4.7 Article

Preparation, characterization, and application of modified carbonized lignin as an anode for sustainable microbial fuel cell

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.psep.2021.09.006

关键词

Microbial fuel cell; Energy generation; Wastewater treatment; Anode fabrication; Lignin

资金

  1. Universiti Sains Malaysia, Malaysia

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Microbial fuel cell (MFC) is a significant bioelectrochemical approach for electricity generation and metal removal, although challenges such as low electron transfer rates persist. In this study, the modified Lg-GO/TiO2 anode showed promising performance in MFC operation, suitable for energy generation and metal removal.
Microbial fuel cell (MFC) is the most prominent bioelectrochemical approach in electricity generation while metal removal is its secondary application. However, ongoing challenges including low electron transfer rates and unstable biofilm formation on the anode surface need to be addressed. As an attempt to overcome such drawbacks, in the present study, the anode was prepared from graphene oxide (Lg-GO) obtained from lignin and subsequently modified with a metal oxide (i.e., TiO2). Thus, the plain Lg-GO and Lg-GO/TiO2 delivered 57.01 mA/m2 and 70.17 mA/m2 of current density along with 85 % and 90 % of Pb (II) ions removal from synthetic wastewater, respectively within the 90-day operation of MFC. The recorded maximum power density at the Lg-GO anode was 0.44 mW/m2, while the maximum PD at the Lg-GO/TiO2 anode was 0.78 mW/m2. The prepared anodes were characterized, and the operational conditions were optimized to validate their performances. The results showed that the optimum performance of the anode was in normal environmental conditions (e.g., pH 7, room temperature). In conclusion, the obtained results indicated that the prepared electrodes (i.e., Lg-GO and Lg-GO/TiO2) are suitable for energy generation and metal removal via MFC. (c) 2021 Institution of Chemical Engineers. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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