| Literature DB >> 21958308 |
Jan B A Arends1, Willy Verstraete.
Abstract
Bioelectrochemical systems (BES) have been explored according to three main concepts: to produce energy from organic substrates, to generate products and to provide specific environmental services. In this work, by using an engineering approach, biological conversion rates are calculated for BES resp. anaerobic digestion. These rates are compared with currents produced by chemical batteries and chemical fuel cells in order to position BES in the 'energy'-market. To evaluate the potential of generating various products, the biochemistry behind the biological conversion rates is examined in relation to terminal electron transfer molecules. By comparing kinetics rather than thermodynamics, more insight is gained in the biological bottlenecks that hamper a BES. The short-term future for BES research and its possible application is situated in smart niches in sustainable environmental development, i.e. in processes where no large currents or investment cost intensive reactors are needed to obtain the desired results. Some specific examples are identified.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2011 PMID: 21958308 PMCID: PMC3821677 DOI: 10.1111/j.1751-7915.2011.00302.x
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Microb Biotechnol ISSN: 1751-7915 Impact factor: 5.813
Figure 1Three concepts for positioning a BES. Some process can be placed in another concept than depicted here. For instance, metal precipitation can also be considered in the product concept. However, there it deals with large volumes and loading rates whereas in the sustainability concept heavy metals are removed in function of decontamination. The same accounts for remote sediment systems for sensor powering. These also fit in a sustainable concept as no expandable batteries and expensive exchange operations are needed. A‐ = anion. C+ = cation. M+ = oxidized metal. M0 = zero valent metal. DiaI3 = diatrizoate, medical contrast medium. DiaH3 = de‐iodated medical contrast medium. TCE= tri‐chloroethylene.
Comparison of various (bio)‐electricity producers with respect to energy density and conversion rates.
| Size | Reaction | Electrolyte | Weight (g) | Volume (ml) | Operating time (h) | Operating potential (V) | Power density (kW m−3) | Power density (W Kg−1) | COD equivalent (kg COD m−3 day−1) | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Conventional batteries | Zn/MnO2 | KOH | 24 | 8 | Limited | 1.3 | 30 | 10 | 173 | Duracell |
| Li‐ion | 45 | 17 | Limited | 3.6 | 90 | 35 | 520 | Panasonic | ||
| Chemical fuel cells | H2 or reform gas/O2 or air | Polymer membrane | – | – | Continuous | – | 140 | 120 | 810 | |
| Anaerobic digestion | COD to kWel and kWheat | – | – | 500–1000 | Continuous | – | 4 | – | 25 | |
| BES anode | COD to kWel | Waste water/conductive membrane | – | 1–500 | Continuous | 0.3–0.7 | 0.1 | – | 2.5 | This text |
Data are indicative and represent order of magnitude.
Based on the notion that 1 kg COD ∼ 4.16 kWh.
Data from product specifications of the respective companies. Available online on the company website (http://www1.duracell.com/oem/Pdf/new/MX1500_US_UL.pdf). Accessed December 2010.
This is an indicative sample for the polymer exchange fuel cell. More information can be found in Conte and colleagues (2009) and Sundmacher (2010).
AD reactor volume in m3.
–, not applicable.
Figure 2Calculation scheme for metabolic rates in AD and BES based on AD default values. This scheme is used to calculate the values in Table 3. C = Coulomb. VSS = volatile suspended solids. COD = chemical oxygen demand. r = radius. d = day.
Current densities in the anode of a BES compared with high rate AD.
| Specific substrate conversion rate | Electrode surface/anode volume (m2 m−3) | Biofilm thickness (µm) | Biofilm density (kg VSS m−3) | Output | Compared with AD (%) (based on current density) | Reference | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| g COD g VSSbiomass−1 day−1 | A g VSSbiomass−1 | A m−2 | A m−3 | Wm−3 | ||||||||
| AD performance | 2 | 0.28 | – | – | 12.5 | – | 3500 | 400 | 100 | This text; | ||
| 1 | AD values | 2 | 0.28 | 100 | 10 | 20 | 0.06 | 5.58 | 2.79 | 0.16 | This text | |
| 2 | + increased biofilm thickness | 2 | 0.28 | 100 | 66 | 20 | 0.37 | 36.85 | 18.43 | 1.05 | ||
| 3 | a | + increased metabolic rate | 6.9 | 0.96 | 100 | 10 | 20 | 0.19 | 19.26 | 9.63 | 0.55 | |
| b | 22.3 | 3.11 | 100 | 10 | 20 | 0.62 | 62.26 | 31.13 | 1.78 | |||
| 4 | + increased electrode surface | 2 | 0.28 | 1000 | 10 | 20 | 0.06 | 55.84 | 27.92 | 1.60 | This text | |
| 5 | + increased biofilm density | 2 | 0.28 | 100 | 10 | 50 | 0.14 | 13.96 | 6.98 | 0.40 | ||
| +2 & 3 | 22.3 | 3.11 | 100 | 66 | 20 | 4.11 | 410 | 205 | 12 | |||
| +2 & 4 | 2 | 0.28 | 1000 | 10 | 20 | 0.06 | 55 | 27 | 2 | |||
| +2 & 5 | 2 | 0.28 | 100 | 66 | 50 | 0.92 | 92 | 46 | 3 | |||
| +3 & 4 | 22.3 | 3.11 | 1000 | 10 | 20 | 0.62 | 622 | 311 | 18 | |||
| +3 & 5 | 22.3 | 3.11 | 100 | 10 | 50 | 1.56 | 155 | 77 | 5 | |||
| +4 & 5 | 2 | 0.28 | 1000 | 10 | 50 | 139 | 139 | 69 | 4 | |||
| +2 & 3 & 4 | 22.3 | 3.11 | 1000 | 66 | 20 | 4 | 4109 | 2054 | 117 | |||
| +2 & 3 & 5 | 22.3 | 3.11 | 100 | 66 | 50 | 10 | 1027 | 513 | 29 | |||
| +2 & 4 & 5 | 2 | 0.28 | 1000 | 66 | 50 | 1 | 921 | 460 | 26 | |||
| +3 & 4 & 5 | 22.3 | 3.11 | 1000 | 10 | 50 | 1.6 | 1556 | 778 | 45 | |||
| +2 & 3 & 4 & 5 | 22.3 | 3.11 | 1000 | 66 | 50 | 10 | 10272 | 5136 | 294 | |||
Improvements in current density from literature and combinations thereof are also shown. One has to keep in mind that most improvements were attained in ml or l scale anodes.
Current per electrode surface.
Per anode volume.
Based on a cell voltage of 0.5 V.
a = highest reported mixed culture rate, b = highest reported pure culture rate.
For these calculations the value of 3b is used.
–, not applicable to AD.
State‐of‐the‐art BES results.
| Current output | Reactor description | Reference | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Maximum during polarization measurements | Maximum during sustainable operation | Electrode | Anode volume (l) | Membrane area/anode volume (m2 m−3) | Anode material | Cathode reaction | |||||
| (A m−3) | Projected (mA m−2) | Real (mA m−2) | (A m−3) | Projected (mA m−2) | Real (mA m−2) | ||||||
| 333 | 2 000 | 6.55 | 51 000 | 0.0012 | 167 | Uncoated low density graphite | Pt‐catalysed O2 reduction | ||||
| 447 | 3 800 | 3.96 | 541 | 4 600 | 4.8 | 112 813 | 0.007 | 118 | Graphite cloth | FeCN or O2 (non‐limiting) | |
| 0.00535 | 420 | 0.00012 | 46 400 | 0.016 | 78.5 | Carbon felt | Pt‐catalysed O2 reduction | ||||
| 446 | 8 920 | 0.89 | 422 | 8 440 | 0.9 | 497 250 | 0.128 | 50 | Granular graphite | CH4 production (MEC) | |
| 1178 | 17 700 | 253 | 3 800 | 0.156 | 67 | FeCN (non‐limiting) | |||||
| 1464 | 16 400 | 0.280 | 90 | 1 mm thick graphite felt | H2 production (MEC) | ||||||
| 81 | 20 630 | 226 | 357 | 0.292 | 4 | Granular graphite | |||||
| 292 | 5 840 | 0.340 | 50 | Granular graphite | H2O2 production (MEC) | ||||||
| 63 | 1.7 | 3 700 | 0.350 | Granular graphite | Non‐catalysed O2 reduction | ||||||
| 26.32 | 4 670 | 520 | 6.73 | 1 200 | 130 | 51 | 0.52 | 5.63 | Reticulated vitreous carbon | FeCN (not limiting) | |
| 49 | 4 430 | 7 | 41 | 3 710 | 6 | 6 800 | 0.94 | 66.7 | Granular graphite | FeCN (not limiting) | |
| 1015 | 30 450 | 595 | 17 850 | 1.02 | 167 | Graphite felt | NaOH production (MEC) | ||||
| 20 | 450 | 16.7 | 380 | 4.9 | 44 | Granular graphite | Biological O2 reduction, pH 2 | ||||
| 26.85 | 1 150 | 0.06 | 442 000 | 6.48 | 87.5 | Granular graphite | Biological O2 reduction | ||||
| 0.14 | 2 800 | 930 | 150 | 10 | 200 | Mixed metal oxide coated titanium | Pure O2 reduction, pH 4 | ||||
Data are recalculated to anode dimensions from data available in the respective papers and their references. For all systems, projected means perpendicular view to the membrane, for stacked systems only 1 membrane area is used for the calculation. For stacked systems, total anode volume and total electrode area are considered. For all systems, recirculation volume is not taken into account.
True electrode surface.
No number means not mentioned in the paper or not possible to recalculate.
Average of four different materials: graphite felt, carbon felt, graphite wool and graphite granules.
Tubular design, all others are a flat plate design.