Advertisement

Environmental Science and Pollution Research

, Volume 25, Issue 36, pp 35981–35989 | Cite as

Processes and electron flow in a microbial electrolysis cell bioanode fed with furanic and phenolic compounds

  • Xiaofei Zeng
  • Abhijeet P. Borole
  • Spyros G. Pavlostathis
Sustainable Waste Management

Abstract

Furanic and phenolic compounds are problematic compounds resulting from the pretreatment of lignocellulosic biomass for biofuel production. Microbial electrolysis cell (MEC) is a promising technology to convert furanic and phenolic compounds to renewable H2. The objective of the research presented here was to elucidate the processes and electron equivalents flow during the conversion of two furanic (furfural, FF; 5-hydroxymethyl furfural, HMF) and three phenolic (syringic acid, SA; vanillic acid, VA; 4-hydroxybenzoic acid, HBA) compounds in the MEC bioanode. Cyclic voltammograms of the bioanode demonstrated that purely electrochemical reactions in the biofilm attached to the electrode were negligible. Instead, microbial reactions related to the biotransformation of the five parent compounds (i.e., fermentation followed by exoelectrogenesis) were the primary processes resulting in the electron equivalents flow in the MEC bioanode. A mass-based framework of substrate utilization and electron flow was developed to quantify the distribution of the electron equivalents among the bioanode processes, including biomass growth for each of the five parent compounds. Using input parameters of anode efficiency and biomass observed yield coefficients, it was estimated that more than 50% of the SA, FF, and HMF electron equivalents were converted to current. In contrast, only 12 and 9% of VA and HBA electron equivalents, respectively, resulted in current production, while 76 and 79% remained as fermentation end products not further utilized in exoelectrogenesis. For all five compounds, it was estimated that 10% of the initially added electron equivalents were used for fermentative biomass synthesis, while 2 to 13% were used for exoelectrogenic biomass synthesis. The proposed mass-based framework provides a foundation for the simulation of bioanode processes to guide the optimization of MECs converting biomass-derived waste streams to renewable H2.

Keywords

Lignocellulosic biomass Microbial electrolysis cell Electron balance Fermentation Exoelectrogenesis H2 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This manuscript has been co-authored by UT-Battelle, LLC under Contract No. DE-AC05-00OR22725 with the US Department of Energy. The US Government retains and the publisher, by accepting the article for publication, acknowledges that the US Government retains a non-exclusive, paid-up, irrevocable, worldwide license to publish or reproduce the published form of this manuscript, or allow others to do so, for US Government purposes. The Department of Energy will provide public access to these results of federally sponsored research in accordance with the DOE Public Access Plan (http://energy.gov/downloads/doe-public-access-plan).

Supplementary material

11356_2018_1747_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (129 kb)
ESM 1 (PDF 128 kb)

References

  1. Bache R, Pfennig N (1981) Selective isolation of Acetobacterium woodii on methoxylated aromatic acids and determination of growth yields. Arch Microbiol 130:255–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bond DR, Strycharz-Glaven SM, Tender LM, Torres CI (2012) On electron transport through Geobacter biofilms. ChemSusChem 5:1099–1105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Borole AP, Mielenz JR (2011) Estimating hydrogen production potential in biorefineries using microbial electrolysis cell technology. Int J Hydrog Energy 36:14787–14795CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Borsje C, Liu D, Sleutels THJA, Buisman CJN, ter Heijne A (2016) Performance of single carbon granules as perspective for larger scale capacitive bioanodes. J Power Sources 315:690–696CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Freguia S, Rabaey K, Yuan Z, Keller J (2007) Electron and carbon balances in microbial fuel cells reveal temporary bacterial storage behavior during electricity generation. Environ Sci Technol 41:2915–2921CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Freguia S, Rabaey K, Yuan Z, Keller J (2008) Syntrophic processes drive the conversion of glucose in microbial fuel cell anodes. Environ Sci Technol 42:7937–7943CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Haddock JD, Ferry JG (1989) Purification and properties of phloroglucinol reductase from Eubacterium oxidoreducens G-41. J Biol Chem 264:4423–4427Google Scholar
  8. Hamelers HVM, ter Heijne A, Stein N, Rozendal RA, Buisman CJN (2011) Butler–Volmer–Monod model for describing bio-anode polarization curves. Bioresour Technol 102:381–387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Jones S, Holladay J, Valkenburg C, Stevens D (2009) Production of gasoline and diesel from biomass via fast pyrolysis, hydrotreating and hydrocracking: a design case. Pacific Northeast National Laboratory, RichlandGoogle Scholar
  10. Kang CS, Eaktasang N, Kwon DY, Kim HS (2014) Enhanced current production by Desulfovibrio desulfuricans biofilm in a mediator-less microbial fuel cell. Bioresour Technol 165:27–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kato Marcus A, Torres CI, Rittmann BE (2007) Conduction-based modeling of the biofilm anode of a microbial fuel cell. Biotechnol Bioeng 98:1171–1182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Korth B, Rosa LFM, Harnisch F, Picioreanu C (2015) A framework for modeling electroactive microbial biofilms performing direct electron transfer. Bioelectrochemistry 106:194–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lalaurette E, Thammannagowda S, Mohagheghi A, Maness P-C, Logan BE (2009) Hydrogen production from cellulose in a two-stage process combining fermentation and electrohydrogenesis. Int J Hydrog Energy 34:6201–6210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lewis AJ, Ren S, Ye X, Kim P, Labbe N, Borole AP (2015) Hydrogen production from switchgrass via an integrated pyrolysis–microbial electrolysis process. Bioresour Technol 195:231–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Liu H, Logan BE (2004) Electricity generation using an air-cathode single chamber microbial fuel cell in the presence and absence of a proton exchange membrane. Environ Sci Technol 38:4040–4046CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Liu H, Grot S, Logan BE (2005) Electrochemically assisted microbial production of hydrogen from acetate. Environ Sci Technol 39:4317–4320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Logan BE (2009) Exoelectrogenic bacteria that power microbial fuel cells. Nat Rev Microbiol 7:375–381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Logan BE, Call D, Cheng S, Hamelers HVM, Sleutels THJA, Jeremiasse AW, Rozendal RA (2008) Microbial electrolysis cells for high yield hydrogen gas production from organic matter. Environ Sci Technol 42:8630–8640CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Marsili E, Baron DB, Shikhare ID, Coursolle D, Gralnick JA, Bond DR (2008) Shewanella secretes flavins that mediate extracellular electron transfer. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 105:3968–3973CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Monlau F, Sambusiti C, Barakat A, Quéméneur M, Trably E, Steyer JP, Carrère H (2014) Do furanic and phenolic compounds of lignocellulosic and algae biomass hydrolyzate inhibit anaerobic mixed cultures? A comprehensive review. Biotechnol Adv 32:934–951CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Piotrowski JS, Zhang Y, Sato T, Ong I, Keating D, Bates D, Landick R (2014) Death by a thousand cuts: the challenges and diverse landscape of lignocellulosic hydrolysate inhibitors. Front Microbiol 5:1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ren L, Siegert M, Ivanov I, Pisciotta JM, Logan BE (2013) Treatability studies on different refinery wastewater samples using high-throughput microbial electrolysis cells (MECs). Bioresour Technol 136:322–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Rittmann BE, McCarty PL (2001) Environmental biotechnology: principles and applications. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  24. Wilson EL, Kim Y (2016) The yield and decay coefficients of exoelectrogenic bacteria in bioelectrochemical systems. Water Res 94:233–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Zeng X (2016) Biotransformation of Furanic and phenolic compounds with hydrogen production in microbial electrolysis cells. PhD Dissertation, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA, USAGoogle Scholar
  26. Zeng X, Borole AP, Pavlostathis SG (2015) Biotransformation of furanic and phenolic compounds with hydrogen gas production in a microbial electrolysis cell. Environ Sci Technol 49:13667–13675CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Zeng X, Borole AP, Pavlostathis SG (2016a) Inhibitory effect of furanic and phenolic compounds on exoelectrogenesis in a microbial electrolysis cell bioanode. Environ Sci Technol 50:11357–11365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Zeng X, Borole AP, Pavlostathis SG (2016b) Performance evaluation of a continuous-flow bioanode microbial electrolysis cell fed with furanic and phenolic compounds. RSC Adv 6:65563–65571CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Zeng X, Collins MA, Borole AP, Pavlostathis SG (2017) The extent of fermentative transformation of phenolic compounds in the bioanode controls exoelectrogenic activity in a microbial electrolysis cell. Water Res 109:299–309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Zhang Y, Angelidaki I (2014) Microbial electrolysis cells turning to be versatile technology: recent advances and future challenges. Water Res 56:11–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Zhang X, Wiegel J (1990) Isolation and partial characterization of a Clostridium species transforming para-hydroxybenzoate and 3,4-dihydroxybenzoate and producing phenols as the final transformation products. Microb Ecol 20:103–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Zhang Y, Min B, Huang L, Angelidaki I (2009) Generation of electricity and analysis of microbial communities in wheat straw biomass-powered microbial fuel cells. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 75:3389–3395Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Civil and Environmental EngineeringGeorgia Institute of TechnologyAtlantaUSA
  2. 2.Biosciences DivisionOak Ridge National LaboratoryOak RidgeUSA
  3. 3.Bredesen Center for Interdisciplinary Research and EducationThe University of TennesseeKnoxvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations