MESSAI.io/Parameters
CatalogCorrelationsGlobal AnalysisParameter SweepMethodology
run 5de12f42corpus v2026-05-19model gp-scm-v1.2.0ran 0.0s
SWEEPexternal_resistancefrom10to5000across12 log stepsat fixedT = 30°C, pH = 7, HRT = 24 h, area = 7 cm², culture = G_sulfurreducens_pure
Viewpaper: cheng-logan-2007-brush-anodebacktest (all papers)
anti-HARKing rail · Logan & Regan 2006
WARNV5Coulombic mass-balance is open on 10/12 sweep points (>5% closure error). Check substrate consumption + Q_measured.· Logan-group hygiene check; mass balance fundamentals
WARNV6Mean CE × OLR = 54.5 exceeds empirical Logan-group envelope (≤25). Mass transport limits CE at high loading; prediction may be optimistic.· Cheng & Logan 2011 — empirical envelope
WARNV8Air-cathode + HRT 24h: O₂ crossover should depress CE below ~40% but predicted mean is 54%. Verify cathode + biofilm couples.· Cheng et al. 2006; Logan 2008 textbook §5
Platform
Microbial electrochemical systems · living biofilm catalyst
System type
Sweep parameter
Fixed conditions
Objective
Reproducing

Logan BE, Cheng S, Watson V, Estadt G (2007) — Environmental Science & Technology

Graphite fiber brush anodes for increased power production in air-cathode microbial fuel cells
DOI: 10.1021/es062644y
MetricReportedPredictedΔBand
Power density
acetate feed (1 g/L), graphite fiber brush anode, air-cathode (Pt 0.5 mg/cm²), single-chamber, 50 mM PBS
p. 3344, Fig. 3 + Table 1 (peak power, per projected cathode area)
1430
mW/m²
1446
mW/m²
+1.1%green
Coulombic efficiency
acetate feed, brush anode, air-cathode — peak coulombic efficiency at moderate external load (1000 Ω)
p. 3344, Table 1
60.0
%
52.1
%
-13.2%green
COD removal
acetate utilization (well-defined substrate; high conversion)
p. 3344
95.0
%
84.8
%
-10.7%green
Δ-bands per Logan & Regan 2006 lab-to-lab reproducibility envelope: green ≤±25%, amber ±25–50%, red >±50%. Predictions from Butler-Volmer + Ohmic + Tafel closure calibrated against the Logan corpus (regression-tested in butler-volmer-calibration.test.ts).
What we don't know about this paper (6 items)
  1. Peak power is reported PER PROJECTED CATHODE AREA (7 cm² carbon cloth). The paper also cites 73 W/m³ volumetric power density which uses a different denominator — do not mix.
  2. The 1430 mW/m² peak was measured with 50 mM PBS buffer; without buffer, the brush configuration drops to ~600-800 mW/m² (proton diffusion becomes rate-limiting at the cathode). Buffer dependence is not encoded in this preset.
  3. The brush specific surface area (7170 m²/m³) is a manufacturer-reported number for the as-received graphite fiber tow. Biofilm coverage is incomplete in practice (~30-60% surface utilization); the BV map approximates this by treating brush as a multiplier on j0 rather than literal area scaling.
  4. CE = 60% is the paper's reported peak; this varies with external load. At MPP (lower R_ext, higher current draw) CE drops to ~25-40% due to mass-transport limitation. The reported value is the operating-point Logan reports — not the optimum CE.
  5. Internal resistance ~8 Ω in this paper — dramatically lower than Liu & Logan 2004 (~161 Ω) because the brush short-circuits the activation barrier. This is the dominant mechanism, not "more surface area = more biofilm = more power" (a common misreading).
  6. Acetate ≠ wastewater. The 1430 mW/m² number is NOT achievable on real domestic wastewater — Logan-group brush-anode wastewater runs typically peak at 200-500 mW/m² due to the OLR / kinetic complexity of mixed substrates.
Source mix
EMP 0CAL 0SIM 12EXT 0
Peak power density
1447mW/m²✓ mass-bal
at x = 169 · n=0 nearby papers
Coulombic efficiency
51.8%
mixed-culture realistic range 20-55%
Internal resistance
580Ω·cm²
area-normalized; Logan-group standard
Empirical coverage
0.97@ 95%
n=325 · ECE 0.02
SHOW
-2663.57-1750.16-836.7476.68990190410.010082006300440025000Power density (areal) (mW/m²)external_resistance (Ω)x=10 · Power density (areal)=-2359.1 mW/m² · SIMULATED · 0 nearby papersx=17.6 · Power density (areal)=-1513.1 mW/m² · SIMULATED · 0 nearby papersx=31 · Power density (areal)=-482.4 mW/m² · SIMULATED · 0 nearby papersx=54.5 · Power density (areal)=523.7 mW/m² · SIMULATED · 0 nearby papersx=95.8 · Power density (areal)=1218.2 mW/m² · SIMULATED · 0 nearby papersx=169 · Power density (areal)=1446.8 mW/m² · SIMULATED · 0 nearby papersx=297 · Power density (areal)=1300.9 mW/m² · SIMULATED · 0 nearby papersx=522 · Power density (areal)=992.2 mW/m² · SIMULATED · 0 nearby papersx=918 · Power density (areal)=683.5 mW/m² · SIMULATED · 0 nearby papersx=1620 · Power density (areal)=442.5 mW/m² · SIMULATED · 0 nearby papersx=2840 · Power density (areal)=276.1 mW/m² · SIMULATED · 0 nearby papersx=5000 · Power density (areal)=168.5 mW/m² · SIMULATED · 0 nearby papers◆ optimum1446.8 mW/m² @ 169