| Literature DB >> 31379405 |
Irene Merino-Jimenez1, Fernando Gonzalez-Juarez2, John Greenman1,3, Ioannis Ieropoulos1,3.
Abstract
Ceramic membranes for MFCs offer a low cost alternative to the expensive ion exchange membranes, whilst promoting catholyte accumulation. However, their physicochemical properties need to be optimised, in order to increase the power output and the catholyte quality from MFCs. Two compositions of fine fire clay (FFC) cured under three firing cycles were manufactured, analysed and tested as ion-exchange and structural material for MFCs. The samples were characterised by scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and electrochemical impedance spectroscopy (EIS). The power and catholyte generated from the ceramic MFCs with different FFC types was also evaluated. The results show a direct correlation between the ohmic resistance, the MFC power generation and the water absorption of the ceramics, giving a maximum power of 1 mW from the MFC with the most absorptive FFC (16.37% water absorbance). A slightly more alkaline catholyte was synthesised from the MFCs with higher water absorption FFC.Entities:
Keywords: Catholyte production; Ceramic membrane; Electroosmotic drag; Microbial fuel cell (MFC); Urine
Year: 2019 PMID: 31379405 PMCID: PMC6588323 DOI: 10.1016/j.jpowsour.2019.04.043
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Power Sources ISSN: 0378-7753 Impact factor: 9.127
Fig. 1Picture of an MFC part of the experimental set up for power generation comparison.
Water absorption of the 6 different fine fire clay cylindrical samples tested. The samples were obtained from two different compositions and three different firing cycles. In brackets the number assigned to each ceramic type for future references.
| Water absorption, % | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Firing Cycle 1 F | Firing Cycle 2 F | Firing Cycle H.E. | |
| Composition | Max. firing Ta | ||
| 1206 °C | 1205 °C | 1150 °C | |
| GR GV | 11.72 (FFC 1) | 12.78 (FFC 2) | 13.37 (FFC 3) |
| GR Modified | 15.72 (FFC 4) | 16.37 (FFC 6) | 16.25 (FFC 5) |
Fig. 2SEM pictures of the two types of FFC: GR GV and GR modified cured following three different firing cycles: 1 F, 2 F and H.E. A) FFC 1, B) FFC 2, C) FFC 3, D) FFC 4, E) FFC 5, F) FFC 6.
Fig. 3Nyquist plot obtained from the IES of the six FFC samples tested. In black are the samples with GR GV composition (FFC 1–3) and in red are the samples with modified composition (FFC 4–6). (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the Web version of this article.)
Bulk resistance and ionic conductivity of each type of FFC.
| Ceramic type | ||
|---|---|---|
| 325.5 | 0.009 | |
| 275.4 | 0.010 | |
| 234.4 | 0.012 | |
| 156 | 0.019 | |
| 150 | 0.020 | |
| 179.5 | 0.016 |
Fig. 4Average of the power monitored with time for the duration of the experiment for each type of ceramic MFCs: FFC 1 to 6. The average was calculated from triplicates of each type.
Fig. 5Polarisation performed after 60 days of operation: A) Power and B) Voltage of the MFC. Polarisation of the best performing MFCs after 80 days of operation: C) MFC power and D) MFC voltage, E) anode and cathode polarisation.
Fig. 6pH and average of the conductivity of the catholyte collected from the different type of ceramic MFCs.