| Literature DB >> 30515148 |
Xian Luo1,2,3, Wenyue Xie1,2,3, Ruijie Wang1,2,3, Xiaoshuai Wu1,2,3, Ling Yu1,2,3, Yan Qiao1,2,3.
Abstract
Microfluidic microbial fuel cells (MMFCs) are promising green power sources for future ultra-small electronic devices. The MMFCs with co-laminar microfluidic structure are superior to other MMFCs according to their low internal resistance and relative high power density. However, the area for interfacial electron transfer between the bacteria and the anode is quite limited in the typical Y-shaped device, which apparently restricts the current generation performance. In this study, we developed a membraneless MMFC with serpentine microchannel to enhance the interfacial electron transfer and promote the power generation of the device. Owing to the merit of laminar flow, the proposed MMFC was working well without any proton exchange membrane (PEM). At the same time, the serpentine microchannel greatly increased the power density. The S-MMFC catalyzed by Shewanella putrefaciens CN32 achieves a peak power density of 360 mW/m2 with the optimal channel configuration and the flow rate of 5 ml/h. Meanwhile, this device possesses much shorter start-up time and much longer duration time at high current plateau than the previous reported MMFCs. The presented MMFC appears promising for biochip technology and extends the scope of microfluidic energy.Entities:
Keywords: interfacial electron transfer; laminar flow; membraneless; microfluidic microbial fuel cell; serpentine microchannel
Year: 2018 PMID: 30515148 PMCID: PMC6256063 DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2018.02816
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Microbiol ISSN: 1664-302X Impact factor: 5.640
Figure 1Schematic illustration of S-MMFC construction.
Figure 2Comparison of S-MMFC and Y-MMFC. (A) current generation profiles. (B) Nyquist Plots.
Figure 3Current generation profiles of different designs of S-MMFCs.
Figure 4Power curves (A) and Nyquist plots (B) of different designs of S-MMFCs.
Figure 5Fluorescence photographs (a-e) of carbon paper anodes of different devices to show the biofilm distribution (a: device 1, b: device 2, c: device 3, d: device 4, e: Y-shaped device) and SEM micrograph of the boundary of the channel in device 1 (f).
Cell performance comparison between reported MMFCs.
| Au | Au | 0.014 | N/A | 36 h | 254.2 | N/A | Li Z. et al., | |
| Gold | Carbon cloth | 0.15 | N/A | N/A | 130 | 1.5 | Qian et al., | |
| PCL microfiber | Au | 0.28 | Nafion 117 | N/A | 28.5 | 6.5 | Fraiwan et al., | |
| Carbon paper | Carbon paper | 0.35 | N/A | 5 h | 300 | 46 | This work |