The influence of anodic helical design on fluid flow and bioelectrochemical performance

Iain S. Michie; Jung Rae Kim; Richard M. Dinsdale; Alan J. Guwy; Giuliano C. Premier

doi:10.1016/j.biortech.2014.03.069

The influence of anodic helical design on fluid flow and bioelectrochemical performance

Iain S. Michie^*, Jung Rae Kim, Richard M. Dinsdale, Alan J. Guwy, Giuliano C. Premier

^*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

Abstract

In this study three different tubular helical anode designs are compared, for each helical design the pitch and nominal sectional area/liquid flow channel between the helicoids was varied and this produced maximum power densities of 11.63, 9.2 and 6.73Wm^-3 (small, medium and large helical flow channel cross-sections). It is found that the level of mixing and the associated shear rates present in the anodes affects both the power development and biofilm formation. The small helical flow channel carbon anode produced 40% more biofilm and this result was related to modelling data which determined a system shear rate of 237s^-1, compared to 52s^-1 and 47s^-1 for the other reactor configurations. The results from computational fluid dynamic modelling further distinguishes between convective flow conditions and supports the influence of helical structure on system performance, so establishing the importance of anodic design on the overall electrogenic biofilm activity.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	13-20
Number of pages	8
Journal	Bioresource Technology
Volume	165
Issue number	CESE 2013
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2014.03.069
Publication status	Published - 25 Mar 2014

Keywords

Biofilm
Fluid flow
Helical anode
Microbial fuel cells
Performance

Access to Document

10.1016/j.biortech.2014.03.069Licence: CC BY-NC-ND

Cite this

@article{5e67d88835a147bbac8104e6ee570b65,

title = "The influence of anodic helical design on fluid flow and bioelectrochemical performance",

abstract = "In this study three different tubular helical anode designs are compared, for each helical design the pitch and nominal sectional area/liquid flow channel between the helicoids was varied and this produced maximum power densities of 11.63, 9.2 and 6.73Wm-3 (small, medium and large helical flow channel cross-sections). It is found that the level of mixing and the associated shear rates present in the anodes affects both the power development and biofilm formation. The small helical flow channel carbon anode produced 40% more biofilm and this result was related to modelling data which determined a system shear rate of 237s-1, compared to 52s-1 and 47s-1 for the other reactor configurations. The results from computational fluid dynamic modelling further distinguishes between convective flow conditions and supports the influence of helical structure on system performance, so establishing the importance of anodic design on the overall electrogenic biofilm activity.",

keywords = "Biofilm, Fluid flow, Helical anode, Microbial fuel cells, Performance",

author = "Michie, {Iain S.} and Kim, {Jung Rae} and Dinsdale, {Richard M.} and Guwy, {Alan J.} and Premier, {Giuliano C.}",

year = "2014",

month = mar,

day = "25",

doi = "10.1016/j.biortech.2014.03.069",

language = "English",

volume = "165",

pages = "13--20",

journal = "Bioresource Technology",

issn = "0960-8524",

publisher = "Elsevier",

number = "CESE 2013",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The influence of anodic helical design on fluid flow and bioelectrochemical performance

AU - Michie, Iain S.

AU - Kim, Jung Rae

AU - Dinsdale, Richard M.

AU - Guwy, Alan J.

AU - Premier, Giuliano C.

PY - 2014/3/25

Y1 - 2014/3/25

N2 - In this study three different tubular helical anode designs are compared, for each helical design the pitch and nominal sectional area/liquid flow channel between the helicoids was varied and this produced maximum power densities of 11.63, 9.2 and 6.73Wm-3 (small, medium and large helical flow channel cross-sections). It is found that the level of mixing and the associated shear rates present in the anodes affects both the power development and biofilm formation. The small helical flow channel carbon anode produced 40% more biofilm and this result was related to modelling data which determined a system shear rate of 237s-1, compared to 52s-1 and 47s-1 for the other reactor configurations. The results from computational fluid dynamic modelling further distinguishes between convective flow conditions and supports the influence of helical structure on system performance, so establishing the importance of anodic design on the overall electrogenic biofilm activity.

AB - In this study three different tubular helical anode designs are compared, for each helical design the pitch and nominal sectional area/liquid flow channel between the helicoids was varied and this produced maximum power densities of 11.63, 9.2 and 6.73Wm-3 (small, medium and large helical flow channel cross-sections). It is found that the level of mixing and the associated shear rates present in the anodes affects both the power development and biofilm formation. The small helical flow channel carbon anode produced 40% more biofilm and this result was related to modelling data which determined a system shear rate of 237s-1, compared to 52s-1 and 47s-1 for the other reactor configurations. The results from computational fluid dynamic modelling further distinguishes between convective flow conditions and supports the influence of helical structure on system performance, so establishing the importance of anodic design on the overall electrogenic biofilm activity.

KW - Biofilm

KW - Fluid flow

KW - Helical anode

KW - Microbial fuel cells

KW - Performance

U2 - 10.1016/j.biortech.2014.03.069

DO - 10.1016/j.biortech.2014.03.069

M3 - Article

C2 - 24726135

AN - SCOPUS:84922582775

SN - 0960-8524

VL - 165

SP - 13

EP - 20

JO - Bioresource Technology

JF - Bioresource Technology

IS - CESE 2013

ER -

The influence of anodic helical design on fluid flow and bioelectrochemical performance

Abstract

Keywords

Access to Document

Fingerprint

Cite this