Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology

, Volume 89, Issue 6, pp 2053–2063 | Cite as

Performance of a pilot-scale continuous flow microbial electrolysis cell fed winery wastewater

  • Roland D. Cusick
  • Bill Bryan
  • Denny S. Parker
  • Matthew D. Merrill
  • Maha Mehanna
  • Patrick D. Kiely
  • Guangli Liu
  • Bruce E. Logan
Bioenergy and Biofuels

Abstract

A pilot-scale (1,000 L) continuous flow microbial electrolysis cell was constructed and tested for current generation and COD removal with winery wastewater. The reactor contained 144 electrode pairs in 24 modules. Enrichment of an exoelectrogenic biofilm required ~60 days, which is longer than typically needed for laboratory reactors. Current generation was enhanced by ensuring adequate organic volatile fatty acid content (VFA/SCOD ≥ 0.5) and by raising the wastewater temperature (31 ± 1°C). Once enriched, SCOD removal (62 ± 20%) was consistent at a hydraulic retention time of 1 day (applied voltage of 0.9 V). Current generation reached a maximum of 7.4 A/m3 by the planned end of the test (after 100 days). Gas production reached a maximum of 0.19 ± 0.04 L/L/day, although most of the product gas was converted to methane (86 ± 6%). In order to increase hydrogen recovery in future tests, better methods will be needed to isolate hydrogen gas produced at the cathode. These results show that inoculation and enrichment procedures are critical to the initial success of larger-scale systems. Acetate amendments, warmer temperatures, and pH control during startup were found to be critical for proper enrichment of exoelectrogenic biofilms and improved reactor performance.

Keywords

Biohydrogen Biomethane Bioelectricity Microbial electrolysis cell Bioenergy 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank Andy Hoxsey, Sheldon Parker, Lynn Wantanabe, Stephanie Litty, and the maintenance crew of the Napa Wine Company for their tremendous support throughout this project. The authors also thank Nielson Construction for their expertise, patience, and flexibility during reactor construction and operation. This research was supported in part by Air Products and Chemicals, Inc., and the Paul L. Bush award administered by the Water Environment Research Foundation.

Supplementary material

253_2011_3130_MOESM1_ESM.doc (46 kb)
Figures S1–S2 (DOC 46 kb)

References

  1. Call D, Logan BE (2008) Hydrogen production in a single chamber microbial electrolysis cell (MEC) lacking a membrane. Environ Sci Technol 42(9):3401–3406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Call D, Merrill MD, Logan BE (2009a) High surface area stainless steel brushes as cathodes in microbial electrolysis cells (MECs). Environ Sci Technol 43(6):2179–2183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Call DF, Wagner RC, Logan BE (2009b) Hydrogen production by Geobacter species and a mixed consortium in a microbial electrolysis cell. Appl Environ Microbiol 75(24):7579–7587CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chae KJ, Choi MJ, Kim KY, Ajayi FF, Chang IS, Kim IS (2009) Selective inhibition of methanogens for the improvement of biohydrogen production in microbial electrolysis cells. Int J Hydrogen Energy 35:13379–13386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cheng S, Liu H, Logan BE (2006a) Increased power generation in a continuous flow MFC with advective flow through the porous anode and reduced electrode spacing. Environ Sci Technol 40:2426–2432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cheng S, Liu H, Logan BE (2006b) Power densities using different cathode catalysts (Pt and CoTMPP) and polymer binders (Nafion and PTFE) in single chamber microbial fuel cells. Environ Sci Technol 40:364–369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cheng S, Xing D, Call DF, Logan BE (2009) Direct biological conversion of electrons into methane by electromethanogenesis. Environ Sci Technol 43(10):3953–3958CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cheng S, Xing D, Logan BE (2010) Electricity generation of single-chamber microbial fuel cells at low temperature. Biosen Bioelectron 26:1913–1917CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Clauwaert P, Verstraete W (2009) Methanogenesis in membraneless microbial electrolysis cells. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 82(5):829–836CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cusick RD, Kiely PD, Logan BE (2010) A monetary comparison of energy recovered from microbial fuel cells and microbial electrolysis cells fed winery or domestic wastewaters. Int J Hydrogen Energy 35(17):8855–8861CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ditzig J, Liu H, Logan BE (2007) Production of hydrogen from domestic wastewater using a bioelectrochemically assisted microbial reactor (BEAMR). Int J Hydrogen Energy 32(13):2296–2304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. EPA, CHP (2007) Opportunities for and benefits of combined heat and power at wastewater treatment facilities. EPA-430-R-07-003, 6Google Scholar
  13. Gil G-C, Chang I-S, Kim BH, Kim M, Jang J-K, Park HS, Kim HJ (2003) Operational parameters affecting the performance of a mediator-less microbial fuel cell. Biosens Bioelectron 18(4):327–334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kalyuzhnyi SV, Gladchenko MA, Sklyar VI, Kurakova OV, Shcherbakov SS (2000) The UASB treatment of winery wastewater under submesophilic and psychrophilic conditions. Environ Technol 21:919–925CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kiely PD, Cusick R, Call DF, Selembo PA, Regan JM, Logan BE (2011) Anode microbial communities produced by changing from microbial fuel cell to microbial electrolysis cell operation using two different wastewaters. Bioresour Technol 102(1):388–394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Liu H, Cheng S, Logan BE (2005a) Production of electricity from acetate or butyrate in a single chamber microbial fuel cell. Environ Sci Technol 39(2):658–662CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Liu H, Grot S, Logan BE (2005b) Electrochemically assisted microbial production of hydrogen from acetate. Environ Sci Technol 39(11):4317–4320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Liu Y, Harnisch F, Fricke K, Sietmann R, Schröder U (2008) Improvement of the anodic bioelectrocatalytic activity of mixed culture biofilms by a simple consecutive electrochemical selection procedure. Biosens Bioelectron 24(4):1006–1011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Logan BE, Cheng S, Watson V, Estadt G (2007) Graphite fiber brush anodes for increased power production in air-cathode microbial fuel cells. Environ Sci Technol 41(9):3341–3346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Logan BE, Call D, Cheng S, Hamelers HVM, Sleutels THJA, Jeremiasse AW, Rozendal RA (2008) Microbial electrolysis cells for high yield hydrogen gas production from organic matter. Environ Sci Technol 42(23):8630–8640CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Moletta R (2005) Winery and distillery wastewater treatment by anaerobic digestion. Water Sci Technol 51(1):137–144Google Scholar
  22. NIST (2008) NIST Chemistry WebBook. http://webbook.nist.gov/chemistry/. Accessed 10 May 2010
  23. Parkin GF, Owen WF (1986) Fundamentals of anaerobic digestion of wastewater sludges. J Environ Eng ASCE 112 (EE5):867–920CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Prathap P, César IT, Hyung-Sool L, Rosa K-B, Bruce ER (2009) Syntrophic interactions among anode respiring bacteria (ARB) and non-ARB in a biofilm anode: electron balances. Biotechnol Bioeng 103(3):513–523CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Rabaey K, Lissens G, Siciliano SD, Verstraete W (2003) A microbial fuel cell capable of converting glucose to electricity at high rate and efficiency. Biotechnol Lett 25(18):1531–1535CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Rader GK (2010) Effect of long-term operation on MFC performance and the performance of a scale-up continuous flow MEC with an examinaion of methods to decrease CH4 production. The Pennsylvania State University, University ParkGoogle Scholar
  27. Rader GK, Logan BE (2010) Multi-electrode continuous flow microbial electrolysis cell for biogas production from acetate. Int J Hydrogen Energy 35:8848–8854CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Rozendal RA, Hamelers HVM, Euverink GJW, Metz SJ, Buisman CJN (2006) Principle and perspectives of hydrogen production through biocatalyzed electrolysis. Int J Hydrogen Energy 31(12):1632–1640CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Selembo PA, Perez JM, Lloyd WA, Logan BE (2009) High hydrogen production from glycerol or glucose by electrohydrogenesis using microbial electrolysis cells. Int J Hydrogen Energy 34(13):5373–5381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Wagner RC, Regan JM, Oh S-E, Zuo Y, Logan BE (2009) Hydrogen and methane production from swine wastewater using microbial electrolysis cells. Water Res 43(4):1480–1488CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Wang X, Cheng S, Feng Y, Merrill MD, Saito T, Logan BE (2009) The use of carbon mesh anodes and the effect of different pretreatment methods on power production in microbial fuel cells. Environ Sci Technol 43(17):6870–6874CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Zhang Y (2010) The use and optimization of stainless steel mesh cathodes in microbial electrolysis cells. The Pennsylvania State University, University ParkGoogle Scholar
  33. Zhang X, Cheng S, Wang X, Huang X, Logan BE (2009) Separator characteristics for increasing performance of microbial fuel cells. Environ Sci Technol 43(21):8456–8461CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Roland D. Cusick
    • 1
  • Bill Bryan
    • 2
  • Denny S. Parker
    • 2
  • Matthew D. Merrill
    • 1
  • Maha Mehanna
    • 1
  • Patrick D. Kiely
    • 1
  • Guangli Liu
    • 3
  • Bruce E. Logan
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Civil and Environmental EngineeringPenn State UniversityUniversity ParkUSA
  2. 2.Brown and CaldwellWalnut CreekUSA
  3. 3.School of Environmental Science and EngineeringSun Yat-sen UniversityGuangzhouChina

Personalised recommendations