A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Comparing terracotta and earthenware for multiple functionalities in microbial fuel cells. | LitMetric

Comparing terracotta and earthenware for multiple functionalities in microbial fuel cells.

Bioprocess Biosyst Eng

Bristol Robotics Laboratory, University of the West of England, T-Building, Frenchay Campus, Bristol, BS16 1QY, UK,

Published: December 2013

AI Article Synopsis

  • The study assessed earthenware and terracotta materials in microbial fuel cells (MFCs), focusing on factors like wall thickness, porosity, and hydration effects.
  • Initial results showed more porous earthenware had quick anolyte loss and instability, while terracotta was more stable over time.
  • Ultimately, earthenware was better for power production, with the thickest 18 mm wall MFC achieving 15% more power than the thinnest 4 mm terracotta MFC, and cylindrical earthenware MFCs generating significantly higher current and power.

Article Abstract

The properties of earthenware and terracotta were investigated in terms of structural integrity and ion conductivity, in two microbial fuel cell (MFC) designs. Parameters such as wall thickness (4, 8, 18 mm), porosity and cathode hydration were analysed. During the early stages of operation (2 weeks), the more porous earthenware lost anolyte quickly and was unstable between feeding compared to terracotta. Three weeks later MFCs of all thicknesses were more stable and could sustain longer periods of power production without maintenance. In all cases, the denser terracotta produced higher open circuit voltage; however, earthenware the more porous and less iron-rich of the two, proved to be the better material for power production, to the extent that the thickest wall (18 mm) MFC produced 15 % higher power than the thinnest wall (4 mm) terracotta. After 6 weeks of operation, the influence of wall thickness was less exaggerated and power output was comparable between the 4 and 8 mm ceramic membranes. Cylindrical earthenware MFCs produced significantly higher current (75 %) and power (33 %) than terracotta MFCs. A continuous dripping mode of cathode hydration produced threefold higher power than when MFCs were submerged in water, perhaps because of a short-circuiting effect through the material. This shows a significant improvement in terms of biosystems engineering, since a previously high-maintenance half-cell, is now shown to be virtually self-sufficient.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00449-013-0967-6DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

produced higher
12
microbial fuel
8
wall thickness
8
cathode hydration
8
power production
8
higher power
8
power
6
earthenware
5
terracotta
5
comparing terracotta
4

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!