Bioprocess and Biosystems Engineering

, Volume 36, Issue 12, pp 1913–1921

Comparing terracotta and earthenware for multiple functionalities in microbial fuel cells

  • Jonathan Winfield
  • John Greenman
  • David Huson
  • Ioannis Ieropoulos
Original Paper

DOI: 10.1007/s00449-013-0967-6

Cite this article as:
Winfield, J., Greenman, J., Huson, D. et al. Bioprocess Biosyst Eng (2013) 36: 1913. doi:10.1007/s00449-013-0967-6

Abstract

The properties of earthenware and terracotta were investigated in terms of structural integrity and ion conductivity, in two microbial fuel cell (MFC) designs. Parameters such as wall thickness (4, 8, 18 mm), porosity and cathode hydration were analysed. During the early stages of operation (2 weeks), the more porous earthenware lost anolyte quickly and was unstable between feeding compared to terracotta. Three weeks later MFCs of all thicknesses were more stable and could sustain longer periods of power production without maintenance. In all cases, the denser terracotta produced higher open circuit voltage; however, earthenware the more porous and less iron-rich of the two, proved to be the better material for power production, to the extent that the thickest wall (18 mm) MFC produced 15 % higher power than the thinnest wall (4 mm) terracotta. After 6 weeks of operation, the influence of wall thickness was less exaggerated and power output was comparable between the 4 and 8 mm ceramic membranes. Cylindrical earthenware MFCs produced significantly higher current (75 %) and power (33 %) than terracotta MFCs. A continuous dripping mode of cathode hydration produced threefold higher power than when MFCs were submerged in water, perhaps because of a short-circuiting effect through the material. This shows a significant improvement in terms of biosystems engineering, since a previously high-maintenance half-cell, is now shown to be virtually self-sufficient.

Keywords

Microbial fuel cell Ceramic Proton exchange membrane Terracotta Earthenware 

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jonathan Winfield
    • 1
  • John Greenman
    • 2
  • David Huson
    • 3
  • Ioannis Ieropoulos
    • 1
  1. 1.Bristol Robotics LaboratoryUniversity of the West of EnglandBristolUK
  2. 2.Department of Applied Sciences, Faculty of Health and Life SciencesUniversity of the West of EnglandBristolUK
  3. 3.Centre for Fine Print ResearchUniversity of the West of EnglandBristolUK