4.6 Article

On the Capacity and Stability of a Biosynthesized Bis-quinone Flow Battery Negolyte

期刊

ACS SUSTAINABLE CHEMISTRY & ENGINEERING
卷 11, 期 24, 页码 9206-9215

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acssuschemeng.3c02136

关键词

sustainable electrolyte production; bio-quinone; renewable energy; energy storage; four-electronreaction; mixed phoenicin; biosynthetic compound; fungi

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study demonstrates the influence of phoenicin and its dimer on the capacity performance of phoenicin as a negolyte in a redox flow battery. The biosynthesized fungal quinone mix of phoenicin shows the ability to store four electrons per phoenicin molecule in a redox flow battery negolyte. A detailed analysis is conducted to understand the chemical stability of phoenicin in an alkaline environment.
The use of naturally occurring quinones to produce moresustainableelectrolytes to use for renewable energy storage in redox flow batteries(RFBs) is still a new and rarely investigated subject. In this study,we demonstrate how the putative phoenicin and its dimer (diphoenicin)influence the capacity performance of phoenicin as a negolyte in aredox flow battery. To do this, we biosynthesized phoenicin by cultivatingthe filamentous fungus Penicillium phoeniceum and the resulting fungal extract contained multiple metabolites,putatively related to phoenicin, including the proposed phoenicindimer, which constituted 7% of the extract. When paired with potassiumferri/ferrocyanide as a posolyte in an RFB, the battery showed aninitial capacity of 1.58 Ah L-1. In contrast toour previous study, this corresponded to a two-electron reaction perbenzoquinone group. A detailed electrochemical and chemical analysisis conducted to shed light on this discrepancy and to provide furtherinsight into the chemical stability of phoenicin in an alkaline environment(pH = 14). A sustainable biosynthesizedfungal quinone mix of phoenicinstores four electrons per phoenicin molecule in a redox flow batterynegolyte.

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

4.6
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