4.7 Article

Hydrogen production rates with closely-spaced felt anodes and cathodes compared to brush anodes in two-chamber microbial electrolysis cells

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HYDROGEN ENERGY
Volume 43, Issue 20, Pages 9599-9606

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2018.04.059

Keywords

Felt anode; Brush anode; Hydrogen production; Two-chamber; Microbial electrolysis cell

Funding

  1. National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) through the Department of Energy (DOE) CPS [21263]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Flat anodes placed close to the cathode or membrane to reduce distances between electrodes in microbial electrolysis cells (MECs) could be used to develop compact reactors, in contrast to microbial fuel cells (MFCs) where electrodes cannot be too close due to oxygen crossover from the cathode to the anode that reduces performance. Graphite fiber brush anodes are often used in MECs due to their proven performance in MFCs. However, brush anodes have not been directly compared to flat anodes in MECs, which are completely anaerobic, and therefore oxygen crossover is not a factor for felt or brush anodes. MEC performance was compared using flat felt or brush anodes in two-chamber, cubic type MECs operated in fed-batch mode, using acetate in a 50 mM phosphate buffer. Despite placement of felt anodes next to the membrane, MECs with felt anodes had a lower hydrogen gas production rate of 0.32 +/- 0.02 m(3)-H-2/m(3)-d than brush anodes (0.38 +/- 0.02 m(3)H(2)/m(3)-d). The main reason for the reduced performance was substrate-limited mass transfer to the felt anodes. To reduce mass transfer limitations, the felt anode electrolyte was stirred, which increased the hydrogen gas production rate to 0.41 +/- 0.04 m(3)-H-2/m(3)-d. These results demonstrate brush electrodes can improve performance of bio-electrochemical reactors even under fully anaerobic conditions. (C) 2018 Hydrogen Energy Publications LLC. Published by Elsevier Ltd. 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

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available