B3012 Journal of The Electrochemical Society, 166 (9) B3012-B3016 (2019)

JES FOCUS ISSUE ON 4D MATERIALS AND SYSTEMS

Micro Photosynthetic Power Cells
Hemanth Kumar Tanneru,1,2 Kiran Kuruvinashetti,1 Pragasen Pillay,2
Raghunathan Rengaswamy,3 and Muthukumaran Packirisamy 1,z
1 Optical-BioMicrosystems Laboratory, Department of Mechanical, Industrial and Aerospace Engineering,
Concordia University, Montréal, Quebec, Canada
2 Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Concordia University, Montréal, Quebec, Canada
3 Department of Chemical Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Madras, Chennai, India

Micro-photosynthetic power cell (μPSC) is one of the emerging energy harvesting technologies which harvests energy using light
(photosynthesis) and carbohydrate metabolism in dark (respiration) for low-power (mW range) applications. μPSC is a green
technology that not only uses solar power and algae, but also provides power in both dark and light conditions. This perspective
article provides state of the art of μPSC technology in terms of fabrication, mathematical modeling and energy harvesting circuit
design. Currently, low power densities and high cost are the factors limiting μPSCs commercialization. Key aspects and methods to
enhance the performance and decrease the cost are proposed in this paper.
© The Author(s) 2019. Published by ECS. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons
Attribution 4.0 License (CC BY, http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted reuse of the work in any
medium, provided the original work is properly cited. [DOI: 10.1149/2.0031909jes]

Manuscript submitted October 19, 2018; revised manuscript received November 30, 2018. Published January 18, 2019. This paper
is part of the JES Focus Issue on 4D Materials and Systems.

μPSCs are potential low power energy harvesting and energy con-
version devices. μPSC is a miniaturized version of the fuel cell in
which photosynthetic microorganisms are employed in the anode
chamber for electron release. In contrast to the miniaturized version
of microbial fuel cells (MFCs), μPSC has the capability to generate
electricity both in light and dark conditions and also use photosynthe-
sis as a source for electrons. The source of electrons and protons to
generate electricity in presence of light is the water-splitting reaction
of photosynthesis (energy harvesting). In the absence of light, protons
and electrons generated from the metabolism of sugars created during
photosynthesis (energy conversion), act as the source for electricity.
History and Development.—Potter’s1 work to generate electricity
from the biological matter is the origin for all bio-electrochemical
devices. Present day μPSCs are developed after transition through a
paradigm of microbial fuel cells,2,3 photo-microbial fuel cells,4 and
their miniaturized versions micro-microbial fuel cell (μMFC) and
micro-photoelectrical cell (μPEC). μPECs were first developed by
Lam et al.2,5 The studies on μPSCs have appeared in literature with the
other synonyms such as a micro photosynthetic electrochemical cell
(μPEC)3,6,7 and bio-photovoltaic cell (BPV).8,9 Different designs2,10–12
are proposed for μPSCs after their inception using the complete pho-
tosynthetic organisms and extracted subcellular organelles from both
plants2 and microorganisms.10,11
Working of μPSC.—A typical dual chamber μPSC, the most
widely used design of μPSC is shown in Figure 1. μPSC consists of
two chambers, the anode and the cathode containing the anolyte and
the catholyte respectively. The membrane electrode assembly (MEA)
is sandwiched between the two chambers. Anolyte is the solution of
nutrients and photosynthetic microorganisms with or without an ex-
ternal mediator. Catholyte is a solution that generates a potential dif-
ference in the cathode chamber to receive electrons and protons from
the anode chamber. MEA comprises of a proton conducting mem-
brane and the electrodes/current collectors. The protons and electrons
are generated during photosynthesis (light) and respiration (dark) of
photosynthetic microorganisms. Electron transfer from the microor-
ganisms to the anode can be a direct13,14 or mediator supported.2,10,11,15
Electrons generated at the anode side of MEA travel through an ex-
ternal circuit to generate electricity and reach cathode surface. The
protons are transported through proton conducting membrane (usu-
z
E-mail: mpackir@encs.concordia.ca
ally Nafion) to the cathode chamber. The reactions in the cathode
chamber vary based on the electron acceptor employed.2,10,11,16–20
Performance metrics and potential of μPSC technology.—A
single μPSC can generate an open circuit voltage (OCV) in the
range of 100–900 mV and current in the order of 100s of μA.
Typical power produced by a μPSC varies in the range of 10 –
100 mW.2,3,10,11,17,19,20 A report by Mc.Cormick et al.8 suggest that
a mediator-less μPSC, with porus anode and 3D biofilm architecture,
operating at a voltage of 213 mV having a current density range of
3400–24600 m A/m 2 , the achievable maximum power density range is
700–7700 mW/m 2 . Nevertheless, the maximum power density re-
ported for μPSCs is (400 mW/m 2 ), by Arvind et al.,11 which is
a dual chamber μPSC, with suspended photosynthetic microorgan-
isms and mediated electron transfer in the anode chamber and pho-
tolithographed gold patterns directly on Nafion as MEA. These figures
indicate that there is considerable scope to improve the performance
of μPSCs.
Applications of μPSCs.—Since photosynthetic microorganisms
can sustain extreme climatic conditions, μPSC can serve as a power
source of microsensors for weather monitoring, where human reach
is difficult. In addition to this, μPSCs can power sensors in wireless
sensor networks for the Internet of Things (IoT) applications.21 μPSCs
can also be a potential power source for distinct applications which
require power in the order of mW .22 A single μPSC or a combination
of μPSCs in series or parallel can be used to obtain the required power
for other applications.23–26
Current Status
Currently μPSC technology is at a nascent stage of development
and has a high potential for the low power applications. At present,
research on μPSC technology is mostly experimental and the focus is
on the development of devices. There has been a significant improve-
ment in performance till date from their invention. Current density
has reached from 0.17 m A/m 2 to 993 m A/m 2 , and the power den-
sity reached from 0.0004 mW/m 2 to 400 mW/m 2 . The trend in the
improvement of the performance of μPSCs is shown in Figure 2.
The μPSC technology still suffers from low power densities, high
cost and poor life issues. While low power density and poor longevity
are performance related issues, high cost is related to materials aspects.
The successful deployment of μPSC technology needs a better per-
forming device at low cost and power circuits that help in harvesting

Downloaded on 2020-01-14 to IP 165.98.144.92 address. Redistribution subject to ECS terms of use (see ecsdl.org/site/terms_use) unless CC License in place (see abstract).
 Journal of The Electrochemical Society, 166 (9) B3012-B3016 (2019)
Figure 1. Operating principle of micro-photosynthetic power cell.
energy from these devices. The task of obtaining high-performance
μPSCs involves efforts in both the experimental and mathemati-
cal modeling. Furthermore, electrical equivalent circuit models for
μPSCs are needed for the development of power circuits to harvest
energy.
There has been a considerable amount of work till now, in terms
of developing new designs,3,10,27,28 mathematical modeling29–32 and
design of power circuits for energy harvesting.11,33 While research in
individual aspects has already started and is in progress, a system-
atic study of interrelated issues of choosing materials, designs and
operating conditions is much in demand.
Future Needs and Prospects
The direction in which future research on μPSCs should take is to
understand the inter-relationship between all the steps in generating
electricity from μPSCs. The first step is to identify the materials
that are the best for individual steps. Development of mathematical
models, optimization of design and operating conditions could be
focused next. The final goal is to develop devices which guarantee
superior performance and longevity at a low price.
Cost reduction.—One of the main reasons for the high cost
of μPSCs is the fabrication of MEA. Currently a Nafion is being
used as proton exchange membrane and noble metals such as gold
and platinum are being used as an electrode and current collecting
materials.2,10,11
Proton conducting membranes.—In the studies that are published
so far, the reason for using Nafion as a proton conducting membrane
is not rationalized for μPSC technology. Nafion is adopted as a proton
exchange membrane from fuel cell technology. Nafion usage for the
Downloaded on 2020-01-14 to IP 165.98.144.92 address. Redistribution subject to ECS terms of use (see ecsdl.org/site/terms_use) unless CC License in place (see abstract).
B3013
μPSC technology must be justified with the support of results from
more fundamental studies.
Studies on testing other proton conducting membranes that are
available commercially are to be tested for μPSCs. G. Hernández-
Flores, et al.34 has reported the use of composite membranes (Mem-
branes 2- 2% agar with Nafion solution) and hybrid membranes (2%
agar and 1% Nafion liquid) as an alternative to Nafion. The perfor-
mance of devices with these membranes are much lower compared to
the ones fabricated with Nafion as PEM. Nevertheless, there has been
a substantial reduction in membrane cost (new membranes are only
2–6% of the cost of the commercially available Nafion). Researchers
have developed alternatives to Nafion membranes, which could be
tested for μPSCs. Viswanathan and Helen,35 provide an exhaustive
list of alternatives to Nafion membrane and the factors that should be
considered during selection. Few PEMs outperformed Nafion in the
list provided by Viswanathan and Helen,35 when tested on polymer
electrolyte membrane fuel cell (PEMFC). Therefore, a considerable
amount of research in employing different proton conducting mem-
branes in μPSCs is still unexplored.
Electrode materials.—The other main reason for the high cost
of MEA is the use of noble metal gold3,10,11 for electrodes. In terms
of prior anode materials, Cr/Au,2,10,11,36 laser micro machined gold,17
graphene and carbon cloth20 are used in μPSCs. There are numerous
anode materials that are used in photoMFCs such as graphite felt,37
indium tin oxide (ITO) coated polyethylene terephthalate (PET), car-
bon paper, stainless steel, polyaniline (PANI) coated fluorine-doped
tin oxide (FTO) glass,38 ITO Glass,39 reduced graphene oxide coated
glass39 and granular polypyrrole on carbon are yet to be evaluated for
the use in μPSCs.
Similarly for the cathode, there are few other materials based on
carbon cloth,37,40–42 carbon paper,38 Pt Coated glass,39 plain graphite43
and graphite plate44 are to be tested in μPSCs. The advantages and
 B3014 Journal of The Electrochemical Society, 166 (9) B3012-B3016 (2019)
Figure 2. Trends of μPSC power density from (2009–2016).
disadvantages of the materials cited is presented elsewhere.45 Few
materials are to be chosen or new materials have to be developed
to reduce cost and increase the performance. A trade-off between
performance and cost should be achieved if the materials that give
better performance are costlier.
Fabrication techniques.—Different fabrication techniques have
been reported till date.2,3,10,11 Shaparania et al.10 and Vyas et al.11 fab-
ricated the MEA directly on the Nafion using the lithography processes.
In studies reported by Lam et al.,2,3 the electrodes/current collectors
are fabricated on the side walls of anode and cathode chambers away
from the Nafion membrane. To date, μPSC that produces highest
power density (400 mW/m 2 ), uses complex lithography techniques
to design and fabricate MEA.10 Porous anode materials with bio-films
of electrogenic photosynthetic organisms seems more promising for
future μPSCs.
Performance Improvements
Algae.—The photosynthetic microorganism is the heart of μPSC.
Electrons and protons for generating electricity are produced by the
photosynthetic organisms. Chlamydomonas reinhardtii, is used in
μPSCs fabricated in studies of Shaparnia et al.10 and Vyas et al.11
Photosynthetic bacteria such as Synechocystis sp. PCC6803,17 Spir-
ulina Platensis,46 Pseudanabaena limnetica, Chlorella Vulgaris, Syne-
chococcus bacillaris and Synechococcus sp8 are also investigaed for
μPSCs.
Another attractive feature that is not yet implemented in μPSCs
is the use of mixed photosynthetic orgnisms which are attempted in
photoMFCs.40,47 This idea of using multiple photosynthetic organ-
isms might enhance the performance as more wavelengths in PAR
region could be used for photosynthesis resulting in higher electron
production.
Ideally, to reduce the losses in electron and proton transfer, the mi-
croorganisms with direct transfer capabilities45 and genetically mod-
ified photosynthetic organisms48 are being researched.
Mediators.—The use of electron mediators such as methylene
blue, HNQ to increase the electron transfer to anode surface has
Downloaded on 2020-01-14 to IP 165.98.144.92 address. Redistribution subject to ECS terms of use (see ecsdl.org/site/terms_use) unless CC License in place (see abstract).
already been investigated. For example, E. Tasket et al.49 and B.
E. Logan et al.50 reported an increase in power output of μPSC
by 30–100% by addition of the mediators. Methylene blue,10,11
Phenazine methosulfate (PMS)2,3 are currently employed as a me-
diator in μPSCs. Different mediators such as 2,6-dimethyl-1,4-
benzoquinone,51,52 ferricyanide,53 hydroquinone,54 duroquinone55 and
2-hydroxy-1,4-napthoquinone56 which were used in photoMFCs can
be examined in μPSCs.
The selection of a mediator is linked to the organism and anode
electrode material. Suitable mediators for a combination of photosyn-
thetic organism and anode electrode material should be selected based
on the cyclic voltammetry tests.
Catholyte.—Catholyte is the final electron acceptor. Potassium
ferricyanide2,10,11,57,58 is widely used in the μPSC technology as an
electron acceptor. Use of air (Oxygen) as the electron acceptor has
also been tested to reduce the cost. However, the performance of air-
breathing μPSCs was reported being poor.59 Further, future studies
should focus on improving the performance of air-breathing μPSCs
by optimizing other parameters.
Operating conditions.—The performance of the μPSC depends
on various operating parameters such as light intensity, temperature,
pH and algal, mediator, and catholyte concentrations. Hence it is
important to identify optimal operating conditions to enhance the
performance for a device of given design and photosynthetic organism,
in future studies.
Design.—Two chamber design consisting of the anode and the
cathode separated by proton exchange membrane (PEM),2,10,20 sin-
gle chamber design without the PEM18,28 and microfluidic channel
designs27,60 are the major designs for μPSC that are reported cur-
rently. In a single chamber design anolyte and catholyte can combine,
which hinders the performance of the μPSC. In microfluidic designs,
wherein the mixing of anolyte and catholyte is minimal, the power
produced by such designs are very low. It is found that two cham-
ber μPSC which performed much better compared to another type of
designs,10,11,61 should be the suitable one for further development.
 Journal of The Electrochemical Society, 166 (9) B3012-B3016 (2019)
Currently developed μPSCs2,3,10,11,17,57 use algae as suspension
in anode chamber. Alternate ways to incorporated photosynthetic
organisms are investigated in photoMFCs such as biofilm-based
anodes26,62,63 and other immobilization techniques51,55,64 could be em-
ployed to enhance the performance.
Mathematical modeling.—Mathematical models developed cur-
rently can predict the performance of the device with the specific algae
with specific design.30 In these models, the kinetics of the photosyn-
thesis and respiration rate of the photosynthetic organisms, and the
rates of diffusion of mediators into microorganisms are not explicitly
considered. Also, the rate constants of the reactions at the electrodes
are obtained from the performance curves of μPSCs.
To explicitly model those factors, data from the experiments to
estimate those specific parameters are needed. For example, diffusiv-
ities of mediators in the anolyte of using liquid diffusion coefficient
apparatus and kinetic rate constants using rotating disc electrode tests
etc. Cyclic voltammetry tests can be used to identify appropriate me-
diator and electron acceptor pair for the fixed organism by measuring
the potential of μPSC.
If all this information can be obtained for the different anode and
cathode solutions for different microorganisms, more complex models
can be built and used as generic templates to test μPSCs by incor-
porating appropriate model parameters, initial, final and boundary
conditions.
Since incorporating internal processes of photosynthesis and respi-
ration of microorganisms into mathematical models is complex, new
tools such as Constraint-Based Reconstruction and analysis (COBRA)
can be used to integrate the biological processes with the mathematical
models of other components.
Longevity of performance.—Another performance issue that is
hindering the deployment of μPSC technology for practical applica-
tions is the longevity of the generation and performance. Shaparnia
et al.10 has reported that μPSC was able to generate power for 2 days
with one batch of anolyte and catholyte solutions in the anode and the
cathode chamber respectively. Lin Liu et al.65 has reported the long-
term performance of the microfluidic lab on chip μPSC for 20 days.
This device generated sustained power of 18.6 μW/cm 2 , in the day
condition and 11.4 μW/cm 2 in the dark condition. Nonetheless, with
right materials, optimal design and optimized operating conditions, it
can be expected to obtain power for more number of days.
Design of power harvesting circuits.—The electrical output of the
μPSC is intermittent as it depends on many parameters such as the
concentration of the algae cells, electron mediators, the design of the
cell, and electron acceptors, electrode materials etc. For implementing
μPSCs for any practical applications, the output of the system should
be constant. Therefore, design of the suitable power electronics cir-
cuits is inevitable. Arvind et al.11 have demonstrated the simulation of
a DC-DC boost converter with the help of a model of stacked μPSCs.
The converter is used to boost the power from the μPSC to store in
storage devices such as a battery. Tamanwe et al.33 has developed
energy harvesting circuits to store the energy from single μPSC.
Conclusions
μPSC technology development is a highly interdisciplinary re-
search problem. Currently μPSC technology is at the very beginning.
A lot of scope to improve performance and to reduce cost still exists.
Factors for the high cost of μPSC are analyzed and ways to decrease
the cost are proposed. The performance enhancement through mate-
rial and design optimization routes are suggested. Ideas on integrating
COBRA with mathematical modeling to improve the reliability of
modeling results is proposed. Due to the interrelationships between
all the factors, efforts in the areas of mathematical modeling and de-
vice development, which consider these interactions is a key to build
successfully a best performing μPSC at low cost.
Downloaded on 2020-01-14 to IP 165.98.144.92 address. Redistribution subject to ECS terms of use (see ecsdl.org/site/terms_use) unless CC License in place (see abstract).
B3015
Acknowledgments
This work is funded by NSERC Canada, FRQNT Canada, Con-
cordia Research Chair, Concordia University, Canada and NSERC
Hydro-Quebec Chair, Concordia University, Montreal, Canada.
ORCID
Muthukumaran Packirisamy
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1769-6986
References
1. M. C. Potter, Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci., 84, 260 (1911).
2. M. Chiao, K. B. Lam, and L. Lin, J. Micromechanics Microengineering, 16, 2547
(2006).
3. K. B. Lam, E. F. Irwin, K. E. Healy, and L. Lin, Sensors Actuators, B Chem., 117,
480 (2006).
4. I. Gajda, J. Greenman, C. Melhuish, and I. Ieropoulos, Biomass and Bioenergy, 82,
87 (2015).
5. C. P. B. Siu and M. Chiao, J. Microelectromechanical Syst., 17, 1329 (2008).
6. S. M. Strycharz-Glaven et al., Appl. Environ. Microbiol., 79, 3933 (2013).
7. S. Bensaid, B. Ruggeri, and G. Saracco, Energies, 8, 399 (2015).
8. A. J. McCormick et al., Energy Environ. Sci., 8, 1092 (2015).
9. A. Mershin et al., Sci. Rep., 2, 1 (2012).
10. M. Shahparnia, M. Packirisamy, P. Juneau, and V. Zazubovich, Technology, 03, 119
(2015).
11. A. V. Ramanan and M. Pakirisamy, IEEE Trans. Power Electron., 30, 1275 (2015).
12. X. Wei, M. Mohammadifar, W. Yang, and S. Choi, Proc. IEEE Sensors, 5 (2017).
13. D. Prasad et al., Biosens. Bioelectron., 22, 2604 (2007).
14. W. Ryu et al., Nano Lett., 10, 1137 (2010).
15. E. Taskan, bestamin ozkaya, and H. Hasar, Int. J. Energy Sci., 4, 9 (2014).
16. L. Wei, H. Han, and J. Shen, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy, 37, 12980 (2012).
17. H. Lee and S. Choi, Lab Chip, 15, 391 (2015).
18. S. Cheng and B. E. Logan, Bioresour. Technol., 102, 4468 (2011).
19. J. E. Mink and M. M. Hussain, ACS Nano, 7, 6921 (2013).
20. J. E. Mink, R. M. Qaisi, B. E. Logan, and M. M. Hussain, NPG Asia Mater., 6, e89
(2014).
21. H. Sun et al., Microsyst. Technol., 24, 2853 (2018).
22. F. Zhang, L. Tian, and Z. He, J. Power Sources, 196, 9568 (2011).
23. S. Mukherjee et al., Sensors Actuators, A Phys., 201, 532 (2013).
24. H. Hou et al., Lab Chip, 12, 4151 (2012).
25. S. Choi and J. Chae, Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Micro Electro Mech. Syst., 1289 (2011).
26. A. J. McCormick et al., Energy Environ. Sci., 4, 4699 (2011).
27. Z. Li, Y. Zhang, P. R. Leduc, and K. B. Gregory, Biotechnol. Bioeng., 108, 2061
(2011).
28. C. Santoro et al., J. Power Sources, 238, 190 (2013).
29. H. K. Tanneru et al., Technology, 04, 249 (2016).
30. H. K. Tanneru, R. Suresh, and R. Rengaswamy, Comput. Chem. Eng., 107, 284
(2017).
31. S. Luo, H. Sun, Q. Ping, R. Jin, and Z. He, Energies, 9, 1 (2016).
32. M. A. Masadeh, K. Kuruvinashetti, M. Shahparnia, P. Pillay, and M. Packirisamy,
IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., 64, 1561 (2017).
33. P. M. Payaro Tamanwe, Kuruvinashetti Kiran, and Pillay Pragesan, in Micro-
photosynthetic Power cell: Modelling and Energy Harvesting, ECE 2018, Montreal
(2018).
34. G. Hernández-Flores, H. M. Poggi-Varaldo, and O. Solorza-Feria, Int. J. Hydrogen
Energy, 41, 23354 (2016).
35. B. Viswanathan, M. H.-B. of the catalysis S. of India, 2007, researchgate.net
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Balasubramanian_Viswanathan/publication/
267421388_Is_Nafion_R_the_only_Choice/links/54b512f00cf26833efd06238.pdf.
36. K. B. Lam, E. A. Johnson, and L. Lin, Ieee, 15, 220 (2004).
37. K. Nishio, K. Hashimoto, and K. Watanabe, J. Biosci. Bioeng., 115, 412 (2013).
38. P. Bombelli et al., Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys., 14, 12221 (2012).
39. F. L. Ng et al., Sci. Rep., 4, 2 (2014).
40. Z. Yongjin, J. Pisciotta, R. B. Billmyre, and I. V. Baskakov, Biotechnol. Bioeng., 104,
939 (2009).
41. G. Gnana Kumar et al., ACS Sustain. Chem. Eng., 2, 2283 (2014).
42. R. J. Thorne, H. Hu, K. Schneider, and P. J. Cameron, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys., 16,
5810 (2014).
43. L. Gouveia, C. Neves, D. Sebastião, B. P. Nobre, and C. T. Matos, Bioresour. Technol.,
154, 171 (2014).
44. R. Chandra, G. Venkata Subhash, and S. Venkata Mohan, Bioresour. Technol., 109,
46 (2012).
45. K. Schneider, R. J. Thorne, and P. J. Cameron, Philos. Trans. A. Math. Phys. Eng.
Sci., 374, 20150080 (2016).
46. L. Wang et al., J. Chem., 2014 (2014).
47. Y. Zou, J. Pisciotta, and I. V. Baskakov, Bioelectrochemistry, 79, 50 (2010).
48. M. Rosenbaum, Z. He, and L. T. Angenent, Curr. Opin. Biotechnol., 21, 259
(2010).
49. E. Taskan, B. Özkaya, and H. Hasar, Int. J. Energy Sci., 4, 9 (2014).
50. B. E. Logan and J. M. Regan, Environ. Sci. Technol., 40, 5172 (2006).
51. B. Esper, A. Badura, and M. Rögner, Trends Plant Sci., 11, 543 (2006).
 B3016 Journal of The Electrochemical Society, 166 (9) B3012-B3016 (2019)

52. T. Liu, L. Rao, Y. Yuan, and L. Zhuang, Sci. World J., 2015 (2015).
53. D. Laberge, R. Rouillon, and R. Carpentier, Enzyme Microb. Technol., 26, 332
(2000).
54. A. F. Janzen and M. Seibert, Nature, 286, 584 (1980).
55. E. Touloupakis et al., Biosens. Bioelectron., 20, 1984 (2005).
56. T. Yagishita, T. Horigome, and K. Tanaka, J. Chem. Technol. Biotechnol., 56, 393
(1993).
57. H. Hou, L. Li, Y. Cho, P. de Figueiredo, and A. Han, PLoS One, 4, 1 (2009).
58. A. Han, H. Hou, L. Li, H. S. Kim, and P. de Figueiredo, Trends Biotechnol., 31, 225
(2013).
59. A. S. Bedekar et al., Chem. Eng. Commun., 195, 256 (2008).
60. D. Vigolo et al., Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys., 16, 12535 (2014).
61. H. Ren, H.-S. Lee, and J. Chae, Microfluid. Nanofluidics, 13, 353 (2012).
62. R. W. Bradley, P. Bombelli, S. J. L. Rowden, and C. J. Howe, Biochem. Soc. Trans.,
40, 1302 (2012).
63. A. E. Inglesby, K. Yunus, and A. C. Fisher, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys., 15, 6903
(2013).
64. J. O. Calkins, Y. Umasankar, H. O’Neill, and R. P. Ramasamy, Energy Environ. Sci.,
6, 1891 (2013).
65. L. Liu and S. Choi, Lab Chip, 17, 3817 (2017).

Downloaded on 2020-01-14 to IP 165.98.144.92 address. Redistribution subject to ECS terms of use (see ecsdl.org/site/terms_use) unless CC License in place (see abstract).