International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 92 (2024) 1256–1265

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Hydrogen Energy

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

SWEL-V: A low-cost salt-water electrolyzer. Comparative analyses with the

proton exchange membrane, PEM, electrolyzer
Moustafa Oraby *, Shams Eldakar , Ann Maria Salib , Mohamed Elokl
The American University in Cairo - AUC, Egypt

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Handling Editor: Dr C O Colpan Seawater is the largest resource on earth which makes the hydrogen production directly from seawater an
economically attractive solution if the corrosion problems are solved. Traditionally in the electrolysis analysis,
both electrodes are made of metals. The produced oxygen and chlorine in the electrolysis process cause high rates
of corrosion resulting in using expensive alloys to slow down the corrosion process. A novel solution to the
corrosion problem is introduced, tested, and experimentally proved. The novelty of the solution relies on
replacing the classic high-cost positive electrodes with a non-metallic, low cost, one [1,2]. The non-metallic
electrode is made of surface rock portions with high pore volume and high pores connectivity and saturated
with saline water. The experimental results are compared to the freshwater Proton Exchange Membrane PEM
electrolyzers. The comparison proved that the novel solution solved the corrosion challenges of the metallic
electrodes with excellent efficiency and hydrogen purity.

1. Introduction Pierozzi et al. (2022) [8] and Kumar et al. (2019 [9]) discussed the
advantages of the PEM in its ability to adjust the input power which
The PEM technology: According to the Department of Energy report made it suitable for irregular renewable power sources. They also
[3], water molecules are separated into hydrogen and oxygen using the pointed out the simplicity of PEM manufacturing, operation and its high
Proton Exchange Membrane, PEM electrolyzers, with an external elec­ hydrogen purity. PEM also features high working current densities,
tric source. PEM separates hydrogen and oxygen by having a selective excellent efficiency, and a rapid response time. Its compact design and
barrier that only permits protons to flow through. When protons arrive small footprint make it appealing for industrial applications.
at the cathode, they mix with electrons to generate hydrogen gas. Ox­ The PEM Challenges: Lebedev (2019) [10] highlighted an impor­
ygen gas is produced at the anode. PEM electrolyzer is used in a variety tant challenge to the PEM electrolyzer which lies in the degradation of
of applications due to their scalability and relative compactness. the proton exchange membrane itself particularly at elevated tempera­
The PEM advantages: Carmo et al. (2013) [4] and Grigoriev et al. tures or under exposure to contaminants.
(2022) [5] showed that PEM electrolysis offers multiple benefits The PEM characterization: Benghanem et al. (2024) [11] have
compared to other hydrogen production methods. It cuts the need for carried out a comprehensive analysis of solar-powered hydrogen pro­
added purification procedures by producing high-purity hydrogen up to duction systems with two types of water electrolysis: alkaline (AWE) and
99.995%. Also, Buttler et al. (2018) [6] showed that high proton exchange membrane (PEM) by examining the impact of several
electrical-to-hydrogen conversion efficiencies, which in certain situa­ factors such as input voltage, electrolyte concentration, and electrode
tions surpass 80%, are reached by PEM systems. Siracusano et al. (2018) composition on the hydrogen production rate. They concluded that PEM
[7] compared the PEM electrolysis benefits over alkaline electrolysis. electrolyzers require a lower voltage and hence lower energy con­
They showed that PEM systems run at lower temperatures, typically sumption from solar panels compared to AWEs in producing the same
20–80 ◦ C, compared to alkaline electrolysis which requires elevated volume of hydrogen. This conclusion showed that the PV-PEM system
temperature reaching 50–150 ◦ C. They also showed that PEM technol­ has higher efficiency than the PV-Alkaline system. They also found out
ogy has an excellent dynamic reaction which enables PEM to control that aluminum electrodes can produce a higher hydrogen production
hydrogen production by changing the input energy requirements. rate compared to copper and stainless-steel electrodes due to the

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: moustafa.oraby@aucegypt.edu (M. Oraby).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2024.10.219
Received 25 July 2024; Received in revised form 12 October 2024; Accepted 15 October 2024
0360-3199/© 2024 Hydrogen Energy Publications LLC. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights are reserved, including those for text and data mining, AI training, and
similar technologies.
M. Oraby et al. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 92 (2024) 1256–1265

aluminum’s higher conductivity and high resistance to corrosion caused the cost of water electrolysis systems and how the performance of these
by the electrolyte solution. Furthermore, they highlighted that in AWEs technologies might evolve over time to address the uncertainties of
the hydrogen flow rate increased with the increase of the concentration future developments in water electrolysis.
of saline water and the input voltage resulting in a flow rate of 45.2 Wang, Y. et al. (2023) [16] addressed the future economic feasibility
ml/min pure hydrogen with an input voltage of 45 V. Finally, their study of PEM water electrolysis for green hydrogen production by applying a
concluded that for the same experimental time of 10h with the multi-scenario analysis of its cost reduction in China from 2020 to 2060.
maximum incident solar irradiation of 1050 W/m2, the accumulated Wang, Y. and his coauthors predicted a potential drop in the cost of
hydrogen production rate from the PEM electrolyzer was 10300 ml/day hydrogen production through PEM water electrolysis, from $7.26/kg in
with specifications of 1.67V cell voltage and 2 A/cm2 current density, 2020 to almost $2.60/kg by 2060 based on various factors. Those factors
while it was 3600 ml/day, and 450 ml/day when using an alkaline are technological advancements in PEM electrolysis such as improve­
electrolyzer with the 30% KOH solution and seawater, respectively, and ment in PEM electrolyzer, favorable economic changes such as the
specifications of 1.72V cell voltage and 0.7 A/cm2 current density. economy, fluctuating electricity prices, and supportive policies and in­
Kumar, S. et al. (2023) [12] have conducted a detailed review in centives such as carbon taxes on fossil fuel-based hydrogen production
their study, discussing the potential of the Proton Exchange Membrane and subsidies for PEM technology. Overall, those assumptions were
(PEM) water electrolysis as the most promising technology for green estimated and forecasted by using bottom-up cost analysis, scenario
hydrogen production. They highlighted the advantages of the PEM analysis, learning curve method, and H2A model which provide valu­
water electrolysis such as its compact system design with high hydrogen able insights into the potential for PEM water electrolysis to become
purity, high energy efficiency, high operating current densities, and cost-effect.
rapid dynamic response when coupled with renewable energy sources. Another technology used in producing green hydrogen from fresh
They also concluded that although PEM water electrolysis is already water, or slightly alkaline water, which also has the potential of
commercially available in the market, significant advancements are lowering the cost of hydrogen production is the Anion Exchange Mem­
needed to minimize its high cost compared to blue hydrogen. They brane, AEM, water electrolysis. The AEM electrolysis is a water elec­
recommended a reduction in cost since if the cost dropped from the trolysis utilizing a semi-permeable membrane that conducts the
current CAPEX of 587$/kW to 200$/kW will significantly enhance the hydroxide ions OH− like the PEM in conducting the protons. AEM uses
contribution of water electrolysis to the global production of green fresh water or low alkaline solutions since adding alkaline solutions
hydrogen. increases the membrane conductivity which increases the catalyst uti­
Bin, S. et al. (2024) [13] have gone a step further and conducted an lization. Normally the AEM operates at 1.0 A/cm2 and 1.8 V in pure
in-depth analysis of high-pressure PEM water electrolysis for large-scale water and 1.57 V in alkaline water. Varcoe et al. (2014) [19] and Dekel
commercial hydrogen production. They showed that high-pressure PEM et al. (2018) [20] discussed the advantages of the AEM in using a low
electrolysis further reduces the overall cost of PEM electrolysis cost transition metal catalyst instead of the high cost metal catalyst
compared to traditional low-pressure electrolysis cells by cutting the required in PEM. The AEM uses the Aemion membrane which has a
need for a costly hydrogen compressor and significantly decreasing limitation in the operating hours due to its stability as a function of time.
energy consumption. Besides, they highlighted other associated chal­ The current is carried by hydroxide ions through a dense polymeric
lenges for further research such as membrane degradation, hydrogen anion exchange membrane.
cross-osmosis, membrane shedding, and hydrogen embrittlement. Considerable efforts are undergoing to enhance the stability of the
Shiva Kumar et al. (2022) [14] took a different approach in their Aemion. Khataeeet et al. (2022) [21] tested the chemical and electro­
study and chose to review various water electrolysis technologies from chemical durability above a hindered hours of Aemio anion exchange
techno-commercial prospects. They elaborated that the choice of the membranes in a flow cell where the anode and the cathode are made of
right water electrolysis technology for green hydrogen production is nickel felt as the electrodes material. The membranes were analyzed by
based on the following factors: scalability, maintenance requirements NMR spectroscopy after the AEM tests, and the results showed no sign of
and cost of materials used in electrodes such as membranes and other severe chemical degradation.
components. They discussed advantages and limitations of the common
three water electrolysis, namely. 2. The experimental setup

1. Mature technology but low efficiency for alkaline water electrolysis The experimental setup is designed to characterize the SeaWater
2. High efficiency but more expensive for PEM electrolysis ELectrolyzer, SWEL-V, and to compare it to the Proton Exchange
3. Higher efficiency but under development for solid oxide water Membrane, PEM, electrolyzer. All experiments are performed under
electrolysis. normal atmospheric pressure and temperature. The PEM electrolyzer
used in this paper is manufactured by the Hydro-Genius Professional
In terms of Hydrogen production rate, they showed that the highest Electrolyzer, Fig. 1a and Fig. 1b with an active area of an active area of
four PEM electrolysis systems are M5000 model by Nel company, Nor­ 80 mm Width, 85 mm Length, and 34 mm Thickness and with membrane
way, with 5000 Nm3/hr and energy consumption of 4.5 kWh/Nm3, surface area 25 cm2. The maximum operating voltage for this PEM
followed by HyLYZER4000 model by Cummins company, Canada, with electrolyzer ranges between 0 and 3.0 V. The SeaWater ELectrolyzer,
4000 Nm3/hr, Silyzer300 model by Siemens company, Germany, with SWEL-V, Fig. 2, has the advantage of producing green hydrogen directly
100–2000 Nm3/hr, and M400 model by Proton onsite company, USA, from seawater without any prior treatments. The seawater(s) used in this
with 417 Nm3/hr. experimental work are samples taken from the Egypt’s Mediterranean
Schmidt et al. (2017) [15] took a unique approach and forecasted the Sea and Red Sea. The published chemical compositions of both the red
capital costs of water electrolysis by eliciting predictions from fuel cell sea water (17) and the mediterranean sea water (18) are shown in
experts and applying P-10, P-50 and P-90 estimates to minimize any Table 1.
anchoring bias. According to their study, it is predicted by 2030 that the Another very important advantage of the SWEL-V electrolyzer are its
PEM electrolysis price will range from 850 to 1650 €/kW due to simple design, no corrosion, no membranes, no catalysts and above all
increased research and development funding and production scale-up. its ability to operate at any volt and current. Full details of the SWEL-V
On the other hand, they found that the capital costs of alkaline water physics, the no corrosion process, the rock composition and analysis and
electrolysis and solid oxide water electrolysis are estimated to range a full comparison between the rock and the metallic electrodes prop­
from 750 €/kW and 1050–4250 €/kW respectively. Such predictions erties and characteristics are fully discussed in previous publications of
were based on expert-driven insights to know what factors can influence the author (references 1 and 2).

1257
M. Oraby et al. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 92 (2024) 1256–1265

The SWEL-V electrolyzer is composed of.

• A metallic anode, stainless steel with a diameter of 5 mm and active

length is 2 cm.
• A hollow porous and permeable rock plug; Sandstone surface rock,
Fig. 3. The outside diameter of the plug is 2.5 cm, the inner diameter
is 1.0 cm, and the length of the hole is 3 cm. The active area is
approximately 47 cm2.
• A rubber connector
• Acrylic housing
• A rubber support
• A graphite brush (used for electric motors)

The hollow rock plug and the rubber connector are filled with
seawater. The positive voltage terminal is connected to the graphite
brush which in turn connects to the bottom of the hollow rock plug
cathode to complete the electric circuit. The negative voltage terminal is
Fig. 1a. Hydro-Genius Professional PEM electrolyzer schematic.
connected to the metallic anode. When the current flows, the hydrogen
is generated and travels upward to the anode where it passes through the
T-connector to a graded tube. The hydrogen volume is then measured
using the graded tube, Fig. 4. There is no limit of power voltage or
current for the SWEL-V which is one of the drawbacks of the PEM.

3. The comparison of methodology

Multiple experiments are performed on both the PEM electrolyzer

and the SWEL-V electrolyzer to compare the performance of the SWEL-V
to the well-established PEM electrolyzer. The set of experiments
covered.

Table 1
Water composition of red sea and mediterranean sea [17,18].
Constituent Red Sea. ppm Mediterranean Sea, pp,

Chloride 22,219 21,200

Sodium 14,255 11,800
Magnesium 742 1403
Calcium 225 423
Fig. 1b. Hydro-Genius Professional PEM electrolyzer. Potassium 210 463

Fig. 2. The SWEL-V and its Components.

1258
M. Oraby et al. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 92 (2024) 1256–1265

Fig. 3. Hollow rock portion cathode.

1. The hydrogen production rate for different input power (currents

and volts)
2. The efficiency of both electrolyzers for all cases

The efficiency is defined as

KW.h produced from 1 Kg of Hydrogen
effeciency = (1)
KW.h required to produce 1 Kg of Hydrogen

• 1 Kg of Hydrogen = 11.2 cubic meter

• 1 Kg of hydrogen produces 33.3 Kw. h of energy.

4. Results and discussion

4.1. Experiment-1

In this experiment, the DC power supply allows the user to control

either the current or the voltage. In the first experiment, the input cur­
rent is set to an exceptionally low value. For the PEM electrolyzer, Table-
2, the current is set to 0.02 amp while the voltage was read as 1.7 V
providing a power of 0.034 Watt. For the SWEL-V, the 1.7 V dragged a Fig. 4. Hydrogen volume measurement.
higher current. The decision was made to reduce the volt to 1.2 to lower
the dragged current to a 0.03 amp resulting in a comparable input power respectively.
of 0.036 W used in the PEM experiment. The hydrogen production was The accumulated hydrogen production versus the accumulated
measured as a function of time every 2 cubic cm of produced hydrogen. production time is plotted for both the PEM and the SWEL-V, Fig. 5.
Tables 2 and 3 show the results for the PEM and the SWEL-V The production time for the SWEL-V salt water is slightly faster in

1259
M. Oraby et al. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 92 (2024) 1256–1265

Table 2 Table 5
PEM electrolyzer – experiment (1). SWEL-V efficiency – Experiment (1).
Cumulative Time, Cumulative Hydrogen Efficiency - Salt 4.70 cc/w.min
min Volume cc ​ 282.05 cc/w.hr
​ 282047.67 cc/kw.hr
Fresh water ​ ​ 0.00 0.00
​ 0.2820 CM/kw.hr
Input volt 1.7 V 11.57 2.00
​ 39.71 Kw.hr/1 Kg of H
Input 0.02 Amp 23.24 4.00
​ 83.93% Efficiency
current
Input 0.034 Watt 35.46 6.00
power
​ ​ ​ 47.59 8.00
the PEM electrolyzer, Table-2, the current is set to 0.05 amp while the
​ ​ ​ 60.02 10.00 voltage was 2.0 V providing a power of 0.1 Watt. For the SWEL-V, the
​ ​ ​ 73.32 12.00 1.8 V dragged a current to a 0.05 amp resulting in a comparable input
power of 0.09 W. The hydrogen production was measured as a function
of time every 2 cubic cm. Table 6 and Table 7 show the results for the
Table 3 PEM and the SWEL-V respectively.
SWEL-V electrolyzer – experiment (1). The accumulated hydrogen production versus the accumulated
Cumulative Time Cumulative Hydrogen
production time is plotted for both the PEM and the SWEL-V, Fig. 6. The
min Volume cc production time for the SWEL-V salt water is slightly slower in this set of
experiments because the input power of the SWEL-V is lower than the
Salt water ​ ​ 0.00 0.00
Input volt 1.2 V 11.00 2.00 PEM (0.09 W versus 0.1).
Input 0.03 Amp 21.88 4.00 The efficiency of hydrogen production is calculated for both the PEM
current and the SWEL-V using equation (1). The details of the calculations are
Input 0.036 Watt 33.15 6.00
shown in Tables 8 and 9.
power
​ ​ ​ 47.20 8.00
The efficiency of the SWEL-V reached the same efficiency of the PEM.
​ ​ ​ 59.08 10.00
​ ​ ​ 70.91 12.00
4.3. Experiment-3

In this experiment, the input current is raised to a much higher value.

For the PEM electrolyzer, Table-2, the current is set to 0.18 amp while
the voltage was 2.5 V which is close to the maximum recommended
operating voltage for the PEM. This provided a power of 0.45 Watt for
the PEM. For the SWEL-V, the 3.6 V dragged a current to a 0.15 amp
resulting in input power of 0.54 W. Hydrogen production was measured
as a function of time every 2 cubic cm. Table 11 and Table 12 show the
results for the PEM and the SWEL-V respectively.
The accumulated hydrogen production versus the accumulated
production time is plotted for both the PEM and the SWEL-V, Fig. 7. The
production time for the SWEL-V salt water is faster in this set of ex­
periments because the input power of the SWEL-V is higher than the
PEM (0.54 W versus 0.45).
The efficiency of hydrogen production is calculated for both the PEM
and the SWEL-V using equation (1). The details of the calculations are
shown in Tables 13 and 14.
The efficiency of the SWEL-V reached the same efficiency of the PEM.
Fig. 5. Production rate for PEM and SWEL-V – experiment (1).
5. Experimental results and discussion
this set of experiments because the input power of the SWEL-V is slightly
higher than the PEM (0.036 W versus 0.034). The efficiency of the The experimental data sets and analysis compared the hydrogen
hydrogen production is calculated for both the PEM and the SWEL-V production rates and efficiencies for both the Proton Exchange Mem­
using equation (1). The details of the calculations are shown in Ta­ brane, PEM, electrolyzer and the SeaWater Electrolyzer SWEL-V. The set
bles 4 and 5. of measurements are performed under the room temperature and pres­
The efficiency of the SWEL-V reached the same efficiency of the PEM. sure for both electrolyzers but with variable input power. The

Table 6
4.2. Experiment-2
PEM electrolyzer – experiment (2).

In this experiment, the input current is raised to a higher value. For Cumulative Time Cumulative Hydrogen
min Volume cc

Table 4 Fresh water ​ ​ 0.0000 0

Input volt 2 V 4.7000 2
The PEM efficiency – Experiment (1).
Input 0.05 Amp 9.2500 4
Efficiency - Fresh 4.81 cc/w.min current
​ 288.82 cc/w.hr Input 0.1 Watt 13.9700 6
​ 288822.57 cc/kw.hr power
​ 0.2888 CM/Kw.hk ​ ​ ​ 18.7000 8
​ 38.78 Kw.hr/1 Kg of H ​ ​ ​ 23.3000 10
​ 85.95% Efficiency ​ ​ ​ 27.9500 12

1260
M. Oraby et al. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 92 (2024) 1256–1265

Table 7 Table 12
SWEL-V electrolyzer – experiment (2). The SWEL-V electrolyzer – experiment (3).
Cumulative Time Cumulative Hydrogen Cumulative Time Cumulative Hydrogen
min Volume cc min Volume cc

Salt water ​ ​ 0.0000 0 Salt water ​ ​ 0 0

Input volt 1.8 V 5.3000 2 Input volt 3.6 V 1.17 2
Input 0.05 Amp 10.5833 4 Input 0.15 Amp 2.28 4
current current
Input 0.09 Watt 15.7667 6 Input 0.54 Watt 3.40 6
power power
​ ​ ​ 20.8833 8 ​ ​ ​ 4.50 8
​ ​ ​ 25.9667 10 ​ ​ ​ 5.50 10
​ ​ ​ 31.1333 12 ​ ​ ​ 6.37 12

Fig. 6. Production rate for PEM and SWEL-V – experiment (2).

Fig. 7. Production rate for PEM and SWEL-V – experiment (3).

Table 8
The PEM efficiency – Experiment (2).
Fresh Efficiency 4.29 cc/w.min Table 13
​ 257.60 cc/w.hr The PEM efficiency.
​ 257602.86 cc/kw.hr
​ 0.2576 CM/kw.hr Fresh Efficiency 3.55 cc/w.min
​ 43.48 Kw.hr/1 Kg of H ​ 212.77 cc/w.hr
​ 76.66% Efficiency ​ 212765.96 cc/kw.hr
​ ​ ​ ​ 0.2128 CM/kw.hr
​ 52.64 Kw.hr/1 Kg of H
​ 63.32% Efficiency

Table 9
SWEL-V efficiency – Experiment (2).
Table 14
Salt Efficiency 4.28 cc/w.min The SWEL-V efficiency.
​ 256.96 cc/w.hr
​ 256959.31 cc/kw.hr Salt Efficiency 3.49 cc/w.min
​ 0.2570 CM/kw.hr ​ 209.42 cc/w.hr
​ 43.59 Kw.hr/1 Kg of H ​ 209424.08 cc/kw.hr
​ 76.17% Efficiency ​ 0.2094 CM/kw.hr
​ 53.48 Kw.hr/1 Kg of H
​ 62.32% Efficiency

Table 11
The PEM electrolyzer – experiment (3). comparisons showed that the SWEL-V and the PEM provided the same
Cumulative Time Cumulative Hydrogen production rates and the same efficiencies for all variable power. The
min Volume cc advantage of the SWEL-V electrolyzer is its ability to use the seawater
Fresh water ​ ​ 0 0 directly without any requirements of desalination as is the case in the
Input volt 2.5 V 1.33 2 PEM electrolyzer. Also, the use of the rock electrode in the SWEL-V
Input 0.18 Amp 2.25 4 resulted in the elimination of the corrosion process compared to that
current in the PEM electrolyzer.
Input 0.45 Watt 3.62 6
power
​ ​ ​ 5.12 8 6. Efficiency or rate is a choice
​ ​ ​ 6.32 10
​ ​ ​ 7.52 12 The choice between high production rates versus production effi­
​ ​ ​ ​ ​
ciency is a particularly important factor in hydrogen production. From
the above three different experiments, it was clear that the efficiency is

1261
M. Oraby et al. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 92 (2024) 1256–1265

decreased as a function of the input power. This is because the higher the
input power the higher the losses during hydrogen production. It is
noticed that some of the input power is dissipated as heat in the system
resulting in lowering efficiency. Table 15 and Fig. 8 show efficiency and
the production rate as a function of the input power.

7. The purity of the produced hydrogen

It is well known that the PEM produces extremely high purity

hydrogen up to 99.9%. Therefore, it is important to examine the purity
of the hydrogen produced using the SWEL-V electrolyzer in this set of
experiments. The plan was to use gas chromatography to detect only the
impurities, if exist, but not the hydrogen.

8. Methodology
Fig. 8. Production rate and efficiency vs. Input power.

Gas Chromatography – Mass Spectrometry, Fig. 9, is used to show the

impurities of the collected hydrogen from the SWEL-V electrolyzer. The
gas chromatograph consists of a narrow tube through which the gas
sample passes, carried by a flow of an inert gas called the carrier gas. The
sample of interest passes through the column based on their chemical
and physical properties. When the gases exit the end of the column, they
are detected and identified. The gas chromatography doesn’t detect any
gases that are lighter than the inert carrier gas.
In this experiment, our Gas Chromatography – Mass Spectrometry
uses the He-3 gas as the inert gas carrier where it will not be detecting
the hydrogen gas, lighter than He-3 gas, but it will only detect and
identify the impurities if exist. The hydrogen from the SWEL-V is
collected in vacuumed plastic bags provided by the Gas Chromatog­
raphy – Mass Spectrometry setup, Fig. 10a. The impurity examination
and detection are based on two steps.

1. Force impurities to be collected with the produced hydrogen from

the SWEL-V. This was achieved through using a long plastic tube
between the T-connector of the SWEL-V and the plastic bag, Fig. 11a.
The impurity here is the air inside the connecting plastic tube. It is
expected that the impurity gases should be mainly Oxygen and Ni­
trogen if no other impurities are produced from the SWEL-V.(see
Fig. 11b)
2. Reduce the volume of the air impurities by reducing the length of the
plastic tube, Fig. 10a It is expected that the impurity gases should be Fig. 9. The gas chromatography.
mainly Oxygen and Nitrogen but with lower percentage compared to
Step-1 since the volume of the air inside the short tube will be less
than the one used in step-1. The actual setup is shown in Fig. 10b.

9. Impurity results and discussion

Fig. 11cshows the gas analysis of the Step-1 where a high volume of
air passes through the collecting bag from the long tube. As expected,
the analysis showed the existence of Oxygen and Nitrogen. Fig. 12 shows
the analysis of Step-2 where the oxygen and the nitrogen peaks are
significantly reduced since the volume of the connecting tube containing
air is less than that in STEP-1. This observation showed that the pro­
duced hydrogen from the SWEL-V has a very high purity percentage and
the impurities that are picked by the chromatography are due to the air Fig. 10a. The hydrogen collection plastic bag.
intentionally passing through the collecting bag due to the connecting
plastic tubes and not from the SWEL-V electrolyzer. 10. Conclusions

A new electrolyzer, SWEL-V, is introduced with the advantages of

Table 15 simple design, very low cost, working directly with seawater with no
Production rate and efficiency vs. Input power. need for desalination while providing the same production rates, effi­
ciency and hydrogen purity. Multiple sets of experiments are designed
Input Power, watt Efficiency Production Rate m3/KW.hr
and performed to compare the hydrogen production rates, efficiency and
0.03 86% 0.29 purity between the well-established technology of the Fresh Water
0.1 77% 0.26
0.45 63% 0.21
Electrolyzer PEM and the new Direct Seawater ELectrolyzer SWEL-V.

1262
M. Oraby et al. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 92 (2024) 1256–1265

Fig. 10b. The actual hydrogen gas collection setup.

Fig. 11a. Long tube.

The experiments and measurements showed that the SWEL-V provides

the same rates, efficiency and hydrogen purity as PEM but with the
advantages of.

1. Direct use of the seawater with no requirements of water desalina­

tion which is a main requirement for PEM electrolyzer
2. Simple design and low-cost of its components
3. No corrosion
4. Operating at any voltage and current with no limits

The purity comparison also showed that SWEL-V has remarkably

high hydrogen gas purity. The hydrogen gas purity tests are performed
using the Gas Chromatography – Mass Spectrometry apparatus. This
method of finding purity will be replaced by a direct method of
hydrogen detection and will be presented in another paper.

CRediT authorship contribution statement

Moustafa Oraby: Conceptualization. Shams Eldakar: Data cura­

Fig. 11b. Short tube.
tion. Ann Maria Salib: Data curation. Mohamed Elokl: Data curation.

1263
M. Oraby et al. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 92 (2024) 1256–1265

Fig. 11c. Oxygen and Nitrogen impurities – Long connector.

References

[1] Oraby M, Alsakaf A. Green hydrogen production directly from seawater with No
corrosion using a nonmetallic electrode: a novel solution and a proof of concept. Int
J Energy Res 2023;2024:5576626. 11 pages, Jan-2024.
[2] Oraby M. Methods and systems for producing hydrogen gas using electrolysis of
saltwater using electrodes of sedimentary rock portion. United States Patent 2024/
001112463 A1 2024.
[3] Department of Energy. Hydrogen production: electrolysis. June 6, 2024.
[4] Carmo M, Fritz DL, Stolten D. A comprehensive review of PEM water electrolysis.
J Power Sources 2013;280:89–114.
[5] Grigoriev SA, Flores-Díaz M, Peña MA, Concepcion JJ, Koper MT. “PEM water
electrolysis for hydrogen production: fundamentals, advances, and prospects”.
Carbon Neutrality 2022;2(1):1–23.
[6] Buttler A, Steele D. Hydrogen production: current technology and future
challenges. Royal Society of Chemistry; 2018.
[7] Siracusano O, Cascone MV, Rozea CN. “Recent advances in PEM electrolysis for
large-scale hydrogen production. J Appl Electrochem 2018;48(3):209–36.
Fig. 12. Oxygen and Nitrogen impurities – Short connector. [8] Pierozzi N, De Bacco P, Tascino C, Arcangeletti G, Tucceri F, De Simone G, Piazzi L,
Agogliati P. Emerging solutions in offshore green hydrogen production and storage.
2022.
Ethical statement [9] Kumari S, White R, Spurgeon JM. Solar hydrogen production from seawater vapor
electrolysis. Electrochemical Society; 2016.
[10] Lebedev NN. A review of proton exchange membrane water electrolysis on
The author hereby confirms abiding with all ethics including copy degradation mechanisms and mitigation strategies. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2019;44
rights, trademarks, commercial statements, …etc. (18):9830–43.
[11] Benghanem M, Almohamadi H, Haddad S, Mellit A, Chettibi N. The effect of
voltage and electrode types on hydrogen production powered by photovoltaic
Funding system using alkaline and PEM electrolyzers. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2024;57:
625–36.
This is to acknowledge that the authors received no specific funding [12] Kumar SS, Lim H. Recent advances in hydrogen production through proton
exchange membrane water electrolysis – a review. Sustain Energy Fuels 2023;7
for this work. (15):3560–83.
[13] Bin S, Chen Z, Zhu Y, Zhang Y, Xia Y, Gong S, Zhang F, Shi L, Duan X, Sun Z. High-
Declaration of competing interest pressure proton exchange membrane water electrolysis: current status and
challenges in hydrogen production. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2024;67:390–405.
[14] Shiva Kumar S, Lim H. An overview of water electrolysis technologies for Green
This is to declare that the authors are interested to submit their work Hydrogen production. Energy Rep 2022;8:13793–813.
to be reviewed and published at the Journal of International Journal of [15] Schmidt O, Gambhir A, Staffell I, Hawkes A, Nelson J, Few S. Future cost and
Hydrogen Research. performance of water electrolysis: an expert elicitation study. Int J Hydrogen
Energy 2017;42(52):30470–92.
[16] Wang Y, Wen C, Tu J, Zhan Z, Zhang B, Liu Q, Zhang Z, Hu H, Liu T. The multi-
scenario projection of cost reduction in hydrogen production by Proton Exchange

1264
M. Oraby et al. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 92 (2024) 1256–1265

Membrane (PEM) water electrolysis in the near future (2020–2060) of China. Fuel Nijmeijer Kitty, Scott Keith, Xu Tongwen, Zhuang Lin. Anion exchange membrane
2023;354:129409. in electrochemical energy systems. Energy Environm So 2014;7(10):3135–9.
[17] Abdel-Aal EA, Farid ME, Hassan FSM, Mohamed AE. Desalination of Red Sea water [20] Dekel Dario R. Review of cell performance in anion exchange membrane fuel cells.
using both electrodialysis and reverse osmosis as complementary methods. Egypt J J Power Sources January 2018;375:158–69.
Petroleum 2015. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejpe.2015.02.007. [21] Khataee Amirreza, Shirole a Anuja, Jannasch Patric. Andries Kruger Anion
[18] Nessim RB, Tadros HRZ, Abou Taleb AEA, Moawad MN. Egyptian J Aquatic Res exchange membrane water electrolysis using Aemion membranes and nickel
2015. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejar.2015.01.004. electrodes. J Mater Chem 2022;10:16061.
[19] Varcoe John R, Atanassov Plamen, Dekel Dario R, Herring Andrew M,
Hickner Michael A, Kohl Paul A, Kucernak Anthony R, Mustain William E,

1265