Establishing a core microbiome in acetate-fed microbial fuel cells

Lesnik, Keaton Larson; Liu, Hong

doi:10.1007/s00253-013-5502-9

Cited by 64 publications

(42 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Thus, although wastewater itself is known to be a satisfactory source of inoculum, soils, especially arctic soils, might be superior for systems that are expected to function at low temperatures: soils are inherently more diverse than wastewater [22], and display significant anaerobic activity at low temperatures [23,24]. Geobacter species are usually the dominant electrogens in acetate fed reactors [25]. However, in wastewater fed reactors Geobacter are typically in a minority, though some of the remaining community may be undiscovered electrogens, non-electrogenic hydrolytic and fermentative organisms must also be present and may be limiting [26,27].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Temperature, inocula and substrate: Contrasting electroactive consortia, diversity and performance in microbial fuel cells

Heidrich

Dolfing

Wade

et al. 2018

Bioelectrochemistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The factors that affect microbial community assembly and its effects on the performance of bioelectrochemical systems are poorly understood. Sixteen microbial fuel cell (MFC) reactors were set up to test the importance of inoculum, temperature and substrate: Arctic soil versus wastewater as inoculum; warm (26.5°C) versus cold (7.5°C) temperature; and acetate versus wastewater as substrate. Substrate was the dominant factor in determining performance and diversity: unexpectedly the simple electrogenic substrate delivered a higher diversity than a complex wastewater. Furthermore, in acetate fed reactors, diversity did not correlate with performance, yet in wastewater fed ones it did, with greater diversity sustaining higher power densities and coulombic efficiencies. Temperature had only a minor effect on power density, (Q 10 : 2 and 1.2 for acetate and wastewater respectively): this is surprising given the well-known temperature sensitivity of anaerobic bioreactors. Reactors were able to operate at low temperature with real wastewater without the need for specialised inocula; it is speculated that MFC biofilms may have a self-heating effect. Importantly, the warm acetate fed reactors in this study did not act as direct model for cold wastewater fed systems. Application of this technology will encompass use of real wastewater at ambient temperatures.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Temperature, inocula and substrate: Contrasting electroactive consortia, diversity and performance in microbial fuel cells

Heidrich

Dolfing

Wade

et al. 2018

Bioelectrochemistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Previous studies have already indicated that not every microorganism could be used in the anode of MFC to generate electricity (Kim et al 2002), because most of them were electrochemically inactive (Delaney et al 2008;Lithgow et al 1986). Therefore, the power generation of MFC was significantly influenced by the type of bacterial community at the anode (Lesnik and Liu 2014). Our previous study using hepatocytes or cancer cells in the anode would generate electric current in MFC (Poon et al 2014(Poon et al , 2015, which has opened the possibility to use eukaryotic cells as electron donor in MFC.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Unlike other chemical cells, the electrons were not reduced with chemical redox reaction but to be liberated from electrochemical active organisms in MFC, and the bacteria were the common microorganism used. Unfortunately, not all the microorganisms were electrochemically active, and the fact that most of them were inactive (Delaney et al 2008), while some bacteria, e.g., Geobacter sulfurreducens containing special structured pili would promote better electric transfer and electricity production (Reguera et al 2006;Lesnik and Liu 2014). Some of the bacteria had to rely their electron transfer on the help of some mediators in shuttling the electron from the cell wall to the anode electrode (Christian et al 2007).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…; however, applications were limited by the toxicity and instability of the mediators (Aktan et al 2011). The biological and related factors influencing the capacity of current generation in bacteriadriven MFC included the concentration of the electron donor in the anode compartment (Fraiwan et al 2014), the loading rate of an organic substrate to the anode (Fraiwan et al 2014), electrolytes at the anode and cathode (Lefebvre et al 2012) and also the types of bacterial community (Qu et al 2012;Lesnik and Liu 2014).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Using live algae at the anode of a microbial fuel cell to generate electricity

Poon

Choi

et al. 2015

Environ Sci Pollut Res

107

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Live green microalgae Chlorella pyrenoidosa was introduced in the anode of a microbial fuel cell (MFC) to act as an electron donor. By controlling the oxygen content, light intensity, and algal cell density at the anode, microalgae would generate electricity without requiring externally added substrates. Two models of algal microbial fuel cells (MFCs) were constructed with graphite/carbon electrodes and no mediator. Model 1 algal MFC has live microalgae grown at the anode and potassium ferricyanide at the cathode, while model 2 algal MFC had live microalgae in both the anode and cathode in different growth conditions. Results indicated that a higher current produced in model 1 algal MFC was obtained at low light intensity of 2500 lx and algal cell density of 5 × 10(6) cells/ml, in which high algal density would limit the electricity generation, probably by increasing oxygen level and mass transfer problem. The maximum power density per unit anode volume obtained in model 1 algal MFC was relatively high at 6030 mW/m(2), while the maximum power density at 30.15 mW/m(2) was comparable with that of previous reported bacteria-driven MFC with graphite/carbon electrodes. A much smaller power density at 2.5 mW/m(2) was observed in model 2 algal MFC. Increasing the algal cell permeability by 4-nitroaniline would increase the open circuit voltage, while the mitochondrial acting and proton leak promoting agents resveratrol and 2,4-dinitrophenol would increase the electric current production in algal MFC.

show abstract

“…1) consisted of two chambers, an anode and a cathode, separated by a proton exchange membrane. Most of the MFC used bacteria as electron donor at anode to convert energy from substrate metabolism to electric current (Pant et al 2012); therefore, the electric current production was highly determined by the loading rate of organic materials into the anode (Juang et al 2011;Fraiwan et al 2014) and also the type of bacterial community (Qu et al 2012;Lesnik and Liu 2014).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

UCP2- and non-UCP2-mediated electric current in eukaryotic cells exhibits different properties

Wang

MoYung

Zhang

et al. 2015

Environ Sci Pollut Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Using live eukaryotic cells, including cancer cells, MCF-7 and HCT-116, normal hepatocytes and red blood cells in anode and potassium ferricyanide in cathode of MFC could generate bio-based electric current. Electrons and protons generated from the metabolic reaction in both cytosol and mitochondria contributing to the leaking would mediate the generation of electric current. Both resveratrol (RVT) and 2,4-dinitrophenol (DNP) used to induce proton leak in mitochondria were found to promote electric current production in all cells except red blood cells without mitochondria. Proton leak might be important for electric current production by bringing the charge balance in cells to enhance the further electron leak. The induced electric current by RVT can be blocked by Genipin, an inhibitor of UCP2-mediated proton leak, while that induced by DNP cannot. RVT could reduce reactive oxygen species (ROS) level in cells better than that of DNP. In addition, RVT increased mitochondrial membrane potential (MMP), while DNP decreased it. Results highly suggested the existence of at least two types of electric current that showed different properties. They included UCP2-mediated and non-UCP2-mediated electric current. UCP2-mediated electric current exhibited higher reactive oxygen species (ROS) reduction effect per unit electric current production than that of non-UCP2-mediated electric current. Higher UCP2-mediated electric current observed in cancer cells might contribute to the mechanism of drug resistence. Correlation could not be established between electric current production with either ROS and MMP without distinguishing the types of electric current.

show abstract

Establishing a core microbiome in acetate-fed microbial fuel cells

Cited by 64 publications

References 38 publications

Temperature, inocula and substrate: Contrasting electroactive consortia, diversity and performance in microbial fuel cells

Temperature, inocula and substrate: Contrasting electroactive consortia, diversity and performance in microbial fuel cells

Using live algae at the anode of a microbial fuel cell to generate electricity

UCP2- and non-UCP2-mediated electric current in eukaryotic cells exhibits different properties

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About