4.7 Article

Development of microbial community within the cathodic biofilm of single-chamber air-cathode microbial fuel cell

期刊

SCIENCE OF THE TOTAL ENVIRONMENT
卷 665, 期 -, 页码 641-648

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.02.175

关键词

Microbial fuel cell; Cathodic biofilm development; Stratification; Microbial community

资金

  1. National Key R&D Program of China [2017YFB0903700, 2017YFB0903703]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51278500, 51608547, 51308557]
  3. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities [16lgjc65]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The aim of this study was to investigate the development of microbial community within the cathodic biofilm of single-chamber air-cathode microbial fuel cell (MFC). To analyze microbial community structures within cathodic biofilm, cathodic biofilm samples were stratified into three layers, i.e., the cathode-side layer (0-40 mu m), the middle layer (40-80 mu m), and the anolyte-side layer (80-120 mu m). After four starting cycles (0-188 h), the maximum power densities of the MFC fed with 1 g/L acetate decreased from 1056 +/- 110 to 410 +/- 50 mW/m(2) within 15 cycles (similar to 30 d) of operation. The relative abundance of Pseudomonas gradually increased from 18.9% in the 1st cycle to 50.2% in the 4th cycle. After 15 cycles, the relative abundance of Pseudomonas became 53.8%, 16.4%, and 8.90% in the middle, anolyte-side, and cathode-side layers, respectively. The aerobic bacteria within the cathodic biofilm increased from 24% in the anodyte-side layer to 43% in the cathode-side layer. The relative abundance of Methanobrevibacter was 42.1% and 37.2% after 3 and 15 cycles, respectively. The bacterial community structures were similar among cycles 2, 3, and 4, but significantly different in the 15th cycle. The results from this study should be useful to understand the mechanism of the cathodic biofilm formation and to develop strategies to enhance performance of the MFC. (c) 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据