Advertisement

Renewable Bio-anodes for Microbial Fuel Cells

  • Chris M. Bhadra
  • Palalle G. Tharushi Perera
  • Vi Khanh Truong
  • Olga N. Ponamoreva
  • Russell J. Crawford
  • Elena P. IvanovaEmail author
Reference work entry
First Online:

Abstract

The demand for sustainable alternative energy sources such as fuel cells and solar cells has significantly increased over the last decade. Electroactive bacteria have the potential to transfer electrons over physical or biological membranes to or from their extracellular environment. Some bacteria possess the ability to directly transfer electrons, while some other bacterial cells can transfer electrons from their outer membrane to an electrode in the presence of redox mediator. Microbial fuel cells (MFCs) have attracted attention as substitute fuel cells, which have the ability to efficiently convert energy under mild working conditions and using lower cost substrates than used in conventional biofuel cells. One of these working conditions involves the physico-chemical encapsulation of electroactive bacteria (EAB) within a three-dimensional nanostructured polymeric network, which acts as a modified “bio-anode.” One of the most critical factors that may influence the MFC performance is the composition and structure of the electrode material. The nanostructured electrode must possess a high specific surface area to ensure that the catalytic processes take place and to ensure the biocompatibility of the electrode. Some currently used nano-structured bio-electrodes are reviewed in this chapter.

Keywords

Fuel cells Electroactive bacteria Electron transfer Bio-anodes 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. 1.
    Mink JE et al (2014) Energy harvesting from organic liquids in micro-sized microbial fuel cells. NPG Asia Mater 6(3):e89Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Carpentier W et al (2005) Respiration and growth of Shewanella oneidensis MR-1 using vanadate as the sole electron acceptor. J Bacteriol 187(10):3293–3301Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lovley DR (2008) The microbe electric: conversion of organic matter to electricity. Curr Opin Biotechnol 19(6):564–571Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Osman MH, Shah AA, Walsh FC (2011) Recent progress and continuing challenges in bio-fuel cells. Part I: enzymatic cells. Biosens Bioelectron 26(7):3087–3102Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fredrickson JK et al (2008) Towards environmental systems biology of Shewanella. Nat Rev Microbiol 6(8):592–603Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Heidelberg JF et al (2002) Genome sequence of the dissimilatory metal ion-reducing bacterium Shewanella oneidensis. Nat Biotechnol 20(11):1118–1123Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Tuson HH, Weibel DB (2013) Bacteria-surface interactions. Soft Matter 9(18):4368–4380Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Meyer M, Schweiger P, Deppenmeier U (2013) Effects of membrane-bound glucose dehydrogenase overproduction on the respiratory chain of Gluconobacter oxydans. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 97(8):3457–3466Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gupta A et al (2001) Gluconobacter oxydans: its biotechnological applications. J Mol Microbiol Biotechnol 3(3):445–456Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mamlouk D, Gullo M (2013) Acetic acid bacteria: physiology and carbon sources oxidation. Indian J Microbiol 53(4):377–384Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Alferov SV et al (2014) Bioanode for a microbial fuel cell based on Gluconobacter oxydans immobilized into a polymer matrix. Appl Biochem Microbiol 50(6):637–643Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Holscher T et al (2009) Glucose oxidation and PQQ-dependent dehydrogenases in Gluconobacter oxydans. J Mol Microbiol Biotechnol 16(1–2):6–13Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bond DR, Lovley DR (2003) Electricity production by Geobacter sulfurreducens attached to electrodes. Appl Environ Microbiol 69(3):1548–1555Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bond DR et al (2002) Electrode-reducing microorganisms that harvest energy from marine sediments. Science 295(5554):483–485Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rabaey K, Verstraete W (2005) Microbial fuel cells: novel biotechnology for energy generation. Trends Biotechnol 23(6):291–298Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lovley DR (2006) Microbial fuel cells: novel microbial physiologies and engineering approaches. Curr Opin Biotechnol 17(3):327–332Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Logan BE (2009) Exoelectrogenic bacteria that power microbial fuel cells. Nat Rev Microbiol 7(5):375Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Patil SA et al (2009) Electricity generation using chocolate industry wastewater and its treatment in activated sludge based microbial fuel cell and analysis of developed microbial community in the anode chamber. Bioresour Technol 100(21):5132–5139Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sydow A et al (2014) Electroactive bacteria – molecular mechanisms and genetic tools. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 98(20):8481–8495Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Karamanev DG, Pupkevich VR, Hojjati H (2013) Bio-fuel cell system. Google PatentsGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kernan T et al (2016) Engineering the iron-oxidizing chemolithoautotroph acidithiobacillus ferrooxidans for biochemical production. Biotechnol Bioeng 113(1):189–197Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ishii T et al (2012) Acidithiobacillus ferrooxidans as a bioelectrocatalyst for conversion of atmospheric CO2 into extracellular pyruvic acid. Electrochemistry 80(5):327–329Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Fan Y, Sharbrough E, Liu H (2008) Quantification of the internal resistance distribution of microbial fuel cells. Environ Sci Technol 42(21):8101–8107Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Yong Y-C et al (2012) Macroporous and monolithic anode based on polyaniline hybridized three-dimensional graphene for high-performance microbial fuel cells. ACS Nano 6(3): 2394–2400Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Liu H, Cheng S, Logan BE (2005) Power generation in fed-batch microbial fuel cells as a function of ionic strength, temperature, and reactor configuration. Environ Sci Technol 39(14):5488–5493Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Holzinger M, Le Goff A, Cosnier S (2012) Carbon nanotube/enzyme biofuel cells. Electrochim Acta 82:179–190Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Minteer SD, Liaw BY, Cooney MJ (2007) Enzyme-based biofuel cells. Curr Opin Biotechnol 18(3):228–234Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Nazaruk E et al (2010) Enzymatic electrodes nanostructured with functionalized carbon nanotubes for biofuel cell applications. Anal Bioanal Chem 398(4):1651–1660Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Zhao C-E et al (2017) Nanostructured material-based biofuel cells: recent advances and future prospects. Chem Soc Rev 46(5):1545–1564MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Dutta K, Kundu PP (2014) A review on aromatic conducting polymers-based catalyst supporting matrices for application in microbial fuel cells. Polym Rev 54(3):401–435Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Gracia R, Mecerreyes D (2013) Polymers with redox properties: materials for batteries, biosensors and more. Polym Chem 4(7):2206–2214Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Kashyap D et al (2015) Fabrication of vertically aligned copper nanotubes as a novel electrode for enzymatic biofuel cells. Electrochim Acta 167:213–218Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Rasmussen M, Abdellaoui S, Minteer SD (2016) Enzymatic biofuel cells: 30 years of critical advancements. Biosens Bioelectron 76:91–102Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Bandodkar AJ et al (2015) Highly stretchable fully-printed CNT-based electrochemical sensors and biofuel cells: combining intrinsic and design-induced stretchability. Nano Lett 16(1): 721–727Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Davis F, Higson SP (2015) 16 Advances and applications in biofuel cells. In: Handbook of bioelectronics: directly interfacing electronics and biological systems. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Christwardana M, Chung Y, Kwon Y (2017) A new biocatalyst employing pyrenecarboxaldehyde as an anodic catalyst for enhancing the performance and stability of an enzymatic biofuel cell. NPG Asia Mater 9(6):e386Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Li J et al (1999) Highly-ordered carbon nanotube arrays for electronics applications. Appl Phys Lett 75(3):367–369Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Wang X et al (2009) Fabrication of ultralong and electrically uniform single-walled carbon nanotubes on clean substrates. Nano Lett 9(9):3137–3141Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Baughman RH, Zakhidov AA, De Heer WA (2002) Carbon nanotubes–the route toward applications. Science 297(5582):787–792Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Baskaran D, Mays JW, Bratcher MS (2004) Polymer-grafted multiwalled carbon nanotubes through surface-initiated polymerization. Angew Chem Int Ed 43(16):2138–2142Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Liu Y et al (2005) Polyethylenimine-grafted multiwalled carbon nanotubes for secure noncovalent immobilization and efficient delivery of DNA. Angew Chem 117(30):4860–4863Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Tasis D et al (2006) Chemistry of carbon nanotubes. Chem Rev 106(3):1105–1136Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Dresselhaus MS et al (2000) Carbon nanotubes. In: The physics of fullerene-based and fullerene-related materials. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 331–379Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Saito R, Dresselhaus G, Dresselhaus MS (1998) Physical properties of carbon nanotubes. World Scientific, SingaporezbMATHGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    O’Connell MJ (2006) Carbon nanotubes: properties and applications. CRC Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Popov VN (2004) Carbon nanotubes: properties and application. Mater Sci Eng R-Reports 43(3):61–102MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Barsan MM, Ghica ME, Brett CM (2015) Electrochemical sensors and biosensors based on redox polymer/carbon nanotube modified electrodes: a review. Anal Chim Acta 881:1–23Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Qiao Y et al (2007) Nanostructured polyaniline/titanium dioxide composite anode for microbial fuel cells. ACS Nano 2(1):113–119Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Kim RE et al (2014) Enzyme adsorption, precipitation and crosslinking of glucose oxidase and laccase on polyaniline nanofibers for highly stable enzymatic biofuel cells. Enzym Microb Technol 66:35–41Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Kashyap D et al (2015) Multi walled carbon nanotube and polyaniline coated pencil graphite based bio-cathode for enzymatic biofuel cell. Int J Hydrogen Energy 40(30):9515–9522Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Christwardana M, Kwon Y (2015) Effects of multiple polyaniline layers immobilized on carbon nanotube and glutaraldehyde on performance and stability of biofuel cell. J Power Sources 299:604–610Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Cipriano T et al (2010) Spatial organization of peptide nanotubes for electrochemical devices. J Mater Sci 45(18):5101–5108Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Verma ML, Puri M, Barrow CJ (2016) Recent trends in nanomaterials immobilised enzymes for biofuel production. Crit Rev Biotechnol 36(1):108–119Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Lee J-H et al (2013) Protein/peptide based nanomaterials for energy application. Curr Opin Biotechnol 24(4):599–605Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Hamley IW (2014) Peptide nanotubes. Angew Chem Int Ed 53(27):6866–6881Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Yemini M et al (2005) Peptide nanotube-modified electrodes for enzyme− biosensor applications. Anal Chem 77(16):5155–5159Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Gude VG (2016) Wastewater treatment in microbial fuel cells – an overview. J Clean Prod 122:287–307Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Pandey P et al (2016) Recent advances in the use of different substrates in microbial fuel cells toward wastewater treatment and simultaneous energy recovery. Appl Energy 168:706–723Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Rabaey K et al (2004) Biofuel cells select for microbial consortia that self-mediate electron transfer. Appl Environ Microbiol 70(9):5373–5382Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Dickson D, Page C, Ely R (2009) Photobiological hydrogen production from Synechocystis sp. PCC 6803 encapsulated in silica sol–gel. Int J Hydrog Energy 34(1):204–215Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Verhelst S (2014) Recent progress in the use of hydrogen as a fuel for internal combustion engines. Int J Hydrog Energy 39(2):1071–1085MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Tan X, Du W, Lu X (2015) Photosynthetic and extracellular production of glucosylglycerol by genetically engineered and gel-encapsulated cyanobacteria. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 99(5):2147–2154Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Klein S et al (2009) Encapsulation of bacterial cells in electrospun microtubes. Biomacromolecules 10:1751–1756Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Mutlu BR et al (2015) Modelling and optimization of a bioremediation system utilizing silica gel encapsulated whole-cell biocatalyst. Chem Eng J 259:574–580Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Tkac J et al (2009) Membrane-bound dehydrogenases from Gluconobacter sp.: interfacial electrochemistry and direct bioelectrocatalysis. Bioelectrochemistry 76(1–2):53–62Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Tkac J et al (2000) Determination of total sugars in lignocellulose hydrolysate by a mediated Gluconobacter oxydans biosensor. Anal Chim Acta 420:1–7Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Sharma S, Jain KK, Sharma A (2015) Solar cells: in research and applications – a review. Mater Sci Appl 06(12):1145–1155Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Choubey PC, Oudhia A, Dewangan R (2012) A review: solar cell current scenario and future trends. Recent Res Sci Technol 4(8):99–101Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Sydow, A., et al (2014) Electroactive bacteria—molecular mechanisms and genetic tools. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 98(20): 8481-8495Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    He C.-S et al (2015) Electron acceptors for energy generation in microbial fuel cells fed with wastewaters: A mini-review. Chemosphere, 2015. 140:12-17Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Sharma, S., K.K. Jain, A. Sharma (2015) Solar cells: in research and applications—a review. Mater.Sci. Appl., 6(12): 1145-1155Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Chris M. Bhadra
    • 1
  • Palalle G. Tharushi Perera
    • 1
  • Vi Khanh Truong
    • 1
  • Olga N. Ponamoreva
    • 2
  • Russell J. Crawford
    • 3
  • Elena P. Ivanova
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.School of Science, Faculty of Science, Engineering and TechnologySwinburne University of TechnologyHawthornAustralia
  2. 2.Biotechnology Department and Chemistry DepartmentTula State UniversityTulaRussia
  3. 3.School of ScienceRMIT UniversityMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations

Cite entry