The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Hydrogen Production in a Single Chamber Microbial Electrolysis Cell Lacking a Membrane
Abstract
Hydrogen gas can be produced by electrohydrogenesis in microbial electrolysis cells (MECs) at greater yields than fermentation and at greater energy efficiencies than water electrolysis. It has been assumed that a membrane is needed in an MEC to avoid hydrogen losses due to bacterial consumption of the product gas. However, high cathodic hydrogen recoveries (78 +/- 1% to 96 +/- 1%) were achieved in an MEC despite the absence of a membrane between the electrodes (applied voltages of 0.3 < E(ap) < 0.8 V; 7.5 mS/cm solution conductivity). Through the use of a membrane-less system, a graphite fiber brush anode, and close electrode spacing, hydrogen production rates reached a maximum of 3.12 +/- 0.02 m3 H2/m3 reactor per day (292 +/- 1 A/m3) at an applied voltage of E(ap) = 0.8 V. This production rate is more than double that obtained in previous MEC studies. The energy efficiency relative to the electrical input decreased with applied voltage from 406 +/- 6% (E(ap) = 0.3 V) to 194 +/- 2% (E(ap) = 0.8 V). Overall energy efficiency relative to both E(ap) and energy of the substrate averaged 78 +/- 4%, with a maximum of 86 +/- 2% (1.02 +/- 0.05 m3 H2/m3 day, E(ap) = 0.4 V). At E(ap) = 0.2 V, the hydrogen recovery substantially decreased, and methane concentrations increased from an average of 1.9 +/- 1.3% (E(ap) = 0.3-0.8 V) to 28 +/- 0% of the gas, due to the long cycle time of the reactor. Increasing the solution conductivity to 20 mS/ cm increased hydrogen production rates for E(ap) = 0.3-0.6 V, but consistent reactor performance could not be obtained in the high conductivity solution at E(ap) > 0.6 V. These results demonstrate that high hydrogen recovery and production rates are possible in a single chamber MEC without a membrane, potentially reducing the costs of these systems and allowing for new and simpler designs.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Cited by
Chatenet, M., Pollet, B. G., Dekel, D. R., Dionigi, F., Deseure, J., Millet, P., Braatz, R. D., Bazant, M. Z., Eikerling, M., Staffell, I., et al. (2022) · Chemical Society Reviews · doi:10.1039/d0cs01079k · Cited by 2,025
Microbial Electrolysis Cells for High Yield Hydrogen Gas Production from Organic Matter
Logan, B. E., Call, D., Cheng, S., Hamelers, H. V. M., Sleutels, T. H. J. A., Jeremiasse, A. W., & Rozendal, R. A. (2008) · Environmental Science & Technology · doi:10.1021/es801553z · Cited by 1,368
Self-citationBiodiversity and species competition regulate the resilience of microbial biofilm community
Feng, K., Zhang, Z., Cai, W., Liu, W., Xu, M., Yin, H., Wang, A., He, Z., & Deng, Y. (2017) · Molecular Ecology · doi:10.1111/mec.14356 · Cited by 474
Carbon‐Based Microbial‐Fuel‐Cell Electrodes: From Conductive Supports to Active Catalysts
Li, S., Cheng, C., & Thomas, A. (2017) · Advanced Materials · doi:10.1002/adma.201602547 · Cited by 423
Yuan, H., Li, J., Yuan, C., & He, Z. (2014) · ChemElectroChem · doi:10.1002/celc.201402150 · Cited by 131
Metadata
- Authors
- Call, D., & Logan, B. E.
- Venue
- Environmental Science & Technology
- Publisher
- American Chemical Society (ACS)
- Published
- 2008-03-25
- Volume
- 42
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- 3401-3406
- ISSN
- 0013-936X (ISSN-L)
- 1520-5851
- OpenAlex
- W1991757102
- Cited by
- 934
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 45.68
- 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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Hydrogen Production in a Single Chamber Microbial Electrolysis Cell Lacking a Membrane. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1021/es8001822
- The paper
- Call, D., & Logan, B. E. (2008). Hydrogen Production in a Single Chamber Microbial Electrolysis Cell Lacking a Membrane. Environmental Science & Technology. https://doi.org/10.1021/es8001822
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.