SSW 11.11 ± 0.05 0.45 −0.49 ± 0.00 0.42 35.27 ± 0.12 0.34 SSM 12.59 ± 0.06 0.48 −0.45 ± 0.00 0.47 47.09 ± 0.05 0.09
Randall Kolb
AI summary
85% confidenceThis study evaluates the performance of various counter electrodes in a microbial electrolysis cell (MEC) using linear sweep voltammetry (LSV) and finds that Pt wire is not suitable as a counter electrode in anode LSV tests, but is suitable in cathode LSV tests.
Generated by MESSAI extraction pipeline · review against source PDF
Representative MEC — matched on the paper’s system type only, not its reactor or geometry.
Open in lab for full controls, parameter editing, and template overlays.
Open in lab →What they did
- System
- MEC
What worked
No outcome metrics extracted yet.
Abstract
The electrode is a key component in a microbial electrolysis cell (MEC) that needs significant improvement for practical implementation. Accurate and reproducible analytical methods are substantial for the effective development of electrode technology. Linear sweep voltammetry (LSV) is an essential analytical method for evaluating electrode performance. In this study, inoculated carbon brush (IB), abiotic brush (AB), Pt wire (PtW), stainless steel wire (SSW), and mesh (SSM) were tested to find the most suitable counter electrode under different medium conditions. The coefficient of variation (Cv) of maximum current (Imax) was the most decisive indicator of the reproducibility test. This study shows that (i) the electrode used in operation is an appropriate counter electrode in an acetate-added condition, (ii) the anode LSV test should avoid the use of Pt wire as counter electrodes, and (iii) PtW is an appropriate counter electrode in cathode LSV in all conditions.
Key findings
- The electrode used in operation is an appropriate counter electrode in an acetate-added condition.
- Pt wire is not suitable as a counter electrode in anode LSV tests.
- Pt wire is suitable as a counter electrode in cathode LSV tests.
Keywords
Identifiers
- Journal
- Science
- Year
- 2019