Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-sh8wx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-18T22:42:34.724Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Free-floating Reaction Centers (RCs) versus Attached Monolayer of RCs in Bio-photoelectrochemical Cells

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 April 2012

Houman Yaghoubi ,
Arash Takshi ,
Daniel Jun ,
Rafael Saer ,
John D. Madden  and
J. Thomas Beatty
Houman Yaghoubi*
Affiliation:
Department of Electrical Engineering, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL 33620, U.S.A.
Arash Takshi
Affiliation:
Department of Electrical Engineering, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL 33620, U.S.A.
Daniel Jun
Affiliation:
Department of Microbiology and Immunology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver BC V6T 1Z3, Canada.
Rafael Saer
Affiliation:
Department of Microbiology and Immunology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver BC V6T 1Z3, Canada.
John D. Madden
Affiliation:
Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering and Advanced Materials & Process Engineering Lab, University of British Columbia, Vancouver BC V6T 1Z1, Canada.
J. Thomas Beatty
Affiliation:
Department of Microbiology and Immunology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver BC V6T 1Z3, Canada.
*
*Email: hyaghoubi@mail.usf.edu
Get access

Abstract

The high quantum efficiency (~100%) in the bacterial photosynthetic reaction center (RC) has inspired research on the application of RCs to build protein based solar cells. Conventionally, applying RCs as the photosensitive layer on the surface of a carbon electrode has shown poor photocurrents in the cells. The low photocurrent is partly due to the weak absorption of light in the monolayer of RCs. Also, an Atomic Force Microscopy image of the electrode shows lots of defects on the immobilized RCs at the electrode surface. In this work, we have built a bio-photoelectrochemical cell in which the RCs are floating in the electrolyte instead of being attached to the surface of an electrode. Despite the simple structure of the cell, the photocurrent is significantly higher in the new cell compared to when RCs are attached to an electrode. The amplitude of current reached to ~40 nA for free floating RCs, about five times larger than that in the cell with attached RCs. The aging effect was studied in both cells in a course of a week. The lifetime of attached RCs on electrode surface was slightly better than solubilized RCs in the electrolyte. Also, it is found that the mechanism which governs the charge transfer from RCs to the electrodes is the same in both bio-photoelectrochemical cells.

Keywords

biomimetic (assembly)photovoltaicenergy generation
Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 1414: Symposium HH – Bioelectronics–Materials, Properties and Applications , 2012 , mrsf11-1414-hh07-03
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1. Das, R., Kiley, P. J., et al. ., Nano Letters, 4(6), 1079–1083 (2004).10.1021/nl049579fGoogle Scholar
2. Lebedev, N., et al. ., Langmuir, 24(16), 8871–8876 (2008).10.1021/la8011348Google Scholar
3. Lebedev, N., et al. ., Journal of the American Chemical Society, 128(37), 12044–12045 (2006).10.1021/ja063367yGoogle Scholar
4. Trammell, S.A., et al. ., The Journal of Physical Chemistry C, 111(45), 17122–17130 (2007).10.1021/jp0740402Google Scholar
5. Trammell, S.A., et al. ., Biosensors and Bioelectronics, 21(7), 1023–1028 (2006).10.1016/j.bios.2005.03.015Google Scholar
6. Trammell, S.A., et al. ., Biosensors and Bioelectronics, 19(12), 1649–1655 (2004).10.1016/j.bios.2003.12.034Google Scholar
7. Takshi, A., Madden, J.D., and Beatty, J.T., Electrochimica Acta, 54(14), 3806–3811 (2009).10.1016/j.electacta.2009.01.084Google Scholar
8. Mahmoudzadeh, A., et al. ., Smart Materials and Structures, 20(9), 094019 (2011).10.1088/0964-1726/20/9/094019Google Scholar
9. Takshi, A., et al. ., Energies, 3(11), 1721–1727 (2010).10.3390/en3111721Google Scholar
10. Allen, J.P., et al. ., Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (U.S.A) 1987.Google Scholar
11. Lebedev, N., et al. ., Langmuir, 24(16), 8871–8876 (2008).10.1021/la8011348Google Scholar
12. Lebedev, N., et al. ., Journal of the American Chemical Society, 128(37), 12044–12045 (2006).10.1021/ja063367yGoogle Scholar
13. den Hollander, M.-J., et al. ., Langmuir, 27(16), 10282–10294 (2011).10.1021/la2013528Google Scholar
14. Ciesielski, P. N., et al. ., Bioresource Technology, 101(9), 3047–3053 (2010).10.1016/j.biortech.2009.12.045Google Scholar
15. Armstrong, F.A., Hill, H.A.O., Walton, N.J., Q. Rev. Biophys. 18, 261 (1986).10.1017/S0033583500000366Google Scholar
16. Solov’ev, A.A., et al. ., Bioelectrochemistry and Bioenergetics, 26(1), 29–41 (1991).10.1016/0302-4598(91)87031-BGoogle Scholar
17. Goldsmith, J.O., et al. ., Biochimica et Biophysica Acta (BBA), 1276(3), 171–175 (1996).10.1016/0005-2728(96)00091-6Google Scholar
18. Lebedev, N., et al. . 2007. SPIE: San Diego, CA, USA, (2007); pp 665614-11.Google Scholar