4.8 Article

Response of microbial community structure to pre-acclimation strategies in microbial fuel cells for domestic wastewater treatment

期刊

BIORESOURCE TECHNOLOGY
卷 233, 期 -, 页码 176-183

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.biortech.2017.02.101

关键词

Air-cathode microbial fuel cell; Anode-respiring bacteria; Domestic wastewater; Microbial community structure; Pyrosequencing

资金

  1. MFC RBD center
  2. Basic Science Research Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) - Ministry of Science, ICT and Future Planning [NRF-2015R1A2A1A15054528, NRF-2015R1C1A1A01054204]
  3. National Research Foundation of Korea [2015R1C1A1A01054204, 2015R1A2A1A15054528, 22A20130011020] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Microbial community structures and performance of air-cathode microbial fuel cells (MFCs) inoculated with activated sludge from domestic wastewater were investigated to evaluate the effects of three substrate pre-acclimation strategies: 1, serial pre-acclimation with acetate and glucose before supplying domestic wastewater; 2, one step pre-acclimation with acetate before supplying domestic wastewater; and 3, direct supply of domestic wastewater without any pre-acclimation. Strategy 1 showed much higher current generation (1.4 mA) and Coulombic efficiency (33.5%) than strategies 2 (0.7 mA and 9.4%) and 3 (0.9 mA and 10.3%). Pyrosequencing showed that microbial communities were significantly affected by pre-acclimation strategy. Although Proteobacteria was the dominant phylum with all strategies, Actinobacteria was abundant when MFCs were pre-acclimated with glucose after acetate. Not only anode-respiring bacteria (ARB) in the genus Geobacter but also non-ARB belonging to the family Anaerolinaceae seemed to play important roles in air-cathode MFCs to produce electricity from domestic wastewater. (C) 2017 Elsevier Ltd. 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