This is the authors' abstract. We don't add key points for this paper.
Bioelectrochemical reduction of dilute nitrate (NO 3 − ; sub-mM) to ammonium (NH 4 + ) is a promising route toward circular nitrogen management from nitrate-contaminated groundwater and surface waters. However, conventional bioelectrochemical systems (BES) rely on extracellular electron transfer through electrode-attached biofilms, restricting catalysis to a few electroactive bacteria in direct contact with the electrode. Here, we developed a soluble-mediator-assisted BES in which a diffusible mediator shuttles electrons to suspended cells throughout the catholyte, enabling weakly electroactive bacteria to serve as nitrate-reduction catalysts. Three biocatalysts ( Escherichia coli , Shewanella oneidensis , and Candidatus Brocadia sinica), nine soluble mediators spanning viologens, quinones, and phenazines, cathodic potentials from −0.3 to −0.9 V, and pH 6.5 to 8.5 were screened, and NO 3 − reduction to NH 4 + was confirmed using a 15 NO 3 − tracer. With E. coli cells and methyl viologen, NO 3 − was reduced to NH 4 + at a maximum volumetric rate of 10.9 mmol-N L −1 day −1 and a low NO 3 − -affinity constant ( K s = 0.19 mM). This rate was 8-fold higher than previously reported biofilm-based systems, and NO 3 − reduction was repeated over three successive NO 3 − additions during 48 h of operation. Furthermore, the soluble-mediator-assisted BES showed high performance even in natural groundwater and surface water, with a Faradaic efficiency of 50–59% and an electricity consumption of 188–192 kWh kg-NO 3 − -N −1 , substantially lower than metal-catalyst systems at comparable NO 3 − concentration. These findings demonstrate that soluble-mediator-assisted BESs provide an energy-efficient platform for converting NO 3 − in natural water into a recoverable NH 4 + form, with full nitrogen recovery additionally requiring downstream NH 4 + concentration or separation.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Choi et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: