Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology

, Volume 77, Issue 3, pp 689–697 | Cite as

Kinetics of consumption of fermentation products by anode-respiring bacteria

  • César I. TorresEmail author
  • Andrew Kato Marcus
  • Bruce E. Rittmann
Applied Microbial and Cell Physiology


We determined the kinetic response of a community of anode-respiring bacteria oxidizing a mixture of the most common fermentation products: acetate, butyrate, propionate, ethanol, and hydrogen. We acclimated the community by performing three consecutive batch experiments in a microbial electrolytic cell (MEC) containing a mixture of the fermentation products. During the consecutive-batch experiments, the coulombic efficiency and start-up period improved with each step. We used the acclimated biofilm to start continuous experiments in an MEC, in which we controlled the anode potential using a potentiostat. During the continuous experiments, we tested each individual substrate at a range of anode potentials and substrate concentrations. Our results show low current densities for butyrate and hydrogen, but high current densities for propionate, acetate, and ethanol (maximum values are 1.6, 9.0, and 8.2 A/m2, respectively). Acetate showed a high coulombic efficiency (86%) compared to ethanol and propionate (49 and 41%, respectively). High methane concentrations inside the MEC during ethanol experiments suggest that methanogenesis is one reason why the coulombic efficiency was lower than that of acetate. Our results provide kinetic parameters, such as the anode overpotential, the maximum current density, and the Monod half-saturation constant, that are needed for model development when using a mixture of fermentation products. When we provided no electron donor, we measured current due to endogenous decay of biomass (~0.07 A/m2) and an open-cell potential (−0.54 V vs Ag/AgCl) associated with biomass components active in endogenous respiration.


Coulombic efficiency Fermentation products Microbial electrolytic cell Open-cell potential 



The funding for this work was provided by OpenCEL and NZ Legacy.

Supplementary material

Supplementary Material S1 (DOC 71.5 kb)


  1. Bard AJ, Faulkner LR (2001) Electrochemical methods. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  2. Bond DR, Lovley DR (2003) Electricity production by Geobacter sulfurreducens attached to electrodes. Appl Environ Microb 69:1548–1555CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chaudhuri SK, Lovley DR (2003) Electricity generation by direct oxidation of glucose in mediatorless microbial fuel cells. Nat Biotechnol 21:1229–1232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dentel SK, Strogen B, Chiu P (2004) Direct generation of electricity from sludges and other liquid wastes. Water Sci Technol 50:161–168Google Scholar
  5. Droste RL (1998) Endogenous decay and bioenergetics theory for aerobic wastewater treatment. Water Res 32:410–418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Grosz R, Stephanopoulos G (1983) Statistical mechanical estimation of the free-energy of formation of E. coli biomass for use with macroscopic reactor balances. Biotechnol Bioeng 25:2149–2163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Heijnen JJ, van Loosdrecht MCM, Tijhuis L (1992) A black box mathematical model to calculate auto- and heterotrophic biomass yields based on Gibbs energy dissipation. Biotechnol Bioeng 40:1139–1154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hwang MH, Jang NJ, Hyun SH, Kim IS (2004) Anaerobic bio-hydrogen production from ethanol fermentation: the role of pH. J Biotechnol 111:297–309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kato Marcus A, Torres CI, Rittmann BE (2007) Conduction based modeling of the biofilm anode of a microbial fuel cell. Biotechnol Bioeng (in press). DOI  10.1002/bit.21533
  10. Kim JR, Jung SH, Regan JM, Logan BE (2007) Electricity generation and microbial community analysis of alcohol powered microbial fuel cells. Bioresour Technol 98:2568–2577CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kus F, Wiesmann U (1995) Degradation kinetics of acetate and propionate by immobilized anaerobic mixed cultures. Water Res 29:1437–1443CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Lee JY, Phung NT, Chang IS, Kim BH, Sung HC (2003) Use of acetate for enrichment of electrochemically active microorganisms and their 16S rDNA analyses. FEMS Microbiol Lett 223:185–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Liu H, Grot S, Logan BE (2005a) Electrochemically assisted microbial production of hydrogen from acetate. Environ Sci Technol 39:4317–4320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Liu H, Cheng SA, Logan BE (2005b) Production of electricity from acetate or butyrate using a single-chamber microbial fuel cell. Environ Sci Technol 39:658–662CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Metje M, Frenzel P (2005) Effect of temperature on anaerobic ethanol oxidation and methanogenesis in acidic peat from a northern wetland. Appl Environ Microb 71:8191–8200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Min B, Logan BE (2004) Continuous electricity generation from domestic wastewater and organic substrates in a flat plate microbial fuel cell. Environ Sci Technol 38:5809–5814CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Min B, Kim JR, Oh SE, Regan JM, Logan BE (2005) Electricity generation from swine wastewater using microbial fuel cells. Water Res 39:4961–4968CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Oh SE, Logan BE (2005) Hydrogen and electricity production from a food processing wastewater using fermentation and microbial fuel cell technologies. Water Res 39:4673–4682CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Picioreanu C, Heam IM, Katuri KP, van Loosdrecht MCM, Scott K (2007) A computational model for biofilm-based microbial fuel cells. Water Res 41:2921–2940CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Rabaey K, Verstraete W (2005) Microbial fuel cells: novel biotechnology for energy generation. Trends Biotechnol 23:291–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Rabaey K, Van de Sompel K, Maignien L, Boon N, Aelterman P, Clauwaert P, De Schamphelaire L, Pham HT, Vermeulen J, Verhaege M, Lens P, Verstraete W (2006) Microbial fuel cells for sulfide removal. Environ Sci Technol 40:5218–5224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Sáez PB, Rittmann BE (1992) Model-parameter estimation using least-squares. Water Res 26:789–796CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ren NQ, Wang BZ, Huang JC (1997) Ethanol-type fermentation from carbohydrate in high rate acidogenic reactor. Biotechnol and Bioeng 54:428–433CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Rittmann BE, McCarty PL (2001) Environmental biotechnology: principles and applications. McGraw-Hill, New York, USAGoogle Scholar
  25. Roels JA (1980) Application of macroscopic principles to microbial metabolism. Biotechnol Bioeng 22:2457–2514CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. VanBriesen JM (2002) Evaluation of methods to predict bacterial yield using thermodynamics. Biodegradation 13:171–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Wang J (2000) Analytical Electrochemistry. Wiley, Chichester, EnglandGoogle Scholar
  28. Wu JH, Lin CY (2004) Biohydrogen production by mesophilic fermentation of food wastewater. Water Sci Technol 49:223–228Google Scholar
  29. Ying Z, Yang ST (2004) Effect of pH on metabolic pathway shift in fermentation of xylose by Clostridium tyrobutyricum. J Biotechnol 110:143–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Yu HQ, Fang HHP (2003) Acidogenesis of gelatin-rich wastewater in an upflow anaerobic reactor: influence of pH and temperature. Water Res 37:55–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Zhang XC, Halme A (1995) Modeling of a microbial fuel-cell process. Biotechnol Lett 17:809–814CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • César I. Torres
    • 1
    Email author
  • Andrew Kato Marcus
    • 1
  • Bruce E. Rittmann
    • 1
  1. 1.Center for Environmental BiotechnologyBiodesign Institute at Arizona State UniversityTempeUSA

Personalised recommendations