4.4 Article

A comparison of bioelectricity in microbial fuel cells with aerobic and anaerobic anodes

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY
卷 35, 期 3, 页码 286-293

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/09593330.2013.826254

关键词

aeration; aerobic; anaerobic; microbial fuel cells; substrate

资金

  1. National Science Council, ROC [NSC 99-2313-B-157-001-MY3]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Microbial fuel cells (MFCs) can, besides running on wastewater, also derive energy directly from certain aquatic plants. However, few studies have focussed on electricity generation using aerobic anodes. This study presents a comparison of the MFC performances of an anaerobic-anode MFC (ana-MFC) and an aerobic-anode MFC (aa-MFC), and shows their individual conditions for optimal operation. Results show that the maximum power density of 7.07 +/- 0.45mW/m(2) for the ana-MFC occurred at 500, whereas the aa-MFC had a maximum power density of 2.34 +/- 0.16mW/m(2) at 2200. The ana-MFC generally achieved high electricity generation, and the aa-MFC achieved relatively high electricity generation when fed with a diluted substrate. In the ana-MFC, the optimal substrate for electricity generation was glucose (fermentable substrate); however, glucose and acetic acid (non-fermentable substrate) were both suitable substrates for the aa-MFC. The optimal gas retention times of the ana-MFC and the aa-MFC were 9 and 120s, respectively. This retention time is an important limiting factor of electricity generation for the ana-MFC. The aa-MFCs fed with different substrates exhibited non-significant differences between bacterial communities. We observed the relative diversities of bacterial communities in the ana-MFC fed with various substrates. The results of denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis analysis suggest that Ochrobactrum intermedium, Delftia acidovorans, and Citrobacter freundii may be potential electrogenic bacteria. To our knowledge, this is the first study comparing the MFC performances of anaerobic and aerobic anodes.

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