1

2
3
4
 ABSTRACT

Active biocatalysts such as microorganisms or enzymes liberate electrons while electron

donors are consumed in biological fuel cells. Fuel cells are a novel technology producing bio
electrochemical power using various materials such as complex organic waste or natural organic
matter under anaerobic anode conditions.

Recently, great attention has been paid to biological fuel cells due to their mild operating
conditions and use of a variety of biodegradable substrates as fuel. One such fuel cell is solid
phase microbial fuel cell (SMFC). SMFC is a technology which utilize the mechanism of soil
compost fermentation to generate electricity from waste recycle i.e., they produce electric current
from organic matter content using bacterial metabolism.

This report highlights , SMFCs which can generate electrical energy by decontaminating
wastewater. To further develop this technology, identification of a suitable application is needed.
Several challenges are to be addressed, including more detailed analysis in energy production and
application, understanding the relationship between electricity generation and contaminant
removal and optimizing system configuration and operation.

The potential applications of SMFCs include powering sensors to monitor treatment processes
and enhancing the removal of specific contaminants by electricity generation.

5
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER NAME PAGE NO

Acknowledgement 4

Abstract 5

Table of contents 6

Table of figures 8

1 INTRODUCTION

Background 9

Outline 11

2. SOLID PHASE MICROBIAL FUEL CELL

2.1 Microbial Fuel Cell 12

2.2 How SMFC differs from MFC 13

2.3 Construction and working of SMFC 13

2.3.1 Anode and cathode material 14

2.4 Mechanism 15

2.5 Factors affecting the performance of SMFC 16

2.5.1 Effect of changes in configuration of SMFC 17

2.5.2 Effect of anode 18

2.5.3 effect of cathode 19

2.5.4 effect of organic matter 20

6
 2.5.5 effect of overlying water 20

3.APPLICATIONS AND CHALLENGES FACED

3.1 Applications 22

3.1.1. Renewable power sources 22

3.1.2. Organic matter removal 22

3.2 Challenges faced and solutions provided 24

4. FUTURE SCOPES AND CONCLUSION

4.1 Future scope 25

4.2 Conclusion 26

5. REFERENCE 27

7
 LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE NO FIGURE NAME PAGE NO

Fig 2.1 Schematic dia of microbial fuel cell 12

Fig 2.2 Solid phase microbial fuel cell 13

Fig 2.3 organism role and main reaction in SMFC 14

Fig 2.4 Graph of potential vs current density 18

Fig 2.5 rotating cathode system 18

Fig 2.6 floating cathode system 21

Fig 2.7 An air cathode system 21

TABLE NO PAGE NO

Table 1 Current density table 19

Table 2 Removal efficiency table 23

8
 CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

1.1 BACKGROUND
Energy is needed to preserve life. Different kinds of energy are formed and used in different
countries. This energy is dissipated into the atmosphere and disrupts normal atmospheric. Energy
consumption is related to economic growth. So in recent years, energy consumption has grown
exponentially in developing economies, which has led to energy crisis.

Most of the energy sources used around the world are non-renewable energy sources. This kind of
energy sources is running out and their utilization causes problems like emission of greenhouse
pollutants, including SOx, COx, NOx, CxHy, soot, ash etc. Also fossil fuels are inefficient sources for
preparing energy requirements due to pollution and finite supplies.

Hence in the recent years, efforts were made to produce adequate energy without CO2 emission and
greenhouse gas problems. That’s where fuel cells came into picture. They attracted a lot of attention
because they had an upper hand on the problems mentioned above.

One of the most interesting fuel cells discovered recently were solid phase microbial fuel cell which
produces electricity from degradation of inorganic matters in sediments (solid substrates)
Toxic metals are released into the environment by many anthropogenic sources like discharge of
municipal, agricultural, industrial, or residential waste products. The contamination of aquatic
environment by heavy metals is of important concern due to accumulation of metals and their toxicity
in aquatic habitats. Toxic metals that are released into the aquatic environment are ultimately
incorporated into the aquatic sediments to varying degrees. The accumulation of toxic metals in
sediments has serious environmental connections for river water quality and for local communities.

For example, sediment uses a diet source by many freshwater invertebrates and can be vulnerable to
toxic metals bioaccumulation. This bioaccumulation can possibly harmful for many species
especially top ranked at the food chain, like human, fish and birds. Additionally, the recovery of
stream sediments and metal-contaminated river poses a serious liability to local users via
9
remobilization of toxic metals from agricultural soil into crop.
Many methods have been used to treat these contaminated sediments like ozonation, electrochemical
degradation, and dredging. The huge cost and negative impact on aquatic ecosystem stops the
encouragement of these technologies. The natural degradation of sediments also got much attention
but rate is very slow due to lack of proper electron donor and acceptor. Therefore, efficient and
new technologies are needed to provide proper electron donor and acceptor in SMFC’s.

Solid phase microbial fuel cells (SMFCs) are fueled with solid phase organic waste such as sludge,
sediment and contaminated soil. SMFCs can be used as power sources for instruments deployed for
long-term monitoring in marine environments, due to their simple design and the rich organic matter
available in the solid phase. SMFC systems generated stable output power of 10-20 mWm-2 based on
anodic electrode footprint area (EFA). SMFC are really popular due to its cost effectiveness and
environmental benignity. In addition, SMFCs is one of the new technologies for removing organic
matters from sediments and generating electricity from aquatic environment.

There are many advantages of SMFCs for sediment remediation with producing renewable energy:
For the natural bioconversion mechanisms, the electrode can provide a less aggressive, inexhaustible,
clean and flexibly portable electron acceptor or donor.
SMFCs cause minimum distraction to the native aquatic habitat.
Controllable electrochemical parameters can be easily monitored for the remediation processes.

1.2 OUTLINE
This report highlights the use of solid phase microbial fuel cell (SMFC) in todays world as alternate
renewable energy source. The necessity of using this beneficial technology in harnessing clean
energy is justified in chapter 1. The construction and working of this solid phase microbial fuel cell
and how it differs from microbial fuel cell is given in chapter 2.
The application of SMFC and challenges faced is discussed in Chapter 3 . Chapter 4 deals with future
scopes of SMFC if established on larger scale and the report is also concluded here .

10
 CHAPTER 2
SOLID PHASE MICROBIAL FUEL CELLS

2.1MICROBIAL FUEL CELL

Fig 2.1 Schematic diagram of microbial fuel cell

MFC technologies represent a novel energy harvesting technology and energy transducer
and comprise an anaerobic anode, an aerobic cathode and typically a cation exchange
membrane. The two electrodes are connected via a conductive wire.

Microorganisms or active biocatalysts break down organic matter in their surrounding

environment. Some MFCs need artificial electron mediators for transfer of electrons
produced by biocatalysts from the substrate to the anode electrode.

MFCs use the process of cellular respiration. This is what cells use to convert nutrients into
a substance called Adenosine Triphosphate (ATP), which is the fuel used for cellular
activity. Bacterial respiration is the oxidization and reduction of organic molecules and this
process naturally moves lots of electrons around. The protons travel through the PEM.

11
Microbial fuel cell is classified by its base matter into;
liquid phase microbial fuel cell

solid phase microbial fuel cell

The difference between the two is whether the base matter is solid phase or liquid phase
substrates.
The base matter used in liquid phase microbial fuel cell are typically household waste water,
livestock waste water, food waste water, etc. & the base matter used in solid phase microbial
fuel cell are primarily waste water treatment plant waste water, contaminated soil, sludge,
sediments and lignocellulosic waste.
Solid phase microbial fuel cell is a device that produces electricity by using active
microorganisms from the solid substrates.

2.2 HOW SMFC DIFFERS FROM MFC

Unlike conventional MFCs , SMFCs do not require protons to be transferred through a membrane.
In SMFCs the anode is essentially under completely anoxic conditions and they have membrane less
structure.
A cation exchange membrane is not neccesary in this because of decreasing oxygen gradient over the
depth of water and sediment column creates the required pressure difference naturally. Protons
conducted by water can produce electricity of 28W/m2 .

2.3 CONSTRUCTION & WORKING OF SOLID PHASE MICROBIAL

FUEL CELL
A solid phase microbial fuel cell consists of anode and a cathode. The anode electrode is embedded
in an anaerobic sediment or sludge connected through an electrical circuit to a cathode electrode
which is commonly exposed to ambient oxygen at the air or water interface.

Electric genic bacteria in the sediment transfer electrons produced during the oxidation of organic or
inorganic matter in the anode electrode while oxygen is reduced in the water column by accepting
electrons from the cathode. As a results electric current is generated.

12
The electrons released by the bacterial degradation of the organic matters from the anode to the
cathode through an external circuit while proton diffuses through water between the electrodes .The
electrons and protons then react at the cathode with oxygen to form water.

Several microbes own the gift to transfer electrons derived from the metabolism of organic matter to
anode. Marine, sediment ,soil ,fresh water sediment are all rich sources for these microbes.
Microorganisms transfer electrons to the electrode over an electron transport system that consists of a
series of components in the bacterial extracellular matrix . Bacteria produce electricity by
extracellular electron transfer, or EET. They generate electrons and transfer them across their cell
membranes through tiny channels.

2.3.1 Anode and cathode material

Solid phase MFCs consists of a graphite disk as electrodes, but platinum mesh are preferred more.
Bottle brush cathode used for sea water batteries may hold the most promise for long term operation
as these electrode provide large surface area and are non-corrosive in nature carbon fibers suspended
in overlying oxygenated water. The simplest material for anode electrode is graphite rod because they
are inexpensive, easy to handle and have defined surface area. Most large surface area are achieved
with graphite electrodes.

Fig 2.2 .Solid phase microbial fuel cell

13
If acetate is used as substrate the following reaction takes place:

Anode reaction:

CH3COO- + 2H2O 2CO2 + 8H+ + 8e-

Cathode reaction:

2O2 + 8e- + 8H+ 4H2O

2.4 MECHANISM OF SMFC

The anode biofilm is enriched by two types of microorganisms:
Geobacteracea family
Desulfobulbus (Desulfucapsa) genera.

Soil and sediments are derived from plant and animal detritus, settlement of dead bacteria and
plankton, fecal matter and anthropogenic organic materials . Sediments organic carbon content
generally ranges from 0.4 to 2.2 wt%.

This organic carbon content can be consumed by exoelectrogens directly transporting electrons
outside of the cell. The micro-organism will stick to the surface of an anode coated with a specialized
protein and then transfer electrons to it.

Geobacteracea oxidizes acetate in the sediment directly reducing the anode, while the
Desulfobulbus or Desulfucapsa genera oxidize anode generated S 0 to SO42-.

Acetate is provided by organic matter fermentation by other anaerobic microorganisms in sediment

(e.g., Clostridium). Another reaction occurring at the anode is the oxidation of S2- to S0. When
organic matter is oxidized O2, MnO2, Fe2O3 and SO42- reduce in order between the sediment surface
layer and anode. With increasing sediment depth, each layer accumulates more and more potent
reductants.

As illustrated in Fig, electrons produced by an active biocatalyst can be delivered to the anode from
14
microbes enriched on the anode surface, or from the dissolved and solid-phase forms of reduced ions
contained in the sediment (e.g., sulfides in marine sediment).

Fig 2.3.microorganism role and main reaction in SMFC

15
2.5 FACTORS EFFECTING PERFORMANCE OF SMFC
Researchers investigated the performance of SMFC by varying different factors. The
investigation focused mainly on altering the SMFC configuration , anode , cathode, organic material
and overlying water.

2.5.1 EFFECT OF CHANGES IN SMFC CONFIGURATION

Power generation is affected by several factors. This factors include electrode spacing, the rotating
cathode arrangement, water depth etc.

Electrode spacing
When the electrode spacing is increased ohmic losses is increased, decreasing the amount of current
generated in the SMFC, so to minimize this a new type of coating SMFC with a constant inter
electrode spacing can be used . The maximum power density is increased from 29 to 40 W/m2 when
the electrode distance was decreased from 6 cm to 4 cm. The increase in power density corresponds
to decrease in the internal resistance. Columbic efficiency and energy recovery were also both
improved by decreasing the electrode spacing.

Rotating cathode arrangement

The maximum power density with a nonrotating cathode was 29 mW/m2. When the cathode was
rotating, the maximum power density is 49 mW/m2, which is a 69% improvement over the
nonrotating cathode. Cathode rotation increased the dissolved oxygen concentration from 0.4 to 1.6
mg/L in the bulk liquid adjacent to the cathode. This resulted in a higher cathode potential regardless
of the current density and thus improved overall performance.
The rotating cathode also produced a consistently higher (less negative) anode potential than the
nonrotating cathode (fig). However, excess oxygen in the bulk liquid of the MFC increased the
anodic charge transfer resistance, ultimately limiting the power density at the highest current. Thus,
an optimum rotational speed of the cathode is required.

16
 Fig 2.4. Graph of potential vs current density Fig 2.5.rotating cathode system

The ( is anode and is cathode.

Effect of water depth

Increasing the water and embedded anode depths also contributes to an increase in the electrode
spacing, while increasing the anode depth enhances the internal resistances of SMFCs. On the other
hand, at different depths of sediment, certain substrates and microorganisms are active, enhancing
anode performance at greater depths.

2.5.2. EFFECT OF ANODE

Microorganisms metabolize available organic matter in solid phase and release electrons(e —) through
electron acceptors known as anodes. Anode reduction is done by microorganisms colonized on the
anode surface. The anode material, geometry and surface modifications are key parameters in
optimizing electricity harvesting from sediments.

The anode material requires high conductivity, environmental stability and good redox reversibility.
Graphite, stainless steel and carbon are common materials used in SMFCs. The maximum power and
current densities for the graphite tank are 100 mW m—2 and 3500 mA m—2 respectively.

17
Table 1.Current density and power density for different anode material

Anode material Anode geometry Current density Power density (mW

(mA m—2) m—2)
Graphite Plate 3 30
Rode 23.72 19.57
Disk 5.39 8.72
Stainless steel Grid 8200
Plate 140 23
Activated carbon fiber felt 3.5 10.6
Carbon Sponge 100 55
Cloth 50 27.5
fiber 5.0 4.5

2.5.3. EFFECT OF CATHODE

Similar to the anode, the cathode material and geometry are important factors in SMFC operation.
Electron transfer efficiency and oxygen reduction rate of the cathode material are important factors.
The maximum power and current density is obtained from polyaniline graphene nano-sheets which is
about 99 mA/m2 and 478.9mW/m2.

Microorganisms can catalyze the reduction of oxygen at the cathode by growing a biofilm on
that electrode. Biological oxygen reducing cathodes are called bio-cathodes. The advantages of this
system are its low cost, self-replenishment, better sustainability and having no mediator involved.

18
2.5.4. EFFECT OF ORGANIC MATTER
The electrons in SMFCs are provided by bacterial degradation of organic matter, so SMFC power output
can be improved by using a higher organic matter content. In this regard, several researchers have
increased solid phase organic matter by addition of substrates such as glucose ,cellulose chitin, acetate,
biomass and milk.

Sediment bed conductivity is the other important factor affecting the efficiency of power generation in
SMFCs. Adding conductive materials to sediment may improve the conductivity of the sediment by
serving as electron conduits between the bacterial cells and anodes. Graphite flakes and colloidal iron
oxy hydroxide are such conductive materials that can be used for enhancing the performance of SMFCs.

2.5.5.EFFCT OF OVERLYING WATER

The nature, origin, flow conditions, characteristics, functional activities, total dissolved solids, pH and
temperature of water bodies play crucial roles in power generation. For example, stagnant water bodies
have shown higher power generation compared with running water bodies. Therefore , DO is another
important factor for SMFCs. There are different methods for increasing DO in water.

In a floating SMFC (Fig ), the cathode is floated on the water surface, so that a part of its surface is
exposed to air. This technology overlaps with the air–cathode method in which the cathode is placed at
the air–water interface (Fig). On the other hand, algae such as Chlorella vulgarisis CO2 during
photosynthesis, releasing oxygen as a byproduct and saturating water with oxygen.

Fig 2.6 . floating cathode system

19
 Fig 2.7 An air cathode system

DO is also a function of temperature such that it increases with decreasing temperature, leading to an
increased power generation efficiency in the cold seep ocean.

20
 CHAPTER 3
APPLICATIONS AND CHALLENGES FACED

3.1 APPLICATIONS:
Two broad applications of sediment microbial fuel cells are:
 providing renewable power sources for instruments deployed in marine environments, lakes,
freshwater, oceans etc. for long-term monitoring.
 removal of organic matter from sediments.

3.1.1 RENEWABLE POWER SOURCES

One of the main applications of SMFCs is to provide a power source for wireless equipment used for
environmental monitoring, oceanographic studies, and military tactical surveillance where real-time data
acquisition from remote locations is required. These instruments have no cable connection with the
surface, such that they need a kind of power supply such as a battery. However, batteries are associated
with limited calendar lifetimes due to their requiring high cost periodic replacement, especially in deep
water.
These challenges can be overcome by applying SMFCs as a power source. SMFCs can empower various
wireless sensors including those identifying temperature, salinity, tidal patterns, , metallic compounds
from other industrial processes, pH, humidity, aquatic life, invasive species, and also biological oxygen
demand (BOD) biosensors, and dissolved oxygen (DO) sensors.

3.1.2 ORGANIC MATTER REMOVAL

Organic-rich sediments, as an important component of aquatic environments, can be
considered as an abundant potential source of renewable energy. But drainage of industrial wastewater
and municipal sewage has infected the surface layer sediments with pollutants such as nitrogen and
phosphorus resulting in water-quality issues and even methane emission. Furthermore, these
compounds are toxic for organisms due to their carcinogenic and mutagenic potential. One way to
remove these compounds is to reduce them as a fuel in SMFCs. There is a linear relationship between
the generated current and the removal efficiency of organic matter from sediments. A comparison of the

21
removal efficiency of organic matter and power density of SMFCs for different types of carbon sources
is shown below.

Table 3.Removal efficiency of organic matter and power density of SMFC

Type of fuel Content removed Removal Power density

efficiency (%) (mW m-2)
Aquaculture water Max COD (g m—2 d—1) 3.99 4.52

Fresh water sediments Phenanthrene 99.1 —

Pyrene
Waterlogged soil Phenol 90.1 29.45
Tidal river sludge Carbon removal 9.6 7.5
Fresh water sediment Carbon removal 29
Hydrocarbon Carbon removal 24 6.3

Aquaculture pond water COD 84.4 0.241

Lake sediment Nitrate Nitrite 62 42

Fresh water lake COD 95 86.7

Lake sediment COD 76 72

River sediment Organic matter remove 29 100

Fresh water sediment COD 28.3 3.15

22
3.2 CHALLENGES FACED AND SOLUTIONS PROVIDED
A significant portion of investigations performed on SMFCs has been concerned with improving their
electricity generation capacity over a longer time frame.SMFCs produce bioelectricity and remediate
contaminated sediments simultaneously. In spite of low electricity generation from SMFCs, it has been
demonstrated that this system can be used successfully to power low-power electronic devices in an
aquatic ecosystem. Nevertheless, SMFC technology is facing many challenges to become a reliable
renewable energy source which are mentioned below:

CHALLENGE 1:. The wastewater supply in a surface flow mode will have input organic
compounds existing in both sediment and liquid phases, and the presence of organics in the liquid
phase creates two problems:
(1) some electrons will not be able to be used for electricity generation, because the anode electrode is
usually located in the sediment;
(2) those organics will stimulate the growth of heterotrophic bacteria on the cathode electrode, which
will decrease the cathode performance by competing for DO and covering the electrode surface to
preclude oxygen transfer.

SOLUTION: To address the above problems, a SMFC with multiphase floating electrodes was
developed for electricity generation and organic removal. This SMFC contained a middle (anode)
electrode that could use organic compounds in the liquid phase, and improved electricity generation was
observed compared with conventional SMFCs or a floating- type MFC without middle electrodes.

CHALLENGE 2: Another challenge for SMFC operation is the supply of electron acceptors, which
is oxygen in most cases. Active aeration can provide sufficient DO, but it also requires significant
energy consumption. Considering that SMFCs generate electrical energy, aeration may be provided by
using self-generated energy, and this can be realized by incorporating an appropriately designed power
management system.

23
SOLUTION :It was demonstrated that an aeration pump could be activated for a short period of time
after about 20 min of operation of the SMFC, and this aeration improved organic removal by 21% for
artificial wastewater or 54% for dairy wastewater. The improved treatment may benefit from increased
DO by intermittent aeration and the consequent agitation of water that better distributes organic
substrates for biodegradation and increases re aeration with atmospheric oxygen.

CHALLENGE 4 :A major challenge in SMFCs is anode passivation. Passivation is the inhibition of

the dissolution reaction caused by the formation of non-dissolving ftlms. Anode passivation results in
lost production capacity, increased power costs, and decreased cathode quality.

SOLUTION :This avoided this problem by using a chambered SMFC design in which the anode is
placed in a semi-enclosed chamber that rests securely on the seafloor . By using a one-way check valve,
water solely outflows from the underlying sediment into the chamber and not in the opposite direction.
This water is nutrient-rich and depleted of oxygen due to oxygen consumption by microbes present
within the sediment.

24
 CHAPTER 4

FUTURE SCOPES AND CONCLUSION

4.1 FUTURE SCOPE

It seems that fossil fuels may not supply the increasing energy demand of the future, so it is essential to
find sustainable and renewable sources of energy. The results of recent studies suggest that SMFCs will
be of practical use in bioenergy production and waste removal from sediments and solid wastes in the
future.

SMFCs need to provide a higher power output at a lower cost to be considered practically and
commercially affordable. In this respect, nano materials are examples of current research lines.
However, to move this technology from laboratory trials to field applications all the challenges
discussed above need to be further considered before wide application of SMFCs can be realized. In
order to further develop SMFC technology, it is suggested to evaluate energy collecting methods,
develop PMS and scale-up technologies, and to use cost-effective materials, process monitoring and
control, etc.

Until recently, most developed SMFCs were not designed for sediment remediation. For remediation
applications, power output is not the major goal. For this issue, simulating solid phase bioremediation, in
situ bioremediation processes, and environmental, ecological and social considerations require further
attention and using a moderate input of external energy (from renewable energy sources) to improve
bioremediation must be studied in future. Also, most recent studies have been done on non-complex
materials in sediment/soil.

Further, to date most studies have been carried out using laboratory-scale SMFCs. In the near future,
investigators will face the new challenge of transitioning SMFCs from the laboratory to aquatic
environments; for example, SMFC setup installation in aquatic sediments, passivation of electrode
materials by electrochemical deposition, the corrosion of electrode materials and connections, SMFC
setup destruction by current low and fish grazing etc. On the other hand, electrode materials and

25
electrochemical reaction effects on the surrounding environment and ecological system must be
considered.

4.2 CONCLUSION
In this report, we started by studying what is solid phase MFC and where it is used and what are its
advantages. Then we talked about the mechanism of solid phase fuel cell and hw it differs from
microbial fuel cell. Next, solid phase microbial fuel cells were overviewed including issues such as new
materials for use in anodes and cathodes, sediment and overlying water properties, types of equipment
configuration etc. The application and drawbacks related to this system and how it can overcome it on
laboratory scale is mentioned. Lastly a brief idea about the future scope of this system are shared.

26
REFERNCES
1. Atieh Zabihallahpoor, Mostafa Rahimnejad and Farid Talebnia Solid phase microbial fuel cells
2015

2. T.-S. Song, D.-B. Wang, S. Han, X.-y. Wu and C. C. Zhou, Int.J. Hydrogen Energy, 2014, 39, 1056–
1062.

3. S. W. Hong, H. S. Kim and T. H. Chung, Environ. Pollut., 2010, 158, 185–191.

4. F. Rezaei, T. L. Richard, R. A. Brennan and B. E. Logan, Environ. Sci. Technol., 2007, 41, 4053–
4058.

5. W.-W. Li and H.-Q. Yu, Biotechnol. Adv., 2015, 33, 1–12.

6. S.-E. Oh, J. Y. Yoon, A. Gurung and D.-J. Kim, Bioresour. Technol., 2014, 165, 21–26.

7. T.-S. Song and H.-L. Jiang, Bioresour. Technol., 2011, 102, 10465–10470.

8. F. Zhang, L. Tian and Z. He, J. Power Sources, 2011, 196, 9568–9573.

9. Z. He, H. Shao and L. T. Angenent, Biosens. Bioelectron., 2007, 22, 3252–3255.

10. M. Lenin Babu and S. Venkata Mohan, Bioresour. Technol., 2012, 110, 206–213.

11. C. E. Reimers, L. M. Tender, S. Fertig and W. Wang, Environ. Sci. Technol., 2000, 35, 192–195.

12. Y. Gong, S. E. Radachowsky, M. Wolf, M. E. Nielsen, P. R. Girguis and C. E. Reimers, Environ.

Sci. Technol., 2011, 45, 5047–5053.

13. N. J. Sacco, E. L. M. Figuerola, G. Pataccini, M. C. Bonetto, L. Erijman and E. Cort´on, Bioresour.

Technol., 2012, 126, 328–335.

14 A. Wang, H. Cheng, N. Ren, D. Cui, N. Lin and W. Wu, Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2012, 6, 569–
574.

15. M. C. Potter, Proc. R. Soc. London, Ser. B, 1911, 84, 260–276

16 B. E. Logan, B. Hamelers, R. A. Rozendal, U. Schroder, J. Keller, S. Freguia, P. Aelterman, W.

Verstraete and K. Rabaey, Environ. Sci. Technol., 2006, 40, 5181–5192.

17 F. Zhang, Z. Ge, J. Grimaud, J. Hurst and Z. He, Environ. Sci. Technol., 2013, 47, 4941–4948.

18. Y. Feng, W. He, J. Liu, X. Wang, Y. Qu and N. Ren, Bioresour. Technol., 2014, 156, 132–138.

19. W.-W. Li and H.-Q. Yu, Biotechnol. Adv., 2015, 33, 1–12.

20. D. R. Lovley, Nat. Rev. Microbiol., 2006, 4, 497–508.

27
21. A. Kouzuma, N. Kaku and K. Watanabe, Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol., 2014, 98, 9521–9526.

22 Z. Chen, Y.-C. Huang, J.-H. Liang, F. Zhao and Y.-G. Zhu, Bioresour. Technol., 2012, 108, 55–59.

23 L. M. Tender, S. A. Gray, E. Groveman, D. A. Lowy, P. Kauffman, J. Melhado, R. C. Tyce, D.

Flynn, R. Petrecca and J. Dobarro, J. Power Sources, 2008, 179, 571–575.

24. M. E. Nielsen, C. E. Reimers, H. K. White, S. Sharma and P. R. Girguis, Energy Environ. Sci., 2008,
1, 584–593.

25. Z. He, H. Shao and L. T. Angenent, Biosens. Bioelectron., 2007, 22, 3252–3255.

26.Z. He, J. J. Kan, Y. B. Wang, Y. L. Huang, F. Mansfeld and K. H. Nealson, Environ. Sci. Technol.,
2009, 43, 3391–3397.

27.J. An, D. Kim, Y. Chun, S. J. Lee, H. Y. Ng and I. S. Chang,

Environ. Sci. Technol., 2009, 43, 1642–1647.

28. Z. Ge, J. Li, L. Xiao, Y. Tong and Z. He, Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett., 2014, 1, 137–141.

29. J. An, H. Moon and I. S. Chang, Environ. Sci. Technol., 2010, 44, 7145–7150.

30. T. K. Sajana, Soumya Pandit and Dipak A Jadhav. Eng., 2019, 57, 101–107.

28
.

29
30