Renewable Energy Focus 44 (2023) 132–138

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Renewable Energy Focus

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

Low carbon development based on microbial fuel cells as electrical

generation and wastewater treatment unit
Aris Mukimin ⇑, Hanny Vistanty
National Research and Innovation Agency, Indonesia

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

Article history: Indonesia has aimed to use 23% renewable energy in 2025 as an effort to reduce greenhouse gas emission
Received 8 August 2022 which is of significant importance to global warming and climate change. Microbial fuel cells is another
Revised 12 December 2022 option to generate renewable energy and reduce carbon dioxide and methane emission. The performance
Accepted 22 December 2022
of microbial fuel cells is determined by cell configurations, including anode, cathode, microbial inoculum,
Available online 26 December 2022
and design of reactor. Carbon-based anode, platina-doped carbon cathode, anaerobic inoculum and single
chamber reactor may lead to enhanced performance of microbial fuel cells. Microbial fuel cells were
Keywords:
applied using various synthetic substrates containing glucose, sucrose, acetic acid, ethanol, and municipal
Renewable energy
Microbial Fuel Cells
or industrial wastewater. Microbial fuel cells could generate electricity of 0.294 – 6492 m W/m2 while
Wastewater, greenhouse gas achieving COD removal efficiency of 48 – 94%. This technology is a promising technical answer to low-
Low carbon carbon development as it can reduce CO2 and methane while generating electricity. CO2 emission
removal of 0.006 – 4.35 kg CO2/m3 wastewater and methane reduction of 0.058 – 17.25 kg CH4/m3
wastewater were achieved.
Ó 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction to achieve energy independence through several strategies, i.e.,

Indonesia is still considered dependent on fossil energy, even
more, most of it is imported from other countries [1]. In 2020, fossil
energy consumption in Indonesia was up to 844.98 million BOE
that was utilized in many sectors, i.e., industry (382,3 million
BOE), transportation (364,33 million BOE), household (153,76 mil-
lion BOE), commercial (41,8 million BOE), other sectors (10,33 mil-
lion BOE) and nonenergy (24,2 million BOE) [11]. This will affect
the trade balance and environment in respect of carbon emissions
generated, or known as the greenhouse effect or global warming. In
2013, the Ministry of Industry, Indonesia, mentioned 6 (six) gases
categorized as a greenhouse gas, including carbon dioxide (CO2),
methane (CH4), hydrofluorocarbon (HFCS), sulfur hexafluoride
(SF6), perfluorocarbon (PFCS) and nitrous oxide (N2O). Carbon diox-
ide and methane contribute up to 79 % and 11%, respectively (Envi-
ronmental Protection [6], and both are generated by industrial
activity, i.e., energy consumption, production process, and waste
treatment or management Table 1 and Table 2.
Meanwhile, The National Medium Term Development Plan
(RPJM) in respect of energy stated that renewable energy utiliza-
tion target in 2025 is 23%. Thus intensive efforts need to be done
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: arismukimin@gmail.com (A. Mukimin).
(1) ability to adopt technology, (2) human resources capacity
building, and (3) funding. Microbial fuel cells are also potential
as a technology to supply renewable energy. This paper reports a
short overview of MFCs, including the features of reactor, its per-
formance in electrical generation and pollutant removal. Conver-
sion of energy production and pollutant removal as CO2
mitigation and CH4 reduction was the original aim of this paper
and viewed as the main potential of MFCs.
Microbial fuel cells (MFCs) are promising approaches to gener-
ate renewable energy. This technology has gained a lot of interest
due to its prospect as a substitute for fossil fuel [5,12,22,42]. It is
more promising because of the absence of chemical (chemical fuel
cell), thus cheaper, and poses no negative impact on environment
[21].
MFCs were extensively developed in double chamber
[2,3,16,18,19,53] or single chamber configurations
[5,9,16,43,44,55]. Double chamber MFCs utilize membrane as sep-
arator that allows the passage of cations or anions. Membrane, fil-
ter paper, cellophane, glasswood, ceramics, and asbestos are
commonly utilized as separator. The utilization of double chamber
MFCs is limited by major drawbacks including clogging at surface
separator, low velocity of ion transfer and high cost. These disad-
vantages implicated an unadaptable and inflexible application.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ref.2022.12.005
1755-0084/Ó 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
A. Mukimin and H. Vistanty Renewable Energy Focus 44 (2023) 132–138

Table 1
describes electrical energy generated in previous studies.

Reactor type Anode Cathode Energy (mW/m2) Reference

Double chamber Porous carbon paper Porous carbon paper doping Pt 10% 40 [16]
Single chamber Porous carbon paper Porous carbon paper doping Pt 10% 488 [16]
Single chamber Graphite-PTFE composite Pt/Carbon 760 [55]
Double chamber Graphite plate Graphite plate 161 [25]
Single chamber Granular activated carbon Pt/Carbon cloth 6000.1 [14]
Single chamber Graphite felts Pt/carbon 40% wt 234.4 [15]
Double chamber Carbon rod Carbon rod 6492 [51]
Single chamber Graphite rod Platinum carbon cloth 174 [18]
Double chamber Carbon cloth Platinized titanium mesh 294 [18]
Double chamber Carbon felts Carbon felts or Graphite-granule 552 [19]
Single chamber Carbon felts Carbon plate 8,57 [46,47]
Carbon felts Carbon flake 0,294
Double chamber Graphite rod Carbon cloth Pt 30% 400 [49]
Double chamber Carbon paper Carbon paper 181.48 [53]
Single chamber Graphite plate Graphite plate 37.4 [57]
Double chamber Graphite sheet Graphite sheet 230 [24]
Double chamber Carbon fiber Carbon fiber 394 [27]
Bamboo charcoal Bamboo charcoal 8
Single chamber Graphite rod Graphite rod 10 [8]
Single chamber Graphite Graphite 400 [30]
Single chamber Carbon cloth Air cathode 113.7 [20]
Double chamber membraneless Carbon cloth GDL carbon-Pt 1500 [29]

Table 2
Represents COD removal of various pollutants using MFCs.

Substrates Initial COD (mg/L) COD Removal (%) Operation time (h) Reference
Acetate 300 71.4 – 83.8 12 [15,47]
1128 88 24
Pulp and paper 940 48 [51]
Domestic sewage 1200 94 48 [18]
Glucose 1000 68 14,8 [19]
3000 93 [49,57,37]
3500 53
30000 93 16

Dyes 1740 91 87 [46]

Sucrose 10000 92 - [53,8]
325 88 49
Food industry wastewater 1900 86 48 [24]
Honey 12272 21 8 [29]

Single chamber MFCs or membraneless microbial fuel cells
(MMFCs) were developed without separators and has become a
more prospective option. The configuration consists of one cham-
ber and a modified setting of anode and cathode based on gravity
level. However, the major drawback is presence of air in cathode
area leading into a difficulty in reaching a zero oxygen condition
in anode area. Previous studies developed a modified reactor, in
which anode and cathode were located at different level of heights
or connected via three channels [5,15,28,46]. Substrate flows verti-
cally (upflow) to facilitate cation (hydrogen) transfer from anode to
cathode and prevent oxygen flow to anode.
Another study also mentioned that MFCs can generate electrical
energy and accomplish wastewater treatment , simultaneously, by
degradation of organic compound into carbon dioxide (CO2),
hydrogen (H+), and electrons (e) [28]. It implicates the potential
to reduce greenhouse gas, especially CO2 and CH4. The impact on
greenhouse gas (CO2) was calculated based on quantity of CO2
emission yielded in generating electrical energy from coal. Conver-
sion factor of 0.725 kg CO2/kWh was obtained based on the perfor-
mance of a coal-fueled power plant in Indonesia. CH4 emission
reduction was calculated based on BOD value, i.e., 0.25 kg CH4/kg
BOD. The application and further development of MFCs can be
one way to support the low-carbon economy.
133
This review consists of four main parts, the first part described
an optimized MFCs reactor based on features of reactor, including:
design, anode and cathode material, separator, and microbial
inoculum. The second part describes and reports the electrical gen-
eration performance. While the third part calculates COD removal,
and the fourth chapter reports the valuation of greenhouse gas
emission reduction.
2. Methodology
This study was conducted in four main stages, other than refer-
ence search and collection, i.e., description of optimized features
reactor, compilation of electric power production, calculation of
COD removal, and valuation of greenhouse gas emission reduction.
Reference was collected using mendeley database, google search,
scientific journal database, and other database, based on specific
keyword, such as MFC, renewable energy, greenhouse gas, and
others.
Description and optimization of reactor was conducted on all
features, including reactor design, anode, cathode, separator,
microbial inoculum, and substrates. Those features were elabo-
rated to determine a trend as a reference for further study. Energy
production was described and compiled in a table, in respect with
A. Mukimin and H. Vistanty
reactor features. Energy generation was the main focus of MFCs, so
scientific explanation of fluctuative power production was also
described.
COD removal data was obtained directly and indirectly from
references. It was calculated based on initial COD, final COD, and
% COD removal and analyzed based on substrate used. Type of sub-
strate used will be the main factor influencing wastewater degra-
dation and percentage of pollutant removal. Greenhouse gas
reduction was calculated based on energy production and COD
removal. Power generated in MFC unit will contribute to CO2 mit-
igation (1 kWh = 0.725 kg CO2), while COD removal will contribute
to CH4 reduction (1 kg COD = 0,25 kg CH4).
3. Result And Discussion
3.1. Microbial fuel cells reactor
Technically, there are two common designs in MFCs, i.e., double
chamber and single chamber. Double chamber MFCs characterized
by different chamber of anode and cathode and utilize separator to
isolate both area into anaerobic and aerobic conditions. It is mostly
designed as two glas bottles separated with separator (Fig. 1).
Chambers are mostly designed in small-scale (less than 1 L).
Chamber configurations applied in several studies were about
220 – 350 mL [16,18,19], while others designed MFC reactors of
1 – 1.5 L from plexiglass bottles [24,49,51,53].
A simpler design was then developed without separator while
ensured the anaerobic and aerobic process take place by lay out
and fluid flow system modification. Thung et al. designed a single
Fig. 1. Schematic diagram of double chamber MFC, consisted of (1) anode, (2)
cathode, (3) separator, and (4) resistor
Fig. 2. Up-flow ML-MFC consisted of (1) feeding tank, (2) anaerob chamber, (3) aerob chamber, (4) processed water container, (5) Pump (6) carbon cloth MPL anode, (7) Pt-C
cathode, (8) aerator, (9) resistor, (10) data logger, and (11) computer
134
Renewable Energy Focus 44 (2023) 132–138
chamber MFC using acrylic column with 4.5 cm of diameter and
25 cm of height [46]. The bottom part of MFC was set as anaerobic
region (anode) and top part as aerobic region (cathode). Kim et al.
developed a single chamber MFC with diameter 5 cm and height 9
cm. Anode and cathode were placed on the bottom and top of
chamber, respectively [15]. Our previous study applied another
design of MFC (Fig. 2) using two connected reactors as anaerobic
(anode) and aerobic (cathode) zone, respectively. Both reactors
were connected by three canals with a specific layout to ensure
the up-flow system.
3.1.1. Anode material
Anode is an important component of MFCs since it is an electron
mediator to external electrical generator. It should not only easily
transfer electron but also act as a place for microbial growth. Var-
ious materials were used as anode including graphite/PTFE
[15,18,24,36,49,55,57], carbon [16,18,19,27,47,46,51,53], granular
activated carbon[14], and bamboo charcoal [27]. Rod, felt, cloth,
sheet, paper dan fiber carbon anode were commonly used. Porous,
to improve surface area, or composite carbon/PTFE anode were also
developed [16,55].
3.1.2. Cathode material
Cathode is another important component that acts as electron
acceptor from external source and transfer them to electrolyte or
aerobic bacterial in MFC. In terms of ion transfer, hydrogen gener-
ated in anaerobic chamber will be transferred to cathode. Many
materials were used as cathode including porous carbon paper
containing Pt catalyst [16], Pt/carbon [14,15,18,49,55], graphite
plate [36,57], carbon rod[51], Platinized titanium mesh [18], car-
bon felts or graphite-granule [19], carbon plate [46], carbon paper
[53], carbon fiber [27]and bamboo charcoal [27]. In terms of
organic pollutant treatment, cathode has additional role as a site
for aerobic microorganisms that will treat pollutants to achieve
higher performance [14,29,46].
3.1.3. Separator
Researchers utilized several materials as separator for double
champer MFCs such as Nafion membrane [18], proton exchange
membrane [17,19,24,27,53,55], membrane-free [49], filter paper
[27], cellophane [27], ceramic [7], and coconut shell [31]. Filter
paper and cellophane were widely used because commercially
available and cheap. Glass wool, ceramic, metals oxide, asbestos
were also utilized as separators, however they had low selectivity
A. Mukimin and H. Vistanty
and ion transfer velocity thus resulted in low energy production
[12,33,41]. Performance of ceramic as separator was enhanced by
adding red soil with cation exchange montmorillonite, and caolin
[7]. Proton exchange membrane (PEM) was reported as ideal sep-
arator, in respect of cost effectiveness, high proton conductivity,
good segregational properties, increased mechanical strength,
robust against heat and chemical, and electronically resistive
[45]. Sulfonated graphene oxide was effectively used as filler for
membrane in MFC [26].
3.1.4. Microorganisms
Electrical energy is generated by microbial activity in MFCs via
oxidation of organic substrate into simple compounds by releasing
electron which then accepted by anode and transferred into exter-
nal circuit. Several microrganisms were reported as effective for
MFCs including Geobacter [4,23,32,40], Shewanella [48,52],
photosynthetic bacteria [10,34,39], pseudomonas aerogenosa
[56]. The advantage of photosynthetic bacteria is the elimination
of carbondioxide generated by MFCs due to photosynthesis
process [45].
Microorganisms are also extracted from many sources including
sewage culture [51], anaerobic and activated sludge from indus-
trial watewater treatment plants [14,19,29]; [49], barley process-
ing wastewater [18], E. coli K 12 [55], mixed culture enriched
from cracked cereal[53], and sludge from municipal wastewater
treatment plant [24]. The extracted microbes was then aclimatized
using phosphate buffer for 4 – 5 days [14], 3 months [46], 7 days
[57], and 3 days [29]. Buffer was used to neutralize solution and
prevent growth of methanogenic bacteria as competitor in energy
production [28]. Macro (NH4HCO3, Na2CO3, K2HPO4, MgCl2) and
micro-nutrient (CuSO4, MnSO4, FeSO4 and CoCl2) was also added
to support microbial growth.
3.1.5. Organic substrate
Organic substrate was carbon source used by microbes and con-
verted into electrical energy (electrons). Hydrocarbon was sup-
plied by short chained organic and complex compounds from
wastewater. Simple organic compounds was obtained syntheti-
cally from single source such as ethanol [16], acetate [15], glucose
[19,49,55,57], sucrose [53], and lipid extracted algae [13].
Many researchers utilized wastewater as carbon source for
MFCs. Azo [19], other dyes [46], and other artificial wastewater
[18,54]were used as substrates. MFCs were also applied using
industrial wastewaters including pulp and paper [51], honey
[29], food [24], grass cutting [27], and blend of bran, oil cake, and
chicken dropping [27].
Fig. 3. Electrical energy production from various wastewaters [29]
135
Renewable Energy Focus 44 (2023) 132–138
3.2. Energy production
The main feature of MFCs is a tool of electrical energy produc-
tion. MFC reactors were mostly made in laboratory scale and were
able to produce energy ranged from 0.924 to 6492 mW/m2.
Highly varied energy harvested was highly influenced by the
type of MFCs used (double or single), electrode material (anode
and cathode), microbial species, and substrates used. Using the
same electrode material, single chamber MFC was able to generate
higher energy compared to double chamber (488:40 or 12:1) [16].
Higher electrical energy, up to 6000 mW/m2, was obtained in MFC
using granular activated carbon as anode and Pt/carbon cloth as
cathode [14]. While, in the other hand, MFC with graphite felt (an-
ode) showed an opposite trend and only generated energy of 234
mW/m2 [15].
Studies using double chamber MFCs reported relatively high
energy production (400 s/d 6492 mW/m2) [19,49,51]. Relatively
high energy generated by Wardhana et. al was due to the small size
of cathode used (air cathode) that enables ion transferred easily.
Furthermore, they also used pulp and paper wastewater substrate
which has high carbon content. Effect of substrates on electrical
energy generation was also supported by two other studies that
used glucose as carbon source that not only has a quite high carbon
(1000 – 3000 mg/L) but is also easily degradable [19,49,50].
Effect of carbon organic substrate on electrical energy genera-
tion was also investigated [28,29]. Trends of electrical production
from wastewaters using ML-MFC (membraneless-microbial fuel
cell) are shown in Fig. 3.
Energy generated was about 0.018 to 0.086 mW. Lowest electri-
cal energy was generated from acetate substrate (synthetic), while
UASB effluent produced the highest energy. It is highly influenced
by the presence of organic matters as readily degradable carbon
source that is converted into electrons by microbes. We assumed
UASB effluent has higher carbon and consisted of simpler com-
pounds than UASB influent that resulted in higher electrical
production.
However this phenomenon was not detected in low flowrate.
Based on Fig. 3, the highest electrical production was observed
from UASB influent on the lowest flowrate (8). This trend was pos-
sibly due to the characteristics of UASB influent that is highly
organic and more complex thus may generate more electrons with
longer processing time. Low flowrate means longer contact time
between wastewater and microbes thus will lead into higher gen-
eration of electrons.
Energy generated in MFC was about 6 W/m2 [14] and [51]. The
main advantages of this technology are simple reactor and more
feasible cost thus it will be a more prominent technology to
A. Mukimin and H. Vistanty Renewable Energy Focus 44 (2023) 132–138

generate renewable energy than other wind and solar-based tech- Table 3
nologies. Wind and solar-based technology required a relatively Greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction based on MFCs performance using various
wastewaters
high cost, i.e., 0.151 USD /kWh for operational cost and 6930
USD investment [38]. Economy feasibility assessment for wind Wastewater/substrates GHG emission Reference
and solar-based energy generation was also conducted in Pakistan. reduction /m2anode
m3wastewater
They reported 618 $/kW investment cost (solar) and 1039 $/kW
(wind), while the operation & maintenance costs were 39.56 $/ CO2 Kg CH4 Kg

kW-year for solar, and 26.22 $/kW-year for wind [35] Acetate 0.018 - [29,15,47]
0.1696 0.058
0.213 0.248
3.3. COD Removal UASB influent – honey wastewater 0.048 1.215 [29]
UASB effluent – honey wastewater 0.119 0.903 [29]
Mix of acetate – ammonia wastewater 4.35 0.579 [14]
Energy generation and pollutants removal are gained in MFCs. Pulp and water wastewater 6.277 0.113 [51]
Organic matter in wastewater, represented by COD, will be oxi- Sewage domestic 0.126 0.282 [18]
dized and by microorganisms thus wastewater quality will be 0.213 0.282
improved and safe to be discharged into the environment Glucose 0.400 0.170 [19]
0.290 0.697 [49,57,37]
Wastewaters used as substrate in MFCs were real (domestic
0.027 0.465
sewage, pulp and paper, azo dyes honey and food industry 0.116 7.015
wastewaters) and synthetic wastewaters that were mostly easily Dyes 0.006 0.395 [46]
degradable hydrocarbon (except dyes) including ethanol, acetate, Sucrose 0.131 2.300 [53,8]
glucose, fructose, and sucrose. Those wastewaters were added at 0.007 0.072
Ethanol 0.029 17.25 [16]
ranged concentrations of 300 to 30000 mg/L and operation time 0.354 17.25
of 10 to 87 h. Food wastewater industry 0.1667 0.408 [24]
MFCs were able to remove pollutants efficiently, mostly up to
80%. At longer operation time (48 h), COD removal was achieved
up to 86%, and 94% for sewage domestic [18]. Longer operation
time was needed to process dye wastewater, as MFC needed 87 h
to achieve 91% COD removal [46]. Lowest COD removal efficiency
were demonstrated by MFCs using honey and pulp and paper
wastewater, 21% and 48%, respectively [29,51]. Substrates used
by Mukimin et al. was relatively simple compound (linear chain),
and yet COD removal achieved was relatively low. It is clear that
another factor was affecting the performance. Based on table 2, it
was possibly due to short operation time (8 h) while the other
studies applied longer operation time (24 to 48 h). In the other
hand, low COD removal efficiency reported by Wardhana et al.
was not due to short operation time, but relatively complex com-
pound used as substrate (cellulose) thus more difficult to be oxi-
dized by microorganisms.

3.4. Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction

Simultaneous ability of MFCs to both produce electrical as well

as remove polllutants / COD in wastewater will contribute to
reduction of carbon and methane emission as main sources of
greenhouse effect.
Carbon dioxide reduction calculation by multiplication of
energy generated and conversion factor of 0.725 kg CO2/kWh
(based on coal as fuel in Indonesia’s generator) and methane
reduction was calculated based on COD removal efficiency and
converted by 0.25 kg CH4/kg BOD. BOD was used for calculation
due to the characteristics of wastewaters dominated by glucose /
carbohydrate.
Table 3 shows effect of wastewater on reduction of GHG emis-
sion. It is linearly correlated to electrical energy generated and pol-
lutant removal. MFCs using wastewater containing high carbon as
substrates was able to reduce carbon emission of 4.35 – 6.28 CO2
kg/m2anodem3wastewater. This trend was not linearly correlated to
methane emission reduction. Higher methane reduction was
observed on MFCs using easily degradable substrates such as glucose
and ethanol, 7.015 CH4 and 17.25 kg CH4/m2anode.m3wastewater [16,37].
CO2 mitigation initiated in MFC technology will be a specific advan-
tage compared to wind and solar-fueled technology, because both
technologies still generate CO2 emission of 11.38 g CO2/kWh [35].
Based on discussion in section III, IV and V, a conversion model
of pollutants into energy is shown in Figure 4.
136
Fig. 4. Model of carbon pollutant conversion to energy as influential factor of CO2
mitigation and CH4 reduction
Pollutants as carbon source will be oxidized by microbial com-
munity on anode surface and generate CO2, H+ and electron.
Hydrogen then will be transported to cathode by migration, diffu-
sion, and convection, and further reduced into H2O. Simultane-
ously, aerobic microorganisms on cathode surface will oxidize
the remaining pollutants and generate CO2 and H2O. Conversion
of pollutants into energy will directly affect CO2 mitigation gener-
ated from carbon combustion and CH4 reduction.
4. Conclusion
 Microbial fuel cells have a big potential for renewable energy
generation and reduce carbon dioxide and methane emission.
 Performance of MFCs is generally determined by cell configura-
tion and characteristic of carbon source (wastewater substrate).
Type of anode, cathode, microbial inoculum and reactor design
are significantly important to the performance MFCs.
A. Mukimin and H. Vistanty
 Enhanced performance of energy generation and COD removal
was reported with specific configuration of carbon-based anode,
platina-doped carbon cathode, anaerobic microbial inoculum,
single chamber type reactor and simple carbon wastewater
substrate.
 Highest electrical energy production was reported about 6 W/
m2 with average COD removal of 80%. It also can be a promising
technology to support low carbon development in respect of
CO2 and CH4 reduction. Carbon and methane reduction were
about 4.35 kg CO2/m2anodem3wastewater – 6.28 kg CH4/m2anodem3-
2 3
wastewater, respectively, 7.015 Kg CH4/manodamwastewater using glu-
cose wastewater and 17.25 kg CH4/manodem3wastewater using
2
ethanol wastewater.
 MFC reactor was designed in small scale (less than 5 L) thus the
results are highly biased and cannot be used as a basis in elec-
trical energy and COD removal calculation. Reactor scale up will
be an important subject of study to improve the application of
MFCs.
Data availability
All the necessary data has been presented in this article
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing finan-
cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared
to influence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgement
This review was based on research of 2018 fund by Ministry of
Industry and supported by PT. Madurasa Unggulan Nusantara and
other articles on Microbial Fuel Cells.
References
[1] A. Akhmad, Study of fuel oil supply and consumption in indonesia, Int. J.
Energy Econ. Policy 8 (2018) 13–20.
[2] A.E.H. Ali, M. Gomaa Ola, R. Fathey, H.A. El Kareem, M.A. Zaid, Optimization of
double chamber microbial fuel cell for domestic wastewater treatment and
electricity production, Ranliao Huaxue Xuebao/J. Fuel Chem. Technol. 43
(2015) 1092–1099, https://doi.org/10.1016/s1872-5813(15)30032-3.
[3] E. Baranitharan, M.R. Khan, A. Yousuf, W.F.A. Teo, G.Y.A. Tan, C.K. Cheng,
Enhanced power generation using controlled inoculum from palm oil mill
effluent fed microbial fuel cell, Fuel 143 (2015) 72–79, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.fuel.2014.11.030.
[4] Y. Cao, H. Mu, W. Liu, R. Zhang, J. Guo, M. Xian, H. Liu, Electricigens in the anode
of microbial fuel cells: Pure cultures versus mixed communities, Microb. Cell
Fact. 18 (2019) 1–14, https://doi.org/10.1186/s12934-019-1087-z.
[5] F. Du, B. Xie, W. Dong, B. Jia, K. Dong, H. Liu, Continuous flowing membraneless
microbial fuel cells with separated electrode chambers, Bioresour. Technol.
102 (2011) 8914–8920, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2011.07.056.
[6] Environmental Protection Agency, 2022. EPA 2022 httpswww.
epa.govghgemissionsinventory-us-greenhouse-gas-emissions-and-sinks.pdf.
[7] A.N. Ghadge, M.M. Ghangrekar, Development of low cost ceramic separator
using mineral cation exchanger to enhance performance of microbial fuel cells,
Electrochim. Acta 166 (2015) 320–328, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.electacta.2015.03.105.
[8] M.M. Ghangrekar, V.B. Shinde, Performance of membrane-less microbial fuel
cell treating wastewater and effect of electrode distance and area on electricity
production, Bioresour. Technol. 98 (2007) 2879–2885, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.biortech.2006.09.050.
[9] E. Guerrini, P. Cristiani, S.P. Marcello Trasatti, Relation of anodic and cathodic
performance to pH variations in membraneless microbial fuel cells, Int. J.
Hydrogen Energy 38 (2013) 345–353, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijhydene.2012.10.001.
[10] K. Iwai, D.T. Nguyen, K.T. Mem, Microbial Fuel Cells Using Purple
Photosynthetic Bacteria with Dry-Surface, Biofilms 27 (2019) 102–107.
[11] E.S.D.M. Kementerian, Handbook of Energy & Economy Statistics of Indonesia
2020, Book (2020) 1–111.
[12] M.R. Khan, M. Amin, S. Sarker, K. Ferdaus, Design and Fabrication of Membrane
Less Microbial Fuel Cell (ML-MFC) using Food Industries Wastewater for
Power Generation, J. Chem. Eng. 27 (2014) 55–59, https://doi.org/10.3329/jce.
v27i2.17803.
137
Renewable Energy Focus 44 (2023) 132–138
[13] A. Khandelwal, A. Vijay, A. Dixit, M. Chhabra, Microbial fuel cell powered by
lipid extracted algae: A promising system for algal lipids and power
generation, Bioresour. Technol. 247 (2018) 520–527, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.biortech.2017.09.119.
[14] H.W. Kim, J.Y. Nam, H.S. Shin, Ammonia inhibition and microbial adaptation in
continuous single-chamber microbial fuel cells, J. Power Sources 196 (2011)
6210–6213, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpowsour.2011.03.061.
[15] J. Kim, B. Kim, J. An, Y.S. Lee, I.S. Chang, Development of anode zone using dual-
anode system to reduce organic matter crossover in membraneless microbial
fuel cells, Bioresour. Technol. 213 (2016) 140–145, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
biortech.2016.03.012.
[16] J.R. Kim, S.H. Jung, J.M. Regan, B.E. Logan, Electricity generation and microbial
community analysis of alcohol powered microbial fuel cells, Bioresour.
Technol. 98 (2007) 2568–2577, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
biortech.2006.09.036.
[17] C.Y. Lai, S.H. Liu, G.P. Wu, C.W. Lin, Enhanced bio-decolorization of acid orange
7 and electricity generation in microbial fuel cells with superabsorbent-
containing membrane and laccase-based bio-cathode, J. Clean. Prod. 166
(2017) 381–386, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.08.047.
[18] A. Larrosa-Guerrero, K. Scott, I.M. Head, F. Mateo, A. Ginesta, C. Godinez, Effect
of temperature on the performance of microbial fuel cells, Fuel 89 (2010)
3985–3994, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2010.06.025.
[19] Z. Li, X. Zhang, J. Lin, S. Han, L. Lei, Azo dye treatment with simultaneous
electricity production in an anaerobic-aerobic sequential reactor and
microbial fuel cell coupled system, Bioresour. Technol. 101 (2010) 4440–
4445, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2010.01.114.
[20] S.H. Liu, C.Y. Lai, P.H. Chang, C.W. Lin, Y.H. Chen, Enhancing copper recovery
and electricity generation from wastewater using low-cost membrane-less
microbial fuel cell with a carbonized clay cup as cathode, J. Clean. Prod. 247
(2020), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119118.
[21] B.E. Logan, B. Hamelers, R. Rozendal, U. Schröder, J. Keller, S. Freguia, P.
Aelterman, W. Verstraete, K. Rabaey, Microbial fuel cells: Methodology and
technology, Environ. Sci. Technol. 40 (2006) 5181–5192, https://doi.org/
10.1021/es0605016.
[22] B.E. Logan, C. Murano, K. Scott, N.D. Gray, I.M. Head, Electricity generation
from cysteine in a microbial fuel cell, Water Res. 39 (2005) 942–952, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2004.11.019.
[23] Lovley, D.R., Ueki, T., Zhang, T., Malvankar, N.S., Shrestha, P.M., Flanagan, K.A.,
Aklujkar, M., Butler, J.E., Giloteaux, L., Rotaru, A.E., Holmes, D.E., Franks, A.E.,
Orellana, R., Risso, C., Nevin, K.P., 2011. Geobacter. The Microbe Electric’s
Physiology, Ecology, and Practical Applications, 1st ed, Advances in Microbial
Physiology. Elsevier Ltd. 10.1016/B978-0-12-387661-4.00004-5
[24] H.J. Mansoorian, A.H. Mahvi, A.J. Jafari, M.M. Amin, A. Rajabizadeh, N. Khanjani,
Bioelectricity generation using two chamber microbial fuel cell treating
wastewater from food processing, Enzyme Microb. Technol. 52 (2013) 352–
357, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enzmictec.2013.03.004.
[25] M. Mashkour, M. Rahimnejad, Effect of various carbon-based cathode
electrodes on the performance of microbial fuel cell, Biofuel Res. J. 2 (2015)
296–300, https://doi.org/10.18331/BRJ2015.2.4.3.
[26] S. Mondal, F. Papiya, S.N. Ash, P.P. Kundu, Composite membrane of sulfonated
polybenzimidazole and sulfonated graphene oxide for potential application in
microbial fuel cell, J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 9 (2021), https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jece.2020.104945.
[27] M.A. Moqsud, K. Omine, N. Yasufuku, M. Hyodo, Y. Nakata, Microbial fuel cell
(MFC) for bioelectricity generation from organic wastes, Waste Manag. 33
(2013) 2465–2469, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2013.07.026.
[28] A. Mukimin, The Energy Production and Efficiency Treatment of ML-MFC Using
High Organic Content Wastewater, E3S Web Conf. 202 (2020), https://doi.org/
10.1051/e3sconf/202020210005.
[29] A. Mukimin, N. Zen, H. Vistanty, P. Agus, High Electric Production by
Membraneless Microbial Fuel Cell with Up Flow Operation Using Acetate
Wastewater, J. Ris. Teknol. Pencegah. Pencemaran Ind. 11 (2020) 19–27,
https://doi.org/10.21771/jrtppi.2020.v11.no2.p19-27.
[30] Narayanan, K.A., Selvaraj, S., Parthasarathy, M., 2012. Narayanan, 2012.pdf.
[31] B. Neethu, G.D. Bhowmick, M.M. Ghangrekar, Enhancement of bioelectricity
generation and algal productivity in microbial carbon-capture cell using low
cost coconut shell as membrane separator, Biochem. Eng. J. 133 (2018) 205–
213, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bej.2018.02.014.
[32] K.P. Nevin, H. Richter, S.F. Covalla, J.P. Johnson, T.L. Woodard, A.L. Orloff, H. Jia,
M. Zhang, D.R. Lovley, Power output and columbic efficiencies from biofilms of
Geobacter sulfurreducens comparable to mixed community microbial fuel
cells, Environ. Microbiol. 10 (2008) 2505–2514, https://doi.org/10.1111/
j.1462-2920.2008.01675.x.
[33] Putra, H.E., Permana, D., Djaenudin, 2018. Preliminary study of the use of
sulfonated polyether ether ketone (SPEEK) as proton exchange membrane for
microbial fuel cell (MFC). Int. J. Renew. Energy Dev. 7, 7–12. 10.14710/
ijred.7.1.7-12
[34] X. Qi, Y. Ren, P. Liang, X. Wang, New insights in photosynthetic microbial fuel
cell using anoxygenic phototrophic bacteria, Bioresour. Technol. 258 (2018)
310–317, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2018.03.058.
[35] H. Qudrat-Ullah, A review and analysis of renewable energy policies and CO2
emissions of Pakistan, Energy 238 (2022), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
energy.2021.121849.
[36] M. Rahimnejad, A. Adhami, S. Darvari, A. Zirepour, S.E. Oh, Microbial fuel cell as
new technol ogy for bioelectricity generation: A review, Alexandria Eng. J. 54
(2015) 745–756, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aej.2015.03.031.
A. Mukimin and H. Vistanty
[37] Rahimnejad, M., Najafpour, G., Asghar, A., 2011. Effect of Mass Transfer on
Performance of Microbial Fuel Cell. Mass Transf. Chem. Eng. Process. 10.5772/
19675 [48]
[38] A. Razmjoo, L. Gakenia Kaigutha, M.A. Vaziri Rad, M. Marzband, A. Davarpanah,
M. Denai, A Technical analysis investigating energy sustainability utilizing
reliable renewable energy sources to reduce CO2 emissions in a high potential
area, Renew. Energy 164 (2021) 46–57, https://doi.org/10.1016/j. [49]
renene.2020.09.042.
[39] M. Rosenbaum, Z. He, L.T. Angenent, Light energy to bioelectricity:
Photosynthetic microbial fuel cells, Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 21 (2010) 259–
264, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copbio.2010.03.010.
[40] A.E. Rotaru, P.M. Shrestha, F. Liu, B. Markovaite, S. Chen, K.P. Nevin, D.R. Lovley, [50]
Direct interspecies electron transfer between Geobacter metallireducens and
Methanosarcina barkeri, Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 80 (2014) 4599–4605,
https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.00895-14. [51]
[41] Scott, K., 2016. Membranes and separators for microbial fuel cells, Microbial
electrochemical and fuel cells. Elsevier Ltd. 10.1016/B978-1-78242-375-
1.00005-8 [52]
[42] I. Staffell, D. Scamman, A. Velazquez Abad, P. Balcombe, P.E. Dodds, P. Ekins, N.
Shah, K.R. Ward, The role of hydrogen and fuel cells in the global energy
system, Energy Environ. Sci. 12 (2019) 463–491, https://doi.org/10.1039/ [53]
c8ee01157e.
[43] J. Sun, W. Li, Y. Li, Y. Hu, Y. Zhang, Redox mediator enhanced simultaneous
decolorization of azo dye and bioelectricity generation in air-cathode
microbial fuel cell, Bioresour. Technol. 142 (2013) 407–414, https://doi.org/ [54]
10.1016/j.biortech.2013.05.039.
[44] L.M. Tender, C.E. Reimers, H.A. Stecher, D.E. Holmes, D.R. Bond, D.A. Lowy, K.
Pilobello, S.J. Fertig, D.R. Lovley, Harnessing microbially generated power on
the seafloor, Nat. Biotechnol. 20 (2002) 821–825, https://doi.org/10.1038/ [55]
nbt716.
[45] A.D. Tharali, N. Sain, W.J. Osborne, Microbial fuel cells in bioelectricity
production, Front. Life Sci. 9 (2016) 252–266, https://doi.org/10.1080/
21553769.2016.1230787. [56]
[46] W.E. Thung, S.A. Ong, L.N. Ho, Y.S. Wong, F. Ridwan, Y.L. Oon, Y.S. Oon, H.K.
Lehl, A highly efficient single chambered up-flow membrane-less microbial
fuel cell for treatment of azo dye Acid Orange 7-containing wastewater,
Bioresour. Technol. 197 (2015) 284–288, https://doi.org/10.1016/j. [57]
biortech.2015.08.078.
[47] W.E. Thung, S.A. Ong, L.N. Ho, Y.S. Wong, F.M. Ridwan, Y.L. Oon, Y.S. Oon, H.K.
Lehl, Pilot scale single chamber up-flow membrane-less microbial fuel cell for
138
Renewable Energy Focus 44 (2023) 132–138
wastewater treatment and electricity generation, AIP Conf. Proc. 1828 (2017),
https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4979404.
H. Wang, S.C. Jiang, Y. Wang, B. Xiao, Substrate removal and electricity
generation in a membrane-less microbial fuel cell for biological treatment of
wastewater, Bioresour. Technol. 138 (2013) 109–116, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.biortech.2013.03.172.
K. Wang, W. Li, X. Gong, X. Li, W. Liu, C. He, Z. Wang, Q. Nguyen, C. Chen, J.
Wang, International Biodeterioration & Biodegradation Biological
pretreatment of tannery wastewater using a full-scale hydrolysis acidi fi
cation system, Int. Biodeterior. Biodegradation 95 (2014) 41–45, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ibiod.2014.05.019.
X. Wang, X. Yue, Q. Guo, Production of electricity during wastewater treatment
using fluidized-bed microbial fuel cells, Chem. Eng. Technol. 37 (2014) 703–
708, https://doi.org/10.1002/ceat.201300241.
Wardhana, K.A., Effendi, A.J., 2019. Variasi Konsentrasi Air Limbah Proses
Pencucian Pulp pada Membraneless Air Cathode Microbial Fuel Cell. J. Selulosa
9, 75. 10.25269/jsel.v9i02.237
V.J. Watson, B.E. Logan, Power production in MFCs inoculated with Shewanella
oneidensis MR-1 or mixed cultures, Biotechnol. Bioeng. 105 (2010) 489–498,
https://doi.org/10.1002/bit.22556.
L. Wei, H. Han, J. Shen, Effects of cathodic electron acceptors and potassium
ferricyanide concentrations on the performance of microbial fuel cell, Int. J.
Hydrogen Energy 37 (2012) 12980–12986, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijhydene.2012.05.068.
K. Young, H. Min, M. Park, K. Lee, D. Kim, Y. Mo, International Biodeterioration &
Biodegradation Combination of different substrates to improve anaerobic
digestion of sewage sludge in a wastewater treatment plant, Int. Biodeterior.
Biodegradation 109 (2016) 73–77, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibiod.2016.01.006.
T. Zhang, Y. Zeng, S. Chen, X. Ai, H. Yang, Improved performances of E. coli-
catalyzed microbial fuel cells with composite graphite/PTFE anodes,
Electrochem. commun. 9 (2007) 349–353, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.elecom.2006.09.025.
G. Zhao, F. Ma, L. Wei, H. Chua, C.C. Chang, X.J. Zhang, Electricity generation
from cattle dung using microbial fuel cell technology during anaerobic
acidogenesis and the development of microbial populations, Waste Manag.
32 (2012) 1651–1658, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2012.04.013.
F. Zhu, W. Wang, X. Zhang, G. Tao, Electricity generation in a membrane-less
microbial fuel cell with down-flow feeding onto the cathode, Bioresour.
Technol. 102 (2011) 7324–7328, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
biortech.2011.04.062.