Microbial fuel cell with a polypyrrole/poly(methylene blue) composite electrode
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: Different configurations of anodic and cathodic half-cells were incorporated into a microbial fuel cell to determine the effectiveness of a composite electrode. This novel composite electrode consisted of poly(methylene blue) and polypyrrole electrodeposited onto a stainless steel electrode. The novel electrode/immobilized mediator was incorporated into a microbial cathodic half-cell that relied on the microalgae Chlorella vulgaris for photosynthesis, and was a net reducer of carbon dioxide. Similar microbial cathodic half-cells were also examined using electrodes fabricated from graphite and graphite deposited with methylene blue. Results from using these three different electrodes in the microbial cathodic half-cell were examined and compared with the results from others. The electrode using the novel immobilized mediator demonstrated the highest short circuit current density of 65 mA/m 2 when compared with other C. vulgaris systems. Different anodic half-cells were also incorporated into the microbial fuel cell and tested. Anodic half-cells tested included a microbial half-cell containing Saccharomyces cerevisiae and one containing no microbial material and based on purely chemical constituents. In the case of the microbial anodic half-cell, different electrodes, including the novel immobilized mediator/electrode, were tested. It was found that the anodic half-cell performed better with a soluble mediator than an immobilized mediator/electrode. In the case of a fuel cell where both the anodic and cathodic half-cells are microbial, our results demonstrate better performance than previous systems by using a soluble mediator in the anodic half-cell with an immobilized mediator in the cathodic half-cell. Keywords: microbial fuel cell, biocathode, immobilized mediator, stainless steel electrode
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".