You are on page 1of 20

Comparison of Performance and Ionic

Concentration Gradient of Two-Chamber Microbial

Fuel Cell Using Ceramic Membrane (CM) and Cation
Exchange membrane (CEM) as Separators
Siti Mariam Daud, Wan Ramli Wan Daud, Byung
Hong Kim, Mahendra Rao Somalu, Mimi Hani
Abu Bakar, Andanastuti Muchtar, Jamaliah Md
Jahim, Swee Su Lim, In Seop Chang

Presented by Primazahra A. Z. M.
• Abstract
• Introduction
• Methods
• Result
• Conclusion
• Ceramic membrane (CM with different pores
(0.14 µm, 150 kDa, 5 kDa) and cation exchange
membrane (Nafilon 117) tested as separator in two-
chamber microbial fuel cells (MFCs) to compare the
performance and ionic gradient concentration.
• The higher porosity makes the highest performance
(power density).
• CM is potential candidate for comecial separator.
• MFC use electrochemically active bacteria as
anodic catalyst to utilize organic contaminants
in artificial wastewater to generate electricity.
• Problems in CEMs including O2 and fuel
crossover, poor proton conductor, pH
• JC material, Glass fibre and ceramic are
• Porous material are resistant to microbial and
chemical degradation.
• Microbial fuel cell construction
• MFC operation
• Data logging
• Polarization experiment
• Electrochemical impedance spectroscopy
• Ion exchange test
• COD and Coulombic eficiency
• Membrane porosity
Result : Electrochemically active
bacteria (EAB) enrichment
• After 2 days being fed, voltage dropped to 2 mV
from 0.7-0.8V.
• Replenishing of fresh anolyte the current
• The anode electrode fully enriched with EAB on
day 16-19 (surge voltage from 10 mV to 35 mV)
Result: MFC performance
• Stable current in all reactor 0.9 mA
• CM3 generated higher voltage (175±20 mV), PEM
135±14 mV, CM1 and CM2 (145±16 mV, 140mV)
• After 6 months, PEM show reduction performance*
• After 12 months, all reactor show deterioration.
• CM3 produce the highest power density (1790±60
mW m2 . CM1, CM2 and PEM followed.
• Internal resistance PEM 3.9 times higher than CM3,
and 2 times higher CM1, CM2.(porosity eff. proton)
• CM3 22, 2% higher than batch, CM2 27.5%, CM3
21.1%, PEM 34.8%.
Result: pH aalysis, ionic conc. gradient
and ion chromatography
• PEM showed much faster pH decreased in
anolyte (batch).
• Porous separaotrs have higher proton
conductivity, contribute to operational stability
(less pH change in anode)
• Ion conc gradient CM higher than PEM (higher
transport cation)
• PBBM lower current than PB. PEM occupied
sulfonate groups.*
Result: electrochemical impedance
• To determine ohmic resistance Roh
• The result decreasing from CM1, CM2, CM3 and
PEM. (the higher Roh, the lower power density as
the result)*.
Result: COD removal and columbic
efficiency (CE)
• Ceramic membrane showed better COD removal
efficiency (4170 mg/l)
• COD removal, PEM 84%, CM1 89%, CM2 92%,
CM3 89%.
• CE, CM3 41%, CM1 and CM2 28%, PEM
21%.*(reduce 9%)
• CM higher oxidation in anode and lower Roh
Results: Ceramic membrane porosity
• PEM contain sulfonate group (no pores), CM are
• Porous membrane improve eff proton transfer,
CM have good ionic transf than PEM
• Higher porosity allows more eff proton transfer
through separator (CM 3 is better)
• Pore size not determine factor performance
• MFC with CM exhibited a higher power density
and CE under batch operation (CM3 higher).
• The lower performance of MFC with PEM can be
related to reduce proton diffusion resulting from
presence sulfonate groups.
• Non-selective porous CM facilitated the proton
• CM and glass fibre are good candidates of
separator for commercial scale.
• Daud, S. M., Daud, W. R. W., Kim, B. H., Somalu, M. R., Bakar, M.
H. A., Muchtar, A., ... & Chang, I. S. (2018). Comparison of
performance and ionic concentration gradient of two-chamber
microbial fuel cell using ceramic membrane (CM) and cation
exchange membrane (CEM) as separators. Electrochimica
Acta, 259, 365-376.
• Bakar, M. H. A., Pasco, N. F., Gooneratne, R., & Hong, K. B. (2016).
Effect of long time oxygen exposure on power generation of
microbial fuel cell with enriched mixed culture. Malaysian Journal
of Analytical Sciences, 20(4), 913-922.
• Miskan, M., Ismail, M., Ghasemi, M., Jahim, J. M., Nordin, D., &
Bakar, M. H. A. (2016). Characterization of membrane biofouling
and its effect on the performance of microbial fuel
cell. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 41(1), 543-552.
Thank You