Use of sulfur‐oxidizing bacteria as recognition elements in hydrogen sulfide biosensing system

Abstract

Four sulfur-oxidizing bacteria (Thiobacillus thioparus, Acidithiobacillus thiooxidans PTCC1717, Acidithiobacillus ferrooxidans PTCC1646, and Acidithiobacillus ferrooxidans PTCC1647) were used as biorecognition elements in a hydrogen sulfide biosensing system. All the experiments were performed in 0.1 M phosphate buffer solution containing 1-20 ppm H2S with optimum pH and temperature for each species. Although H2 S was applied to the biosensing system, the dissolved O2 content decreased. Dissolved O2 consumed by cells in both free and immobilized forms was measured using a dissolved oxygen sensor. Free bacterial cells exhibit fast response (<200 Sec). Immobilization of the cells on polyvinyl alcohol was optimized using an analytical software. Immobilized A. ferrooxidans and A. thiooxidans retained more than 50% of activity after 30 days of immobilization. According to the data, A. thiooxidans and A. ferrooxidans are appropriate species for hydrogen sulfide biosensor.

Facet-Inspired Core–Shell Gold Nanoislands on Metal Oxide Octadecahedral Heterostructures: High Sensing Performance toward Sulfide in Biotic Fluids

“…For the electrochemical detection of sulfide, enzymatic and microbial biosensors have been well established. Nevertheless, the enzymatic biosensors possess some inherent drawbacks of enzymes such as scarcity, complicated immobilization, easy to be destroyed, and instability, which obstruct their frequent usability. , While the microbial biosensors suffer from slow oxidation rate of sulfides which in turn gives feeble expression of enzyme involvement in sulfide biodegradation as well as complex culture conditions for sulfur-oxidizing bacteria . Consequently, there has always been an unequivocal investigation into nanomaterial-based electrochemical sensors that possess excellent electrocatalytic activity, selectivity, and good anti-interference ability for the detection of sulfide.…”

“…19,20 While the microbial biosensors suffer from slow oxidation rate of sulfides which in turn gives feeble expression of enzyme involvement in sulfide biodegradation as well as complex culture conditions for sulfur-oxidizing bacteria. 21 Consequently, there has always been an unequivocal investigation into nanomaterial-based electrochemical sensors that possess excellent electrocatalytic activity, selectivity, and good anti-interference ability for the detection of sulfide.…”

Hierarchical CNTs@CuMn Layered Double Hydroxide Nanohybrid with Enhanced Electrochemical Performance in H2S Detection from Live Cells

“…Moreover, commonly used biosensors for H 2 S detection are inhibitive and microbial biosensors, where the former method is based on the inhibition effect of enzyme activity upon H 2 S exposure. , However, inhibitive enzymes suffer from instability, complicated immobilization, high cost, scarcity, and poor anti-interferrence ability against cyanide ions . In the case of microbial biosensors, microbes are used as biological recognition component that can directly oxidize H 2 S molecules but still possess certain drawbacks including a complex cultivation procedure for microbes and a slow H 2 S oxidation rate . Regrettably, electrochemical oxidation of H 2 S normally takes place at higher overpotential which may result in interferences caused by electroactive species existing in the central nervous system.…”

Turning the Page: Advancing Detection Platforms for Sulfate Reducing Bacteria and their Perks

“…The microbial biosensors are good alternative of enzymatic biosensors but still suffer from some limitations such as complexity in cultivation and slow sulfide oxidation rate. [58] Therefore, the use of electrochemical nonenzymatic sensors based on diverse nanomaterials in sensitive and selective electrocatalytic oxidation of sulfides would be the best option to avoid aforementioned drawbacks. [60] The detailed comparison among analytical performances of various bacterial detection approaches has been placed in Table 1.…”