4.7 Article

Wheat straw-based microbial electrochemical reactor for azo dye decolorization and simultaneous bioenergy generation

期刊

JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
卷 323, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.116253

关键词

Microbial fuel cell; Wheat straw; Batch reactor; Continuous reactor; White -rot fungi; Electricity generation; Dye degradation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Microbial fuel cells are effective in treating wastewater and simultaneously generating electricity. This study explored the performance of microbial fuel cells in decolorizing and degrading azo dyes, with wheat straw and its hydrolysate as potential substrates. The best decolorization response was observed with P. floridensis in the continuous electrochemical reactor, achieving 96% decolorization for MB9.
Microbial fuel cells have emerged as a technique that can effectively treat wastewater with simultaneous elec-tricity generation. The present study explored the performance of microbial fuel cell for decolorizing and degradation of azo dyes including, remazol brilliant blue (RBB), mordant blue 9 (MB9), acid red1 (AR1), and orange G (OG), while, simultaneously generating electricity. Wheat straw and its hydrolysate was used as a potential substrate in MFC. The hydrolysate was prepared through the degradation of wheat straw by P. floridensis, P. brevispora and P. chrysosporium, while the yeast Pichia fermentans was used as biocatalyst. Dye decolorization was carried out in a fungus-yeast mediated single-chambered MFC batch mode, U-shaped reactor, and bottle reactor in continuous mode. The maximum power density recorded in U shaped continuous reactor was 34.99 mW m- 2 on 21st day of the experiment. The best response of dye decolorization was observed in the case of MB9 (96%) with P. floridensis in the continuous electrochemical reactor followed by RBB (90-95%), OG (76%), and AR1 (38%). The toxicity of the treated wastewater was assessed using phytotoxicity analysis.

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