distilalry water mfc

7/28/2019 Distilalry Water MFC

1/10

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES Volume 2, No 1, 2011

Copyright 2010 All rights reserved Integrated Publishing Association

Research article ISSN 0976 4402

Received on April 2011 Published on September 2011 114

Treatment of distillery wastewater using single chamber and double

chambered MFC

Hampannavar U.S1

, Anupama2

, Pradeep N.V3

.1- Assistant Professor, Civil Engineering Department, K.L.E Societys College of

Engineering and Technology, Belgaum, Karnataka.

2, 3- M.Tech Scholar, K.L.E Societys College of Engineering and Technology, Belgaum,

Karnataka.

[email protected]

ABSTRACT

Distillery wastewater was treated in Microbial Fuel Cell (MFC) at ambient room temperature

which varied between 27-32o

C. Microbial Fuel Cells can be simultaneously used for thetreatment of wastewater and generation of electricity. In this study single chamber MFC and

double chambered MFC were compared for the distillery wastewater treatment andgeneration of electricity. Micro-organisms present in distillery wastewater and sewage were

used as inoculum, and distillery wastewater acted as substrate. Single chamber MFC was

efficient and found to be producing maximum current of 0.84 mA, power density of 28.15

mW/m2 where as double chambered MFC produced a maximum current of 0.36 mA and

power density of 17.76 mW/m2. Double chambered MFC was efficient in the removal of

COD (64% removal) when compared with single chamber MFC which attained 61% COD

removal efficiency. The removal of dissolved solids in both single and double chambered

MFC was found to be 48%. Five varied feed concentrations were loaded to both the single

and double chambered MFC and the systems were stable. The COD and dissolved solidsremoval observed in distillery wastewater might be attributed to the microbial catalyzed

electrochemical reactions occurring in the anodic chamber of single and double chambered

MFC.

Keywords: Microbial fuel cell (MFC), bioelectricity, distillery wastewater, organic waste,

energy recovery, air cathode.

1. Introduction

Organic wastes released from many process industries are of prime concern to the

environment. Their handling, treatment and disposal are the major challenges to suchindustries. Distillery spent wash is unwanted residual liquid waste generated during alcohol

production and pollution caused by it is one of the most critical environmental issue. This

poses severe threat to human health and environment when not managed properly. A numberof clean up technologies have been put into practice and novel bioremediation approaches for

treatment of distillery spent wash are being worked out (Mohana et al., 2009). Anaerobic

treatment produces small amount of sludge and energy can be recovered (Hampannavar and

Shivayogimath, 2010).

Microbial fuel cells (MFC) are unique devices that can utilize microorganisms as catalysts for

converting chemical energy directly into electricity, representing a promising technology for

simultaneous energy production and wastewater treatment (Liu et al., 2004 Logan and Regan,2006). To make this technology feasible, power densities should to be increased and reduce


2/10

Treatment of distillery wastewater using single chamber and double chambered MFC

Hampannavar U.S, Anupama, Pradeep N.VInternational Journal of Environmental Sciences Volume 2 No.1, 2011

115

the cost of construction materials (Logan et al., 2007 Logan, 2006 Clauwaert et al., 2008).In MFC electrons generated in anode cell reach the cathode and combine with protons that

diffuse from anode through the membrane or agar salt bridge (Logan et al., 2006 Min and

Logan, 2004).

MFCs have wider applications including wastewater treatment, production of electricity,bioremediation, hydrogen production, and as environmental sensors (Logan and Regan,

2006). MFCs have been used to treat various kinds of wastewater such as domestic sewage

(Ahn and Logan, 2010 Liu et al., 2004), brewery (Feng et al., 2008 Abhilasha and Sharma.,

2009), distillery (Mohanakrishna et al., 2010), sugar (Abhilasha and Sharma., 2009), paper

and pulp (Huang and Logan, 2008), rice mill (Behera et al., 2010), swine wastewater (Kim et

al., 2008) and phenolic wastewater (Luoa et al., 2009). An additional advantage of using

MFCs for wastewater treatment is the potential for reducing solids production compared to

aerobic processes (Ahn and Logan, 2010). MFCs have some disadvantages, including the

high costs of materials (platinum-catalyst and proton exchange membrane), the low

efficiency of organic treatment, among others (Kubota et al., 2010). MFCs operated using

mixed microbial cultures currently achieve substantially greater power densities than thosewith pure cultures (Logan et al., 2006). Very less study has been done on the comparison ofsingle and double chambered MFC for distillery wastewater treatment.

In this study, the treatment efficiency and electricity generation using single and doublechambered MFC was undertaken and comparisons were made between single and double

chambered MFC. Both the MFC reactors were operated at identical ambient environmental

conditions.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1 Electrode Materials

Graphite rods from pencils were used as both anode and cathode (Logan and Regan, 2006

Logan et al., 2007). The arrangement of the graphite rods was made in such a way as to

provide the maximum surface area for the development of biofilm on anode. The length and

diameter of the graphite rods were 90 mm and 2mm respectively. Pre-treatment was not

provided for the electrode materials.

2.2 MFC Reactors

Two MFC reactors were constructed, one was single chamber MFC and the other was double

chambered MFC. The reactors were constructed using non-reactive plastic containers withdimensions of 8 X 8 X 12 inches. The electrodes were connected by using copper wire as

reported by Logan (2005). The agar salt bridge was used as the proton exchange medium

(Momoh and Naeyor., 2010). The electrodes were placed in the chambers, then were sealed

and made air tight. Both the reactors were checked for water leakage.

2.2.1 Double chambered MFC

Two non-reactive plastic containers were used for Double chambered MFC. One plastic

container was used as anode chamber (to be fed with wastewater) and the other as cathodechamber as shown in Figure 1. The wastewater was fed to the anode chamber and Potassium

permanganate (catholyte) was fed to the cathode chamber (Lefebvre et al., 2008 Behera et


3/10



116

al., 2010). The cathode and anode chambers were connected using agar salt bridge. Thelength and diameter of agar salt bridge was 5 inches and 1.5 inches respectively.

Figure 1: Double chambered MFC.

2.2.2 Single chamber MFC

A plastic container was used as the anode chamber. The agar salt bridge was joined to anodechamber. The length and diameter of agar salt bridge was 5 inches and 1.5 inches

respectively as shown in Figure 2. The graphite rods were placed on the agar salt bridge and

left open to air which acted as cathode (Logan et al., 2007).

Figure 2: Single Chamber Air Cathode MFC.


4/10



117

2.3 Distillery Wastewater and Microbial Inoculum

The distillery wastewater was used as substrate and sewage as source of inoculum. No any

additional nutrients were given for micro-organisms except the nutrients present in thedistillery wastewater.

Table 1: Characteristics of distillery wastewater

Characteristics Value

pHColour

BOD (mg/L)COD (mg/L)

Total Solids(mg/L)Dissolved Solids (mg/L)

Chlorides (mg/L)

Conductivity (mS/cm)

4.1Dark Brown

42000102500

7398059740

6900

19.5

2.4 Experimental Conditions

The anode chamber was filled with distillery wastewater so that micro-organisms in thewastewater could colonize the electrodes and produce electricity. The samples were drawn

from the chambers periodically and analysed. The ambient room temperature during most ofthe period of study varied between 27 oC and 32 oC. When the reactor reached steady state

conditions, the reactor was loaded with distillery wastewater of higher concentration.

2.5 Analyses

The voltage (V) and Current (I) in the MFC circuit was monitored at 24hour intervals using a

multimeter (UNI-T , Model Number- DT830D) (Kim et al., 2005). Analytical procedures

followed in this study were those outlined in Standard Methods (1995).

3. Results and Discussions

The single and double chambered MFC were run parallel. The whole study was conducted

under ambient environmental conditions. Different feed concentrations were given for single

and double chambered MFC. The increase in feed concentration showed a positive effect on

the current and voltage. Five feed concentrations from 2.1 g COD/L to 6.1 g COD/L with anincrement of 1g COD/L were given. The study is under progress for higher feed

concentrations.

3.1 COD removal efficiency

At every increment in feed concentration, the improvement in COD removal efficiency was

observed. Distillery wastewater showed its potential for COD removal indicating the

function of microbes, present in wastewaters in metabolizing the carbon source as electron

donors. It is evident from experimental data that current generation and COD removalshowed relative compatibility. Continuous COD removal was observed in both the MFCs. In

double chambered MFC, COD removal efficiency increased from 52% to 64% as the feedconcentration increased from 2.1 g COD/L to 6.1 g COD/L respectively (Figure 3). In the


5/10



118

case of single chamber MFC, the COD removal efficiency increased from 55% to 61% forthe same feed concentrations (Figure 4). The findings of this study are near to Feng et al

(2008) who conducted the studies on brewery wastewater treatment using air-cathode MFC.

Liu et al (2004) conducted the studies on domestic wastewater treatment using single

chamber MFC and observed 50% to 70% COD removal efficiency. Liu and Logan (2004)

reported a COD removal efficiency of 55% using the MFC with a proton exchangemembrane (PEM), and 75% using the MFC without a PEM.

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Time in days

C

ODinmg/L

2.1 g COD/L

3.1 g COD/L

4.1 g COD/L

5.1 g COD/L

6.1 g COD/L

Figure 3: COD reduction in double chambered MFC.

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Time in days

CODinmg/L 2.1 g COD/L

3.1 g COD/L

4.1 g COD/L

5.1 g COD/L

6.1 g COD/L

Figure 4: COD reduction in single chamber MFC.

The COD removal efficiency was almost similar in single and double chambered MFC but

single chamber MFC showed more consistent COD removal than double chambered MFC.

3.2 Dissolved solids removal efficiency

Distillery-based wastewater characteristically contains higher concentration of solids. During

the operation considerable reduction in dissolved solids concentration was observed in both

the reactors. The reduction of dissolved solids increased with the increase in feedconcentration. As the feed concentration increased from 2.1 g COD/L to 6.1 g COD/L, the


6/10



119

dissolved solids removal efficiency increased from 41% to 48% respectively in both of thereactors (Figure 5 and Figure 6). Mohanakrishna et al(2010) have reported 24% reduction in

total dissolved solids (TDS) while treating distillery wastewater using continuous flow single

chamber air-cathode MFC.

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Time in days

DS

m

g/L

2.1 g COD/L

3.1 g COD/L

4.1 g COD/L

5.1 g COD/L

6.1 g COD/L

Figure 5: Dissolved solids reduction in double chambered MFC.

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Time in days

DS

inm

g/L

2.1 g COD/L

3.1g COD/L

4.1 g COD/L

5.1 g COD/L

6.1 g COD/L

Figure 6: Dissolved solids reduction in single chamber MFC.

In single and double chambered MFC, the dissolved solids reduction was efficient and almostsimilar.

3.3 Current and Power Density

The average values of current and power density for each feed concentration are as given in

the Figure 7 and Figure 8 respectively. The current and power density showed a gradual

increase with respect to the increase in feed concentration. The similar observation was

reported during the treatment of distillery wastewater by Mohanakrishna et al(2010).


7/10



120

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0 2 4 6 8

Feed concentration in g COD/L

Currentinm

A

Double Chamber MFC

Single Chamber MFC

Figure 7: Average values of current obtained at each feed concentration.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0 2 4 6 8

Feed concentration in g COD/L

PowerDen

sitymW/m2

Double Chamber MFC

Single Chamber MFC

Figure 8: Average power density obtained at each feed concentration.

The current and power densities were much higher in single chamber MFC when compared

with double chambered MFC. Logan et al., (2007) have reported the advantage of air-cathode

MFC (compared with the cathode suspended in water) as oxygen transfer to the cathode

occurs directly from air, and thus oxygen does not have to be dissolved in water. The

abundant electron acceptors i.e., oxygen availability in air is the reason for the higher currentgeneration.

The current and power density of MFCs with various types of wastewaters and the presentstudy are as given in Table 2.


8/10



121

Table 2: Performance of MFCs with various types of wastewaters.

Type of

wastewater

MFC

Configuration

Operating

pH

Current

in mA(Max)

Power

density inmW/m2

Reference

Domesticwastewater Singlechamber aircathode

7.3 to 7.6 0.92 28 Liu andLogon., 2004

Domestic

wastewater Two chamber 6 to 7 1.03 72

Min and

Logon., 2004

Rice mill

wastewater

Dual chamber

(PEM) 7 1.07 15.57

Behera et al.,

2010

Two chamber 6 0.34 17.76Present study

Distillery

wastewater(Different feedconcentrations)

Singlechamber air

Cathode6 0.84 28.15

Present study

4. Conclusions

The study demonstrated effective treatment of distillery wastewater of feed concentrationsfrom 2.1 g COD/L to 6.1 g COD/L simultaneously generating electricity. The single chamber

air cathode MFC proves to be more reliable because of the reduced cost of construction, low

maintenance and higher electricity generation when compared with double chambered MFC.Both the reactors exhibited stable operation.

5. References

1. Abhilasha S. M and Sharma V. N., (2009). Bioelectricity production from

various wastewaters through microbial fuel cell technology, Journal ofBiochemical Technology, 2(1), pp133-137.

2. Abhilasha S. M and Sharma V.N., (2010). Treatment of Brewery Wastewater andproduction of electricity through Microbial Fuel Cell Technology, International

Journal of Biotechnology and Biochemistry, 6(1), pp 7180.

3. Ahn Y and Logan B. E., (2010). Effectiveness of domestic wastewater treatment

using microbial fuel cells at ambient and mesophilic temperatures, BioresourceTechnology, 101, pp 469475.

4. Behera M., Jana P. S., More T. T., Ghangrekar M. M., (2010). Rice mill

wastewater treatment in microbial fuel cells fabricated using proton exchange

membrane and earthen pot at different pH, Bioelectrochemistry, 79, pp 228233.

5. Clauwaert P., Aelterman P., Pham T. H., Schamphelaire L.D., Carballa M.,

Rabaey K., Verstraete W., (2008). Minimizing losses in bio-electrochemical


9/10



122

systems: the road to applications, Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology, 79,pp 901913.

6. Feng Y., Wang X., Logan B. E., Lee H., (2008). Brewery wastewater treatmentusing air-cathode microbial fuel cells, Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology,

78, pp 873880.

7. Hampannavar U.S and Shivayogimath C.B., (2010). Anaerobic treatment of

sugar industry wastewater by Upflow anaerobic sludge blanket reactor at ambient

temperature, International Journal of Environmental Sciences, 1(4), pp 631639.

8. Huang L and Logan B. E., (2008). Electricity generation and treatment of paper

recycling wastewater using a microbial fuel cell, Applied Microbiology and

Biotechnology, 80, pp 349355.

9. Kim J. R., Min, B., Logan B. E., (2005). Evaluation of procedures to acclimate a

microbial fuel cell for electricity production, Applied Microbiology andBiotechnology, 68, pp 2330.

10. Kim J. E., Dec J., Bruns M. E., Logan B.E., (2008). Reduction of Odors from

Swine Wastewater by Using Microbial Fuel Cells, Applied and Environmental

Microbiology, 74(8), pp 25402543.

11. Kubota K., Yoochatchaval W., Yamaguchi T., Syutsubo K., (2010). Application

of a Single-Chamber Microbial Fuel Cell (MFC) for organic wastewater

treatment: Influence of changes in wastewater composition on the process

performance, Sustainable Environment Research, 20(6), pp 347-351.

12. Lefebvre O., Al-Mamun A., and Ng H. Y., (2008). A microbial fuel cell

equipped with a biocathode for organic reduction and denitrification, WaterScience & Technology, 58(4), pp 881-885.

13. Liu H and Logan B. E., (2004). Electricity Generation Using an Air-CathodeSingle Chamber Microbial Fuel Cell in the Presence and Absence of a Proton

Exchange Membrane, Environmental Science and Technology, 38, pp 4040-4046.

14. Liu H., Ramnarayanan R., Logan B. E., (2004). Production of electricity during

wastewater treatment using a single chamber microbial fuel cell, Environmental

Science and Technology, 38, pp 2281-2285.

15. Logan B. E and Regan J. M., (2006). Microbial fuel cells - challenges and

applications, Environmental Science and Technology, 40, pp 5172-5180.

16. Logan B. E., Aelterman P., Hamelers B., Rozendal R., Schroder U., Keller J.,

Freguiac S., Verstraete W., Rabaey K., (2006). Microbial fuel cells: methodology

and technology, Environmental Science and Technology, 40(17), pp 5181-5192.

17. Logan B. E., Cheng S., Watson V., Estadt G., (2007). Graphite Fiber Brush

Anodes for Increased Power Production in Air-Cathode Microbial Fuel Cells,

Environmental Science and Technology, 41, pp 3341-3346.


10/10



123

18. Logan B.E., (2005). Simultaneous wastewater treatment and biological electricitygeneration, Water Science & Technology, 52, pp 3137.

19. Logan B. E., (2009). Exoelectrogenic bacteria that power microbial fuel cells,Nature Reviews Microbiology, 7, pp 375-381.

20. Logan B. E., (2010). Scaling up microbial fuel cells and other bioelectrochemicalsystems, Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology, 85, pp 16651671.

21. Luoa H., Liua G., Zhanga R., Jin S., (2009). Phenol degradation in microbial fuel

cells, Chemical Engineering Journal, 147, pp 259264.

22. Min B and Logan B. E., (2004). Continuous Electricity Generation from

Domestic Wastewater and Organic Substrates in a Flat Plate Microbial Fuel Cell,

Environmental Science and Technology, 38, pp 5809-5814.

23. Mohana S., Bhavik K. A., Madamwar D., (2009). Distillery spent wash:

Treatment technologies and potential applications, Journal of Hazardous

Materials, 163, pp 1225.

24. Mohanakrishna G., Venkata Mohan S., Sarma P. N., (2010). Bio-electrochemical

treatment of distillery wastewater in microbial fuel cell facilitating decolorization

and desalination along with power generation, Journal of Hazardous Material,

177, pp 487494.

25. Momoh O. L and Naeyor B.A., (2010). A novel electron acceptor for microbial

fuel cells: Nature of circuit connection on internal resistance, Journal of

Biochemical Technology, 2(4), pp 216-220.

26. Rabaey K and Verstraete W., (2005). Microbial fuel cells: novel biotechnology

for energy generation, Trends in Biotechnology, 23(6), pp 291- 298.

27. Standard Methods for Examination of Water and Wastewater, (1995). 19 th

Edition. Prepared and Published by American Public Health Association,American Water Works Association, Water Pollution Control Federation.

distilalry water mfc

Documents