4.8 Article

Understanding the impact of operational conditions on performance of microbial peroxide producing cells

Journal

JOURNAL OF POWER SOURCES
Volume 356, Issue -, Pages 448-458

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpowsour.2017.03.107

Keywords

Anode respiring bacteria; Bioelectrochemical systems; Cathodes; Hydrogen peroxide; Microbial fuel cells; Wastewater treatment

Funding

  1. U.S. Department of Defense's Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program (SERDP) [ER-2239]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Microbial peroxide producing cells (MPPCs) are microbial electrochemical cells used to synthesize hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) in the cathode chamber. Catholyte hydraulic retention time (HRT), different catholytes and their concentrations, and a ferrochelating stabilizer are varied in a continuous-flow cathode MPPC to evaluate their impacts on performance. Using NaCl catholytes, the MPPC produced as high as 3.1 +/- 0.37 g H2O2 L-1 at a 4-h HRT with as little as 1.13 W-h g(-1) H2O2 energy input and with up to 5.7 g L-cathode(-1) d(-1) at a 1-h HRT. For these conditions, the H2O2 production rate provides more than 3 times the H2O2 required for disinfection or micro-pollutant removal while using 5-25% of the power used in conventional H2O2 production processes. Attempts to improve H2O2-production by adding weak acid buffers or H2O2-stabilizing EDTA fail for different reasons. The addition of the ferrochelator EDTA to prevent H2O2 auto-decay deteriorates MPPC performance, because. EDTA diffuses from the cathode to the anode, inhibiting iron utilization by anode-respiring bacteria. Weak acid buffers failed to reduce cathode concentration overpotentials. Buffering catholytes lowered the H2O2 yield due to large pH gradients at the cathode chamber entrance, causing the formation of H2O instead of H2O2 or O-2 re-formation from H2O2 auto-decay. (C) 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available