4.6 Article

Enumeration of exoelectrogens in microbial fuel cell effluents fed acetate or wastewater substrates

期刊

BIOCHEMICAL ENGINEERING JOURNAL
卷 165, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.bej.2020.107816

关键词

Microbial fuel cell; Exoelectrogens; qPCR; WO3/MPN; Direct cell counting

资金

  1. Environmental Security Technology Certification Program through the US Army Engineer Research and Development Center [W9132T-16-2-0014]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Effluents from acetate- and wastewater-fed MFCs contain high numbers of Geobacter spp., but a high percentage of cells are inactive or dead, leading to lower counts of exoelectrogens using enumeration methods.
Effluents from well-acclimated microbial fuel cells (MFCs) have been widely used as inocula to start up new MFC reactors. However, the actual cell concentrations and cell viability of exoelectrogens in these MFC effluents have not been well examined. In this study, concentrations of exoelectrogens in the effluent from acetate- or wastewater-fed MFCs were examined using a quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) method specific for Geobacter spp. that are usually the dominant genus in MFCs, and a non-specific WO3 nanocluster/most probable number (WO3/MPN) method for enumeration of viable exoelectrogens. Geobacter spp. concentrations in acetate-fed MFC effluents based on qPCR were 1.3 +/- 0.2 x 10(8) cells/mL, slightly higher than those in the wastewater-fed MFC effluents (9.3 +/- 3.5 x 10(7) cells/mL). However, exoelectrogen cell counts using the WO3/MPN method were several orders of magnitude lower for both MFC effluents (1.1 +/- 0.3 x 10(4) cells/mL for acetate-fed; 1.4 +/- 0.3 x 10(5) cells/mL for wastewater-fed). Live/dead cell staining suggested that most cells (85 %) in the effluents were inactive or dead, which could partly explain the lower numbers using the WO3/MPN method. These results suggest that both acetate- and wastewater-fed MFC effluents contain high numbers of Geobacter spp. although a high percentage of cells are not viable.

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

4.6
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