4.7 Article

Microbial fuel cell performance of graphitic carbon functionalized porous polysiloxane based ceramic membranes

期刊

BIOELECTROCHEMISTRY
卷 129, 期 -, 页码 259-269

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE SA
DOI: 10.1016/j.bioelechem.2019.06.002

关键词

Polymer derived ceramic; Proton conducting membrane; Microbial fuel cell; Graphene oxide; Multiwall carbon nanotube

资金

  1. German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF), INNO INDIGO Partnership Program [01DQ15013]
  2. German Research Foundation (DFG), Research Training Group GRK 1860 Micro, meso-and rnacroporous nonmetallic Materials: Fundamentals and Applications (MIMENIMA)
  3. Department of Biotechnology, Government of India [BT/IN/INNO-INDIG0/28/MMG/2015-16]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Proton-conducting porous ceramic membranes were synthesized via a polymer-derived ceramic route and probed in a microbial fuel cell (MFC). Their chemical compositions were altered by adding carbon allotropes including graphene oxide (GO) and multiwall carbon nanotubes into a polysiloxane matrix as filler materials. Physical characteristics of the synthesized membranes such as porosity, hydrophilicity, mechanical stability, ion exchange capacity, and oxygen mass transfer coefficient were determined to investigate the best membrane material for further testing in MFCs. The ion exchange capacity of the membrane increased drastically after adding 0.5 wt% of GO at an increment of 9 fold with respect to that of the non-modified ceramic membrane, while the oxygen mass transfer coefficient of the membrane decreased by 52.6%. The MFC operated with this membrane exhibited a maximum power density of 7.23 W m(-3) with a coulombic efficiency of 28.8%, which was significantly higher than the value obtained using polymeric Nafion membrane. Hence, out of all membranes tested in this study the GO-modified polysiloxane based ceramic membranes are found to have a potential to replace Nafion membranes in pilot scale MFCs. (C) 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据