4.7 Article

Enhancing the electrochemical performance of Fe3O4 nanoparticles layered carbon electrodes in microbial electrolysis cell

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jece.2021.106326

关键词

Fe3O4 nanoparticles; Carbon electrode; Modified electrode; Microbial electrolysis cell; Power density; Impedance

资金

  1. University Grants Commission, India [F1-17.1/2014-15/RGNF-2014-15-SC-BIH-78810]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study found that using nanoparticle-coated electrodes can significantly improve the conductivity and current density of microbial electrolysis cells, demonstrating the excellent catalytic performance of Fe3O4 nanoparticles.
The present study assesses the performance of microbial electrolysis cell (MEC) to generate electric current using (I) uncoated/untreated electrodes and (II) Fe3O4 nanoparticles (FNPs) coated electrodes. The cyclic voltammetry (CV) reports highest conductivity of 58 Sm-1 in (II) while lowest (0.18 Sm-1) in (I) electrodes. The impedance spectroscopy confirms bulk resistivity of 375 k Omega in (I) electrodes while relatively lowest resistivity of 0.4 k Omega in (II) electrodes. Two sets of single chamber membraneless MECs is operated simultaneously at different applied voltage (300 mV, 500 mV and 700 mV): RI (uncoated electrodes) and RII, (FNP coated electrodes). The RII attains maximum current density and power density of 15.2 mAcm(-1) and 10.6 mWcm(-2) respectively at 0.7 V while RI achieves the maximum current density and power density of 4.03 mAcm(-2) and 2.8 mWcm(-2) respectively at same voltage. Moreover, the current density recorded in electrodes (II) is significantly higher compared to electrodes (I) measured using CV. The result suggests FNP to be an excellent catalyst which improves biosynthesis of electric current. The biologically active environment consisting of anaerobic electrogenic microbes supported biosynthesis/generation of high electric current along with other metabolites produced from the microbes mediated redox reaction.

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