4.8 Article

Bidirectional microbial electron transfer: Switching an acetate oxidizing biofilm to nitrate reducing conditions

期刊

BIOSENSORS & BIOELECTRONICS
卷 75, 期 -, 页码 352-358

出版社

ELSEVIER ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY
DOI: 10.1016/j.bios.2015.08.035

关键词

Bidirectional extracellular electron transfer; Bioanode; Biocathode; Bioelectrochemical systems; Electroactive biofilms

资金

  1. Spanish Government [CTQ2014SGR-1168, CTQ2014-53718-R]
  2. French National Research Agency [ANR-10-BTBR-02]
  3. Catalan Government [2012FI-B00941]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Up to date a few electroactive bacteria embedded in biofilms are described to catalyze both anodic and cathodic reactions in bioelectrochemical systems (i.e. bidirectional electron transfer). How these bacteria transfer electrons to or from the electrode is still uncertain. In this study the extracellular electron transfer mechanism of bacteria within an electroactive biofilm was investigated by using cyclic voltammetry (CV) and differential pulse voltammetry (DPV). First, a mature anodic electroactive biofilm was developed from an activated sludge sample (inoculum), acetate as electron donor and a poised electrode (+397 mV vs. SHE). Later, this biofilm was switched to biocathodic conditions by feeding it with a medium containing nitrates and poising the electrode at -303 mV vs. SHE. The electrochemical characterization indicated that both, acetate oxidation and nitrate reduction took place at a similar formal potential of -175 +/- 05 and -175 +/- 34 mV vs. SHE, respectively. The biofilm was predominantly composed by Geobacter sp. at both experimental conditions. Taken together, the results indicated that both processes could be catalyzed by using the same electron conduit, and most likely by the same bacterial consortium. Hence, this study suggests that electroactive bacteria within biofilms could use the same electron transfer conduit for catalyzing anodic and cathodic reactions. (C) 2015 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

4.8
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