The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Comparison of Electrode Reduction Activities of Geobacter sulfurreducens and an Enriched Consortium in an Air-Cathode Microbial Fuel Cell
Open accessAbstract
An electricity-generating bacterium, Geobacter sulfurreducens PCA, was inoculated into a single-chamber, air-cathode microbial fuel cell (MFC) in order to determine the maximum electron transfer rate from bacteria to the anode. To create anodic reaction-limiting conditions, where electron transfer from bacteria to the anode is the rate-limiting step, anodes with electrogenic biofilms were reduced in size and tests were conducted using anodes of six different sizes. The smallest anode (7 cm 2 , or 1.5 times larger than the cathode) achieved an anodic reaction-limiting condition as a result of a limited mass of bacteria on the electrode. Under these conditions, the limiting current density reached a maximum of 1,530 mA/m 2 , and power density reached a maximum of 461 mW/m 2 . Per-biomass efficiency of the electron transfer rate was constant at 32 fmol cell −1 day −1 (178 μmol g of protein −1 min −1 ), a rate comparable to that with solid iron as the electron acceptor but lower than rates achieved with fumarate or soluble iron. In comparison, an enriched electricity-generating consortium reached 374 μmol g of protein −1 min −1 under the same conditions, suggesting that the consortium had a much greater capacity for electrode reduction. These results demonstrate that per-biomass electrode reduction rates (calculated by current density and biomass density on the anode) can be used to help make better comparisons of electrogenic activity in MFCs.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Energy conservation in chemotrophic anaerobic bacteria
Thauer, R. K., Jungermann, K., & Decker, K. (1977) · Bacteriological Reviews · doi:10.1128/br.41.1.100-180.1977 · Cited by 4,146
Caccavo, F., Lonergan, D. J., Lovley, D. R., Davis, M., Stolz, J. F., & McInerney, M. J. (1994) · Applied and Environmental Microbiology · doi:10.1128/aem.60.10.3752-3759.1994 · Cited by 896
Cited by
Exoelectrogenic bacteria that power microbial fuel cells
Logan, B. E. (2009) · Nature Reviews Microbiology · doi:10.1038/nrmicro2113 · Cited by 2,383
Self-citationElectroactive biofilms: Current status and future research needs
Borole, A. P., Reguera, G., Ringeisen, B., Wang, Z.-W., Feng, Y., & Kim, B. H. (2011) · Energy & Environmental Science · doi:10.1039/c1ee02511b · Cited by 498
Nevin, K. P., Kim, B.-C., Glaven, R. H., Johnson, J. P., Woodard, T. L., Methé, B. A., DiDonato, R. J., Covalla, S. F., Franks, A. E., Liu, A., et al. (2009) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0005628 · Cited by 441
The electric picnic: synergistic requirements for exoelectrogenic microbial communities
Kiely, P. D., Regan, J. M., & Logan, B. E. (2011) · Current Opinion in Biotechnology · doi:10.1016/j.copbio.2011.03.003 · Cited by 295
Self-citationRago, L., Cristiani, P., Villa, F., Zecchin, S., Colombo, A., Cavalca, L., & Schievano, A. (2017) · Bioelectrochemistry · doi:10.1016/j.bioelechem.2017.04.001 · Cited by 128
Metadata
- Authors
- Ishii, S., Watanabe, K., Yabuki, S., Logan, B. E., & Sekiguchi, Y.
- Venue
- Applied and Environmental Microbiology
- Publisher
- American Society for Microbiology
- Published
- 2008-12
- Volume
- 74
- Issue
- 23
- Pages
- 7348-7355
- ISSN
- 0099-2240 (ISSN-L)
- 1098-5336
- OpenAlex
- W2169048459
- Cited by
- 220
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 12.52
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Comparison of Electrode Reduction Activities of Geobacter sulfurreducens and an Enriched Consortium in an Air-Cathode Microbial Fuel Cell. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1128/aem.01639-08
- The paper
- Ishii, S., Watanabe, K., Yabuki, S., Logan, B. E., & Sekiguchi, Y. (2008). Comparison of Electrode Reduction Activities of Geobacter sulfurreducens and an Enriched Consortium in an Air-Cathode Microbial Fuel Cell. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. https://doi.org/10.1128/aem.01639-08
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.