An efficient approach to cathode operational parameters optimization for microbial fuel cell using response surface methodology

Journal of Environmental Health Science Engineering

Iran Alemzadeh¹  Manouchehr Vossoughi²  Mohammadreza Hosseinpour¹ 

[1] Chemical and Petroleum Engineering Department, Sharif University of Technology, Tehran, Iran;Institute of Biotechnology and Environmental Studies (IBE), Sharif University of Technology, Tehran, Iran

关键词: Response surface methodology (RSM);    Optimization of operational parameters;    Cathode compartment;    Microbial fuel cell (MFC);   

Others  :  810429
DOI  :  10.1186/2052-336X-12-33

 received in 2012-12-17, accepted in 2013-12-10,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

In the recent study, optimum operational conditions of cathode compartment of microbial fuel cell were determined by using Response Surface Methodology (RSM) with a central composite design to maximize power density and COD removal.

Methods

The interactive effects of parameters such as, pH, buffer concentration and ionic strength on power density and COD removal were evaluated in two-chamber microbial batch-mode fuel cell.

Results

Power density and COD removal for optimal conditions (pH of 6.75, buffer concentration of 0.177 M and ionic strength of cathode chamber of 4.69 mM) improve by 17 and 5%, respectively, in comparison with normal conditions (pH of 7, buffer concentration of 0.1 M and ionic strength of 2.5 mM).

Conclusions

In conclusion, results verify that response surface methodology could successfully determine cathode chamber optimum operational conditions.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Hosseinpour et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

Figure 4.

Figure 5.

Figure 6.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Logan BE: Microbial Fuel cell. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 2008.
• [2]Du Z, Li H, Gu T: A state of the art review on microbial fuel cells: A promising technology for wastewater treatment and bioenergy. Biotechnol Adv 2007, 25:464-482.
• [3]Rismani-Yazdi H, Carver SM, Christy AD, Tuovinen OH: Cathodic limitations in microbial fuel cells: An overview. J Power Sources 2008, 180:683-694.
• [4]Picioreanu C, Head IM, Katuri KP, Van Loosdrecht MCM, Scott K: A computational model for biofilm-based microbial fuel cells. Water Res 2007, 41:2921-2940.
• [5]Song C, Zhang J: PEM Fuel Cell Electrocatalysts and Catalyst Layers – Fundamentals and Applications. Vancouver: Springer; 2008:89-134.
• [6]Cheng S, Liu H, Logan BE: Increased power generation in a continuous flow MFC with advective flow through the porous anode and reduced electrode spacing. Environ Sci Technol 2006, 40:2426-2432.
• [7]Liu XW, Sun XF, Huang YX, Sheng GP, Zhou K, Zeng RJ, Dong F, Wang SG, Xu AW, Tong ZH, Zu HQ: Nano-structured manganese oxide as a cathodic catalyst for enhanced oxygen reduction in a microbial fuel cell fed with a synthetic wastewater. Water Res 2010, 44:5298-5305.
• [8]Mohan Y, Das D: Effect of ionic strength, cation exchanger and inoculum age on the performance of microbial fuel cells. Int J Hydrog Energy 2009, 34:7542-7546.
• [9]Huang J, Sun B, Zhang X: Electricity generation at high ionic strength in microbial fuel cell by a newly isolated Shewanellamarisflavi EP1. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 2010, 85(4):1141-1149.
• [10]Li F, Sharma Y, Lei Y, Li B, Zhou Q: Microbial fuel cells: the effects of configurations, electrolyte solutions, and electrode materials on power generation. Appl Biochem Biotechnol 2010, 160:168-181.
• [11]Pant D, Bogaert GV, Smet MD, Diels L, Vanbroekhoven K: Use of novel permeable membrane and air cathodes in acetate microbial fuel cells. Electrochim Acta 2010, 55:7710-7716.
• [12]Li WW, Sheng GP, Liu ZW, Yu HQ: Recent advances in the separators for microbial fuel cells. Bioresour Technol 2011, 102:244-252.
• [13]Scott K, Murano C, Rimbu G: A tubular microbial fuel cell. J Appl Electrochem 2007, 37:1063-1068.
• [14]Liang P, Huang X, Fan MZ, Cao XX, Wang C: Composition and distribution of internal resistance in three types of microbial fuel cells. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 2007, 77:551-558.
• [15]Manohar AK, Mansfeld F: The internal resistance of a microbial fuel cell and its dependence on cell design and operating conditions. Electrochim Acta 2009, 54:1664-1670.
• [16]Khuri AI, Cornell JA: Responses surfaces: design and analyses. 2nd edition. New York: Marcel Dekker; 1996.
• [17]Khuri AI: An overview of the use of generalized linear models in response surface methodology. Nonlinear Anal 2001, 47:2023-2034.
• [18]Chen ZB, Cui MH, Ren NQ, Chen ZQ, Wang HC, Nie SK: Improving the simultaneous removal efficiency of COD and color in a combined HABMR–CFASR system based MPDW. Part 1: Optimization of operational parameters for HABMR by using response surface methodology. Bioresour Technol 2011, 102:8839-8847.
• [19]Abdullah AZ, Salamatinia B, Kamaruddin AH: Application of response surface methodology for the optimization of NaOH treatment on oil palm frond towards improvement in the sorption of heavy metals. Desalination 2009, 244:227-238.
• [20]Biffinger JC, Pietron J, Bretschger O, Nadeau LJ, Johnson GR, Williams CC, Nealson KH, Ringeisen BR: The influence of acidity on microbial fuel cells containing Shewanella oneidensis. Biosens Bioelectron 2008, 24:900-905.
• [21]Behera M, Jana PS, More TT, Ghangrekar MM: Rice mill wastewater treatment in microbial fuel cells fabricated using proton exchange membrane and earthen pot at different pH. Bioelectrochemistry 2010, 79:228-233.
• [22]Erable B, Etcheverry L, Bergel A: Increased power from a two-chamber microbial fuel cell with a low-pH air-cathode compartment. Electrochem Commun 2008, 11:619-622.
• [23]Zhuang L, Zhou S, Li Y, Yuan Y: Enhanced performance of air-cathode two-chamber microbial fuel cells with high-pH anode and low-pH cathode. Bioresour Technol 2010, 101:3514-3519.
• [24]Harnisch F, Schroder U, Scholz F: The suitability of monopolar and bipolar ion exchange membranes as separators for biological fuel cells. Environ Sci Technol 2008, 42:1740-1746.