Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T02:29:19.204Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Application of Low-Cost Transition Metal Based Co0.5Zn0.5Fe2O4 as Oxygen Reduction Reaction Catalyst for Improving Performance of Microbial Fuel Cell

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 May 2018

Indrasis Das ,
Md. T. Noori ,
Gourav Dhar Bhowmick  and
M.M. Ghangrekar
Indrasis Das*
Affiliation:
Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur, 721302, India
Md. T. Noori
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural and Food Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur, 721302, India
Gourav Dhar Bhowmick
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural and Food Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur, 721302, India
M.M. Ghangrekar*
Affiliation:
Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur, 721302, India
*
*Corresponding author: Email - indrasisdas@iitkgp.ac.in; ghangrekar@civil.iitkgp.ac.in
*Corresponding author: Email - indrasisdas@iitkgp.ac.in; ghangrekar@civil.iitkgp.ac.in
Get access

Abstract

Overpotential losses on cathode during oxygen reduction reaction (ORR) causes serious performance depletion in microbial fuel cells (MFCs). High cost of existing platinum based noble catalysts is one of the main reason for growing interest in the research of low cost sustainable cathode catalysts to improve ORR in order to enhance power generation from MFCs. The present study demonstrates application of low-cost bimetallic ferrite, Co0.5Zn0.5Fe2O4, as a cathode catalyst in MFC. The electrochemical tests of cathode having this catalyst revealed an excellent cathodic current response of 25.76 mA with less charge transfer resistance of 0.7 mΩ, showing remarkable catalytic activity. The MFC using this catalyst on cathode could generate a power density of 172.1 ± 5.2 mW/m2, which was found to be about 10 times higher than the power density of 15.2 ± 1.3 mW/m2 obtained from a MFC using only acetelyne black (AB) on cathode and noted even higher than the power density produced by MFC with Pt/C cathode (151.3 ± 2.8 mW/m2). In addition, the wastewater treatment in terms of chemical oxygen demand (COD) removal efficiency of MFC with Co0.5Zn0.5Fe2O4 on cathode was found to be better (87 %) among the tested MFCs. Hence, the results obtained from this study illustrates the applicability of Co0.5Zn0.5Fe2O4 as an excellent and suitable cathode catalyst for scaling up of MFCs.

Keywords

environmenttransmission electron microscopy (TEM)x-ray diffraction (XRD)catalyticscanning electron microscopy (SEM)
Type
Articles
Information
MRS Advances , Volume 3 , Issue 53: Energy Materials and Technologies , 2018 , pp. 3171 - 3179
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Logan, B.E., Hamelers, B., Rozendal, R., Schröder, U., Keller, J., Freguia, S., Aelterman, P., Verstraete, W. and Rabaey, K., Environ. Sci. Technol. 40, 5181–5192 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huang, Q., Zhou, P., Yang, H., Zhu, L. and Wu, H., Chem. Eng. J. 325, 466–473 (2017).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Noori, M.T., Bhowmick, G.D., Tiwari, B.R., Ghangrekar, M.M. and Mukhrejee, C.K., MRS Adv. 1-6 (2018).Google Scholar
Noori, M.T., Ghangrekar, M.M. and Mukherjee, C.K., Int. J. Hydrogen Energy. 41, 3638–3645 (2016).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bhowmick, G.D., Noori, M.T., Das, Indrasis, Neethu, B., Ghangrekar, M.M. and Mitra, A., Int. J. Hydrogen Energy. (2018).Google Scholar
Xu, X., Dai, Y., Yu, J., Hao, L., Duan, Y., Sun, Y., Zhang, Y., Lin, Y. and Zou, J., ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces. 9, 10777–10787 (2017).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kurian, M. and Nair, D.S., J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 2, 63–69 (2014).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paul, D., Noori, M.T., Rajesh, P.P., Ghangrekar, M.M. and Mitra, A., Sustain. Energy Technol. Assessments. 26, 77–82 (2018).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ghadge, A.N. and Ghangrekar, M.M., Electrochim. Acta. 166, 320–328 (2015).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jadhav, G.S. and Ghangrekar, M.M., Bioresour. Technol. 100, 717–723 (2009).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Logan, B.E., Microbial Fuel Cells, (John Wiley & Sons, Inc.,United States of America, 2007) p. 48.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
APHA/AWWA/WEF, Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, (2012).Google Scholar
Yousefi, M.H., Manouchehri, S., Arab, A., Mozaffari, M. and Amiri, G.R., J. Mater. Res. Bull. 45, 1792–1795 (2010). 09.018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vaidyanathan, G. and Sendhilnathan, S., Int. J. Adv. Sci. Res. 2, 33–41 (2017).Google Scholar
Noori, T., Mukherjee, C.K. and Ghangrekar, M.M., Electrochim. Acta. 228, 513–521 (2017).CrossRefGoogle Scholar