Abstract

Electroactive microorganisms (EAM) harvest energy by reducing insoluble terminal electron acceptors (TEA) including electrodes via extracellular electron transfer (EET). Therefore, compared to microorganisms respiring soluble TEA, an adapted approach is required for thermodynamic analyses. In EAM, the thermodynamic frame (i.e., maximum available energy) is restricted as only a share of the energy difference between electron donor and TEA is exploited via the electron-transport chain to generate proton-motive force being subsequently utilized for ATP synthesis. However, according to a common misconception, the anode potential is suggested to co-determine the thermodynamic frame of EAM. By comparing the model organism Geobacter spp. and microorganisms respiring soluble TEA, we reason that a considerable part of the electron-transport chain of EAM performing direct EET does not contribute to the build-up of proton-motive force and thus, the anode potential does not co-determine the thermodynamic frame. Furthermore, using a modeling platform demonstrates that the influence of anode potential on energy harvest is solely a kinetic effect. When facing low anode potentials, NADH is accumulating due to a slow direct EET rate leading to a restricted exploitation of the thermodynamic frame. For anode potentials ≥ 0.2 V (vs. SHE), EET kinetics, NAD+/NADH ratio as well as exploitation of the thermodynamic frame are maximized, and a further potential increase does not result in higher energy harvest. Considering the limited influence of the anode potential on energy harvest of EAM is a prerequisite to improve thermodynamic analyses, microbial resource mining, and to transfer microbial electrochemical technologies (MET) into practice.

Highlights

  • According to textbook knowledge, respiring microorganisms harvest energy by coupling the oxidation of a soluble electron donor to the reduction of a soluble terminal electron acceptor (TEA)

  • It is generally agreed that periplasm and outer membrane are not energized compartments (Nicholls and Ferguson, 2013). Based on this consensus and the comparison of Electroactive microorganisms (EAM) with nitrate-respiring microorganisms, it can be concluded that the generation of pmf in EAM is restricted to reactions at the inner membrane and further electron transfer reactions do not contribute to energy harvest

  • It is a general consensus that periplasm and the outer membrane are not energized compartments (Nicholls and Ferguson, 2013), a considerable number of Geobacter spp. cytochromes used for direct electron transfer (EET) do not contribute to energy harvest (Bird et al, 2011)

Read more

Summary

Introduction

According to textbook knowledge, respiring microorganisms harvest energy by coupling the oxidation of a soluble electron donor (i.e., the substrate) to the reduction of a soluble terminal electron acceptor (TEA). For illustrating thermodynamic calculations on EAM, the model organism Geobacter spp. is assumed coupling the oxidation of acetate with direct EET to an anode with a fixed potential.

Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call