Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 110 (2019) 402–414

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/rser

An overview of plant microbial fuel cells (PMFCs): Configurations and T

applications
Felix Tetteh Kabuteya,b, Qingliang Zhaoa,∗, Liangliang Weia, Jing Dinga, Philip Antwic,
Frank Koblah Quashiea, Weiye Wanga
a
State Key Laboratory of Urban Water Resources and Environments (SKLURE), School of Environment, Harbin Institute of Technology, Harbin, 150090, China
b
Council for Scientific and Industrial Research–Institute for Scientific and Technological Information (CSIR–INSTI), P. O. Box M–32, Accra, Ghana
c
Jiangxi Key Laboratory of Mining & Metallurgy Environmental Pollution Control, School of Resources and Environmental Engineering, Jiangxi University of Science and
Technology, Ganzhou 341000, China

A B S T R A C T
Keywords:
Plant microbial fuel cell The depletion of non-renewable energy resources has led to the exploitation of alternative renewable sources
Solar energy
such as solar energy, which is mainly employed to generate electricity using conventional photovoltaic cells. In
Rhizodeposition
recent years, other alternative bioelectrochemical systems such as plant microbial fuel cells (PMFCs) has been
Organic matter
Electrochemically active bacteria developed to generate electricity via biological interactions of plants and microbes in the presence of sunlight.
Bioelectricity Compared to the photovoltaic cells, PMFCs can also generate power continuously, being implemented on
agricultural lands without any obstruction to food cultivation/production processes or even in the fields un-
suitable for food production. To explore and optimize the use of living plants for sustainable power generation in
PMFCs, the key fundamental aspects peculiar to PMFCs were comprehensively reviewed. Subsequently, various
reported configurations of PMFCs embedded with vascular plants, macrophytes and bryophytes as well as their
combination with constructed wetlands were evaluated and discussed. So far, PMFCs could be applied in the
fields of wastewater treatment, polluted sediment and surface water remediation, greenhouse gas mitigation and
biosensing. Finally, the prospects and challenges of PMFCs for full-scale applications were also presented.
Overall, PMFCs will become alternative renewable energy sources to reduce energy scarcity and related en-
vironmental issues when they are scaled up and applied in-situ.

1. Introduction
Depletion of fossil fuels and the environmental issues related to
their use have led to the exploitation for alternative sources of energy
such as solar energy which is universal and reliable as the human po-
pulation increase is estimated at 9.7 billion by 2050 [1,2]. The earth
receives about 120,000 TW of solar energy yearly, with 170 Wm-2
reaching the earth's surface, exceeding the current global energy de-
mand of ∼16 TW [3]. Plant microbial fuel cell (PMFC) is a derived
technology of microbial fuel cell (MFC), which uses plant roots to di-
rectly fuel the electrochemically active bacteria (EAB) at the anode by
excreting rhizodeposits to generate bioelectricity [4,5]. Strik et al.
proposed, developed and proved the principal of plant sediment mi-
crobial fuel cell (PSMFC) as a result of the flux of organic matter (OM)
at the anode during SMFC operation in 2008. By planting reed man-
nagrass (Glyceria maxima) at the anode of SMFC to utilise root exudate
as OM by the EABs in the anolyte, it yielded a maximum power output
of 67 mW m−2 [6]. Undoubtedly, adding plants to MFCs can increase
biomass, power and current outputs with no need of harvesting the
plants [6–9]. PMFCs can produce sustainable power 18 times higher
than the conventional SMFC, the increase in power generation is due to
the surge in OM availability at the anode for microbial oxidation
[10–12].
Currently, PMFC applications have extended to ecologically

Abbreviations: COD, Chemical oxygen demand; CW-MFC, Constructed wetland microbial fuel cell; EAB, Electrochemically Active Bacteria; GHG, Greenhouse gas;
HRT, Hydraulic Retention Time; MFC, Microbial fuel cell; MSC, Microbial solar cell; OM, Organic matter; PD, Power Density; PEM, Proton exchange membrane;
photoMFC, Photosynthetic Microbial Fuel Cell; PMFC, Plant microbial fuel cell; SMFC, Sediment microbial fuel cell; SPMFC, Sediment plant microbial fuel cell; TW,
Travelling wave
∗
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: carbutey1@yahoo.com (F.T. Kabutey), qlzhao@hit.edu.cn (Q. Zhao), weill333@163.com (L. Wei), dingjinghit@163.com (J. Ding),
kobbyjean@yahoo.co.uk (P. Antwi), ololofrank@yahoo.com (F.K. Quashie), 13792735601@163.com (W. Wang).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2019.05.016
Received 4 September 2018; Received in revised form 5 May 2019; Accepted 7 May 2019
Available online 14 May 2019
1364-0321/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
F.T. Kabutey, et al.
engineered system [7], constructed wetland coupled with MFC system
(CW-MFC) [13,14], bryophyte MFC system [15] etc. to generate bioe-
lectricity from paddy fields [16], wetlands [17], green roofs [18] and
floating water bodies [19]. Furthermore, the potential exists for PMFC
incorporation into agricultural lands without any effect on food pro-
duction [8] or into wetlands and wastelands unsuitable for food pro-
duction to harvest bioenergy [7]. Plants grown indoors, green roofs and
rooftop gardens can also be used in PMFC to generate bioelectricity,
maintain air quality and render ecosystem services [20,21]. PMFCs are
capable of generating sustainable green energy with living plants as the
only source of OM, making PMFCs more attractive as potential sources
of cheap, clean and renewable bioenergy [9,22,23].
Although intensive researches on the use of PMFCs to treat polluted
ecosystem and generate bioenergy were conducted in the last decade,
there have been increasing interest in the studies of their applications.
A few review papers have been published on various aspects of PMFCs.
Strik et al. described the principles and performance of microbial solar
cells (MSC) including PMFC, the challenges and outlook for future ap-
plications in 2011 [24]. Later, Deng et al. introduced the PMFC tech-
nology, the promising ways to improve the performance and to broaden
their applications, the characters of current PMFCs and possible future
development in 2012 [22]. Thereafter, Nitisoravut and Regmi provided
an insight on the progress of PMFCs, factors affecting system perfor-
mance, research achievement, challenges and perspectives in 2017
[23]. Recently, Regmi et al. described the historical development of
PMFCs and operational variables such as choice of plants, conductivity,
pH, humidity, soil and microbial health in 2018 [25]. However, none of
these reviews explored the applications of living plants for sustainable
power generation in PMFCs focusing on their configurations, plant
species, performance and feasibility of full-scale in-situ application for
polluted ecosystem remediation and power generation.
The objective of this review is firstly to introduce the up-to-date key
fundamental aspects peculiar to PMFCs in terms of supporting matrix
and substrate enrichment, living plants and their role, microorganisms
in the rhizosphere, mechanism of substrate conversion and utilisation,
and electron transfer for bioelectricity generation. Secondly, different
configurations of PMFCs embedded with vascular plants, macrophytes,
and bryophytes as well as their combination with constructed wetlands
were systematically elucidated. Thirdly, the applications of PMFCs in
the fields of wastewater treatment, polluted sediment and surface water
remediation, greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation and biosensing were
explored. Finally, the prospects and challenges of PMFCs for full-scale
applications were also presented. Through this review, new ideas could
be inspired and help to identify the relevant aspects of PMFCs which
need to be investigated in order to develop a sustainable and eco-
nomically feasible full-scale process. It's worth noting that any system,
regardless of the name in the original research using living plants for
bioelectricity generation based on MFC principles, is considered as a
PMFC in this review.
2. Key fundamental aspects of PMFCs
PMFCs are biological cells consisting of living plants, supporting
matrix and conductive anode inserted into the substrate and cathode
placed in air or water to convert chemical energy into bioelectricity
[23,26]. The chemical energy associated with OM in the substrate is
converted to electrons, protons and CO2 during oxidation by the EABs
attached to the anode. Protons travel through the medium to the
cathode, while electrons from the anode are transferred to the cathode
through the external circuit. At the cathode, oxygen or other chemical
catalyst serving as a terminal electron acceptor (TEA), is reduced to-
gether with protons and electrons to water as well as to generate
bioelectricity [6,27]. According to Deng et al., two basic designs of
PMFCs can be distinguished, namely single and double-chambered
[22]. The single-chambered PMFC has a membrane-less anode chamber
without a cathode chamber while the double-chambered PMFC has two
403
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 110 (2019) 402–414
chambers, viz. anodic and cathodic chamber separated by PEM or a
separator to allow proton to transfer across the cathode while pre-
venting the diffusion of catholyte and O2 to the anode [28,29]. Based on
these two designs, other models such as tubular and flat-plate PMFCs
have been developed and successfully applied [30]. As demonstrated by
Wetser et al., another novel model of three-chamber flat porous-plate
PMFC design with one anode, two cathode chamber and a bipolar
membrane inserted with Spartina anglica biota exhibited a maximum
power density of 679 mW m−2 [8].
Additionally, PMFCs have some unique components and char-
acteristics different from general MFCs such as supporting matrix and
substrate enrichment, living plants, substrate conversion and electron
transfer mechanism, which are regarded as the most important aspects
to understand PMFCs.
2.1. Supporting matrix and substrate enrichment in PMFCs
The supporting matrix used in PMFC operation is considered during
the design and operation because it affects the internal resistance by
interfering with the migration of protons (H+) between the electrodes
and the diffusion of root exudates to the anode [16,31]. Supporting
matrix used in PMFC operation includes flooded soils, paddy, wetland
or garden soils, sediments, vermiculite, graphite granules in which the
anode and the living plant are buried [7,26]. However, when natural
supporting matrix is used, additional substrate or enrichment is not
required as EABs proliferate in nature to oxidize the available OM and
transfer electrons to the anode [32]. Soils are the common source of
inoculum used in biological treatment systems because of the presence
of rich natural microbes, hence its use as substrate in PMFC operation
[33]. Soils used in PMFC operation include natural soil, agricultural and
forest soils [23], rice field/paddy soil, flooded soil, red soil, sand, silt,
clay, peat soil, salt marsh soil, compost soil mix, sediment/rhizodepo-
sits, wetland sediment, garden soil, garden soil mixed with cow dung,
and potting soil [34]. As evidenced in a study of MFC using agricultural
soil as inoculum, it yielded 17 times more power than using forest soil
because of lower C/N ratios and species richness in agricultural soil
[35,36]. The performance of a PMFC is affected by rhizodeposite pro-
duction and availability, the proliferation of rhizobia microbial species,
growth medium, rate of substrate oxidation, electrons and proton
transfer to the electrodes, operation conditions, reactor configuration,
oxygen reduction at the cathode and so on [37]. However, Strik et al.
proposed that to improve current and power densities of PMFCs, three
factors should be engineered, viz. the rate of photosynthesis, amount of
rhizodeposition, and energy recovery [24]. A major factor influencing
both the amount of rhizodeposition and energy recovery in PMFC is the
growth media because it affects the behavior of plants and microbes.
Beside the use of soils, vermiculate and sediments as supporting matrix,
other growth media have also been added to the supporting matrix for
better performance of PMFCs. When 1/2 modified Hoagland solution
was added to the anolyte and potassium ferricyanide chemical as TEA
at the cathode, a maximum power of 100 W m−2 could be produced in
the PMFC embedded with S. anglica at the anode [38]. The addition of
graphene oxide in the anolyte of PMFC yielded a maximum power
density ranged 17–49 mWm−2, higher than that of the control (7.7–20
mWm−2) [37]. When the supporting matrix in a rice implanted PMFC
was amended with compost, a maximum power density of 23 mW m−2
could be obtained [9]. A continuous flow miniature floating macro-
phyte based ecosystem with Eichhornia crassipes (water hyacinth) as
biota acclimated with domestic sewage exhibited a high power output
of 224.93 mA m−2 when fermented distillery wastewater was treated
[39]. Similarly, a PMFC with S. anglica as biota was operated with new
nitrate-less, ammonium-rich medium containing all macro-and micro-
nutrients necessary for plant growth, it produced a maximum current of
469 mA m−2 [40]. When a CW-MFC embedded with I. aquatica plant
was inoculated with anaerobic sludge and fed with phosphate buffer
solution, it produced a maximum power density of 12.42 mW m−2,
F.T. Kabutey, et al.
142% higher than that of in the unplanted CW-MFC (5.13 mW m−2)
[41]. Furthermore, when a ryegrass (Lolium perenne) implanted PMFC
with graphite granule anode was enriched with microbes from another
lab-scale MFC, 99% of Cr(VI) could be removed and a maximum current
density in the range of 30–70 mA m−2 was achieved as 1/2 Hoagland's
and sodium acetate solution were added [42]. Based on the facts above,
the enrichment of the supporting matrix is recommended during PMFC
operation in order to enhance the performance of pollutant removal
and bioelectricity generation.
2.2. Plants and their function in PMFCs
The use of living plants for in-situ degradation and removal of pol-
lutants from the ecosystem has long been established [43]. Plants have
been investigated for their ability to serve as indicator species and also
for the removal of heavy metals from polluted ecosystems [44]. In
wetland treatment systems, aquatic plants serve as a major tool for
heavy-metal removal and bioremediation [45]. In an operation of
PMFC, three groups of plants, including vascular plants, macrophytes
(hydrophytes) and wetland or marshy land grasses are used in the
construction [23,46,47]. Wetland plants are commonly used for the
construction of biocathodes because they are water tolerant and possess
aerenchyma tissues, allowing O2 from the atmosphere into the roots
easily [48,49]. Selection and use of plants are done casually, none-
theless the selection of the right species increases the desired treatment
and bioelectricity generation [50]. As the selection and use of a plant is
dependent on the place of study, the local available species are pre-
ferred to avoid the introduction of invasive species [25,51]. The
amount of root exudates produced and available at the rhizosphere
should also be considered [52], the plant species that secrete large
amount of rhizodeposits is preferentially selected. The plant species
with C4 photosynthetic pathways are used in PMFC because they have
high rates of solar energy conversion. C4 plants (e.g. monocots/grass
plants) exhibit high photosynthetic efficiency, which leads to an in-
creased rhizodeposition to serve as substrate for microbial oxidation
[22,46]. The criteria for the selection of plants include hardiness,
growth rate, microbial community at the rhizosphere, extensiveness of
root system, tolerance and bioaccumulation abilities, local availability,
adaptability and rhizodeposition [23,46]. To avoid conflict with food
production, food crops and arable lands suitable for agriculture pur-
poses are not used in PMFC application [23,53]. Other attributes of
plants should also be considered, for example the sensitiveness of
aquatic plants to solution conductivity and the negative effect of con-
ductivity (below 0.6 Sm-1) on rice plant growth [54].
Plants inserted in PMFCs play an important role in converting solar
energy into clean energy with no need of plant harvest [55,56]. The
plants photosynthesize to yield OM which serves as “source of carbon”
in the rhizosphere for EABs activity [6,57]. In certain PMFC config-
urations, the plants are inserted in the cathodic chamber to release O2
during photosynthesis to be directly used as biocathode [58]. Since the
principle of PMFC was proven using reed mannagrass [6], different
plant species have been tested and used in the operation of PMFCs,
those are chronologically arranged in Table 1. Up until now, a variety of
plant species, including cultivars of paddy rice (L. cv. Sasanishiki [59],
indica, cultivar C101 PKT [60,61], L. cv. Satojiman [16] and L. cv.
Koshihikari [62]), salt marsh (Spartina anglica and Arundo donax),
freshwater species (Arundinella anomola), grass species (Echinochloa
glabrescens Munro ex Hook. f. [7,38,63], Pennisetum setaceum [64],
Cyprus involucratus R. [65], Lolium perennee [42]), and wetland plants
(Echinorriea crassipes [39], Ipomoea aquatic [41], Typha latifolia [66],
Acorus calamus [67], Lemna minuta [47] and Canna indica [68]) have
been successfully incorporated in the construction and operation of
PMFCs for diverse applications. The S. anglica implanted PMFC can
achieve the highest power generation while removing pollutants.
Nonetheless, rice cultivars are the most preferred plant species with
such merits as easy access, adequate hardiness and flexibilities to grow
404
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 110 (2019) 402–414
under different conditions within various ecological zones.
2.3. Microorganism in the rhizosphere of PMFCs
The rhizosphere is the immediate region around the roots and the
root surface extending to about 4 mm where electrodes are inserted
during PMFC operation [100]. It supports a wide range of microbes,
microbial activities and provides surfaces for bacterial attachment due
to the release of large amounts of rhizodeposits by the plant roots
[101,102]. In PMFCs, the microbial communities in rhizosphere are
different, because root exudates differ within and between plant spe-
cies, and microbial consortia varies with supporting matrix or inoculum
and operation conditions [23,69]. A diverse variety of anodic bacterial
species found in the rhizosphere during PMFC operation include Na-
tronocella acetinitrilica, Beijerinckiaceae, Rhizobiales, and Rhodobacter
gluconicum dominated in the anode of a rice paddy field PMFC [59]. In a
rice rhizosphere-based PMFC with potting soil as inoculum, high bac-
terial populations related to Desulfobulbus spp. and Geobacter spp. fa-
milies were isolated on the anode [103]. In another rice PMFC with rice
soil as the substrate, the active bacterial communities on the anode had
a high abundance of clones related to Deltaproteobacteria and Chloro-
flexi, Geobacter, Anaeromyxobacter and Anaerolineae predominated on
anodes in natural rice field soil. However, in an open-circuit PMFC
without power generation, Deltaproteobacteria, Betaproteobacteria,
Chloroflexi, Alphaproteobacteria, and Firmicutes spp. were found to be
dominant [104]. G. maxima operated PMFC had a large population of
Geobacter sulfurreducens and metallireducens at the anode region, which
were responsible for the reduction of Fe (III) oxide in the sediment for
electricity generation [71]. The microbial community in a PMFC with
three different plant species (Chasmanthe floribunda, Papyrus cyperus
and Chlorophytum comosum) in the same natural soil exhibited various
anode bacterial colonization, where Pseudomonas putida, Pseudomonas
spp. 1, Pseudomonas spp. 2, Aeromonas hydrophila, Enterobacter cloacae,
Bacillus tequilensis, Aspergillus. spp., Penicillium. spp., and two fungi
species, Aspegillus spp., and Penicillium spp. were isolated [97]. The
microbial community in a PMFC operated with only the rhizodeposits
of C. indica as substrate and tap water revealed significantly higher
rhizosphere microbial diversity of Proteobacteria, Acidobacteria, Chlor-
oflexi, Actinobacteria, Bacteroidetes, and Geobacter spp [68]. The Ar-
chaeal species, including Crenarchaeota Group and Methanosarcinales,
Methanocellales, Methanomicrobiales, Desulfurococcales, Thermoproteales,
Thermococcales, Thermoplasmatales spp. were isolated from anode-bio-
film and anode associated-soil samples during PMFC operations
[60,68,105]. The useful electricity-producing bacteria species identified
in PMFCs include the Geobacter spp. Ruminococcaceae spp., Desulfo-
bulbus spp., Bacillus, Geothrix, Pseudomonas, Shewanella, Acidobacteria
[71], which are suggested to be fully used in the construction and op-
eration of PMFCs.
The supporting matrix contains different microbial and archaeal
species which form the microbial community in the biofilm attached to
the electrodes [106]. They are classified as electricigens, anodophiles
and exoelectrogens based on their ability to transfer electrons to the
electrodes without exogenous mediators [107,108]. EABs, both gram-
negative and gram-positive, have been identified as electron donors in
association with PMFC operations [22,109,110]. These microbes are
grouped according to their locations (on the anode or cathode) or the
role they play in electron transfer [111]. On the anode there is a di-
versity of obligate anaerobic microbes (viz. EABs, exoelectrogen, elec-
tricigen, and anode-respiring bacteria) in a syntrophic relationship with
plant roots [110,112]. On the cathode there are both aerobes and
anaerobes, where aerobes use oxygen as the oxidant to assist the oxi-
dation of transitional catalysts such as manganese (II) or iron (II) for
electron delivery to oxygen, and anaerobes uses, such compounds as
nitrate, sulphate, iron, manganese, carbon dioxide to serve as TEAs for
their reduction [22,113]. Additionally, EABs and anaerobic microbes in
the sediment and surface water oxidize the available OM and directly
F.T. Kabutey, et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 110 (2019) 402–414

Table 1
Plant species used in PMFCs configuration and power generation since 2008.
Plant species Type of Substrates Operation Maximum Power Density Electron Acceptor Reference
PMFC period (PD)

Reed mannagrass (Glyceria maxima) PMFC Soil 118 Days 67 mW m−2 Graphite granules/Oxygen [6]
Rice plant (Oryza sativa ssp. Indicia, pSMFC Soil/vermiculite 204 Days 120 ± 19 mA m−2 Aerated graphite mat/graphite [61]
cultivar C101PKT) rod
Rice (Oryza sativa L. cv. Sasanishiki) PMFC Rhizodeposits/Rice paddy soil 120 Days 6 mW m−2 Graphite felt/Oxygen [59]
Common cordgrass (Spartina PMFC Graphite granules and 119 Days 79 mW m−2 Graphite felt [38]
anglica) Hoagland solution
(Arundinella anomala) and Common PMFC Graphite granules/ 26 weeks 22 mW m−2 Ferricyanide and Oxygen [7]
cordgrass Rhizodeposits 222 mW m−2
Rice plant (Oryza sativa cultivar PMFC Paddy field soil 72 Days 14 mW m−2 Carbon felt interwoven [69]
Koral) graphite rods
Rice (Oryza sativa L. cv. Satojiman) PMFC Rhizodeposits/Rice paddy soil N/A 14 mW m−2 Graphite felt/Platinum (Pt) [16]
Water hyacinth (Eichhornia PMFC Sediment/Rhizodeposits 210 Days 224.93 mW m−2 Oxygen [39]
crassipes)
Fountain grass (Pennisetum R-MFC Red soil 65 Days 163 mW m−2 Graphite plate [64]
setaceum)
−2
Typha domingensis Pers SPMFC Sludge 4 Months 6.12 ± 2.53 Mw m Graphite leads and graphite [70]
woven wires
Canna indica CW-MFC Marine sludge/Rhizodeposits N/A 15.73 mW m−2 Oxygen [13]
Reed mannagrass (Glyceria maxima) PMFC Graphite granules 40 Days 80 mW m−2 Graphite felt [71]
Duckweeds (Lemna minuta) pPMFC Carbon source and potable 45 Days 380 ± 19 mW m−2 Graphite granules/oxygen [47]
water
Common cordgrass (Spartina PMFC Microorganisms in the soil 365 Days 469 mA m−2 Ferric cyanide [40]
anglica)
Ipomoea aquatica CW-MFC Granular activated carbon N/A 0.149 mW m−3 Stainless steel mesh [72]
(GAC)
Reed mannagrass (Glyceria maxima) PMFC Speelzand and ammonium- 85 Days 60 mW m−2 Graphite felt [73]
rich 1/2 Hoagland solution
−3
Ceratophyllum demersum PMFC Sediment/Rhizodeposits 3 Months 9 ± 1 mW m Oxygen [48]
Ipomoea aquatic CW-MFC Anaerobic sludge 40 Days 12.42 mW m−2 Stainless steel mesh cathode [41]
Ipomoea aquatic CW-MFC Granular activated carbon N/A 30.2 mW m−2 GAC/stainless steel mesh [74]
(GAC)/anaerobic sludge
Common reed (Phragmites australis) CW-MFC Dewatered alum sludge N/A 9.35 mW m−2 Uncoated graphite plates [75]
Common reed (Phragmites australis) CW-MFC Glucose + sodium acetate 180 Days 43.0 mW m−2 Graphite [76]
Rice plant (Oryza sativa L. cv, SMFC Paddy soil 50 Days 19 ± 3.2 mW m−2 Graphite felt [62]
Koshihikari)
Aconitum nagarum Stapf var PSMFC Sediment/Rhizodeposits 30 Days 14.0 mW m−2 Platinum cathode [77]
Phragmites australis CW-sMFC Municipal wastewater 6 Months < 0.001 mW m−3 Platinum cathode [78]
Ipomoea aquatic CW-MFC Anaerobic sludge and nutrient 70 days 55.05 mW m−2 Granular activated carbon [79]
solution cathode
Rice plant (Oryza sativa ssp. Indica, PMFC Graphite granules/Vermiculite 100 Days 61.72 mW m−2 Graphite felt interwoven [60]
cultivar C101 PKT) carbon rods
a −2
Spartina anglica PMFC Plant growth medium 151 Days 679 mW m Graphite felt [8]
Rice (Oryza sativa cultivar Koral) PMFC Rice soil and Rhizodeposits 110 Days 15 ± 1 mA m−2 Carbon felt cathode [11]
Cyperus involucratus R Soil/Rhizodeposits N/A 5.99 mW m−2 Oxygen [65]
Canna indica CW-MFC Gravel support with wetland 140 Days 18 mW m−2 Annular carbon cloth, activated [68]
sediment carbon catalyst
Ipomoea aquatica CW-MFC Anaerobic sludge N/A 0.852 mW m−3 Stainless steel mesh activated [80]
carbon
Acorus Calamus PMFC Surface sediments 367 Days Graphite felt [67]
Canna indica CW-MFC Digested slurry N/A 320.8 mW m−3 Pt-coated carbon cloth [81]
Cattail (Typa latifolia) CW-MFC Mixed culture sludge N/A 6.12 mW m−2 Carbon felt [66]
Common reed (phragmites australis) CW-MFC Dewatered alum sludge and 90 Days 0.268 mW m−3 Granular graphite [82]
swine wastewater
Cape Bugle lily Watsonia sp. PMFC Soil from the CDER garden. 50 Days N/A Solid graphite [83]
Physcomitrella patens BryoMFC Paper and carbon fibre 70 Days 6.7 ± 0.6 mW m−2 Oxygen (Pt) [84]
Ryegrass (Lolium perenne) PMFC Acetate/Rhizodeposits 70 Days 55 mA m−2 Carbon felt cathode
Rice-plant (Oryza sativa L. cv. RPF-MFCs Rice paddy field N/A 140 mW m−2 Graphite felt [85]
Koshihikari)
Grass species (Sporobolasarabicus) PMFC Soil 2 Months 120 mW m−2 Graphite cathode [86]
Vallisneria spiralis L. P-SMFC Lake sediment 190 Days 3.16 mW m−2 Graphite felt [87]
Acorus tatarinowii, PSMFCs Silica sand and sediment 51 Days 21 mW m−2 Graphite felt [88]
Cattail (Typa latifolia) CW-MFC Synthetic wastewater 228 Days 93 mW m−3 Activated carbon [89]
Waterweed (Elodea nuttallii) CW-MFC Mixed culture sludge 276 Days 184.8 ± 7.5 mW m−3 Activated carbon [90]
Canna indica Concentrated activated sludge 90 Days 5.11 mW m−3 Foamed Nickel [91]
Common reed (phragmites australis) CW-MFC Anaerobic sludge 3 Months 0.15 mW m−3 Granular activated Carbon [92]
Phragmites australis CW-MFC Peat Soil/Salt marsh 160 Days 22 mW m−2 PGA Graphite felt [93]
Spartina anglica 82 mW m−2 PGA
Cyperus involucratus R. PMFC Soil and waste water 5 Days 5.99 mW m−2 Graphite felt [23]
Brassica juncea PMFC Compost soil mix 30 Days 69.32 mW m−2 Carbon cloth (clay mix [94]
Trigonella foenumgraecum 80.26 mW m−2 separator)
Canna stuttgart 222.54 mW m−2
(continued on next page)

405
F.T. Kabutey, et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 110 (2019) 402–414

Table 1 (continued)

Plant species Type of Substrates Operation Maximum Power Density Electron Acceptor Reference
PMFC period (PD)

Sedum album PMFC Sand, silt, clay, and organic 360 Days 0.0024 μW m−2 Graphite fiber felt and replaced [21]
Sedum sexangulare matter 0.0084 μW m−2 with activated carbon granules
Sedum rupestre 0.0155 μW m−2 (after 120 days startup)
Sedum hybridum 0.092 μW m−2
Sedum reflexum > 0.001 μW m−2
Sedum kamtschaticum > 0.001 μW m−2
Sedum spurium > 0.001 μW m−2
Vetiver plants (Vetiveria zizaniodes PMFC Garden soil N/A 242 ± 10.5 mA m−2 Graphite wire [95]
Nash)
Weeping alkaligrass (Puccinellia PMFC Potting mix/Rhizodeposits 114 Days 83.7 mW m−2 Manganese-catalyzed carbon [96]
distans)
2
Chlororophytumcomosum, DPPFC Garden soil 100 Days 18 mW m- Graphite [97]
Epipremnum aureum PMFC Cow dung and garden soil 60 Days 15.38 mW m-2 Carbon fiber cloth [98]
Dracaena braunii 12.78 mW m-2
Chasmanthe floribunda PMFC Garden soil 100 Days 0.21 mW m−2 Graphite cathode [97]
Papyrus cyperus 1.083 mW m−2
Chlorophytum comosum 18 mW/m−2
Rice plant (Oryza sativa) PMFC Urea fertilizer 5 Days 153.66 mW cm−2 N/A [99]

Note.
a
- The highest maximum power density recorded during PMFC operation, N/A - not available, PMFC - Plant Microbial Fuel Cell, pSMFC - Plant Sediment Microbial
Fuel Cell, R-MFC - Rhizosphere-MFC, CW-MFC - Constructed wetland–microbial fuel cell, BryoMFC - Bryophyte microbial fuel cell, DPPFC - Direct photosynthetic
plant fuel cell, pPMFC - Photosynthetic Plant Fuel Cell and RPF-MFCs - Rice paddy-field microbial fuel cells.

transfer the electrons to the anode [114]. The formation of biofilm on

the electrodes is influenced by the supporting matrix, plant species,
rhizosphere interactions, temperature, humidity, pH, dissolved oxygen
and substrate [22]. Therefore, a deep understanding of the effect of
these factors on microbial interactions and electron transfer at the
rhizosphere would be useful for development of bioremediation ap-
proaches to restore polluted ecosystems and generate bioelectricity.

2.4. Mechanism of substrate conversion and utilisation in PMFCs

The OM in the supporting matrix serves as the substrate and a

source of energy for EABs during PMFC operation [23,111]. Substrates
influence the EAB community at the anode and thus affect the perfor-
mance of the system in terms of power generation and coulombic ef-
ficiency [106]. Plants produce their own food, a portion of the carbo-
hydrate and organic substances which are not utilized or stored are
excreted at the root as rhizodeposits [115,116]. Rhizodeposition is the
loss of OM by plant roots into the root zone [47,117], which occurs
through the loss of root cap or border cell, flow of organic carbon to
Fig. 1. Schematic illustration of the mechanism of substrate conversion in
root-associated symbionts, gas emission, solute leakage and insoluble
PMFCs.
polymer release [118,119]. Rhizodeposits include exudates (sugars,
organic acids), secretions (polymeric carbohydrates and enzymes), ly-
sates (dead plant cell materials) as well as ethylene and CO2 gases the substrates into carbon dioxide, protons (H+) and electrons (e–)
[6,61], which are oxidized by EABs and other root-dwelling microbes to donated to the anode [10]. The electrons captured by the anode are
yield electrons [111,116]. Other reactions involved include chemical transferred to the cathode where oxygen is preferably reduced to water
oxidation of microbially produced reductants (humic acids, iron (II) and [71]. The extracellular transfer of electrons by microorganisms to the
sulphur compounds), microbial oxidation of sulphur to sulphate [120], anode has three pathways: (i) mediated electron transfer (Fig. 2a)
the oxidation of ammonia to nitrite/nitrate by ammonia-oxidizing [124], e.g. Shewanella and Pseudomonas secrete mediators (flavins) to
bacteria [22,121], conversion of carbonate into organic carbon by self- shuttle the electrons from bacteria to the anode surface [125,126]; (ii)
supporting bacteria, and hydrolysis of carbohydrates to acetate. All direct electron transfer by biofilm-forming bacteria (Fig. 2b), e.g. She-
these reactions also produce electrons which are transferred to the wanella and Geobacter species transfer electrons through cytochromes or
anode for bioelectricity generations (Fig. 1) [22,32]. pili [127], and (iii) electron transfer through nanowires (Fig. 2c), e.g.
Geobacter and Shewanella use conductive appendages for electron
transfer to the anode [128]. Additionally, the supporting matrix can
2.5. Electron transfer and bioelectricity generation in PMFCs
serve as an electron donor, for example, the inorganic elements in a soil
matrix can generate and transfer electrons through anaerobic respira-
Rhizodeposition forms about 40% or more of the plant's photo-
tion or chemical reactions to yield bioelectricity [22].
synthetic productivity [47,122], which is broken down by EABs and
The performance of PMFCs is influenced by the factors attributed to
other microbes such as prokaryotes (bacteria and archaea) and eu-
system design or environment. The factors related to system design are
karyotes (fungi, protozoa, nematodes and meso–and macrofauna) found
the type of bioreactor, plant species and health, electrode materials,
in the rhizosphere [71,123]. Under anaerobic conditions, microbes
external resistance, hydraulic retention time (HRT), type of electrode
oxidize the rhizodeposits for growth and development by converting

406
F.T. Kabutey, et al.
Fig. 2. Pathways of electron transfer from EABs to the anode surface: (a)
electron transfer through mediators, (b) direct electron transfer, and (c) elec-
tron transfer through nanowires [129,130].
and material, distance between electrodes and the positioning of elec-
trodes. The environmental factors include phototropism, temperature,
salinity, pH, DO, microbial community and OM content in the sup-
porting matrix. The effects of these factors are different and dependent
on the site of installation, for example, in a controlled environment
Fig. 3. Schematic illustration of variations of PMFCs: (a) Plant-MFC, (b) Macrophyte PMFC, (c) CW–MFCs, (d) Bryophyte MFC.
407
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 110 (2019) 402–414
such as a greenhouse, laboratory or in the field. The influencing factors
on PMFCs performance have been reviewed elsewhere. Doherty et al.
reviewed CW-MFCs and discussed the effects of organic loading, redox
conditions, wetland plants and bacteria [131]. Regmi et al. reviewed
the choice of plants, materials used, conductivity of the medium, pH,
humidity, temperature, and the health of plants, soils and microbes
[25]. Nitisoravut and Regmi discussed input signal (light and photo-
synthesis pathway), plants, rhizodeposition, microbial community, and
soil characteristics [23] on PMFCs performance. However, a key para-
meter of hydraulic retention time (HRT) influencing the performance of
PMFCs has not been discussed.
HRT depends on the influent flow rate or the flow of an aquatic
ecosystem, which has an effect on pollutant removal and bioelectricity
generation [132]. HRT is defined as the volume of a bioreactor divided
by the flow rate [133]. HRT determines the amount of OM present in a
bioreactor at a given period, thus influencing the performance of PMFC.
It has been shown that long HRT can result in a higher bioelectricity
generation and COD removal, which might be attributed to sufficient
contact between bacteria and substrate [134]. In an assessment of the
performance of a constructed wetland-MFC planted with C. indica, it
had been proven that longer HRT could lead to the more efficient
bioelectricity generation and dye removal [13]. Besides, plant biomass
are also affected by HRT as they may accumulate more at a longer HRT
[135], increase the root surface for nutrient absorption, microbial at-
tachment and rhizodeposition. HRTs can be controlled under laboratory
condition in contrast to the field because the rate of river flow is de-
termined by natural factors which are beyond human control [148].
Therefore, in the design of a field PMFC, the topography and the rate of
river flow are important parameters to be considered, which should be
incorporated in the system design for in-situ deployment.
F.T. Kabutey, et al.
3. Different configurations of PMFCs
The use of plants in MFCs to capture solar energy for bioelectricity
generation has led to the development of different configurations of
PMFCs. Although there are different system design and configurations,
the basic principle of PMFC operation is the same [24]. The PMFCs
utilising living plants and microbes are discussed in detail in the fol-
lowing sections.
3.1. PMFCs with vascular plants
The PMFCs with vascular plants are the MFCs with embedded living
plants, which were developed as a result of the shortage of OM flux at
the anolyte during operation (Fig. 3a) [24,61,136]. The living plant
growing in the anode chamber undergoes photosynthesis to convert
CO2 into carbohydrates and delivers OM in the rhizosphere to fuel the
anolyte [23]. The conversion of solar energy into in-situ bioelectricity
from plant rhizodeposition instead of the use of chemical catalysts and
other expensive proton exchange membranes makes PMFC an attractive
source of bioenergy [22,23]. The plant rhizosphere supports a wide
range of microbes and provides a surface for attachment of a con-
sortium of soil microbes to oxidize the OM to produce electrons as well
as transfer it to the anode [137,138]. The superiority of PMFC to con-
ventional SMFC is the sustainability of OM supply by plant roots at the
anode [131,139].
In the first PMFC study, G. maxima inserted at anode achieved a
maximum voltage and power output of 253 mV and 67 mW m−2, re-
spectively [6]. This was the initial example of a plant used to enhance
MFC bioelectricity generation. After the proof of the principle of PMFC
in 2008, maximum power density yields have increased by more than
100 folds, up to 679 mW m−2 per projected anode surface area [59].
Nevertheless, the power generation is still lower than the theoretically
estimated output of 3.2 mW m−2 per geometric planting area
(280,000 kWh ha−1 year−1) [24,140]. Presently, rice cultivars,
marshland grasses, wetland and other plant rhizospheres have been
explored on both lab-scale or in-situ to tell the effects of root exudates,
EABs and influencing factors on PMFC performance [58]. Besides, the
plants, EABs and optimum operating conditions upscaling for com-
mercial PMFC applications have also been investigated [6]. The highest
power output has been increased from 67 mW m−2 in 2008 [6],
222 mW m−2 in 2010 [7], to 679 mW m−2 in 2015 [8], with current
outputs being greater or equal to those of the systems with plants as sole
organic substrate (Table 1) [140].
3.2. Macrophyte PMFC
The macrophyte MFC is an ecologically engineered system in which
macrophytes are used as the biota (Fig. 3b). Macrophytes are multi-
cellular aquatic plants which can be seen with the naked eye, growing
submerged, floating or emergent through the water surface in marine,
estuarine or in riverine ecosystems [141,142]. They form important
parts of aquatic habitats as they provide shelter [143], food [144] or
influence the hydrology and sediment dynamics of aquatic systems.
Macrophytes manufacture their food via photosynthesis, and the rhi-
zodeposits and exudates produced are utilized as additional OM in the
CW-MFC for electricity production [41]. The plant biomass increases
the surface availability for biofilm growth [145], root structure filters
the surface water, release O2 to influence the redox potential to enhance
nitrification process and also supports heavy-metal sedimentation
[146]. The plant species have major effects on the removal efficiencies
of pollutants (N, P and heavy metals) as well as microbial communities
[147]. The O2 excreted from macrophytes during photosynthesis is used
in the construction of efficient biocathodes for PMFCs [75]. Mohan
et al. [148] used submerged and emergent macrophytes with filter
feeders to treat domestic sewage (DS) and fermented-distillery waste-
water (FDW) from a hydrogen producing bioreactor, the system could
408
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 110 (2019) 402–414
significantly remove COD, nitrate and turbidity. Kumar et al. [149]
used an ecologically engineered treatment system (EETS) with different
biota to evaluate the natural attenuation of estrogenic endocrine dis-
rupting compounds (EDCs) such as estriol (E3, natural) and 17 [α]-
Ethinylestradiol (EE2, synthetic) during domestic sewage treatment,
the macrophyte system was effective in removing estrogens E3 by
61.77%, while achieving the removal efficiency of 93.56% for E3 and
95.34% for EE2, respectively. Mohan et al. [39] used a miniature
floating macrophyte ecosystem (FME) in an SMFC to treat domestic
sewage and fermented distillery effluents, they concluded that the de-
sign of a hybrid system could effectively treat the wastewater, making
the process economical and eco-friendly. Later, Chiranjeevi et al. [150]
used submerged and emergent macrophyte based system (SEMS) in-
serted with SMFC to generate bioelectricity with concurrent wastewater
treatment. The hydroponics including Bryophyllum pinnatum, Solanum
lycopersicum (tomato), Oryza sativa (rice), Lycopodium, Adiantum
(Ferns), submerged plants (Hydrilla verticillata, Myriophyllum) and algae
were proven to be effective in treating sewage and fermented distillery
wastewater.
3.3. Constructed wetland-MFC (CW-MFC)
The constructed wetland-MFC is a water pollution control system
which combines the advantages of MFC and constructed wetland
(Fig. 3c) [131]. CW-MFC receives wastewater and then discharge the
effluent in the presence of plants which act as aeration [14,151]. The
compatibility of this hybrid system is that two biological systems are
used to degrade OM. Furthermore, the PMFC requirement for a redox
gradient between the electrodes naturally exists in CWs depending on
the direction of influent flow and the depth of the wetland [78,131].
However, the difference is that the EABs in PMFCs are fed by rhizo-
deposits with the aim of producing green electricity [6], while the EABs
in CWs are fed with both rhizodeposits and wastewater for the purpose
of wastewater treatment [131]. The benefit of CW-MFC system is that it
takes the advantages of MFC and CW to achieve wastewater treatment
and bioenergy generation concurrently [74]. Plants in the CW-MFC
undergo photosynthesis to produce rhizodeposits and exudates at the
roots which are used as sources of OM at the anode for microbial oxi-
dation to produce electrical power [71]. The insertion of plant roots at
the cathode excretes O2 via the rhizosphere to improve the performance
of the CW-MFC [152]. Plant biomass will also absorb dissolved nu-
trients [153] and heavy metals [154] to improve removal efficiency
during wastewater treatment.
The first CW-MFC was reported by Yadav [155]. Thereafter, several
systems such as vertical flow subsurface system [13,74], horizontal
subsurface flow system [76] and surface flow system with floating
macrophytes [39,150] have been developed and tested. They were used
in the treatment of different kinds of wastewater, and some of the re-
ported maximum power densities of CW-MFCs were 80 mW m−2 [39],
35 mW m−2 [13], 43 mW m−2 [76] and 184.75 ± 7.50 mW m−3 [90],
respectively.
3.4. Bryophyte MFC system
Bryophytes are plants without vascular tissues [177], which are
more tolerant to dehydration than other plants [84,156]. This unique
physiology enables them to accumulate water and nutrients to survive
in a wide range of temperature and habitats. Bryophytes have no roots
but possess hair-like rhizoids which bind them to the surface on which
they grow, they stabilize soils and prevent nutrient loss by erosion. The
bryophyte biomass placed in the anode chamber serves as a source of
OM for the microbial consortia and influences carbon/nitrogen cycling
between the atmosphere and PMFC to generate power [84,156]. Hu-
benova and Mitov [157] reported the first bryophyte MFC (bryoMFC) in
2011, using the forest moss Dicranum montanum (Fig. 3d). Later, a moss
plant of Physcomitrella patens was studied in a bryoMFC to generate
F.T. Kabutey, et al.
bioelectricity with a maximum power output of 6.7 ± 0.6 mW m−2
[84].
In summary, the hybrid CW-MFC system can be used to treat was-
tewater and generate bioelectricity concurrently. For polluted eco-
system remediation, GHG mitigation with bioelectricity generation, the
PMFCs embedded with vascular plants are appropriate. In the case of
removing nutrient pollutants and heavy metals and simultaneously
generating bioelectricity, the macrophyte PMFC or CW-MFC is re-
commended.
4. Applications of PMFCs
PMFCs was proposed to enhance OM supply at the anodes of SMFCs
for long-term in-situ bioelectricity generation [22]. However, this
technology has diverse applications including monitoring of environ-
mental conditions [158], biosensing of plant maturity [58], bior-
emediation of polluted waters, recovery of heavy metals from con-
taminated environments [42], generation of bioelectricity from paddy
field, rhizosphere and wetlands [32]. Beside, many related products are
emerging [24,159]. The main applications of PMFCs are discussed
below.
4.1. Wastewater treatment
PMFCs have been employed in the generation of bioelectricity from
diverse wastewater and they have been proven to be eco-friendly with
high organics removal and stable power generation capabilities than
other treatment systems [42]. Mohan et al. [39] used a miniature
floating macrophyte ecosystem with Eichornia as the biota to evaluate
bioelectricity generation using domestic sewage and fermented dis-
tillery wastewater. The PMFC showed effective removal of COD
(86.67%) and VFA (72.32%) and bioelectricity generation of
(224.93 mA/m2). In a preliminary study of CW-MFC implanted with
common reed, (P. australis) by Zhao et al. [75], swine wastewater was
treated using aeration at the cathode to enhance system performance.
The maximum power density and COD removal were 9.4 mW m−2 and
76.5%, respectively. In an upflow CW-MFC planted with cattail (Typha
latifolia) to treat wastewater and generate bioelectricity, a maximum
power density of 6.12 mW m−2 and coulombic efficiency of 8.6% were
observed with 100% removal of COD, 40% of NO3− and 91% of NH4+
[66]. In an alum sludge-based CW-MFC planted with common reed
(Phragmites australis) for nutrient removal from swine slurry while
producing bioelectricity, ammonium was removed by 75%, total and
reactive phosphorous were removed by 85–86%, and a maximum
power output of 0.268 mW m−3 was obtained [82]. When the cattail
plant was used in an up-flow CW-MFC to treat synthetic wastewater,
99% of COD, 46% of NO3− and 96% of NH4+ were removed, while
yielding a maximum power density of 93 mW m−3 and a coulombic
efficiency of 1.42% [89]. In a hybrid CW-MFC using cattail as biota for
bioelectricity generation and Boron removal from industrial waste-
water, a maximum power density of 78 mW m−2 and Baron removal of
3.4% were achieved [160]. Recently, to improve the sustainability of
CW-MFC for synthetic wastewater treatment, Xu et al. [161] observed
that total nitrogen removal could be increased from 53.1% to 75.4%
during the operational period, although the integrated system resulted
in a decrease in power density from 2 mW m−3 to less than
0.5 mW m−3. Generally, the bioelectricity generation in PMFCs during
wastewater treatment is comparatively low, however, the PMFCs show
a promising ability to continuously supply stable power for low energy
devices [122].
4.2. Remediation of polluted sediments and surface water
Plant microbial fuel cells have attracted more attention for sedi-
ments and surface water remediation through the degradation of OM
and rhizodeposits in sediments by EABs [6]. In an experiment to
409
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 110 (2019) 402–414
produce bioelectricity from wetland ecosystem rich in OM using
SPMFCs with Typha domingensis Pers. as the biota, sediment OM was
degraded to achieve a maximum power density of
6.12 ± 2.53 mW m−2 without the addition of other carbon sources
[70]. An investigation into the internal nitrogen removal in sediment-
water microcosms by coupling SMFC with submerged aquatic plants
revealed that nitrogen could be removed by 25.3%, while power den-
sity of 4.42 and 3.16 mW m−2 were generated in the planted and
closed-SMFCs, respectively [87]. When the performance of MFC cou-
pled surface flow CW system using submerged Hydrilla verticillata plants
was evaluated for sediment treatment and bioelectricity generation, the
CW-MFC exhibited 31.25% of NH4+-N removal, with a maximum cell
voltage of 558.50 mV [162]. Furthermore, the SMFC with Cer-
atophyllum demersum was operated for 56 days to assess the removal of
NO3− from 15NO3− amended sediment and surface water, the coex-
istence of the electrogenesis and plants increased the removal of nitrate
by 23.1% compared to the control SMFC [163]. Also, a PSMFC with
different plant species, including Oryza sativa, Acorus calamus, Spathi-
phyllum petite and Chamaedorea elegans was built and assessed for sul-
fide removal and oxidation–reduction potential (ORP) from the sedi-
ment and surface water, the conclusions were the sulfide concentration
decreased in the sediment while ORP in both the water and sediments
increased due to the presences of the plants [164]. The studies above
suggest that river sediments and surface water can be continuously used
to generate bioelectricity without harvesting plants. The system can be
fully incorporated into aquatic ecosystems to contribute to ecological
restoration as well as increase the biodiversity and the aesthetic value.
4.3. Greenhouse gas mitigation
The soils in the rice paddy fields and wetlands are rich in organic
substrates, which support the growth of hydrophytes and microbes to
produce bioenergy [59]. There exists the evidence that PMFCs have
been successfully installed in wetlands and paddy fields to reduce me-
thane gas emission and produce bioelectricity [19,60]. The anoxic-oxic
interface created at the soil/sediment–water interface and rhizodeposits
provides the suitable conditions necessary for the installation and op-
eration of PMFCs in the ecosystem [165,166]. It has been reported that
reduction in methane gas occurs spontaneously by inserting the anode
of a PMFC at the rhizosphere in the paddy field or wetland, while the
cathode placed in the surface water [59,167]. About 50% methane
reduction has been observed in pot-cultured rice rhizosphere of PMFCs
[60,69]. To mitigate methane gas emission and harvest bioelectricity
from wetland, a plant-mediated methane removal of 71–82% with a
maximum current density of 187 mA m−2 were achieved in a CW-MFC
system [168]. In a study of rice plant cultured PMFC study with a
mixture of vermiculite and graphite granules supporting matrix, 20 fold
reduction of methane gas was observed with simultaneous bioelec-
tricity generation [69]. A Sediment-type MFC operated in a rice paddy
field to convert the root exudates into bioelectricity through anode-
associated EABs realized that Geobacter psychrophilus and related spe-
cies could grow on the anodes to generate a maximum power density of
19 ± 3.2 mW m−2 [62]. Also, a paddy field PMFC with graphite felt
anode inserted at the rhizosphere and the cathode placed in the flooded
water yielded a maximum power density of 6 mW m−2 [59]. An as-
sessment of bioenergy generation in an earthen membrane double
chamber PMFC under greenhouse condition recorded a maximum
power output of 60 mW m−2 in the DPMFC, which were 55% greater
than that achieved in the SPMFC with methane gas emitted from the
microcosm [169]. Thus, the installation of PMFCs in wetlands and rice
paddy fields shows to be a coping strategy in greenhouse gas mitigation
and bioelectricity generation.
4.4. Biosensing
MFC-based technology research has extended the scope for a variety
F.T. Kabutey, et al.
of applications such as biosensors [170]. Biosensors are analytical de-
vices used for finding analytes that use biological components as a
physicochemical detector attached to a physical transducer [171,172].
Photosynthetic organisms are used in biosensors for the detection of
environmental pollutants, photovoltaic devices for power generation,
photosensors, and phototransistors as fuel cell for biosensing
[173,174]. When a PMFC was constructed with the dual aims of bio-
sensing plant health and generating power to supply a wireless elec-
tronic system to correlate health status with relevant environmental
factors, a maximum voltage output of 502 mV and a maximum current
of 590 μA were produced to serve as a source of energy and a biosensor
jointly [175]. The drought-tolerant plant Sedum species were tested in
both bench- and pilot-scale PMFCs to monitor bioelectricity generation
and water retention in a green roof, it showed a maximum power
density of 114.6 μW m−2 and water retention of 27%, representing a
low-cost water content biosensor for green roofs [176]. In a concept
proof of PMFC system that can produce electrical power to sustain a
standard TMote Sky wireless sensor network node coupled with an
ultra-low power wake-up receiver, stable power was generated for 20
trigger signals in 2 min and all the signals got to the receiver [177].
When a PMFC serving as a self-sustaining ultra-low power device was
tested to supply power for smart sensing and long-range communica-
tion, a maximum power of 400 μW was generated, indicating that the
system could sustain such infrastructure virtually forever with the only
requirement of plant watering [178]. A “floating garden” PMFC was
constructed and operated in little lakes and ponds, a power output of
40 mWh d−1 was obtained via simple DC/DC converters to power en-
vironment sensing signals which allowed for remote data transmission
[179]. Also, a PMFC yielding sub-milliwatt power during the operation
was enough to self-sustain a wireless sensor node to monitor both the
surrounding environment and flora health [180]. To sum up, the
bioenergy generated in the PMFC applications was enough to power
environmental biosensors and remote devices that require continuous,
stable and low power sources without breaks.
5. Biocompatibility and cost of PMFC components
Compared to the conventional SMFCs, the operation of PMFCs with
living plants does not require the use of toxic, injurious, or physiolo-
gically reactive chemicals especially during their in-situ applications.
Since the PMFC components such as electrodes, membranes, conductors
and bioreactor are inert and not perishable, they can be reused after
microwave treatment, thermal exposure, and acidic or alkaline diges-
tion [181]. Conversely, the vulnerable components such as electrical
circuits, perishable supporting matrix and living plants can be easily
replaced, dried and disposed. Deng et al. [22] asserted that for a con-
ventional MFC system, the cost of reactor alone accounted for 68.5%,
electrodes 8.2%, membrane 11%, mediator 1.4%, and collector 2.7%.
In contrast, a PMFC can be constructed by inserting the electrodes into
the natural environment rich in OM (e.g. rhizosphere/paddy), the ex-
pensive PEM, pumping system necessary for feeding and mixing are not
required [182]. Thus, it can be concluded that the PMFCs can run to
harvest bioenergy for a long period without the replacement of their
components, making PMFC technology inexpensive as compared to the
conventional MFCs.
6. Prospects and challenges of PMFCs
The PMFC technology converts solar energy into bioelectricity by
combining deposition of the secreted organic compounds from plants
into the rhizosphere and oxidation of organic compounds with EABs
[23,59]. However, this technology has now been combined with other
wastewater and pollution control regimes in which nutrients are re-
cycled for bioelectricity generations without nutrient depletion. Cur-
rently, hybrid PMFC technologies have been explored to show positive
results in complex wastewater treatment and polluted ecosystem
410
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 110 (2019) 402–414
remediation with simultaneous bioelectricity generation. These in-
dicate that the individual weakness of the PMFC technology can be
overcome by coupling it with other technologies to compensate for the
individual limitations.
The prospects of PMFCs include: (i) PMFCs are capable of con-
tinuous bioelectricity generation without harvesting the plant, there-
fore, they can produce stable power all year round for biosensing,
monitoring of ecological and water quality in remote areas while re-
mediating the ecosystem [25]; (ii) PMFCs can be applied in locations
unsuitable for food production such as green roofs and wetlands to
restrain the rate of rainwater flow, parks and gardens to add aesthetic
value, and indoors to reduce GHG emissions and to keep temperature
stable [23], and (iii) PMFCs can be integrated into agricultural lands
without competition with food production (rice paddy field) for arable
lands to harvest bioelectricity [116,183].
The major challenge of PMFCs is their low bioelectricity generation,
therefore, further researches are necessary for (i) improvement in re-
actor design, configuration and electrode modification to optimize the
operational conditions for commercial application [23, 184], (ii)
identification and selection of plant species with unique growth habits
and characteristics to excrete different organic substrate for the root-
dwelling EABs to produce electrons for bioelectricity generation, and
(iii) genetic isolation and engineering of EABs strains that can effi-
ciently disintegrate different substrates for sustainable bioelectricity
generation.
7. Conclusions
Fossil fuels are finite resources such that their continuous con-
sumption over time will eventually lead to complete depletion.
Concerns surrounding this risk have persisted for decades following the
rapid population growth and urbanisation in many parts of the globe.
Arguably the most well-known challenge besides the over exploitation
of these fossil fuels, includes the emission of air pollutants that are
harmful to both the environment and public health. Under these cir-
cumstances, the generation of energy from alternative, renewable,
sustainable, and eco-friendly sources such as from microbes and plants
are most welcome. Amongst all the bioelectricity generation ap-
proaches, PMFC has been identified as a promising alternative. The
single and double-chambered PMFC are two basic designs with living
plants embedded in the supporting matrix. They operate on the loss of
OM by plant excretion of rhizodeposits and EABs oxidation to release
electrons for bioelectricity generation. Non-food plants such as marsh-
land grasses, wetland plants and aquatic macrophytes are preferred for
in-situ PMFC applications. The initial maximum power density has in-
creased from 67 mW m−2 to 679 mW m−2. PMFCs are capable of re-
mediating polluted ecosystem and generating bioelectricity, however,
they have a shortcoming of low power output compared to the theo-
retical estimated net power output of 3.2 mW m−2 per geometric
planting area (280,000 kWh ha−1 year−1) because of OM limitation for
EAB oxidization and higher internal resistance at the anode. The im-
provement of PMFC performance can be achieved by using cost-effec-
tive and efficient bioreactor components, plant species with high rhi-
zodeposition, EABs with high metabolic ability (extracellular electron
transfer) and optimizing the operational conditions. It should be
pointed out that PMFC will become an alternative bioelectricity gen-
eration process to solve the problems of energy scarcity and related
environmental deterioration when it is scaled up and applied in-situ.
Acknowledgement
This work was supported by the National Nature Science
Foundation of China (Grant No.51778176); and the State Key
Laboratory of Urban Water Resource and Environment (20169DX07),
Harbin Institute of Technology, China.
F.T. Kabutey, et al.
References
[1] Baicha Z, Salar-García MJ, Ortiz-Martínez VM, Hernández-Fernández FJ, De los
Ríos AP. A critical review on microalgae as an alternative source for bioenergy
production: a promising low cost substrate for microbial fuel cells. Fuel Process
Technol 2016;154:104–16.
[2] United Bongaarts J. Nations department of economic and social affairs, population
division world mortality report 2005. Popul Dev Rev 2006;32(3):594–6.
[3] Sekar N, Ramasamy RP. Recent advances in photosynthetic energy conversion. J
Photoch Photobio C 2015;22:19–33.
[4] Smagghe G. Communications in agricultural and applied biological sciences for-
merly known as mededelingen faculteit landbouwkundige en toegepaste biolo-
gische wetenschappen [dissertation]. Belgium: Ghent University; 2011.
[5] Powell RJ, White R, Hill RT. Merging metabolism and power: development of a
novel photobioelectric device driven by photosynthesis and respiration. PLoS One
2014;9(1):e86518.
[6] Strik DP, Hamelers HVM, Snel JF, Buisman CJ. Green electricity production with
living plants and bacteria in a fuel cell. Int J Energy Res 2008;32(9):870–6.
[7] Helder M, Strik DPBTB, Hamelers HVM, Kuhn AJ, Blok C, Buisman CJN.
Concurrent bio-electricity and biomass production in three Plant-Microbial Fuel
Cells using Spartina anglica, Arundinella anomala and Arundo donax. Bioresour
Technol 2010;101(10):3541–7.
[8] Wetser K, Sudirjo E, Buisman CJ, Strik DP. Electricity generation by a plant mi-
crobial fuel cell with an integrated oxygen reducing biocathode. Appl Energy
2015;137:151–7.
[9] Moqsud MA, Yoshitake J, Bushra QS, Hyodo M, Omine K, Strik D. Compost in plant
microbial fuel cell for bioelectricity generation. J Mater Cycles Waste
2015;36:63–9.
[10] De Schamphelaire L, Cabezas A, Marzorati M, Friedrich MW, Boon N, Verstraete
W. Microbial community analysis of anodes from sediment microbial fuel cells
powered by rhizodeposits of living rice plants. Appl Environ Microbiol
2010;76(6):2002–8.
[11] Cabezas A, Pommerenke B, Boon N, Friedrich MW. Geobacter, Anaeromyxobacter
and Anaerolineae populations are enriched on anodes of root exudate‐driven mi-
crobial fuel cells in rice field soil. Environ Microbiol Rep 2015;7(3):489–97.
[12] Ramadan BS, Hidayat S, Iqbal R. Plant microbial fuel cells (PMFCs): green tech-
nology for achieving sustainable water and energy. In Proceedings book of the 7th
basic science international conference basics science for improving survival and
quality of life; 2017 mar 7-8; malang, Indonesia. p. 82-85.
[13] Yadav AK, Dash P, Mohanty A, Abbassi R, Mishra BK. Performance assessment of
innovative constructed wetland-microbial fuel cell for electricity production and
dye removal. Ecol Eng 2012;47:126–31.
[14] Xu L, Zhao Y, Doherty L, Hu Y, Hao X. The integrated processes for wastewater
treatment based on the principle of microbial fuel cells: a review. Crit Rev Environ
Sci Technol 2016;46(1):60–91.
[15] Bombelli P, Dennis RJ, Felder F, Cooper MB, Iyer DMR, Royles J, Harrison ST,
Smith AG, Harrison CJ, Howe CJ. Electrical output of bryophyte microbial fuel cell
systems is sufficient to power a radio or an environmental sensor. Royal Soc Open
Sci 2016;3(10):160249.
[16] Takanezawa K, Nishio K, Kato S, Hashimoto K, Watanabe K. Factors affecting
electric output from rice-paddy microbial fuel cells. Biosci Biotechnol Biochem
2010;74(6):1271–3.
[17] Sudirjo E, Buisman CJN, Strik DPBTB. Electricity generation from wetlands with
activated carbon bioanode IOP Institute of physics publishing conference series:
earth and environmental science; 2018 marchBristol, UK: IOP Publishing;
2018:012046.
[18] Helder M, Chen WS, Van Der Harst EJ, Strik DP, Hamelers HBV, Buisman CJ,
Potting J. Electricity production with living plants on a green roof: environmental
performance of the plant‐microbial fuel cell. Biofuel Bioprod Biorefin
2013;7(1):52–64.
[19] Wetser K, Liu J, Buisman C, Strik D. Plant microbial fuel cell applied in wetlands:
spatial, temporal and potential electricity generation of Spartina anglica salt
marshes and Phragmites australis peat soils. Biomass Bioenergy 2015;83:543–50.
[20] Helder M, Strik DP, Timmers RA, Raes SM, Hamelers HV, Buisman CJ. Resilience
of roof-top plant-microbial fuel cells during Dutch winter. Biomass Bioenergy
2013;51:1–7.
[21] Tapia NF, Rojas C, Bonilla CA, Vargas IT. Evaluation of sedum as driver for plant
microbial fuel cells in a semi-arid green roof ecosystem. Ecol Eng
2017;108:203–10.
[22] Deng H, Chen Z, Zhao F. Energy from plants and microorganisms: progress in
plant–microbial fuel cells. ChemSusChem 2012;5(6):1006–11.
[23] Nitisoravut R, Regmi R. Plant microbial fuel cells: a promising Biosystems en-
gineering. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2017;76:81–9.
[24] Strik DP, Timmers RA, Helder M, Steinbusch KJ, Hamelers HV, Buisman CJ.
Microbial solar cells: applying photosynthetic and electrochemically active or-
ganisms. Trends Biotechnol 2011;29(1):41–9.
[25] Regmi R, Nitisoravut R, Ketchaimongkol J. A decade of plant-assisted microbial
fuel cells: looking back and moving forward. Biofuel Bioprod Bior 2018:1–8.
[26] Cheng S, Liu W. Microbial fuel cells and other bio-electrochemical conversion
devices. In: Kwong-Yu C, Chi-Ying VL, editors. Electrochemically enabled sus-
tainability. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 2014. p. 66–131.
[27] Kokabian B, Gude VG. Photosynthetic microbial desalination cells (PMDCs) for
clean energy, water and biomass production. Environ Sci Process Impacts
2013;15(12):2178–85.
[28] Rabaey K, Lissens G, Siciliano SD, Verstraete W. A microbial fuel cell capable of
411
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 110 (2019) 402–414
converting glucose to electricity at high rate and efficiency. Biotechnol Lett
2003;25(18):1531–5.
[29] Min B, Logan BE. Continuous electricity generation from domestic wastewater and
organic substrates in a flat plate microbial fuel cell. Environ Sci Technol
2004;38(21):5809–14.
[30] Chiranjeevi P, Yeruva DK, Kumar AK, Mohan SV, Varjani S. Plant-microbial fuel
cell technology. Microbial electrochemical technology. Elsevier; 2019. p. 549–64.
[31] Chan Kwong-Yu, Chi-Ying Vanessa Li, editors. Electrochemically enabled sus-
tainability: devices, materials and mechanisms for energy conversion. first ed.Boca
Raton, Florida: CRC Press; 2014.
[32] Kouzuma A, Kaku N, Watanabe K. Microbial electricity generation in rice paddy
fields: recent advances and perspectives in rhizosphere microbial fuel cells. Appl
Microbiol Biotechnol 2014;98(23):9521–6.
[33] Wolińska A, Stępniewska Z, Bielecka A, Ciepielski J. Bioelectricity production from
soil using microbial fuel cells. Appl Biochem Biotechnol 2014;173(8):2287–96.
[34] Jiang D, Li B, Jia W, Lei Y. Effect of inoculum types on bacterial adhesion and
power production in microbial fuel cells. Appl Biochem Biotechnol
2010;160(1):182.
[35] Liu H, Cheng S, Logan BE. Production of electricity from acetate or butyrate using
a single-chamber microbial fuel cell. Environ Sci Technol 2005;39(2):658–62.
[36] Roesch LF, Fulthorpe RR, Riva A, Casella G, Hadwin AK, Kent AD, Daroub SH,
Camargo FA, Farmerie WG, Triplett EW. Pyrosequencing enumerates and contrasts
soil microbial diversity. ISME J 2007;1(4):283.
[37] Goto Y, Yoshida N, Umeyama Y, Yamada T, Tero R, Hiraishi A. Enhancement of
electricity production by graphene oxide in soil microbial fuel cells and plant
microbial fuel cells. Front Bioeng Biotechnol 2015;3:42.
[38] Timmers RA, Strik DP, Hamelers HV, Buisman CJ. Long-term performance of a
plant microbial fuel cell with Spartina anglica. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol
2010;86(3):973–81.
[39] Mohan SV, Mohanakrishna G, Chiranjeevi P. Sustainable power generation from
floating macrophytes based ecological microenvironment through embedded fuel
cells along with simultaneous wastewater treatment. Bioresour Technol
2011;102(14):7036–42.
[40] Helder M, Strik DPBTB, Hamelers HVM, Kuijken RCP, Buisman CJN. New plant-
growth medium for increased power output of the plant-microbial fuel cell.
Bioresour Technol 2012;104:417–23.
[41] Liu S, Song H, Li X, Yang F. Power generation enhancement by utilizing plant
photosynthate in microbial fuel cell coupled constructed wetland system. Int J
Photoenergy 2013;172010:10https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/172010.
[42] Habibul N, Hu Y, Wang YK, Chen W, Yu HQ, Sheng GP. Bioelectrochemical
chromium (VI) removal in plant-microbial fuel cells. Environ Sci Technol
2016;50(7):3882–9.
[43] Ali H, Khan E, Sajad MA. Phytoremediation of heavy metals-concepts and appli-
cations. Chemosphere 2013;91(7):869–81.
[44] Förstner U, Wittmann GT. Metal pollution in the aquatic environment. second ed.
Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg; 2012. p. 475.
[45] Kadlec RH, Wallace S. Treatment wetlands. second ed. Boca Raton, FL: CRC press;
2008. p. 1046.
[46] Regmi R. Examining different classes of plants under various operating conditions
for bioelectricity production. Plant microbial fuel cell [dissertation]. Thailand:
Thammasat University; 2017.
[47] Hubenova Y, Mitov M. Conversion of solar energy into electricity by using duck-
weed in direct photosynthetic plant fuel cell. Bioelectrochemistry
2012;87:185–91.
[48] Kothapalli AL. Sediment microbial fuel cell as sustainable power resource [dis-
sertaion]. Milwaukee, Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee; 2013.
[49] Li H, Qu Y, Tian Y, Feng Y. The plant-enhanced bio-cathode: root exudates and
microbial community for nitrogen removal. J Environ Sci 2019;77:97–103.
[50] Jethwa KB, Bajpai S. Role of plants in constructed wetlands (CWS): a review.
JCHPS 2016;974:2115.
[51] Xu B, Ge Z, He Z. Sediment microbial fuel cells for wastewater treatment: chal-
lenges and opportunities. Environ Sci Water Res Technol 2015;1(3):279–84.
[52] Timmers RA, Strik DP, Arampatzoglou C, Buisman CJ, Hamelers HV. Rhizosphere
anode model explains high oxygen levels during operation of a Glyceria maxima
PMFC. Bioresour Technol 2012;108:60–7.
[53] Valipour A, Ahn Y-H. Constructed wetlands as sustainable ecotechnologies in de-
centralization practices: a review. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int 2016;23(1):180–97.
[54] Eynard A, Lal R, Wiebe K. Crop response in salt-affected soils. J Sustain Agric
2005;27(1):5–50.
[55] Strik DP, Terlouw H, Hamelers HV, Buisman CJ. Renewable sustainable biocata-
lyzed electricity production in a photosynthetic algal microbial fuel cell (PAMFC).
Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 2008;81(4):659–68.
[56] Halan B, Tschörtner J, Schmid A. Generating electric current by bioartificial
photosynthesis. In: Scheper TH, Belkin S, Bley TH, Bohlmann J, Gu MB, Hu W-S,
editors. Advances in biochemical engineering/biotechnology. Berlin, Heidelberg:
Springer; 2018. p. 1–33.
[57] Narula D. Generation of electricity using Spartina patens with stainless steel cur-
rent collectors in a plant-microbial fuel cell [dissertation] Lamar: University-
Beaumont; 2017.
[58] Chen Z, Huang YC, Liang JH, Zhao F, Zhu YG. A novel sediment microbial fuel cell
with a biocathode in the rice rhizosphere. Bioresour Technol 2012;108:55–9.
[59] Kaku N, Yonezawa N, Kodama Y, Watanabe K. Plant/microbe cooperation for
electricity generation in a rice paddy field. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol
2008;79(1):43–9.
[60] Arends JB, Speeckaert J, Blondeel E, De Vrieze J, Boeckx P, Verstraete W, Rabaey
K, Boon N. Greenhouse gas emissions from rice microcosms amended with a plant
F.T. Kabutey, et al.
microbial fuel cell. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 2014;98(7):3205–17.
[61] Schamphelaire LD, Bossche LVD, Dang HS, Höfte M, Boon N, Rabaey K, Verstraete
W. Microbial fuel cells generating electricity from rhizodeposits of rice plants.
Environ Sci Technol 2008;42(8):3053–8.
[62] Kouzuma A, Kasai T, Nakagawa G, Yamamuro A, Abe T, Watanabe K. Comparative
metagenomics of anode-associated microbiomes developed in rice paddy-field
microbial fuel cells. PLoS One 2013;8(11):77443.
[63] Bombelli P, Iyer DMR, Covshoff S, McCormick AJ, Yunus K, Hibberd JM, Fisher
AC, Howe CJ. Comparison of power output by rice (Oryza sativa) and an associated
weed (Echinochloa glabrescens) in vascular plant bio-photovoltaic (VP-BPV) sys-
tems. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 2013;97(1):429–38.
[64] Chiranjeevi P, Mohanakrishna G, Mohan SV. Rhizosphere mediated electrogenesis
with the function of anode placement for harnessing bioenergy through CO2 se-
questration. Bioresour Technol 2012;124:364–70.
[65] Klaisongkram N, Holasut K. Electricity generation of plant microbial fuel cell
(PMFC) using Cyperus involucratus R. KKU Eng J 2014;42:117–24.
[66] Oon YL, Ong SA, Ho LN, Wong YS, Oon YS, Lehl HK, Thung WE. Hybrid system up-
flow constructed wetland integrated with microbial fuel cell for simultaneous
wastewater treatment and electricity generation. Bioresour Technol
2015;186:270–5.
[67] Yan Z, Jiang H, Cai H, Zhou Y, Krumholz LR. Complex interactions between the
macrophyte Acorus calamus and microbial fuel cells during pyrene and benzo [a]
pyrene degradation in sediments. Sci Rep 2015;5:10709.
[68] Lu L, Xing D, Ren ZJ. Microbial community structure accompanied with electricity
production in a constructed wetland plant microbial fuel cell. Bioresour Technol
2015;195:115–21.
[69] Cabezas da Rosa A. Diversity and function of the microbial community on anodes
of sediment microbial fuel cells fueled by root exudates [dissertaion]. Marburg:
Philipps-Universität Marburg; 2010.
[70] Cervantes-Alcalá R, Arrocha-Arcos AA, Peralta-Peláez LA, Ortega-Clemente LA.
Electricity generation in sediment plant microbial fuel cells (SPMFC) in warm
climates using Typha domingensis Pers. Biotechnol Res Int 2012;3(9):166–73.
[71] Timmers RA, Rothballer M, Strik DP, Engel M, Schulz S, Schloter M. Microbial
community structure elucidates performance of Glyceria maxima plant microbial
fuel cell. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 2012;94(2):537–48.
[72] Wenli LXSHX, Lei W. Electricity generation during wastewater treatment by a
microbial fuel cell coupled with constructed wetland. J Southeast Univ
2012(2):010.
[73] Timmers RA, Strik DP, Hamelers HV, Buisman CJ. Electricity generation by a novel
design tubular plant microbial fuel cell. Biomass Bioenergy 2013;51:60–7.
[74] Fang Z, Song HL, Cang N, Li XN. Performance of microbial fuel cell coupled
constructed wetland system for decolorization of azo dye and bioelectricity gen-
eration. Bioresour Technol 2013;144:165–71.
[75] Zhao Y, Collum S, Phelan M, Goodbody T, Doherty L, Hu Y. Preliminary in-
vestigation of constructed wetland incorporating microbial fuel cell: batch and
continuous flow trials. Chem Eng J 2013;229:364–70.
[76] Villasenor J, Capilla P, Rodrigo MA, Canizares P, Fernandez FJ. Operation of a
horizontal subsurface flow constructed wetland-microbial fuel cell treating was-
tewater under different organic loading rates. Water Res 2013;47(17):6731–8.
[77] Wu X, Song T, Zhu X, Zhou C, Wei P. Research on different wetland plants to
construct the plant-sediment microbial fuel cell. Renew Energy 2013;31(9):78–82.
[78] Corbella C, Garfí M, Puigagut J. Vertical redox profiles in treatment wetlands as
function of hydraulic regime and macrophytes presence: surveying the optimal
scenario for microbial fuel cell implementation. Sci Total Environ
2014;470:754–8.
[79] Liu S, Song H, Wei S, Yang F, Li X. Bio-cathode materials evaluation and config-
uration optimization for power output of vertical subsurface flow constructed
wetland-Microbial fuel cell systems. Bioresour Technol 2014;166:575–83.
[80] Fang Z, Song HL, Cang N, Li XN. Electricity production from Azo dye wastewater
using a microbial fuel cell coupled constructed wetland operating under different
operating conditions. Biosens Bioelectron 2015;68:135–41.
[81] Srivastava P, Yadav AK, Mishra BK. The effects of microbial fuel cell integration
into constructed wetland on the performance of constructed wetland. Bioresour
Technol 2015;195:223–30.
[82] Doherty L, Zhao Y, Zhao X, Wang W. Nutrient and organics removal from swine
slurry with simultaneous electricity generation in an alum sludge-based con-
structed wetland incorporating microbial fuel cell technology. Chem Eng J
2015;266:74–81.
[83] Azri YM, Tou I, Sadi M, Bouzidi Y. Production d’électricité verte via une plante
vivante ‘Watsonia sp’dans la pile à combustible microbienne. Revue des Energies
Renouvelables 2015;18(1):63–70.
[84] Bombelli P, Dennis RJ, Felder F, Cooper MB, Madras Rajaraman Iyer D, Royles J,
Harrison ST, Smith AG, Harrison CJ, Howe CJ. Electrical output of bryophyte
microbial fuel cell systems is sufficient to power a radio or an environmental
sensor. R Soc Open Sci 2016;3(10):160249.
[85] Ueoka N, Sese N, Sue M, Kouzuma A, Watanabe K. Sizes of anode and cathode
affect electricity generation in rice paddy-field microbial fuel cells. J Sustain
Bioenergy Syst 2016;6(01):10.
[86] Gilani SR, Yaseen A, Zaidi SRA, Zahra M, Mahmood Z. Photocurrent generation
through plant microbial fuel cell by varying electrode materials. J Chem Soc
Pakistan 2016;38(1).
[87] Xu P, Xiao E-R, Xu D, Zhou Y, He F, Liu B-Y, Zeng L, Wu ZB. Internal nitrogen
removal from sediments by the hybrid system of microbial fuel cells and sub-
merged aquatic plants. PLoS One 2017;12(2):e0172757https://doi.org/10.1371/
journal.pone.0172757.
[88] Liu B, Ji M, Zhai H. Anodic potentials, electricity generation and bacterial
412
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 110 (2019) 402–414
community as affected by plant roots in sediment microbial fuel cell: effects of
anode locations. Chemosphere 2018;209:739–47.
[89] Oon YL, Ong SA, Ho LN, Wong YS, Dahalan FA, Oon YS. Synergistic effect of up-
flow constructed wetland and microbial fuel cell for simultaneous wastewater
treatment and energy recovery. Bioresour Technol 2016;203:190–7.
[90] Oon YL, Ong SA, Ho LN, Wong YS, Dahalan FA, Oon YS. Role of macrophyte and
effect of supplementary aeration in up-flow constructed wetland-microbial fuel
cell for simultaneous wastewater treatment and energy recovery. Bioresour
Technol 2017;224:265–75.
[91] Wang J, Song X, Wang Y, Zhao Z, Wang B, Yan D. Effects of electrode material and
substrate concentration on the bioenergy output and wastewater treatment in air-
cathode microbial fuel cell integrating with constructed wetland. Ecol Eng
2017;99:191–8.
[92] Song H, Zhang S, Long X, Yang X, Li H, Xiang W. Optimization of bioelectricity
generation in constructed wetland-coupled microbial fuel cell systems. Water
2017;9(3):185.
[93] Wetser K, Dieleman K, Buisman C, Strik D. Electricity from wetlands: tubular plant
microbial fuels with silicone gas-diffusion biocathodes. Appl Energy
2017;185:642–9.
[94] Sophia AC, Sreeja S. Green energy generation from plant microbial fuel cells
(PMFC) using compost and a novel clay separator. Sustain Ene Techn Ass
2017;21:59–66.
[95] Regmi R, Nitisoravut R, Charoenroongtavee S, Yimkhaophong W, Phanthurat O.
Earthen pot-plant microbial fuel cell powered by vetiver for bioelectricity pro-
duction and wastewater treatment. Clean - Soil, Air, Water 2018;46(3):1700193.
[96] Khudzari JM, Kurian J, Gariépy Y, Tartakovsky B, Raghavan GSV. Effects of sali-
nity, growing media, and photoperiod on bioelectricity production in plant mi-
crobial fuel cells with weeping alkaligrass. Biomass Bioenergy 2018;109:1–9.
[97] Azri YM, Tou I, Sadi M, Benhabyles L. Bioelectricity generation from three orna-
mental plants: Chlorophytum comosum, Chasmanthe floribunda and Papyrus
diffusus. Int J Green Energy 2018;15(4):254–63.
[98] Sarma PJ, Mohanty K. Epipremnum aureum and Dracaena braunii as indoor plants
for enhanced bio-electricity generation in a plant microbial fuel cell with elec-
trochemically modified carbon fiber brush anode. J Biosci Bioeng
2018;126(3):404–10.
[99] Putranto AW, Sugiarto Y, Kusumarini N, Wiranti T, Normalasari L. The effect of
urea fertilizer and electrode gaps toward the voltage of plant microbial fuel cell
based on Oryza sativa. Jurnal Teknologi Pertanian 2018;19(1):43–50.
[100] Moore JC, McCann K, de Ruiter PC. Soil rhizosphere food webs, their stability, and
implications for soil processes in ecosystems. In: Whitbeck JL, Burlingtoneditors.
The rhizosphere cardon ZG. Academic Press; 2007. p. 101–25https://doi.org/10.
1016/B978-012088775-0/50010-0.
[101] Foster RC, Rovira AD, Cock TW. Ultrastructure of the root-soil interface. St. Paul,
MN, USA: The American Phytopathological Society; 1983. p. 157.
[102] Bakker PA, Berendsen RL, Doornbos RF, Wintermans PC, Pieterse CM. The rhi-
zosphere revisited: root microbiomics. Front Plant Sci 2013;4:165.
[103] De Schamphelaire L, Cabezas A, Marzorati M, Friedrich MW, Boon N, Verstraete
W. Microbial community analysis of anodes from sediment microbial fuel cells
powered by rhizodeposits of living rice plants. Appl Environ Microbiol
2010;76(6):2002–8.
[104] Cabezas A, Pommerenke B, Boon N, Friedrich MW, eobacter G. A naeromyx-
obacter and A naerolineae populations are enriched on anodes of root exudate‐-
driven microbial fuel cells in rice field soil. Env Microbiol Rep 2015;7(3):489–97.
[105] Ahn JH, Jeong WS, Choi MY, Kim BY, Song J, Weon HY. Phylogenetic diversity of
dominant bacterial and archaeal communities in plant-microbial fuel cells using
rice plants. J Microbiol Biotechnol 2014;24(12):1707–18.
[106] Chae KJ, Choi MJ, Lee JW, Kim KY, Kim IS. Effect of different substrates on the
performance, bacterial diversity, and bacterial viability in microbial fuel cells.
Bioresour Technol 2009;100(14):3518–25.
[107] Logan BE, Regan JM. Electricity-producing bacterial communities in microbial
fuel cells. Trends Microbiol 2006;14(12):512–8.
[108] Pandit S, Chandrasekhar K, Kakarla R, Kadier A, Jeevitha V. Basic principles of
microbial fuel cell: technical challenges and economic feasibility. In: Kalia V,
Kumar P, editors. Microbial applications. Switzerland: Springer Nature; 2017. p.
165–88.
[109] Franks AE, Nevin KP. Microbial fuel cells, a current review. Energies
2010;3(5):899–919.
[110] Logan BE. Exoelectrogenic bacteria that power microbial fuel cells. Nat Rev
2009;7(5):375.
[111] Pandit S, Das D. Role of microalgae in microbial fuel cell. Algal biorefinery: an
integrated. Approach Springer; 2015. p. 375–99.
[112] Torres CI, Krajmalnik-Brown R, Parameswaran P, Marcus AK, Wanger G, Gorby
YA. Selecting anode-respiring bacteria based on anode potential: phylogenetic,
electrochemical, and microscopic characterization. Environ Sci Technol
2009;43(24):9519–24.
[113] Chen GW, Choi SJ, Lee TH, Lee GY, Cha JH, Kim CW. Application of biocathode in
microbial fuel cells: cell performance and microbial community. Appl Microbiol
Biotechnol 2008;79(3):379–88.
[114] Abbas SZ, Rafatullah M, Ismail N, Syakir MI. A review on sediment microbial fuel
cells as a new source of sustainable energy and heavy metal remediation: me-
chanisms and future prospective. Int J Energy Res 2017;41(9):1242–64.
[115] Curl EA, Truelove B. The rhizosphere. first ed. 2012. p. 288. Springer‐Verlag,
Berlin‐Heidelberg‐New York‐Tokyo https://doi.org/10.1002/jpln.19871500214.
[116] Timmers R. Electricity generation by living plants in a plant microbial fuel cell
[dissertation] Netherlands: Wageningen University; 2012.
[117] Gregory P. Roots, rhizosphere and soil: the route to a better understanding of soil
F.T. Kabutey, et al.
science? Eur J Soil Sci 2006;57(1):2–12.
[118] Jones DL, Nguyen C, Finlay RD. Carbon flow in the rhizosphere: carbon trading at
the soil-root interface. Plant Soil 2009;321(1–2):5–33.
[119] Spohn M, Kuzyakov Y. Distribution of microbial-and root-derived phosphatase
activities in the rhizosphere depending on P availability and C allocation–Coupling
soil zymography with 14C imaging. Soil Biol Biochem 2013;67:106–13.
[120] De Schamphelaire L, Rabaey K, Boeckx P, Boon N, Verstraete W. Outlook for
benefits of sediment microbial fuel cells with two bio‐electrodes. Microb
Biotechnol 2008;1(6):446–62.
[121] He Z, Kan J, Wang Y, Huang Y, Mansfeld F, Nealson KH. Electricity production
coupled to ammonium in a microbial fuel cell. Environ Sci Technol
2009;43(9):3391–7.
[122] Bajracharya S, Sharma M, Mohanakrishna G, Benneton XD, Strik DP, Sarma PM,
Pant D. An overview on emerging bioelectrochemical systems (BESs): technology
for sustainable electricity, waste remediation, resource recovery, chemical pro-
duction and beyond. Renew Energy 2016;98:153–70.
[123] Wurst S, De Deyn GB, Orwin K. Soil biodiversity and functions. In: Wall DH,
Bardgett RD, Behan- Pelletier Jeffrey EV, editors. Soil ecology and ecosystem
services. first ed.Oxford: Oxford University press; 2012. p. 28–45.
[124] Bond DR, Lovley DR. Electricity production by Geobacter sulfurreducens attached
to electrodes. Appl Environ Microbiol 2003;69(3):1548–55.
[125] Sekar N, Ramasamy RP. Electrochemical impedance spectroscopy for microbial
fuel cell characterization. J Microb Biochem Technol S 2013;6(2).
[126] Raghavulu SV, Babu PS, Goud RK, Subhash GV, Srikanth S, Mohan SV.
Bioaugmentation of an electrochemically active strain to enhance the electron
discharge of mixed culture: process evaluation through electro-kinetic analysis.
RSC Adv 2012;2(2):677–88.
[127] Gorby YA, Yanina S, McLean JS, Rosso KM, Moyles D, Dohnalkova A. Electrically
conductive bacterial nanowires produced by Shewanella oneidensis strain MR-1
and other microorganisms. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A 2006;103(30):11358–63.
[128] El-Naggar MY, Wanger G, Leung KM, Yuzvinsky TD, Southam G, Yang J. Electrical
transport along bacterial nanowires from Shewanella oneidensis MR-1. Proc Natl
Acad Sci Unit States Am 2010;107(42):18127–31.
[129] Lovley DR. The microbe electric: conversion of organic matter to electricity. Curr
Opin Biotechnol 2008;19(6):564–71.
[130] Butti SK, Velvizhi G, Sulonen ML, Haavisto JM, Koroglu EO, Cetinkaya AY, Singh
S, Arya D, Modestra JA, Krishna KV, Verma A. Microbial electrochemical tech-
nologies with the perspective of harnessing bioenergy: maneuvering towards up-
scaling. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2016;53:462–76.
[131] Doherty L, Zhao Y, Zhao X, Hu Y, Hao X, Xu L. A review of a recently emerged
technology: constructed wetland–microbial fuel cells. Water Res 2015;85:38–45.
[132] Regmi R, Nitisoravut R, Charoenroongtavee S, Yimkhaophong W, Phanthurat O.
Earthen pot‐plant microbial fuel cell powered by vetiver for bioelectricity pro-
duction and wastewater treatment. Clean - Soil, Air, Water
2018;46(3):1700193https://doi.org/10.1002/clen.201700193.
[133] Ekama GA, Wentzel MC. Organic material removal. Biological wastewater treat-
ment. In: Henze M, van Loosdrecht MCM, Ekama GA, Brdjanovic D, editors.
Principles, modelling and design. London: IWA Publishing; 2008. p. 53–86.
[134] Eddy ISM. Wastewater engineering: treatment disposal reuse. fourth ed. McGraw-
Hill Companies; 1986. p. 1215.
[135] Xiao L, He Z. Applications and perspectives of phototrophic microorganisms for
electricity generation from organic compounds in microbial fuel cells. Renew
Sustain Energy Rev 2014;37:550–9.
[136] Arends J. Optimizing the plant microbial fuel cell: diversifying applications and
product outputs [dissertation] Belgium: Ghent University; 2013.
[137] Sathish-Kumar K, Vignesh V, Caballero-Briones F. Sustainable power production
from plant-mediated microbial fuel cells. Sustainable agriculture towards food
security. Springer; 2017. p. 85–107.
[138] Zhang Y, Liu M, Zhou M, Yang H, Liang L, Gu T. Microbial fuel cell hybrid systems
for wastewater treatment and bioenergy production: synergistic effects, mechan-
isms and challenges. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2019;103:13–29.
[139] Doherty L, Zhao X, Zhao Y, Wang W. The effects of electrode spacing and flow
direction on the performance of microbial fuel cell-constructed wetland. Ecol Eng
2015;79:8–14.
[140] Helder M, Strik DP, Hamelers HV, Buisman CJ. The flat-plate plant-microbial fuel
cell: the effect of a new design on internal resistances. Biotechnol Biofuels
2012;5(1):70.
[141] Pieterse AH, Murphy KJ, editors. Aquatic weeds: the ecology and management of
nuisance aquatic vegetation. first ed.Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1990.
[142] O'Hare MT, Baattrup-Pedersen A, Baumgarte I, Freeman A, Gunn ID, Lázár AN.
Responses of aquatic plants to eutrophication in rivers: a revised conceptual
model. Front Plant Sci 2018;9https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2018.00451.
[143] Suren AM, Smart GM, Smith RA, Brown SL. Drag coefficients of stream bryo-
phytes: experimental determinations and ecological significance. Fresh wat Biol
2000;45(3):309–17.
[144] Gross EM, Johnson RL, Hairston Jr., NG. Experimental evidence for changes in
submersed macrophyte species composition caused by the herbivore Acentria
ephemerella (Lepidoptera). Oecologia 2001;127(1):105–14.
[145] Brix H. Functions of macrophytes in constructed wetlands. Water Sci Technol
1994;29(4):71–8.
[146] Białowiec A, Davies L, Albuquerque A, Randerson PF. The influence of plants on
nitrogen removal from landfill leachate in discontinuous batch shallow con-
structed wetland with recirculating subsurface horizontal flow. Ecol Eng
2012;40:44–52.
[147] Vymazal J. Plants used in constructed wetlands with horizontal subsurface flow: a
review. Hydrobiologia 2011;674(1):133–56.
413
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 110 (2019) 402–414
[148] Mohan SV, Mohanakrishna G, Chiranjeevi P, Peri D, Sarma PN. Ecologically en-
gineered system (EES) designed to integrate floating, emergent and submerged
macrophytes for the treatment of domestic sewage and acid rich fermented-dis-
tillery wastewater: evaluation of long term performance. Bioresour Technol
2010;101(10):3363–70.
[149] Kumar AK, Chiranjeevi P, Mohanakrishna G, Mohan SV. Natural attenuation of
endocrine-disrupting estrogens in an ecologically engineered treatment system
(EETS) designed with floating, submerged and emergent macrophytes. Ecol Eng
2011;37(10):1555–62.
[150] Chiranjeevi P, Chandra R, Mohan SV. Ecologically engineered submerged and
emergent macrophyte based system: an integrated eco-electrogenic design for
harnessing power with simultaneous wastewater treatment. Ecol Eng
2013;51:181–90.
[151] Fernández F, Lobato J, Villasenor J, Rodrigo M, Canizares P. Microbial fuel cell:
the definitive technological approach for valorizing organic wastes. Environment,
Energy and Climate Change I. Springer; 2014. p. 287–316.
[152] Dong C, Zhu W, Zhao Y, Gao M. Diurnal fluctuations in root oxygen release rate
and dissolved oxygen budget in wetland mesocosm. Desalination
2011;272(1–3):254–8.
[153] Ju X, Wu S, Huang X, Zhang Y, Dong R. How the novel integration of electrolysis in
tidal flow constructed wetlands intensifies nutrient removal and odor control.
Bioresour Technol 2014;169:605–13.
[154] Song X, Yan D, Liu Z, Chen Y, Lu S, Wang D. Performance of laboratory-scale
constructed wetlands coupled with micro-electric field for heavy metal-con-
taminating wastewater treatment. Ecol Eng 2011;37(12):2061–5.
[155] Yadav AK. Design and development of novel constructed wetland cum microbial
fuel cell for electricity production and wastewater treatment. In: Cerioni AM,
Motta R, editors. Proceedings of 12th international conference on wetland systems
for water pollution control (IWA); 2010 oct 4-10; venice, Italy. Palombi. 2010. p.
321.
[156] Turetsky MR. The role of bryophytes in carbon and nitrogen cycling. Bryologist
2003;106(3):395–409.
[157] Hubenova Y, Mitov M. Bacterial mutalism in the mosses roots applicable in
Bryophyta-microbial fuel cell. Commun Agric Appl Biol Sci 2011;76(2):63.
[158] Donovan C, Dewan A, Heo D, Beyenal H. Batteryless, wireless sensor powered by a
sediment microbial fuel cell. Environ Sci Technol 2008;42(22):8591–6.
[159] Gude V, Kokabian B, Gadhamshetty V. Beneficial bioelectrochemical systems for
energy, water, and biomass production. JMBT 2013;6:2.
[160] Türker OC, Yakar A. A hybrid constructed wetland combined with microbial fuel
cell for boron (B) removal and bioelectric production. Ecol Eng 2017;102:411–21.
[161] Xu L, Zhao Y, Wang T, Liu R, Gao F. Energy capture and nutrients removal en-
hancement through a stacked constructed wetland incorporated with microbial
fuel cell. Water Sci Technol 2017;76(1):28–34.
[162] Shen X, Zhang J, Liu D, Hu Z, Liu H. Enhance performance of microbial fuel cell
coupled surface flow constructed wetland by using submerged plants and enclosed
anodes. Chem Eng J 2018;351:312–8.
[163] Xu P, Xiao E, Wu J, He F, Zhang Y, Wu Z. Enhanced nitrate reduction in water by a
combined bio-electrochemical system of microbial fuel cells and submerged
aquatic plant Ceratophyllum demersum. J Environ Sci 2019;78:338–51.
[164] Liu Y, Zhang H, Lu Z, de Lourdes Mendoza M, Ma J, Cai L, Zhang L. Decreasing
sulfide in sediment and promoting plant growth by plant–sediment microbial fuel
cells with emerged plants. Paddy Water Environ 2019;17(1):13–21.
[165] Salomons W, De Rooij NM, Kerdijk H, Bril J. Sediments as a source for con-
taminants? Hydrobiologia 1987;149(1):13–30.
[166] Du Laing G, Rinklebe J, Vandecasteele B, Meers E, Tack FM. Trace metal behavior
in estuarine and riverine floodplain soils and sediments: a review. Sci Total
Environ 2009;407(13):3972–85.
[167] Arends JB, Verstraete W. 100 years of microbial electricity production: three
concepts for the future. Microb Biotechnol 2012;5(3):333–46.
[168] Liu S, Feng X, Li X. Bioelectrochemical approach for control of methane emission
from wetlands. Bioresour Technol 2017;241:812–20.
[169] Regmi R, Nitisoravut R. Effect of configuration and growth stages on bioenergy
harvest in the paddy type microbial fuel cell under greenhouse condition IEEE
Proceedings of 2017 international conference on green energy and applications
(ICGEA); 2017 mar 25-27; SingaporeIEEE press; 2017. p. 109–12.
[170] Das D, editor. Microbial fuel cell a bioelectrochemical system that converts waste
to watts microbial fuel cell. first ed.New York: Springer; 2018.
[171] Labro J, Craig T, Wood SA, Packer MA. Demonstration of the use of a photo-
synthetic microbial fuel cell as an environmental biosensor. Int J Nanotechnol
2017;14(1–6):213–25.
[172] Sun JZ, Peter Kingori GSRW, Zhai DD, Liao ZH, Sun DZ. Microbial fuel cell-based
biosensors for environmental monitoring: a review. Water Sci Technol
2015;71(6):801–9.
[173] Sanders CA, Rodriguez Jr. M, Greenbaum E. Stand-off tissue-based biosensors for
the detection of chemical warfare agents using photosynthetic fluorescence in-
duction. Biosens Bioelectron 2001;16(7–8):439–46.
[174] Cho YK, Donohue TJ, Tejedor I, Anderson MA, McMahon KD, Noguera DR.
Development of a solar‐powered microbial fuel cell. J Appl Microbiol
2008;104(3):640–50.
[175] Brunelli D, Tosato P, Rossi M. Microbial fuel cell as a biosensor and a power source
for flora health monitoring. IEEE SENSORS 2016:1–3.
[176] Tapia NF, Rojas C, Bonilla CA, Vargas IT. A new method for sensing soil water
content in green roofs using plant microbial fuel cells. Sensors 2017;18(1):71.
[177] Piyare R, Murphy AL, Tosato P, Brunelli D. Plug into a plant: using a plant mi-
crobial fuel cell and a wake-up radio for an energy neutral sensing system IEEE
Proceedings of 2017 IEEE 42nd conference on local computer networks workshops
F.T. Kabutey, et al.
(LCN workshops)Singapore: IEEE Press; 2017 Oct 9. p. 18–25.
[178] Rossi M, Tosato P, Gemma L, Torquati L, Catania C, Camalò S, Brunelli D. Long
range wireless sensing powered by plant-microbial fuel cell. Design, Automation &
Test in Europe Conference & Exhibition. IEEE press; 2017.
[179] Schievano A, Colombo A, Grattieri M, Trasatti SP, Liberale A, Tremolada P, Pino C,
Cristiani P. Floating microbial fuel cells as energy harvesters for signal transmis-
sion from natural water bodies. J Power Sources 2017;340:80–8.
[180] Brunelli D, Tosato P, Rossi M. Flora health wireless monitoring with plant-mi-
crobial fuel cell. Procedia Eng 2016;168:1646–50.
[181] Bruno LB, Jothinathan D, Rajkumar M. Microbial fuel cells: fundamentals, types,
414
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 110 (2019) 402–414
significance and limitations. Microbial fuel cell technology for bioelectricity.
Springer; 2018. p. 23–48.
[182] Tommasi T, Lombardelli G. Energy sustainability of microbial fuel cell (MFC): a
case study. J Power Sources 2017;356:438–47.
[183] von Witzke H. Agriculture, world food security, bio-energy and climate change:
some inconvenient facts. QJIA 2008;47(1):1.
[184] Zhao Q, Yu H, Zhang W, Kabutey FT, Jiang J, Zhang Y, Wang K, Ding J. Microbial
fuel cell with high content solid wastes as substrates: a review. Front Environ Sci
Eng 2017;11(2):13.