Power generation using different cation, anion, and ultrafiltration membranes in microbial fuel cells

被引:522
作者
Kim, Jung Rae
Cheng, Shaoan
Oh, Sang-Eun
Logan, Bruce E. [1 ]
机构
[1] Penn State Univ, Dept Civil & Environm Engn, University Pk, PA 16802 USA
[2] Penn State Univ, Penn State Hydrogen Energy Ctr H2E, University Pk, PA 16802 USA
关键词
D O I
10.1021/es062202m
中图分类号
X [环境科学、安全科学];
学科分类号
08 ; 0830 ;
摘要
Proton exchange membranes (PEMs) are often used in microbial fuel cells (MFCs) to separate the liquid in the anode and cathode chambers while allowing protons to pass between the chambers. However, negatively or positively charged species present at high concentrations in the medium can also be used to maintain charge balance during power generation. An anion exchange membrane (AEM) produced the largest power density (up to 610 mW/m(2)) and Coulombic efficiency (72%) in MFCs relative to values achieved with a commonly used PEM (Nafion), a cation exchange membrane (CEM), or three different ultrafiltration (UF) membranes with molecular weight cut offs of 0.5K, 1 K, and 3K Daltons in different types of MFCs. The increased performance of the AEM was due to proton charge-transfer facilitated by phosphate anions and low internal resistance. The type of membrane affected maximum power densities in two-chamber, air-cathode cube MFCs (C-MFCs) with low internal resistance (84-91 Omega for all membranes except UF-0.5K)but not in two-chamber aqueous-cathode bottle MFCs (B-MFCs) due to their higher internal resistances (1230-1272 Omega except UF-0.5K). The UF0.5K membrane produced very high internal resistances (6009 Omega, B-MFC;1814 Omega, C-MFC) and was the least permeable to both oxygen (mass transfer coefficient of k(0)=0.19 x 10(-4) cm/s) and acetate (k(A)=0.89 x 10(-8) cm/s). Nafion was the most permeable membrane to oxygen (k(0)=1.3 x 10(-4) cm/s), and the UF-3K membrane was the most permeable to acetate (k(A)=7.2 x 10(-8) cm/s). Only a small percent of substrate was unaccounted for based on measured Coulombic efficiencies and estimates of biomass production and substrate losses using Nafion, CEM, and AEM membranes (4-8%), while a substantial portion of substrate was lost to unidentified processes for the OF membranes (40-89%). These results show that many types of membranes can be used in two-chambered MFCs, even membranes that transfer negatively charged species.
引用
收藏
页码:1004 / 1009
页数:6
相关论文
共 30 条
[21]   Electricity generation from swine wastewater using microbial fuel cells [J].
Min, B ;
Kim, JR ;
Oh, SE ;
Regan, JM ;
Logan, BE .
WATER RESEARCH, 2005, 39 (20) :4961-4968
[22]   Electricity generation using membrane and salt bridge microbial fuel cells [J].
Min, BK ;
Cheng, SA ;
Logan, BE .
WATER RESEARCH, 2005, 39 (09) :1675-1686
[23]   Continuous electricity production from artificial wastewater using a mediator-less microbial fuel cell [J].
Moon, H ;
Chang, IS ;
Kim, BH .
BIORESOURCE TECHNOLOGY, 2006, 97 (04) :621-627
[24]   Cathode performance as a factor in electricity generation in microbial fuel cells [J].
Oh, S ;
Min, B ;
Logan, BE .
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY, 2004, 38 (18) :4900-4904
[25]   Proton exchange membrane and electrode surface areas as factors that affect power generation in microbial fuel cells [J].
Oh, SE ;
Logan, BE .
APPLIED MICROBIOLOGY AND BIOTECHNOLOGY, 2006, 70 (02) :162-169
[26]   Tubular microbial fuel cells for efficient electricity generation [J].
Rabaey, K ;
Clauwaert, P ;
Aelterman, P ;
Verstraete, W .
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY, 2005, 39 (20) :8077-8082
[27]  
RABAEY K, 2005, BIOFUELS FUEL CELLS
[28]  
Rittmann B.E., 2020, Environmental Biotechnology: Principles and Applications, VSecond
[29]   In situ electrooxidation of photobiological hydrogen in a photobioelectrochemical fuel cell based on Rhodobacter sphaeroides [J].
Rosenbaum, M ;
Schröder, U ;
Scholz, F .
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY, 2005, 39 (16) :6328-6333
[30]   Effects of membrane cation transport on pH and microbial fuel cell performance [J].
Rozendal, Rene A. ;
Hamelers, Hubertus V. M. ;
Buisman, Cees J. N. .
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY, 2006, 40 (17) :5206-5211