Difference between revisions of "Team:ShanghaitechChina/Demonstrate"

m
Line 97: Line 97:
  
 
<p></p>
 
<p></p>
<b> a) Comparing the system with biofilm and with out biofilm Figure 2 and Figure 3</b><p></p>
+
<b> a) Comparing the system with biofilm and without biofilm Figure 2 and Figure 3</b><p></p>
  
  
 
Before we tested the system with biofilm-anchored CdS nanorods, we tested ones with freely-flowing CdS nanorods. The result is shown in Figure3. <p></p>
 
Before we tested the system with biofilm-anchored CdS nanorods, we tested ones with freely-flowing CdS nanorods. The result is shown in Figure3. <p></p>
During lighting period, the hydrogen production increases, until we shut off the light at points that correspond to the tips. The curve then goes downward, showing that the hydrogen concentration is lowered, an evidence of bidirectional catalytic activity of hydrogenase. The tip reached 30mV compared to the system with biofilm-anchored hydrogenase, 8mV. This lower catalytic efficiency is possibly due to the lower amount of nanorods added to the system in Figure2, since the binding of CdS to biofilm is a reaction that does not guarantee all the binding. It is also likely that the size of the microspheres on which the biofilm grow is too small for sufficient binding of all the nanorods. However, this seemingly low efficiency system has beat the efficiency of previous report this year. The efficiency calculation is in the next section.<p></p>
+
During lighting period, the hydrogen production increases, until we shut off the light at points that correspond to the tips. The curve then goes downward, showing that the hydrogen concentration is lowered, an evidence of bidirectional catalytic activity of hydrogenase. The tip reached 30mV compared to the system with biofilm-anchored hydrogenase, 8mV. This lower catalytic efficiency is possibly due to the lower amount of nanorods added to the system in Figure2, since the binding of CdS to biofilm is a reaction that does not guarantee all the binding. It is also likely that the size of the microspheres, 25 um in diameter, on which the biofilm grow is too small for sufficient binding of all the nanorods. In addition, since the normal size of bacteria is 2 um, we therefore think spheres of bigger sizes should lead to a higher efficiency. However, this seemingly low efficiency system has beat the rate of hydrogen production of previous report this year. The calculation is in the next section.<p></p>
  
 
  <center><img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2016/a/ab/T--ShanghaitechChina--asasy--bidirectlycat.png"></center>
 
  <center><img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2016/a/ab/T--ShanghaitechChina--asasy--bidirectlycat.png"></center>
Line 107: Line 107:
  
 
Another point to note between our two systems is that in the process of hydrogen generation without biofilm-anchored CdS, a stir bar with a necessary speed of 800 RPM was needed. But in Figure 2, the system with biofilm, a stir bar was not used. It is likely because the aggregates of NR have a bigger chance in colliding with <em>E. coli</em> to transfer electrons.<p></p>
 
Another point to note between our two systems is that in the process of hydrogen generation without biofilm-anchored CdS, a stir bar with a necessary speed of 800 RPM was needed. But in Figure 2, the system with biofilm, a stir bar was not used. It is likely because the aggregates of NR have a bigger chance in colliding with <em>E. coli</em> to transfer electrons.<p></p>
 +
 +
<b> b) Calculating the rate of our integrated system.</b><p></p>
 +
 +
We are particularly interested in learning what our efficiency is compared to one study reported this year. See reference 1. In calculating the efficiency, we chose the data from the first hydrogen production period. We converted the data in mV into umol/L. The standard curve is provided by the lab who supervised our assay apparatus.
 +
 +
<center><img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2016/3/30/T--ShanghaitechChina--biaozhuanqingqibiaodingquxian.png"></center>
 +
        <p style="text-align:center"><b>Figure Standard</b> Relationship between voltage data and concentration.</p>
 +
 +
Thus, we obtain the rate of hydrogen evolution: the tip of the first period is 7.061 mV at 500s. This corresponds to 2.179 (0.3086*7.061) umol/L at 500s. Thus the rate is 0.0126 (2.179/500*3mL*1000) umol/s, for 0.1g E. Coli. In comparison with the rate from reference 1, 0.0086mol umol/s. This 46% increase in the efficiency shows that our system not only works, but is also a progress for the study of artificial hydrogen production system.<p></p>
  
  
 
<b>Conclusion</b><p></p>
 
<b>Conclusion</b><p></p>
In conclusion, although we did not seeAlthoughWe therefore propose this model as our final model, although further optimization of the system is still under way, including deciding on the optimized material and size the microsphere for biofilm growth. <p></p>
+
In conclusion, biofilm-anchored nanorods and hydrogenase work great together for producing hydrogen. Although the system is not as efficient as the one with nanorods flow-freely due to some possible reasons as the size of microsphere, the system still achieved a fairly good hydrogen production efficiency. We therefore propose this model as our final model, although further optimization of the system is still under way, including deciding on the optimized material and size the microsphere for biofilm growth. Meanwhile, our SpyCatcher on the CsgA allows the binding of other proteins that may significantly improve our system. This will lead to our future work. Stay tuned, or you may want to join us in this project as well: Contact us: zhongchao@shanghaitech.edu.cn Investor are also welcome.<p></p>
  
  

Revision as of 14:53, 19 October 2016

igem2016:ShanghaiTech