4.0 Article

Characterization of the Electric Current Generation Potential of the Pseudomonas aeruginosa Using Glucose, Fructose, and Sucrose in Double Chamber Microbial Fuel Cell

期刊

IRANIAN JOURNAL OF BIOTECHNOLOGY
卷 15, 期 4, 页码 216-223

出版社

NATL INST GENETIC ENGINEERING & BIOTECHNOLOGY
DOI: 10.15171/ijb.1608

关键词

Anode respiring bacteria; Biofilm; Double chamber MFC; Electron donors; Pseudomonas aeruginosa

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Different concentrations of the simple carbon substrates i.e. glucose, fructose, and sucrose were tested to enhance the performance of the mediator-less double chamber microbial fuel cell (MFC). Objectives: The power generation potential of the different electron donors was studied using a mesophilic Fe (III) reducer and non-fermentative bacteria Pseudomonas aeruginosa-isolated from municipal wastewater. Materials and Methods: A double chamber MFC was operated with three different electron donors including glucose, sucrose, and fructose. Substrate utilization pattern was determined through chemical oxygen demand (COD) removal rate and voltage generation. In addition, electrochemical, physicochemical, and microscopic analysis of the anodic biofilm was conducted. Results: P. aeruginosa was proven to effectively utilize hexose and pentose sugars through anode respiration. Higher power density was generated from glucose (136 +/- 87 mWm(-2)) lead by fructose (3.6 +/- 1.6 mWm(-2)) and sucrose (8.606 +/- mWm(-2)). Furthermore, a direct relation was demonstrated between current generation rate and COD removal efficiency. COD removal rates were, 88.5% +/- 4.3%, 67.5% +/- 2.6%, and 54.2% +/- 1.9% with the three respective sugars in MFC. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) demonstrated that the bacterial attachment was considerably abundant in glucose fed MFC than in the fructose and sucrose operated MFC. Conclusion: This study has revealed that electron donor type in the anodic compartment controls the growth of anodic biofilm or anode-respiring bacteria (ARB).

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

4.0
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