4.7 Article

Planar co-laminar flow microbial fuel cell with flow-through porous electrodes

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENERGY RESEARCH
卷 45, 期 9, 页码 14071-14079

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/er.6709

关键词

carbon paper electrode; membrane‐ less; microfluidic; micromachined microbial fuel cell; PDMS‐ glass hybrid chip

资金

  1. National Research Foundation of Korea [2015R1A2A2A01006088, 2018R1A2B6003661]
  2. National Research Foundation of Korea [2018R1A2B6003661, 2015R1A2A2A01006088] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study proposes co-laminar flow microbial fuel cells with flow-through electrodes to improve power density and optimizes fuel cell performance through microfabrication technology. The research provides valuable insights for the commercialization of microfluidic MFCs as power sources for portable medical and electronic instruments.
Co-laminar flow microbial fuel cells (MFCs) with flow-through electrodes are proposed to improve the power density. Carbon paper was used for the porous electrodes and the membrane-less MFCs containing a microscale (5.4 mu L) anode chamber were microfabricated in a planar monolithic cell for integration with microfluidic devices. The diffusion region between the electrolytes was numerically analyzed and fuel cell performance experiments were conducted with a wastewater inoculum-based mixed culture biofilm. The effects of the electrolyte flow rate (1-30 mu L min(-1)) and electrode width (0.5-2.0 mm) on the fuel cell performance were investigated. The power density was maximized at 692 +/- 34 W m(-3) under optimal conditions including a 10 mu L min(-1) flow rate and 1.5 mm electrode width, resulting in suitable biofilm formation and low internal resistance. This study provides valuable information for the commercialization of microfluidic MFCs as a power source for portable medical and electronic instruments.

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