Abstract
In two-chamber microbial electrolysis cells (MECs) with anion exchange membranes (AEMs), a phosphate buffer solution (PBS) is typically used to avoid increases in catholyte pH as Nernst equation calculations indicate that high pHs adversely impact electrochemical performance. However, ion transport between the chambers will also impact performance, which is a factor not included in those calculations. To separate the impacts of pH and ion transport on MEC performance, a high molecular weight polymer buffer (PoB), which was retained in the catholyte due to its low AEM transport and cationic charge, was compared to PBS in MECs and abiotic electrochemical half cells (EHCs). In MECs, catholyte pH control was less important than ion transport. MEC tests using the PoB catholyte, which had a higher buffer capacity and thus maintained a lower catholye pH (<8), resulted in a 50% lower hydrogen production rate (HPR) than that obtained using PBS (HPR = 0.7 m3-H2 m−3 d−1) where the catholyte rapidly increased to pH = 12. The main reason for the decreased performance using PoB was a lack of hydroxide ion transfer into the anolyte to balance pH. The anolyte pH in MECs rapidly decreased to 5.8 due to a lack of hydroxide ion transport, which inhibited current generation by the anode, whereas the pH was maintained at 6.8 using PBS. In abiotic tests in ECHs, where the cathode potential was set at −1.2 V, the HPR was 133% higher using PoB than PBS due to catholyte pH control, as the anolyte pH was not a factor in the performance. These results show that maintaining charge transfer to control anolyte pH is more important than obtaining a more neutral pH catholyte.
| Original language | English (US) |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 2645-2653 |
| Number of pages | 9 |
| Journal | International Journal of Hydrogen Energy |
| Volume | 43 |
| Issue number | 5 |
| DOIs | |
| State | Published - Feb 1 2018 |
Fingerprint
All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes
- Renewable Energy, Sustainability and the Environment
- Fuel Technology
- Condensed Matter Physics
- Energy Engineering and Power Technology
Cite this
}
The importance of OH− transport through anion exchange membrane in microbial electrolysis cells. / Ye, Yaoli; Logan, Bruce Ernest.
In: International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, Vol. 43, No. 5, 01.02.2018, p. 2645-2653.Research output: Contribution to journal › Article
TY - JOUR
T1 - The importance of OH− transport through anion exchange membrane in microbial electrolysis cells
AU - Ye, Yaoli
AU - Logan, Bruce Ernest
PY - 2018/2/1
Y1 - 2018/2/1
N2 - In two-chamber microbial electrolysis cells (MECs) with anion exchange membranes (AEMs), a phosphate buffer solution (PBS) is typically used to avoid increases in catholyte pH as Nernst equation calculations indicate that high pHs adversely impact electrochemical performance. However, ion transport between the chambers will also impact performance, which is a factor not included in those calculations. To separate the impacts of pH and ion transport on MEC performance, a high molecular weight polymer buffer (PoB), which was retained in the catholyte due to its low AEM transport and cationic charge, was compared to PBS in MECs and abiotic electrochemical half cells (EHCs). In MECs, catholyte pH control was less important than ion transport. MEC tests using the PoB catholyte, which had a higher buffer capacity and thus maintained a lower catholye pH (<8), resulted in a 50% lower hydrogen production rate (HPR) than that obtained using PBS (HPR = 0.7 m3-H2 m−3 d−1) where the catholyte rapidly increased to pH = 12. The main reason for the decreased performance using PoB was a lack of hydroxide ion transfer into the anolyte to balance pH. The anolyte pH in MECs rapidly decreased to 5.8 due to a lack of hydroxide ion transport, which inhibited current generation by the anode, whereas the pH was maintained at 6.8 using PBS. In abiotic tests in ECHs, where the cathode potential was set at −1.2 V, the HPR was 133% higher using PoB than PBS due to catholyte pH control, as the anolyte pH was not a factor in the performance. These results show that maintaining charge transfer to control anolyte pH is more important than obtaining a more neutral pH catholyte.
AB - In two-chamber microbial electrolysis cells (MECs) with anion exchange membranes (AEMs), a phosphate buffer solution (PBS) is typically used to avoid increases in catholyte pH as Nernst equation calculations indicate that high pHs adversely impact electrochemical performance. However, ion transport between the chambers will also impact performance, which is a factor not included in those calculations. To separate the impacts of pH and ion transport on MEC performance, a high molecular weight polymer buffer (PoB), which was retained in the catholyte due to its low AEM transport and cationic charge, was compared to PBS in MECs and abiotic electrochemical half cells (EHCs). In MECs, catholyte pH control was less important than ion transport. MEC tests using the PoB catholyte, which had a higher buffer capacity and thus maintained a lower catholye pH (<8), resulted in a 50% lower hydrogen production rate (HPR) than that obtained using PBS (HPR = 0.7 m3-H2 m−3 d−1) where the catholyte rapidly increased to pH = 12. The main reason for the decreased performance using PoB was a lack of hydroxide ion transfer into the anolyte to balance pH. The anolyte pH in MECs rapidly decreased to 5.8 due to a lack of hydroxide ion transport, which inhibited current generation by the anode, whereas the pH was maintained at 6.8 using PBS. In abiotic tests in ECHs, where the cathode potential was set at −1.2 V, the HPR was 133% higher using PoB than PBS due to catholyte pH control, as the anolyte pH was not a factor in the performance. These results show that maintaining charge transfer to control anolyte pH is more important than obtaining a more neutral pH catholyte.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85040374105&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85040374105&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2017.12.074
DO - 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2017.12.074
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85040374105
VL - 43
SP - 2645
EP - 2653
JO - International Journal of Hydrogen Energy
JF - International Journal of Hydrogen Energy
SN - 0360-3199
IS - 5
ER -