4.8 Article

Directions of membrane separator development for microbial fuel cells: A retrospective analysis using frequent itemset mining and descriptive statistical approach

Journal

JOURNAL OF POWER SOURCES
Volume 478, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpowsour.2020.229014

Keywords

Microbial fuel cell; Membrane; Separator; Data mining; Probabilistic classification; Comparative analysis

Funding

  1. National Research, Development and Innovation Office (NKFIH, Hungary) [FK 131409, echenyi 2020, GINOP-2.3.2-15-2016-00016]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

To increase the efficiency of microbial fuel cells (MFCs), the separator (which is mostly a membrane) placed between the electrodes or their compartments is considered of high importance besides several other biotic and abiotic factors (e.g. configuration, mode of operation, types of inoculum and substrate). Nafion-based proton exchange membranes (PEMs) are the most widespread, although these materials are often criticized on various technological and economical grounds. Therefore, to find alternatives of Nafion, the synthesis, development and testing of novel/commercialized membrane separators with enhanced characteristics have been hot topics. In this study, the goals were to assess the membrane-installed MFCs ina retrospective manner and reveal the trends, the applied practices, frequent setups, etc. via Bayesian classification and frequent itemset mining algorithms. Thereafter, a separate discussion was devoted to examine the current standing of research related to major membrane groups used in MFCs and evaluate in accordance with the big picture how the various systems behave in comparison with each other, especially compared to those applying Nafion PEM. It was concludedthat some membrane types seem to be competitive to Nafion, however, the standardization of the experiments would drive the more unambiguous comparison of studies.

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