4.6 Article

The power of soil microbes: Sustained power production in terrestrial microbial fuel cells under various temperature regimes

期刊

APPLIED SOIL ECOLOGY
卷 109, 期 -, 页码 14-22

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.apsoil.2016.10.001

关键词

Soil; Fuel cell; Power; Voltage; Energy; Bacteria; Archaea

资金

  1. United States Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Applied Research Program Office, Geospatial Research and Engineering

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Recent developments in the field of bioenergy advance the feasibility for energy sources in remote locations with limited infrastructure requirements. Though most research efforts have focused on advancing power output in the marine environment, there is potential to generate power from terrestrial sources. The diversity of native soil biota serves as the inoculum at the electrode surface. In this study, we investigated how microbial fuel cells (MFCs) perform according to a range of temperature regimes, with specific inquiries regarding the level of power output generated at a range of temperatures representative of field conditions and the types of microbes which colonize the electrode surface. Our findings show that there was a notable lag in the increase in power output for all active terrestrial microbial fuel cells (tMFCs) and that the tMFCs incubating at 35 degrees C produced five times the power density than the tMFCs incubating at 5 degrees C. As expected, soil microbial activity, as measured through soil respiration, was proportional to both the incubation temperature of the tMFCs and the measured power output. Oppositely, microbial abundance did not increase concurrently with temperature or power output, as demonstrated by archaeal abundance observed to be consistently highest at 25 degrees C. Amplicon sequencing of the 16S rRNA gene revealed differences in community composition between the cathode and anode, with different communities emerging at different temperature profiles. Published by Elsevier B.V.

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