Bioprocess and Biosystems Engineering

, Volume 36, Issue 12, pp 1913–1921 | Cite as

Comparing terracotta and earthenware for multiple functionalities in microbial fuel cells

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

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 

References

  1. 1.
    Tanisho S, Kamiya N, Wakao N (1989) Microbial fuel-cell using Enterobacter aerogenes. Bioelectrochem Bioenerg 21:25–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Biffinger JC, Ray R, Little B, Ringeisen BR (2007) Diversifying biological fuel cell designs by use of nanoporous filters. Environ Sci Technol 41:1444–1449CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Shin SH, Choi YJ, Na SH, Jung SH, Kim S (2006) Development of bipolar plate stack type microbial fuel cells. Bull Korean Chem Soc 27:281–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ieropoulos I, Greenman J, Melhuish C, Horsfield I (2010) EcoBot-III: a robot with guts. In: Fellermann H, Dorr M, Hanczyc M, Laursen L, Maurer S, Merkle D (eds) Artificial life. Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press, USAGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ringeisen BR, Henderson E, Wu PK, Pietron J, Ray R, Little B, Biffinger JC, Jones-Meehan JM (2006) High power density from a miniature microbial fuel cell using Shewanella oneidensis DSP10. Environ Sci Technol 40:2629–2634CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ieropoulos I, Greenman J, Melhuish C (2008) Microbial fuel cells based on carbon veil electrodes: stack configuration and scalability. Int J Energy Res 32:1228–1240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Clauwaert P, Aelterman P, Pham TH, De Schamphelaire L, Carballa M, Rabaey K, Verstraete W (2008) Minimizing losses in bio-electrochemical systems: the road to applications. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 79:901–913CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ieropoulos I, Greenman J, Melhuish C (2010) Improved energy output levels from small-scale microbial fuel cells. Bioelectrochemistry 78:44–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Li W, Sheng G, Liu X, Yu H (2011) Recent advances in the separators for microbial fuel cells. Bioresour Technol 102:244–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cai Z (2005) Characterisation of electrochemically activated solutions for use in environmental remediation. PhD thesis, University of the West of England, BristolGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Park DH, Zeikus JG (2003) Improved fuel cell and electrode designs for producing electricity from microbial degradation. Biotechnol Bioeng 81:348–355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Seo HN, Lee WJ, Hwang TS, Park DH (2009) Electricity generation coupled with wastewater treatment using a microbial fuel cell composed of a modified cathode with a ceramic membrane and cellulose acetate film. J Microbiol Biotechnol 19:1019–1027CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Behera M, Jana PS, Ghangrekar MM (2010) Performance evaluation of low cost microbial fuel cell fabricated using earthen pot with biotic and abiotic cathode. Bioresour Technol 101:1183–1189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Xu Q, Anderson M (1991) Synthesis of porosity controlled ceramic membranes. J Mater Res 6:1073–1081CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Behera M, Ghangrekar MM (2011) Electricity generation in low cost microbial fuel cell made up of earthenware of different thickness. Water Sci Technol 64:2468–2473CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Liu H, Cheng SA, Logan BE (2005) Power generation in fed-batch microbial fuel cells as a function of ionic strength, temperature, and reactor configuration. Environ Sci Technol 39:5488–5493CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Takanezawa K, Nishio K, Kato S, Hashimoto K, Watanabe K (2010) Factors affecting electric output from rice-paddy microbial fuel cells. Biosci Biotechnol Biochem 74:1271–1273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Klaysom C, Moon S, Ladewig BP, Lu GQM, Wang L (2011) Preparation of porous ion-exchange membranes (IEMs) and their characterizations. J Membrane Sci 371:37–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ajayi FF, Weigele PR (2012) A terracotta bio-battery. Bioresour Technol 116:86–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kim JR, Premier GC, Hawkes FR, Dinsdale RM, Guwy AJ (2009) Development of a tubular microbial fuel cell (MFC) employing a membrane electrode assembly cathode. J Power Sources 187:393–399CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Larminie J, Dicks A (2003) Fuel cell systems explained, 2nd edn. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Cheng S, Liu H, Logan BE (2006) Increased performance of single-chamber microbial fuel cells using an improved cathode structure. Electrochem Commun 8:489–494CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Scott K (1995) Electrochemical processes for clean technology. The Royal Society of Chemistry, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Guerra K, Pellegrino J, Drewes JE (2012) Impact of operating conditions on permeate flux and process economics for cross flow ceramic membrane ultrafiltration of surface water. Sep Purif Technol 87:47–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Chae KJ, Choi M, Ajayi FF, Park W, Chang IS, Kim IS (2008) Mass transport through a proton exchange membrane (Nafion) in microbial fuel cells. Energy Fuel 22:169–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Santoro C, Lei Y, Li B, Cristiani P (2012) Power generation from wastewater using single chamber microbial fuel cells (MFCs) with platinum free cathodes and pre-colonized anodes. Biochem Eng J 62:8–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Clauwaert P, Van der Ha D, Boon N, Verbeken K, Verhaege M, Rabaey K, Verstraete W (2007) Open air biocathode enables effective electricity generation with microbial fuel cells. Environ Sci Technol 41:7564–7569CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

Personalised recommendations