4.4 Article

Performance evaluation of treating oil-containing restaurant wastewater in microbial fuel cell using in situ graphene/polyaniline modified titanium oxide anode

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY
卷 41, 期 4, 页码 420-429

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/09593330.2018.1499814

关键词

Microbial fuel cell; graphene; polyaniline; electrode material; oil-containing restaurant wastewater

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [41672224, 41372259]
  2. National Key Research and Development Program of China [2016YFC0400701]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Most studies conducted nowadays to boost electrode performance in microbial fuel cell (MFC) have focused on carbonaceous materials. The titanium suboxides (Ti4O7, TS) are able to provide a new alternative for achieving better performance in MFC and have been tested and demonstrated in this study. The Ti4O7 electrode with high electrochemical activity was modified by graphene/polyaniline by the constant potential method. Electrogenic microorganisms were more conducive to adhere to the anode electrode due to the presence of graphene/polyaniline. The MFC reactor with polyaniline /graphene modi?ed TS (TSGP) anode achieves the highest voltage with 980 mV, and produces a peak power density of 2073 mW/m(2), which is 2.9 and 12.7 times of those with the carbon cloth anode, respectively, at the 1000 omega external resistance. In addition, this study evaluates the effects of anolyte conductivity, pH, and COD on the treatment of oil-containing restaurant wastewater (OCRW) in MFC using TSGP anode. The OCRW amended with 120 mS/cm obtains the lowest internal resistance (160.3 omega). Increasing the anodic pH, gradually from acidic (pH 5.5) to alkaline conditions (pH 8.0), resulted in a gradual increase in maximum power density to 576.4 mW/m(2) and a decrease in internal cell resistance to 203.7 omega. The MFC at the COD 1500 mg/L could obtain steady-state output voltage during 103 h while removing up to 65.2% of the COD of the OCRW.

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

4.4
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