The impact of new cathode materials relative to baseline performance of microbial fuel cells all with the same architecture and solution chemistry
KAUST DepartmentBiological and Environmental Sciences and Engineering (BESE) Division
Water Desalination and Reuse Research Center (WDRC)
KAUST Grant NumberOSR-2016-CPF-2907-03
Permanent link to this recordhttp://hdl.handle.net/10754/623300
MetadataShow full item record
AbstractDifferences in microbial fuel cell (MFC) architectures, materials, and solution chemistries, have previously hindered direct comparisons of improvements in power production due to new cathode materials. However, one common reactor design has now been used in many different laboratories around the world under similar operating conditions based on using: a graphite fiber brush anode, a platinum cathode catalyst, a single-chamber cube-shaped (4-cm) MFC with a 3-cm diameter anolyte chamber, 50 mM phosphate buffer, and an acetate fuel. Analysis of several publications over 10 years from a single laboratory showed that even under such identical operational conditions, maximum power densities varied by 15%, with an average of 1.36 ± 0.20 W m–2 (n=24), normalized to cathode projected area (34 W m–3 liquid volume). In other laboratories, maximum power was significantly less, with an average of 1.03 ± 0.46 W m–2 (n=11), despite identical conditions. One likely reason for the differences in power is cathode age. Power production with Pt catalyst cathodes significantly declined after one month of operation or more to 0.87 ± 0.31 W m–2 (n=18) based on studies where cathode aging was examined, while in many studies the age of the cathode was not reported. Using these studies as a performance baseline, we review the claims of improvements in power generation due to new anode or cathode materials, or changes in solution conductivities and substrates.
CitationYang W, Kim K-Y, Saikaly PE, Logan BE (2017) The impact of new cathode materials relative to baseline performance of microbial fuel cells all with the same architecture and solution chemistry. Energy Environ Sci. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1039/c7ee00910k.
SponsorsThis work was supported by Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program (SERDP), and Award OSR-2016-CPF-2907-03 from the King Abdullah University of Science and Technology (KAUST).
PublisherRoyal Society of Chemistry (RSC)
JournalEnergy Environ. Sci.