Advertisement

Ionics

, Volume 25, Issue 12, pp 5907–5918 | Cite as

Tailoring hydrophilic and porous nature of polysiloxane derived ceramer and ceramic membranes for enhanced bioelectricity generation in microbial fuel cell

  • Vignesh Ahilan
  • Gourav Dhar Bhowmick
  • Makarand M. Ghangrekar
  • Michaela WilhelmEmail author
  • Kurosch Rezwan
Original Paper
  • 116 Downloads

Abstract

Selection of proton conducting membrane is currently a key factor that decides the performance of microbial fuel cell (MFC). Uniaxial pressed polysiloxane-derived ceramer and ceramic membrane with proton conducting fillers like montmorillonite and H3PMo12O40/SiO2 were applied for the first time as separator in MFC. Here, we present a series of polymer-derived ceramic membranes tailored based on pyrolysis temperature and filler addition, in which ion exchange capacity, cation transport number, and oxygen permeability are influenced through the hydrophilic and porous structural property. The maximum power density of MFC with polysiloxane-derived ceramer membrane modified with 20 wt% montmorillonite and 10 wt% H3PMo12O40/SiO2 reached a value of 5.66 W m−3, which was four times higher than that with non-modified polysiloxane-derived ceramer membrane. Furthermore, the specific power recovery per unit cost of the membrane was found to be 2-fold higher than MFC using polymeric Nafion membrane. In contrast, MFC with polysiloxane-derived ceramic membrane modified with 20 wt% montmorillonite delivers 1.2 times lower power density (4.20 W m−3) than that with non-modified macroporous polysiloxane-derived ceramic membrane. Hence, the findings demonstrated that tailoring the hydrophilic and porous structure of the ceramic membrane is a new and promising approach to enhance the performance of MFC.

Graphical abstract

Microbial fuel cell with porous membrane and its performance.

Keywords

Microbial fuel cell Porous structure Hydrophilic nature Polymer-derived ceramics Proton exchange membrane 

Abbreviations

MFC

microbial fuel cell

IEC

ion exchange capacity

SiOC

silica oxycarbide

PDC

polymer-derived ceramics

APTES

aminopropyltriethoxysilane

DO

dissolved oxygen

CE

coulombic efficiency

COD

chemical oxygen demand

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research work was completed due to the financial support provided by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF), INNO INDIGO Partnership Program (01DQ15013) and German Research Foundation (DFG), Research Training Group GRK 1860 “Micro-, meso- and macroporous nonmetallic Materials: Fundamentals and Applications” (MIMENIMA), and Department of Biotechnology, Government of India (BT/IN/INNO-INDIGO/28/MMG/2015-16).

Compliance with ethical standards

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

References

  1. 1.
    Bose D, Gopinath M, Vijay P (2018) Sustainable power generation from wastewater sources using microbial fuel cell. Biofuels Bioprod Biorefin 12(4):559–576Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Zhang Y, Liu M, Zhou M, Yang H, Liang L, Gu T (2019) Microbial fuel cell hybrid systems for wastewater treatment and bioenergy production: synergistic effects, mechanisms and challenges. Renew Sust Energ Rev 103:13–29Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Wang Z, Cao C, Zheng Y, Chen S, Zhao F (2014) Abiotic oxygen reduction reaction catalysts used in microbial fuel cells. ChemElectroChem 1(11):1813–1821Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Wang R, Yan M, Li H, Zhang L, Peng B, Sun J, Liu D, Liu S (2018) FeS2 nanoparticles decorated graphene as microbial-fuel-cell anode achieving high power density. Adv Mater 30(22):1800618Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Zhou M, Chi M, Luo J, He H, Jin T (2011) An overview of electrode materials in microbial fuel cells. J Power Sources 196(10):4427–4435Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bhowmick G, Noori MT, Das I, Neethu B, Ghangrekar M, Mitra A (2018) Bismuth doped TiO2 as an excellent photocathode catalyst to enhance the performance of microbial fuel cell. Int J Hydrog Energy 43(15):7501–7510Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mateo-Ramírez F, Addi H, Hernández-Fernández FJ, Godínez C, Pérez de los Ríos A, Lotfi EM, El Mahi M, Lozano Blanco LJ (2017) Air breathing cathode-microbial fuel cell with separator based on ionic liquid applied to slaughterhouse wastewater treatment and bio-energy production. J Chem Technol Biotechnol 92(3):642–648Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ghadge AN, Ghangrekar M (2015) Development of low cost ceramic separator using mineral cation exchanger to enhance performance of microbial fuel cells. Electrochim Acta 166:320–328Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Pasternak G, Greenman J, Ieropoulos I (2016) Comprehensive study on ceramic membranes for low-cost microbial fuel cells. ChemSusChem 9(1):88–96PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Yousefi V, Mohebbi-Kalhori D, Samimi A (2018) Application of layer-by-layer assembled chitosan/montmorillonite nanocomposite as oxygen barrier film over the ceramic separator of the microbial fuel cell. Electrochim Acta 283:234–247Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gubler L, Scherer GG (2010) Trends for fuel cell membrane development. Desalination 250(3):1034–1037Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gelir A, Yargi O, Yuksel SA (2017) Elucidation of the pore size and temperature dependence of the oxygen diffusion into porous silicon. Thin Solid Films 636:602–607Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Winfield J, Chambers LD, Rossiter J, Ieropoulos I (2013) Comparing the short and long term stability of biodegradable, ceramic and cation exchange membranes in microbial fuel cells. Bioresour Technol 148:480–486PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Logan BE, Murano C, Scott K, Gray ND, Head IM (2005) Electricity generation from cysteine in a microbial fuel cell. Water Res 39(5):942–952PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ji E, Moon H, Piao J, Ha PT, An J, Kim D, Woo J-J, Lee Y, Moon S-H, Rittmann BE (2011) Interface resistances of anion exchange membranes in microbial fuel cells with low ionic strength. Biosens Bioelectron 26(7):3266–3271PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rahimnejad M, Bakeri G, Ghasemi M, Zirepour A (2014) A review on the role of proton exchange membrane on the performance of microbial fuel cell. Polym Adv Technol 25(12):1426–1432Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Zhang X, Cheng S, Huang X, Logan BE (2010) The use of nylon and glass fiber filter separators with different pore sizes in air-cathode single-chamber microbial fuel cells. Energy Environ Sci 3(5):659–664Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Neethu B, Bhowmick G, Ghangrekar M (2018) Enhancement of bioelectricity generation and algal productivity in microbial carbon-capture cell using low cost coconut shell as membrane separator. Biochem Eng J 133:205–213Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Colombo P (2008) Engineering porosity in polymer-derived ceramics. J Eur Ceram Soc 28(7):1389–1395Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Colombo P, Mera G, Riedel R, Soraru GD (2010) Polymer-derived ceramics: 40 years of research and innovation in advanced ceramics. J Am Ceram Soc 93(7):1805–1837Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Liu S, Li K, Hughes R (2003) Preparation of porous aluminium oxide (Al2O3) hollow fibre membranes by a combined phase-inversion and sintering method. Ceram Int 29(8):875–881Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Zhu W, Liu Y, Guan K, Peng C, Wu J (2019) Preparation of ZrO2 fiber modified Al2O3 membrane supports with enhanced strength and permeability. J Eur Ceram Soc 39(4):1712–1716Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Prasad RM, Mera G, Morita K, Müller M, Kleebe H-J, Gurlo A, Fasel C, Riedel R (2012) Thermal decomposition of carbon-rich polymer-derived silicon carbonitrides leading to ceramics with high specific surface area and tunable micro-and mesoporosity. J Eur Ceram Soc 32(2):477–484Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lale A, Schmidt M, Mallmann MD, Bezerra AVA, Acosta ED, Machado RAF, Demirci UB, Bernard S (2018) Polymer-derived ceramics with engineered mesoporosity: from design to application in catalysis. Surf Coat Technol 350:569–586Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Prenzel T, Guedes T, Schlüter F, Wilhelm M, Rezwan K (2014) Tailoring surfaces of hybrid ceramics for gas adsorption–from alkanes to CO2. Sep Purif Technol 129:80–89Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Erb D, Lu K (2018) Effect of additive structure and size on SiO2 formation in polymer derived Si OC ceramics. J Am Ceram Soc 101:5378–5388Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Fan L-p, Zhang L-l (2017) Effect of heteropolyacid and heteropolyacid salt on the performance of nanometer proton membrane microbial fuel cell. Int J Electrochem Sci 12(1):699–709Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Gómez-Romero P, Asensio JA, Borrós S (2005) Hybrid proton-conducting membranes for polymer electrolyte fuel cells: phosphomolybdic acid doped poly (2, 5-benzimidazole)—(ABPBI-H3PMo12O40). Electrochim Acta 50(24):4715–4720Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ahilan V, Wilhelm M, Rezwan K (2018) Porous polymer derived ceramic (PDC)-montmorillonite-H3PMo12O40/SiO2 composite membranes for microbial fuel cell (MFC) application. Ceram Int 44(16):19191–19199Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Müller F, Ferreira CA, Azambuja DS, Alemán C, Armelin E (2014) Measuring the proton conductivity of ion-exchange membranes using electrochemical impedance spectroscopy and through-plane cell. J Phys Chem B 118(4):1102–1112PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Pujiastuti S, Onggo H (2016) Effect of various concentration of sulfuric acid for Nafion membrane activation on the performance of fuel cell. AIP conf proc 1711(06006):1–6Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Hidalgo D, Tommasi T, Bocchini S, Chiolerio A, Chiodoni A, Mazzarino I, Ruggeri B (2016) Surface modification of commercial carbon felt used as anode for microbial fuel cells. Energy 99:193–201Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Jadhav G, Ghangrekar M (2009) Performance of microbial fuel cell subjected to variation in pH, temperature, external load and substrate concentration. Bioresour Technol 100(2):717–723PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Logan BE (2008) Microbial Fuel Cells. Wiley publication, New JersyGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    APHA, AWWA, WPCF (1998) Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater. American Public Health Association, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Ge Z, Li J, Xiao L, Tong Y, He Z (2013) Recovery of electrical energy in microbial fuel cells: brief review. Environ Sci Technol Lett 1(2):137–141Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Hernández-Flores G, Poggi-Varaldo H, Solorza-Feria O (2016) Comparison of alternative membranes to replace high cost Nafion ones in microbial fuel cells. Int J Hydrog Energy 41(48):23354–23362Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Xu H, Tao S, Jiang D (2016) Proton conduction in crystalline and porous covalent organic frameworks. Nat Mater 15(7):722–726PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Daiko Y, Kasuga T, Nogami M (2004) Pore size effect on proton transfer in sol–gel porous silica glasses. Microporous Mesoporous Mater 69(3):149–155Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Li W-W, Sheng G-P, Liu X-W, Yu H-Q (2011) Recent advances in the separators for microbial fuel cells. Bioresour Technol 102(1):244–252PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Atwater JE, Akse JR (2007) Oxygen permeation through functionalized hydrophobic tubular ceramic membranes. J Membr Sci 301(1–2):76–84Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Khilari S, Pandit S, Ghangrekar MM, Pradhan D, Das D (2013) Graphene oxide-impregnated PVA–STA composite polymer electrolyte membrane separator for power generation in a single-chambered microbial fuel cell. Ind Eng Chem Res 52(33):11597–11606Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Angioni S, Millia L, Bruni G, Ravelli D, Mustarelli P, Quartarone E (2017) Novel composite polybenzimidazole-based proton exchange membranes as efficient and sustainable separators for microbial fuel cells. J Power Sources 348:57–65Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Jana PS, Behera M, Ghangrekar M (2010) Performance comparison of up-flow microbial fuel cells fabricated using proton exchange membrane and earthen cylinder. Int J Hydrog Energy 35(11):5681–5686Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Vignesh Ahilan
    • 1
  • Gourav Dhar Bhowmick
    • 2
  • Makarand M. Ghangrekar
    • 3
  • Michaela Wilhelm
    • 1
    Email author
  • Kurosch Rezwan
    • 1
    • 4
  1. 1.University of Bremen, Advanced CeramicsBremenGermany
  2. 2.Department of Agricultural and Food EngineeringIndian Institute of Technology KharagpurKharagpurIndia
  3. 3.Department of Civil EngineeringIndian Institute of Technology KharagpurKharagpurIndia
  4. 4.MAPEX Center for Materials and ProcessesUniversity of BremenBremenGermany

Personalised recommendations