Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 699

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 29 of the 29 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Power Generation Using Different Cation, Anion, and Ultrafiltration Membranes in Microbial Fuel Cells

Kim, Jung Rae, Cheng, Shaoan, Oh, Sang-Eun, Logan, Bruce E.·2007·Environmental Science & Technology

Abstract

Proton exchange membranes (PEMs) are often used in microbial fuel cells (MFCs) to separate the liquid in the anode and cathode chambers while allowing protons to pass between the chambers. However, negatively or positively charged species present at high concentrations in the medium can also be used to maintain charge balance during power generation. An anion exchange membrane (AEM) produced the largest power density (up to 610 mW/m2) and Coulombic efficiency (72%) in MFCs relative to values achieved with a commonly used PEM (Nafion), a cation exchange membrane (CEM), or three different ultrafiltration (UF) membranes with molecular weight cut offs of 0.5K, 1K, and 3K Daltons in different types of MFCs. The increased performance of the AEM was due to proton charge-transfer facilitated by phosphate anions and low internal resistance. The type of membrane affected maximum power densities in two-chamber, air-cathode cube MFCs (C-MFCs) with low internal resistance (84-91 omega for all membranes except UF-0.5K) but not in two-chamber aqueous-cathode bottle MFCs (B-MFCs) due to their higher internal resistances (1230-1272 omega except UF-0.5K). The UF-0.5K membrane produced very high internal resistances (6009 omega, B-MFC; 1814omega, C-MFC) and was the least permeable to both oxygen (mass transfer coefficient of k(O) = 0.19 x 10(-4) cm/s) and acetate (k(A) = 0.89 x 10(-8) cm/s). Nafion was the most permeable membrane to oxygen (k(O) = 1.3 x 10(-4) cm/s), and the UF-3K membrane was the most permeable to acetate (k(A) = 7.2 x 10(-8) cm/s). Only a small percent of substrate was unaccounted for based on measured Coulombic efficiencies and estimates of biomass production and substrate losses using Nafion, CEM, and AEM membranes (4-8%), while a substantial portion of substrate was lost to unidentified processes for the UF membranes (40-89%). These results show that many types of membranes can be used in two-chambered MFCs, even membranes that transfer negatively charged species.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1021/es062202m

Cites

29 of 29 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Cited by

See all 699

Metadata

Authors
Kim, J. R., Cheng, S., Oh, S.-E., & Logan, B. E.
Venue
Environmental Science & Technology
Published
2007-01-04
Volume
41
Issue
3
Pages
1004-1009
ISSN
  • 0013-936X (ISSN-L)
  • 1520-5851
OpenAlex
W2025806774
Cited by
699
References
29
FWCI
35.87
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.