Table 1 Comparisons of acetate-based systems utilizing applied potential to harvest anode EAB
Inoculum | Applied potential (V vs Ag/AgCl) | Cultivation time | Potential achieved maximum current (V) | Substrate | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Effluent of acetate-fed MFCs | −0.4, −0.2, 0 | 33 d (792 h) | −0.2 | Acetate | [4] |
Geobacter sulfurreducens | +0.2, +0.3, +0.4, +0.5, +0.6, +0.7, +0.8 | ~ 4 d (98 h) | +0.4 | Acetate | [11] |
Activated sludge | −0.42, −0.36, −0.25, +0.1 | 30 d (720 h) | −0.42 | Acetate | [12] |
Geobacter soli | −0.4, −0.2, 0, +0.2, +0.4, +0.6 | ~ 4 d (~96 h) | −0.2 | Acetate | [13] |
Effluent of acetate-fed MECs | −0.45, −0.29, +0.01, +0.31, +0.61 | 25 d (600 h) | −0.29 | Acetate | [14] |
Anaerobic sludge | −0.4, −0.2, 0, +0.2 | 67 d (1608 h) | 0 | Acetate | this study |