
You have already added 0 works in your ORCID record related to the merged Research product.
You have already added 0 works in your ORCID record related to the merged Research product.
<script type="text/javascript">
<!--
document.write('<div id="oa_widget"></div>');
document.write('<script type="text/javascript" src="https://beta.openaire.eu/index.php?option=com_openaire&view=widget&format=raw&projectId=undefined&type=result"></script>');
-->
</script>
Initial development and structure of biofilms on microbial fuel cell anodes

Abstract Background Microbial fuel cells (MFCs) rely on electrochemically active bacteria to capture the chemical energy contained in organics and convert it to electrical energy. Bacteria develop biofilms on the MFC electrodes, allowing considerable conversion capacity and opportunities for extracellular electron transfer (EET). The present knowledge on EET is centred around two Gram-negative models, i.e. Shewanella and Geobacter species, as it is believed that Gram-positives cannot perform EET by themselves as the Gram-negatives can. To understand how bacteria form biofilms within MFCs and how their development, structure and viability affects electron transfer, we performed pure and co-culture experiments. Results Biofilm viability was maintained highest nearer the anode during closed circuit operation (current flowing), in contrast to when the anode was in open circuit (soluble electron acceptor) where viability was highest on top of the biofilm, furthest from the anode. Closed circuit anode Pseudomonas aeruginosa biofilms were considerably thinner compared to the open circuit anode (30 ± 3 μm and 42 ± 3 μm respectively), which is likely due to the higher energetic gain of soluble electron acceptors used. The two Gram-positive bacteria used only provided a fraction of current produced by the Gram-negative organisms. Power output of co-cultures Gram-positive Enterococcus faecium and either Gram-negative organisms, increased by 30-70% relative to the single cultures. Over time the co-culture biofilms segregated, in particular, Pseudomonas aeruginosa creating towers piercing through a thin, uniform layer of Enterococcus faecium. P. aeruginosa and E. faecium together generated a current of 1.8 ± 0.4 mA while alone they produced 0.9 ± 0.01 and 0.2 ± 0.05 mA respectively. Conclusion We postulate that this segregation may be an essential difference in strategy for electron transfer and substrate capture between the Gram-negative and the Gram-positive bacteria used here.
- University of Queensland Australia
- University of Queensland Australia
- Ghent University Belgium
- University of Queensland Australia
- THE UNIVERSITY OF QUEENSLAND Australia
Anode biofilms, DISSIMILATORY FE(III) REDUCTION, Microbiology (medical), Identification, Microbial fuel cell, Technology and Engineering, BIOFUEL CELLS, Bioelectric Energy Sources, MFC, Enterococcus faecium, Electron-transfer, Cell Culture Techniques, Community, Microbiology, 2726 Microbiology (medical), Waste-water treatment, Electromagnetic Fields, Research article, Targeted oligonucleotide probes, ELECTRON-TRANSFER, Oxide reduction, Electrodes, In Situ Hybridization, Fluorescence, OXIDE REDUCTION, TARGETED OLIGONUCLEOTIDE PROBES, Microbial Viability, Bacteria, IDENTIFICATION, 2404 Microbiology, Reactor, QR1-502, EET, WASTE-WATER TREATMENT, COMMUNITY, Biofilms, BACTERIA, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, ELECTRICITY-GENERATION
Anode biofilms, DISSIMILATORY FE(III) REDUCTION, Microbiology (medical), Identification, Microbial fuel cell, Technology and Engineering, BIOFUEL CELLS, Bioelectric Energy Sources, MFC, Enterococcus faecium, Electron-transfer, Cell Culture Techniques, Community, Microbiology, 2726 Microbiology (medical), Waste-water treatment, Electromagnetic Fields, Research article, Targeted oligonucleotide probes, ELECTRON-TRANSFER, Oxide reduction, Electrodes, In Situ Hybridization, Fluorescence, OXIDE REDUCTION, TARGETED OLIGONUCLEOTIDE PROBES, Microbial Viability, Bacteria, IDENTIFICATION, 2404 Microbiology, Reactor, QR1-502, EET, WASTE-WATER TREATMENT, COMMUNITY, Biofilms, BACTERIA, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, ELECTRICITY-GENERATION
citations This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).183 popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.Top 1% influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).Top 10% impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.Top 10%
