Advertisement

Investigation and Taguchi Optimization of Microbial Fuel Cell Salt Bridge Dimensional Parameters

  • Dhrupad SarmaEmail author
  • Parimal Bakul Barua
  • Nabendu Dey
  • Sumitro Nath
  • Mrinmay Thakuria
  • Synthia Mallick
Original Contribution
  • 78 Downloads

Abstract

One major problem of two chamber salt bridge microbial fuel cells (MFCs) is the high resistance offered by the salt bridge to anion flow. Many researchers who have studied and optimized various parameters related to salt bridge MFC, have not shed much light on the effect of salt bridge dimensional parameters on the MFC performance. Therefore, the main objective of this research is to investigate the effect of length and cross sectional area of salt bridge and the effect of solar radiation and atmospheric temperature on MFC current output. An experiment has been designed using Taguchi L9 orthogonal array, taking length and cross sectional area of salt bridge as factors having three levels. Nine MFCs were fabricated as per the nine trial conditions. Trials were conducted for 3 days and output current of each of the MFCs along with solar insolation and atmospheric temperature were recorded. Analysis of variance shows that salt bridge length has significant effect both on mean (with 53.90% contribution at 95% CL) and variance (with 56.46% contribution at 87% CL), whereas the effect of cross sectional area of the salt bridge and the interaction of these two factors is significant on mean only (with 95% CL). Optimum combination was found at 260 mm salt bridge length and 506.7 mm2 cross sectional area with 4.75 mA of mean output current. The temperature and solar insolation data when correlated with each of the MFCs average output current, revealed that both external factors have significant impact on MFC current output but the correlation coefficient varies from MFC to MFC depending on salt bridge dimensional parameters.

Keywords

Microbial fuel cell Salt bridge parameters Taguchi method Karl-Pearsons co-efficient of correlation ANOVA 

Notations

A1, A2, A3

Three levels of factor A

ANOVA

Analysis of variance

AWG

American wire gauge

CL

Confidence level

CPVC

Chlorinated poly vinyl chloride

e

Error term in ANOVA calculation

f

Degree of freedom (DOF)

F

Variance ratio

F(α) Crit

Critical F value for a particular α, DOF of a factor and DOF of error. Where α is the probability of rejecting the null hypothesis when it is true

Im

Mean output current of MFC at optimal setting

Iij

The average current output of ith trial number on jth repetition (or day)

IDm

Average output current density of MFC

L1, L2, L3

Three levels of factor L

LmAn

MFC designation having factor L at mth and factor A at nth level

L × A

Interaction of factor L and factor A

MFC

Microbial fuel cell

OA

Orthogonal array

P

Percent contribution

Pavg

Average output power of MFC

PDavg

Average output power density of MFC

R

Electrical resistance

R1, R2, R3

First, second and third repetition of the trial conditions

S

Sum of squares

S′

Pure sum of square

S/N

Signal to noise ratio

V

Variance

Vavg

Average output voltage of MFC

ϒ

Karl Pearson’s co-efficient of correlation

Supplementary material

40032_2017_436_MOESM1_ESM.xlsx (1.1 mb)
Supplementary material 1 (XLSX 1089 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    B.E. Logan, B. Hamelers, R. Rozendal, U. Schroder, J. Keller, S. Freguia, P. Aelterman, W. Verstraete, K. Rabaey, Microbial fuel cells: methodology and technology. Environ. Sci. Technol. 40(17), 5181–5192 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    J. Li, An experimental study of microbial fuel cells for electricity generating: performance characterization and capacity improvement. J. Sustain. Bioenergy Syst. 3, 171–178 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    P.K. Barua, D. Deka, Electricity generation from biowaste based microbial fuel cells. Int. J. Energy Inf. Commun. 1(1), 77–92 (2010)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    A. Parkash, Characterization of generated voltage, current, power and power density from cow dung using double chambered microbial fuel cell. J. Phys. Chem. Biophys. 6(2), 1–5 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    N.S.N. Hisham, SMd Zain, S. Jusoh, N. Anuar, F. Suja, A. Ismail, N.E.A. Basri, Microbial fuel cells using different types of wastewater for electricity generation and simultaneously removed pollutant. J. Eng. Sci. Technol. 8(3), 316–325 (2013)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    H. Ashoka, R. Shalini, P. Bhat, Comparative studies on electrodes for the construction of microbial fuel cell. Int. J. Adv. Biotechnol. Res. 3(4), 785–789 (2012)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    H. Tursun, R. Liu, J. Li, R. Abro, X. Wang, Y. Gao, Y. Li, Carbon material optimized biocathode for improving microbial fuel cell performance. Front. Microbiol. 7(6), 1–9 (2016)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Y. Zhang, J. Sun, Y. Hu, Z. Wang, S. Li, Effects of periodically alternating temperatures on performance of single-chamber microbial fuel cells. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 39(15), 8048–8054 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    L. Wei, H. Han, J. Shen, Effects of temperature and ferrous sulfate concentrations on the performance of microbial fuel cell. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 38(25), 11110–11116 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    J.S. Sudarsan, K. Prasana, S. Nithiyanantham, K. Renganathan, Comparative study of electricity production and treatment of different wastewater using microbial fuel cell (MFC). Environ. Earth Sci. 73, 2409–2413 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    A. Muralidharan, O.K.A. Babu, K. Nirmalraman, M. Ramya, Impact of salt concentration on electricity production in microbial hydrogen based salt bridge fuel cells. Indian. J. Fundam. Appl. Life Sci. 1(2), 178–184 (2011)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    A. Parkash, Impact of salt bridge on electricity generation from hostel sewage sludge using double chambered microbial fuel cell. Res. Rev. J. Eng. Technol. 1, 13–18 (2015)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    A. El-Hag, O.M. Ali, R. Gomaa, H.Abd Fathey, A.E. Kareem, Md.A. Zaid, Optimization of double chamber microbial fuel cell for domestic wastewater treatment and electricity production. J. Fuel Chem. Technol. 43(9), 1092–1099 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    J. Choulera, G.A. Padgetta, P.J. Cameron, K. Preuss, M.M. Titirici, I. Ieropoulos, M.D. Lorenzo, Towards effective small scale microbial fuel cells for energy generation from urine. Electrochim. Acta 192, 89–98 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    S.A. Idris, F.N. Esat, A.A.A. Rahim, W.A.Z.R.W. Ruzlee, W.M.Z. Razali, Electricity generation from the mud by using microbial fuel cell. MATEC Web Conf. 69(02001), 1–4 (2016)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    S. Kumar, H.D. Kumar, K. Gireesh Babu, A study on the electricity generation from the cow dung using microbial fuel cell. J. Biochem. Technol. 3(4), 442–447 (2012)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    P.J. Ross, Taguchi Techniques for Quality Engineering, 1st edn. (McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, 1988), pp. 118–124Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    D. Sarma, M. Das, B. Brahma, D. Pandwar, S. Rongphar, M. Rahman, Investigation and parameter optimization of a hydraulic ram pump using taguchi method. J. Inst. Eng. India Ser. C 97(4), 551–559 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    M. Telsang, Demand forecasting, Industrial Engineering & Production Management, 2nd edn. (S. Chand & Company Ltd, New Delhi, 2002), pp. 206–208Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    W.F. Liu, S.A. Cheng, Microbial fuel cells for energy production from wastewaters: the way toward practical application. J. Zhejiang Univ. Sci. A (App. Phys. Eng.) 15(11), 841–861 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Institution of Engineers (India) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Mechanical Engineering DepartmentJorhat Engineering CollegeGarmur, JorhatIndia

Personalised recommendations