Biodegradation

, Volume 24, Issue 6, pp 733–739 | Cite as

Biodegradation and proton exchange using natural rubber in microbial fuel cells

  • Jonathan Winfield
  • Ioannis Ieropoulos
  • Jonathan Rossiter
  • John Greenman
  • David Patton
Original Paper

Abstract

Microbial fuel cells (MFCs) generate electricity from waste but to date the technology’s development and scale-up has been held-up by the need to incorporate expensive materials. A costly but vital component is the ion exchange membrane (IEM) which conducts protons between the anode and cathode electrodes. The current study compares natural rubber as an alternative material to two commercially available IEMs. Initially, the material proved impermeable to protons, but gradually a working voltage was generated that improved with time. After 6 months, MFCs with natural rubber membrane outperformed those with anion exchange membrane (AEM) but cation exchange membrane (CEM) produced 109 % higher power and 16 % higher current. After 11 months, polarisation experiments showed a decline in performance for both commercially available membranes while natural rubber continued to improve and generated 12 % higher power and 54 % higher current than CEM MFC. Scanning electron microscope images revealed distinct structural changes and the formation of micropores in natural latex samples that had been employed as IEM for 9 months. It is proposed that the channels and micropores formed as a result of biodegradation were providing pathways for proton transfer, reflected by the steady increase in power generation over time. These improvements may also be aided by the establishment of biofilms that, in contrast, caused declining performance in the CEM. The research demonstrates for the first time that the biodegradation of a ubiquitous waste material operating as IEM can benefit MFC performance while also improving the reactor’s lifetime compared to commercially available membranes.

Keywords

Microbial fuel cell Latex Biodegradation Ion exchange membrane Natural rubber 

References

  1. Atagana H, Ejechi B, Ayilumo A (1999) Fungi associated with degradation of wastes from rubber processing industry. Environ Monit Assess 55(3):401–408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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(4):1183–1189PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Berekaa MM, Linos A, Reichelt R, Keller U, Steinbüchel A (2000) Effect of pretreatment of rubber material on its biodegradability by various rubber degrading bacteria. FEMS Microbiol Lett 184(2):199–206PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Biffinger JC, Ray R, Little B, Ringeisen BR (2007) Diversifying biological fuel cell designs by use of nanoporous filter. Environ Sci Technol 41(376):1444–1449PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cord-Ruwisch R, Yingyu L, Cheng KY (2011) Ammonium as a sustainable proton shuttle in bioelectrochemical systems. Bioresour Technol 102:9691–9696PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Degrenne N, Buret F, Allard B, Bevilacqua P (2012) Electrical energy generation from a large number of microbial fuel cells operating at maximum power point electrical load. J Power Sources 205:188–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fan YZ, Hu HQ, Liu H (2007) Enhanced coulombic efficiency and power density of air-cathode microbial fuel cells with an improved cell configuration. J Power Sources 171(2):348–354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Habermann W, Pommer EH (1991) Biological fuel-cells with sulfide storage capacity. Appl Microbiol Biot 35(1):128–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Harnisch F, Warmbier R, Schneider R, Schroeder U (2009) Modeling the ion transfer and polarization of ion exchange membranes in bioelectrochemical systems. Bioelectrochemistry 75(2):136–141PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ieropoulos I (2006) Ecobot: towards an energetically autonomous robot. University of the West of England, BristolGoogle Scholar
  11. Ieropoulos I, Greenman J, Melhuish C (2010a) Improved energy output levels from small-scale microbial fuel cells. Bioelectrochemistry 78(1):44–50PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ieropoulos I, Winfield J, Greenman J (2010b) Effects of flow-rate, inoculum and time on the internal resistance of microbial fuel cells. Bioresour Technol 101(10):3520–3525PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kim M, Youn SM, Shin SH, Jang JG, Han SH, Hyun MS, Gadd GM, Kim HJ (2003) Practical field application of a novel BOD monitoring system. J Environ Monit 5(4):640–643PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Li W, Sheng G, Liu X, Yu H (2011) Recent advances in the separators for microbial fuel cells. Bioresour Technol 102(1):244–252PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Linos A, Steinbüchel A (2005) Biodegradation of natural and synthetic rubbers. Biopolymers. doi:10.1002/3527600035.bpol2010 Google Scholar
  16. Linos A, Berekaa M, Reichelt R, Keller U, Schmitt J, Flemming H, Kroppenstedt R, Steinbüchel A (2000) Biodegradation of cis-1,4-polyisoprene rubbers by distinct actinomycetes: microbial strategies and detailed surface analysis. Appl Environ Microb 66(4):1639–1645CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Melhuish C, Ieropoulos I, Greenman J, Horsfield I (2006) Energetically autonomous robots: food for thought. Auton Robot 21(3):187–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Rajan VV, Dierkes WK, Joseph R, Noordermeer JWM (2006) Science and technology of rubber reclamation with special attention to NR-based waste latex products. Prog Polym Sci 31(9):811–834CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Rose K, Steinbüchel A (2005) Biodegradation of natural rubber and related compounds: recent insights into a hardly understood catabolic capability of microorganisms. Appl Environ Microb 71(6):2803–2812CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Sanchez C, Julian B, Belleville P, Popall M (2005) Applications of hybrid organic–inorganic nanocomposites. J Mater Chem 15:3559–3592CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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
  22. Sodeye AII, Huang T, Gido SP, Mays JW (2011) Polymer electrolyte membranes from fluorinated polyisoprene-block-sulfonated polystyrene: membrane structure and transport properties. Polymer 52(9):1963–1970CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Takanezawa K, Nishio K, Kato S, Hashimoto K, Watanabe K (2010) Factors affecting electric output from rice-paddy microbial fuel cells. Biosci Biotech Bioch 74(6):1271–1273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Tang X, Guo K, Li H, Du Z, Tian J (2010) Microfiltration membrane performance in two-chamber microbial fuel cells. Biochem Eng J 52:194–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Wang H, Davidson M, Zuo Y, Ren Z (2011) Recycled tire crumb rubber anodes for sustainable power production in microbial fuel cells. J Power Sources 196(14):5863–5866CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Xie X, Yu G, Liu N, Bao Z, Criddle CS, Cui Y (2012) Graphene-sponges as high-performance low-cost anodes for microbial fuel cells. Energy Environ Sci 5(5):6862–6866CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Xu J, Sheng G, Luo H, Li W, Wang L, Yu H (2012) Fouling of proton exchange membrane (PEM) deteriorates the performance of microbial fuel cell. Water Res 46(6):1817–1824PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jonathan Winfield
    • 1
  • Ioannis Ieropoulos
    • 1
  • Jonathan Rossiter
    • 2
  • John Greenman
    • 3
  • David Patton
    • 3
  1. 1.Bristol Robotics LaboratoryUniversity of the West of EnglandBristolUK
  2. 2.Department of Engineering MathematicsUniversity of BristolBristolUK
  3. 3.Department of Applied SciencesFaculty of Health and Life Sciences, University of the West of EnglandBristolUK

Personalised recommendations