This page has been archived and is no longer updated

 
April 20, 2015 | By:  Daniel Kramer
Aa Aa Aa

Reducing carbon: a bacterial approach

Happy Earth week to everyone! In honor of such an occasion, I would like to present some work by researchers trying to clean up our atmosphere.

There is a host of literature that says the abundance of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere is caused by humans, and it is responsible for climate change. It is up to us then to offset our addition of gases into the atmosphere. Researchers from the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory have recently presented a progressive technology that converts carbon dioxide into biofuels. To do this, they are taking some hints from nature and using photosynthesis.

Plants make photosynthesis look easy. Normally it is very difficult to mimic photosynthesis because it takes far more energy for us to reduce carbon dioxide than it does for a plant. A plant uses its energy efficiently to turn carbon dioxide into many complex molecules by using a lot of intermediates. It is far harder for us to create and store these intermediates than the organisms that do it naturally.

The difficulty in engineering photosynthesis led researchers to enlist some help in the form of bacteria. Combining materials science and living organisms allows for the best of both worlds: powerful light absorption tools and the natural synthetic capabilities of the cell. The researchers used nanowires made of silicon and titanium dioxide to capture light. The wires absorb light and donate electrons to a bacteria, S. ovata, which acts as a workhorse to reduce the carbon dioxide into acetate. S. ovata works well because it is acetogenic, meaning, it can produce acetate from carbon dioxide in an anaerobic environment. At this point, they can add different types of engineered bacteria that turn acetate into Acetyl-CoA. The engineered bacteria then use the Acetyl-CoA they created to synthesize any number of valuable chemicals such as n-butanol which can be used a biofuel and polyhydroxybutyrate (PHB), a biodegradable plastic.

As a proof of principal, using just water, carbon dioxide and sunlight as the energy source, they were able to produce acetate at a 0.38% efficiency. With the acetate and other engineered bacteria, they produced n-butanol with 26% efficiency, and PHB with 52% efficiency.

Hybrid technology like this is a huge step in the right direction. Converting harmful greenhouse gasses to valuable chemicals both reduces emissions and provides necessary products at seemingly no cost to the environment, other than using up water. It may appear that the efficiency of reducing carbon dioxide is low, but this is still a novel technology with plenty of room to increase its efficacy. I hope that technology like this gets the ball rolling on new ways we can at least slow down the effects humans have on the environment.

References:

Liu, C., Gallagher, J. J. et al. Nanowire-Bacteria Hybrids for Unassisted Solar Carbon Fixation to Value-Added Chemicals. NanoLetters (2015) DOI: 10.1021/acs.nanolett.5b01254

Yarris, L. "Major Advance in Artificial Photosynthesis Poses Win/Win for the Environment" Berkeley Lab News Center, April 16, 2015.

Image credits:

Both images come from Liu & Gallagher 2015 referenced above.

2 Comments
Comments
April 28, 2015 | 04:08 AM
Posted By:  Daniel Kramer
I must say, I know so little about the chemistry side of things, it's taken me this long to muster up the courage to try a response.

Using your overhead projector sheet analogy, to make that much acetate (which would be about 63 grams worth, slightly heavier than a golf ball), we would need on the order of 15 kilograms of carbon dioxide. That's hard to picture, but that's the amount of carbon dioxide created when you burn 2 gallons of gasoline.

So, to make something with a certain percent efficiency means, more or less, the weight of what's produced divided by the weight of what goes in, when you control for the molecular mass of each product. The efficiency is the percent of the input weight that creates the product. In this scenario, .38% efficiency means we need a lot of carbon dioxide to make a little acetate.

I hope this clarifies some of this!
April 21, 2015 | 07:54 PM
Posted By:  Ilona Miko
Hi Dan, This is great, thanks for the post.
Would you mind explaining what it means to produce something with 0.38% vs. 52% efficiency? Please give broad strokes - How much goes into this system, and how much comes out? What if i want to make an 8x12 of acetate for my old school overhead projector? How much energy goes into making that with this method?

Also, what is the magnification in the SEM image?
Help us out with scale here...
Thanks.
Blogger Profiles
Recent Posts

« Prev Next »

Connect
Connect Send a message

Scitable by Nature Education Nature Education Home Learn More About Faculty Page Students Page Feedback



Blogs