Bio Energy Production Using Carbon Based Electrodes in Double and Single Chamber Microbial Fuel Cells: A Review

The world's climate is being gradually altered by the burning of fossil fuels; which increases carbon dioxide in the atmosphere enormously. In addition, the high consumption of fossil fuels may cause fossil fuel energy deficiencies. Thus, the world’s population needs to explore clean sources of energy as an alternative to fossil fuels. Extensive research has been carried out on different types of fuel cells, including direct alcohol fuel cells, proton exchange membrane fuel cells, solid oxide fuel cells, hydrogen fuel cells, alkaline fuel cells, and phosphoric acid fuel cells for increased power generation [1,2]. Although these fuel cells have a high operating efficiency, this benefit is somewhat offset by (i) the limited viability and expense of catalysts, (ii) corrosive electrolytes, and (ii) high operating temperatures. To overcome these problems, bioelectrochemical fuel cells are a better option for renewable energy production. Major efforts are thus being directed towards the development of technologies based on renewable sources that can transform biomass into various forms and produce electricity [3,4]. In this category, MFCs are promising electro-biotechnology tools that directly convert microbial metabolic power into electricity by catalyzing organic and inorganic matter using bio-electrochemical reactions in an anaerobic medium [5]. Electricity production by MFCs has many benefits including cleanliness, effectiveness, and recyclability with no harmful toxic product production [1-3,6]. Typically, MFCs consist of a two-electrode assembly that contains an anode and cathode. At the anode, the redox reaction occurs in the presence of organic matter and biocatalysts such as bacteria, which generate protons and electrons. At the cathode, reduction of atmospheric oxygen occurs in the presence of catalysts and generates electricity along with water production [3,7-9]. Currently, MFCs show a potential use in the recovery of metals and nutrients from industrial effluents along with municipal or domestic wastewater treatment [10,11]. Two types of MFCs are commonly available: (i) double chamber and (ii) single chamber (SMFC) [9,12].

Double chamber microbial fuel cells

In general, double chamber MFCs consist of two chambers separated by a proton exchange membrane (PEM). Microorganisms oxidize organic material under anaerobic conditions and generate electrons and protons at the anode chamber. The electrons move to the counter electrode through an external circuit, while protons diffuse to the cathode through the PEM. These electrons and protons react with oxygen in the presence of a catalyst and produce water [13,14]. Presently, the comparatively lower power generation and expensive fabrication cost of double chamber MFCs are the major obstructions to their commercialization.

There are several factors that influence the efficiency and stability of MFCs, including the types of cathode and anode materials, the compositions of the anolyte and catholyte, PEM, electron transfer, pH, and the types of biocatalyst used [15-18]. The anode and cathode separately perform important roles in electricity generation in MFCs because the anode is directly responsible for electron transfer, while the surface of the cathode is accountable for oxygen reduction [14,19].

Two types of mechanisms are recognized for electron transfer from bacteria to anode. The first mechanism is the direct transfer of electrons from bacteria to the anode surface through self-mediation of the extracellular electron transfer via redox compounds such as c-type cytochromes or bacterial nanowires/pilli. E. coli is a very common example of the former mechanism [20,21]. Therefore, the biocompatibility and the electronic/ionic conductivity of the anode material are essential for bacteria to transfer electrons. In the second type of mechanism, direct oxidation of bacteria metabolites occurs on the anode surface, and hydrogen and other organic compounds including lactate, ethanol and for mate are key bacteria metabolites [22,23]. The appropriate electro-catalytic activity of the anode is required for the oxidation of metabolites in the latter type of mechanism which contributes to MFC current generation [24]. Therefore, the above-mentioned characteristics are required for a superior quality of anode. There are several artificial supplied mediators, such as methyl blue, neutral red and thionine, which are used to facilitate electron transfer from bacteria to the anode surface. However, these mediators are not desirable in MFCs because they are expensive and toxic to the microbes and must be replaced in a short time [25,26]. Therefore, several electrochemically active microorganisms, such as Shewanellaputrefaciens, Rhodoferaxferrireducens, and Geobacteraceaesulfurre, have been used in MFCs and do not require a mediator [26].

Due to its high oxidation potential and free availability, atmospheric oxygen (air) is frequently used as the electron acceptor in the cathode chamber of the MFCs. Thus, the cathode is also a restrictive feature of the MFCs and extensively affects their efficacy [14]. The use of cathode is restricting because of slow reduction rate and large over potential of oxygen. To reduce this foremost problem, nano-catalyst materials are used in MFCs, which provides more active sites for oxygen reduction [14]. So far, platinum (Pt) is the dominant nano-catalyst used for oxidation of metabolites and reduction of oxygen. Unfortunately, the high cost of Pt limits its commercialization for MFCs applications.

In consideration of the aforementioned properties, researchers have widely studied carbon materials such as carbon felt, carbon cloth, activated carbon fibre/ carbon nano fibre (ACF/CNF), ACs, carbon soot and other carbon nano composites as electrodes in MFCs. There are several advantages of carbon including good stability, high conductivity, large surface area, low fabrication cost and easy availability which favor fabrication of carbon electrodes for MFCs [2,4,15,27]. During the past decades, carbon-based porous electrodes with some nano modifications have been used to enhance the efficiency of MFCs. Different studies have been performed using carbon cloth as an anode where as the cathode was platinized titanium mesh or Pt doped carbon cloth including plain carbon cloth. In these studies, it was concluded that these carbon electrodes were highly electro-chemically active and able to reduce atmospheric oxygen, resulting in high performance of the prepared MFCs [28-30].

There are several studies where different types of electrodes were used for high power generation in double chamber MFCs. These electrodes were iron- and nitrogen-functionalized grapheme for good oxygen reduction reaction (ORR) [31,32], Au-NPs sputtered carbon-paper [17], ruthenium/tin/Pt loaded carbon nanotubes/ nitrogen doped carbon nanotubes [33,34], melamine sponges coated with reduced graphene oxide/carbon nanotubes [35], reticulated carbon foam [36], Ti/Pt based and graphitic felt [15,37] and graphitic carbon brush electrodes [19,38]. In most of the studies, it was concluded that doping of NPs and enhancing the graphitic content were responsible for enhancing the conductivity of electrodes and facilitating electron transfer, which were responsible for the high performance of the prepared MFCs. Transitional metals and heteroatom doping on ACF/CNF are considered to be favourable for enhancing the efficacy of bio energy via microbial fuel cell [4,9,12].

Single chamber microbial fuel cells

Recently, research has shifted towards development of SMFCs rather than double chamber MFCs. In double chamber MFCs, poor diffusion of protons through the PEM enhances the acidity of the anolyte while basicity increases in the catholyte over time. This directly affects the performance of double chamber MFCs due to destruction of the anodic bio-film under low pH conditions and lowers the cathode potential. Hence, significant consideration has been given to the removal of PEM and enhancement of proton transfer [7,8,39,40].

There are many advantages of SMFCs over double chamber MFCs including reduced cell volume, greater economy, low internal resistance and sustainability of the free electron acceptor at the air cathode [41,42]. The basic principles of both MFCs are the same. There are only two main differences: (i) PEMs are removed in SMFCs and (ii) the anolyte (waste water) is directly in contact with both the anode and the cathode, i.e. bio-films develop on both anode and cathode. The advantage of removing the PEM in SMFCs is the lowering of internal resistances compared to those found in the double chamber MFCs. This significantly enhances power generation. The major drawbacks of SMFCs are: (i)the cathode is directly exposed to the anolyte which facilitates bio-film formation on the cathode surface, which then reduces proton diffusion resulting in lower power generation [43], (ii)oxygen diffusion to the anode occurs through the cathode which lowers the efficiency of SMFCs [44,45]. To sort out this problem in membrane-less SMFCs, newly developed cathodic bio-films are used as a barrier for oxygen diffusion through the porous cathode and maintain the anaerobic atmosphere by consuming oxygen [46].

There are several factors which make the cathode an essential part of SMFCs including slow oxygen reduction kinetics, mass transport limitations due to diffusion of oxygen through porous cathodes, cathode material, low solubility, spacing between anode and cathode, ionic strength of solution, diffusivity of oxygen in water and accumulation of inert gas in the pores [47-49].

Researchers have been used efficient and inexpensive catalysts such as iron phthalocyanine, cobalt naphthalocyanine, Fe- phenanthroline, cobalt porphyrin, manganese oxide, lead dioxide, activated carbon, mesoporous nitrogen-rich carbon, carbon nanotubes, electros punpolyacrylonitrile based CNFs and nickel foam for ORR other than platinum (Pt) [50-55]. It was concluded that these materials had a good electro-catalytic property for ORR and could be an alternative to Pt. Atmospheric oxygen is a frequently used electron acceptor in SMFC because of its relatively high redox potential, availability, and sustainability. It is also mentioned that the presence of an oxidized metal at the cathode enhances the electron acceptor property [45,56].

Several materials have been used as separators to avoid short circuiting between the anode and cathode including J-cloth nylon, cellulose, glass fiber, PEM and polycarbonate filters which increased power generation in SMFCs [57,58]. However, there are several draw backs to these materials such as fast degradability, reduced proton diffusion capability, and enhanced internal resistances. To avoid such problems, membrane-less SMFCs have been developed where air cathodes are prepared by the doping/brushing ofa Pt catalyst with a Nafion, poly (dimethylsiloxane) (PDMS), and polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) binder on wet proof carbon cloth/ mesh on the water-facing side of the electrode, and brushing 2-4 layers of hydrophobic PTFE/PDMS/ polyvinylidene fluoride/ poly methyl vinyl ether-alt-maleic anhydride (PMVEMA) as diffusion layers on the air-side of the cathodes because both are highly permeable to oxygen and stop water losses [7,8,59,60]. Ideally, the separator used on a cathode in solution must be inexpensive, have good film-forming properties, possess excellent mechanical strength, be chemically inert, have superior hydrophilicity for high cat-ion transport, and possess low internal resistance [61,62]. In this category, poly methyl vinyl ether-alt-maleic anhydride (PMVEMA) is another inexpensive copolymer which a proton exchange property and may be used as an alternative to Nafion. Specifically, PMVEMA is a water soluble copolymer which contains two main functional groups: (1) maleic anhydride units with two carboxylic groups, acts as proton-donors and form hydrogen bonds with hydroxyl and ether groups, and (2) methyl vinyl ether which is a proton-acceptor with respect to the hydroxyl groups [63,64].

MFCs are one among all kind of bio-electrochemical systems. From the above review, it could be concluded that electrodes are still one of the challenging parameter for commercializing the MFCs. Nonetheless, many approaches have been adopted by researchers to improve the electrode materials for the efficient power generation of MFCs in last five years However, MFCs are considered as a green approach owing to simultaneous bio electricity generation and wastewater treatment. As per author belief, this review will explain the fundamental and existing challenges to the new researches

The author is grateful to the Department of Science and Technology, New Delhi, India for the support in the form of the research grant (DST/INSPIRE/04/2015/001869). I also wish to thank my Ph.D. thesis advisor Professor Nishith Verma. The author thanks CSIR-Indian Institute of Toxicology Research, Lucknow and Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur, Kanpur.

1. Khare P, Ramkumar J, Verma N (2016) Carbon nanofiber-skinned three dimensional Ni/carbon micropillars: high performance electrodes of a microbial fuel cell. Electrochimica Acta 219: 88-98.
2. Singh S, Bairagi PK, Verma N (2018) Candle soot-derived carbon nanoparticles: An inexpensive and efficient electrode for microbial fuel cells. Electrochimica Acta 264: 119-127.
3. Scott K (2014) Microbial fuel cells: transformation of wastes into clean energy. In: Gugliuzza A, Basile A (Eds.), Membranes for Clean and Renewable Power Applications, Woodhead Publishing, pp. 266-300.
4. Singh S, Verma N (2015) Fabrication of Ni nanoparticles-dispersed carbon micro-nanofibers as the electrodes of a microbial fuel cell for bio-energy production. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 40(2): 1145-1153.
5. Virdis B, Freguia S, Rozendal RA, Rabaey K, Yuan Z, et al. (2011) Microbial Fuel Cells. In: Wilderer P (Ed.), Treatise on Water Science, Elsevier, Oxford, pp. 641-665.
6. Sharma V, Kundu PP (2010) Biocatalysts in microbial fuel cells. Enzyme and Microbial Technology 47(5): 179-188.
7. Modi A, Singh S, Verma N (2017) Improved performance of a single chamber microbial fuel cell using nitrogen-doped polymer-metal- carbon nanocomposite-based air-cathode. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 42(5): 3271-3280.
8. Singh S, Modi A, Verma N (2016) Enhanced power generation using a novel polymer-coated nanoparticles dispersed-carbon micro- nanofibers-based air-cathode in a membrane-less single chamber microbial fuel cell. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 41(2): 1237-1247.
9. Modi A, Singh S, Verma N (2016) In situ nitrogen-doping of nickel nanoparticle-dispersed carbon nanofiber-based electrodes: Its positive effects on the performance of a microbial fuel cell. Electrochimica Acta 190(1): 620-627.
10. Gajda I, Greenman J, Melhuish C, Santoro C, Li B, et al. (2014) Water formation at the cathode and sodium recovery using Microbial Fuel Cells (MFCs). Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 7: 187-194.
11. Zhang LJ, Tao HC, Wei XY, Lei T, Li JB, et al. (2012) Bioelectrochemical recovery of ammonia-copper(II) complexes from wastewater using a dual chamber microbial fuel cell. Chemosphere 89(10): 1177-1182.
12. Singh S, Verma N (2015) Graphitic carbon micronanofibers asymmetrically dispersed with alumina-nickel nanoparticles: A novel electrode for mediatorless microbial fuel cells. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 40(17): 5928-5938.
13. Kim MH, Iwuchukwu IJ, Wang Y, Shin D, Sanseverino J, et al. (2011) An analysis of the performance of an anaerobic dual anode-chambered microbial fuel cell. Journal of Power Sources 196(4): 1909-1914.
14. Logan BE, Hamelers B, Rozendal R, Schröder U, Keller J, et al. (2006) Microbial fuel cells: methodology and technology. Environ Sci Technol 40(17): 5181-5192.
15. Wang Y, Li B, Cui D, Xiang X, Li W (2014) Nano-molybdenum carbide/ carbon nanotubes composite as bifunctional anode catalyst for highperformance Escherichia coli-based microbial fuel cell. Biosens Bioelectron 51: 349-355.
16. Fan Y, Hu H, Liu H (2007) Sustainable power generation in microbial fuel cells using bicarbonate buffer and proton transfer mechanisms. Environ Sci Technol 41(23): 8154-8158.
17. Alatraktchi FA, Zhang Y, Angelidaki I (2014) Nanomodification of the electrodes in microbial fuel cell: Impact of nanoparticle density on electricity production and microbial community. Applied Energy 116: 216-222.
18. Gupta S, Yadav A, Singh S, Verma N (2017) Synthesis of silicon carbide- derived carbon as an electrode of a microbial fuel cell and an adsorbent of aqueous Cr(VI). Ind Eng Chem Res 56(5): 1233-1244.
19. Saito T, Merrill MD, Watson VJ, Logan BE, Hickner MA (2010) Investigation of ionic polymer cathode binders for microbial fuel cells. Electrochimica Acta 55(9): 3398-3403.
20. Wang YF, Tsujimura S, Cheng SS, Kano K (2007) Self-excreted mediator from Escherichia coli K-12 for electron transfer to carbon electrodes. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 76(6): 1439-1446.
21. Sugnaux M, Mermoud S, da Costa AF, Happe M, Fischer F (2013) Probing electron transfer with Escherichia coli: A method to examine exoelectronics in microbial fuel cell type systems. Bioresour Technol 148: 567-573.
22. Rosenbaum M, Zhao F, Quaas M, Wulff H, Schröder U, et al. (2007) Evaluation of catalytic properties of tungsten carbide for the anode of microbial fuel cells. Applied Catalysis B: Environmental 74(3-4): 261269.
23. Schröder U (2007) Anodic electron transfer mechanisms in microbial fuel cells and their energy efficiency. Phys Chem Chem Phys 9(21): 26192629.
24. Wang HY, Bhunia AK, Lu C (2006) A microfluidic flow-through device for high throughput electrical lysis of bacterial cells based on continuous dc voltage. Biosens Bioelectron 22(5): 582-588.
25. Du Z, Li H, Gu T (2007) A state of the art review on microbial fuel cells: A promising technology for wastewater treatment and bioenergy. Biotechnol Adv 25(5): 464-482.
26. Zhou M, Yang J, Wang H, Jin T, Hassett DJ, et al. (2014)Bioelectrochemistry of Microbial Fuel Cells and their Potential Applications in Bioenergy. In: Gupta VK, Kubicek MGTP, Xu JS (Eds.), Bioenergy Research: Advances and Applications, Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 131-152.
27. Rosenbaum M, Schröder U, Scholz F (2006) Investigation of the electrocatalytic oxidation of formate and ethanol at platinum black under microbial fuel cell conditions. Journal of Solid State Electrochemistry 10(10): 872-878.
28. Liu J, Qiao Y, Guo CX, Lim S, Song H, et al. (2012) Graphene/carbon cloth anode for high-performance mediatorless microbial fuel cells. Bioresour Technol 114: 275-280.
29. Larrosa Guerrero A, Scott K, Head IM, Mateo F, Ginesta A, et al. (2010) Effect of temperature on the performance of microbial fuel cells. Fuel 89(12): 3985-3994.
30. Fan Y, Hu H, Liu H (2007) Enhanced coulombic efficiency and power density of air-cathode microbial fuel cells with an improved cell configuration. Journal of Power Sources 171(2): 348-354.
31. Li S, Hu Y, Xu Q, Sun J, Hou B, Zhang Y (2012) Iron- and nitrogen- functionalized graphene as a non-precious metal catalyst for enhanced oxygen reduction in an air-cathode microbial fuel cell. J Power Sources 213: 265-269.
32. Mshoperi E, Fogel R, Limson J (2014) Application of carbon black and iron phthalocyanine composites in bioelectricity production at a brewery wastewater fed microbial fuel cell. Electrochimica Acta 128: 311-317.
33. Higgins SR, Foerster D, Cheung A, Lau C, Bretschger O, et al. (2011) Fabrication of macroporous chitosan scaffolds doped with carbon nanotubes and their characterization in microbial fuel cell operation. Enzyme Microb Technol 48(6-7): 458-465.
34. Ci S, Wen Z, Chen J, He Z (2012) Decorating anode with bamboolike nitrogen-doped carbon nanotubes for microbial fuel cells. Electrochemistry Communications 14(1): 71-74.
35. Chou HT, Lee HJ, Lee CY, Tai NH, Chang HY (2014) Highly durable anodes of microbial fuel cells using a reduced graphene oxide/carbon nanotube- coated scaffold. Bioresour Technol 169: 532-536.
36. Lepage G, Albernaz FO, Perrier G, Merlin G (2012) Characterization of a microbial fuel cell with reticulated carbon foam electrodes. Bioresource Technol 124: 199-207.
37. Kipf E, Koch J, Geiger B, Erben J, Richter K, et al. (2013) Systematic screening of carbon-based anode materials for microbial fuel cells with Shewanella oneidensis MR-1. Bioresource Technol 146: 386-392.
38. Ahn Y, Logan BE (2010) Effectiveness of domestic wastewater treatment using microbial fuel cells at ambient and mesophilic temperatures. Bioresource Technology 101(2): 469-475.
39. Zhang L, Zhu X, Kashima H, Li J, Ye DD, et al. (2015) Anolyte recirculation effects in buffered and unbuffered single-chamber air-cathode microbial fuel cells. Bioresource Technology 179: 26-34.
40. Liu H, Logan BE (2004) Electricity generation using an air-cathode single chamber microbial fuel cell in the presence and absence of a proton exchange membrane. Environ Sci Technol 38(14): 4040-4046.
41. Kim HW, Nam JY, Shin HS (2011) Ammonia inhibition and microbial adaptation in continuous single-chamber microbial fuel cells. J Power Sources 196(15): 6210-6213.
42. Logan B, Cheng S, Watson V, Estadt G (2007) Graphite fiber brush anodes for increased power production in air-cathode microbial fuel cells. Environ Sci Technol 41(9): 3341-3346.
43. Santoro C, Lei Y, Li B, Cristiani P (2012) Power generation from wastewater using single chamber microbial fuel cells (MFCs) with platinum-free cathodes and pre-colonized anodes. Biochemical Engineering Journal 62: 8-16.
44. Ma J, Wang Z, Suor D, Liu S, Li J, et al. (2014) Temporal variations of cathode performance in air-cathode single-chamber microbial fuel cells with different separators. J Power Sources 272: 24-33.
45. Li Y, Wu Y, Puranik S, Lei Y, Vadas T, et al. (2014) Metals as electron acceptors in single-chamber microbial fuel cells. Journal of Power Sources 269: 430-439.
46. Cristiani P, Carvalho ML, Guerrini E, Daghio M, Santoro C, et al. (2013) Cathodic and anodic biofilms in single chamber microbial fuel cells. Bioelectrochemistry 92: 6-13.
47. Zhang F, Chen G, Hickner MA, Logan BE (2012) Novel anti-flooding poly(dimethylsiloxane) (PDMS) catalyst binder for microbial fuel cell cathodes. Journal of Power Sources 218: 100-105.
48. Nimje VR, Chen CY, Chen CC, Chen HR, Tseng MJ, et al. (2011) Glycerol degradation in single-chamber microbial fuel cells. Bioresource Technology 102(3): 2629-2634.
49. Deng H, Wu YC, Zhang F, Huang ZC, Chen Z, et al. (2014) Factors affecting the performance of single-chamber soil microbial fuel cells for power generation. Pedosphere 24(3): 330-338.
50. Yuan Y, Zhao B, Jeon Y, Zhong S, Zhou S, et al. (2011) Iron phthalocyanine supported on amino-functionalized multi-walled carbon nanotube as an alternative cathodic oxygen catalyst in microbial fuel cells. Bioresour Technol 102(10): 5849-5854.
51. Li X, Hu B, Suib S, Lei Y, Li B (2010) Manganese dioxide as a new cathode catalyst in microbial fuel cells. J Power Sources 195(9): 2586-2591.
52. Wen Q, Wang S, Yan J, Cong L, Chen Y, et al. (2014) Porous nitrogen- doped carbon nanosheet on graphene as metal-free catalyst for oxygen reduction reaction in air-cathode microbial fuel cells. Bioelectrochemistry 95: 23-28.
53. Liu B, Brückner C, Lei Y, Cheng Y, Santoro C, et al. (2014) Cobalt porphyrin-based material as methanol tolerant cathode in single chamber microbial fuel cells (SCMFCs). Journal of Power Sources 257: 246-253.
54. Shi X, Feng Y, Wang X, Lee H, Liu J, et al. (2012) Application of nitrogen- doped carbon powders as low-cost and durable cathodic catalyst to air- cathode microbial fuel cells. Bioresour Technol 108: 89-93.
55. Karra U, Manickam SS, McCutcheon JR, Patel N, Li B (2013) Power generation and organics removal from wastewater using activated carbon nanofiber (ACNF) microbial fuel cells (MFCs). International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 38(3): 1588-1597.
56. Scholz F, Schroder U (2003) Bacterial batteries, Nat Biotech 21(9): 11511152.
57. Zhang X, Cheng S, Wang X, Huang X, Logan BE (2009) Separator characteristics for increasing performance of microbial fuel cells. Environ Sci Technol 43(21): 8456-8461.
58. Zhang X, Cheng S, Liang P, Huang X, Logan BE (2011) Scalable air cathode microbial fuel cells using glass fiber separators, plastic mesh supporters, and graphite fiber brush anodes. Bioresour Technol 102(1): 372-375.
59. Cheng S, Liu H, Logan BE (2006) Increased performance of singlechamber microbial fuel cells using an improved cathode structure. Electrochemistry Communications 8(3): 489-494.
60. Zhang F, Saito T, Cheng S, Hickner MA, Logan BE (2010) Microbial fuel cell cathodes with poly(dimethylsiloxane) diffusion layers constructed around stainless steel mesh current collectors. Environ Sci Technol 44(4): 1490-1495.
61. Chen G, Wei B, Luo Y, Logan BE, Hickner MA (2012) Polymer separators for high-power, high-efficiency microbial fuel cells. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces 4(12): 6454-6457.
62. Rhim JW, Yeom CK, Kim SW (1998) Modification of poly(vinyl alcohol) membranes using sulfur-succinic acid and its application to pervaporation separation of water-alcohol mixtures. Journal of Applied Polymer Science 68(11): 1717-1723.
63. Khutoryanskaya OV, Khutoryanskiy VV, Pethrick RA (2005) Characterisation of blends based on hydroxyethylcellulose and maleic acid-alt-methyl vinyl ether. Macromolecular Chemistry and Physics 206(15): 1497-1510.
64. Immelman E, Sanderson RD, Jacobs EP, Van Reenen AJ (1993) Poly(vinyl alcohol) gel sub-layers for reverse osmosis membranes. II. Insolubilization by cross linking with poly (methyl vinyl ether-alt-maleic anhydride). Desalination 94(1): 37-54.