Abstract:The use of air-cathodes in microbial fuel cells (MFCs) has been considered sustainable for large scale applications, but the performance of most current designs is limited by the low efficiency of the three-phase oxygen reduction on the cathode surface. In this study we developed carbon nanotube (CNT) modified air-cathodes to create a 3-D electrode network for increasing surface area, supporting more efficient catalytic reaction, and reducing the kinetic resistance. Compared with traditional carbon cloth cathodes, all nanotube modified cathodes showed higher performance in electrochemical response and power generation in MFCs. Reactors using carbon nanotube mat cathodes showed the maximum power density of 329 mW m −2 ; more than twice that of the peak power obtained with carbon cloth cathodes (151 mW m −2 ). The addition of Pt catalysts significantly increased the current densities of all cathodes, with the maximum power density obtained using the Pt/carbon nanotube mat cathode at 1118 mW m −2 . The stable maximum power density obtained from other nanotube coated cathodes varied from 174 mW m −2 to 522 mW m −2 . Scanning electron micrographs showed the presence of conductive carbon nanotube networks on the CNT modified cathodes that provide more efficient oxygen reduction. Keywords Microbial fuel cell Carbon nanotube Cathode Electricity 1 Introduction Microbial fuel cells (MFCs) are renewable energy systems that employ bacteria to convert chemical energy stored in biodegradable materials to electrical energy. The MFC technology carries great potential as it concurrently removes pollutants from the environment and produces energy. An MFC reactor generally consists of an anode, a cathode, and sometimes a separator between the two electrodes [1] . In order to provide good access for bacteria and improve power generation, the electrodes in MFCs need to have high surface area, high conductivity, and be resistant to physical and chemical corrosion. Many anode materials have been tested, including woven graphite mat [2] , carbon paper [3] , carbon cloth [4] , and activated carbon [5] . A recent development of graphite brush anodes provides a solution for scaling up because it has very high specific surface area (7170–18,200 m 2 m −3 ) and an open structure to prevent fouling problems [6] . Moreover, this makes the anode no longer the main limitation on power production, but instead brings up the challenge of effective cathode development [7,8] . Even though ferricyanide or permanganate can provide a higher cathode open circuit potential, oxygen is considered as the electron acceptor for eventual MFC applications due to its availability and high redox potential ( E 0 = 1.23 V) [8,9] . However, the tri-phase reaction among oxygen gas, solid catalyst, and liquid electrolyte does not make satisfactory reaction kinetics. Moreover, the specific surface area (∼100 m 2 m −3 ) of current popular air-cathode designs are orders of magnitude lower compared with the brush anode, making the cathode the primary limiting factor for improved power production in MFCs. Previous results showed that MFC power output improved along with the increase of cathode specific surface area. For example, Deng et al., found the power density increased from 67 mW m −2 to 315 mW m −2 by replacing carbon paper cathodes with high specific surface area activated carbon felt cathodes [10] . Cheng and Logan recently demonstrated that the volumetric power density has a linear relationship with the cathode specific surface area [11] . Carbon nanotubes (CNTs) have exhibited great potential as electrode materials in fuel cell applications due to their high surface-to-volume ratio and unique electrical and mechanical properties. Several studies investigated the performance of CNT-modified anodes in MFCs and found that the anode biofilm activity was not affected by the carbon nanotubes but the power density was improved [12–14] . Though the CNT-modified anodes do not provide direct large enough macro-scale porosity for more microbial colonization, the highly conductive nanotube network serves as nanowires to facilitate the electron transfer between the microbes to the electrodes. The reported power densities obtained from CNT-modified anodes varied from 22 mW m −2 (multi-walled CNT) [15] to 1098 mW m −2 (3-D CNT-textile) [13] . However, to date little effort has been reported on CNT-modified cathodes, even though the benefits can be more significant because the CNT-modified cathodes provide higher conductivity for improved electron transfer efficiency and allow more nano-sized catalyst particles to be deposited in a 3D texture to facilitate the tri-phase reaction kinetics. Therefore, in this study we used carbon nanotubes to modify the air-cathode using several different methods and characterized the MFC performance under each condition. 2 Materials and methods 2.1 Cathode construction Different coating methods were used to modify MFC air-cathodes using carbon nanotubes. In addition, carbon nanotube mat and carbon cloth modified with Pt nanoparticles were tested for comparison. Table 1 shows the list of 8 different electrodes that were characterized and the specifications of their modification. Carbon cloth cathodes (CC) were made by applying one layer of carbon black nanoparticles and four PTFE diffusion layers on the air side of the carbon cloth according to Cheng et al. [16] . In some cases, a catalyst layer containing 0.5 mg cm −2 platinum nanoparticles was applied on the water side of the carbon cloth to improve reaction kinetics (CC-Pt). Carbon nanotube mat (CNTM) that contains more than 90% carbon nanotubes was donated by Nanocomp Technologies Inc. (OH, USA) and was used directly as the MFC cathode. The same amount of Pt catalyst was applied in some of the CNTM cathodes for comparison (CNTM-Pt). Single-walled carbon nanotubes (SWNTs) were synthesized by laser vaporization methods [17,18] at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) (CO, USA). The as-prepared nanotubes were purified using a method introduced by Dillon, which consisted of treatment in 3 M nitric acid flux for 16 h, followed by an acetone wash and air burn at 525 °C [17] . Commercially available SWNTs and multi-walled carbon nanotubes (MWNTs) were purchased from CheapTubes Inc. (NJ, USA) and purified by the same procedure. The purified carbon nanotubes were suspended in 1% sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS) surfactant water solution to prevent agglomeration. The suspended carbon nanotubes were then deposited onto a PTFE membrane (Advantec MFS, Inc., CA, USA) by vacuum filtration to form a compact cathode. Sufficient DI water washing was applied after to remove the extra surfactant. In some cases, Pt nanoparticles (0.5 mg cm −2 ) were uniformly coated on the surface of carbon nanotubes by using a controlled temperature microwave method (250 W, 140 °C) for 90 s [19] . The cathodes containing nanotubes synthesized at NREL with and without Pt coatings were labeled as SWNT n -Pt and SWNT n , respectively. Similarly, the cathodes using commercial SWNTs and MWNTs from CheapTubes Inc. with Pt coating were labeled as SWNT c -Pt MWNT c -Pt, respectively ( Table 1 ). 2.2 MFC construction and operation Single chamber cubic-shaped reactors were constructed as previously described [6,20] . The total volume of each reactor was 28 mL. Graphite fiber brushes were used as the anodes in all of the experiments. Prior to the tests, the brushes were treated by soaking in acetone overnight and then heated at 450 °C for 30 min [21] . All reactors were initially equipped with CC-Pt cathodes and inoculated using effluent from an air-cathode MFC operated for nearly one year. When exoelectrogenic bacteria acclimated and all reactors showed repeatable and comparable voltages (510 ± 10 mV), nanotube modified air-cathodes were transferred to MFC reactors for performance characterization. Medium solution was prepared containing 1.25 g L −1 CH 3 COONa, 0.31 g L −1 NH 4 Cl, 0.13 g L −1 KCl, 3.321 g L −1 NaH 2 PO 4 ·2H 2 O, 10.317 g L −1 Na 2 HPO 4 ·12H 2 O, 12.5 mL L −1 mineral solution, and 5 mL L −1 vitamin [22] . Reactors were operated in fed-batch mode at room temperature and refilled with new medium solution when voltages reduced below 30 mV forming one cycle of operation. 2.3 Electrochemical and microscopy analysis Voltage across an external resistor (1000 Ω) was recorded at 10-min intervals using a data acquisition system (Keithley Instrument, OH, USA) connected to a computer. Polarization power density curves were obtained by altering external resistances from 50,000 Ω to 50 Ω during the stable power production stage of each batch. The calculations of power density were performed according to Ren et al. [23] . Linear sweep voltammetry (LSV) was applied using a potentiostat (PC4/300, Gamry Instruments, NJ, USA) to characterize the abiotic electrochemical oxygen reduction behavior on different cathodes. LSV tests were conducted in the same reactor filled with same media solution but without carbon source and bacterial inoculum [24] . The working electrode was the cathode (4.9 cm 2 projection area), the counter electrode was a titanium wire (diameter: 0.081 cm, length: 40 cm), and the reference electrode was an Ag/AgCl electrode (RE-5B, BASi, IN, USA). The potential was scanned from open circuit potential to −0.2 V at a rate of 1.0 mV s −1 . Reactor internal resistances were measured by electrochemical impedance spectroscopy (EIS) with the anode as the working electrode, and the cathode as the counter electrode and reference electrode. The scan range was from 10 5 Hz to 0.005 Hz with a small sinusoidal perturbation of ±10 mV [3] . All tests were repeated at least three times to verify consistency. Selected cathode samples were examined using a dual beam focused ion beam scanning electron microscope (FIB/SEM, NOVA 600i, FEI Company). Samples were fixed overnight at 4 °C by Karnovsky's fixative (Electron Microscopy Sciences, CA, USA), washed three times in phosphate buffer (0.2 M, pH 7.2), and then dehydrated stepwise in a series of water/ethanol solutions with increasing ethanol concentration (50, 70, 80, 90, 100%). Samples were then kept in a desiccator prior to Pd/Pt sputtering and SEM observation. 3 Results and discussion 3.1 Electrochemical performance The electrochemical performance of the cathodes with respect to current density was evaluated using LSV tests in the absence of bacteria ( Fig. 1 ). Among the cathodes without Pt catalyst coating, those electrodes consisting of or modified with carbon nanotubes (e.g., CNTM and SWNT n ) showed much larger current responses than the carbon cloth cathode (CC). SWNT n cathodes showed the most positive onset potential, followed by the CNTM cathode, while the CC showed minimal current response across the potential scan range. The larger current response from the nanotube cathodes indicates a higher limiting current density and better electrochemical performance, presumably due to the higher specific surface area generated by nanotube modification [25] . In comparison, the flat current response of CC cathodes over the range of voltages examined indicates that the carbon cloth itself did not catalyze oxygen reduction. The addition of Pt catalyst on the cathodes significantly increased the current densities of all cathodes ( Fig. 1 ). The current densities of CNTM-Pt, SWNT n -Pt, and CC-Pt cathodes all increased substantially compared with their non-Pt counterparts, and the SWNT n -Pt showed the best performance across the potential range. Considering the same amount of catalyst was applied on the electrodes, the LSV results suggest that the 3-D structure created by the carbon nanotubes on SWNT n -Pt allowed more Pt nanoparticles to be deposited inside the electrode space rather than on the surface, leading to increased reaction kinetics [26] . The electrochemical performance of cathodes modified by commercial single-walled nanotubes (SWNT c -Pt) and multi-walled nanotubes (MWNT c -Pt) with Pt coatings were also evaluated using the same LSV tests. In general, both cathodes showed lower current densities compared to the other three electrodes described previously. The reason could be attributed to the different nanotube synthesis approaches. The laser vaporization method used for SWNT n -Pt has been known to produce higher quality nanotubes than the chemical vaporization method used for SWNT c -Pt. The higher crystallization and electric conductivity of SWNT n resulted in higher electron transfer efficiency thus higher performance. The SWNT c -Pt showed larger current response than the MWNT c -Pt across the scanned potentials. This is presumably due to the high resistance thus more electrochemical loss of MWNTs compared with SWNTs. The resistance of the reactor with the MWNT c -Pt cathode was 94 Ω, which is nearly 3 times higher than with the SWNT c -Pt cathode (35 Ω). 3.2 Performance of MFCs with nano-modified air-cathodes The nano-modified air-cathodes were transferred to pre-acclimated single chamber MFCs after LSV tests. Rapid voltage generation was observed in all reactors. Fig. 2 shows the power density and polarization curves obtained from each MFC reactor during steady power production stages. Fig. S1 shows the voltage profiles as a function of time ( Supporting information ). For MFC cathodes without Pt catalyst coating, CNTM reactor showed the maximum power density of 329 mW m −2 , more than twice that of the peak power obtained from CC reactor (151 mW m −2 ). The SWNT n reactor showed a lower power density (117 mW m −2 ) than the other two reactors without Pt. Similar to the results observed during LSV tests, the reactor performance was greatly improved by the application of Pt catalyst in the cathodes. During the first several batches, the power densities of SWNT n -Pt and CNTM-Pt reactors, calculated from voltages at 1000 Ω, were 735 mW m −2 and 723 mW m −2 , respectively, which were higher than that of CC-Pt reactor (672 mW m −2 ). The voltages of CNTM-Pt and CC-Pt MFCs kept stable during multiple batches, but the voltage of the SWNT n -Pt reactor decreased gradually from the first batch and stabilized after the fourth batch, resulting in a voltage drop from more than 600 mV to around 300 mV. As shown in Fig. 2 , the power density curves obtained at the steady state operation of each reactor show the maximum power densities from CNTM-Pt and CC-Pt MFCs of 1118 mW m −2 and 1071 mW m −2 , respectively, while the maximum power density of SWNT n -Pt after stabilizing was 302 mW m −2 . A similar voltage decline was observed in SWNT c -Pt and MWNT c -Pt MFCs in the first batches. The maximum power density produced by SWNT c -Pt was 522 mW m −2 , which was about two times higher than that from MWNT c -Pt (174 mW m −2 ), confirming that SWNT material performs better as MFC cathodes due to its lower ohmic resistance compared with MWNT material. The electrochemical performance of CC-Pt and SWNT n -Pt cathodes were analyzed again by LSV tests after MFC operation in order to understand the chemical and microbial effects on the cathode performance. Fig. 3 shows the electrochemical performance of the used CC-Pt cathode decreased slightly compared with the new cathode, while the current response of the used SWNT n -Pt cathode declined significantly compared with the new SWNT n -Pt. This drop may explain why the steady state power density of the SWNT n -Pt reactor was lower than the CNTM-Pt and CC-Pt reactors despite a better LSV performance with new SWNT n -Pt cathodes. Such finding could also be confirmed by the changes of open circuit potential (OCP). The OCP of the SWNT n -Pt cathode dropped by 35%, from 357 mV in batch 1 to 233 mV in batch 4, while the OCP of CC-Pt only dropped by 9%, from 345 mV to 310 mV during the same period. Similar findings in air-cathode performance decline were reported by several other studies, and the reasons were believed to be due to the adherence of biofilm and chemical deposits on the cathode surfaces that reduced charge transfer and catalyst activity [27,28] . For the SWNT n -Pt cathode, the large amount of pores, cavities, and curving paths among carbon nanotubes that increase the specific surface area also enables adsorption of impurities that may cover the surfaces of the cathode and reduce charge transfer. Adding a separator on the nanotube modified electrode to block adsorption or switching the nanotube layer to the air-face side could be possible solutions [29,30] . It may also be possible that the SWNTn-Pt cathode performance decreased due to the loss of the Pt catalyst overtime since the microwave deposition method has not been optimized for MFC operation. However, this was not confirmed using energy dispersive spectroscopy element percentage test during FIB/SEM characterization. 3.3 FIB/SEM analysis Scanning electron micrographs were taken for the CC-Pt, CNTM-Pt, and SWNT n -Pt cathode materials before and after MFC operation. Fig. 4 shows a distinct difference in morphology between the new CC-Pt cathode and new CNTM-Pt and SWNT n -Pt cathodes. The CC-Pt cathode surface was covered by aggregated particles or short fibers ( Fig. 4 A), while the new CNTM- Pt and SWNT n -Pt electrode surfaces clearly showed the carbon nanotube network ( Fig. 4 C and E). The deposited Pt catalyst shows up in the images as bright nanoparticles deposited across the nanotube network. Denser microbial biofilms were formed on the surface of the CC-Pt cathode ( Fig. 4 B) compared with the CNTM-Pt and SWNT n -Pt cathodes ( Fig. 4 D and F), but more chemical deposit covered a large portion of the surface of the two CNT-modified electrodes. Studies showed that the excess accumulation of biofilm and chemical scales [27,28] could adversely affect the system performance due to the decrease in active cathode specific surface area and increase in diffusion resistance in oxygen. Such observations may also explain the reduced electrochemical activities in certain MFCs after a period of operation, where the presence of cavities and the adsorption of impurities played a major role as compared to cathode biofilms. 4 Conclusions Microbial fuel cells provide direct and efficient electricity generation from renewable sources, but the current 2-D air-cathode configuration limits system performance due to the low kinetics of oxygen reduction. Carbon nanotubes were used in this study to modify air-cathodes in single chamber MFCs to create a 3-D structure for improved surface area and reaction kinetics. Compared with traditional carbon cloth cathodes, all nanotube modified cathodes showed greater electrochemical performance as well as higher power density in MFCs. The maximum power density obtained from carbon nanotube mat cathodes (329 mW m −2 ) was more than double the power output from traditional carbon cloth cathodes (151 mW m −2 ). The addition of Pt catalyst on the cathodes increased the current densities of all cathodes, with the maximum power density achieved by a CNTM-Pt of 1118 mW m −2 . Electrodes made from commercial single wall carbon nanotubes (SWNT c -Pt) have much lower ohmic resistance than those made from multiwall nanotubes (MWNT c -Pt) and showed larger current response and higher power. The customized SWNT n electrode showed great electrochemical responses, but its performance declined gradually due to the deposition of chemical and microbial impurities which blocked reaction surfaces. Scanning electron micrographs demonstrated different electrode surface morphologies, with the CNT modified cathodes showing carbon nanotube networks and carbon cloth cathodes showing aggregated particles on the electrode surface. Acknowledgements This research was supported by the Office of Naval Research (ONR) Grant N000140910944 . The authors thank Nanocomp Technologies Inc. for donating carbon nanotube mat, and Dr. Paul Rice at University of Colorado Nanomaterials Characterization Facility (NCF) for helping with FIB/SEM operation. Appendix A Supplementary data Supplementary data associated with this article can be found, in the online version, at doi:10.1016/j.jpowsour.2011.05.005 . Appendix A Supplementary data References [1] B.E. Logan Microbial Fuel Cells 2008 John Wiley & Sons New York [2] K. Rabaey P. Clauwaert P. Aelterman W. Verstraete Environ. Sci. Technol. 39 2005 8077 8082 [3] Z. Ren R.P. Ramasamy S.R. Cloud-Owen H. Yan M.M. Mench J.M. Regan Bioresour. Technol. 102 2011 416 421 [4] S. Cheng B.E. Logan Electrochem. Commun. 9 2007 492 496 [5] Z. He N. Wagner S.D. Minteer L.T. Angenent Environ. Sci. Technol. 40 2006 5212 5217 [6] B. Logan S. Cheng V. Watson G. Estadt Environ. Sci. Technol. 41 2007 3341 3346 [7] Y.Z. Fan E. Sharbrough H. Liu Environ. Sci. Technol. 42 2008 8101 8107 [8] H. Rismani-Yazdi S.M. Carver A.D. Christy I.H. Tuovinen J. Power Sources 180 2008 683 694 [9] F. Zhao F. Harnisch U. Schroder F. Scholz P. Bogdanoff I. Herrmann Environ. Sci. Technol. 40 2006 5193 5199 [10] Q. Deng X. Li J. Zuo A. Ling B.E. Logan J. Power Sources 195 2010 1130 1135 [11] S. Cheng B.E. Logan Bioresour. Technol. 102 2011 4468 4473 [12] P. Liang H. Wang X. Xia X. Huang Y. Mo X. Cao M. Fan Biosens. Bioelectron. 26 2011 3000 3004 [13] X. Xie L. Hu M. Pasta G.F. Wells D. Kong C.S. Criddle Y. Cui Nano Lett. 11 2011 291 296 [14] J.L. Lamp J.S. Guest S. Naha K.A. Radavish N.G. Love M.W. Ellis I.K. Puri J. Power Sources 196 2011 5829 5834 [15] H.-Y. Tsai C.-C. Wu C.-Y. Lee E.P. Shih J. Power Sources 194 2009 199 205 [16] S. Cheng H. Liu B.E. Logan Electrochem. Commun. 8 2006 489 494 [17] A.C. Dillon T. Gennett K.M. Jones E.L. Alleman P.A. Parilla M.J. Heben Adv. Mater. 11 1999 1354 1358 [18] A. Thess R. Lee P. Nikolaev H. Dai P. Petit J. Robert C. Xu Y.H. Lee S.G. Kim A.G. Rinzler D.T. Colbert G.E. Scuseria D. Tomanek J.E. Fischer R.E. Smalley Science 273 1996 483 487 [19] C.-M. Chen M. Chen H.-W. Yu S.-C. Lu C.-F. Chen Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. 47 2008 2324 2329 [20] H. Liu B.E. Logan Environ. Sci. Technol. 38 2004 4040 4046 [21] X. Wang S. Cheng Y. Feng M.D. Merrill T. Saito B.E. Logan Environ. Sci. Technol. 43 2009 6870 6874 [22] H. Luo P.E. Jenkins Z. Ren Environ. Sci. Technol. 45 2011 340 344 [23] Z. Ren H. Yan W. Wang M. Mench J. Regan Environ. Sci. Technol. 45 2011 2435 2441 [24] F. Zhang T. Saito S. Cheng M.A. Hickner B.E. Logan Environ. Sci. Technol. 44 2010 1490 1495 [25] J.R. Kim J.-Y. Kim S.-B. Han K.-W. Park G.D. Saratale S.-E. Oh Bioresour. Technol. 102 2011 342 347 [26] S. Cheng P. Kiely B.E. Logan Bioresour. Technol. 102 2011 367 371 [27] P.D. Kiely G. Rader J.M. Regan B.E. Logan Bioresour. Technol. 102 2011 361 366 [28] K. Chung I. Fujiki S. Okabe Bioresour. Technol. 102 2011 355 360 [29] O. Lefebvre W.K. Ooi Z. Tang M. Abdullah-Al-Mamun D.H. Chua H.Y. Ng Bioresour. Technol. 100 2009 4907 4910 [30] S. Yang B. Jia H. Liu Bioresour. Technol. 100 2009 1197 1202

Abstract:Highlights ► Graphene enhances the charge transfer capability of the bacteria to the anode. ► Microbial fuel cell with graphene anode delivers a power density of 2668 mW m −2 . ► Graphene is promising in application of microbial fuel cells. Abstract Graphene with a Brunauer–Emmett–Teller (BET) specific surface area of 264 m 2 g −1 has been used as anodic catalyst of microbial fuel cells (MFCs) based on Escherichia coli (ATCC 25922). The electrochemical activities of plain stainless steel mesh (SSM), polytetraﬂuoroethylene (PTFE) modified SSM (PMS) and graphene modified SSM (GMS) have been investigated by cyclic voltammetry (CV), discharge experiment and polarization curve measurement. The GMS shows better electrochemical performance than those of SSM and PMS. The MFC equipped with GMS anode delivers a maximum power density of 2668 mW m −2 , which is 18 times larger than that obtained from the MFC with the SSM anode and is 17 times larger than that obtained from the MFC with the PMS anode. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) results indicate that the increase in power generation could be attributed to the high surface area of anode and an increase in the number of bacteria attached to anode. Keywords Graphene Biocatalyst Microbial fuel cells 1 Introduction Microbial fuel cells (MFCs) are novel electrochemical devices that directly convert microbial metabolic power into electricity using electrochemical technology, which have great potential in broad applications, such as wastewater treatment [1–4] , implantable medical devices [5] and biosensors [6–8] . However, the low power density of MFCs remains one of the main obstacles for their practical applications [9,10] . Aside from all the other factors affecting the MFC performance, which include cell design, inoculum, substrate, proton exchange material and electrode surface areas, etc. [11–17] , the fabrication materials of anode play a profound role in influencing the power generation by determining the actual accessible area for bacteria to anchor and affecting the interfacial electron transfer resistance. Therefore, a high-performance anode material is most essential to improve the power outputs of MFCs. Traditionally, carbon materials such as carbon cloth, carbon paper, graphite granules and graphite felt tend to be suitable as anodes in MFCs due to their chemical stability, high conductivity and high specific surface area. However, the pores within such materials can be clogged by the entering bacteria, resulting in cell death and significant reduction of the electrochemical reaction surface [18] , thus much decreased electrocatalytic activity for the electrode microbial reactions can be subsequently observed. Carbon nanotubes (CNTs) have also been explored to improve the power output of MFCs [19] . But CNTs have a cellular toxicity that could lead to proliferation inhibition and cell death [20,21] . Recently, graphene has been considered as the intriguing material, attracting strong scientific and technological interest with great application potentials in various fields, such as lithium ion batteries [22] , solar cells [23] and electrochemical super-capacitors [24] , for its unique nanostructure and extraordinary properties (high surface area [25] , excellent conductivity [26] , outstanding mechanical strength [27] and extraordinary electrocatalytic activities, etc.). Graphene can be synthesized by the chemical oxidation–reduction treatment of graphite [26,28,29] , during which toxic metal catalysts are not used, which is a desired property for application in the MFCs. However, the application potential of graphene as an electrocatalyst material in MFCs has not been reported. In this study, the performance of a dual-chamber MFC operated with a graphene-modiﬁed stainless steel mesh (GMS) anode has been evaluated for the first time. 2 Experimental 2.1 Chemicals and materials Polytetraﬂuoroethylene (PTFE) solution (1 wt.%) and 2-hydroxy-1,4-naphthoquinone (HNQ, 97%) were purchased from Sigma–Aldrich. Nafion 112 (Dupont, USA) was used as a cation exchange membrane. Graphene was obtained by the chemical oxidation–reduction treatment of graphite as described in our previous studies [30,31] . In a typical procedure, 5 g of graphite was slowly added into a stirred mixture of concentrated sulfuric (87.5 mL) and nitric acid (45 mL) in an ice-water bath. Subsequently, 55 g of KClO 3 was carefully added into the mixture. All the processes were carried out in the fume hood. It was kept stirring for 4 days at room temperature. Then 4 L of water was added to the slurry and the mixture was filtered to obtain graphite oxide. After dried at 80 °C, graphene oxide was exfoliated in de-ionized water by ultrasonic treatment for 2 h to form a colloidal graphene oxide suspension. Finally, the graphene oxide suspension reacted with hydrazine monohydrate (1 μL: 3 mg graphene oxide) for 24 h at 80 °C to obtain the graphene sheets. All other chemicals were from local chemical agent, and de-ionized water (>18.4 MΩ cm −1 ) was used throughout. 2.2 Preparation of electrodes Carbon paper (Hesen, China) and stainless steel mesh (SSM) were cut to small pieces with 1 cm × 1 cm. The pieces of carbon paper were treated by soaking in HCl (1.0 M), de-ionized water, NaOH (1.0 M) and de-ionized water sequentially. Each step of treatment was 1 h. The pieces of SSM were just soaked in HCl (1.0 M) for 1 h. After that, the small pieces were rinsed for several times and finally dried in oven at 60 °C for 12 h. These pretreated carbon papers were used as the cathodes for the MFCs. 5 mg of graphene powder was mixed with PTFE (1 wt.%) to form a paste. The paste was then coated on the surface of SSM to produce uniform films, followed by pressing with a presser to fabricate the GMS electrode. After drying at 60 °C to remove water, the electrode was used as the anode for the MFCs. A control PTFE modified SSM (PMS) electrode was prepared using the same quantity of PTFE when prepared the GMS. 2.3 MFC construction and system set-up As schematically shown in Fig. 1 A , the MFC reactor was constructed using two round polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) templates ( Ф = 15 cm, 3 cm in thickness). The anodic or cathodic compartment was an inner cylinder ( Ф = 9 cm, 2 cm in depth) in each template. The two compartments were screwed together and separated by two PMMA disc gaskets ( Ф = 15 cm, 3 cm × 3 cm window in center) with Nafion 112 membrane (effective area of 9 cm 2 ). The MFC is shown in Fig. 1 B. Phosphate buffer solution (PBS) consisted of 10.0 g of NaHCO 3 and 8.5 g of NaH 2 PO 4 per liter. Culture medium, which was a mixture of 10.0 g of peptone, 5.0 g of NaCl and 3.0 g of beef powder per liter, was sterilized in an autoclave (Sanshen Shanghai, China) at 120 °C for 20 min, and then placed in the incubator (Shenxian Shanghai, China) at 37 °C for 24 h before using. Original Escherichia coli (ATCC 25922, Guangdong Institute of Microbiology) biocatalyst was grown anaerobically in the prepared culture medium at 37 °C for 18–24 h. 5 mL of Escherichia coli culture was inoculated to anode (saturated with nitrogen for 20 min before inoculation). To evaluate the performance of anode, three MFCs with different anodes, namely SSM based MFC (MFC-SSM), PMS based MFC (MFC-PMS) and GMS based MFC (MFC-GMS) were set up simultaneously. Anolyte was PBS containing 5 mmol of HNQ, 10.0 g of glucose and 5.0 g of yeast extract per liter. Catholyte was 50 mM K 3 [Fe(CN) 6 ]. Both the volumes of anolyte and catholyte were 115 mL. 2.4 Characterization The specific surface area of the sample was determined using Brunauer–Emmett–Teller (BET) method on a Quantachrome's Quadrasorb SI analyzer at 77 K. The morphology of graphene was characterized with scanning electron microscopy (SEM, LEO, Germany) at 25 kV. After discharge, the surface morphologies of the SSM, PMS and GMS were examined by a SE-30 EXEM SEM. The sample preparation was referred to the procedures described elsewhere [32] . Briefly, the samples (cut from the anodes) were fixed in 4% glutaraldehyde solution for more than 4 h to stabilize the bacteria attached to the anodes. Following a rinse in a PBS solution (pH 7.0) thrice, then the samples were dehydrated in ethanol series (50%, 70%, 80%, and 90%) for 10 min each and followed by 10 min changes in 100% ethanol twice. Further rinse was taken in isoamyl acetate twice (10 min each time). The samples were then dried at CO 2 -critical point for 3 h. 2.5 Electrochemical measurements All electrochemical experiments were performed on CHI660C (Chenhua, China) in a three-electrode arrangement, including a working electrode, a platinum counter electrode and an Ag/AgCl (saturated KCl) reference electrode. MFC characterization system (Ingsens Instrument, China) was used for data acquisition. For the determination of the power output, a variable resistance (0–10 kΩ) was used as the external load. Cell voltages were recorded at a time interval of 30 s across the external resistance and a controlled temperature of 35 °C. 3 Results and discussion 3.1 Characterization of graphene The prepared graphene was characterized by nitrogen adsorption at 77 K ( Fig. 2 A) . The BET specific surface area was calculated to be 264 m 2 g −1 , which was larger by about 500 times than that of woven graphite felt (about 0.5 m 2 g −1 ) [32] , a widely used anode material in MFCs. Fig. 2 B shows the typical SEM image of the obtained graphene. The observed layered platelets composed of curled nanosheets are the representative morphology of graphene. The high surface area and excellent conductivity of graphene is expected to be beneficial for the bacteria to attach to the anode and enhance the charge transfer capability from the bacteria to the anode. 3.2 CV study CV tests were carried out to determine the electrocatalytic behavior of anode materials. As revealed in Fig. 3 A , GMS results in larger current responses when compared to SSM and PMS in the scan range between −0.8 V and 0.4 V in the absence of bacteria. This is a result of the enhanced surface area of GMS. The inset shows the CVs of GMS in anolyte with or without of HNQ. A set of redox peaks with a formal potential at −0.48 V indicates a typical reversible electron transfer reaction of the quinone group in HNQ to hydroquinone involving two electrons [33] . Fig. 3 B shows the CVs of the SSM, PMS and GMS anodes after the inoculation of Escherichia coli in PBS solution. A peak current of 1.79 mA at −0.20 V in the oxidation scan and a peak current of −1.22 mA at −0.44 V in the reduction scan are observed at the GMS. The peak current is much higher than those at the SSM and PMS, which is due to the enhanced electron-transfer efficiency from the bacteria to the anode via graphene. The separation of the anodic and cathodic peak potentials (Δ E p ) is smaller than those at the SSM and PMS, indicating that graphene plays an important role in increasing the electroactive surface area [34] . The performances of SSM and PMS are similar, which shows the PTFE is just a bonder, which does not contribute to the power output much. 3.3 Anode discharge performance in MFC In order to evaluate the discharge performance of different anodes, the constant-current discharge experiments of MFCs with three different anodes in 5 mM glucose solution were conducted at 0.01 mA cm −2 , resulting in a change of the anode potential versus the discharge time as shown in Fig. 4 . The anodic potential versus time data showed different discharge profiles for the three anodes. For the SSM anode, it has a very high polarization potential of 1.1 V initially, and gradually becomes lower. Finally, it reaches at 0.79 V. For the PMS anode, it also has a very high polarization potential of 1.1 V initially, and gradually becomes lower. Finally, it reaches at 0.83 V. For the GMS anode, it has a polarization potential of about 0.35 V at the beginning, and gradually becomes lower with increasing discharge time and finally becomes constant at its lowest polarization potential of −0.37 V. For an anodic reaction, the more negative the anode discharge potential, the better the electrocatalytical performance. Apparently, the GMS gives the most negative potential in the three electrodes during the discharge process, demonstrating that it has better electrocatalytic performance than SSM and PMS, which is in agreement with the CV result in Fig. 3 . 3.4 Power generation The dual-chamber MFC operated with the GMS anode generated substantially larger power densities compared to the SSM and PMS counterpart. Anode and cathode polarization curves of the three MFCs were separately obtained, as shown in Fig. 5 A . The catholyte was a 50 mM ferricyanide solution with PBS identical to that in the bacterial medium. Using ferricyanide as the electron acceptor here is owing to its facile reaction rate [35,36] , so there are insignificant differences in cathode polarization behavior for the three MFCs with the same cathode material. However, the anode polarization curves are significantly different. A sharp decrease in the slope of the anode polarization curve is observed in MFC-GMS versus in MFC-SSM and MFC-PMS. For the MFC-SSM and MFC-PMS, increasing current densities from 0 to 0.03 mA cm −2 caused a significant rise in the anode potential from −0.26 V (MFC-SSM) and −0.35 V (MFC-PMS) to −0.10 V (MFC-SSM) and −0.17 V (MFC-PMS). This indicates that a large driving force (in the form of overpotential) is required for the bio-electrochemical reaction at high currents. However, for the MFC-GMS, the anode polarization is significantly smaller as the anode potential changed from −0.39 V to −0.30 V with the increase of current density from 0 to 0.30 mA cm −2 . These results are the consequence of an enhanced anode performance by increasing the anode surface area and the biocompatibility of the substrate. Fig. 5 B shows power density curves of the three MFCs investigated. The maximum power density of the MFC-GMS is 2668 mW m −2 , which increased by 18 times as compared with that (142 mW m −2 ) produced from the MFC-SSM and by 17 times as compared with that (159 mW m −2 ) produced from the MFC-PMS. The results substantially demonstrate that the graphene can be a superior anode material with high power output in MFCs. 3.5 SEM study After discharge, the surface morphologies of each electrode were immediately examined by SEM. The grown bacteria on the electrodes exhibited a rod-shaped structure, which is similar to the literature [37] . The SSM and PMS electrodes possess relatively smooth surfaces. Only a few bacteria are observed to be attached on the electrodes ( Fig. 6 A and B ). But the GMS electrode possesses a rough and large surface. Lots of Escherichia coli cells accumulate on the electrode surface and adhere to one another ( Fig. 6 C). This result indicates that GMS can promote bacteria adhesion on the anode surface, which plays a key role in improving the power output. 4 Conclusions The GMS system gives a much higher power output than those of SSM and PMS. Because it can improve surface area of electrode, adhesion of bacteria and efficiency of electron transfer. These results provide significant prospects for developing low cost and effective anode of MFCs. Further studies are necessary to assess whether GMS can be applicable to large-scale MFCs from a practical perspective. Acknowledgements The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support of the 863 Program (2008AA06Z311) and NSFC (20945004). References [1] B.E. Logan Water Sci. Technol. 52 2005 31 37 [2] R.A. Rozendal H.V.M. Hamelers K. Rabaey J. Keller C.J.N. Buisman Trends Biotechnol. 26 2008 450 459 [3] J. Sun Y.Y. Hu Z. Bi Y.Q. Cao J. Power Sources 187 2009 471 479 [4] S. Young-Chae Y. Kyu Seon L. Song Kuen J. Power Sources 195 2010 6478 6482 [5] Y. Han C. Yu H. Liu Biosens. Bioelectron. 25 2010 2156 2160 [6] I.S. Chang J.K. Jang G.C. Gil M. Kim H.J. Kim B.W. Cho B.H. Kim Biosens. Bioelectron. 19 2004 607 613 [7] I.S. Chang H. Moon J.K. Jang B.H. Kim Biosens. Bioelectron. 20 2005 1856 1859 [8] J.M. Tront J.D. Fortner M. Plotze J.B. Hughes A.M. Puzrin Biosens. Bioelectron. 24 2008 586 590 [9] D.C. Holzman Environ. Health Perspect. 113 2005 A754 A757 [10] R.A. Bullen T.C. Arnot J.B. Lakeman F.C. Walsh Biosens. Bioelectron. 21 2006 2015 2045 [11] H.S. Park B.H. Kim H.S. Kim H.J. Kim G.T. Kim M. Kim I.S. Chang Y.K. Park H.I. Chang Anaerobe 7 2001 297 306 [12] G.-C. Gil I.-S. Chang B.H. Kim M. Kim J.-K. Jang H.S. Park H.J. Kim Biosens. Bioelectron. 18 2003 327 334 [13] S.E. Oh B.E. Logan Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 70 2006 162 169 [14] A. Thygesen F.W. Poulsen B. Min I. Angelidaki A.B. Thomsen Bioresour. Technol. 100 2009 1186 1191 [15] Y. Mohan D. Das Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 34 2009 7542 7546 [16] C.S. Butler R. Nerenberg Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 86 2010 1399 1408 [17] N. Joo-Youn K. Hyun-Woo S. Hang-Sik J. Power Sources 2010 6428 6433 [18] K. Rabaey W. Verstraete Trends Biotechnol. 23 2005 291 298 [19] H.Y. Tsai C.C. Wu C.Y. Lee E.P. Shih J. Power Sources 194 2009 199 205 [20] E. Flahaut M.C. Durrieu M. Remy-Zolghadri R. Bareille C. Baquey J. Mater. Sci. 41 2006 2411 2416 [21] A. Magrez S. Kasas V. Salicio N. Pasquier J.W. Seo M. Celio S. Catsicas B. Schwaller L. Forr Nano Lett. 6 2006 1121 1125 [22] E. Yoo J. Kim E. Hosono H.-S. Zhou T. Kudo I. Honma Nano Lett. 8 2008 2277 2282 [23] X. Wang L. Zhi K. Mullen Nano Lett. 8 2007 323 327 [24] S.R.C. Vivekchand C.S. Rout K.S. Subrahmanyam A. Govindaraj C.N.R. Rao J. Chem. Sci. 120 2008 9 13 [25] M.J. McAllister J.L. Li D.H. Adamson H.C. Schniepp A.A. Abdala J. Liu M. Herrera-Alonso D.L. Milius R. Car R.K. Prud’homme I.A. Aksay Chem. Mater. 19 2007 4396 4404 [26] A.K. Geim K.S. Novoselov Nat. Mater. 6 2007 183 191 [27] C. Lee X.D. Wei J.W. Kysar J. Hone Science 321 2008 385 388 [28] S. Stankovich D.A. Dikin R.D. Piner K.A. Kohlhaas A. Kleinhammes Y. Jia Y. Wu S.T. Nguyen R.S. Ruoff Carbon 45 2007 1558 1565 [29] S. Stankovich R.D. Piner X.Q. Chen N.Q. Wu S.T. Nguyen R.S. Ruoff J. Mater. Chem. 16 2006 155 158 [30] H.J. Du J.S. Ye J.Q. Zhang X.D. Huang C.Z. Yu Electroanalysis 22 2010 2399 2406 [31] N. Li M. Zhu M. Qu X. Gao X. Li W. Zhang J. Zhang J. Ye J. Electroanal. Chem. 651 2011 12 18 [32] D.H. Park J.G. Zeikus Biotechnol. Bioeng. 81 2003 348 355 [33] S.A. Lee Y. Choi S.H. Jung Bioelectrochemistry 57 2002 173 178 [34] Y.J. Zou C.L. Xiang L.N. Yang L.X. Sun F. Xu Z. Cao Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 33 2008 4856 4862 [35] S. Oh B. Min B.E. Logan Environ. Sci. Technol. 38 2004 4900 4904 [36] L.X. Zhang S.G. Zhou L. Zhuang W.S. Li J.T. Zhang N. Lu L.F. Deng Electrochem. Commun. 10 2008 1641 1643 [37] Y. Qiao S.J. Bao C.M. Li X.Q. Cui Z.S. Lu J. Guo ACS Nano 2 2008 113 119

Carbon nanotube modified air-cathodes for electricity production in microbial fuel cells

A graphene modified anode to improve the performance of microbial fuel cells

Tubular Membrane Cathodes for Scalable Power Generation in Microbial Fuel Cells.

Enhanced Performance of Nitrogen-Doped Carbon Nanotube Membrane-Based Filtration Cathode Microbial Fuel Cell

A Novel Structure of Scalable Air-Cathode Without Nafion and Pt by Rolling Activated Carbon and PTFE As Catalyst Layer in Microbial Fuel Cells.

Air-cathode preparation with activated carbon as catalyst, PTFE as binder and nickel foam as current collector for microbial fuel cells.

Carbon nanotube powders as electrode modifier to enhance the activity of anodic biofilm in microbial fuel cells.

Electricity generation by the microbial fuel cells using carbon nanotube as the anode

Carbon nanotube-coated macroporous sponge for microbial fuel cell electrodes

Power Generation by Packed-Bed Air-Cathode Microbial Fuel Cells

Development and Evaluation of Carbon and Binder Loading in Low-Cost Activated Carbon Cathodes for Air-Cathode Microbial Fuel Cells

Electrode Modification and Optimization in Air-Cathode Single-Chamber Microbial Fuel Cells

Air Cathode Catalysts of Microbial Fuel Cell by Nitrogen-Doped Carbon Aerogels

Carbon Nanotubes Conjugated Mesoporous Tungsten Trioxide As Anode Electrocatalyst for Microbial Fuel Cells

Improved Performance of Membrane Free Single-Chamber Air-Cathode Microbial Fuel Cells with Nitric Acid and Ethylenediamine Surface Modified Activated Carbon Fiber Felt Anodes.

Carboxylic Carbon Nanotube: Catalyst Support Material And Oxygen Reduction Reaction Of Microbial Fuel Cells

Control of Geometrical Properties of Carbon Nanotube Electrodes Towards High-Performance Microbial Fuel Cells

Use of Carbon Mesh Anodes and the Effect of Different Pretreatment Methods on Power Production in Microbial Fuel Cells.

CNT@Ti3C2TxMXene Nanocomposite Catalysts as Anodes to Improve the Electricity Production Performance of Microbial Fuel Cells

Application of Surface-modified Carbon Nanotubes Powder in Microbial Fuel Cell

Power Generation Using an Activated Carbon and Metal Mesh Cathode in A Microbial Fuel Cell