4.5 Article

Microbial community dynamics in two-chambered microbial fuel cells: effect of different ion exchange membranes

Journal

JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL TECHNOLOGY AND BIOTECHNOLOGY
Volume 90, Issue 8, Pages 1497-1506

Publisher

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1002/jctb.4465

Keywords

bioelectrochemical system (BES); microbial fuel cell (MFC); ion exchange membrane (IEM); eubacteria; archaea; methanogens

Funding

  1. Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation (MICINN) [CTM2009-12632]
  2. Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation (INIA) [RTA2012-00096-00-00]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

BACKGROUNDThe utilization of different kinds of ion exchange membrane is a common practice in bioelectrochemical systems such as two-chambered microbial fuel cells (MFCs). However, little is known about the effect of membrane materials on the anodic microbial community diversity. RESULTSThe effect of two cationic and one anionic exchange membranes (Nafion N-117, Ultrex CMI-7000, and Ultrex AMI-7000) on the microbial community dynamics of Eubacteria and Archaea has been assessed in two-chambered MFCs. The experimental results indicated that the eubacterial community in the anodic chamber was not affected by the membrane materials, being predominantly populations of Bacteroidetes (Porphyromonadaceae) and -proteobacteria (Alcaligenaceae and Comamonadaceae). On the other hand, the archaeal counterpart appears to be highly dependent on the type of membrane used, as was evidenced by the selective enrichment of Methanosarcina sp. in the MFC equipped with the membrane Nafion N-117 which was the MFC that showed the highest current production. CONCLUSIONSThe results obtained in the present study suggest that membrane materials affect archaeal diversity whereas both anodofilic eubacteria and methanogenic archaea populations could play an important role in the overall MFC process performance. (c) 2014 Society of Chemical Industry

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available