| Literature DB >> 31963734 |
Péter Bakonyi1, László Koók1, Tamás Rózsenberszki1, Gábor Tóth1, Katalin Bélafi-Bakó1, Nándor Nemestóthy1.
Abstract
Membrane separators are key elements of microbial fuel cells (MFCs), especially of those constructed in a dual-chamber configuration. Until now, membranes made of Nafion have been applied the most widely to set-up MFCs. However, there is a broader agreement in the literature that Nafion is expensive and in many cases, does not meet the actual (mainly mass transfer-specific) requirements demanded by the process and users. Driven by these issues, there has been notable progress in the development of alternative materials for membrane fabrication, among which those relying on the deployment of ionic liquids are emerging. In this review, the background of and recent advances in ionic liquid-containing separators, particularly supported ionic liquid membranes (SILMs), designed for MFC applications are addressed and evaluated. After an assessment of the basic criteria to be fulfilled by membranes in MFCs, experiences with SILMs will be outlined, along with important aspects of transport processes. Finally, a comparison with the literature is presented to elaborate on how MFCs installed with SILM perform relative to similar systems assembled with other, e.g., Nafion, membranes.Entities:
Keywords: Nafion; bioelectrochemical system; ionic liquid; membrane separator; microbial fuel cell; supported ionic liquid membrane
Year: 2020 PMID: 31963734 PMCID: PMC7023342 DOI: 10.3390/membranes10010016
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Membranes (Basel) ISSN: 2077-0375
Figure 1The scheme of a double-chamber microbial fuel cell (MFC) structure and working principles (A), and the main components transported through the ionic liquid (IL)-containing membrane (B).
SILMs used in various MFC studies.
| Configuration | Inoculum | Substrate | SILM | Reference | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ionic Liquid | Support Layer | ||||
| Single-Chamber | Mixed Culture | Wastewater | [mtoa][Cl] | Nylon | [ |
| [omim][NTf2] | Nylon | ||||
| [omim][BF4] | Nylon | ||||
| [omim][PF6] | Nylon | ||||
| Dual-Chamber | Mixed Culture | Acetate | [hmim][PF6] | PVDF | [ |
| [bmim][NTf2] | PVDF | ||||
| Dual-Chamber | Mixed Culture | Acetate | [hmim][PF6] | PVDF | [ |
| [bmim][NTf2] | PVDF | ||||
| Dual-Chamber | Mixed Culture | Acetate | [bmim][PF6] | PVDF | [ |
Figure 2The structure, scheme, and image of a supported ionic liquid membrane (SILM).
Comparative table for MFCs operated with various types of membranes.
| Configuration | Operating Mode | Inoculum | Substrate | Membrane Type | Maximum Power Density (mW m−2 anode) | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dual-chamber | batch | Mixed culture | Acetate | Nafion 117 | 107.9 | [ |
| Dual-chamber | batch | Mixed culture | Acetate | Nafion 117 | 38.0 | [ |
| Dual-chamber | batch | Mixed culture | Acetate | Nafion 117 | 65.0 | [ |
| Dual-chamber | batch | Mixed culture | Acetate | Nafion 117 | 38.0 | [ |
| Dual-chamber | batch | Mixed culture | Acetate | Nafion 117 | 1013.0 | [ |
| Dual-chamber | batch | Mixed culture | Acetate | Nafion 117 | 118.0 | [ |
| Dual-chamber | batch | Mixed culture | Acetate | Nafion 117 | 1225.0 | [ |
| Dual-chamber | batch | Mixed culture | Acetate | Nafion 117 | 43.6 | [ |
| Dual-chamber | batch | Mixed culture | Acetate | Nafion 117 | 17.7 | [ |
| Dual-chamber | batch | Mixed culture | Acetate | Nafion 117 | 126.7 | [ |
| Dual-chamber | batch | Mixed culture | Acetate | Nafion 117 | 57.5 | [ |
| Dual-chamber | batch | Mixed culture | Acetate | Nafion 177 | 173.3 | [ |
| Dual-chamber | batch | Mixed culture | Acetate | CEM | 33.0 | [ |
| Dual-chamber | batch | Mixed culture | Acetate | CEM | 902.0 | [ |
| Dual-chamber | batch | Mixed culture | Acetate | CEM | 112.0 | [ |
| Dual-chamber | batch | Mixed culture | Acetate | CEM | 114.0 | [ |
| Dual-chamber | batch | Mixed culture | Acetate | CEM | 82.0 | [ |
| Dual-chamber | batch | Mixed culture | Acetate | CEM | 12.6 | [ |
| Dual-chamber | batch | Mixed culture | Acetate | CEM | 320.0 | [ |
| Dual-chamber | batch | Mixed culture | Acetate | CEM | 11.3 | [ |
| Dual-chamber | batch | Mixed culture | Acetate | Porous | 5.0 | [ |
| Dual-chamber | batch | Mixed culture | Acetate | Porous | 36.0 | [ |
| Dual-chamber | batch | Mixed culture | Acetate | Porous | 36.0 | [ |
| Dual-chamber | batch | Mixed culture | Acetate | Porous | 121.0 | [ |
| Dual-chamber | batch | Mixed culture | Acetate | Porous | 114.0 | [ |
| Dual-chamber | batch | Mixed culture | Acetate | Porous | 74.0 | [ |
| Dual-chamber | batch | Mixed culture | Acetate | Porous | 117.0 | [ |
| Dual-chamber | batch | Mixed culture | Acetate | Porous | 41.6 | [ |
| Dual-chamber | batch | Mixed culture | Acetate | Porous | 5.4 | [ |
| Dual-chamber | batch | Mixed culture | Acetate | Porous | 246.7 | [ |
| Dual-chamber | batch | Mixed culture | Acetate | Porous | 163.9 | [ |
| Dual-chamber | batch | Mixed culture | Acetate | Porous | 97.0 | [ |
| Dual-chamber | batch | Mixed culture | Acetate | SILM | 179.0 | [ |
| Dual-chamber | batch | Mixed culture | Acetate | SILM | 4.2 | [ |
| Dual-chamber | batch | Mixed culture | Acetate | SILM | 1.4 | [ |
Figure 3Illustrative comparison of MFCs based on the data of Table 2 with regard to the type of membrane used.
The p-values derived from Tukey’s HSD test for the assessment of significance.
| Membrane Type | Nafion | CEM | Porous | SILM |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nafion | - | 0.976 | 0.510 | 0.735 |
| CEM | 0.976 | - | 0.834 | 0.895 |
| Porous | 0.510 | 0.834 | - | 0.998 |
| SILM | 0.735 | 0.895 | 0.998 | - |