Bioresource Technology 102 (2011) 9335–9344

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Bioresource Technology
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/biortech

Review

Recent progress in electrodes for microbial fuel cells

Jincheng Wei, Peng Liang, Xia Huang ⇑
State Key Joint Laboratory of Environment Simulation and Pollution Control, School of Environment, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, PR China

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The performance and cost of electrodes are the most important aspects in the design of microbial fuel cell
Received 10 May 2011 (MFC) reactors. A wide range of electrode materials and configurations have been tested and developed in
Received in revised form 6 July 2011 recent years to improve MFC performance and lower material cost. As well, anodic electrode surface
Accepted 9 July 2011
modifications have been widely used to improve bacterial adhesion and electron transfer from bacteria
Available online 19 July 2011
to the electrode surface. In this paper, a review of recent advances in electrode material and a configura-
tion of both the anode and cathode in MFCs are provided. The advantages and drawbacks of these elec-
Keywords:
trodes, in terms of their conductivity, surface properties, biocompatibility, and cost are analyzed, and the
Microbial fuel cells
Electrode materials
modification methods for the anodic electrode are summarized. Finally, to achieve improvements and the
Electrode configuration commercial use of MFCs, the challenges and prospects of future electrode development are briefly
Electrode surface modification discussed.
Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction surface roughness, good biocompatibility, and efficient electron

Microbial fuel cell (MFC) technology is a prospective technology
that purifies wastewater and converts its chemical energy into
electrical energy using bacteria as catalysts (Logan et al., 2006).
Even with the remarkable improvements in power density, the
large-scale application of MFCs has yet to be implemented due to
low yields of power generation and high costs. Electrode is the
key component in deciding the performance and cost of MFC. Elec-
trode design is the greatest challenge in making MFCs a cost-effec-
tive and scalable technology (Rabaey et al., 2009). Recently,
interest in the electrode material and its configuration has steadily
increased in studies for MFCs. Over the past decade, a variety of
electrodes have been extensively explored for MFCs. These elec-
trodes can be classified into two main groups, bio-electrodes
(including anode and biocathode) and chemical-electrodes (more
specifically, air–cathode and aqueous air–cathode), according to
whether or not bacteria is used as a catalyst.
The electrode materials in MFC have some general characters
and also its self-characteristic. For all the types of electrodes, their
base materials must generally be of good conduction, good chem-
ical stability, high mechanical strength, and low cost. Carbon mate-
rials and non-corrosive metals, which can basically meet the
general requirements above, are currently the most-widely used
base materials (Fig. 1). In addition, there are some specific require-
ments for each group of electrodes. Bio-electrodes function not
only as a conductor, but also as a carrier of bacteria, and some
special surface characteristics of electrode materials, such as high
⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +86 10 62772324; fax: +86 10 62771472.
E-mail address: xhuang@tsinghua.edu.cn (X. Huang).
transfer between bacteria and electrode surface, are essential for
high bio-catalytic activity. In order to improve bacterial adhesion
and electron transfer, electrode surface modification has become
a new topic of interest in the research field of MFCs. The electrode
material for air–cathodes with a catalyst is composed of a base
material, a catalyst, a binder, and a waterproof coating. Material
characteristics and functions are specific for each part. The base
material generally only serves as supporting material and current
collector. High conductivity and mechanical strength are critical
for it. But there is no special requirement for bacteria adhesion. A
catalyst is important for air–cathodes, but not absolutely neces-
sary. If necessary, the catalyst is immobilized on the substrate
surface with a binder, and a hydrophobic coating is regularly added
onto the cathode to avoid water loss. To reduce the cost of
air–cathodes, several highly specific materials, such as activated
carbon, that do not require a catalyst have been developed and
reported (Deng et al., 2010; Zhang et al., 2009a). For aqueous
air–cathode, only base material, catalyst and binder are needed.
Another great challenge in making MFCs a high performance
and scalable technology is electrode configuration. Commonly
used electrodes can be classified according to their configurations:
the plane electrode and the three-dimensional electrode. A good
configuration for bio-electrodes must provide a large surface area
for bacterial adhesion and ensure efficient current collection. Plane
electrode is more common for air–electrode. When the air–elec-
trode contains a chemical catalyst, an effective configuration is
necessary to ensure the oxygen reduction into a three-phase
reaction involving the catalyst, the air, and water (Logan, 2007).
In this paper, recent advances in electrode materials and config-
urations are explored. The advantages and disadvantages of the

0960-8524/$ - see front matter Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.biortech.2011.07.019
9336 J. Wei et al. / Bioresource Technology 102 (2011) 9335–9344
Fig. 1. Photographs of electrode materials used for MFC: (A) carbon paper; (B)
graphite plate; (C) carbon cloth; (D) carbon mesh; (E) granular graphite; (F)
granular activated carbon; (G) carbon felt; (H) reticulated vitrified carbon; (I)
carbon brush; (J) stainless steel mesh.
electrodes are compared in terms of their characteristics, perfor-
mance, cost, and application range, and the surface modification
methods of anode materials are summarized. The microorganisms
used in the MFCs studies for anode and biocathode materials were
detailed in Tables. Finally, to realize the potential large-scale appli-
cation of MFCs, the main challenges and directions in electrode
development are discussed.
2. Anode materials for MFCs
Common materials in laboratory MFCs include a large variety
of carbon materials and several metal materials, which vary
greatly in configuration and surface area. The configuration and
performance of these commonly used anode materials are sum-
marized in Table 1. Photographs of these materials were shown
in Fig. 1. It is known that type and concentration of bacteria on
anodes is able to significantly affect power density (or current
density) in MFCs. Thus the inoculation sources were also summa-
rized in Table 1. It is shown that mixed culture, including acti-
vated sludge, domestic wastewater and preacclimated bacteria
from an active MFC (originally inoculated with activated sludge
or domestic wastewater), were most common used inoculums
in studies for anode materials. However, little research has been
done on the effect of inoculation source on power generation
and the effect of material characteristics on community structure
and biomass. Here, we can loosely think of the difference in
inoculation source slightly affected the comparison of anode
performance.
2.1. Carbonaceous anode
Carbonaceous materials are the most widely used materials for
MFC anodes because of their good biocompatibility, good chemical
stability, high conductivity, and relatively low cost. In terms of
configuration, carbon-based electrodes can be divided into a plane
structure, a packed structure, and a brush structure. The carbona-
ceous electrodes are discussed in detail in this section based on
this classification.
2.1.1. Plane structure
In the laboratory, carbon paper, graphite plates or sheets, and
carbon cloth are the most common materials for plain electrodes
(Min and Logan, 2004; Sun et al., 2010). Carbon paper is very thin
and relatively stiff but slightly brittle. Graphite plates or sheets
have higher strength than carbon paper. Roughened graphite elec-
trodes have been reported to produce a higher power density than
flat graphite electrodes (ter Heijne et al., 2008). These two materi-
als have a compact structure and a relatively smooth surface, both
of which facilitate the quantitative measurement of biomass per
unit of surface area. However, their low specific area and high cost
inhibit the application of these electrodes in large-scale MFCs. In
comparison with carbon sheets, carbon cloth is more flexible and
much more porous, allowing more surface area for bacterial
growth. However, it is prohibitively expensive to use for MFCs
(ca. $1000/m2) (Zhang et al., 2010). An inexpensive carbon mesh
material ($10–40/m2) was examined by Wang et al. (2009) as a
substantially less expensive alternative to carbon paper and carbon
cloth; results showed that the carbon mesh exhibited a slightly
higher power density than carbon cloth after both materials were
treated with ammonia gas. The comparison of untreated materials,
however, was not reported. Besides the plain materials described
above, some rarely used fibrous materials, such as graphite foil,
carbon fiber veil, and activated carbon cloth, have also been re-
ported and comparatively evaluated for sulfide electrochemical
oxidation in the anode of MFCs (Zhao et al., 2008). The results
showed that the activated carbon cloth achieved the best sulfide
removal and power generation due to its high specific surface
and adsorption capacity.
Graphite or carbon felt is another fiber fabric that is much thick-
er than the materials described above. Its loose texture confers
more space for bacterial growth than carbon cloth and graphite
sheets, but the growth of bacteria is more likely to be restricted
by the mass transfer of substrate and products on its inner surface.
In order to increase the available surface area for bacteria, the felt
is cut into cubes and placed into an anode chamber. Graphite foam
is yet another porous carbon-based material with a definite thick-
ness, but it is seldom used in MFCs. Chaudhuri and Lovley (2003)
compared the performance of graphite rod, felt, and foam based
on the surface area of the resulting electrode. Similar currents
 J. Wei et al. / Bioresource Technology 102 (2011) 9335–9344 9337

Table 1
Anode materials, configuration, inoculation source and power generation performance in MFC.

Electrode materials Configuration Electrode size Inoculation source Reactor configuration Maximum power or References
current density
Carbon Carbon Plane 2.5 cm  4.5 cm, Primary clarifier overflow Two-bottle, air– 600 mW/m2 (anode area) Logan
paper 22.5 cm2 total cathode et al.
(2007)
Carbon Carbon Plane 7 cm2 in projected area Preacclimated bacteria from an Single chamber cube 46 W/m3 (anode chamber Zhang
cloth active MFC air–cathode MFCs volume) et al.
(2009b)
Carbon Graphite Plane 1.92 cm2 Shewanella oneidensis (MR-1) Two chamber, 3290 mW/m2 (anode Dewan
plate air–cathode area) et al.
(2008)
Carbon Graphite Plane 155 cm2 Shewanella oneidensis (MR-1) Two chamber, 1410 mW/m2 (anode Dewan
plate air–cathode area) et al.
(2008)
Carbon Carbon Plane 7 cm2 in projected area Preacclimated bacteria from an Single chamber cube 893 mW/m2 (anode area), Wang
mesh active MFC air–cathode MFC 45 W/m3 (anode chamber et al.
volume) (2009)
Carbon Activated Plane 1.5 cm2 in projected D. desulfuricans strain Essex 6 Single chamber, 0.51 mW/cm2 (geometric Zhao et al.
carbon area (for sulfate removal) air–cathode MFCs electrode area) (2008)
cloth
Carbon Granular Packed Granular diameters: Preacclimated bacteria from an Tubular MFC, 90 W/m3 (net anodic Rabaey
graphite 1.5–5 mm; anode active MFC catholyte: K3Fe(CN)6 chamber volume) et al.
chamber: 390 mL (2005)
Carbon Graphite Packed Anode chamber: Preacclimated bacteria from an Two chamber MFC, 386 W/m3 (anode Aelterman
felt 156 mL active MFC catholyte: K3Fe(CN)6 chamber volume) et al.
(2008)
Carbon Carbon felt Packed Anode chamber: Preacclimated bacteria from an Two chamber MFC, 356 W/m3 (anode Aelterman
156 mL active MFC catholyte: K3Fe(CN)6 chamber volume) et al.
(2008)
Carbon Granular Packed Anode chamber: Domestic wastewater Single chamber 5 W/m3 (volume of anode Jiang and
activated 450 mL, wet volume: cylindrical MFC, chamber) Li (2009)
carbon 250 mL air–cathode
Carbon Reticulated Packed Anode volume: 190 mL; Anaerobic sludge from a Two chamber 170 mW/m2 (anode He et al.
vitreous anode surface area: anaerobic bioreactor treating cylindrical MFC; surface area) (2005)
carbon 97 cm2 brewery wastewater K3Fe(CN)6 catholyte
Carbon Carbon Brush 4 cm long by 3 cm in Preacclimated bacteria from an Single chamber cube 2400 mW/m2 (cathode Logan
brush diameter active MFC air–cathode MFC, area), or 73 W/m3 et al.
batch-fed (2007)
Metal Stainless Plane 20  30 cm, total Marine sediments Artificial marine MFC 23 mW/m2 (anode Dumas
steel plate surface area 0.12 m2 surface area) et al.
(2007)
Metal Pt-coated Plane Projected area: 22 cm2 Preacclimated bacteria from an Two chamber Unreported ter Heijne
titanium active MFC (plexiglass plates et al.
with flow channels) (2008)

and biomasses were obtained from graphite rod and felt elec-
trodes, and the graphite foam electrode produced 2.4 times more
current density and 2.7 times more cell density than the graphite
rod one. Several studies on reticulated vitrified carbon (RVC), a sig-
nificantly porous (97%), conductive (5  10 3 X cm), and rigid but
brittle material, as an anode have been conducted (He et al., 2005;
Ringeisen et al., 2006; Scott et al., 2008a,b). The specific surface
area of RVC was found to be 51 and 6070 m2/m3 in studies by He
et al. (2005) and Ringeisen et al. (2006), respectively. Similar to
graphite felt, RVC can be used as packing material with which to
fill the anode chamber.
Most MFC studies involving the materials mentioned above
only focus on maximizing power densities on a volume or mem-
brane area basis, and few studies have reported on normalized
power densities at the surface area of the electrode, resulting in
difficulties in quantitative comparisons among different materials.
More porous anode materials typically produce more power per
geometric surface area compared to their smooth counterparts.
This is mainly due to the larger surface area available to bacteria
per unit volume of anode chamber of porous anode materials.
2.1.2. Packed structure
To increase the surface area available to bacteria, the use of car-
bon-based electrodes in packing forms for MFCs anode is becoming
increasingly common (Aelterman et al., 2008; Di Lorenzo et al.,
2010; Li et al., 2010; Rabaey et al., 2005). Similar to the biological
filter, the anode chamber of the MFC can be filled with granular or
irregularly shaped packing. However, the granular packing mate-
rial, such as granular graphite, must be conductive. Graphite rods
are usually used to collect electrons in laboratory-scale MFCs.
Having a high specific area is the main advantage of this configura-
tion. The specific area of granular graphite (1.5–5.5 mm diameter)
used in MFCs was estimated to be between 817 and 2720 m2/m3
(Rabaey et al., 2005). In order to make the complete bed conduc-
tive, the granules must be tightly packed next to each other,
although dead zones for current collection may still exist after long
term running (Logan, 2007). In addition, the porosities of the
packed electrode are relatively low (only ranged from 30% to 50%
for granular media), and thus, potential clogging after long-term
running is another problem (Rabaey et al., 2009). The use of gran-
ular graphite as an anode material in packed bed MFCs was first
reported by Rabaey et al. (2005). Granular activated carbon
(GAC) and small cubes of graphite or carbon felt can also be used
as materials for packing bed MFCs. Aelterman et al. (2008) com-
pared graphite and carbon felt, and 2 and 5 mm graphite granules,
and found that the graphite felt electrode yielded the highest max-
imum power output, amounting to up to 386 W/m3 in the total
anode compartment. Li et al. (2010) reported that a membrane-less
MFC, using GAC as the electrode, had a power density 2.5 times
higher than an MFC that used carbon cloth. They thus inferred that
9338 J. Wei et al. / Bioresource Technology 102 (2011) 9335–9344
the high surface area of GAC significantly improves bacterial adhe-
sion and electron transfer from bacteria to the GAC surfaces.
2.1.3. Brush structure
The graphite brush anode is an ideal electrode that achieves
high surface area, high porosities, and efficient current collection.
The use of a brush anode was first reported by Logan et al.
(2007). In their studies, the brushes were made of carbon fibers
cut to a set length and wound into a twisted core consisting of
two conductive but noncorrosive titanium wires. Two brush sizes
were used in this study: the smaller brush, about 2.5 cm in diam-
eter and 2.5 cm long, had an estimated surface area of 18,200 m2/
m3-brush volume and 95% porosity, while the larger brush, about
5 cm in diameter and 7 cm long, produced 7170 m2/m3-brush
volume and 98% porosity. The cube MFCs containing the smaller
brush reached a maximum power density of 2400 mW/m2 (nor-
malized to the cathode projected surface area), and a maximum
Coulombic efficiency (CE) of 60%. Bottle MFCs with the larger brush
anode produced a maximum power density of 1430 mW/m2,
versus a 600 mW/m2 plain carbon paper anode. The performance
of brushes with different masses of fibers were also tested, but
the lack of a clear trend in power per mass loading suggested that
the clumping of fibers was a problem that hindered bacterial
access to the fiber surfaces, as well as the diffusion of substrate into
the brush interior (Logan, 2007).
2.2. Metal and metal oxide anode
Metal materials are much more conductive than carbon materi-
als, but they are not widely applicable as carbon materials in MFCs.
Many metals were ruled out because of the non-corrosive require-
ment for anode materials. So far, only stainless steel and titanium
have qualified as relative common base materials for anodes. Some
of the metal-decorated anodes will be summarized in a later sec-
tion of this paper.
Generally, the smooth surface of metals does not facilitate the
adhesion of bacteria. As to be seen in the succeeding sections, some
non-corrosive materials, such as stainless steel, fail to achieve
higher power densities compared with carbon materials. Dumas
et al. (2007) tested the suitability of a stainless steel plate as both
the anode and biocathode electrodes in an MFC, and found that the
power density (23 mW/m2) was limited by the anode. In another
study, Dumas et al. (2008a) found that the stainless steel anode
was less efficient than the graphite one. In contrast, Erable and
Bergel (2009) found that the stainless steel grid anode produced
much higher current densities than plain graphite ones when a
constant potential ( 0.1 V vs. the saturated calomel electrode)
was applied to them. These results, however, may be reversed
when current densities are normalized to the electrode surface.
Titanium is another commonly used metal material for MFC
anodes. As mentioned above, titanium, such as titanium wires in
a graphite brush, is regularly used as a current collector. ter Heijne
et al. (2008) compared titanium and graphite in terms of their
suitability as an anode in MFCs. Their results showed that the
anode performance decreased in the following order: roughened
graphite > Pt-coated titanium > flat graphite > uncoated titanium.
No current was observed for the uncoated titanium anode. For
the three other materials, the specific surface area and biomass
activity were important variables in explaining the differences in
current density between them.
Gold anodes have also been used in several studies (Crittenden
et al., 2006; Richter et al., 2008). Richter et al. (2008) found that
Geobacter sulfurreducens could grow on gold anodes, producing
currents nearly as effectively as in graphite anodes.
2.3. Surface treatments and coatings for the anode materials
As mentioned above, the surface characteristic of anode materi-
als is one of the deciding factors that affect bacterial attachment
and electrical connections between bacteria and the electrode sur-
face. Recently, modification of the anode using different materials,
which can be expected to facilitate bacterial adhesion and electron
transfer to the anode surface, has been a successful approach for
improving power production in studies for MFCs. These modifica-
tion methods include (i) surface treatments with physical or chem-
ical methods, (ii) addition of highly conductive or electroactive
coatings, and (iii) use of metal–graphite composite electrodes are
summarized according to their performance improvements on
MFC in Table 2.
2.3.1. Surface treatment methods
One of the successful surface treatments recorded in earlier
reports was achieved by treating a carbon cloth using 5% NH3 gas
in a helium carrier gas at 700 °C, which increased power from
1640 to 1970 mW/m2 and reduced the start-up time by 50% (Cheng
and Logan, 2007). This improvement due to the increase of the
positive surface charge of the cloth from 0.38 to 3.99 meq/m2,
and this increase in positive surface charge favor the formation
of biofilm. Wang et al. (2009) reported a more environment-
friendly and economic method of improving power production in
MFCs. This method involved heating the carbon mesh in a muffle
furnace at 450 °C for 30 min, resulting in a 3% increase in maxi-
mum power density. Surface oxidation of carbon materials can also
be an effective treatment method. Acid soaking of carbon fiber
brushes using concentrated sulfuric acid increased power by 8%,
and the combined acid and heat anode treatments further
increased power by 25% (Feng et al., 2010). The improvement in
power generation with the acid and heat treated anode could
result from three different factors: (i) Increase in specific area
(from 7.11 to 43.9 m2/g) facilitates bacteria adhesion on electrode.
(ii) Higher ratio of protonated N to the total N gives more positive
charge on electrode surface, which also favors bacteria adhesion.
(iii) Lower C–O composition on acid and heat treated anode surface
may indicate less of contaminants that interfere with charge trans-
fer from bacteria to anode surface (Wang et al., 2009).
Lowy and Tender (2008) reported that the kinetic activities of
graphite plate anode increased 58.8 times compared to untreated
anode through electrochemical oxidation pretreatment at +1.85 V
vs. Ag/AgCl. Similarly, Tang et al. (2011) discovered that a graphite
felt anode produced 39.5% higher current than an untreated anode
after electrochemical oxidization at a constant current density of
30 mA/cm2 for 12 h. The authors thus inferred that electrochemical
treatment of graphite felts generates carboxyl-containing func-
tional groups on the surface of the anode. These groups facilitate
the electron transfer from bacteria to electrode, due to their strong
hydrogen bonding with peptide bonds in bacterial cytochromes.
2.3.2. Coatings
Aside from surface treatments, other approaches have been ta-
ken to increase anode performance via the addition of a surface
coating. The surface coating materials currently reported include
carbon nanotubes (CNTs), conductive polymers, mediators, metals,
and composites of these materials.
The most commonly used material is CNT or metal anchored
CNT, which has been proven to be efficient for improvements in
power generation (Liang et al., 2011; Peng et al., 2010; Sharma
et al., 2008; Sun et al., 2010; Tsai et al., 2009; Yuan et al., 2009).
Using electrochemical methods, such as cyclic voltammetry and
electrochemical impedance spectroscopy, several studies revealed
that CNTs can facilitate electron transfer from bacteria to electrode
and thus, reduce the internal resistance of MFCs (Peng et al., 2010;
 J. Wei et al. / Bioresource Technology 102 (2011) 9335–9344 9339

Table 2
Methods of anode modification, inoculation source and the improvements in performance of MFCs.

Materials and methods Base material Inoculation source Improvement in References

Surface treatment NH3 gas treatment
Surface treatment Heat treatment
Surface treatment Heat treatment
Surface treatment Acid (H2SO4) treatment
Surface treatment Acid (HNO3) treatment
Surface treatment Heat and acid treatment
Surface treatment Electrochemical oxidation
Surface treatment Electrochemical oxidation
Surface coating Carbon nanotube
Surface coating Carbon nanotube
Surface coating Carbon nanotube
Surface coating Polypyrrole coated carbon
nanotubes composite
Surface coating Pt decorated carbon
nanotube
Surface coating Polyaniline
Surface coating AQDS
Surface coating NQ
Surface coating NR
Surface coating NR
Surface coating Au nanoparticle
Surface coating Pd nanoparticle
Surface coating Iron oxide
Surface coating Graphite paste containing
Fe3O4
Surface coating Graphite paste containing
Fe3O4 and Ni2+
Composite electrode Sb(V) complex in graphite
paste
Composite electrode Mn2+ graphite
Composite electrode Graphite-ceramic
containing Mn2+ and Ni2+
performance
Carbon clothes Domestic wastewater Increase power density by Cheng and Logan (2007)
20%, reduce start-up time
by 50%
Carbon mesh Preacclimated bacteria from Increase power density by Wang et al. (2009)
an active MFC 3%
Carbon brush Domestic wastewater Increase power density by Feng et al. (2010)
25%
Carbon brush Domestic wastewater Increase power density by Feng et al. (2010)
8%
Graphite felt Brewery wastewater 2-Fold increase in power Scott et al. (2007)
diluted with domestic density
wastewater (1:100 by
volume)
Carbon brush Domestic wastewater Increase power density by Feng et al. (2010)
25%
Graphite felt Preacclimated bacteria from Increase current density by Tang et al. (2011)
an active MFC 39.5%
Graphite plates Marine sediments 56.8-Fold increase in kinetic Lowy and Tender (2008)
activities
Carbon paper Mixed-culture anaerobic Increase power density by Sun et al. (2010)
granular sludge 20%
Carbon clothes Domestic wastewater 0.7–30.5-Fold increase in Tsai et al. (2009)
power density for different
types of reactors
Glassy carbon Shewanella oneidensis MR-1 82-fold increase in current Peng et al. (2010)
density
Carbon paper Escherichia coli (DH5a Maximum power density Zou et al. (2008)
strain) 228 mW/m2
Carbon paper Escherichia coli (DH5a 6-Fold increase in the Sharma et al. (2008)
strain) power density
Graphite felt Brewery wastewater 1.8-Fold increase in power Scott et al. (2007)
diluted with domestic density
wastewater (1:100 by
volume)
Graphite disk Marine sediments 0.7-Fold increase in kinetic Lowy et al. (2006)
activity
Graphite disk Marine sediments 0.5-Fold increase in kinetic Lowy et al. (2006)
activity
Graphite felt Shewanella putrefaciens 54–454-Fold increase in Park and Zeikus (2002)
current density
Graphite plates Domestic wastewater Power density reached Wang et al. (2011)
900 mW/m2
Graphite disk Shewanella oneidensis MR-1 20-Fold increase in current Fan et al. (2011)
density
Graphite disk Shewanella oneidensis MR-1 Increase current density by Fan et al. (2011)
50–150%
Carbon paper Anaerobic sludge 2.75-Fold increase in the Kim et al. (2005)
power density
Graphite disk Marine sediments 1.1-Fold increase in kinetic Lowy et al. (2006)
activity
Graphite disk Marine sediments 0.7-Fold increase in kinetic Lowy et al. (2006)
activity
– Marine sediments 0.9-Fold increase in kinetic Lowy and Tender (2008)
activity
– Shewanella putrefaciens 78–509-Fold increase in Park and Zeikus (2002)
current density
– Marine sediments 1.2-Fold increase in kinetic Lowy et al. (2006)
activity

Sun et al., 2010). It is known that nanomaterials can inactivate or
kill bacteria, thus further investigation of the negative effects of
nanomaterials on bacteria metabolism and essential reasons of
the promotion in power generation are still needed.
The addition of conductive polymers, such as PANI and polypyr-
role, to the anode surface has also been tested on MFCs (Jiang and
Li, 2009; Zhao et al., 2010). The increase in current densities
presumably resulted from the increased surface area and enhanced
electron collection of the anode. Supplementary work has also
been done on the addition of a CNT/conductive polymer composite
to anodes, and the results indicate that the composite coating
outperformed CNT/conductive polymers alone (Scott et al., 2007;
Zou et al., 2008).
In many earlier studies, a variety of mediators, for example,
neutral red (NR), anthraquinone-1,6-disulfonic acid (AQDS), and
1,4-naphthoquinone (NQ), were used to facilitate the shuttling of
electrons from inside the cell to the electrodes outside the cell.
However, all these mediators must be continually added or recy-
cled. This problem can be solved by immobilizing the electron
mediator on the electrode surface. Mediators immobilized on
graphite anodes have been shown to significantly increase power
in several studies (Lowy and Tender, 2008; Lowy et al., 2006; Park
9340 J. Wei et al. / Bioresource Technology 102 (2011) 9335–9344
and Zeikus, 2003; Wang et al., 2011). However, the immobilized
mediators could be deactivated due to drop out or degraded during
long-term operation. Thus, the stability of this modified electrode
needs to be confirmed in practice.
Metal and metal oxidation-coated anodes have also been re-
ported in several studies. In microbial electrochemical cells, Fan
et al. (2011) decorated graphite with Au nanoparticles. The result-
ing anode provided current densities 20 times higher than plain
graphite were used as anode. Pd-decorated anodes made with sim-
ilar methods only produced current densities 1.5–2.5 times higher
than the control. In one study, Kim et al. (2005) reported that iron
oxide-coated anodes improved biocompatibility, and thus pro-
duced higher power densities and Coulombic efficiency (CE), com-
pared with plain anodes. Similarly, Lowy et al. (2006) found that
graphite modified with a graphite paste containing Fe3O4 or
Fe3O4 and Ni2+ possessed between 1.5–2.2 times greater kinetic
activity than plain graphite.
2.3.3. Composite electrodes
The performance of self-made metal–graphite composite an-
odes has been tested in several studies. Using an Mn4+-graphite
electrode made by mixing manganese sulfate with fine graphite
powder, the amount of electrical energy produced can increase
1000-fold (Park and Zeikus, 2002). Here, Mn4+ was used as a medi-
ator linked to graphite electrodes. Lowy and Tender (2008) re-
ported that the kinetic activity of an anode made by mixing a
sulfide-oxidizing Sb (V) complex and graphite paste was 1.9 times
higher than that of a graphite paste anode. The Sb (V) complex usu-
ally functioned as a mediator in anode chamber. Thus it can effi-
ciently mediate electron transfer from bacteria to anode. In
another study, a graphite–ceramic composite containing Mn2+
and Ni2+ was proven to be kinetically advantageous over plain
graphite (Lowy et al., 2006). Whether or not these increases in
power are due to the potentials of the metals or other reasons,
however, requires further investigation.
The studies mentioned above mainly focus on the improve-
ments in power generation performance, but very little is known
about the mechanism for these upgrades. As a result, further inves-
tigation may be needed to shed light on the mechanism of interac-
tions between bacteria and the electrode surface in order to help
advance the knowledge base needed for new anode designs. In
addition, the cost-effectiveness of these modified anodes also
needs to be evaluated in terms of cost and long-term stability.
3. Cathode materials for MFCs
The performance of MFCs is currently limited by the cathode,
and this problem is projected to remain for some time (Logan,
2009). Thus, cathode materials and their design are the most chal-
lenging aspects of an MFC. Most of the materials mentioned above
used as the anode have also been used as the base materials of
air–cathodes, aqueous air–cathodes, and bio-cathodes (Table 3).
The main difference in these materials used for the cathode is that
a catalyst (i.e., Pt for oxygen reduction) is normally used but is not
always necessary (i.e., ferricyanide) (Logan, 2007). Except for the
advances in catalysts, which are not discussed here in detail
due to the limited length of this paper, the development of cathode
materials is summarized in the following section.
3.1. Air–cathodes and aqueous air–cathodes with catalysts
Air–cathodes and aqueous air–cathodes with dissolved oxygen
are two of the most commonly used configurations for cathodes
for laboratory MFCs that require catalysts. The air–cathodes usu-
ally consist of a diffusion layer (exposed to air), a conductive
supporting material, and a catalyst/binder layer (exposed to
water). Aqueous air–cathodes are made of conductive supporting
materials, such as carbon paper, carbon cloth, and platinum mesh,
coated with a catalyst/binder layer (Logan et al., 2005; Scott et al.,
2008b; Yu et al., 2007). However, the solubility of oxygen (mole
fraction basis) in water is only 4.6  10 6 (25 °C) compared to
0.21 in air (Logan, 2007), so the performance of aqueous air–cath-
odes is limited by their low concentration of dissolved oxygen. Air–
cathodes are believed to be a more practical design for MFC cath-
odes, and they have attracted much more attention than other
cathodes because they require no aeration and generate higher
power densities. The materials for air–cathodes will be provided
in detail in this section.
Similar to anode materials, the use of carbon-based electrodes
in cloth forms as a supporting material is very common for
air–cathodes (Cheng et al., 2006a,b; Logan et al., 2007). Compared
with carbon paper and carbon cloth, more economical and practi-
cal air–cathodes that use stainless steel as the supporting material
have been developed by several researchers. Zhang et al. (2010)
constructed a cathode around the metal mesh itself, and You
et al. (2011) reported the fabrication of a new membrane electrode
assembly air–cathode by using stainless steel mesh as a raw
material. This cathode achieved a power density similar to an
air–cathode based on carbon cloth.
When a catalyst is used on a cathode, it is typically bound to the
electrode substrate using a polymer. Perfluorosulfonic acid (Naf-
ion) and poly(tetrafluoroethylene) (PTFE) are two commonly used
binders in MFCs. Cheng et al. (2006b) compared Nafion and PTFE to
determine the effect of these binders on power densities in a single
chamber air–cathode MFC. The MFC using Nafion binder produced
a higher maximum power density (400 ± 10–480 ± 20 mW/m2)
than that using PTFE (331 ± 3–360 ± 10 mW/m2). The author gave
one possible reason that the biofilm formed on PTFE cathode was
thin and loose compared to that formed on Nafion cathode, and
biofilm formation is a function of the hydrophobicity of the surface.
However, the relation between performance and the inherent
properties of binders need to be further investigated. It is worthy
of note that Nafion can cost up to 500 times more than PTFE (mass
basis) (Cheng et al., 2006b). Further investigations are recom-
mended to identify a new binder with high performance and low
cost.
To avoid high oxygen fluxes from outside to inside the reactor,
as well as water losses through the air–cathode, a hydrophobic
coating layer (usually called diffusion layer) is needed on the air-
facing side of the cathode in a single chamber MFC. Cheng et al.
(2006a) found that four PTFE diffusion layers was the optimum
number of coatings; this number of coatings resulted to a 171% in-
crease in the CE and a 42% increase in the maximum power density
compared with a cathode without diffusion layers. Measurable
water loss was prevented as well. Zhang et al. (2010) recently
developed an inexpensive coating of poly(dimethylsiloxane)
(PDMS) as a diffusion layer for stainless mesh air–cathodes. The
CE of the resulting mesh cathodes reached more than 80% and
water leakage was prevented.
The distance across which proton transfer occurs from a mem-
brane to a cathode is known to be positively correlated with the
ohmic resistance of cathode. In order to minimize the internal
resistance of air–cathode MFCs, increasing membrane cathode
assemblies (MACAs) were developed in recent years. In earlier
studies of MACAs (Liu and Logan, 2004; Min and Logan, 2004;
Pham et al., 2005), the proton exchange membrane (PEM) was
hot pressed to the air–cathode. Kim et al. (2009b) optimized
the fabrication conditions for MACAs made by platinum-catalyzed
carbon cloth and cation exchange membranes (CEM), and discov-
ered optimal hot-pressing conditions with a temperature of
120 °C and pressure of 150 kg/cm2 for 30 s. Prakash et al. (2010)
Table 3
Cathode materials, configuration and performance in MFC.
Type Cathode materials
Air–cathode Carbon clothes, Nafion
(binder), no diffusion
layer
Air–cathode Carbon clothes, PTFE
(binder), no diffusion
layer
Air–cathode Carbon clothes, PTFE
(binder), PTFE (diffusion
layer)
Air–cathode Stainless Steel Mesh,
Nafion (binder),
poly(dimethylsiloxane)
(diffusion layer)
Aqueous air–cathode Carbon paper
Air–cathode without Activated carbon was
catalyst cold-pressed with a PTFE
binder around a Ni mesh
Aqueous air–cathode Granular graphite with
without catalyst nanoscale pores on it
Aqueous air–cathode Nitric acid and thermal
without catalyst activated graphite
granules
Aqueous air–cathode Activated carbon fiber felt
without catalyst
Aqueous air–cathode A mixture of ferric sulfate,
without catalyst fine graphite powder,
kaolin and nickel chloride
MACA PEM carbon clothes
cathode assemblies
MACA Ultrafiltration (UF)
membrane coated with
graphite coating and
catalyst
MACA AEM or CEM coated with
graphite coating and
catalyst
MACA Canvas cloth coated with
the mixture of Ni-based
(or graphite-based)
conductive paints and
MnO2
Bio-cathode Granular graphite
Bio-cathode Graphite felts
(electrochemically
pretreated to contain
manganese oxide)
Bio-cathode Graphite fibre brush
Configuration Cathode size Catalyst MFC configuration Maximum power or current References
density
Plane 7 cm2 (projected surface Pt Single chamber cube MFC 400 ± 10–480 ± 20 mW/m2 Cheng et al. (2006b)
area) (projected area of cathode)
Plane 7 cm2 (projected surface Pt Single chamber cube MFC 331 ± 3–360 ± 10 mW/m2 Cheng et al. (2006b)
area) (projected area of cathode)
Plane 7 cm2 (projected surface Pt Single chamber cube MFC 766 mW/m2 (projected area of Cheng et al. (2006a)
area) cathode)
Plane 7 cm2 (projected surface Pt Single chamber cube MFC 1610 ± 56 mW/m2 (projected Zhang et al. (2010)
area) area of cathode)
Plane 2.5  4.5 cm Pt Two-bottle MFC 33 mW/m2 (anode area) Logan et al. (2005)
J. Wei et al. / Bioresource Technology 102 (2011) 9335–9344
Plane 7 cm2 (projected surface – Single chamber cube MFC 1220 mW/m2 (projected area Zhang et al.
area) of cathode) (2009a,b)
Packed Anode chamber: 350 mL, – Two chamber MFC 50 W/m3 (cathode liquid Freguia et al. (2007)
granular diameter <1 mm volume)
Packed Anode chamber: 50 mL – Cylindrical two chamber 8.1 W/m3 (net cathode Erable et al. (2009)
MFC chamber volume)
Plane Thickness: 5 cm, – Cylindrical two chamber 315 mW/m2 (cross-sectional Deng et al. (2010)
projected surface area: MFC area of separator)
36 cm2
Plane 20  20 cm – Single chamber MFC 788 mW/m2 (surface area of Park and Zeikus
electrode) (2003)
Plane 7 cm2 (projected surface Pt Single chamber MFC 262 ± 10 mW/m2 (projected Liu and Logan
area) area of cathode) (2004)
Tubular 54 cm2 (cathode surface CoTMPP Single chamber MFC 18 W/m3 (total reactor Zuo et al. (2007)
area) volume)
Plane 7 cm2 (projected surface CoTMPP Single chamber MFC 449 ± 35 and 286 ± 30 mW/m2 Zuo et al. (2008)
area) (projected area of cathode) for
AEM and CEM, respectively
Tubular 14.5  17.5 cm MnO2 Tubular single-chamber Ni: 86.03 mW/m2; graphite Zhuang et al. (2009)
MFC based coating: 24.67 mW/m2
(projected cathode surface
area)
Packed Granular diameters: 1.5– Mixture of sediment, Tubular MFC with an 8 W/m3 (cathode liquid Clauwaert et al.
5 mm; cathode chamber: aerobic and anaerobic internal cathode volume) (2007a)
444 mL sludge
Tubular Cathode chamber: 40 mL Mixture of sediment, Cylindrical two chamber 83 ± 11 W/m3 (total MFC Clauwaert et al.
aerobic and anaerobic MFC with a internal anode volume) (2007b)
sludge chamber
Brush Unreported Aerobic sludge Two chamber MFC 68.4 W/m3 (anodic wet You et al. (2009)
volume)
9341
9342 J. Wei et al. / Bioresource Technology 102 (2011) 9335–9344
replaced the ion exchange membrane in MACAs with an inexpen-
sive polyvinylidene fluoride and polystyrene sulfonic acid mem-
brane. Similar maximum power densities were obtained for the
two MACAs made with different membranes. Another reported
fabrication method is the application of a hydrogel between the
ion exchange membrane and the carbon cloth air cathode, which
increased the cathode potential by about 100 mV over a 0–5.5 mA
range (Kim et al., 2009a). This is because the hydrogel increases
the hydration of the cathode and the contact area between the
cathode and the membrane.
A newly reported fabrication method for MACAs is to coat gas-
permeable membranes or fabric with conductive paints and a cat-
alyst. Zuo et al. (2007) developed a tubular MACA by coating a
tubular ultrafiltration membrane (UFM) with graphite paint and
non-precious metal catalyst. For the MFC reactors with the same
volume, this tubular architecture provided much larger surface
areas for oxygen reduction, and thus, higher power densities than
the plain cathode. Zuo et al. (2008) then replaced UFM with a low-
cost anion exchange membrane (AEM) and CEM, and found that
the AEM cathode with a conductive coating facing the solution per-
formed better than the CEM and UFM cathode in single-chamber
MFCs. Zhuang et al. (2009) constructed a lower cost membrane-
less cloth cathode assembly (CCA) by coating a canvas cloth with
nickel-based or graphite-based paint and MnO2. Under the fed-
batch mode, Ni–CCA and graphite–CCA generated maximum
power densities of 86.03 and 24.67 mW/m2 (normalized to the
projected cathode surface area) in tubular MFCs, respectively. De-
spite their comparable performance, such CCAs cost less than 5%
of the MACAs mentioned above.
3.2. Air–cathodes and aqueous air–cathodes without catalysts
The use of Pt in air–cathodes and aqueous air–cathodes signifi-
cantly increased the cathode cost. The price of cathode materials
can account for the greatest percentage (47%) of capital costs of
air–cathode MFCs (Rozendal et al., 2008). Many researchers have
pursued the possibility of using high specific area carbon materials
to reduce the cathodic reaction overpotential, rather than utilizing
catalysts. A non-catalyzed aqueous air–cathode made of granular
graphite achieved a power output up to 50 W/m3 (cathode liquid
volume) due to the nanoscale pores on it (Freguia et al., 2007).
The use of non-catalyzed granular graphite as aqueous air–cathode
material was also reported by Tran et al. (2010). Compared with
graphite, activated carbon is a more ideal material for non-cata-
lyzed air–cathodes. In the study of Zhang et al. (2009a), activated
carbon was cold-pressed with a PTFE binder to form the cathode
around a Ni mesh current collector. This air–cathode produced a
higher maximum power density (1220 mW/m2, normalized to
the cathode projected surface area) than a Pt-catalyzed carbon
cloth cathode (1060 mW/m2). Deng et al. (2010) reported the
application of an activated carbon fiber felt air–cathode in an up
flow MFC; this cathode produced a maximum power density of
315 mW/m2 compared with a platinum-coated carbon paper one,
which produced lower values (124 mW/m2, 0.2 mg-Pt/cm2).
Electrode modification is another method of increasing the oxy-
gen reduction activity of common carbon materials. In an aqueous
air–cathode, Erable et al. (2009) discovered that the use of nitric
acid and thermal-activated graphite granules cathode led to a high
open circuit voltage of 1050 mV, which was associated with the in-
crease of material surface and the emergence of nitrogen superfi-
cial groups on its surface. Air–cathode can also be made with
modified carbon materials. Park and Zeikus (2003) fabricated an
Fe3+-graphite air–cathode by mixing ferric sulfate with fine graph-
ite powder, kaolin, and nickel chloride. Because Fe3+ can act as
electron mediators on the cathode, the Fe3+–graphite cathode
showed superior performance compared with a graphite electrode
alone. Similarly, Duteanu et al. (2010) compared the oxygen reduc-
tion activity of carbon powder modified with various chemicals,
including HNO3, H3PO4, KOH, and H2O2, in air–cathode MFCs. The
HNO3-treated carbon powder demonstrated the highest current
densities (1115 mA/m2, at 5.6 mV), greater than those of a Pt-sup-
ported untreated carbon cathode.
Overall, activated carbon and HNO3-treated carbon powder
achieve higher power generation performance than other materials
used in catalyst free air–cathode. And they also outperformed
Pt-supported air–cathode. The development of these inexpensive
materials significantly increases the cost-performance ratio of
air–cathode.
3.3. Biocathode
Biocathode have the important advantage of relatively low cost,
good stability and multiple functions for wastewater treatment
and biosynthesis. Thus it has become a rapidly emerging research
topic within the MFC field (Huang et al., 2011). As mentioned
above, the same materials are often used for the biocathode and
anode in MFCs. Currently, biocathode electrodes are mainly com-
posed of carbon-based materials, such as graphite plate, carbon
felt, granular graphite, and graphite fiber brush, as well as stainless
steel mesh (Behera et al., 2010; Clauwaert et al., 2007a,b; Dumas
et al., 2008b; Liang et al., 2009; Xie et al., 2011; You et al., 2009).
The surface characteristics and surface area available for bacteria,
which depend on the nature of the electrode materials and their
configuration, are two main factors that affect the biomass on
bio-cathodes and their performance (Huang et al., 2011). Dumas
et al. (2008b) reported that stainless steel performed better than
graphite in supporting biocathodes when the reactor was inocu-
lated with G. sulfurreducens and the electrodes were polarized at
0.60 V vs. Ag/AgCl. De Schamphelaire et al. (2010) found that car-
bon felt was more suitable than stainless mesh for biocathodes.
However, these comparisons of current and power density were
not normalized to the surface area of the electrode. Hence, the
material more suitable for biocathodes remains unconfirmed.
Packed and brush structures are accepted to be superior compared
with others because they provide larger surface areas for the con-
figuration of biocathodes. From a cost point of view remains a need
for lower-costing electrode materials for practical application.
4. Challenge and outlook
The real goal of MFC designs is to achieve practical implemen-
tation in a wastewater treatment system. Thus, scale-up is an
important issue in MFC design. The main challenges for commer-
cializing scalable MFCs include the development of cost-effective
materials and architectures that can be used in larger scale
applications.
4.1. Electrode configuration
For the anode and bio-cathode of large-scale MFCs, large acces-
sible surface areas for bacteria and efficient current collection are
essential to achieve high power density.
Thus far, packed and brush structures are two relatively ideal
configurations that can achieve high surface area for bacterial
adhesion. Compared with a packed structure electrode, the high
porosities of brush electrodes can effectively avoid the potential
for clogging. However, clumping fibers are a potential problem that
decreases the effective area of fibers (Logan, 2007).
The ohmic resistance of large-scale electrodes is a problem that
cannot be neglected. For example the electrical resistivity of graph-
ite is 1375 lX cm, compared with only 42 lX cm for titanium
 J. Wei et al. / Bioresource Technology 102 (2011) 9335–9344
Table 4
Cost and estimated bulk density of common electrode materials in MFC.
Electrode Material Material cost in Chinaa
configuration
Plane structure Carbon cloth 45–130 (¥/m2)
Packed structure Graphite granule 5.5–20 (¥/kg)
Packed structure Granular activated carbon 0.5–1 (¥/kg)
Packed structure Carbon felt 150–300 (¥/kg)
Brush structure Carbon fiber 150–300 (¥/kg)
Plane structure Titanium 100–1000 (¥/m2)
Plane structure Stainless steel mesh 7–50 (¥/m2)
a
2010 values from http://www.alibaba.com/ and http://china.alibaba.com.
(Rozendal et al., 2008). The resistance is known to be linearly re-
lated to the path length of the electron flow. Therefore, the electri-
cal resistivity of carbon materials is relatively high, which can
produce high electrode ohmic losses in large-scale systems. In or-
der to decrease the ohmic resistance of large-scale electrodes, a
major concern that must be addressed in electrode configuration
is the minimization of the travel distance of the electrons that have
to flow through electrode materials with low conductivity. Metal
current collectors are often used with carbon materials to reduce
the overall resistance of the cathode. A good example of such a col-
lector is a graphite fiber brush integrated with a twisted core of
titanium wires (Logan et al., 2007). The thickness of the reactor
must be reduced and the stainless steel mesh can be used as a cur-
rent collector for the packed structure electrode.
The commonly used carbon-supporting materials for air–cath-
ode can produce high electrode ohmic losses in large-scale sys-
tems. Thus, a metal current collector is also necessary. The use of
a stainless mesh is helpful in reducing ohmic loss by producing lar-
ger air–cathodes (Zhang et al., 2010). The performance of currently
used diffusion layers also needs to be further tested for water leak-
age prevention; these layers could lead to improved CEs under high
hydraulic pressure.
4.2. Electrode cost
Rozendal et al. (2008) estimated the capital costs of MFCs based
on materials currently being used in the laboratory; they showed
that the price of cathode materials (air–cathode) can account for
the greatest percentage (47%) of MFC capital costs. Thus, reducing
the cost of cathode materials is very critical for the practical appli-
cation of MFCs. An important method of reducing costs is the
development of inexpensive base materials, diffusion layer materi-
als, binders, and catalysts. As mentioned above, Zhang et al. (2010)
demonstrated that air–cathodes can be constructed using inexpen-
sive metal mesh materials, such as stainless steel, and an inexpen-
sive coating of PDMS. Strong demands for low cost catalysts with
non-precious metals, as well as new binders that are less expensive
than Nafion, currently exist. Another way of reducing cathode costs
is the development of biocathodes. Similar to anodes, packing and
brush structures are relatively ideal configurations in terms of
practical application. However, based on the electrode materials
currently used in the laboratory (i.e., granular graphite, carbon fi-
ber, and metal current collectors), the capital cost of MFCs with
biocathodes remains several times more costly than those of con-
ventional wastewater treatment systems. In China, some low cost
carbon and metal materials can be obtained from domestic manu-
facturers (Table 4), but their performance and stability have yet to
be tested. On the premise of ensuring a specific level of perfor-
mance in wastewater treatment and power generation, further
development of cost-effective electrode materials is essential for
the commercial use of MFCs.
9343
5. Conclusions
Electrode designs are the greatest challenge in manufacturing
MFCs as a cost-effective technology. A variety of carbon and metal
materials have been explored to develop anodes and cathodes, and
several electrode modification methods have been developed to
improve power generation. The electrode configuration has
evolved from a planar to a three-dimensional structure, However,
power generation and electrode cost discussed thus far have not
reached the levels for commercial use. Further studies on more
cost-efficient electrode materials and optimization of configura-
tions are expected to address these challenges and enhance the
corporation potential of large-scale MFCs with conventional waste-
water treatment systems.
Acknowledgements
This research was supported by National High Technology Re-
search and Development Program of China (863 Program) (No.
2009AA06Z306).
References
Aelterman, P., Versichele, M., Marzorati, M., Boon, N., Verstraete, W., 2008. Loading
rate and external resistance control the electricity generation of microbial fuel
cells with different three-dimensional anodes. Bioresour. Technol. 99, 8895–
8902.
Behera, M., Jana, P.S., Ghangrekar, M.M., 2010. Performance evaluation of low cost
microbial fuel cell fabricated using earthen pot with biotic and abiotic cathode.
Bioresour. Technol. 101, 1183–1189.
Chaudhuri, S.K., Lovley, D.R., 2003. Electricity generation by direct oxidation of
glucose in mediatorless microbial fuel cells. Nat. Biotechnol. 21, 1229–1232.
Cheng, S.A., Logan, B.E., 2007. Ammonia treatment of carbon cloth anodes to
enhance power generation of microbial fuel cells. Electrochem. Commun. 9,
492–496.
Cheng, S.A., Liu, H., Logan, B.E., 2006a. Increased performance of single-chamber
microbial fuel cells using an improved cathode structure. Electrochem.
Commun. 8, 489–494.
Cheng, S.A., Liu, H., Logan, B.E., 2006b. Power densities using different cathode
catalysts (Pt and CoTMPP) and polymer binders (Nafion and PTFE) in single
chamber microbial fuel cells. Environ. Sci. Technol. 40, 364–369.
Clauwaert, P., Rabaey, K., Aelterman, P., De Schamphelaire, L., Ham, T.H., Boeckx, P.,
et al., 2007a. Biological denitrification in microbial fuel cells. Environ. Sci.
Technol. 41, 3354–3360.
Clauwaert, P., Van der Ha, D., Boon, N., Verbeken, K., Verhaege, M., Rabaey, K.,
Verstraete, W., 2007b. Open air biocathode enables effective electricity
generation with microbial fuel cells. Environ. Sci. Technol. 41, 7564–7569.
Crittenden, S.R., Sund, C.J., Sumner, J.J., 2006. Mediating electron transfer from
bacteria to a gold electrode via a self-assembled monolayer. Langmuir 22,
9473–9476.
De Schamphelaire, L., Boeckx, P., Verstraete, W., 2010. Evaluation of biocathodes in
freshwater and brackish sediment microbial fuel cells. Appl. Microbiol.
Biotechnol. 87, 1675–1687.
Deng, Q., Li, X.Y., Zuo, J.E., Ling, A., Logan, B.E., 2010. Power generation using an
activated carbon fiber felt cathode in an upflow microbial fuel cell. J. Power
Sources 195, 1130–1135.
Dewan, A., Beyenal, H., Lewandowski, Z., 2008. Scaling up microbial fuel cells.
Environ. Sci. Technol. 42, 7643–7648.
Di Lorenzo, M., Scott, K., Curtis, T.P., Head, I.M., 2010. Effect of increasing anode
surface area on the performance of a single chamber microbial fuel cell. Chem.
Eng. J. 156, 40–48.
Dumas, C., Mollica, A., Feron, D., Basseguy, R., Etcheverry, L., Bergel, A., 2007. Marine
microbial fuel cell: use of stainless steel electrodes as anode and cathode
materials. Electrochim. Acta 53, 468–473.
Dumas, C., Basseguy, R., Bergel, A., 2008a. Electrochemical activity of Geobacter
sulfurreducens biofilms on stainless steel anodes. Electrochim. Acta 53, 5235–
5241.
Dumas, C., Basseguy, R., Bergel, A., 2008b. Microbial electrocatalysis with Geobacter
sulfurreducens biofilm on stainless steel cathodes. Electrochim. Acta 53, 2494–
2500.
Duteanu, N., Erable, B., Kumar, S.M.S., Ghangrekar, M.M., Scott, K., 2010. Effect of
chemically modified Vulcan XC-72R on the performance of air-breathing
cathode in a single-chamber microbial fuel cell. Bioresour. Technol. 101,
5250–5255.
Erable, B., Bergel, A., 2009. First air-tolerant effective stainless steel microbial anode
obtained from a natural marine biofilm. Bioresour. Technol. 100, 3302–3307.
Erable, B., Duteanu, N., Kumar, S.M.S., Feng, Y.J., Ghangrekar, M.M., Scott, K., 2009.
Nitric acid activation of graphite granules to increase the performance of the
9344 J. Wei et al. / Bioresource Technology 102 (2011) 9335–9344
non-catalyzed oxygen reduction reaction (ORR) for MFC applications.
Electrochem. Commun. 11, 1547–1549.
Fan, Y., Xu, S., Schaller, R., Jiao, J., Chaplen, F., Liu, H., 2011. Nanoparticle decorated
anodes for enhanced current generation in microbial electrochemical cells.
Biosens. Bioelectron. 26, 1908–1912.
Feng, Y., Yang, Q., Wang, X., Logan, B.E., 2010. Treatment of carbon fiber brush
anodes for improving power generation in air–cathode microbial fuel cells. J.
Power Sources 195, 1841–1844.
Freguia, S., Rabaey, K., Yuan, Z., Keller, J., 2007. Non-catalyzed cathodic oxygen
reduction at graphite granules in microbial fuel cells. Electrochim. Acta 53, 598–
603.
He, Z., Minteer, S.D., Angenent, L.T., 2005. Electricity generation from artificial
wastewater using an upflow microbial fuel cell. Environ. Sci. Technol. 39, 5262–
5267.
Huang, L., Regan, J.M., Quan, X., 2011. Electron transfer mechanisms, new
applications, and performance of biocathode microbial fuel cells. Bioresour.
Technol. 102, 316–323.
Jiang, D.Q., Li, B.K., 2009. Novel electrode materials to enhance the bacterial
adhesion and increase the power generation in microbial fuel cells (MFCs).
Water Sci. Technol. 59, 557–563.
Kim, J.R., Min, B., Logan, B.E., 2005. Evaluation of procedures to acclimate a microbial
fuel cell for electricity production. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 68, 23–30.
Kim, J.R., Premier, G.C., Hawkes, F.R., Dinsdale, R.M., Guwy, A.J., 2009a. Development
of a tubular microbial fuel cell (MFC) employing a membrane electrode
assembly cathode. J. Power Sources 187, 393–399.
Kim, M., Hyun, M.S., Gadd, G.M., Kim, G.T., Lee, S.J., Kim, H.J., 2009b. Membrane-
electrode assembly enhances performance of a microbial fuel cell type
biological oxygen demand sensor. Environ. Technol. 30, 329–336.
Li, F.X., Sharma, Y., Lei, Y., Li, B.K., Zhou, Q.X., 2010. Microbial Fuel Cells: the effects
of configurations, electrolyte solutions, and electrode materials on power
generation. Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol. 160, 168–181.
Liang, P., Fan, M.Z., Cao, X.X., Huang, X., 2009. Evaluation of applied cathode
potential to enhance biocathode in microbial fuel cells. J. Chem. Technol.
Biotechnol. 84, 794–799.
Liang, P., Wang, H.Y., Xia, X., Huang, X., Mo, Y.H., Cao, X.X., Fan, M.Z., 2011. Carbon
nanotube powders as electrode modifier to enhance the activity of anodic
biofilm in microbial fuel cells. Biosens. Bioelectron. 26, 3000–3004.
Liu, H., Logan, B.E., 2004. Electricity generation using an air–cathode single chamber
microbial fuel cell in the presence and absence of a proton exchange membrane.
Environ. Sci. Technol. 38, 4040–4046.
Logan, B.E., 2007. Microbial Fuel Cell, 1st ed. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken.
Logan, B.E., 2009. Exoelectrogenic bacteria that power microbial fuel cells. Nat. Rev.
Microbiol. 7, 375–381.
Logan, B.E., Murano, C., Scott, K., Gray, N.D., Head, I.M., 2005. Electricity generation
from cysteine in a microbial fuel cell. Water Res. 39, 942–952.
Logan, B.E., Hamelers, B., Rozendal, R.A., Schrorder, U., Keller, J., Freguia, S.,
Aelterman, P., Verstraete, W., Rabaey, K., 2006. Microbial fuel cells:
methodology and technology. Environ. Sci. Technol. 40, 5181–5192.
Logan, B.E., Cheng, S.A., Watson, V., Estadt, G., 2007. Graphite fiber brush anodes for
increased power production in air–cathode microbial fuel cells. Environ. Sci.
Technol. 41, 3341–3346.
Lowy, D.A., Tender, L.M., 2008. Harvesting energy from the marine sediment-water
interface III – Kinetic activity of quinone- and antimony-based anode materials.
J. Power Sources 185, 70–75.
Lowy, D.A., Tender, L.M., Zeikus, J.G., Park, D.H., Lovley, D.R., 2006. Harvesting
energy from the marine sediment-water interface II – Kinetic activity of anode
materials. Biosens. Bioelectron. 21, 2058–2063.
Min, B., Logan, B.E., 2004. Continuous electricity generation from domestic
wastewater and organic substrates in a flat plate microbial fuel cell. Environ.
Sci. Technol. 38, 5809–5814.
Park, D.H., Zeikus, J.G., 2002. Impact of electrode composition on electricity
generation in a single-compartment fuel cell using Shewanella putrefaciens.
Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 59, 58–61.
Park, D.H., Zeikus, J.G., 2003. Improved fuel cell and electrode designs for producing
electricity from microbial degradation. Biotechnol. Bioeng. 81, 348–355.
Peng, L., You, S.J., Wang, J.Y., 2010. Carbon nanotubes as electrode modifier
promoting direct electron transfer from Shewanella oneidensis. Biosens.
Bioelectron. 25, 1248–1251.
Pham, T.H., Jang, J.K., Moon, H.S., Chang, I.S., Kim, B.H., 2005. Improved performance
of microbial fuel cell using membrane-electrode assembly. J. Microbiol.
Biotechnol. 15, 438–441.
Prakash, G.K.S., Viva, F.A., Bretschger, O., Yang, B., El-Naggar, M., Nealson, K., 2010.
Inoculation procedures and characterization of membrane electrode assemblies
for microbial fuel cells. J. Power Sources 195, 111–117.
Rabaey, K., Clauwaert, P., Aelterman, P., Verstraete, W., 2005. Tubular microbial fuel
cells for efficient electricity generation. Environ. Sci. Technol. 39, 8077–8082.
Rabaey, K., Angenent, L., Schroder, U., Keller, J., 2009. Bioelectrochemical Systems:
From Extracellular Electron Transfer to Biotechnological Application, 1st ed.
IWA Publishing, Lodon.
Richter, H., McCarthy, K., Nevin, K.P., Johnson, J.P., Rotello, V.M., Lovley, D.R., 2008.
Electricity generation by Geobacter sulfurreducens attached to gold electrodes.
Langmuir 24, 4376–4379.
Ringeisen, B.R., Henderson, E., Wu, P.K., Pietron, J., Ray, R., Little, B., Biffinger, J.C.,
Jones-Meehan, J.M., 2006. High power density from a miniature microbial fuel
cell using Shewanella oneidensis DSP10. Environ. Sci. Technol. 40, 2629–2634.
Rozendal, R.A., Hamelers, H.V.M., Rabaey, K., Keller, J., Buisman, C.J.N., 2008.
Towards practical implementation of bioelectrochemical wastewater
treatment. Trends Biotechnol. 26, 450–459.
Scott, K., Rimbu, G.A., Katuri, K.P., Prasad, K.K., Head, I.M., 2007. Application of
modified carbon anodes in microbial fuel cells. Process Saf. Environ. Protect. 85,
481–488.
Scott, K., Cotlarciuc, I., Hall, D., Lakeman, J.B., Browning, D., 2008a. Power from
marine sediment fuel cells, the influence of anode material. J. Appl.
Electrochem. 38, 1313–1319.
Scott, K., Cotlarciuc, I., Head, I., Katuri, K.P., Hall, D., Lakeman, J.B., Browning, D.,
2008b. Fuel cell power generation from marine sediments, investigation of
cathode materials. J. Chem. Technol. Biotechnol. 83, 1244–1254.
Sharma, T., Reddy, A.L.M., Chandra, T.S., Ramaprabhu, S., 2008. Development of
carbon nanotubes and nanofluids based microbial fuel cell. Int. J. Hydrogen
Energy 33, 6749–6754.
Sun, J.J., Zhao, H.Z., Yang, Q.Z., Song, J., Xue, A., 2010. A novel layer-by-layer self-
assembled carbon nanotube-based anode, preparation, characterization, and
application in microbial fuel cell. Electrochim. Acta 55, 3041–3047.
Tang, X., Guo, K., Li, H., Du, Z., Tian, J., 2011. Electrochemical treatment of graphite to
enhance electron transfer from bacteria to electrodes. Bioresour. Technol. 102,
3558–3560.
ter Heijne, A., Hamelers, H.V.M., Saakes, M., Buisman, C.J.N., 2008. Performance of
non-porous graphite and titanium-based anodes in microbial fuel cells.
Electrochim. Acta 53, 5697–5703.
Tran, H.T., Ryu, J.H., Jia, Y.H., Oh, S.J., Choi, J.Y., Park, D.H., Ahn, D.H., 2010.
Continuous bioelectricity production and sustainable wastewater treatment in
a microbial fuel cell constructed with non-catalyzed granular graphite
electrodes and permeable membrane. Water Sci. Technol. 61, 1819–1827.
Tsai, H.Y., Wu, C.C., Lee, C.Y., Shih, E.P., 2009. Microbial fuel cell performance of
multiwall carbon nanotubes on carbon cloth as electrodes. J. Power Sources 194,
199–205.
Wang, X., Cheng, S.A., Feng, Y.J., Merrill, M.D., Saito, T., Logan, B.E., 2009. Use of
carbon mesh anodes and the effect of different pretreatment methods on power
production in microbial fuel cells. Environ. Sci. Technol. 43, 6870–6874.
Wang, K., Liu, Y., Chen, S., 2011. Improved microbial electrocatalysis with neutral
red immobilized electrode. J. Power Sources 196, 164–168.
Xie, S., Liang, P., Chen, Y., Xia, X., Huang, X., 2011. Simultaneous carbon and nitrogen
removal using an oxic/anoxic-biocathode microbial fuel cells coupled system.
Bioresour. Technol. 102, 348–354.
You, S.J., Ren, N.Q., Zhao, Q.L., Wang, J.Y., Yang, F.L., 2009. Power generation and
electrochemical analysis of biocathode microbial fuel cell using graphite fibre
brush as cathode material. Fuel Cells 9, 588–596.
You, S.J., Wang, X.H., Zhang, J.N., Wang, J.Y., Ren, N.Q., Gong, X.B., 2011. Fabrication
of stainless steel mesh gas diffusion electrode for power generation in microbial
fuel cell. Biosens. Bioelectron. 26, 2142–2146.
Yu, E.H., Cheng, S.A., Scott, K., Logan, B.E., 2007. Microbial fuel cell performance with
non-Pt cathode catalysts. J. Power Sources 171, 275–281.
Yuan, Y., Jeon, Y., Jalal, A., Park, W., Kim, S., 2009. Use of carbon nanoparticles for
bacteria immobilization in microbial fuel cells for high power output. J.
Electrochem. Soc. 156, B1238–B1241.
Zhang, F., Cheng, S.A., Pant, D., Van Bogaert, G., Logan, B.E., 2009a. Power generation
using an activated carbon and metal mesh cathode in a microbial fuel cell.
Electrochem. Commun. 11, 2177–2179.
Zhang, X.Y., Cheng, S.A., Wang, X., Huang, X., Logan, B.E., 2009b. Separator
characteristics for increasing performance of microbial fuel cells. Environ. Sci.
Technol. 43, 8456–8461.
Zhang, F., Saito, T., Cheng, S.A., Hickner, M.A., Logan, B.E., 2010. Microbial fuel cell
cathodes with poly(dimethylsiloxane) diffusion layers constructed around
stainless steel mesh current collectors. Environ. Sci. Technol. 44, 1490–1495.
Zhao, F., Rahunen, N., Varcoe, J.R., Chandra, A., Avignone-Rossa, C., Thumser, A.E.,
Slade, R.C.T., 2008. Activated carbon cloth as anode for sulfate removal in a
microbial fuel cell. Environ. Sci. Technol. 42, 4971–4976.
Zhao, Y.K., Watanabe, K., Nakamura, R., Mori, S., Liu, H., Ishii, K., et al., 2010. Three-
dimensional conductive nanowire networks for maximizing anode performance
in microbial fuel cells. Chem. Eur. J. 16, 4982–4985.
Zhuang, L., Zhou, S., Wang, Y., Liu, C., Geng, S., 2009. Membrane-less cloth cathode
assembly (CCA) for scalable microbial fuel cells. Biosens. Bioelectron. 24, 3652–
3656.
Zou, Y.J., Xiang, C., Yang, L., Sun, L.X., Xu, F., Cao, Z., 2008. A mediatorless microbial
fuel cell using polypyrrole coated carbon nanotubes composite as anode
material. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy. 33, 4856–4862.
Zuo, Y., Cheng, S.A., Call, D., Logan, B.E., 2007. Tubular membrane cathodes for
scalable power generation in microbial fuel cells. Environ. Sci. Technol. 41,
3347–3353.
Zuo, Y., Cheng, S.A., Logan, B.E., 2008. Ion exchange membrane cathodes for scalable
microbial fuel cells. Environ. Sci. Technol. 42, 6967–6972.