Premium
Performance of a greywater cathode in a microbial fuel cell with three ion exchange membranes
Author(s) -
MorenoCervera Rodrigo,
AguilarVega Manuel,
DomínguezMaldonado Jorge,
CámaraChale Gerardo,
AlzateGaviria Liliana
Publication year - 2019
Publication title -
journal of chemical technology and biotechnology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.64
H-Index - 117
eISSN - 1097-4660
pISSN - 0268-2575
DOI - 10.1002/jctb.5927
Subject(s) - greywater , microbial fuel cell , membrane , ion exchange , chemistry , wastewater , blackwater , nafion , waste management , reuse , chemical engineering , environmental engineering , environmental science , ion , electrochemistry , organic chemistry , engineering , electrode , anode , biochemistry
BACKGROUND Greywater and blackwater treatment is necessary to make sanitation and water reuse possible, and microbial fuel cells (MFCs) have emerged as a promising technology for achieving this objective. Ion exchange membranes play a key role in double chamber microbial fuel cell performance, but there are differences of opinion as to which membrane type is better. RESULTS This project was set up to study the effect of three ion exchange membranes (Nafion® 117, Ultrex™ CMI‐7000 and Ultrex™ AMI‐7001) in MFCs using greywater as catholyte in stacks of three microbial fuel cells each. The results demonstrate that the stacks with cationic membranes (Nafion® 117 and Ultrex™ CMI‐7000) generated higher power (201.50 ± 21.62 and 178.74 ± 56.89 mW m −3 , respectively) than those with the anionic membrane stack Ultrex™ AMI‐7001 (71.57 ± 3.46 mW m −3 ). For the greywater catholyte, a 31% of chemical oxygen demand removal was achieved and proved to be an option as a catholyte in microbial fuel cells for countries that carry out wastewater separation. CONCLUSIONS The results obtained in this study demonstrated that an anion exchange membrane is not a better option for double chamber MFCs. © 2019 Society of Chemical Industry