4.7 Article

A microfluidic microbial fuel cell array that supports long-term multiplexed analyses of electricigens

期刊

LAB ON A CHIP
卷 12, 期 20, 页码 4151-4159

出版社

ROYAL SOC CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1039/c2lc40405b

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Science Foundation (NSF CBET) [0854684]
  2. T. R Prime Ministry State Planning Organization (DPT) at Fatih University, TURKEY
  3. Texas AgriLife Research Bioenergy Program
  4. Texas A&M University Office of the Vice President for Research Energy Resources Program

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Microbial fuel cells (MFCs) are green energy technologies that exploit microbial metabolism to generate electricity. The widespread implementation of MFC technologies has been stymied by their high cost and limited power. MFC arrays in which device configurations or microbial consortia can be screened have generated significant interest because of their potential for defining aspects that will improve performance featuring high throughput characteristics. However, current miniature MFCs and MFC array systems do not support long-term studies that mimic field conditions, and hence, have limitations in fully characterizing and understanding MFC performances in varieties of conditions. Here, we describe an MFC array device that incorporates microfluidic technology to enable continuous long-term analysis of MFC performance at high throughput utilizing periodic anolyte/catholyte replenishment. The system showed 360% higher power output and 700% longer operating time when compared to MFC arrays without catholyte replenishment. We further demonstrate the utility of the system by reporting its successful use in screening microbial consortia collected from geographically diverse environments for communities that support enhanced MFC performance. Taken together, this work demonstrates that anolyte/catholyte replenishment can significantly improve the long-term performance of microfabricated MFC arrays, and support the characterization of diverse microbial consortia.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据