4.7 Review

A review on sediment microbial fuel cells as a new source of sustainable energy and heavy metal remediation: mechanisms and future prospective

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENERGY RESEARCH
卷 41, 期 9, 页码 1242-1264

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/er.3706

关键词

electrodes; electrotrophs; exoelectrogens; heavy metals; pili; power generation; remediation; sediment microbial fuel cell

资金

  1. Universiti Sains Malaysia Global Fellowship (USMGF)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Sediment microbial fuel cells (SMFCs) are different from microbial fuel cells because they are completely anoxic and lack a membrane. SMFCs are a novel technology for the simultaneous production of renewable energy and bioremediation of heavy metals. Recently, SMFCs have attracted the attention of many researchers because of their moderate functioning parameters and ability to use a range of biodegradable substrates like glucose, glutamic acid, river water, cysteine, acetate, and starch. The inocula used in SMFCs include river sediment, marine sediment, and wastewater. For power generation, many exoelectrogens in SMFCs have the ability to transfer electrons from electrodes by using natural electron shuttles. Exoelectrogens use four primary pathways to transfer electrons to the electrodes, including short-range electron transfer through redox-active proteins, soluble electron shuttling molecules, long-range electron transport by conductive pili, and direct interspecies electron transfer. The most dominant mechanism is long-range electron transfer via conductive pili because pili have metal-like conductivity. The powering by microbes is an emerging technique for the remediation of heavy metals from sediments. The pathways for transferring electrons in electrotrophs operate in the opposite direction from those in exoelectrogens. To further upgrade SMFC technology, this review targets the prototype, operating factors, working mechanisms, applications, and future perspectives of SMFCs. Copyright (c) 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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