltage (or power density, or
current density) at beginning of cell life (time ¼ 0) for each test. As
can be seen in Fig. 12, most of the performance stability tests for
AEMFC showed a substantial reduction in performance in the first
100e200 h of operation. Only a few reports showed performance
stability above 300 h. In those cases, the average decay measured is
in the range of 0.2e0.5 mV h1. This is two orders of magnitude
higher degradation rate than that observed in a PEMFC operating
under optimal conditions of relative humidity close to 100% and at a
low cell temperature of 75  C [70]. PEMFC degradation rates can
increase by orders of magnitude when, for instance, cell operation
is at low humidification levels or at cell temperatures of 90  C or
higher [71]. Likewise, low humidification levels in AEMFCs may be
detrimental to stability.
In AEMFCs, there may be several reasons for the strong decay in
performance summarized in Fig. 12. Among them, the main reason
is probably the chemical degradation of the anion conducting
polymers used both as AEMs and ionomers, which occurs under the
alkaline environment of the AEMFC. The chemical degradation of
anion-conducting moieties in an alkaline medium is well docu-
mented, and mainly consists of an attack of the OH on the anion-
conducting polymer, destroying the ionic properties of the polymer
[20e22] [72e80]. This chemical degradation causes a reduction in
AEM anion conductivity, increasing cell resistance and in turn
dramatically limiting the cell durability, as seen in Fig. 12. Such
chemical degradation of the ionomeric materials and its resultant
negative effect on the cell performance stability represents a major

Fig. 12. Performance stability reported in the literature for H2-AEMFCs: (a) Relative voltage decay of cells operated at constant current density, and (b) relative current density (left
axis, red) and relative power density (right axis, black) decays of cells operated at constant current density and constant voltage, relatively. Data adapted from Refs. [2] [30]
[60e69].11 (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
 D.R. Dekel / Journal of Power Sources 375 (2018) 158e169
challenge faced by AEMFC technology nowadays. Trying to over-
come this stability challenge, extensive research has been done and
numerous studies already begin to report the development of new
polymer chemistries including the development of modified and/or
new cationic functional groups [64] [74] [81e84], polymer back-
bones [85e88], polymer crosslinking [30] [68], and grafting ap-
proaches [32], making steady progress and presenting new stable
materials. However, the progress in ex-situ polymer stability of
anion-conducting ionomeric materials is not yet reflected in the
stability results obtained in in-situ durability tests of the AEMFCs,
as seen in Fig. 12.
Actually, it was now reported that the aqueous alkali ex-situ
tests currently used to measure AEM stability may lead to false
positive stability results, where anion conducting ionomeric ma-
terials may appear significantly more alkali stable than they really
are [89]. Using a new developed stability test protocol, the authors
found that while some quaternary ammonium cations are very
stable under the currently available stability experimental tests,
when ultralow water content is present in the medium, as it is in
the real case of the cathode of an AEMFC in operation, the cations
were rapidly degraded [89], as typically observed in real in-situ
AEMFC durability tests (Fig. 12). This ultralow water content (wa-
ter hydration number l < 4) was recently confirmed to be present
in the cathode electrodes of AEMFCs [55]. Simulated results of
hydration numbers lower than 8, and even lower than 4, were
revealed for AEMFCs simulated in different cell operating condi-
tions [55]. These studies may explain why ionomeric materials that
apparently were “stable” in currently used aqueous alkali ex-situ
tests, in reality show poor performance stability in AEMFC tests
(Fig. 12). The adoption of these newly developed techniques to
measure the true stability of anion-conducting polymers to be used
for AEMFCs, as well as new strategies for water management
guided by water transport modeling to keep cathode hydration
above l ¼ 4, will rapidly lead to the development and selection of
best stable polymers, as well as to a better understanding of the cell
design and operating parameter optimization for highly stable and
robust AEMFCs.
5. Performance of AEMFCs based on direct fuels other than
hydrogen
An additional important advantage of the AEMFC technology
over its PEMFC counterpart is its capability to operate with a variety
of fuels other than hydrogen. Numerous studies were published in
this direction, and some cell performance data were reported in the
literature as well. This section briefly reviews the cell performance
found in the literature of AEMFC fed with fuels other than
hydrogen. Among all liquid fuels used in AEMFCs, alcohols and N-
based fuels were mostly tested. Methanol and ethanol are the more
common alcohols to have been tested for cell performance; how-
ever, some data were also reported for ethylene glycol and glycerol,
among other alcohols. The N-based fuel most commonly tested in
AEMFCs is hydrazine. Of the total number of research works
reporting cell performance data, Fig. 13 shows the relative number
of articles for direct-fuel (non-hydrogen), as compared to the H2-
AEMFCs. Fig. 13 also depicts a summary of selected polarization
curves reported for direct-fuel AEMFCs with a wide variety of fuels.
The main difference between AEMFCs fed with hydrogen and
those fed with fuels other than hydrogen is the addition of liquid
electrolyte to the fuel inlet. Without the addition of metal OH salts
to the liquid fuel anode supply, the performances of direct liquid
fuel AEMFCs are generally very poor. For this reason, the
1
[63] and [66] are not peer reviewed publications.
165
overwhelming majority of performance tests of direct liquid fuel
AEMFCs include the addition of KOH (or NaOH) to the liquid solu-
tion fuel. This is in contrast to the liquid electrolyte-free hydrogen
fueled AEMFC discussed in the previous section. Another difference
in performance between H2-AEMFCs and direct liquid fuel-AEMFCs
is the lower open circuit voltages measured in the direct liquid fuel-
AEMFCs. While the OCVs in H2-AEMFCs have been reported to
be > 1.0 V (and as high as 1.1 V), OCV values in the range of
0.75e0.95 V are typically observed for the direct liquid fuel AEMFCs
(Fig. 13), with the only exception being borohydride fuel. In fuel
cells, owing to the high fuel crossover (e.g., crossover of alcohols
and hydrazine), mixed potentials are generated by the oxidation of
the fuel at the anode. Thus, the fuel cell performance decreases
from the point of view of fuel efficiency.
As can be seen from the polarization curves in Fig. 13, relatively
high performance was achieved in AEMFCs while using fuels other
than hydrogen. For instance, cell performance of direct methanol,
ethanol and hydrazine AEMFCs reached peak power densities of
130 mW cm2, 180 mW cm2 and 450 mW cm2, measured at
current densities of 450 mA cm2, 650 mA cm2, and
1300 mA cm2, respectively. It must be noted that in spite of the
limited research done with direct alcohol AEMFCs, their perfor-
mance is comparable with (and in some cases even higher than)
that of the state-of-the-art PEMFC performance [117]. The use of
hydrazine (and also other N-based fuels) in AEMFCs is also note-
worthy. Conventional PEMFCs based on an acidic membrane such
as Nafion are not compatible with N-based fuels [118]. For instance,
the poisoning effect of ammonia on acidic membranes is severe
even in the case where the cell is exposed to only 1 ppm NH3 [119]
and the observed performance loss is not acceptable for practical
applications [120]. In the case of urea fuel, its hydrolysis produces
ammonia, and therefore it is also not a good fuel candidate to be
used in direct fuel PEMFCs [121]. On the contrary, in the case of
AEMFCs, the N-based fuel chemistry is compatible with the
chemistry of the alkaline membrane, allowing AEMFC to operate
with this kind of alternative fuel [122].
In summary, Fig. 13 gives a taste of the ability of AEMFCs to
operate with diverse types of fuels, and highlights selected re-
ported performance data of several direct-fuel AEMFCs. The wide
range and variety of fuels that can be used in AEMFCs is truly
remarkable. The recent development research done in AEMFCs
brings new opportunities to make use of those fuels in a direct fuel
cell device based on AEMs.
6. Conclusions
AEMFC technology promises to solve the cost barriers of the
mature PEMFC counterpart. The extremely rapid and promising
achievements in H2 (and other direct fuel) AEMFCs have been
reviewed and discussed. This article reviews the state-of-the-art
data on cell performance reported in the literature. The main ob-
servations can be summarized as follows:

The cell performance achieved in AEMFCs seems to have been
continuously increasing in the last decade. Recently, H2-AEMFCs
highest performance cells reached and exceeded peak power
densities of 1 W cm2 (at 0.5e0.70 V). Similarly, highest limiting
current densities exceeded 2 A cm2. These performance levels
were achieved using highly conducting AEMs and PtRu - a
highly active catalyst for HOR. Additionally, improved water
management strategies resulted in new high records in
performance.

The majority of the reported H2-AEMFC performance results are
of cells (still) based on Pt catalysts for both ORR and (mainly)
HOR.
Fig. 13. Ratio of articles reporting data on AEMFC performance using different fuels, and selected reported polarization curves for direct-fuel AEMFCs with fuels other than
hydrogen. Data adapted from Ref. [90e93] (ethanol); [94e97] (methanol); [92e98] (ethylene glycol); [99e102] (glycerol); [103e105] (borohydride); [106,107] (glucose);
[103,108e111] (hydrazine); [112,113] (urea); [114,119] (ammonia borane); [115] (ammonium carbonate); and [115,116] (ammonia).
 D.R. Dekel / Journal of Power Sources 375 (2018) 158e169

The best-performing H2-AEMFCs based on Pt-free catalysts are
those reported using Pd-decorated Ni or CeO2 bifunctional cat-
alysts for HOR, and Ag-based catalysts for ORR.

The vast majority of the reported H2-AEMFC performance results
were obtained with oxygen gas in the cathode inlet, with just a
very few studies using ambient air. When ambient air is used, the
negative effect of the carbonation process significantly reduces
cell performance. Theoretical research showed that the impact of
CO2 on AEMFC performance can be efficiently diminished when
operating the cell at current densities above 1 A cm2.

All reported performance stability data indicate that H2-AEMFC
operation is limited to less than 1000 h. The overwhelming
majority of the studies report performance stability lower than
300 h. Because of this performance constraint, most of the tests
are limited to low cell temperatures (mainly  60  C). It was
suggested that the reason for this limited performance stability
is the chemical degradation of the cationic functional groups of
the anion-conducting polymers, which results from the ultralow
water content present in the cathode during AEMFC operation.

A wide range of fuels were used for direct fuel AEMFCs. Prom-
ising cell performance data have been reported for several al-
cohols (mainly methanol and ethanol) as well as N-based fuels
(mainly hydrazine).
While AEMFCs have achieved excellent performances, there are
still development challenges that must be addressed before we can
truly consider a large-scale introduction of AEMFCs. These chal-
lenges mainly include the development of new specific materials,
such as:

Anion-conducting ionomeric materials with significantly
improved stabilities when exposed to AEMFC operated at cur-
rent densities higher than 1 A cm2, i.e., ultra-low hydration
values (l  4). Second to this critical target, a secondary goal
should be to achieve such improved stabilities at higher tem-
peratures (80e95  C), at which cells should be operated.

PGM-free highly efficient HOR catalysts e in order to fulfill the
entire potential of the AEMFCs, and reduce the costs per kilo-
watt of generated power.
The first challenge e ionomer stability e should be considered
as an imperative target, with the highest priority in the AEMFC
technology, as without the required performance stability it would
be practically impossible to apply this technology in the field. The
second challenge e PGM-free HOR catalysts e although less critical
than the first one, is still necessary to realize the low-cost potential
advantage of this technology over the PEMFC alternative. Advances
related to the above two main challenges will assure rapid accep-
tance of AEMFCs as a genuine alternative to PEMFCs.
Acknowledgments
This work was partially funded by the European Union's Horizon
2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement
No 721065; the Ministry of Science, Technology & Space of Israel
through the M.era-NET Transnational Call 2015, NEXTGAME project
grant 3-12948; the Grand Technion Energy Program (GTEP); and
the 2nd Israel National Research Center for Electrochemical Pro-
pulsion (INREP2-ISF). Thanks are given to Avital Zhegur, Inna
Ostrovsky, Bar Mimran, Tomer Bechar and Yiwei Zheng for their
assistance in drawing some of the plots.
References
[1] E.M. Sommer, L.S. Martins, J.V.C. Vargas, J.E.F.C. Gardolinski, J.C. Ordonez,
167
C.E.B. Marino, Alkaline membrane fuel cell (AMFC) modeling and experi-
mental validation, J. Power Sources 213 (2012) 16e30.
[2] M. Piana, M. Boccia, A. Filpi, E. Flammia, et al., H2/air alkaline membrane fuel
cell performance and durability, using novel ionomer and non-platinum
group metal cathode catalyst, J. Power Sources vol. 195 (18) (2010)
5875e5881.
[3] D.R. Dekel, Alkaline membrane fuel cell (AMFC) materials and system
improvement - state-of-the-art, ECS Trans. 50 (no. 2) (2012).
[4] M. Alesker, M. Page, M. Shviro, Y. Paska, G. Gershinsky, D.R. Dekel, D. Zitoun,
Palladium/nickel bifunctional electrocatalyst for hydrogen oxidation reaction
in alkaline membrane fuel cell, J. Power Sources 304 (2016) 332e339.
[5] H. Deng, D. Wang, X. Xie, Y. Zhou, et al., Modeling of hydrogen alkaline
membrane fuel cell with interfacial effect and water management optimi-
zation, Renew. Energy 91 (2016) 166e177.
[6] D.S. Kim, A. Labouriau, M.D. Guiver, Y.S. Kim, Guanidinium-functionalized
anion exchange polymer electrolytes via activated fluorophenyl-amine re-
action, Chem. Mater. 23 (2011) 3795e3797.
[7] Y.S. Kim, AMFC Challenges e Membrane Electrode Assembly, AMFC Work-
shop, April 1, 2016. Phoenix, AZ, https://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2016/04/
f30/fcto_2016_amfcw_5-kim.pdf.
[8] N. Follain, S. Roualdes, S. Marais, Water transport properties of plasma-
modified commercial anion- exchange membrane for solid alkaline fuel
cells, J. Phys. Chem. C 116 (2012) 8510e8522.
[9] J.-S. Park, S.-H. Park, S.-D. Yim, Y.-G. Yoon, W.-Y. Lee, C.-S. Kim, Performance
of solid alkaline fuel cells employing anion-exchange membranes, J. Power
Sources 178 (2) (2008) 620e626.
[10] J.S. Park, G.G. Park, S.H. Park, Y.G. Yoon, C.S. Kim, W.Y. Lee, Development of
solid-state alkaline electrolytes for solid alkaline fuel cells, Macromol. Symp.
249e250 (2007) 174e182.
[11] Y. Choi, M. Lee, C. Kim, J. Park, Durable hydroxide ion conducting polymer
electrolyte membranes with low carbonate crossover for a solid alkaline fuel
cell Conventional Alkaline Fuel Cell, in: Presentation at Fuel Cell Seminar,
2008. Phoenix, AZ.
[12] H. Zhang, H. Ohashi, T. Tamaki, T. Yamaguchi, Water movement in a solid-
state alkaline fuel cell affected by the anion-exchange pore-filling mem-
brane properties, Phys. Chem. C 117 (2013) 16791e16801.
[13] Y. Oshiba, J. Hiura, Y. Suzuki, T. Yamaguchi, Improvement in the solid-state
alkaline fuel cell performance through efficient water management strate-
gies, J. Power Sources 345 (2017) 221e226.
[14] R.B. Kaspar, Performance, Durability, and Modeling of Hydroxide Exchange
Membrane Fuel Cells, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Delaware, 2015.
[15] R.B. Kaspar, M.P. Letterio, J. a. Wittkopf, K. Gong, S. Gu, Y. Yan, Manipulating
water in high-performance hydroxide exchange membrane fuel cells
through asymmetric humidification and wetproofing, J. Electrochem. Soc.
162 (no. 6) (2015) F483eF488.
[16] S. Lu, J. Pan, A. Huang, L. Zhuang, J. Lu, Alkaline Polymer Electrolyte Fuel Cells
Completely Free from Noble Metal Catalysts, vol. 105, 2008,
pp. 20611e20614.
[17] O.I. Deavin, S. Murphy, A. Ong, et al., Anion-exchange membranes for alka-
line polymer electrolyte fuel cells: comparison of pendent benzyl-
trimethylammonium- and benzylmethylimidazolium-head-groups, Energy
Environ. Sci. 5 (no. 9) (2012) 8584e8597.
[18] A. Amel, N. Gavish, L. Zhu, et al., “Bicarbonate and chloride anion transport in
anion exchange membranes, J. Membr. Sci. 514 (2016) 125e134.
[19] M.M. Nasef, Radiation-Grafted membranes for polymer electrolyte fuel Cells:
current trends and future directions, Chem. Rev. 114 (2014) 12278e12329.
[20] J.R. Varcoe, P. Atanassov, D.R. Dekel, A.M. Herring, et al., Anion-exchange
membranes in electrochemical energy systems, Energy Environ. Sci. 7 (2014)
3135e3191.
[21] G. Merle, M. Wessling, K. Nijmeijer, Anion exchange membranes for alkaline
fuel cells: a review, J. Memb. Sci. 377 (no. 1e2) (2011) 1e35.
[22] S. Maurya, S.-H. Shin, Y. Kim, S.-H. Moon, “A review on recent developments
of anion exchange membranes for fuel cells and redox flow batteries, RSC
Adv. 5 (no. 47) (2015) 37206e37230.
[23] U. Krewer, C. Weinzierl, N. Ziv, D.R. Dekel, Impact of carbonation processes in
anion exchange membrane fuel cells, Submitted Electrochim. Acta (2017).
[24] E. Agel, J. Bouet, J.F. Fauvarque, Characterization and use of anionic mem-
branes for alkaline fuel cells, J. Power Sources 101 (no. 2) (2001) 267e274.
[25] J.R. Varcoe, R.C.T. Slade, G.L. Wright, Y. Chen, Steady-state dc and impedance
investigations of H2/O2 alkaline membrane fuel cells with commercial Pt/C,
Ag/C, and Au/C cathodes, J. Phys. Chem. B 110 (no. 42) (2006) 21041e21049.
[26] J.R. Varcoe, R.C.T. Slade, An electron-beam-grafted ETFE alkaline anion-
exchange membrane in metal-cation-free solid-state alkaline fuel cells,
Electrochem. Commun. 8 (2006) 839e843.
[27] C. Tamain, S.D. Poynton, R.C.T. Slade, B. Carroll, J.R. Varcoe, Development of
cathode architectures customized for H2/O 2 metal-cation-free alkaline
membrane fuel cells, J. Phys. Chem. C 111 (no. 49) (2007) 18423e18430.
[28] S.D. Poynton, J.P. Kizewski, R.C.T. Slade, J.R. Varcoe, Novel electrolyte mem-
branes and non-Pt catalysts for low temperature fuel cells, Solid State Ionics
181 (no. 3e4) (2010) 219e222.
[29] M. Mamlouk, J.A. Horsfall, C. Williams, K. Scott, Radiation grafted membranes
for superior anion exchange polymer membrane fuel cells performance, Int.
J. Hydrogen Energy 37 (no. 16) (2012) 11912e11920.
[30] Y. Zhao, H. Yu, D. Yang, J. Li, Z. Shao, B. Yi, High-performance alkaline fuel
cells using crosslinked composite anion exchange membrane, J. Power
168 D.R. Dekel / Journal of Power Sources 375 (2018) 158e169
Sources 221 (2013) 247e251.
[31] G. Li, Y. Wang, J. Pan, et al., Carbonation effects on the performance of
alkaline polymer electrolyte fuel cells, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 40 (no. 20)
(2015) 6655e6660.
[32] J. Ponce-Gonza
lez, D.K. Whelligan, L. Qang, et al., High performance
aliphatic-heterocyclic benzyl-quaternary ammonium radiation-grafted
anion-exchange membranes, Energy Environ. Sci. 9 (no. 12) (2016)
3724e3735.
[33] L. Wang, E. Magliocca, E.L. Cunningham, W.E. Mutain, et al., An optimised
synthesis of high performance radiation-grafted anion-exchange mem-
branes, Green Chem. 19 (no. 3) (2017) 831e843.
[34] T.J. Omasta, L. Wang, X. Peng, C.A. Lewis, J.R. Varcoe, W.E. Mustain, Impor-
tance of balancing membrane and electrode water in anion exchange
membrane fuel cells, J. Power Sources (2017). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
jpowsour.2017.05.006.
[35] G. Seckmeyer, A. Zittermann, R. Mckenzie, Encyclopedia of Sustainability
Science and Technology, 2012, pp. 529e564.
[36] A.M. Kiss, T.D. Myles, K.N. Grew, A.A. Peracchio, G.J. Nelson, W.K.S. Chiu,
Carbonate and bicarbonate ion transport in alkaline anion exchange mem-
branes, J. Electrochem. Soc. 160 (no. 9) (2013) F994eF999.
[37] S. Suzuki, H. Muroyama, T. Matsui, K. Eguchi, Influence of CO2 dissolution
into anion exchange membrane on fuel cell performance, Electrochim. Acta
88 (2013) 552e558.
[38] Y. Wang, G. Wang, G. Li, B. Huang, et al., PteRu catalyzed hydrogen oxidation
in alkaline media: oxophilic effect or electronic effect? Energy Environ. Sci. 8
(no. 1) (2015) 177e181.
[39] J. Zheng, W. Sheng, Z. Zhuang, B. Xu, Y. Yan, Universal dependence of
hydrogen oxidation and evolution reaction activity of platinum-group
metals on pH and hydrogen binding energy, Sci. Adv. 2 (no. 3) (2016)
e1501602.
[40] W. Sheng, H.A. Gasteiger, Y. Shao-Horn, Hydrogen oxidation and evolution
reaction kinetics on platinum: acid vs alkaline electrolytes, J. Electrochem.
Soc. 157 (no. 11) (2010) B1529.
[41] S.M. Alia, Y. Yan, Palladium coated copper nanowires as a hydrogen oxida-
tion electrocatalyst in base, J. Electrochem. Soc. 162 (no. 8) (2015)
F849eF853, 2015.
[42] S. Henning, J. Herranz, H.A. Gasteiger, Bulk-Palladium and palladium-on-gold
electrocatalysts for the oxidation of hydrogen in alkaline electrolyte,
J. Electrochem. Soc. 162 (no. 1) (2014) F178eF189.
[43] J. Durst, A. Siebel, C. Simon, F. Hasche, J. Herranz, H.A. Gasteiger, New insights
into the electrochemical hydrogen oxidation and evolution reaction mech-
anism, Energy & Environ. Sci. 7 (no. 7) (2014) 2255e2260.
[44] D. Strmcnik, M. Uchimura, C. Wang, et al., Improving the hydrogen oxidation
reaction rate by promotion of hydroxyl adsorption, Nat. Chem. 5 (no. 4)
(2013) 300e306.
[45] W. Sheng, Z. Zhuang, M. Gao, J. Zheng, J.G. Chen, Y. Yan, Correlating hydrogen
oxidation and evolution activity on platinum at different pH with measured
hydrogen binding energy, Nat. Commun. 6 (no. JANUARY) (2015) 5848.
[46] M.T.M. Koper, Hydrogen electrocatalysis: a basic solution, Nat. Chem. 5 (no.
4) (2013) 255e256.
[47] S. Lu, Z. Zhuang, Investigating the influences of the adsorbed species on
catalytic activity for hydrogen oxidation reaction in alkaline electrolyte,
J. Am. Chem. Soc. 139 (2017) 5156e5163.
[48] H.S. Shiau, I.V. Zenyuk, A.Z. Weber, Water management in an alkaline-
exchange-membrane fuel cell, ECS Trans. 69 (no. 17) (2015) 985e994.
[49] K. Jiao, P. He, Q. Du, Y. Yin, Three-dimensional multiphase modeling of
alkaline anion exchange membrane fuel cell, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 39 (no.
11) (2014) 5981e5995.
[50] Y.-J. Sohn, J.-I. Choi, K. Kim, Numerical analysis on water transport in alkaline
anion exchange membrane fuel cells, Electrochemistry 83 (no. 2) (2015)
80e83.
[51] K. Jiao, S. Huo, M. Zu, D. Jiao, J. Chen, Q. Du, An analytical model for hydrogen
alkaline anion exchange membrane fuel cell, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 40 (no.
8) (2015) 3300e3312.
[52] S. Huo, H. Deng, Y. Chang, K. Jiao, Water management in alkaline anion ex-
change membrane fuel cell anode, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 37 (no. 23) (2012)
18389e18402.
[53] B.S. Machado, N. Chakraborty, P.K. Das, Influences of flow direction, tem-
perature and relative humidity on the performance of a representative anion
exchange membrane fuel cell: a computational analysis, Int. J. Hydrogen
Energy 42 (no. 9) (2016) 6310e6323.
[54] S. Peng, J. Gong, X. Xu, P.C. Sui, S. Lu, Y. Xiang, Numerical and experimental
analyses on deviated concentration loss with alkaline anion-exchange
membrane fuel cells, J. Phys. Chem. C 119 (no. 43) (2015) 24276e24281.
[55] D.R. Dekel, I. Rasin, M. Page, S. Brandon, Steady state and transient simula-
tion of anion exchange membrane fuel cells, in press, J. Power Sources
(2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jpowsour.2017.07.012.
[56] K.C. Neyerlin, W. Gu, J. Jorne, H.A. Gasteiger, Study of the exchange current
density for the hydrogen oxidation and evolution reactions, J. Electrochem.
Soc. 154 (no. 7) (2007) B631.
[57] H.A. Miller, F. Vizza, M. Marelli, A. Zadick, et al., Highly active nanostructured
palladium-ceria electrocatalysts for the hydrogen oxidation reaction in
alkaline medium, Nano Energy 33 (3) (2017) 293e305.
[58] H.A. Miller, A. Lavacchi, F. Vizza, M. Marelli, et al., A Pd/C-CeO2 anode catalyst
for high-performance platinum-free anion exchange membrane fuel cells,
Angew. Chem. 128 (2016) 6108e6111.
[59] S. Gu, W. Sheng, R. Cai, S.M. Alia, et al., An efficient Ageionomer interface for
hydroxide exchange membrane fuel cells, Chem. Commun. 49 (no. 2) (2013)
101e200.
[60] W. Lu, G. Zhang, J. Li, J. Hao, et al., Polybenzimidazole-crosslinked poly(-
vinylbenzyl chloride) with quaternary 1,4-diazabicyclo (2.2.2) octane groups
as high-performance anion exchange membrane for fuel cells, J. Power
Sources 296 (2015) 204e214.
[61] L. Zeng, T.S. Zhao, L. An, A high-performance supportless silver nanowire
catalyst for anion exchange membrane fuel cells, J. Mater. Chem. A 3 (no. 4)
(2015) 1410e1416.
[62] Y. Leng, L. Wang, M.A. Hickner, C.Y. Wang, Alkaline membrane fuel cells with
in-situ cross-linked ionomers, Electrochim. Acta 152 (2015) 93e100.
[63] K. Fukuta, Electrolyte Materials for AMFCs Electrolyte Materials for AMFCs
and AMFC Performance, 2011. https://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2014/03/
f11/amfc_050811_fukuta.pdf.
[64] N. Li, Y. Leng, M.A. Hickner, C.Y. Wang, Highly stable, anion conductive,
comb-shaped copolymers for alkaline fuel cells, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 135 (no.
27) (2013) 10124e10133.
[65] W. Lu, Z.G. Shao, G. Zhang, Y. Zhao, B. Yi, Crosslinked poly(vinylbenzyl
chloride) with a macromolecular crosslinker for anion exchange membrane
fuel cells, J. Power Sources 248 (2014) 905e914.
[66] D.R. Dekel, Alkaline Anion Exchange Membrane Fuel Cells (AEM-FC) Status,
2016. https://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2016/04/f30/fcto_2016_amfcw_7-
dekel.pdf.
[67] X. Gao, H. Yu, J. Jia, et al., High performance anion exchange ionomer for
anion exchange membrane fuel cells, RSC Adv. 7 (no. 31) (2017)
19153e19161.
[68] X. Lin, Y. Liu, S. Poynton, et al., “Cross-linked anion exchange membranes for
alkaline fuel cells synthesized using a solvent free strategy, J. Power Sources
233 (2013) 259e268.
[69] C. Fujimoto, D.-S. Kim, M. Hibbs, D. Wrobleski, Y.S. Kim, Backbone stability of
quaternized polyaromatics for alkaline membrane fuel cells, J. Memb. Sci.
423e424 (2012) 438e449.
[70] F.A. De Bruijn, V.A.T. Dam, G.J.M. Janssen, Review: durability and degradation
issues of PEM fuel cell components, Fuel Cells 8 (no. 1) (2008) 3e22.
[71] J. Healy, C. Hayden, T. Xie, et al., Aspects of the chemical degradation of PFSA
ionomers used in PEM fuel cellsx, Fuel Cells 5 (no. 2) (2005) 302e308.
[72] A. Amel, S.B. Smedley, D.R. Dekel, M.A. Hickner, Y. Ein-Eli, Characterization
and chemical stability of anion exchange membranes cross-linked with polar
electron-donating linkers, J. Electrochem. Soc. 162 (no. 9) (2015)
F1047eF1055.
[73] H. Long, B.S. Pivovar, Hydroxide degradation pathways for substituted ben-
zyltrimethyl ammonium: a DFT study, ECS Electrochem. Lett. 4 (no. 1) (2014)
F13eF16.
[74] A.D. Mohanty, C. Bae, Mechanistic analysis of ammonium cation stability for
alkaline exchange membrane fuel cells, J. Mater. Chem. A Mater. energy
Sustain. 2 (no. 41) (2014) 17314e17320.
[75] M.G. Marino, K.D. Kreuer, Alkaline stability of quaternary ammonium cations
for alkaline fuel cell membranes and ionic liquids, ChemSusChem 8 (no. 3)
(2015) 513e523.
[76] S.A. Nun ~ ez, M.A. Hickner, Quantitative 1H NMR analysis of chemical stabil-
ities in anion- exchange membranes, ACS Macro Lett. 2 (2013) 49e52.
[77] M.R. Sturgeon, C.S. Macomber, C. Engtrakul, H. Long, B.S. Pivovar, Hydroxide
based benzyltrimethylammonium degradation: quantification of rates and
degradation technique development, J. Electrochem. Soc. 162 (no. 4) (2015)
F366eF372.
[78] J.B. Edson, C.S. Macomber, B.S. Pivovar, J.M. Boncella, Hydroxide based
decomposition pathways of alkyltrimethylammonium cations, J. Memb. Sci.
399e400 (2012) 49e59.
[79] S.A. Nun ~ ez, C. Capparelli, M.A. Hickner, N-alkyl interstitial spacers and ter-
minal pendants influence the alkaline stability of tetraalkylammonium cat-
ions for anion exchange membrane fuel cells, Chem. Mater. 28 (no. 8) (2016)
2589e2598.
[80] J. Cheng, G. He, F. Zhang, A mini-review on anion exchange membranes for
fuel cell applications: stability issue and addressing strategies, Int. J.
Hydrogen Energy 40 (no. 23) (2015) 7348e7360.
[81] S.C. Price, K.S. Williams, F.L. Beyer, Relationships between structure and
alkaline stability of imidazolium cations for fuel cell membrane applications,
ACS Macro Lett. 3 (no. 2) (2014) 160e165.
[82] K.M. Hugar, H.A. Kostalik, G.W. Coates, Imidazolium cations with exceptional
alkaline stability: a systematic study of structureestability relationships,
J. Am. Chem. Soc. 137 (no. 27) (2015) 8730e8737.
[83] H.S. Dang, P. Jannasch, Exploring different cationic alkyl side chain designs
for enhanced alkaline stability and hydroxide ion conductivity of anion-
exchange membranes, Macromolecules 48 (no. 16) (2015) 5742e5751.
[84] T.H. Pham, P. Jannasch, Aromatic Polymers Incorporating Bis-N-spirocyclic
quaternary ammonium moities for anion-exchange membranes, ACS
Macro Lett. 4 (2015) 1370e1375.
[85] Z. Li, X. He, Z. Jiang, et al., Enhancing hydroxide conductivity and stability of
anion exchange membrane by blending quaternary ammonium functional-
ized polymers, Electrochim. Acta 240 (2017) 486e494.
[86] J. Kerres, Alkaline-stable anion-exchange blend membranes (AEBMs) with
tetramethylimidazole as the cationic head group, in: Presentation at EMEA
2016, Germany, 2016.
 D.R. Dekel / Journal of Power Sources 375 (2018) 158e169
[87] O.D. Thomas, K.J.W.Y. Soo, T.J. Peckham, M.P. Kulkarni, S. Holdcroft, A stable
hydroxide-conducting polymer, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 134 (no. 26) (2012)
10753e10756.
[88] J.Y. Lee, D. Lim, J. Chae, et al., Base tolerant polybenzimidazolium hydroxide
membranes for solid alkaline-exchange membrane fuel cells, J. Memb. Sci.
514 (no. May) (2016) 398e406.
[89] D.R. Dekel, M. Amar, S. Willdorf, M. Kosa, S. Dhara, C.E. Diesendruck, The
effect of water on the stability of quaternary ammonium groups for anion
exchange membrane fuel cell applications, Chem. Mater. 29 (no. 10) (2017)
4425e4431.
[90] L. Ma, H. He, A. Hsu, R. Chen, PdRu/C catalysts for ethanol oxidation in anion-
exchange membrane direct ethanol fuel cells, J. Power Sources 241 (2013)
696e702.
[91] Y. Li, Y. He, Layer reduction method for fabricating Pd-coated Ni foams as
high-performance ethanol electrode for anion-exchange membrane fuel
cells, RSC Adv. 4 (no. 32) (2014) 16879.
[92] K. Tran, T.Q. Nguyen, A.M. Bartrom, A. Sadiki, J.L. Haan, A fuel-flexible alka-
line direct liquid fuel cell, Fuel Cells 14 (no. 6) (Dec. 2014) 834e841.
[93] L. An, T.S. Zhao, L. Zeng, X.H. Yan, Performance of an alkaline direct ethanol
fuel cell with hydrogen peroxide as oxidant, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 39
(2014) 2320e2324.
[94] A. Katzfuß, V. Gogel, L. Jo €rissen, J. Kerres, The application of covalently cross-
linked BrPPO as AEM in alkaline DMFC, J. Memb. Sci. 425e426 (2013)
131e140.
[95] A. Katzfuß, S. Poynton, J. Varcoe, V. Gogel, U. Storr, J. Kerres, Methylated
polybenzimidazole and its application as a blend component in covalently
cross-linked anion-exchange membranes for DMFC, J. Memb. Sci. 465 (2014)
129e137.
[96] T. Jurzinsky, R. B€ ar, C. Cremers, J. Tübke, P. Elsner, Highly active carbon
supported palladium-rhodium Pd X Rh/C catalysts for methanol electro-
oxidation in alkaline media and their performance in anion exchange direct
methanol fuel cells (AEM-DMFCs), Electrochim. Acta 176 (2015) 1191e1201.
[97] X. He, J. Liu, H. Zhu, Y. Zheng, D. Chen, Novel quaternary ammonium func-
tional addition-type norbornene copolymer as hydroxide-conductive and
durable anion exchange membrane for direct methanol fuel cells, RSC Adv. 5
(no. 78) (2015) 63215e63225.
[98] L. An, T.S. Zhao, S.Y. Shen, Q.X. Wu, R. Chen, Performance of a direct ethylene
glycol fuel cell with an anion-exchange membrane, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy
35 (no. 9) (2010) 4329e4335.
[99] A. Ilie, M. Simoes, S. Baranton, C. Coutanceau, S. Martemianov, Influence of
operational parameters and of catalytic materials on electrical performance
of direct glycerol solid alkaline membrane fuel cells, J. Power Sources 196
(2011) 4965e4971.
[100] M. Zhiani, H. Rostami, S. Majidi, K. Karami, Bis (dibenzylidene acetone)
palladium (0) catalyst for glycerol oxidation in half cell and in alkaline direct
glycerol fuel cell, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 38 (2013) 5435e5441.
[101] Z. Wang, et al., Carbon supported Ag nanoparticles with different particle
size as cathode catalysts for anion exchange membrane direct glycerol fuel
cells, Renew. Energy 62 (2014) 556e562.
[102] Z. Zhang, L. Xin, W. Li, Electrocatalytic oxidation of glycerol on Pt/C in anion-
exchange membrane fuel cell: cogeneration of electricity and valuable
chemicals, Appl. Catal. B, Environ. 119e120 (no. 120) (2012) 40e48.
[103] H. Qin, Z. Liu, Y. Guo, Z. Li, The affects of membrane on the cell performance
when using alkaline borohydrideehydrazine solutions as the fuel, Int. J.
169
Hydrogen Energy 35 (2009) 2868e2871.
[104] C. Qu, H. Zhang, F. Zhang, B. Liu, A high-performance anion exchange
membrane based on bi-guanidinium bridged polysilsesquioxane for alkaline
fuel cell application, J. Mater. Chem. 22 (no. 17) (2012) 8203e8207.
[105] R. Jamard, A. Latour, J. Salomon, P. Capron, A. Martinent-Beaumont, Study of
fuel efficiency in a direct borohydride fuel cell, J. Power Sources 176 (2008)
287e292.
[106] L. An, T.S. Zhao, S.Y. Shen, Q.X. Wu, R. Chen, Alkaline Direct Oxidation Fuel
Cell with Non-platinum Catalysts Capable of Converting Glucose to Elec-
tricity at High Power Output, vol. 196, 2011, pp. 186e190.
[107] N. Fujiwara, S. Yamazaki, Z. Siroma, T. Ioroi, H. Senoh, K. Yasuda, Electro-
chemistry Communications Nonenzymatic glucose fuel cells with an anion
exchange membrane as an electrolyte, Electrochem. Commun. 11 (no. 2)
(2009) 390e392.
[108] M. Tanaka, K. Fukasawa, E. Nishino, et al., Anion conductive block poly(-
arylene ether)s: synthesis, properties, and application in alkaline fuel cells,
J. Am. Chem. Soc. 133 (no. 27) (2011) 10646e10654.
[109] A. Serov, M. Padilla, A. Roy, et al., Anode catalysts for direct hydrazine fuel
cells: from laboratory test to an electric vehicle, Angew. Chem. 126 (no. 39)
(Sep. 2014) 10504e10507.
[110] F. Zhang, H. Zhang, C. Qu, J. Ren, Poly ( vinylidene fluoride ) based anion
conductive ionomer as a catalyst binder for application in anion exchange
membrane fuel cell, J. Power Sources 196 (no. 6) (2011) 3099e3103.
[111] F. Zhang, H. Zhang, J. Ren, C. Qu, PTFE based composite anion exchange
membranes: thermally induced in situ polymerization and direct hydrazine
hydrate fuel cell application, J. Mater. Chem. 20 (no. 37) (2010) 8139.
[112] W. Xu, H. Zhang, G. Li, Z. Wu, Nickel-cobalt bimetallic anode catalysts for
direct urea fuel cell, Sci. Rep. 4 (2014) 5863e5868.
[113] R. Lan, S. Tao, Preparation of nano-sized nickel as anode catalyst for direct
urea and urine fuel cells, J. Power Sources 196 (no. 11) (2011) 5021e5026.
[114] X. Zhang, J. Yan, S. Han, et al., A high performance anion exchange
membrane-type ammonia borane fuel cell, J. Power Sources 182 (2008)
515e519.
[115] K.R. Lee, D. Song, S. Bin Park, J.-I. Han, A direct ammonium carbonate fuel cell
with an anion exchange membrane, RSC Adv. 4 (2014) 5638e5641.
[116] R. Lan, S. Tao, Direct ammonia alkaline anion-exchange membrane fuel cells,
Electrochem. Solid-State Lett. 13 (no. 8) (2010) B83eB86.
[117] A. Brouzgou, A. Podias, P. Tsiakaras, PEMFCs and AEMFCs directly fed with
ethanol: a current status comparative review, J. Appl. Electrochem. 43 (no. 2)
(2013) 119e136.
[118] X. Cheng, Z. Shi, N. Glass, et al., A Review of PEM Hydrogen Fuel Cell
Contamination: Impacts, Mechanisms, and Mitigation, vol. 165, 2007,
pp. 739e756.
[119] F.A. Uribe, S. Gottesfeld, T.A. Zawodzinski, Effect of ammonia as potential fuel
impurity on proton exchange membrane fuel cell performance,
J. Electrochem. Soc. 149 (no. 3) (2002) A293.
[120] R. Halseid, P.J.S. Vie, R. Tunold, Effect of ammonia on the performance of
polymer electrolyte membrane fuel cells, J. Power Sources 154 (no. 2) (2006)
343e350.
[121] R. Lan, J.T.S. Irvine, A direct urea fuel cell e power from fertiliser and waste,
Energy Environ. Sci. 3 (no. 4) (2010) 438e441.
[122] N.V. Rees, R.G. Compton, Carbon-free energy: a review of ammonia- and
hydrazine-based electrochemical fuel cells, Energy & Environ. Sci. 4 (2011)
1255e1260.