4.5 Article

Evaluating the production and bio-stimulating effect of 5-methyl 1, hydroxy phenazine on microbial fuel cell performance

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s13762-016-1241-7

关键词

Air-cathode; Bio-stimulation; Endogenous mediator; Mixed culture biofilm; Pseudomonas aeruginosa

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The role of endogenous redox mediators has considerable importance in electron shuttling reactions and associated performance of microbial fuel cell. Single-chamber microbial fuel cell-II with dual air-cathode assembly (area = 18.84 cm(2)) supported highest bacterial (Pseudomonas aeruginosa) density (6.7 x 10(9)) and active biomass [4.4 +/- 0.3 mg cm(-2) (carbon content = 0.48 +/- 0.1 mg cm(-2))] on anode thereby resulting in maximum production of redox metabolite, 5-methyl 1, hydroxy phenazine (301 ppm) and voltage (595 +/- 5 mV) than similar cells with relatively less surface area of cathode. It was further revealed that 5-methyl 1, hydroxy phenazine production was positively correlated with chemical oxygen demand removal rate (77 +/- 2.5%) and power generation (66.6 +/- 2.2 mW cm(-2)) efficiency of single-chamber microbial fuel cell-II. Maximum power density of 258 +/- 4.5 mW cm(-2) was generated when reactor was supplemented with 2 ml crude extract of 5-methyl 1, hydroxy phenazine metabolite, whereas power output was about 229 +/- 2.5 mW cm(-2) when reactor was bio-stimulated with 1 ml pure extract of 5-methyl 1, hydroxy phenazine. With this concentration, the electrochemical response of mixed culture biofilm (sediment) was enhanced by 99.3%. However, further increase in concentration of endogenous mediator proved to be limiting on reactor performance. Pyrosequencing and phylogenetic analysis on the basis of partial 16S rRNA sequences demonstrated both culturable and unculturable bacterial species in anodic biofilm and relative abundance of family Pseudomonadaceae was found to be maximum, i.e., 61.7% followed by Rhodocyclaceae 19.2%, Xanthomonadaceae 6.3% and Opitutaceae 3.18%.

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

4.5
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