4.7 Article

A comparison of glucose oxidase and aldose dehydrogenase as mediated anodes in printed glucose/oxygen enzymatic fuel cells using ABTS/laccase cathodes

期刊

BIOELECTROCHEMISTRY
卷 87, 期 -, 页码 172-177

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE SA
DOI: 10.1016/j.bioelechem.2011.11.011

关键词

Biofuel cell; Printing; Laccase; Glucose oxidase; Aldose dehydrogenase

资金

  1. EU FP6 BIOMEDNANO EU STREP [NMP4-CT-2006-017350]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Current generation by mediated enzyme electron transfer at electrode surfaces can be harnessed to provide biosensors and redox reactions in enzymatic fuel cells. A glucose/oxygen enzymatic fuel cell can provide power for portable and implantable electronic devices. High volume production of enzymatic fuel cell prototypes will likely require printing of electrode and catalytic materials. Here we report on preparation and performance of, completely enzymatic, printed glucose/oxygen biofuel cells. The cells are based on filter paper coated with conducting carbon inks, enzyme and mediator. A comparison of cell performance using a range of mediators for either glucose oxidase (GOx) or aldose dehydrogenase (ALDH) oxidation of glucose at the anode and ABTS and a fungal laccase, for reduction of oxygen at the cathode, is reported. Highest power output, although of limited stability, is observed for ALDH anodes mediated by an osmium complex, providing a maximum power density of 3.5 mu W cm(-2) at 034 V, when coupled to a laccase/ABTS cathode. The stability of cell voltage in a biobattery format, above a threshold of 200 mV under a moderate 75 k Omega load, is used to benchmark printed fuel cell performance. Highest stability is obtained for printed fuel cells using ALDH, providing cell voltages over the threshold for up to 74 h, compared to only 2 h for cells with anodes using GOx. These results provide promising directions for further development of mass-producible, completely enzymatic, printed biofuel cells. (C) 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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