Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Comparing terracotta and earthenware for multiple functionalities in microbial fuel cells

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Bioprocess and Biosystems Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The properties of earthenware and terracotta were investigated in terms of structural integrity and ion conductivity, in two microbial fuel cell (MFC) designs. Parameters such as wall thickness (4, 8, 18 mm), porosity and cathode hydration were analysed. During the early stages of operation (2 weeks), the more porous earthenware lost anolyte quickly and was unstable between feeding compared to terracotta. Three weeks later MFCs of all thicknesses were more stable and could sustain longer periods of power production without maintenance. In all cases, the denser terracotta produced higher open circuit voltage; however, earthenware the more porous and less iron-rich of the two, proved to be the better material for power production, to the extent that the thickest wall (18 mm) MFC produced 15 % higher power than the thinnest wall (4 mm) terracotta. After 6 weeks of operation, the influence of wall thickness was less exaggerated and power output was comparable between the 4 and 8 mm ceramic membranes. Cylindrical earthenware MFCs produced significantly higher current (75 %) and power (33 %) than terracotta MFCs. A continuous dripping mode of cathode hydration produced threefold higher power than when MFCs were submerged in water, perhaps because of a short-circuiting effect through the material. This shows a significant improvement in terms of biosystems engineering, since a previously high-maintenance half-cell, is now shown to be virtually self-sufficient.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Tanisho S, Kamiya N, Wakao N (1989) Microbial fuel-cell using Enterobacter aerogenes. Bioelectrochem Bioenerg 21:25–32

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Biffinger JC, Ray R, Little B, Ringeisen BR (2007) Diversifying biological fuel cell designs by use of nanoporous filters. Environ Sci Technol 41:1444–1449

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Shin SH, Choi YJ, Na SH, Jung SH, Kim S (2006) Development of bipolar plate stack type microbial fuel cells. Bull Korean Chem Soc 27:281–285

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Ieropoulos I, Greenman J, Melhuish C, Horsfield I (2010) EcoBot-III: a robot with guts. In: Fellermann H, Dorr M, Hanczyc M, Laursen L, Maurer S, Merkle D (eds) Artificial life. Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press, USA

    Google Scholar 

  5. Ringeisen BR, Henderson E, Wu PK, Pietron J, Ray R, Little B, Biffinger JC, Jones-Meehan JM (2006) High power density from a miniature microbial fuel cell using Shewanella oneidensis DSP10. Environ Sci Technol 40:2629–2634

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Ieropoulos I, Greenman J, Melhuish C (2008) Microbial fuel cells based on carbon veil electrodes: stack configuration and scalability. Int J Energy Res 32:1228–1240

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Clauwaert P, Aelterman P, Pham TH, De Schamphelaire L, Carballa M, Rabaey K, Verstraete W (2008) Minimizing losses in bio-electrochemical systems: the road to applications. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 79:901–913

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Ieropoulos I, Greenman J, Melhuish C (2010) Improved energy output levels from small-scale microbial fuel cells. Bioelectrochemistry 78:44–50

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Li W, Sheng G, Liu X, Yu H (2011) Recent advances in the separators for microbial fuel cells. Bioresour Technol 102:244–252

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Cai Z (2005) Characterisation of electrochemically activated solutions for use in environmental remediation. PhD thesis, University of the West of England, Bristol

  11. Park DH, Zeikus JG (2003) Improved fuel cell and electrode designs for producing electricity from microbial degradation. Biotechnol Bioeng 81:348–355

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Seo HN, Lee WJ, Hwang TS, Park DH (2009) Electricity generation coupled with wastewater treatment using a microbial fuel cell composed of a modified cathode with a ceramic membrane and cellulose acetate film. J Microbiol Biotechnol 19:1019–1027

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. 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 101:1183–1189

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Xu Q, Anderson M (1991) Synthesis of porosity controlled ceramic membranes. J Mater Res 6:1073–1081

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Behera M, Ghangrekar MM (2011) Electricity generation in low cost microbial fuel cell made up of earthenware of different thickness. Water Sci Technol 64:2468–2473

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Liu H, Cheng SA, Logan BE (2005) Power generation in fed-batch microbial fuel cells as a function of ionic strength, temperature, and reactor configuration. Environ Sci Technol 39:5488–5493

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Takanezawa K, Nishio K, Kato S, Hashimoto K, Watanabe K (2010) Factors affecting electric output from rice-paddy microbial fuel cells. Biosci Biotechnol Biochem 74:1271–1273

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Klaysom C, Moon S, Ladewig BP, Lu GQM, Wang L (2011) Preparation of porous ion-exchange membranes (IEMs) and their characterizations. J Membrane Sci 371:37–44

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Ajayi FF, Weigele PR (2012) A terracotta bio-battery. Bioresour Technol 116:86–91

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Kim JR, Premier GC, Hawkes FR, Dinsdale RM, Guwy AJ (2009) Development of a tubular microbial fuel cell (MFC) employing a membrane electrode assembly cathode. J Power Sources 187:393–399

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Larminie J, Dicks A (2003) Fuel cell systems explained, 2nd edn. Wiley, Chichester

    Google Scholar 

  22. Cheng S, Liu H, Logan BE (2006) Increased performance of single-chamber microbial fuel cells using an improved cathode structure. Electrochem Commun 8:489–494

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Scott K (1995) Electrochemical processes for clean technology. The Royal Society of Chemistry, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  24. Guerra K, Pellegrino J, Drewes JE (2012) Impact of operating conditions on permeate flux and process economics for cross flow ceramic membrane ultrafiltration of surface water. Sep Purif Technol 87:47–53

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Chae KJ, Choi M, Ajayi FF, Park W, Chang IS, Kim IS (2008) Mass transport through a proton exchange membrane (Nafion) in microbial fuel cells. Energy Fuel 22:169–176

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. 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 62:8–16

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Clauwaert P, Van der Ha D, Boon N, Verbeken K, Verhaege M, Rabaey K, Verstraete W (2007) Open air biocathode enables effective electricity generation with microbial fuel cells. Environ Sci Technol 41:7564–7569

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Bristol Robotics Laboratory, University of the West of England, T-Building, Frenchay Campus, Bristol, BS16 1QY, UK

    Jonathan Winfield & Ioannis Ieropoulos

  2. Department of Applied Sciences, Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, University of the West of England, Frenchay Campus, Coldharbour Lane, Bristol, BS16 1QY, UK

    John Greenman

  3. Centre for Fine Print Research, University of the West of England, Bower Ashton Campus, Kennel Lodge Road, Off Clanage Road, Bristol, BS3 2JT, UK

    David Huson

Authors
  1. Jonathan Winfield
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. John Greenman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. David Huson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ioannis Ieropoulos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jonathan Winfield.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Winfield, J., Greenman, J., Huson, D. et al. Comparing terracotta and earthenware for multiple functionalities in microbial fuel cells. Bioprocess Biosyst Eng 36, 1913–1921 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00449-013-0967-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00449-013-0967-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation