Occurrence and Implications of Voltage Reversal in Stacked Microbial Fuel Cells
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Voltage reversal in stacked microbial fuel cells (MFCs) is a significant challenge that must be addressed, and the information on its definite cause and occurrence process is still obscure. In this work, we first demonstrated that different anodic reaction rates caused voltage reversal in a stacked MFC. Sluggish reaction rates on the anode in unit 1 of the stacked MFC resulted in a significantly increased anode overpotential of up to 0.132 V, as compared to negligible anode overpotential (0.0247 V) in unit 2. This work clearly verified the process of voltage reversal in the stacked MFC. As the current was gradually increased in the stacked MFC, the voltage in the stacked unit 1 decreased to 0 V prior to that of the stacked unit 2. Then, when the voltage in unit 1 became 0 V, it was converted from a galvanic cell to an electrochemical cell powered by unit 2. We found that the stacked unit 2 provided electrical energy for the stacked unit 1 as a power supply. Finally, the anode potential of the stacked unit 1 significantly increased over cathode potential as current increased further, which caused voltage reversal in unit 1. Voltage reversal occurs in stacked MFCs as a result of non-spontaneous anode overpotential in a unit MFC that has sluggish anode kinetics compared to the other unit MFCs.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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".