4.8 Article

An abiotically catalyzed glucose fuel cell for powering medical implants:: Reconstructed manufacturing protocol and analysis of performance

Journal

JOURNAL OF POWER SOURCES
Volume 182, Issue 1, Pages 66-75

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpowsour.2008.03.049

Keywords

energy harvesting; biofuel cell; fuel cell; glucose; medical implant

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Although the first abiotically catalyzed glucose fuel cells have already been developed as sustainable power supply for medical implants in the 1970s, no detailed information concerning the fabrication of these devices has been published so far. Here we present a comprehensive manufacturing protocol for such a fuel cell, together with a detailed analysis of long-term performance in neutral buffer containing physiological amounts of glucose and oxygen. In air saturated solution a power density of (3.3 +/- 0.2) mu W cm(-1) is displayed after 10 days of operation that gradually decreases to a value of (1.0 +/- 0.05) mu W cm(-2) in the course of 224 days. A novelty of this work is the characterization of fuel cell performance with individually resolved electrode potentials. Using this technique, we can show that the major part of performance degradation originates from a positive shift of the anode potential, indicating that a more poisoning-resistant glucose oxidation catalyst would improve the degradation behavior of the fuel cell. As further factors influencing performance an incomplete reactant separation and a mass transfer governed cathode reaction under the relatively low oxygen partial pressures of body tissue have been identified. Consequently we propose an oxygen depleting electrode interlayer and the application of more effective oxygen reduction catalysts as promising strategies to further improve the fuel cell performance under physiological concentrations of glucose and oxygen. (c) 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available