Impact of cathodic electron acceptor on microbial fuel cell internal resistance

Kathryn Lawson; Ruggero Rossi; John M. Regan; Bruce E. Logan

doi:10.1016/j.biortech.2020.123919

Impact of cathodic electron acceptor on microbial fuel cell internal resistance

Kathryn Lawson, Ruggero Rossi, John M. Regan, Bruce E. Logan

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

50 Scopus citations

Abstract

Ferricyanide is often used in microbial fuel cells (MFCs) to avoid oxygen intrusion that occurs with air cathodes. However, MFC internal resistances using ferricyanide can be larger than those with air cathodes even though ferricyanide results in higher power densities. Using a graphite fiber brush cathode and a ferricyanide catholyte (FC-B) the internal resistance was 62 ± 4 mΩ m², with 84 ± 8 mΩ m² obtained using ferricyanide and a flat carbon paper cathode (FC-F) and only 51 ± 1 mΩ m² using a 70% porosity air cathode (A-70). The FC-B MFCs produced the highest maximum power density of all configurations examined: 2.46 ± 0.26 W/m², compared to 1.33 ± 0.14 W/m² for the A-70 MFCs. The electrode potential slope (EPS) analysis method showed that electrode resistances were similar for ferricyanide and air–cathode MFCs, and that higher power was due to the larger experimental working potential (500 ± 12 mV) of ferricyanide compared to the air cathode (233 ± 5 mV).

Original language	English (US)
Article number	123919
Journal	Bioresource technology
Volume	316
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2020.123919
State	Published - Nov 2020

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

Bioengineering
Environmental Engineering
Renewable Energy, Sustainability and the Environment
Waste Management and Disposal

UN SDGs

This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

Access to Document

10.1016/j.biortech.2020.123919

Cite this

@article{cb452dffbbf542179855ae7cf2d919b3,

title = "Impact of cathodic electron acceptor on microbial fuel cell internal resistance",

abstract = "Ferricyanide is often used in microbial fuel cells (MFCs) to avoid oxygen intrusion that occurs with air cathodes. However, MFC internal resistances using ferricyanide can be larger than those with air cathodes even though ferricyanide results in higher power densities. Using a graphite fiber brush cathode and a ferricyanide catholyte (FC-B) the internal resistance was 62 ± 4 mΩ m2, with 84 ± 8 mΩ m2 obtained using ferricyanide and a flat carbon paper cathode (FC-F) and only 51 ± 1 mΩ m2 using a 70% porosity air cathode (A-70). The FC-B MFCs produced the highest maximum power density of all configurations examined: 2.46 ± 0.26 W/m2, compared to 1.33 ± 0.14 W/m2 for the A-70 MFCs. The electrode potential slope (EPS) analysis method showed that electrode resistances were similar for ferricyanide and air–cathode MFCs, and that higher power was due to the larger experimental working potential (500 ± 12 mV) of ferricyanide compared to the air cathode (233 ± 5 mV).",

author = "Kathryn Lawson and Ruggero Rossi and Regan, {John M.} and Logan, {Bruce E.}",

note = "Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} 2020 Elsevier Ltd",

year = "2020",

month = nov,

doi = "10.1016/j.biortech.2020.123919",

language = "English (US)",

volume = "316",

journal = "Bioresource technology",

issn = "0960-8524",

publisher = "Elsevier Limited",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Impact of cathodic electron acceptor on microbial fuel cell internal resistance

AU - Lawson, Kathryn

AU - Rossi, Ruggero

AU - Regan, John M.

AU - Logan, Bruce E.

PY - 2020/11

Y1 - 2020/11

N2 - Ferricyanide is often used in microbial fuel cells (MFCs) to avoid oxygen intrusion that occurs with air cathodes. However, MFC internal resistances using ferricyanide can be larger than those with air cathodes even though ferricyanide results in higher power densities. Using a graphite fiber brush cathode and a ferricyanide catholyte (FC-B) the internal resistance was 62 ± 4 mΩ m2, with 84 ± 8 mΩ m2 obtained using ferricyanide and a flat carbon paper cathode (FC-F) and only 51 ± 1 mΩ m2 using a 70% porosity air cathode (A-70). The FC-B MFCs produced the highest maximum power density of all configurations examined: 2.46 ± 0.26 W/m2, compared to 1.33 ± 0.14 W/m2 for the A-70 MFCs. The electrode potential slope (EPS) analysis method showed that electrode resistances were similar for ferricyanide and air–cathode MFCs, and that higher power was due to the larger experimental working potential (500 ± 12 mV) of ferricyanide compared to the air cathode (233 ± 5 mV).

AB - Ferricyanide is often used in microbial fuel cells (MFCs) to avoid oxygen intrusion that occurs with air cathodes. However, MFC internal resistances using ferricyanide can be larger than those with air cathodes even though ferricyanide results in higher power densities. Using a graphite fiber brush cathode and a ferricyanide catholyte (FC-B) the internal resistance was 62 ± 4 mΩ m2, with 84 ± 8 mΩ m2 obtained using ferricyanide and a flat carbon paper cathode (FC-F) and only 51 ± 1 mΩ m2 using a 70% porosity air cathode (A-70). The FC-B MFCs produced the highest maximum power density of all configurations examined: 2.46 ± 0.26 W/m2, compared to 1.33 ± 0.14 W/m2 for the A-70 MFCs. The electrode potential slope (EPS) analysis method showed that electrode resistances were similar for ferricyanide and air–cathode MFCs, and that higher power was due to the larger experimental working potential (500 ± 12 mV) of ferricyanide compared to the air cathode (233 ± 5 mV).

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85088947688&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85088947688&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.biortech.2020.123919

DO - 10.1016/j.biortech.2020.123919

M3 - Article

C2 - 32771939

AN - SCOPUS:85088947688

SN - 0960-8524

VL - 316

JO - Bioresource technology

JF - Bioresource technology

M1 - 123919

ER -

Impact of cathodic electron acceptor on microbial fuel cell internal resistance

Abstract

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

UN SDGs

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this