4.8 Article

The use of nylon and glass fiber filter separators with different pore sizes in air-cathode single-chamber microbial fuel cells

期刊

ENERGY & ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE
卷 3, 期 5, 页码 659-664

出版社

ROYAL SOC CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1039/b927151a

关键词

-

资金

  1. King Abdullah University of Science and Technology (KAUST) [KUS-I1-003-13]
  2. US National Science Foundation [CBET-0730359]
  3. MOST in China [2006DFA91120]
  4. Programme of Introducing Talents of Discipline to Universities in China [B07002]
  5. China Scholarship Council (CSC)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Separators are needed in microbial fuel cells (MFCs) to reduce electrode spacing and preventing electrode short circuiting. The use of nylon and glass fiber filter separators in single-chamber, air-cathode MFCs was examined for their effect on performance. Larger pore nylon mesh were used that had regular mesh weaves with pores ranging from 10 to 160 mu m, while smaller pore-size nylon filters (0.2-0.45 mu m) and glass fiber filters (0.7-2.0 mu m) had a more random structure. The pore size of both types of nylon filters had a direct and predictable effect on power production, with power increasing from 443 +/- 27 to 650 +/- 7 mW m(-2) for pore sizes of 0.2 and 0.45 mu m, and from 769 +/- 65 to 941 +/- 47 mW m(-2) for 10 to 160 mu m. In contrast, changes in pore sizes of the glass fiber filters resulted in a relatively narrow change in power (732 +/- 48 to 779 +/- 43 mW m(-2)) for pore sizes of 0.7 to 2 mu m. An ideal separator should increase both power density and Coulombic efficiency (CE). However, CEs measured for the different separators were inversely correlated with power production, demonstrating that materials which reduced the oxygen diffusion into the reactor also hindered proton transport to the cathode, reducing power production through increased internal resistance. Our results highlight the need to develop separators that control oxygen transfer and facilitate proton transfer to the cathode.

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

4.8
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