Energy 254 (2022) 124163

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/energy

Insights into the development of microbial fuel cells for generating

biohydrogen, bioelectricity, and treating wastewater
Shams Forruque Ahmed a, **, M. Mofijur b, c, Nafisa Islam a, Tahlil Ahmed Parisa a,
Nazifa Rafa d, Awais Bokhari e, f, *, Ji
rí Jaromír Kleme
s e, Teuku Meurah Indra Mahlia b, g
a
Science and Math Program, Asian University for Women, Chattogram, 4000, Bangladesh
b
Centre for Technology in Water and Wastewater, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Technology Sydney, Ultimo, NSW, 2007,
Australia
c
Mechanical Engineering Department, Prince Mohammad Bin Fahd University, Al Khobar, 31952, Saudi Arabia
d
Department of Land Economy, University of Cambridge, Trinity Ln, Cambridge, CB2 1TN, UK
e 
Sustainable Process Integration Laboratory - SPIL, NETME Centre, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Brno University of Technology- VUT Brno, Technicka
2896/2, 616 69, Brno, Czech Republic
f
Department of Chemical Engineering, COMSATS University Islamabad (CUI), Lahore Campus, 54000, Punjab, Lahore, Pakistan
g
Department of Mechanical Engineering, College of Engineering, Universiti Tenaga Nasional, Selangor, Malaysia

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

Article history: Bio-electrochemical systems, such as microbial fuel cells (MFCs), serve as greener alternatives to con-
Received 17 January 2022 ventional fuel energy. Despite the burgeoning review works on MFCs, comprehensive discussions are
Received in revised form lacking on MFC designs and applications. This review paper provides insights into MFC applications,
20 April 2022
substrates used in MFC and the various design, technological, and chemical factors affecting MFC per-
Accepted 29 April 2022
Available online 7 May 2022
formance. MFCs have demonstrated efficacy in wastewater treatment of at least 50% and up to 98%. MFCs
have been reported to produce ~30 W/m2 electricity and ~1 m3/d of biohydrogen, depending on the
design and feedstock. Electricity generation rates of up to 5.04 mW/m
2e3.6 mW/m
2, 75e513 mW/
Keywords:
Microbial electrolysis cell
m
2, and 135.4 mW/m
2 have been found for SCMFCs, double chamber MFCs, and stacked MFCs with the
Wastewater treatment highest being produced by the single/hybrid single-chamber type using microalgae. Hybrid MFCs may
Lignocellulosic biomass emerge as financially promising technologies worth investigating due to their low operational costs,
Anode integrating low-cost proton exchange membranes such as PVA-Nafion-borosilicate, and electrodes made
Cathode of natural materials, carbon, metal, and ceramic. MFCs are mostly used in laboratories due to their low
Hydrogen power output and the difficulties in assessing the economic feasibility of the technology. The MFCs can
Proton exchange generate incomes of as much as $2,498.77  10
2/(W/m2) annually through wastewater treatment and
energy generation alone. The field application of MFC technology is also narrow due to its microbio-
logical, electrochemical, and technological limitations, exacerbated by the gap in knowledge between
laboratory and commercial-scale applications. Further research into novel and economically feasible
electrode and membrane materials, the improvement of electrogenicity of the microbes used, and the
potential of hybrid MFCs will provide opportunities to launch MFCs from the laboratory to the
commercial-scale as a bid to improve the global energy security in an eco-friendly way.
© 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

The availability of adequate energy resources is crucial in

* Corresponding author. Department of Chemical Engineering, COMSATS Uni-
versity Islamabad (CUI), Lahore Campus, 54000, Punjab, Lahore, Pakistan.
** Corresponding author. Science and Math Program, Asian University for Women,
Chattogram, 4000, Bangladesh.
E-mail addresses: shams.ahmed@auw.edu.bd, shams.f.ahmed@gmail.com
(S.F. Ahmed), awaisbokhari@cuilahore.edu.pk (A. Bokhari).
ensuring progress in the developmental targets of nations as
safeguarding the sustainability of energy resources is essential for
ensuring the sustainability of investments [1]. The global energy
demand has also been increasing consistently over the last few
decades [2], where the demand is particularly acute for developing
nations [3]. If energy demand continues to expand at the same rate

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2022.124163
0360-5442/© 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
S.F. Ahmed, M. Mofijur, N. Islam et al.
Nomenclature
MFC Microbial fuel cell
PEM Proton exchange membrane
NADH Nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide
WWT Wastewater treatment
SCMFC Single-chamber microbial fuel cell
COD Chemical oxygen demand
IEM Ion-exchange membranes
BPM Bi-polar membrane
CEM Cation exchange membrane
AEM Anion exchange membrane
DCMFC Double-chamber microbial fuel cell
BOD Biochemical oxygen demand
PCB Polychlorinated biphenyls
CO2 Carbon dioxide
[4], global energy consumption is expected to increase 30e50% by
2030 [5]. With fossil-based fuels serving as the dominant source of
energy in the world [6], the global energy-related CO2 emissions
stood at 33.2 Gt in 2019, a huge spike from 20.5 Gt in the year 1990
[7]. Although there is an urgent need for large-scale negative ac-
tions through economical carbon sequestration techniques [8] such
as biochar [9] for wider acceptance and implementation [10],
decarbonisation of the energy sector is also crucial. The renewable
energy sources have received much attention because of their
environmental friendliness and inexhaustible nature [11]. In 2019,
renewables met 27% [12] of the world's energy demand [7].
Renewable energy is also emerging as a competitive energy source
over fossil fuels as a result of significant technological advance-
ments and research in the field [13]. The fuel cell (FC) has been
recognised as a promising solution to the world's energy security
issues [14] and offers a wide range of advantages over other alter-
natives [15], including the absence of pollutant emissions, effi-
ciency, and lower sound pollution [16]. Currently, the economics
and magnitude of generation are the limitations of FCs.
One kind of FC is the microbial FC (MFC), which is a bio-
electrochemical system that employs microorganisms as bio-
catalysts to transform chemical energy stored in organic matter to
electrical energy directly via substrate oxidation [17]. An MFC
comprises two chambers, an anode and a cathode, partitioned by a
proton exchange membrane (PEM) [18]. In an MFC, microbes
remain in anode compartments as biofilms and produce electrons
and protons after oxidising an electron donor, usually an organic
substrate. The anode is used by the biofilm microbe as the electron
acceptor for anaerobic respiration, which receives electrons from
the microbe after the electrons have first passed through the mi-
crobe's electron transport chain by nicotinamide adenine dinucle-
otide (NADH) to the terminal electron acceptors and then to the
microbe's outer membrane proteins [19]. The Geobacter, Shewa-
nella, Pseudomonas, and Rhodoferax are some of the most widely
investigated exoelectrogens in MFCs [20]. These microbes produce
flavin molecules, or organic compounds based on pteridine, to
promote electron transfer to the anode. The electron transfer from
the anode to the cathode through the external circuit produces an
electric current. The generated protons drift over to the cathode
through the PEM, which prevents the movement of oxygen into the
anode compartment to avoid the inhibition of electricity genera-
tion. Instead, the cathode exposed to the oxygen initiates the for-
mation of water [21].
The major advantage of MFCs arises from their use of microbes
2
Energy 254 (2022) 124163
TiO2 Titanium dioxide
CaCl2 Calcium chloride
TNT Titanium dioxide nanotube
m-MFC Microalgae-microbial fuel cell
OCV Open-circuit voltage
OLR Organic loading rate
RDP Ribosomal Database Project
HER Hydrogen Evolution Reaction
MEC Microbial electrolysis cell
SPW Starch processing wastewater
PVC Polyvinyl chloride
EET Extracellular electron transfer
ORR Oxygen reduction reaction
PVA Polyvinyl alcohol
SPEEK Sulphonated poly (ether ether ketone)
as biocatalysts. As mentioned, these organisms possess the neces-
sary molecular machinery to move electrons to the electrodes
without the requirement of external assistance. They are also able
to accept electrons from the surface of the electrodes. Even though
fewer in numbers, relevant studies have investigated ways to
enhance biofilm electrogenicity by genetically manipulating mi-
crobes and utilising synthetic biology [22]. MFCs also exhibit a wide
range of other advantages: (i) operable across various process pa-
rameters where the temperature can range between 15  C and
45  C, and the pH is generally neutral; (ii) able to utilise a wide
range of complex biomass as substrate; (iii) substrate is directly
transformed to produce energy; (iv) elimination of downstream
processes; (v) lower amount of activated sludge results from the
treatment of wastewater in comparison with conventional treat-
ment methods; (vi) unlike conventional aerobic technologies there
is no requirement for energy for aeration; (vii) lower operational
costs and greater economic benefits through energy and value-
added products; (viii) resistance to environmental stresses; (ix)
possibility of both centralised and decentralised applications; and
(x) results in a moderate environmental impact according to un-
dertaken life cycle analyses [19]. These advantages contribute to
numerous applications of MFCs. MFCs’ highly extolled application
lies cleaner alternatives for electricity/bioenergy generation, bio-
hydrogen production, wastewater treatment (WWT), environ-
mental bioremediation, and their ability to serve as biosensors and
in early warning systems in water quality applications [23].
The MFC's method of electricity generation may be environ-
mentally friendly, cost-effective, and produce harmless products,
but currently, it does not generate an adequate amount of energy to
serve as a competitive alternative to existing technologies. Even
though MFC is an attractive alternative as an option for industrial
commercialisation [24], the commercial-scale use of MFCs has
largely been hindered by costly components [25]. For instance,
depending on the type of MFC employed, the cost-benefit ratios of
MFCs range between 249 and 164,143, where the lowest ratio is
perceived for hybrid constructed wetland-MFC while the highest
ratio was for microalgae-MFC [26]. The greatest revenue generated
from the former can reach up to $2,498.77  10
2/(W/m2) [26]. The
sustainability of the technology depends on its profitability;
although private organisations do support innovation culture,
knowledge generation and sharing are key in advancing green
entrepreneurship [27]. Further research on process optimisation,
with special attention to the types of the microbial community,
substrate, and electrodes used, is important and has already been
S.F. Ahmed, M. Mofijur, N. Islam et al. Energy 254 (2022) 124163

the subject of interest of researchers working in this field. For bodies looking to utilise and scale-up MFC use.
instance, the substrate determines the microbial population
structure and its eventual activity when serving as the fuel source 2. Types of microbial fuel cell
for the microbes. The wastewater and fermentable and non-
fermentable organic materials primarily from sewage sludge have 2.1. Single-chamber system
been tested as substrates for MFCs to enhance the functioning of
MFCs and create opportunities to use waste biomass, treat waste- Single-chamber MFCs are basic anode compartments, where the
water and produce bioenergy [28]. The poor performance of anode cathode compartment is not complete, and the presence of film for
electrodes in MFCs also still remains a major disadvantage for its proton transfer is less probable [39], as shown in Fig. 1. Single-
practical application. Materials such as nanocomposites, con- chamber microbial fuel cells do not have a proton exchange
ducting polymers, stainless steel, carbon nanotube, and metal ox- membrane (PEM) that separates the anode and cathode. The pur-
ides have been investigated for their potential in electrode pose of PEMs is to keep the anodic and cathodic chambers separate
enhancement to increase efficient electricity generation by MFCs from each other by: reducing the diffusion of oxygen back to the
[29]. Various other factors can affect the performance of the MFCs, chamber of the anode from the chamber of the cathode while
including pH buffer and electrolyte, PEMs, temperature, aeration simultaneously reducing the flux of substrates from anode to
rate, and other process factors [30]. cathode; enhancing the coulombic efficiency; and ensuring that
MFCs have been the subject of much interest to researchers, operations are effective and sustainable [40]. Single-chamber MFCs
leading to the publication of over 500 journal articles per year from
2011 onwards and gradually increasing to over 1,000/y [19].
Numerous review works have attempted to compile information
and guide research and development to overcome the limitations of
current MFC models and expand their scalability. Table 1 below
shows the topics covered by some of the review papers published
in recent years and those covered by this study. As can be seen,
recent review works primarily focus on exploring specific appli-
cations, especially wastewater treatment, and the extent of their
efficiency. Comprehensive discussions are lacking on MFC types,
the numerous substrates explored for their scope of use in MFCs,
their comparative advantages, and MFC components that generally
affect MFC performance. To address these gaps, this review paper
presents the current status of MFC design and application. By first
exploring the types of MFCs currently under research and in use,
this paper reviews the potential of substrates used in MFCs, the
current applications of MFCs, namely bioenergy and biohydrogen
generation, wastewater treatment, and biosensing, and finally, the
factors that affect MFC performance. It concludes with a discussion
Fig. 1. Operation and structure of single-chamber microbial fuel cell that uses a power
of the persisting challenges that limit MFC application and di- supply to drive electron from anode to cathode [42]. Electrochemically active bacteria
rections for future research. By shedding light on the progress of growing on the anode surface degrade organic matter into electrons and CO2 in the
and challenges for MFCs, this paper will provide information to MFC process. Oxygen is utilised as the electron acceptor at the cathode in the MFC. Due
to the fact that oxygen has high redox potential than microbial anode, electrons
researchers working in the field and industries and government
simultaneously flow from anode to cathode, resulting in electricity generation.

Table 1
Topics related to MFC research and development covered in this paper and other studies published in recent years.

Study Types of Substrates utilised Application MFC components Challenges and future opportunities
MFCs affecting performance

This study ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Jatoi et al. [30]   (wastewater only) √ (WWT only) ✓ ✓
Chakraborty et al. [31]   (wastewater only) √ (WWT only)  √ (future directions only)
Wu et al. [32]   (water and soil only) √ (WWT and environmental  ✓
remediation only)
Do et al. [33]   (wastewater only) √ (biosensor only)  ✓
Abdallah et al. [25] ✓ ✓  ✓ ✓
Palanisamy et al. [17]   (wastewater only) √ (electricity generation and √ (electrode materials ✓
WWT only) and PEM only)
Fang and Achal [34]   (wastewater and soil only) √ (heavy metal removal only: √ (cathode materials 
WWT and soil remediation) and pH only)
Aarthy et al. [35]   (wastewater only) √ (hexavalent chromium √ (cathode materials ✓
reduction and electricity and pH only)
generation only)
Mathuriya et al. [36] ✓   ✓ ✓
Kumar et al. [37]  ✓ ✓ √ (electrode materials √ (challenges only)
only)
Choudhury et al. [21] ✓ ✓ √ (WWT) ✓ 
ElMekawy et al. [38]   (water only) √ (biosensor only)  √ (challenges only)

√: information sufficiently available;  : information not sufficiently available, or unavailable.

3
S.F. Ahmed, M. Mofijur, N. Islam et al. Energy 254 (2022) 124163

face problems related to back-diffusion and flux of oxygen and

substrates. As a result of oxygen back-diffusion into the anode
where bacteria consume it, single-chamber MFCs show low
coulombic efficiency [39]. The single-chamber MFCs improve the
system economy because they do not have costly polymer elec-
trolyte to separate the anode and cathode chambers [41]. They can
provide a higher power output and do not face problems related to
internal resistance.
A performance evaluation of a single-chamber microbial fuel
cell (SCMFC) system was completed by Vilas Boas et al. [43] based
on the following operational conditions: concentration of yeast
extract and batch cycle and design parameters including the
thickness of the membrane, active area, and area of the anode
electrode. The dairy-based industry was used as a source of syn-
thetic wastewater in the MFC with Lactobacillus pentosus pure
culture. The overall performance evaluation was executed based on
the power output and rate of removal of chemical oxygen demand
(COD). According to the results, a 48 h batch cycle attained higher
COD removal rates and power densities. The dry biofilm weight and
electrochemical performance of the SCMFC decreased as the anode
electrode area was decreased by 50%. The electrochemical perfor-
mance was positively affected by the concentration of yeast extract,
but it showed a decrease in the removal rate of COD. An improve-
ment was observed in the MFC's overall performance when the
Nafion 212 membrane was made thinner with a smaller area of
25 cm2. The highest power density of 5.04 ± 0.39 mW/m2 was
Fig. 2. Schematic of a double-chamber microbial fuel cell system [46].
attained with a 25 cm2 active area of Nafion 212 membrane, an
electrode area of 61 cm2 of the anode, yeast extract of 50 mg/L, and
a batch cycle of 48 h. The study mentions that the best-operating perfluorinated membrane, which has good properties but is so
conditions and designs vary depending on the MFC. costly that it crucially impacts the overall production cost of the
The SCMFC was used to investigate the copper removal and MFC. For instance, Nafion® 117 can cost approximately $1,733/m2
electricity generation [32]. The results were positive and showed [47]. Studies have been undertaken on separators to replace Nafion,
effective removal of copper in the MFC without a membrane, with like microfiltration and ultrafiltration membranes, anion and cation
98.3% removal efficiency maintaining a Cu2þ concentration of exchange membranes, sulphonated polyether ketone membrane,
12.5 mg/L. The maximum power density and open-circuit voltage forward osmosis membrane, and bipolar membrane double-
were 10.2 W/m3 and 0.78V. Another study conducted by Abour- chamber MFCs face problems with internal resistance because if
ached et al. [44] used SCMFC with an air-cathode to explore the the electrodes are kept at a long distance, the performance of the
heavy metals Cd and Zn and found that a high power generation of MFC decreases due to increased internal resistance [48]. If the
3.6 W/m2 was achieved for both elements and the removal effi- electrodes are brought too close together, higher back-diffusion will
ciencies for both were also high, Cd (90%) and Zn (97%). SCMFCs can occur from the cathode chamber to the anode chamber, which will
also be utilised as biosensors, as shown in a study where peptone also affect the production of power and power density.
and sodium-acetate were used to find out and verify the concen- A double-chamber MFC with different ion-exchange mem-
tration of biodegradable organics in water samples as an assess- branes (IEMs), bi-polar membrane (BPM), PEM, cation exchange
ment of the potential of a single-chamber MFC in its biosensor membrane (CEM), and anion exchange membrane (AEM) was used
application [45]. The MFC showed good performance at a high ac- in a study to analyse chromium removal in terms of reduction in the
etate concentration, and the current in the cell was uniform be- cathode, membrane adsorption, and membrane permeation to the
tween 25  C and 35  C with a significant decrease below 20  C. anodic chamber [49]. BPM demonstrated the most successful per-
Biosensors with this MFC design can be used to detect readily formance in the removal of hexavalent chromium with a percent-
biodegradable substrates of at least 5 mg COD/L and measure up to age of 99.4 ± 0.2% while simultaneously balancing pH and
approximately 50e70 mg COD/L of concentration. conductivity in both anode and cathode chambers. AEM
(97.9 ± 0.8%) and CEM (95.6 ± 0.8%) followed after BPM, but PEM
2.2. Double-chamber system did not maintain suitable pH and conductivity and showed the
lowest chromium removal efficiency and the least successful per-
Double-chamber MFCs can come in various shapes, such as U- formance of the anode. When using double-chamber MFCs, the
shaped or H-shaped. In U-shaped dual chambers, one arm of the performance of IEMs needs to be evaluated as they are responsible
tube is the cathode, and the other is considered the anode [39]. An for determining the MFC's overall performance. While assessing the
ion-selective membrane creates a separation between the elec- organic loading rate (OLR) (435e870 mg COD/L$d) and its impact
trodes. As illustrated in Fig. 2, double-chamber MFCs use PEM to on the recovery of nutrients for treating domestic wastewater using
separate the anode from the cathode. Unlike the single-chamber a double-chamber microbial fuel cell (DCMFC), it was found that
MFC, they do not face many problems related to back-diffusion or with an OLR range from 435 to 725 mgCOD/L$d, 90% of organics
the flux of oxygen and substrates. Each compartment can maintain were removed and a maximum power density of 253.84 mW/m2 at
different conditions without interference. The double-chamber 435 mgCOD/L$d OLR was achieved [50]. The coulombic efficiency
MFCs have some drawbacks because of the PEM, the major one was also at its highest value (25.01%) at OLR 435 mg COD/L$d.
being the overprice of a standard polymeric membrane [40].
The most common PEM used in MFCs is the Nafion ® 117 (NF), a
4
S.F. Ahmed, M. Mofijur, N. Islam et al.
2.3. Stacked microbial fuel cell
Stacked MFC is a configuration type where fuel cells are stacked
to form a battery of fuel cells, as shown in Fig. 3. This stacking can
be done in series or in parallel, each form of stacking having its own
significance, and can provide great efficiency [48], as illustrated in
Table 2. Stacks connected in series yield higher voltage, and stacks
connected in parallel yield higher current. The following factors
should be considered when designing a stacked MFC: electrode
type, the direction of the stack (horizontal or vertical type), the
reactor shape, determination of connection methods, and modu-
lation. Yang et al. [51] undertook a study to understand self-
sustaining pH control in stacked MFC using a hybrid MFC stack
based on single-chamber and double-chamber MFCs. The results
revealed that the hybrid stack showed the highest performance
regarding power electricity output and efficient acetate conversion
compared to the stacks that consisted solely of SCMFCs or DCMFCs.
A multi-chamber MFC was build to investigate the cathode
component and four anodes separated by a membrane where the
electrode chambers were connected via electrical circuits in par-
allel by sharing a cathode chamber [64]. Cathodic parameters like
the shape and area of cathode and catholyte concentrations were
considered as influences on the production of power. The output of
the multi-anode chamber MFC are as follows: at 100 U, a maximum
open circuit potential of 720 ± 20 mV where the peak power
density was 52.8 mW/m2 (162.5 mA/m2); 8,720 mg COD/L of
wastewater concentration was observed with a peak power density
of 135.4 mW/m2 (368 mA/m2). The results prove that this scaled-up
MFC system design can attain a high generation of power in a small
space.
A similar study compared the performance of double and triple-
chamber MFCs, and results showed that the power density pro-
duced in the triple-chamber MFC was 1.9 times higher than the
double-chamber MFC with respect to the surface area of the cath-
ode [64]. This was because the compartment arrangement was
similar to two single cells connected as a parallel circuit by sharing
the same cathode chamber. When calculated, the internal resis-
tance values of the double and triple-chamber MFCs were found to
be 57.8 and 81 U. The DCMFC had limitations related to high
Fig. 3. Schematic design of stacked microbial fuel cells (reprinted with the permission
of Elsevier from [52].
5
Energy 254 (2022) 124163
internal resistance, and the electricity production of the triple-
chamber MFC was affected by the anolyte and catholyte concen-
tration. The stacked MFCs are more efficient than DCMFCs.
3. Substrates utilised in microbial fuel cells
3.1. Acetate
One of the most common substrates used in MFCs is acetate
(CH3COONa), as it is a carbon source for exoelectrogenic bacteria
[65]. It falls into the category of non-fermentable organics. Acetate
is a monocarboxylic acid anion that is formed from the removal of a
proton of a carboxyl group of acetic acids. The molecular formula of
acetate is C2H3O
2 and it has a molecular weight of 59.04 g/mol [66].
The metabolism process of acetate is very simple, thus making it
readily biodegradable by bacteria. Acetate is considered to show
the best performances as a substrate in MFCs, as shown by multiple
studies mentioned in this review.
One of these studies [56] researched the response in the
development of cell voltage, microbial community composition,
and electricity recovery during operation of the MFC using initial
substrates, which included bioethanol effluent (BE) xylose, acetate,
and an acetate/xylose 1:1 mixture. The MFCs which were initially
fed with acetate showed the best results with shorter initiation
time, higher coulombic efficiency, and higher average cell voltage
than those filled with acetate/xylose or xylose, the corresponding
values of which were 1 d, 31.5 ± 0.5% and 634 ± 9 mV. The MFCs
initiated by acetate exhibited a lower cell voltage of 645 ± 10 mV
and a longer adaptation time of 21 h when a switch to xylose as the
substrate was made. When the substrate was switched to BE,
maximum power density (362 ± 27 mW/m2), maximum current
density (709 ± 27 mA/m2), highest voltage (656 mV), and
coulombic efficiency (25 ± 0.5%) was produced in MFCs initiated by
acetate. Acetate-initiated MFCs had a less diverse microbial com-
munity with more electrogenic bacteria.
Another study explored MFC performance during changes to the
influent nutrient from lactate to glucose-propionate-acetate and
back to lactate [67]. According to the results, the performance of the
MFC showed a rapid recovery when acetate, one of the lactate's
metabolic intermediates, replaced it. A longer time was needed for
recovery in the case of acetate substrate conversion to lactate or
lactate to glucose/propionate. The following reactions occur in the
chambers a MFC uses acetate:
Anode:
CH3COO
þ 4H2O / 2HCO3
þ 9Hþ þ 8e-
Cathode:
8Hþ þ 8e
/ 4H2
The above reactions take place at a pressure of 1 atm, 25  C, and
a pH of 7, which is the standard biological condition [42].
3.2. Glucose
Glucose is one of the three monosaccharides along with fructose
and galactose and is a simple monosaccharide that is found in
plants. It is one of the main fuels for cellular respiration, the product
of photosynthesis, and it acts as the foundational structure of
several polysaccharides like starch, cellulose, b-glucans, and
hemicelluloses. The molecular formula of acetate glucose is
C6H12O6, and it has a molecular weight of 180.156 g/mol. Cellulose,
another potential substrate for MFCs, consists of as many as 10,000
glucose polymers [68]. Glucose is an efficient substrate in MFCs but
 Table 2

S.F. Ahmed, M. Mofijur, N. Islam et al.

Overview of the key studies on substrates utilised in microbial fuel cells.

Type of MFC Substrate Type of bacteria Main task (s) MFC construction Power generation Outcome (s) Ref.

Single-chamber The real dairy- Pure culture of The performance of an SCMFC Anode electrode area of 61 cm2, Nafion 5.04 ± 0.39 mW/m2 - The biofilm dry weight and [43]
based industry Lactobacillus pentosus was evaluated in a study based 212 membrane with an active area of SCMFC's electrochemical
as synthetic on the following operational 25 cm2, a batch cycle of 48 h, and 50 mg/ performance decreased as the
wastewater conditions: concentration of L of yeast extract anode electrode area was
yeast extract and batch cycle, decreased by 50%.
and design parameters - The electrochemical
including membrane thickness, performance was positively
active area, and area of the affected by the concentration of
anode electrode yeast extract but showed a
decrease in the removal rate of
COD
- When the Nafion 212
membrane was made thinner
with a lower area of 25 cm2, an
improvement was observed in
the MFC's overall performance
Wastewater Proteobacteria, An SCMFC was used to - Two MFCs setup: one with inoculated 10.2 W/m3 Results were positive and [53]
bacteroidetes, investigate copper removal and sludge from anaerobic sludge bed and showed efficient copper
actinobacteria and electricity generation another without inoculation and an removal in the MFC without a
acidobacteria abiotic MFC membrane with 98.3% removal
- Carbon brush anode and carbon cloth efficiency at Cu2þ concentration
with Pt catalyst cathode of 12.5 mg/L
- Microbial communities in the MFCs
were studied through 16S DNA
sequencing
Sewage Mixed bacterial culture Investigate power generation SCMFC with air cathode and anode built 3.6 W/m2 - Removal efficiencies of both [44]
6

wastewater and heavy metal removal in an
SCMFC
Sewage Mixed microbial Utilising an SCMFC with a single
wastewater community electrode to consume sewage
sludge treatment plant sludge and
generate electricity
Hybrid Sunlight Mixed bacterial culture Employing a hybrid SCMFC
single-chamber Glucose consisting of a TiO2 nanotube
array (TNT) photoanode linked
with a conventional bioanode
to investigate methylene blue
(MB) dye degradation and
improvement in the generation
of type A carbon cloth with an area of
1.8 cm2. The cathode was of type B
carbon cloth and Pt coating with an area
of 7 cm2
- MFC underwent inoculation with
mixed bacterial culture
- Graphite electrodes
- Double anode and cathode connected
with a copper wire in an external series
circuit
- A part of the electrode is immersed in
the substrate and is considered the
anode
- The other part that is exposed to the
atmosphere acts as the cathode
- Carbon felt used as anode
- Wet proof carbon cloth, Pt on Vulcan,
Nafion perfluorinated resin solution,
carbon vulcan powder and
polytetrafluoroethylene used for air
cathode
- Titanium foil used for preparing TiO2
the elements were high, Zn
(97%) and Cd (90%)
- Heavy metals affected anode
performance due to toxic
inhibition to the growth of
anode microbes
1108.29 mW/m2 - Maximum voltage 2890 mV [54]
was reached after 80 (hrs)
- A single-chamber single
electrode MFC system cannot
effectively remove COD.
0.0251 mW m
2 - The hybrid MFC showed [55].
515.18 ± 14.98 mW m
2 increased power density,
670.94 ± 21.58 mW m
2 voltage, and current density of
14%, 4%, and 33% and
simultaneously degraded MB
dye by 82.79% after an
operation of 3.5 h under

Energy 254 (2022) 124163

of power nanotube (TNT) array photoanodes simulated solar light
- X-ray diffraction spectroscopy was illumination
used to investigate TNT photoanode - The number of electrons
crystallinity increased under illumination
- MFC bioanodes, both hybrid and due to the TNT photoanode and
conventional, underwent inoculation conventional MFC bioanode
using wastewater pairing as it added
photogenerated electrons to
 S.F. Ahmed, M. Mofijur, N. Islam et al.
the MFC's external circuit,
which consequently
accelerated the oxygen
reduction reaction at the air
cathode and enhanced the
overall performance of the MFC
Double-chamber Synthetic Mixed bacterial culture Assessing organic loading rate - Graphite felt was used to make the 253.84 mW/m2 MFC can treat municipal [50]
domestic (OLR) (435e870 mgCOD/L$d) anode, and the cathode was made of wastewater by removing 90% of
wastewater and its impact on the recovery carbon-fibre brush organics at a range of 435e725
of nutrients - Electrodes were separated by CEM mgCOD/L$d OLR
- The culture in the anode was
inoculated using synthetic domestic
wastewater
Bioethanol Diverse microbial Researching the response in the - Carbon sheet electrodes 362 ± 27 mW/m2 - The MFCs initiated by acetate [56]
effluent community (Geobacter development of cell voltage, - PEM (Nafion™ N117) exhibited a longer adaptation
Xylose sulphurreducens and microbial community - Inoculum used was domestic time (21 h) and lower cell
Acetate Desulphuromonas composition, and electricity wastewater voltage of 645 ± 10 mV when
Acetate/Xylose acetexigen) recovery due to initial - Chamber of the cathode was filled the substrate was switched to
1:1 mixture substrates, which included with potassium ferricyanide xylose.
bioethanol effluent (BE) xylose, (K3Fe(CN)6) and phosphate buffer - When the substrate was
acetate, and acetate/xylose 1:1 switched to BE, the highest
mixture (ace/xyl) during voltage (656 mV), maximum
operation of the MFC current density (709 ± 27 mA/
m(2)), maximum power density
(362 ± 27 mW/m(2)), and
coulombic efficiency (25 ± 0.5%)
was produced in the MFCs
initiated by acetate
- Acetate-initiated MFCs had a
less diverse microbial
7

community with more

Old and young Electrogenic bacteria Studying young and old
landfill leachate (15%) Denitrifying (5%) leachate as substrates of MFC,
Anammox (2%) to remove pollutants and
generate electricity with anodic
microbiomes
Chitin Aeromonas hydrophila Exploring the degradation of
chitin anaerobically by a
chitinolytic bacterium in both
MFC and fermentation systems.
electrogenic bacteria
- Carbon felt electrodes 96.8 mWm
2 Power output decreased further [57]
- Cationic exchange membrane (CMI- 75 mWm
2 when using old landfill
7000) leachates
- Effluent sludge from an anaerobic
digester was used as the source of
carbon for enriching
- bacterial consortia
- MFC was acclimatised using glucose
- Raw gene sequence of the bacteria
was processed using the Pipeline Initial
Process tool of the Ribosomal Database
Project (RDP)
- A. hydrophila was isolated from a lab- e - The total metabolite [58]
scale reactor using a photometric high- concentration and electricity
throughput method identifying generation increased in the
electroactive bacteria MFC system in comparison to
- The anodic and cathodic chambers the fermentation system,
were separated by a PEM of CMI-7000 proving that an electroactive
- Cathode and anode were made of bacterium can degrade chitin in
carbon felt an MFC

Energy 254 (2022) 124163

Dark Mixed consortium Selectively enriching an - An enriched thermophilic mixed 1.4 W/m3 - Fermented effluents are [59]
fermentative electrogenic mixed consortium culture capable of producing hydrogen 6.2 W/m3 acceptable substrates for
effluents in MFCs that can utilise dark was used bioanodes and there was an
fermentative effluents as - Batch fermentation for production of increase in maximum power
substrates hydrogen density from 1.4 W/m3 to
- One MFC underwent inoculation with 6.2 W/m3 after the anodic
mixed electroactive consortia taken parameters were optimised and
(continued on next page)
 Table 2 (continued )

S.F. Ahmed, M. Mofijur, N. Islam et al.

Type of MFC Substrate Type of bacteria Main task (s) MFC construction Power generation Outcome (s) Ref.

from fresh fly ash leachate fermentation effluents were

Acetate Ethanol Mixed bacterial Exploring the effect of
Sucrose community sequential batch feeding by
Lactose using various substrates on
Starch power generation in an MFC.
Methanol The power production and
Molasses removal of COD varied based on
the complex nature of the
substrate and consequently
affected the MFC's overall
performance
Stack Acetate Mixed bacterial culture To understand pH control that
is self-sustaining in stack MFC
Wastewater Mixed bacterial culture Investigating the performance
of a multi-chamber MFC built of
a cathode component and
8
- The other MFC directly functioned
with the effluent that was pre-treated
- MFC was operated in sequencing
batch mode using different substrates
- Cation exchange membrane (Ultrex,
CMI-7000)
- Anode and cathode were made of
plate bare graphite
- Hybrid MFC based on single-chamber
and double-chamber MFCs
- The DCMFCs had two carbon cloth
electrodes and a PEM of Nafion 117,
DuPont
- All MFCs underwent inoculation with
an acetate-fed MFC effluent
- Electrode chambers were connected
via electrical circuits in parallel by
having a common cathode chamber to
utilised
- The coulombic efficiency and
average COD removal efficiency
was 10.55% and 75.25%
513 mW/m2 - Complexity of substrates have [60]
376 mW/m2 an effect on the MFC
388 mW/m2 performance and CE percentage
349 mW/m2 value
315 mW/m2 - MFC that was acetate-fed had
328 mW/m2 the maximum CE and power
10 W/m2 density as acetate is the final
liquid product of anaerobic
respiration and electricity
production and could not be
degraded in any more products
10.7 ± 0.3 mW - Hybrid stack showed the [51]
highest performance in terms of
power electricity output and
efficient acetate conversion in
comparison to the stacks that
consisted solely of SCMFCs (SS-
SS stack) or DCMFCs (DD-DD
stack)
52.8 mW/m2 - 8,720 mg COD/L concentration
135.4 mW/m2 of wastewater [61] was
observed with a maximum

four anodes share power density of 135.4 mW/

- PEM (Nafion 117, DuPontTM, USA) m2 (368 mA/m2) [62]
was used for separation - The results prove that this
- Graphite electrodes scaled-up MFC system design
- Mixed bacterial culture used in the can attain high generation of
anode as a catalyst power and use less space [63]
- Cathodic chamber was filled with
potassium ferricyanide (K3Fe(CN)6) in
phosphate buffer

Energy 254 (2022) 124163

S.F. Ahmed, M. Mofijur, N. Islam et al.
not like acetate, as confirmed by multiple studies revealed in this
review. One study [69] affirmed through its exploration of the
performance of the MFC depending on organic substrate type that
acetate is the more efficient substrate in comparison to glucose and
sucrose. Three mediator-less DCMFCs were used in this study, and
results showed that among the three different substrates, acetate
resulted in the best performance with 91 mW/m2 as the maximum
power density and maximum removal of COD of 77%.
Another study [70] evaluated the glucose degradation rate and
cell voltage in a mediator-less air cathode SCMFC. The MFC used
glucose as a substrate inoculated with aerobic sludge. According to
the results, an increase was seen in electricity output as the glucose
concentration increased until a 5.0 g/L limit was reached when the
current decreased due to glucose's inhibition effect in relation to
cyclic voltammetry. A maximum power density of 52 mW/m2 was
shown by the MFC with a stable current density of 275 mA/m2 and
a 94.4% maximum glucose degradation rate. When glucose is used
in MFC, the following reactions occur in the chambers [71]:
Anode:
C6H12O6 þ 6H2O / 6CO2 þ 24Hþ þ 24ee
Cathode:
6O2 þ 24Hþ þ 24ee / 12H2O
3.3. Different types of wastewater
Wastewater is constituted from numerous types of matter that
can undergo bioconversion in MFCs. Biotechnology can help build a
system to increase energy security by taking advantage of the rich
organic, and sometimes inorganic, contents of wastewater instead
of having them treated with energy-intensive and overpriced
chemicals [72]. In MFCs, bacteria that act as catalysts oxidise the
organic matter present in the wastewater, generating electricity in
the process. It is suggested to use a mixed culture rather than a pure
culture as a mixed culture can consume multiple types of substrates
[21].
Y. Park et al. [73] undertook a study to check the effect of three
wastewater pre-acclimation strategies on electricity generation.
The strategies were: (i) the domestic wastewater undergoes a serial
pre-acclimation process with acetate and glucose before being
supplied, (ii) a one-step pre-acclimation with acetate is performed
on domestic wastewater before being supplied, and (iii) domestic
wastewater is supplied directly without any pre-acclimation step.
Strategy 1 showed the highest percentage of coulombic efficiency
(33.5%) and current generation (1.4 mA) followed by strategies 2
(9.4% and 0.7 mA) and 3 (10.3% and 0.9 mA). The pre-acclimation
strategy affected the microbial communities substantially, as
shown via pyrosequencing, thus suggesting that a serial pre-
acclimation of wastewater with glucose and acetate has a signifi-
cant effect in growing bacterial communities that have the
electricity-producing ability using domestic wastewater.
Some of the main sources of wastewater are from industries like
the pharmaceutical, pesticide, cosmetic, and culinary industries,
along with others. The different kinds of wastewater that have been
tested so far include domestic wastewater, refinery wastewater,
swine wastewater, industrial wastewater, potato wastewater, food
processing wastewater, dairy manure wastewater, and winery
wastewater [74]. Municipal wastewater might not be a feasible
substrate due to its low biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) con-
centration that categorises it as a low energy density carrier or
feedstock for MFCs [65]. Wastewater that contains toxic elements is
9
Energy 254 (2022) 124163
not a suitable feedstock as these substances inhibit the microor-
ganisms’ metabolism. The current decreases as the electron trans-
fer rate to the electrodes are affected. Examples of toxic substrates
are lead, mercury, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and an
organophosphate insecticide called Diazinon [33].
The ability of microorganisms to create wastewater-generated
electricity is affected by the following factors: transport phenom-
ena, biofilm formation, fluid dynamics, and the bio-electrochemical
process itself [75]. Wastewater consists of 3e10 times the energy
required for its treatment, and this energy exists in the form of
organic matter (~1.79 kWh/m3), nutritional elements such as ni-
trogen and phosphorous (~0.7 kWh/m3), and thermal energy
(~7 kWh/m3) [65]. The type of wastewater used has an effect on the
substrate concentration and can create varying concentrations.
Chemical energy extraction can be executed, but the same process
cannot extract thermal energy and will require a heat pump. It was
found that up to 90% of the COD was removed using an MFC with a
Coulombic efficiency as high as 80% [76].
One study [75] was able to treat sewage and use the end
products for electricity generation in a DCMFC employed with
carbon cloth electrodes and a platinum-coated cathode. Results
showed that this MFC system was able to reduce the COD content
from 830 ± 20 mg/L to around 200 mg/L with an open circuit
voltage of 800 mV and treat the wastewater. This affirms that such
MFC systems can potentially treat wastewater and simultaneously
generate electric power with power density peaking in the range of
204 ± 0.38 mW/m2. Another study [54] utilised an SCMFC with a
single electrode for consuming sludge of the sewage treatment
plant to generate electricity. According to the results, a maximum
voltage of 2890 mV was reached after 80 (h) with 1108.29 mW/m2
surface power density. A single-chamber single electrode MFC
system cannot effectively remove COD. MFC catalytic and electric
performance was explored by Mateo-Ramírez et al. [77] using high
COD industrial wastewater as substrate. Results showed a COD
conversion of 72%, 32 mW/m3 power density, and 200 mV voltage,
confirming that slaughterhouse wastewater is a good feedstock.
3.4. Non-fermentable organics
The production of biohydrogen can occur via particular re-
actions using different kinds of non-fermentable organics like
glycerol, acetic acid, lactic acid, valeric acid, butyric acid, and pro-
pionic acid. Only electrogenic bacteria have the ability to
completely oxidise substrates that are non-fermentable [78], e.g.,
acetate, lactose, and glycerol, by the production of electricity.
Asensio et al. [79] focused on evaluating different types of fuels and
their dosages in the performance of a DCMFC that had electrodes of
carbon felt and cationic membrane. Carboxylic acids were found to
be more effective as fuels than alcohols (like ethanol or glycerol) or
single sugars (like fructose). In a system that was driven by acetate
solution, it was observed that the production of electricity
increased in a linear fashion when the organic load had up to
5000 ppm of COD fed into it.
Ebadinezhad et al. [60] explored the effect of sequential batch
feeding by using a variety of substrates such as acetate, sucrose,
ethanol, lactose, starch, methanol, and molasses in MFC power
generation. The power production and removal of COD varied
based on the complex nature of the substrate and consequently had
an influence on the overall MFC performance. Average values of
power density according to the results are as follows: acetate (513
mWm
2), ethanol (376 mWm
2), lactose (388 mWm
2), sucrose
(349 mWm
2), starch (315 mWm
2), molasses (328 mWm
2), and
methanol (10 mWm
2). Acetate had the highest power density
value.
The use of glycerol as a potential feedstock in an MFC was
S.F. Ahmed, M. Mofijur, N. Islam et al.
investigated by Kim et al. [80] using a Shewanella oneidensis MR-1
and Klebsiella pneumonia J2B co-culture and an inoculated culture
of a single species. The ability to uptake glycerol and generate
electricity was tested and compared. Results showed that the co-
culture MFC metabolised glycerol successfully and then produced
energy, but the MFC with only MR-1 did not use glycerol. The
current density came out at 10 mA/m2, and the acidic by-products
lactate and acetate were consumed in the co-culture MFC. The J2B-
only MFC accumulated acidic by-products. The MFC that has a co-
culture can be implemented to recover electrical energy from
glycerol.
3.5. Lignocellulosic biomass as fermentable organics
Lignocellulosic biomass or waste has been considered to be a
potential substrate for bioconversion because of its abundance,
renewability, and natural source. Agricultural crops like a corncob,
wheat straw, wood, and sorghum stalk consist of high amounts of
biochemical energy [81]. Lignocellulosic biomass primarily consti-
tutes cellulose, hemicelluloses, and lignin, from which the energy
conversion can take place [82]. In an experiment by Mohd Zaini
Makhtar and Tajarudin [83]; three raw materials made of ligno-
cellulosic were added as substrates into a membrane-less MFC
where two bacterial species, Pseudomonas and Bacillus subtilis,
were present as biocatalysts and sludge acted as the pseudomem-
brane. The objective was to discover which raw material produced
the highest amount of electricity and whether this process is
feasible in the long term. The lignocellulosic raw materials were
banana peel, palm oil mill effluent, and corn bran. The experiment
outcomes revealed that the mediator-less MFC with sludge sup-
plemented with banana peel showed the highest electricity pro-
duction. Palm oil mill effluent, corn bran, and banana peel produced
138 mV (22.03 mW/m2), 176.8 mV (12.65 mW/m2), and 237.1 mV
(23.75 mW/m2) of electricity.
Gregoire and Becker [84] explored the potential of direct
lignocellulosic biomass conversion into energy in an SCMFC where
cellulose hydrolysis, anode respiration, and fermentation reactions
took place. Untreated corncob was able to produce energy for more
than 60 d with the addition of rumen fluid, occasional oxygen
exposure, and bioaugmentation with Geobacter metallireducens,
giving out a maximum power density of 230 mW/m3. This study
confirmed that the use of complex and solid lignocellulose as a
director is practicable for the long-term functionality of MFCs
conditional on the anodic biofilm developing efficiently. It is
advised that for the improved performance of MFCs, the lignocel-
lulosic biomass should undergo pretreatment as raw cellulose is
difficult for microorganisms to degrade [82]. If the lignocelluloses
are pretreated, many monosaccharides like glucose, and ferment-
able substances like hexose, pentose, acetic acid, can be obtained
from cellulose and hemicellulose hydrolysis. These products can
also be used as substrates in MFCs. This has been proved in an
experiment where a comparison was undertaken between simple
sugar sucrose and lignocellulosic hydrolysates as substrates, based
on their electricity and hydrogen-producing ability in a single-
chamber MFC and MEC using an environmentally friendly pro-
cedure [85].
A triple-chamber MFC was used by Krishnaraj et al. [86] to
degrade lignocellulosic biomass under the following conditions:
the presence of a freshwater cyanobacterium called Oscillatoria
annae for the formation of glucose through cellulose hydrolysis in a
pretreatment process; electrocatalytic activity of Acetobacter aceti
and Gluconobacter roseus co-culture for the oxidation of glucose to
generate a current inside the MFC; carbon felt for the cathode and
anode; substrates that are lignocellulosic materials such as corncob
and sugarcane bagasse. The performance analysis of MFC was
10
Energy 254 (2022) 124163
undertaken using polarisation studies, percentage of COD removal,
internal resistance, and coulombic efficiency. The maximum power
output with corncob was 6.73 W/m3 at 17.28 A/m3 and with sug-
arcane bagasse, 8.78 W/m3 at 20.95 A/m3. The major challenge of
using lignocellulosic biomass is the recalcitrant nature of ligno-
celluloses, meaning its resistance to decomposition. But that can be
solved if a combination of acetic acid bacteria and cyanobacterium
is used.
3.6. Fermentation effluent
Fermentation effluents are a good choice of a substrate because
they consist of a wide range of by-products like acetate, butyrate,
ethanol, lactate, and formate, which can react further to produce
more hydrogen. Production of biohydrogen via the process of dark
fermentation is a possible alternative solution to reduce the carbon
footprint and alleviate the energy crisis. The end products of
fermentation must be consumed effectively for the economic
feasibility of the biohydrogen production process and to avoid en-
ergy loss [59]. Testing included the utilisation of a single-chamber
microbial electrolysis cell (MEC), with results showing that the
effluent of an ethanol-type dark-fermentation reactor can produce
additional hydrogen [42]. In theory, 1 mol hexose can give 4 mol H2
via the dark fermentation process, but in practice, the maximum
yield obtained has been reported to vary from 2.5 to 3.5 mol H2 per
mol hexose with the formation of few by-products due to ther-
modynamical limitations [87].
Varanasi et al. [59] conducted a study with the objective of
selectively enriching an electrogenic mixed consortium in MFCs
that can utilise dark fermentative effluents as substrates. The
influential anodic operational parameters were optimised to
further enhance power output using dark fermentative effluents.
Results showed that fermented effluents are acceptable substrates
for bioanodes, and there was an increase in maximum power
density from 1.4 W/m3 to 6.2 W/m3 after the anodic parameters
were optimised and fermentation effluents were utilised. The
average COD removal efficiency and coulombic efficiencies were
75.25% and 10.55%. Another study [88] aimed to obtain electrical
energy in an MFC from compounds that can be found in H2
fermentation effluent and successfully recovered energy from
glucose generating H2 by using the Clostridium beijerinckii strain.
During the fermentation procedure, 104 mmol/L H2 was produced
from 49.5% of the initial glucose concentration, which was
56 mmol/L; 5, 33, 3, and 1 mmol/L of lacetate, butyrate, lactate, and
ethanol also came out. These end products were fed into the anodic
compartment and showed values of power density that ranged
between 0.6 and 1.2 W/m2.
3.7. Sunlight
MFCs can function using solar energy as their energy source
[89]. A hybrid MFC (h-MFC) was used in a study [55] with a single-
chamber and analysed the methylene blue (MB) dye degradation
using a TiO2 nanotube (TNT) array photoanode paired with carbon
felt bioanode, with both sharing a common air cathode. Results
showed that this model of MFC showed increased power density,
voltage, and current density of 14%, 4%, and 33%, and simulta-
neously degraded MB dye by 82.79% after an operation of 3.5 h
under simulated solar light illumination. The number of electrons
increased under illumination due to the pairing of the TNT photo-
anode and conventional MFC bioanode as this added photo-
generated electrons to the MFC's external circuit, which
consequently accelerated the oxygen reduction reaction at the air
cathode, enhancing the overall performance of the MFC.
An MFC that requires the involvement of sunlight is a
S.F. Ahmed, M. Mofijur, N. Islam et al.
microalgae-microbial fuel cell (m-MFC) as microalgae mediated
bio-electrochemical system for the transformation of carbonaceous
substances into bioelectricity [90]. MFCs convert sunlight into
electricity in microalgae cells through the natural process of
photosynthesis [91]. In a typical m-MFC, the production of O2 oc-
curs in microalgal cells by using solar energy, nutrients, bi-
carbonates, and the CO2 given out by the heterotrophic bacteria
[92]. These bacteria consume the O2 and the released organic
content. Since microalgae are photosynthetic microorganisms,
wavelength and light intensity have an effect on their growing
process and the power output. The following reactions occur at the
electrodes in an m-MFC [91]:
Anode:
Wastewater organics/CO2 þ e-
Cathode:
O2 þ H
þ e
/ H2O
Overall reaction:
Wastewater organics þ O2/CO2 þ H2O þ external power
The reaction in the microalgae fuel cell:
CO2 þ H2O þ Light/ Algal biomass þ O2
3.8. Cellulose and chitin
There are some materials that are cheap and biopolymeric, like
cellulose and chitin, which can be found readily and used for
generating electricity [89]. The shells of crabs and shrimps are
composed of chitin and are food waste. S. W. [58] reported the
degradation of chitin anaerobically by a chitinolytic bacterium
called Aeromonas hydrophila, which is also electroactive, in both
MFC and fermentation systems. Succinate, acetate, lactate, ethanol,
and formate were the primary metabolites that were produced in
the MFC. The total metabolite concentration and electricity gener-
ation increased in the MFC system in comparison to the fermen-
tation system, proving that an electroactive bacterium can degrade
chitin in an MFC [93].
Gurav et al. [94] attempted to develop a single step process to
produce electrical energy from chitin biomass. They found that a
gram-positive electroactive bacterium, Bacillus circulans BBL03, is
capable of producing electricity in an MFC with natural seawater
fed with 1% chitin. N-acetylglucosamine (GlcNAc) and metabolites
of degradation (lactate, formate, acetate, propionate, and butyrate)
acted as electron donors and led to the production of a substantial
amount of electricity (26.508 mAcm2). Shewanella oneidensis MR-1
can oxidise wide ranges of fermentative organics and can degrade
chitin in the MFC [95]. Experimental results revealed that the
metabolites formed during chitin degradation in the MFC were at a
higher concentration than in fermentation systems and created
additional energy.
Cellulose is an abundant energy source for electricity production
in MFCs, but they need obligate anaerobes with the ability to
degrade cellulose and aid in transferring electrons to the electrode
(exoelectrogens). To explore that, S. W. [95] worked on commu-
nities of bacteria that can evolve in SCMFCs with air cathodes that
use cellulose as substrate and how the bacterial consortium
changed over time. Further investigations are needed to find a
relationship between low power production in MFCs that have
11
Energy 254 (2022) 124163
cellulose as feedstock and the slow degradation efficiency of cel-
lulose by the fermentative genera. Cellulomonas fimi, Cellulomonas
biazotea and Cellulomonas flavigena are microorganisms that can
degrade cellulose [96]. Their performance was compared, and re-
sults showed that C. fimi degraded the highest quantity of cellulose
(2.5 g/L), and the highest power generation of 38.7 mW/m2 was
attained by the MFC [96], and C. fimi can be used to produce an
electric current from cellulose in MFCs.
3.9. Landfill leachates
Landfill effluents that are heavily polluted and have a complex
composition are called landfill leachates. They are constituted from
xenobiotic organic compounds, heavy metals, dissolved organic
matter, and inorganic macro-components, which are the four major
groups of pollutants [97]. Hassan et al. [57] investigated the per-
formance of an MFC using old and young landfill leachate for its
substrate in removing pollutants and producing renewable energy.
A power output of 96.8 m Wm
2 and 90.0 ± 1.2% of COD removal
was achieved with 60% leachate in batch mode. The values
decreased when employed with 100% fresh leachate in continuous
mode to a power output of 75 mWm
2 and a 55.5% reduction of
COD. The power output decreased further when using old landfill
leachates. This study proved the potential of ammonium as an
electricity-generating fuel.
The potential of an open circuit from landfill leachate was
investigated by Sonawane et al. [98]; using a fabricated direct air-
breathing cathode-based MFC. Three different MFCs were built
and studied under open-circuit conditions for 17 d, and the
maximum open-circuit voltage (OCV) was 1.29 V. The maximum
cathode area-specific power density was 1513 mW/m2 in the
reactor. The feasibility of MFCs in treating landfill leachate and
producing electricity was explored under the condition of high
conductivity (73,588 S cm
1) and nitrogen concentration
(6,033 mg N L
1) [99]. This experiment used an air-cathode MFC,
and biodegradable organic matter of 8.5 kg COD m
3 d
1 was
removed while simultaneously producing electricity of 344 mW/
m3. The key studies related to the utilisation of substrates in mi-
crobial fuel cells are summarised in Table 2.
4. Effective implementation of microbial fuel cells
The microbial fuel cell (MFC) is considered an effective long-
term solution to address rising energy demands. It is a promising
approach with numerous applications, including energy genera-
tion, wastewater treatment, biohydrogen production, and bio-
sensors. Considering its remarkable characteristics in
environmental and commercial efficiency, researchers have
tremendous interest in developing its output for other applications.
The following subsections of the paper provide a detailed overview
of the diverse landscape of MFC application, as depicted in Fig. 4.
4.1. Generation of electricity generated by living organisms
The world is experiencing a global energy crisis because of the
degradation of non-renewable energy supplies and the constrained
economic viability of sustainable energy technologies that
encompass the critical need for research and development into
electricity generated by living organisms. MFC technology is an
electricity generation alternative that uses microorganisms to
convert chemical energy into electrical energy [101]. MFC may be a
potential solution as a novel bioremediation technique for trans-
forming carbon-rich waste by harnessing the metabolic capacity of
microorganisms in real-time [102]. In contrast to other wastewater
treatment techniques, the catalytic function of microorganisms in
S.F. Ahmed, M. Mofijur, N. Islam et al.
an MFC involves the unmediated transfer of chemical energy into
electrical energy [103]. Fig. 5 illustrates the function of a microbial
fuel cell for electricity generation and wastewater treatment which
does not require separate purification or conversion procedures for
energy products.
Chemical substances containing energy are retrieved from
wastewater using the conventional treatment method. An MFC
generates electricity by oxidising substrates in an anode chamber,
resulting in electron and proton transportation [104]. In compari-
son to conventional treatment, a pilot study [105] conducted in a
stackable horizontal MFC showed significant reductions in chemi-
cal oxygen demand (COD) removal (79.7%), electricity generation
(0.47 W/m3) and total N removal (71.8%) with minimal operational
cost. MFCs are ecologically favourable technologies because they
generate and operate electricity under mild processing conditions
such as pH and temperature. The MFCs save energy and can
generate up to 1.8 kWh/m3 of treated effluent or 1.43 kWh/m3 of
primary sludge which is less than other technologies such as aer-
obic processes [106]. The MFCs utilise only a minimal amount of
external energy (10% approximately) for their operation, indicating
a significant potential for energy savings.
Several studies estimate that MFCs are capable of producing
electricity from food products (2e260 kWh/t) based on the BOD
and the proportion of the waste generated [65]. Pt black was used
as a catalyst and obtained a coulombic efficiency of about 97% [107].
The MFCs do not generate a huge amount of electricity because the
rate at which electrons are abstracted is relatively slow. In con-
ventional fuel cells, the highest efficiency rate is limited to the
Carnot limit. In MFCs, greater efficiencies of more than 70% may be
obtained [108]. MFCs also demonstrate several environmental and
economic advantages, such as the removal of toxins, the recycling
of nutrients, and the production of electricity from wastewater.
Treatment of fruit wastewater using a low priced non-woven fabric
separator is said to have provided a maximum net income of $7.1 M
over a 20 y period [109]. This also shows that MFC technology may
recover a significant amount of energy via electricity generation.
The typical feedstocks such as wastewater from the mustard
tuber and cashew apple juice have created electricity in MFCs with
a power density of 31.6 W/m2 [110]). In another study [111], elec-
tricity production was measured over 195 d using highly salty
mustard wastewater. The MFC performance was evaluated and
found to have COD and BOD removal efficiencies of 89% and 98.6%.
The maximum power density was reported to be 12 W/m3. Experts
have been working to improve several parameters and develop the
MFC method towards increased sustainability. Glucose wastewater
was used as a substrate in an experiment in a double-chamber MFC
where the power density reached 4,310 mW/m2 [90]. It was re-
ported that methanol is not convenient for electricity generation,
whereas ethanol and acetate are good substrates for electricity
production. Metal catalysts are costly to use, and a natural catalyst
composed of sugarcane debris and activated carbon cathode has
been studied and proven effective [112]. This study revealed
maximum power and current densities, with the removal of 64%
COD and 51% BOD.
MFC electricity can also be utilised to power electric equipment
or machinery and control robots. Such robots are sometimes
referred to as ‘gastrobots’, which can either metabolise food or be
powered by air or water. By consuming the substrate fuel, elec-
tricity conversion occurs, which is frequently deposited in the ro-
bots' batteries, making them into autonomous power systems.
Another promising invention was the ‘Gastronome’, a robot that
used biomass-powered power conversion technology in an MFC
[37]. EcoBot II is an environmental monitoring robot outfitted with
8 MFCs functioning on raw products. Rotting fruits were used as
substrate fuel and showed significant operation for environmental
12
Energy 254 (2022) 124163
monitoring [113]. MFCs are produced and categorised into several
varieties based on electrolyte nature and membrane and electrode
alignment. The primary kinds are: (i) single-chamber MFCs, (ii) up-
flow MFC stacked, (iii) stacked MFCs, and (iv) double-chamber
MFCs [41].
4.2. Biohydrogen generation
Another intriguing implementation of MFC technology is the
generation of biohydrogen. The microbial electrolysis cell (MEC), a
transformed MFC device, is used to produce biohydrogen. Microbial
metabolism and electrochemistry are linked in MEC operation.
MFCs can be easily adjusted or modified for hydrogen production
using an anaerobic cathode in addition to complementing the
electricity supplied by bacteria. This occurs via an external source to
lessen proton quantities in the cathode cell. An exoelectrogenic
bacterium oxidises the substrate in the MEC, leading to CO2, proton,
and electron production [114]. Hydrogen gas is formed when pro-
tons and electrons react with catalytic function.
The process includes the transfer of electrons from the anode to
the cathode via an electrical circuit. The hydrogen ions pass into the
cathode through the membrane. The electrons in the cathode
portion unite with the protons to produce hydrogen gas. An
external voltage triggers this hydrogen generation method, and the
hydrogen produced might be used to fulfil hydrogen demand [115].
Hydrogen Evolution Reaction (HER) is thermodynamically disad-
vantageous since it needs a 0.41V input. In contrast, microorgan-
isms create an estimated 0.3 V by decomposing the substrates
found in the anode cell [116]. In practice, a MEC requires 0.25e0.8 V
input.
One example of biohydrogen synthesis and electric current
production is a combined approach incorporating an MFC that uses
acid-rich effluent. Processed palm oil effluent containing a specific
enzyme and surfactant has been employed to boost biohydrogen
synthesis and power generation [17]. Raw materials such as
wastewater from food processing and sugar fermentation, and
municipal solid waste can also generate hydrogen. Microbial elec-
trolysis cell (MEC) is a promising and sustainable hydrogen-
producing technique because of the potential for long recovery
rates from various natural feedstocks [117]. MFC and MEC both
consist of the same materials: an anode, a cathode, and an ion-
membrane. MECs need a minor adjustment to the MFC design by
establishing an anaerobic cathode [118].
MFCs may be used to generate electricity as well as treat
wastewater [44]. The rate of hydrogen generation in MEC is affected
by several aspects, including MEC construction, electrode materials,
solution chemistry, microorganisms, and mode of operation [119].
Various adjustments have been shown in studies to boost hydrogen
production rates and efficiency. Using a double-chamber MEC
arrangement, initial studies have shown hydrogen generation rates
in the range of 0.01e0.1 m3/d [120]. Cheng et al. [121] obtained an
expanded production level of 1.1 m3/d. The increased outcome
resulted from a greater anode surface area and the application of an
anionic exchange membrane.
4.3. Biosensor production
Electrochemical biosensors, particularly MFC-based biosensors,
provide steady performance, feasibility, and sensitivity. They have
received much recognition in contrast to conventional sensors. The
specific biosensors benefit from anaerobic biofilms [122]. The bio-
anode inside a regular MFC biosensor acts as a sensing component
toxicity level. The biocathode functions as a transducer and has
shown more sensitivity than a bioanode. This performance
improvement is primarily because MFC biosensors do not require
S.F. Ahmed, M. Mofijur, N. Islam et al. Energy 254 (2022) 124163

Fig. 4. Applications of the microbial fuel cell [100].

Fig. 5. Microbial fuel cell's working principle for wastewater treatment and electricity generation (reprinted with the permission of Elsevier from [17].

organic matter input [123]. The MFC has been demonstrated to be
an effective biosensor for detecting wastewater organic chemicals
and pollutants [124]. Conventional biosensors often need a trans-
ducer; however, MFCs work as a transducer in and of itself, making
MFCs a cost-effective biosensor, as shown in Fig. 6. Exoelectrogens
in the anode work as generators, while electrodes and PEM serve as
a transducer. The key benefit of an MFC biosensor is its stability and
durability since exoelectrogenic biofilms prolong the longevity of
elements and reduce the need for their replacement.
The initial stage in designing the MFC-based biosensor system is
to have proper cathodic and anodic reactions [126]. MFCs can be a
potential sensor for biological oxygen demand (BOD) [126], and it
has been demonstrated that the BOD sensor has outstanding
operational sustainability and repeatability and can likely be

13
S.F. Ahmed, M. Mofijur, N. Islam et al.
Fig. 6. Comparison between traditional whole-cell and MFC-based biosensor [125]. Traditional whole-cell biosensors typically use pigment molecules, green fluorescence proteins
(GFP), luminescence and enzyme activity as indicators.
actively maintained for 5 y [127]. A BOD sensor based on an MFC
may be more challenging to use with industrial wastewater.
Wastewater contains both degradable organic matter and harmful
contaminants. Sudden variations in BOD and toxicity may occur
with an MFC-based BOD sensor [44]. The current density in an
MFC-based sensor reduces with increasing toxicity of the toxic
chemicals, but it increases with increasing BOD. The abrupt change
in BOD may weaken the responses of the MFC sensor to poisoning.
Research indicates that an integrated effect of BOD with toxicity
influenced the outcome during the utilisation of the MFC sensor
detecting Cr(IV) [128]. Table 3 summarises the performance of
different microbial fuel cells in generating bioenergy.
4.4. Wastewater treatment
Wastewater containing various forms of the organic substrate
has a high potential as an energy source. Wastewater from different
sources holds energy in its biodegradable organic matter [144].
MFC technology, which was proposed for application in wastewater
treatment in 1991 [145], is advantageous as a fundamentally new
technique because of its ability to generate bioenergy, reduce en-
ergy loss [146] and operate in the absence of gas [147]. The MFC is a
viable technology for the treatment of highly contaminated
wastewater or industrial effluent while also reducing operational
cost, features which have high sustainability. For substrate oxida-
tion, the inoculum is produced from primary industrial wastewater
or specific bacterial cultures obtained from wastewater [148]. The
influence of various fundamental parameters on MFC performance,
such as total solids, COD, BOD, and acidity, has been examined.
Standard methodologies are often used to assess the wastewater
treatment effectiveness of MFCs.
Compared to other industrial wastewater, food wastewater is
mildly toxic, although it has an increased BOD and is abundant in
14
Energy 254 (2022) 124163
starch [149]. A study was conducted in starch processing waste-
water (SPW) to assess the treatment effectiveness of a double-
chamber MFC. Proteins, carbohydrates, cellulose, vitamins, and
other substances are abundant in SPW. SPW was utilised to assess
the treatment effectiveness of a double-chamber MFC. After 140
d of performance, the MFC reduced COD by 98%. This was com-
plemented by a 91% ammoniaenitrogen elimination efficiency.
Another study utilising potato processing effluent obtained a 91%
COD reduction [150]. A separate study [37] used organic-rich, non-
toxic cocoa wastewater in a double-chamber MFC. The findings
revealed that following a batch mode MFC process, a maximum
COD of 75% was eliminated.
Animal wastewater has a high organic content as well as large
quantities of phosphate and nitrate, which cause surface water
eutrophication. A promising method for producing sorbents from
waste cellulose casings was proposed and evaluated economically
on a pilot scale using pyrolysis and calcium chloride (CaCl2) acti-
vation [151]. This sorbent was capable to capture 31.8 kg P t
1, with
more than 80% of the acquired phosphorus (P) being readily
available as crop nutrition. The commercialisation of the novel
sorbent may be commercially viable. Few studies have shown that
animal effluent can be treated and converted into bioenergy in
various MFCs. A study involving swine wastewater in several MFCs
obtained the highest, approximately 92%, COD removal and 83%
ammonia reduction following an operation for about 100 h [152].
Animal carcass wastewater can be hydrolysed by alkaline treatment
into smaller components such as amino acids, minerals, and sugars
resulting in a sterile solvent (with BOD 70 g/L, ammonia 1 g/L, COD
105 g/L) known as ACW. The most significant COD loss produced
was more than 50%, while the MFC's nitrate removal effectiveness
was approximately 80% in an up-flow tubular MFC [153].
MFC achieves the highest proportion of C elimination (>90%)
from wastewater. Exoelectrogens produce protons and electrons in
 S.F. Ahmed, M. Mofijur, N. Islam et al. Energy 254 (2022) 124163

the anode by oxidising the organic elements present in waste-

[129]
[130]
[131]

Pmax ¼ 0.0249 mW cm
2 Voc ¼ 0.803 V [132]

[133]

[134]
[135]

[136]
[137]

[138]
[139]
[140]
[141]

[142]
[143]
water. Protons are transmitted by the membrane, whereas the
Ref.

electrodes transmit electrons to the cathode chamber. Clean water

Ricobendazole as the precursor of Fe-

and energy are produced as a result of these procedures. Nitrogen

0.0058 mW cm
2Voc ¼ 0.66 V

Cell performance (maximum power

Pmax ¼ 0.068 mW cm
2Voc ¼ 0.5 V

Pmax ¼ 0.012 mW cm
2Voc ¼ 0.8 V
Pmax ¼ 0.0209 mW cm
2 using Fe-
often occurs in wastewater in the form of ammonium, and the
conventional removal procedure comprises successive nitrifica-
tion and denitrification. The typical procedures require a signifi-

Pmax ¼ 1,270 ± 30 mW/m2

Pmax ¼ 1,850 ± 20 mW/m2

Pmax ¼ 0.00165 mW cm
2

Pmax ¼ 0.027 mW cm
2

0.019 mW cm
2
cant mass of organic material and increased energy and sludge for

Pmax ¼ 1,008 mW/m2

2,420 mW/m2
Pmax ¼ 1,606 mW/m2
Pmax ¼ 1,296 mW/m2

the denitrification process [154].

610 mW/m2
Researchers have investigated that integrating MFC with con-
density/voltage)

NC ORR catalyst

ventional wastewater treatment will expand its application and

treatment efficiency. Examples of such integrated MFCs are the

¼
¼
¼
¼
membrane bioreactor MFC, desalination MFC, and constructed

Pmax
Pmax
Pmax
Pmax
wet-land MFC. The COD and ammonium nitrogen removal were
98% and 95%, whereas total nitrogen removal efficiencies were
Gas diffusion cathode with Pt as oxygen

Gas diffusion electrode catalyst used:

Carbon clothes air cathode with Pt/C

approximately 89% when a baffle was used instead of an ion-

Carbon cloth with an area of 14 cm2
reduction reaction (ORR) catalyst

membrane in the MFC [155]. Specific microbial communities

Carbon cloth containing 50 mM
Carbon brush and carbon cloth
Carbon paper with Pt catalyst.

were also added to the biofilms for effective treatment and energy
Carbon felt and porous carbon Carbon felt with Pt catalyst

production. Using sophisticated techniques and technologies, MFC

potassium ferricyanide.

removes not only nutrients but also various metal ions from
Pt coated carbon felt

wastewater which are often found in petrochemical facilities,

Carbon fibre felt

tanneries, and rayon manufacturing facilities. The MFC technology

NeNieCNF/ACF
Carbon paper
Carbon cloth

Carbon cloth

appears promising for bioenergy and wastewater treatment ap-

Carbon rod
Fe-NC ORR

plications. The performance of different types of this technology

catalysts
Cathode

in treating wastewater is tabulated in Table 4.

5. Factors affecting microbial fuel cell performance

Carbon cloth with an area

5.1. Anode
Mixed microorganisms from the anaerobic digester Carbon fibre/MW CNT
Carbon fibre bundles

PPy/NFs/PET textile

Microorganisms have an essential role in generating electrons

NeNieCNF/ACF
Carbon paper
Carbon brush

Carbon brush

in the anode. Electron acceptors are lowered by using these

Carbon cloth
Carbon cloth

Graphite felt
Metal anode
Carbon felt

of 14 cm2

electrons in the cathode cell when passing through the circuit. The
Graphite
Anode

anode chamber acts as an electron receptor in the MFC reactor.

The structural and fundamental characteristics of the anodes have
a significant impact on MFC efficiency due to the efficacy of the
S.Oneidensis (lactic acid to electricity)S.Cerevisiae

substrate oxidation and its effect on bacterial adhesion [168].

These features are connected with extracellular electron transfer
Mixed microorganism Source: bottom mud

(EET) effectiveness through a higher surface area which is speci-

alised for biofilm development. The anode chamber includes all
Microorganism source: active sludge

Rapeseed straw hydrolysate Mixed microorganisms from sludge

essential requirements for biomass degradation. The components

Mixed anaerobic microorganism

of this compartment are the substrate, a mediator (optional), a

Source of inoculum/microbes

Cellulose degrading bacteria

microbe, and the anode [104].

Anodic microbial electron substitution is one of the most vital
(Glucose to lactic acid)
Artificial wastewater

components influencing MFC performance, boosting the micro-

Citrobactersp. LAR-1
Performance of different microbial fuel cells for bioenergy generation.

bial electron transfer rate using various practical methods and

Escherichia coli

Escherichia coli

adjusting electrode and cell design [169]. The electrodes are

E.coli (DH5a)

crucial components of an MFC and are vital in increasing its effi-

cacy. The several anode materials have been examined in various
studies. Suitable anode materials should be considered when
implementing a standard anode in an MFC. It should be conduc-
tive, cost-effective, non-corrosive, and with a large surface area
Sodium lignosulphonate

[101]. The corrosion continues to either increase through voltaic

Cornstalk hydrolysate
MFC configuration Type of substrate/fuel

Synthetic wastewater

current output and the large surface area or lower the current by
Sodium acetate

generating radioactive substances.

Geobacter sp.

The most common anode material is carbon-based, such as

Rice Straw

E.coli(K12)
Rice bran

graphite rod or felt, carbon brush or fibre, as well as various metal

Glucose

Glucose
Acetate

electrodes. Carbon-based electrode materials (plates or rods) are

essential materials for anode electrodes due to their low cost, easy
operation, and vast pore stability [170]. Compact substances such
Double-chamber
Single- chamber

as solid carbon are suitable for developing exoelectrogenic bac-

teria that can generate electricity from domestic wastewater
Fixed-bed

because of their enormous surface area and porosity [171]. Carbon

Table 3

felt and carbon brushes have greater power densities of 2,437 and
2,110 mW/m2 (90% COD elimination) [172]. Kaewkannetra et al.
15
S.F. Ahmed, M. Mofijur, N. Islam et al. Energy 254 (2022) 124163

Table 4
Performance of different microbial fuel cells for wastewater treatment.

MFC configuration Wastewater/heavy Electrode material Removal efficiency Power density Reference
metal

Single-chamber Anode: carbon fibre

Mixed wastewater 87 ± 5% COD 70e360 mW/m2 [156]
Cathode: carbon paper
with 4 PTFE diffusion layers
and a Pt catalyst layer.
Cadmium Anode: graphite rod 90% 289 mW/m2 [157]
Cathode: graphite rod
Swine wastewater Anode: Toray carbon paper 92% 282.83 mA/m2 [158]
Cathode: carbon cloth
Landfill leachates Anode: graphite (granular) 70e85% COD 20.9 W/m3 [159]
Cathode: graphite(granular)
2
Double-chamber Sewage wastewater Anode: graphite rod 97% total suspended solid 836.81 mW/m [160]
with Distillery Cathode: graphite rod (TSS), 78.66% COD, 39.66%
spent wash total dissolved solids
Slaughterhouse Anode: carbon cloth 578 mW/m2 [161]
wastewater Cathode: carbon cloth
Distillery Anode: copper wire 63.5 ± 1.5% COD 63.8 ± 0.65 mW/m2 [64,61,62]
wastewater Cathode: copper wire
Vegetable oil Anode: titanium rod 67.3% sulphate 6119 mW/m2 [63]
industrial Cathode: carbon cloth 73.6% phosphorus
wastewater 80e90% COD
Cassava mill Anode: graphite plate ~28% COD 1771 mW/m2 [162]
wastewater Cathode: graphite plate
Tubular Sewage sludge Anode: Ag/AgCl 53% TCOD 73 mA/m2 [163]
Cathode: Ag/AgCl
2
Swine wastewater Anode: graphite felt 83.8% COD, 90.8% NH4þ eN 175.7 W/m [164]
Cathode: graphite felt
2
Up-flow constructed wetland (UFCW) Wastewater from Anode: carbon felt 100% COD, 91% NH4þ, 40% NO3- 6.12 mW/m [165]
glove factory Cathode: carbon felt
Cubic two-cell Livestock Anode: carbon fibre 75e82% COD 122 mW/m2 [166]
wastewater Cathode: carbon fibre
Modularised system Municipal Anode: polyvinyl chloride (PVC) 70e90% COD 7e60 W/m3 [167]
wastewater Cathode: polyvinyl chloride (PVC)

[162] conducted a study using graphite plate electrodes in the
treatment of cassava mill effluent and obtained notable outcomes
(maximum power density of 1,771 mW/m2). The use of graphite felt
with a macro-structured anode in continuous flow MFCs improved
wastewater treatment. The vertical arrangement of fins in the
anode enhanced regular water flow dispersion and the interactivity
among microorganisms and wastewater matter [173]. Several
studies on the suitability of anode materials have been conducted,
and it has been found that improvement in MFC performance was
accomplished primarily through a highly porous structure. Despite
the fact that CC is commonly used as an anode, nitrogen-doped
permeable carbons achieved a maximum power density of
2777.7 mW/m2 [174].
Corrosion resistance and cost-effectiveness are two advantages
of metal-based electrode materials [175]. The multi-dimensional
characteristics of biocompatible metal oxides can give a surface
area that is more reactive and improves diffusion and electron
transport [176]. Various types of anode materials are alternatives,
especially carbon structured electrode materials. The anode mate-
rials can be modified using metals or oxide-based nanoparticles.
This improves microbial cell adherence and ohmic consumption.
The power density of the anode, which consisted of iron (II, III)
oxide (Fe3O4) and carbon nanotubes, was 830 mW/m2. When Fe3O4
is attached to carbon nanotubes, it forms a multilayered network
that promotes microbe development and electron transmission
[177].
5.2. Cathode
Alongside the anode, cathodes influence both energy output
and wastewater treatment due to their impact on ORR. Ferricyanide
and permanganate are prominent experimental electron acceptors
used in an MFC cathode chamber to boost its performance.
Increased cathodic kinetics is often one of the most critical factors
in MFC technology [171]. Despite numerous advances, these elec-
trodes have limitations such as high expense, surface toxicity of
microorganisms, and inadequate re-oxidation, resulting in the
standard replacement of catholyte. For these reasons, more desir-
able materials have been investigated to boost MFC power gener-
ation. Carbon-based materials, metal oxides and complexes, and
other materials are among these. Chemical activation of electrode
materials at a reduced cost improves MFC electrochemical prop-
erties by modifying the cathode layer to enhance microbial prop-
erties [178].
Carbon structures have contributed to remarkable progress on
high catalyst activity and performance in many studies. For
instance, one study focused on heteroatom-doped carbon demon-
strated significant cathodic performance (1,328.9 mW/m2) similar
to the conventional catalyst, Pt/C, which is used in cathode cells
(1,337.7 mW/m2) [179]. Cathodes produced using carbon fibre
cloth, polyvinylidene fluoride and Mn, O, Fe, and C as a catalyst have
been proposed to be a potential cathode membrane for wastewater
treatment with low operational cost and adequate removal effi-
ciency. Research findings show that 90% COD, 80% ammonium, and
65% total phosphorous were removed efficiently. Based on several
studies, these cathode membranes are considered prospective
wastewater treatment initiatives with higher commercialisation
potential [143].
Synthetic wastewater and municipal wastewater removed 85%
and 45% COD, due to loss of catalytic activity and non-electrogenic
microbe contact. An experiment was conducted in a stacked MFC
with a fed-batch operating duration of 48 h that achieved a
maximum power density of 50.9 1.7 W/m3 while efficiently
removing 97% COD from the wastewater. The experiment used

16
S.F. Ahmed, M. Mofijur, N. Islam et al.
compact electrodes of granular activated carbon (GAC) [120]., a
Remarkable MFC performance with a power density of 1,771 mW/
m2 is achieved when graphite plates are used in both electrodes
[162]. The FeeN-G has been employed as a cathode catalyst sub-
stitute in MFCs, attaining a power density of 1,149.8 mW/m2. The Fe
and N's functionalisation on graphite considerably improved MFC
performance [180].
A bioreactor-MFC system integrating a relatively low-priced
membrane and a cathode membrane of carbon fibre cloth was
developed by Lin et al. [135] for wastewater treatment. GAC was
applied to the cathode membrane to reduce biofouling and
improve power output. In this experiment, the elimination of COD
was determined to be 90% and ammonium 80%. The doped GAC on
the cathode was used to achieve 90% oxidative elimination of
tetracycline hydrochloride by reactive oxygen species. Carbon and
metal nanoparticles with new combinations and diverse dimen-
sional configurations have received a lot of interest [181]. A
comprehensive study [182] was conducted, focusing on the use of a
biocathode for carbon and nitrogen removal while also generating
power. Various studies show that S. oneidensis and
G. sulphurreducens have potential power generation mechanisms
that carry electrons directly [183]. Several molecular strategies
have been improved in order to develop microbial catalysts and
biocatalysts. Such approaches include chemical treatment, modi-
fication of microbes, and gene modification to generate
biosurfactants.
5.3. Electrode materials
MFC performance and cost are mostly determined by the
membrane electrode configuration, installation, and overall design.
Using effective electrode materials can contribute to increasing
MFC performance. This is because activation polarisation losses
depend on the type of anode materials used in a fuel cell. One of the
most difficult challenges for the MFC to perform as an economical
and accessible technology is in evaluating an efficient electrode
material [184]. The Pt and Pt electrodes perform better than carbon
and graphite-based electrodes in both anode and cathode config-
urations, although they are significantly more expensive (S [185]. In
order to identify the most effective electrode materials, it is
important to determine their resistance power, and studies show
that the least resistant ones are the most effective [101]. Applicable
to both anode and cathode, the ideal electrode material is non-
flammable, conductive, non-fouling, and economical. Research
has proved that using a high-efficiency electrode material like
platinum is not cost-effective in large-scale applications. An
increased cost efficiency has been a focus in MFC research.
In the domain of material characteristics, Wei et al. [186]
focused on the relevance of the high conductivity and mechanical
strength necessary for successful electron transport. The surface
area in the electrode should be raised and separated into numerous
forms to improve bacteria adherence [187]. According to the liter-
ature, an electrode modified with nanoparticles generates more
power than a standard electrode. A platinum-coated cathode pro-
duces significantly more electric current than a plain cathode with
no catalyst [188]. A study was performed using G. Sulphurreducens
as an inoculum, and it was observed that a biofilm electrode con-
taining magnetic nanoparticles enhanced the electrode's electro-
mechanical conductivity by 1.22e1.88 times compared to regular
carbon paper electrodes and strengthened the electron transport
mechanism [148].
5.4. pH buffer and electrolyte
A variation in pH is apparent between the anodic and cathodic
17
Energy 254 (2022) 124163
chambers if no buffer solution is used in an operative MFC. The
operation of an MFC commences with the proton exchange mem-
brane (PEM), forming a transport barrier for protons. The technique
involves proton transport across the membrane, which is more
passive in contrast to proton formation in the anode and proton loss
in the cathode, resulting in a pH variation [189]. The pH difference
increases proton distribution to the cathode from the anode
chamber, resulting in a dynamic equilibrium. Protons generated
during biodegradation act with diffused oxygen in the cathodic cell.
Others concentrate in the anode section as they do not pass rapidly
through the proton exchange membrane or salt bridge [190].
One study found that the pH changed at the cathode and anode
after adding a phosphate buffer, and the current output was
boosted by 1e2 times [191]. The buffer increased the proton
transportation flow, increasing proton availability for the cathodic
method. At pH 6 and 9, the current density and coulombic effi-
ciency are frequently reduced. The current increases dramatically
as the pH rises from 7.5 to 8 and drops drastically at pH 9. A sig-
nificant pH difference across the membrane occurs due to increased
electrochemical activity leading to high current flow and energy
supply [192]. Anam et al. [193] examined combining an HCl solu-
tion into the cathode, intensifying the current production nearly
two-fold. This result indicates that proton usage at the cathode is
not an expanding component of power output. Adding NaCl to
MFCs increased ionic strength, which in turn boosted power pro-
duction [194].
The anode chamber becomes increasingly acidic as protons
accumulate, making it unsuitable for bacterial growth [195]. High
pH in the cathode chamber lowers current production. Low pH
allowed for oxygen reduction and increased MFC electric current.
The bacteria's activities are reduced because of the anolyte's low
pH, which has a major influence on biofilm growth and MFC power
output [196]. This reveals that a larger concentration of protons in
the cathode chamber lowers the power density. When it comes to
COD elimination during wastewater treatment, a higher pH in the
anode chamber is beneficial, but it diminishes power.
Several factors influence the pH difference, including the type of
substrate/microbes in the anode, the catholyte material, and proton
flow across the membrane [197]. The most important effect of pH
on the electrolyte is its impact on microbial metabolism and the
rate of the cathodic oxygen reduction reaction. By increasing the
acidity of the anode, the driving power for cathodic oxygen
reduction rises by 59 Mv/pH unit assuming the catalyst activity is
kept high [198]. In order to achieve better output in a microbial fuel
cell, an optimum level of pH for microbial growth is necessary, and
studies suggest that this level should be between 6 and 9.
5.5. Proton exchange
In an MFC, anode and cathode chambers remain connected
through the PEM [101]. The concentration polarisation degradation
and internal resistance of an MFC system may be influenced by a
proton exchange system, which affects the overall energy output of
the MFC. The membrane is critical in preventing anode and cathode
chambers from overlapping, particularly by wastewater, oxygen,
and carbon dioxide [199]. One intriguing feature of the PEM is that
it enables hydrogen ions or protons to infiltrate by generating
electricity. Protons (Hþ) are generated in an anode chamber by
exoelectrogens and transported in a cathode chamber via a PEM
membrane, which influences power output and electricity gener-
ation [200]. The membrane also enhances the MFC's internal
resistance and ion/electrolyte dispersion affecting the current
production of the fuel cell [101].
Factors to consider in membrane selection include biofouling,
internal resistance, oxygen diffusion, and substrate loss [201]. The
S.F. Ahmed, M. Mofijur, N. Islam et al.
different energy levels of PEMs have been experimented with in
numerous studies. Due to its permeability and selectivity to the
proton, the most often utilised PEM in MFC technology is the Nafion
[202]. The Nafion also comes with several challenges, such as high
operational cost and non-biocompatible characteristics [17]. The
Nafion-based PEM can be integrated with other materials to reduce
operational costs. This is done by mixing different inorganic addi-
tives and polymers into the Nafion ionomer [203].
A low-cost PEM in MFCs has recently been established using a
PVA-Nafion-borosilicate membrane. An organic matter decompo-
sition levels in wastewater varied between 54.5% and 64.25% [204].
Kondaveeti et al. [205] performed experiments on low-priced
separators for amplified power output and microbial fuel cell
field usage, which yielded CE performance for non-woven fabric
polypropylene (PP80) at 44%, whereas Nafion identified 50%. The
study was conducted using PP80with a high voltage of 0.477 V as a
lost cost separator (0.481 V). The non-woven fabric polypropylene
exhibited an increased power density of 121 W/m3 when compared
to Nafion's 118 W/m2. All sizes of the separators had substantial O2
mass transfer in terms of O2 diffusion, resulting in lower coulombic
efficiencies (CE) and cation exchange membranes. The authors
suggest that a low-cost separator might be effective for MFCs with
greater cell voltage and less oxygen diffusion.
A new permeable clay separator was developed as a low-budget
separator using the NCE low separator by Daud et al. [206] to
substitute the high-cost PEM. The highest power was
2,250 ± 21 mW/m2 and the current flow recorded was 6.0 A/m2,
with a CE of 44 ± 21%. The investigation revealed that the low-cost
separator NCE outperformed the expensive Nafion 117, yielding
much more power, current density, and CE. Studies show that a
power output less than a significant threshold is caused by the
influence of the PEM's enormous surface area. This is due to
reduced internal resistance, which expands the PEM surface area in
the MFC [40].
Low-cost polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) hydrogel has also been intro-
duced to enhance the PEM in MFC [17] to enhance proton con-
ductivity and durability. To generate electricity, PVA-H was used as
a PEM with a toluene removal efficiency of more than 99% in a
tubular air-cathode MFC [207]. Various organic-inorganic polymer
membranes have recently been produced by integrating different
nanofillers placed inside a polymer matrix [208]. In addition to
removing phenol and acetone from wastewater, MFCs using sul-
phonated polyether ketone membranes have also been utilised to
generate energy [209].
Many other materials, particularly sulphonated polymers, have
been used as membranes/separators in MFCs, substituting the
Nafion membrane. Sulphonated poly (ether ether ketone) (SPEEK)-
based and nanofiller-based composite membranes outperformed
Nafion series membranes in terms of power supply. MFCs using
SPEEK and GO (graphene oxide) -SPEEK as separators achieved
82.65% and 83.01% COD removal efficiency [210]. Recent research
has focused on minimising the cost of MFCs by introducing ceramic
materials to produce new types of membranes. Researchers have
assessed natural rubber as an innovative low-cost alternative
membrane [211]. This material functioned for an extended period
of time, exhibiting more durable energy than standard materials.
Despite the promising outcomes, most advanced technologies are
yet to be evaluated, and this low-cost material requires compre-
hensive research and development.
6. Challenges and future opportunities
6.1. Challenges
The potential applications of MFCs face various challenges that
18
Energy 254 (2022) 124163
hinder their ability to be scaled up to the industrial level. Some of
the challenges to the large-scale application of MFCs are given
below:
(i) Expensive MFC components, particularly the cathodes and
the PEMs, are difficult to replace with low-cost and widely
available alternatives. Traditional activated sludge treat-
ments for domestic wastewater. On average, MFC are 30
times cheaper than MFCs in terms of capital cost [212].
(ii) The power generated by the cell is too low to run a sensor or
a transmitter continuously. This is due to the low efficiency of
the process attributed to the slow reaction kinetics at the
electrodes and losses due to high ohmic resistance, particu-
larly at high current densities. This issue can be overcome by
a suitable power management system, where data is trans-
ferred after enough energy is stored [16].
(iii) Unable to operate at low temperatures as it affects the
metabolic activities of the microbial community [33].
(iv) Operational issues, such as electrolyte resistance, increased
over-potential, voltage reversal, and unstable long-term
operation.
(v) Biofouling of electrodes and PEM. Some anti-biofouling
strategies have been proposed, including the hydrophilicity
control of the binding site and surface alteration or a simple
concentrated acid wash [213]. The prevention of biofouling
remains a challenge for cathodes thinly layered with
catalysts.
(vi) Absence of consensus in design and process parameters [25].
Operating parameters and design affect MFC performance,
making it difficult to identify the relationships with the po-
wer outputs and efficiencies of treatment.
(vii) The small electrode surface area for the microorganisms
limits biofilm production. The application of air cathodes,
stacked reactors, and cloth electrode assemblies have been
suggested to increase the efficiency of oxygen use and pre-
vent aeration of water or electrolytes [214].
6.2. Future opportunities
After critically reviewing the literature and identifying chal-
lenges in the scaling of MFCs, the following directions have been
recommended for future research and development of MFCs:
 A huge knowledge gap between laboratory to commercial
implementation prevents proper evaluation of the viability of
MFCs in real-life examples under environmental process con-
ditions. The large-scale application of MFC technology is
restricted by its microbiological, electrochemical, and techno-
logical limitations. The techno-economic feasibility assessments
have been difficult to conduct on lifecycle cost assessments of
MFCs, based on a field operation, capital, and maintenance costs,
due to the limited examples of scaled-up applications.
Expanding our understanding to meet this gap is crucial for the
wider acceptance and application of MFCs, such as by exploring
ion transport selectivity, flow-kinetics modelling and simula-
tion, preparation of cost-effective membranes, optimisation
electrode conditions, robust field equipment, and promoting
innovation in novel energy storage and harvesting methods. The
use of an experimental method design has been recommended
to optimise process parameters, as this technique saves time and
resources, enables the optimisation of many variables concur-
rently, and elucidates the effect of each variable on the overall
output [215]. Modelling techniques, namely mechanism-based
and application-based models, driven by data and advanced
S.F. Ahmed, M. Mofijur, N. Islam et al.
computational intelligence tools allow for the identification of
the various limiting factors of MFCs and provide insights into
MFC performance enhancements [216]. The incorporation of
multiple parameters in an all-inclusive indicator is necessary for
research comparisons [25].
 The development of novel electrodes and membranes is crucial
for enhancing the stability of MFCs and optimising electrical
conductivity and use. Increasing the surface area and electrical
conductivity of electrodes can be achieved by using a larger
surface area of nitrogen or metal-doped carbon structures and
integrating metal nanoparticles into the porous structures of
metal oxides or carbon [17]. Hybrid membranes, such as
polymer-polymer cross-linked membranes, PVDF-sulphonated
hydrocarbon polymers, organic-inorganic hybrid composite
polymer membranes, and altered biopolymer sulphonated
biocellulose membranes with organic or inorganic additives also
improve performance. Low-cost materials, such as ceramics,
cardboard, or biobased electrodes, as well as 3D printing of
electrodes, are research avenues that need further investigation
[217].
 As energy generation processes using MFCs are still ridden with
limitations, hybrid MFC systems are increasingly viewed as a
solution to the limitations of conventional MFCs. Deriving the
advantages of both MFCs and physical, chemical, and biological
processes, hybrid MFC systems display greater promise than
conventional MFCs. The research into hybrid constructed wet-
lands (CWs)-MFC systems have emerged with the intention of
improving the WWT capacity of wetlands while simultaneously
producing electrical power [218]. Nevertheless, hybrid MFC
systems are still in their nascent phase and have inherited many
of the limitations of conventional MFC systems. Many significant
issues remain to be solved, especially around system integra-
tion, process control, optimisation, maintenance, scaling up, and
cost [219].
 As the appropriate selection of microbes is an important
element in MFC technology, the development of a robust biofilm
able to conduct and be penetrated is required. There has been
much interest recently in developing biofilm communities for
MFC technologies using molecular biology techniques such as
metagenomics, synthetic biology, and microbiomes to improve
electron transfer rates [22]. The genetic modification of mi-
crobes to enhance their electrogenecity and increase electricity
generation is another avenue that is gaining traction. An algae-
assisted MFCs are also being explored as self-sustainable MFCs,
where microalgae-assisted cathodes are used to aid redox re-
actions, and the generated algal biomass is recycled as feedstock
to the anode compartment for efficient energy generation [220].
7. Conclusion
MFCs are bio-electrochemical systems that have emerged as a
promising technology to address the issue of energy and climate
security and are being exploited increasingly for sustainable bio-
energy and biohydrogen production, WWT, and biosensing. The
present paper reviewed different MFC types, technological, and
chemical factors affecting microbial performance, substrates used
in MFC, as well as the applications of MFCs. The major conclusions
of this review are summarised below:
 Different substrates and compartment designs offer different
advantages, and the selection of appropriate components and
designs can depend on the MFC application:

Although SCMFCs have proved to be more cost-effective
compared to DCMFCs, the latter is able to withstand issues
of back-diffusion and flux of substrates. Regardless, most
19
Energy 254 (2022) 124163
studies and applications have primarily used SCMFCs and
DCMFCs, even though hybrid stacked MFCs have often offered
greater advantages in terms of substrate conversion effi-
ciency, tolerance to internal resistance, and electricity output.
As much as 5.04 mW/m
2,e3.6W/m
2, 75e513mW/m
2 and
135.4mW/m
2 electricity generation was reported from
SCMFCs, DCMFCs, and stacked MFCs with the highest being
produced from the single/hybrid single-chamber type which
employed microalgae.

Electrode materials and PEMs are other important compo-
nents which are the subject of the burgeoning research in-
terest as these play a crucial role in the efficiency of electricity
generation. Carbon-based electrodes are more frequently
used due to their availability and economic feasibility, but
attempts are being made to redesign electrodes to improve
their permeability and efficiency, such as through the
embedding of nanoparticles. With regards to PEMs, research
is being undertaken to reduce or redesign Nafions.

In MFCs, microorganisms act as catalysts that oxidise the
organic matter present in the substrate, generating electricity
in the process. Mixed cultures are more commonly utilised
media for electricity generation because they provide multi-
ple types of substrates. Since wastewater serves as the source
of a consortium of numerous substrates, wastewater is the
most widely used and studied substrate for MFCs, attributed
to their promising outcomes for electricity generation and
remediation.
 The application of MFCs has many advantages, such as envi-
ronmental friendliness, efficiency, and operational benefits like
low cost and the ability to function under a wide range of pa-
rameters. For instance, after 30 d of operation, MFCs can pro-
duce up to 10.38 mA current and remove 94.3% of COD by
bacterial strains recovered from tannery waste. MFCs exhibit a
removal efficacy of acidity, COD, BOD, N, and other pollutants
from wastewater by at least over 50%, with the most optimistic
removal efficacy reaching over 97%. As much as 31.6 W/m2
electricity and 1.1 m3/d of biohydrogen have been reported to be
produced, depending on the feedstock and type of MFC used.
The MFC-based biosensors make for more robust alternatives to
conventional sensors but display variable cell performance with
power densities ranging from below 100 mW/m2 to over
2,000 mW/m2.
 The acceptability of MFCs remains limited as MFC power gen-
eration performance is still not adequate to run a sensor or a
transmitter continuously. The field application of MFC technol-
ogy is narrow due to its microbiological, electrochemical, and
technological limitations, exacerbated by the knowledge gap
between laboratory and commercial-scale applications. Con-
crete conclusions are yet to be drawn regarding the economic
viability of industrial-scale MFC applications. Addressing these
gaps is necessary before launching the technology in full-scale
applications with high and stable long-term performance, and
cost-effective design, maintenance, and operation are possible.
Significant research avenues are opening up, such as the search
for novel electrode and membrane materials, improving elec-
trogenesis of microbes using molecular biology, and the devel-
opment of hybrid MFC systems such as CWs-MFCs that are far
more economically feasible, which could potentially contribute
to the scaling-up of the technology.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing
financial interests or personal relationships that could have
appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
S.F. Ahmed, M. Mofijur, N. Islam et al.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge the support from the
project “Sustainable Process Integration LaboratorydSPIL” funded
by EU CZ Operational Programme Research and Development, Ed-
ucation, Priority1: Strengthening capacity for quality research
(Grant No. CZ.02.1.01/0.0/0.0/15_003/0000456). The authors also
would like to acknowledge the Universiti Tenaga Nasional grant no.
IC6-BOLDREFRESH2025 (HCR) under the BOLD2025 Program to
support this study.
References
[1] Altun T. Hanelerde Enerji Verimlilig i: Davranişsal Müdahaleler Ve Kamu
_
Politikalari Için _
Anahtar Ilkeler. Electron. Turkish Stud. 2018;13.
[2] Mofijur M, Atabani AE, Masjuki HH al, Kalam MA, Masum BM. A study on the
effects of promising edible and non-edible biodiesel feedstocks on engine
performance and emissions production: a comparative evaluation. Renew.
Sustain. Energy Rev. 2013;23:391e404.
[3] Akdag S, Yıldırım H. Toward a sustainable mitigation approach of energy
efficiency to greenhouse gas emissions in the European countries. Heliyon
2020;6:e03396.
[4] Mofijur M, Masjuki HH, Kalam MA, Atabani AE. Evaluation of biodiesel
blending, engine performance and emissions characteristics of Jatropha
curcas methyl ester: Malaysian perspective. Energy 2013;55:879e87.
[5] Abu Bakar MS, Ahmed A, Jeffery DM, Hidayat S, Sukri RS, Mahlia TMI, et al.
Pyrolysis of solid waste residues from Lemon Myrtle essential oils extraction
for bio-oil production. Bioresour Technol 2020;318:123913.
[6] Ghenai C, Inayat A, Shanableh A, Al-Sarairah E, Janajreh I. Combustion and
emissions analysis of Spent Pot lining (SPL) as alternative fuel in cement
industry. Sci Total Environ 2019;684:519e26.
[7] International Energy Association. Global energy review 2019. Glob. Energy
Rev.; 2020. https://doi.org/10.1787/90c8c125-en. 2019.
[8] Khan Z, Yusup S, Aslam M, Inayat A, Shahbaz M, Raza Naqvi S, et al. NO and
SO2 emissions in palm kernel shell catalytic steam gasification with in-situ
CO2 adsorption for hydrogen production in a pilot-scale fluidized bed gasi-
fication system. J Clean Prod 2019;236:117636.
[9] Marou
sek J, Gavurova  B. Recovering phosphorous from biogas fermentation
residues indicates promising economic results. Chemosphere 2022;291:
133008.
[10] Marou
sek J, Trakal L. Techno-economic analysis reveals the untapped po-
tential of wood biochar. Chemosphere 2022;291:133000.
[11] Inayat A, Ghenai C, Naqvi M, Ammar M, Ayoub M, Hussin MNB. Parametric
study for production of Dimethyl ether (DME) as a fuel from palm wastes.
Energy Proc 2017;105:1242e9.
[12] Shahbaz M, Yusup S, Pratama A, Inayat A, Patrick DO, Ammar M. Parametric
study and optimisation of Methane production in biomass gasification in the
presence of coal bottom Ash. Procedia Eng 2016;148:409e16.
[13] Inayat A, Nassef AM, Rezk H, Sayed ET, Abdelkareem MA, Olabi AG. Fuzzy
modeling and parameters optimisation for the enhancement of biodiesel
production from waste frying oil over montmorillonite clay K-30. Sci Total
Environ 2019;666:821e7.
[14] Zahid I, Ayoub M, Abdullah BB, Nazir MH, Ameen M, Zulqarnain Mohd,
Yusoff MH, Inayat A, Danish M. Production of fuel additive Solketal via cat-
alytic conversion of biodiesel-derived glycerol. Ind Eng Chem Res 2020;59:
20961e78.
[15] Jamil F, Aslam M, Al-Muhtaseb AaH, Bokhari A, Rafiq S, Khan Z, Inayat A,
Ahmed A, Hossain S, Khurram MS, Bakar MSA. Greener and sustainable
production of bioethylene from bioethanol: current status, opportunities and
perspectives. Rev Chem Eng 2022;38:185e207.
[16] Rahimnejad M, Adhami A, Darvari S, Zirepour A, Oh SE. Microbial fuel cell as
new technol ogy for bioelectricity generation: a review. Alex Eng J 2015;54:
745e56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aej.2015.03.031.
[17] Palanisamy G, Jung HY, Sadhasivam T, Kurkuri MD, Kim SC, Roh SH.
A comprehensive review on microbial fuel cell technologies: processes,
utilisation, and advanced developments in electrodes and membranes.
J Clean Prod 2019;221:598e621. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jclepro.2019.02.172.
[18] Mekuto L, Olowolafe AVA, Pandit S, Dyantyi N, Nomngongo P, Huberts R.
Microalgae as a biocathode and feedstock in anode chamber for a self-
sustainable microbial fuel cell technology: a review. S Afr J Chem Eng
2020;31:7e16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sajce.2019.10.002.
[19] Santoro C, Arbizzani C, Erable B, Ieropoulos I. Microbial fuel cells: from
fundamentals to applications. A review. J Power Sources 2017a;356:225e44.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpowsour.2017.03.109.
[20] Leung DHL, Lim YS, Uma K, Pan GT, Lin JH, Chong S, Yang TCK. Engineering S.
Oneidensis for performance improvement of microbial fuel cellda mini re-
view. Appl Biochem Biotechnol 2021;193:1170e86. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s12010-020-03469-6.
[21] Choudhury P, Uday USP, Mahata N, Nath Tiwari O, Narayan Ray R, Kanti
Bandyopadhyay T, Bhunia B. Performance improvement of microbial fuel
20
Energy 254 (2022) 124163
cells for waste water treatment along with value addition: a review on past
achievements and recent perspectives. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2017;79:
372e89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.05.098.
[22] Li M, Zhou M, Tian X, Tan C, McDaniel CT, Hassett DJ, Gu T. Microbial fuel cell
(MFC) power performance improvement through enhanced microbial elec-
trogenicity. Biotechnol Adv 2018;36:1316e27. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.biotechadv.2018.04.010.
[23] Jiang Y, Yang X, Liang P, Liu P, Huang X. Microbial fuel cell sensors for water
quality early warning systems: fundamentals, signal resolution, optimisation
and future challenges. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2018;81:292e305. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.06.099.
[24] Trapero JR, Horcajada L, Linares JJ, Lobato J. Is microbial fuel cell technology
ready? An economic answer towards industrial commercialisation. Appl
Energy 2017;185:698e707. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.10.109.
[25] Abdallah M, Feroz S, Alani S, Sayed ET, Shanableh A. Continuous and scalable
applications of microbial fuel cells: a critical review. In: Reviews in envi-
ronmental science and biotechnology. Springer Netherlands; 2019. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s11157-019-09508-x.
[26] Xu F, Yuan Q, Zhou LL, Zhu YJ, Li YM, Du YD, Wang Q, Kong Q. Economic
benefit analysis of typical microbial fuel cells based on a costebenefit
analysis model. Desalination Water Treat 2018b;135:59e93.
[27] Muo I, Azeez AA. Green entrepreneurship: literature review and agenda for
future research. Int J Entrep Knowl 2019;7(2):17e29. Muo, I., Azeez,
A..(2019). Green Entrepreneurship: Literature Review and Agenda for Future
Research 10.12345-0007.Int.J. Entrep.Knowl.7.
[28] Mian MM, Liu G, Fu B. Conversion of sewage sludge into environmental
catalyst and microbial fuel cell electrode material: a review. Sci Total Environ
2019;666:525e39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.02.200.
[29] Dessie Y, Tadesse S, Eswaramoorthy R. Review on manganese oxide based
biocatalyst in microbial fuel cell: nanocomposite approach. Mater Sci Energy
Technol 2020;3:136e49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mset.2019.11.001.
[30] Jatoi AS, Akhter F, Mazari SA, Sabzoi N, Aziz S, Soomro SA, Mubarak NM,
Baloch H, Memon AQ, Ahmed S. Advanced microbial fuel cell for waste water
treatmentda review. Environ Sci Pollut Res 2021;28:5005e19. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-11691-2.
[31] Chakraborty I, Sathe SM, Khuman CN, Ghangrekar MM. Bioelectrochemically
powered remediation of xenobiotic compounds and heavy metal toxicity
using microbial fuel cell and microbial electrolysis cell. Mater Sci Energy
Technol 2020;3:104e15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mset.2019.09.011.
[32] Wu Q, Jiao S, Ma M, Peng S. Microbial fuel cell system: a promising tech-
nology for pollutant removal and environmental remediation. Environ Sci
Pollut Res 2020;27:6749e64. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-07745-0.
[33] Do MH, Ngo HH, Guo W, Chang SW, Nguyen DD, Liu Y, Varjani S, Kumar M.
Microbial fuel cell-based biosensor for online monitoring wastewater qual-
ity: a critical review. Sci Total Environ 2020;712:135612. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.135612.
[34] Fang C, Achal V. The potential of microbial fuel cells for remediation of heavy
metals from soil and waterdreview of application. Microorganisms 2019;7.
https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms7120697.
[35] Aarthy M, Rajesh T, Thirunavoukkarasu M. Critical review on microbial fuel
cells for concomitant reduction of hexavalent chromium and bioelectricity
generation. J Chem Technol Biotechnol 2020;95:1298e307. https://doi.org/
10.1002/jctb.6257.
[36] Mathuriya AS, Jadhav DA, Ghangrekar MM. Architectural adaptations of
microbial fuel cells. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 2018;102:9419e32. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s00253-018-9339-0.
[37] Kumar R, Singh L, Zularisam AW, Hai FI. Microbial fuel cell is emerging as a
versatile technology: a review on its possible applications, challenges and
strategies to improve the performances. Int J Energy Res 2018;42:369e94.
https://doi.org/10.1002/er.3780.
[38] ElMekawy A, Hegab HM, Pant D, Saint CP. Bio-analytical applications of
microbial fuel cellebased biosensors for onsite water quality monitoring.
J Appl Microbiol 2018;124:302e13. https://doi.org/10.1111/jam.13631.
[39] Saravanan N, Karthikeyan M. Study OF single chamber and double chamber
efficiency and losses OF wastewater treatment. Int Res J Eng Technol 2017;5:
1225e30.
[40] Herna ndez-Fern andez FJ, Perez de los Ríos A, Salar-García MJ, Ortiz-
Martínez VM, Lozano-Blanco LJ, Godínez C, Tom as-Alonso F, Quesada-
Medina J. Recent progress and perspectives in microbial fuel cells for bio-
energy generation and wastewater treatment. Fuel Process Technol
2015;138:284e97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuproc.2015.05.022.
[41] Ou S, Zhao Y, Aaron DS, Regan JM, Mench MM. Modeling and validation of
single-chamber microbial fuel cell cathode biofilm growth and response to
oxidant gas composition. J Power Sources 2016;328:385e96. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jpowsour.2016.08.007.
[42] Kadier A, Simayi Y, Kalil MS, Abdeshahian P, Hamid AA. A review of the
substrates used in microbial electrolysis cells (MECs) for producing sus-
tainable and clean hydrogen gas. Renew Energy 2014;71:466e72. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2014.05.052.
[43] Vilas Boas J, Oliveira VB, Marcon LRC, Simo~es M, Pinto AMFR. Optimisation of
a single chamber microbial fuel cell using Lactobacillus pentosus: influence
of design and operating parameters. Sci Total Environ 2019;648:263e70.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.08.061.
[44] Abourached C, Catal T, Liu H. Efficacy of single-chamber microbial fuel cells
for removal of cadmium and zinc with simultaneous electricity production.
S.F. Ahmed, M. Mofijur, N. Islam et al.
Water Res 2014;51:228e33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2013.10.062.
[45] Lorant B, Gyalai-Korpos M, Goryanin I, Tardy GM. Single chamber
airecathode microbial fuel cells as biosensors for determination of biode-
gradable organics. Biotechnol Lett 2019;41. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10529-
019-02668-4.
[46] Xia C, Zhang D, Pedrycz W, Zhu Y, Guo Y. Models for microbial fuel cells: a
critical review. J Power Sources 2018;373:119e31. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jpowsour.2017.11.001.
[47] Herna ndez-Flores G, Poggi-Varaldo HM, Solorza-Feria O, Ponce-Noyola MT,
Romero-Castan ~on T, Rinderknecht-Seijas N, Galíndez-Mayer J. Characteris-
tics of a single chamber microbial fuel cell equipped with a low cost mem-
brane. In: International journal of hydrogen energy. Elsevier Ltd; 2015.
p. 17380e7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2015.10.024.
[48] Flimban SGA, Ismail IMI, Kim T, Oh SE. Overview of recent advancements in
the microbial fuel cell from fundamentals to applications: design, major el-
ements, and scalability. Energies 2019;12. https://doi.org/10.3390/
en12173390.
[49] Wang H, Song X, Zhang H, Tan P, Kong F. Removal of hexavalent chromium
in dual-chamber microbial fuel cells separated by different ion exchange
membranes. J Hazard Mater 2020;384. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jhazmat.2019.121459.
[50] Ye Y, Ngo HH, Guo W, Chang SW, Nguyen DD, Liu Y, Nghiem LD, Zhang X,
Wang J. Effect of organic loading rate on the recovery of nutrients and energy
in a dual-chamber microbial fuel cell. Bioresour Technol 2019;281:367e73.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2019.02.108.
[51] Yang W, Li J, Ye D, Zhang L, Zhu X, Liao Q. A hybrid microbial fuel cell stack
based on single and double chamber microbial fuel cells for self-sustaining
pH control. J Power Sources 2016;306:685e91. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jpowsour.2015.12.073.
[52] Zhang L, Li J, Zhu X, Ye D, Fu Q, Liao Q. Response of stacked microbial fuel
cells with serpentine flow fields to variable operating conditions. Int J
Hydrogen Energy 2017;42:27641e8. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ijhydene.2017.04.205.
[53] Wu Y, Zhao X, Jin M, Li Y, Li S, Kong F, Nan J, Wang A. Copper removal and
microbial community analysis in single-chamber microbial fuel cell. Bio-
resour Technol 2018b;253:372e7. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.biortech.2018.01.046.
[54] Chaithanya MS, Thakur S, Sonu K, Das B. Preliminary investigation of single
chamber single electrode microbial fuel cell using sewage sludge as a sub-
strate Related content Preliminary investigation of single chamber single
electrode microbial fuel cell using sewage sludge as a substrate. Conf Ser
Mater Sci Eng 2017;263:32008. https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/263/3/
032008.
[55] Lee SH, Lee KS, Sorcar S, Razzaq A, Grimes CA, Il In S. Wastewater treatment
and electricity generation from a sunlight-powered single chamber micro-
bial fuel cell. J Photochem Photobiol Chem 2018;358:432e40. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jphotochem.2017.10.030.
[56] Sun G, Thygesen A, Meyer AS. Acetate is a superior substrate for microbial
fuel cell initiation preceding bioethanol effluent utilisation. Appl Microbiol
Biotechnol 2015a;99:4905e15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00253-015-6513-5.
[57] Hassan M, Wei H, Qiu H, Jaafry SWH, Su Y, Xie B. Power generation and
pollutants removal from landfill leachate in microbial fuel cell: variation and
influence of anodic microbiomes. Bioresour Technol 2018;247:434e42.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2017.09.124.
[58] Li SW, He H, Zeng RJ, Sheng GP. Chitin degradation and electricity generation
by Aeromonas hydrophila in microbial fuel cells. Chemosphere 2017a;168:
293e9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2016.10.080.
[59] Varanasi JL, Sinha P, Das D. Maximizing power generation from dark
fermentation effluents in microbial fuel cell by selective enrichment of
exoelectrogens and optimisation of anodic operational parameters. Bio-
technol Lett 2017;39:721e30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10529-017-2289-2.
[60] Ebadinezhad B, Ebrahimi S, Shokrkar H. Evaluation of microbial fuel cell
performance utilizing sequential batch feeding of different substrates.
J Electroanal Chem 2019;836:149e57. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jelechem.2019.02.004.
[61] Samsudeen N, Radhakrishnan TK, Matheswaran M. Bioelectricity production
from microbial fuel cell using mixed bacterial culture isolated from distillery
wastewater. Bioresour Technol 2015b;195:242e7. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.biortech.2015.07.023.
[62] Samsudeen N, Sharma A, Radhakrishnan TK, Matheswaran M. Performance
investigation of multi-chamber microbial fuel cell: an alternative approach
for scale up system. J Renew Sustain Energy 2015c;7:043101. https://doi.org/
10.1063/1.4923393.
[63] Firdous S, Jin W, Shahid N, Bhatti ZA, Iqbal A, Abbasi U, Mahmood Q, Ali A.
The performance of microbial fuel cells treating vegetable oil industrial
wastewater. Environ Technol Innovat 2018;10:143e51. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.eti.2018.02.006.
[64] Samsudeen Nainamohamed, Radhakrishnan TK, Matheswaran M. Perfor-
mance comparison of triple and dual chamber microbial fuel cell using
distillery wastewater as a substrate. Environ Prog Sustain Energy 2015a;34:
589e94. https://doi.org/10.1002/ep.12005.
[65] Gude VG. Wastewater treatment in microbial fuel cells - an overview. J Clean
Prod 2016. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.02.022.
[66] National Center for Biotechnology Information. PubChem compound sum-
mary for CID 175, Acetate. https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/
21
Energy 254 (2022) 124163
Acetate. Accessed 16 May, 2022. PubChem; 2022.
[67] Zhao YG, Zhang Y, She Z, Shi Y, Wang M, Gao M, Guo L. Effect of substrate
conversion on performance of microbial fuel cells and anodic microbial
communities. Environ Eng Sci 2017b;34:666e74. https://doi.org/10.1089/
ees.2016.0604.
[68] Shendurse AM, Khedkar CD. Glucose: properties and analysis. In: Encyclo-
pedia of food and health. Elsevier Inc.; 2015. p. 239e47. https://doi.org/
10.1016/B978-0-12-384947-2.00353-6.
[69] Ullah Z, Zeshan S. Effect of substrate type and concentration on the perfor-
mance of a double chamber microbial fuel cell. Water Sci Technol 2020;81:
1336e44. https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2019.387.
[70] Khater D, El-Khatib KM, Hazaa M, Hassan RYA. Electricity generation using
Glucose as substrate in microbial fuel cell. J Basic Environ Sci 2015;2:84e98.
[71] Khan MN, Salem KS. Recent developments of microbial fuel cell as sustain-
able bio-energy C ELL AS S USTAINABLE B IO - E NERGY S OURCES compli-
mentary contributor copy. In: Microbial catalysts. Nova Science Publishers,
Inc; 2019.
[72] Bose D, Gopinath M, Vijay P. Sustainable power generation from wastewater
sources using Microbial Fuel Cell. Biofuels, Bioprod Biorefining 2018b;12:
559e76. https://doi.org/10.1002/bbb.1892.
[73] Park Y, Cho H, Yu J, Min B, Kim HS, Kim BG, Lee T. Response of microbial
community structure to pre-acclimation strategies in microbial fuel cells for
domestic wastewater treatment. Bioresour Technol 2017;233:176e83.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2017.02.101.
[74] Pandey P, Shinde VN, Deopurkar RL, Kale SP, Patil SA, Pant D. Recent ad-
vances in the use of different substrates in microbial fuel cells toward
wastewater treatment and simultaneous energy recovery. Appl Energy
2016;168:706e23.
[75] Bose D, Dhawan H, Kandpal V, Vijay P, Gopinath M. Bioelectricity generation
from sewage and wastewater treatment using two-chambered microbial
fuel cell. Int J Energy Res 2018a;42:4335e44. https://doi.org/10.1002/
er.4172.
[76] Do MH, Ngo HH, Guo WS, Liu Y, Chang SW, Nguyen DD, Nghiem LD, Ni BJ.
Challenges in the application of microbial fuel cells to wastewater treatment
and energy production: a mini review. Sci Total Environ 2018. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.05.136.
[77] Mateo-Ramírez F, Addi H, Herna ndez-Ferna ndez FJ, Godínez C, de los
Ríos AP, Lotfi EM, El Mahi M, Blanco LJL. Air breathing cathode-microbial fuel
cell with separator based on ionic liquid applied to slaughterhouse waste-
water treatment and bio-energy production. J Chem Technol Biotechnol
2017;92:642e8. https://doi.org/10.1002/jctb.5045.
[78] Lovley DR, Holmes DE. Electromicrobiology: the ecophysiology of phyloge-
netically diverse electroactive microorganisms. Nat Rev Microbiol 2022;20:
5e19.
[79] Asensio Y, Fernandez-Marchante CM, Lobato J, Can ~ izares P, Rodrigo MA.
Influence of the fuel and dosage on the performance of double-compartment
microbial fuel cells. Water Res 2016;99:16e23. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.watres.2016.04.028.
[80] Kim C, Song YE, Lee CR, Jeon B-H, Kim JR. Glycerol-fed microbial fuel cell with
a co-culture of Shewanella oneidensis MR-1 and Klebsiella pneumonae J2B.
J Ind Microbiol Biotechnol 2016;43:1397e403. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10295-016-1807-x.
[81] Beig B, Riaz M, Naqvi SR, Hassan M, Zheng Z, Karimi K, Pugazhendhi A,
Atabani AE, Chi NTL. Current challenges and innovative developments in
pretreatment of lignocellulosic residues for biofuel production: a review.
Fuel 2021;287:119670.
[82] Wang F, Ouyang D, Zhou Z, Page SJ, Liu D, Zhao X. Lignocellulosic biomass as
sustainable feedstock and materials for power generation and energy stor-
age. J Energy Chem 2021a;57:247e80. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jechem.2020.08.060.
[83] Mohd Zaini Makhtar M, Tajarudin HA. Electricity generation using
membrane-less microbial fuel cell powered by sludge supplemented with
lignocellulosic waste. Int J Energy Res 2020;44:3260e5. https://doi.org/
10.1002/er.5151.
[84] Gregoire KP, Becker JG. Design and characterisation of a microbial fuel cell
for the conversion of a lignocellulosic crop residue to electricity. Bioresour
Technol 2012;119:208e15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2012.05.075.
[85] Catal T, Liu H, Fan Y, Bermek H. A clean technology to convert sucrose and
lignocellulose in microbial electrochemical cells into electricity and
hydrogen. Bioresour Technol Rep 2019;5:331e4. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.biteb.2018.10.002.
[86] Krishnaraj RN, Berchmans S, Pal P. The three-compartment microbial fuel
cell: a new sustainable approach to bioelectricity generation from lignocel-
lulosic biomass. Cellulose 2015;22:655e62. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10570-
014-0463-4.
[87] Varanasi JL, Roy S, Pandit S, Das D. Improvement of energy recovery from
cellobiose by thermophillic dark fermentative hydrogen production followed
by microbial fuel cell. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2015;40:8311e21. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2015.04.124.
[88] dos Passos VF, Marcilio R, Aquino-Neto S, Santana FB, Dias ACF, Andreote FD,
de Andrade AR, Reginatto V. Hydrogen and electrical energy co-generation
by a cooperative fermentation system comprising Clostridium and micro-
bial fuel cell inoculated with port drainage sediment. Bioresour Technol
2019;277:94e103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2019.01.031.
[89] Pant D, Van Bogaert G, Diels L, Vanbroekhoven K. A review of the substrates
S.F. Ahmed, M. Mofijur, N. Islam et al. Energy 254 (2022) 124163

used in microbial fuel cells (MFCs) for sustainable energy production. Bio-
resour Technol 2010;101:1533e43. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.biortech.2009.10.017.
[90] Singh HM, Pathak AK, Chopra K, Tyagi VV, Anand S, Kothari R. Microbial fuel
cells: a sustainable solution for bioelectricity generation and wastewater
treatment. Biofuels 2019;10:11e31. https://doi.org/10.1080/
17597269.2017.1413860.
[91] Jaiswal KK, Kumar V, Vlaskin MS, Sharma N, Rautela I, Nanda M, Arora N,
Singh A, Chauhan PK. Microalgae fuel cell for wastewater treatment: recent
advances and challenges. J Water Proc Eng 2020;38. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jwpe.2020.101549.
[92] Saratale RG, Kuppam C, Mudhoo A, Saratale GD, Periyasamy S, Zhen G,
Koo k L, Bakonyi P, Nemesto  thy N, Kumar G. Bioelectrochemical systems
using microalgae e a concise research update. Chemosphere 2017;177:
35e43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2017.02.132.
[93] Thulasinathan B, Jayabalan T, Arumugam N, Kulanthaisamy MR, Kim W,
Kumar P, Govarthanan M, Alagarsamy A. Wastewater substrates in microbial
fuel cell systems for carbon-neutral bioelectricity generation: an overview.
Fuel 2022;317:123369.
[94] Gurav R, Bhatia SK, Choi TR, Jung HR, Yang SY, Song HS, Park YL, Han YH,
Park JY, Kim YG, Choi KY, Yang YH. Chitin biomass powered microbial fuel
cell for electricity production using halophilic Bacillus circulans BBL03 iso-
lated from sea salt harvesting area. Bioelectrochemistry 2019;130. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.bioelechem.2019.107329.
[95] Li SW, Zeng RJ, Sheng GP. An excellent anaerobic respiration mode for chitin
degradation by Shewanella oneidensis MR-1 in microbial fuel cells. Biochem
Eng J 2017b;118:20e4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bej.2016.11.010.
[96] Takeuchi Y, Khawdas W, Aso Y, Ohara H. Microbial fuel cells using Cellulo-
monas spp. with cellulose as fuel. J Biosci Bioeng 2017;123:358e63. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiosc.2016.10.009.
[97] Wijekoon P, Koliyabandara PA, Cooray AT, Lam SS, Athapattu BCL,
Vithanage M. Progress and prospects in mitigation of landfill leachate
pollution: risk, pollution potential, treatment and challenges. J Hazard Mater
2022;421:126627.
[98] Sonawane JM, Adeloju SB, Ghosh PC. Landfill leachate: a promising substrate
for microbial fuel cells. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2017;42:23794e8. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2017.03.137.
[99] Puig S, Serra M, Coma M, Cabre  M, Dolors Balaguer M, Colprim J. Microbial
fuel cell application in landfill leachate treatment. J Hazard Mater 2011;185:
763e7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2010.09.086.
[100] Shah S, Venkatramanan V, Prasad R. Microbial fuel cell: sustainable green
technology for bioelectricity generation and wastewater treatment. Sustain
Green Technol Environ Manag 2019:199e218. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-
981-13-2772-8_10.
[101] Obileke K, Onyeaka H, Meyer EL, Nwokolo N. Microbial fuel cells, a renew-
able energy technology for bio-electricity generation: a mini-review. Elec-
trochem Commun 2021;125:107003. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.elecom.2021.107003.
[102] Verma J, Kumar D, Singh N, Katti SS, Shah YT. Electricigens and microbial fuel
cells for bioremediation and bioenergy production: a review, Environmental
Chemistry Letters. Springer International Publishing; 2021. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s10311-021-01199-7.
[103] Mathuriya AS, Kaur A, Gupta PK, Pandit S, Jadhav DA. Potential of microbial
fuel cells for wastewater treatment. In: Bioremediation, nutrients, and other
valuable product recovery. Elsevier; 2021. p. 115e24.
[104] Rahimnejad M, Adhami A. Microbial fuel cell as new technology for
bioelectricity generation : a review. Alex Eng J 2015;54:745e56. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.aej.2015.03.031.
[105] Feng Y, He W, Liu J, Wang X, Qu Y, Ren N. A horizontal plug flow and
stackable pilot microbial fuel cell for municipal wastewater treatment. Bio-
resour Technol 2014;156:132e8. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.biortech.2013.12.104.
[106] He Z. Microbial fuel cells: now let us talk about energy. Environ Sci Technol
2013;47:332e3. https://doi.org/10.1021/es304937e.
[107] Sheikhyousefi PR, Esfahany MN, Colombo A, Franzetti A, Trasatti SP,
Cristiani P. Investigation of different configurations of microbial fuel cells for
the treatment of oilfield produced water. Appl Energy 2017;192:457e65.
[108] Schro €der U, Harnisch F. Life electricdnature as a blueprint for the devel-
opment of microbial electrochemical technologies. Joule 2017;1:244e52.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joule.2017.07.010.
[109] Abourached C, English MJ, Liu H. Wastewater treatment by Microbial Fuel
Cell (MFC) prior irrigation water reuse. J Clean Prod 2016;137:144e9.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.07.048.
[110] Divya Priya A, Pydi Setty Y. Cashew apple juice as substrate for microbial fuel
cell. Fuel 2019;246:75e8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2019.02.100.
[111] Zhang L, Fu G, Zhang Z. Electricity generation and microbial community in
long-running microbial fuel cell for high-salinity mustard tuber wastewater
treatment. Bioelectrochemistry 2019a;126:20e8. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.bioelechem.2018.11.002.
[112] Bose D, Sridharan S, Dhawan H, Vijay P, Gopinath M. Biomass derived acti-
vated carbon cathode performance for sustainable power generation from
Microbial Fuel Cells. Fuel 2019;236:325e37. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.fuel.2018.09.002.
[113] Theodosiou P. Optimisation of microbial fuel cells (MFCs) through bacterial-
robot interaction. https://uwe-repository.worktribe.com/OutputFile/
2679820. Accessed 16 May, 2022. University of the West of England; 2019.
[114] Kadier A, Simayi Y, Abdeshahian P, Azman NF, Chandrasekhar K, Kalil MS.
A comprehensive review of microbial electrolysis cells (MEC) reactor designs
and configurations for sustainable hydrogen gas production. Alex Eng J
2016;55:427e43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aej.2015.10.008.
[115] Keçebaş A, Kayfeci M, Bayat M. Electrochemical hydrogen generation. In:
Solar Hydrogen Production. Elsevier; 2019. p. 299e317.
[116] Jiang Y, Liang P, Liu P, Yan X, Bian Y, Huang X. A cathode-shared microbial
fuel cell sensor array for water alert system. Int J Hydrogen Energy
2017b;42:4342e8.
[117] Wang L, Long F, Liang D, Xiao X, Liu H. Hydrogen production from ligno-
cellulosic hydrolysate in an up-scaled microbial electrolysis cell with stacked
bio-electrodes. Bioresour Technol 2021b;320:124314. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.biortech.2020.124314.
[118] Salehmin MNI, Lim SS, Satar I, Daud WRW. Pushing microbial desalination
cells towards field application: Prevailing challenges, potential mitigation
strategies, and future prospects. Sci Total Environ 2021;759:143485. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.143485.
[119] Ayyaru S, Dharmalingam S. Enhanced response of microbial fuel cell using
sulfonated poly ether ether ketone membrane as a biochemical oxygen
demand sensor. Anal Chim Acta 2014;818:15e22. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.aca.2014.01.059.
[120] Wu S, Li H, Zhou X, Liang P, Zhang X, Jiang Y, Huang X. A novel pilot-scale
stacked microbial fuel cell for efficient electricity generation and waste-
water treatment. Water Res 2016;98:396e403. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.watres.2016.04.043.
[121] Cheng S, Liu H, Logan BE. Power densities using different cathode catalysts
(Pt and CoTMPP) and polymer binders (Nafion and PTFE) in single chamber
microbial fuel cells. Environ Sci Technol 2006;40:364e9.
[122] Yi H, Li M, Huo X, Zeng G, Lai C, Huang D, An Z, Qin L, Liu X, Li B. Recent
development of advanced biotechnology for wastewater treatment. Crit Rev
Biotechnol 2020;40:99e118.
[123] Jiang Y, Liang P, Liu P, Wang D, Miao B, Huang X. A novel microbial fuel cell
sensor with biocathode sensing element. Biosens Bioelectron 2017a;94:
344e50.
[124] Kumar R, Singh L, Zularisam AW. Microbial fuel cells: types and applications.
In: Waste biomass managementeA holistic approach. Springer; 2017.
p. 367e84.
[125] Sun JZ, Kingori GP, Si RW, Zhai DD, Liao ZH, Sun DZ, Zheng T, Yong YC.
Microbial fuel cell-based biosensors for environmental monitoring: a review.
Water Sci Technol 2015b;71:801e9. https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2015.035.
[126] Sonawane JM, Ezugwu CI, Ghosh PC. Microbial fuel cell-based biological
oxygen demand sensors for monitoring wastewater: state-of-the-art and
practical applications. ACS Sens 2020;5:2297e316.
[127] Kumar SS, Kumar V, Kumar R, Malyan SK, Pugazhendhi A. Microbial fuel cells
as a sustainable platform technology for bioenergy, biosensing, environ-
mental monitoring, and other low power device applications. Fuel 2019;255:
115682. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2019.115682.
[128] Liu B, Lei Y, Li B. A batch-mode cube microbial fuel cell based “shock”
biosensor for wastewater quality monitoring. Biosens Bioelectron 2014;62:
308e14.
[129] Chen X, Cui D, Wang Xiaojun, Wang Xianshu, Li W. Porous carbon with
defined pore size as anode of microbial fuel cell. Biosens Bioelectron
2015;69:135e41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bios.2015.02.014.
[130] Yamashita T, Yokoyama H. Molybdenum anode: a novel electrode for
enhanced power generation in microbial fuel cells, identified via extensive
screening of metal electrodes. Biotechnol Biofuels 2018;11:39. https://
doi.org/10.1186/s13068-018-1046-7.
[131] Yoshimura Y, Nakashima K, Kato M, Inoue K, Okazaki F, Soyama H,
Kawasaki S. Electricity generation from rice bran by a microbial fuel cell and
the influence of hydrodynamic cavitation pretreatment. ACS Omega 2018;3:
15267e71. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsomega.8b02077.
[132] Shewa WA, Lalman JA, Chaganti SR, Heath DD. Electricity production from
lignin photocatalytic degradation byproducts. Energy 2016;111:774e84.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2016.05.007.
[133] Santoro C, Serov A, Gokhale R, Rojas-Carbonell S, Stariha L, Gordon J,
Artyushkova K, Atanassov P. A family of Fe-N-C oxygen reduction electro-
catalysts for microbial fuel cell (MFC) application: relationships between
surface chemistry and performances. Appl Catal B Environ 2017b;205:
24e33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apcatb.2016.12.013.
[134] Singh S, Modi A, Verma N. Enhanced power generation using a novel
polymer-coated nanoparticles dispersed-carbon micro-nanofibers-based air-
cathode in a membrane-less single chamber microbial fuel cell. Int J
Hydrogen Energy 2016;41:1237e47. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ijhydene.2015.10.099.
[135] Lin T, Bai X, Hu Y, Li B, Yuan Y-J, Song H, Yang Y, Wang J. Synthetic
Saccharomyces cerevisiae-Shewanella oneidensis consortium enables
glucose-fed high-performance microbial fuel cell. AIChE J 2017;63:1830e8.
https://doi.org/10.1002/aic.15611.
[136] Ojima Y, Kawaguchi T, Fukui S, Kikuchi R, Terao K, Koma D, Ohmoto T,
Azuma M. Promoted performance of microbial fuel cells using Escherichia
coli cells with multiple-knockout of central metabolism genes. Bioproc
Biosyst Eng 2020;43:323e32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00449-019-02229-z.
[137] Kirubaharan CJ, Santhakumar K, Gnana kumar G, Senthilkumar N, Jang J-H.
Nitrogen doped graphene sheets as metal free anode catalysts for the high

22
S.F. Ahmed, M. Mofijur, N. Islam et al.
performance microbial fuel cells. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2015;40:13061e70.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2015.06.025.
[138] Tao Y, Liu Q, Chen J, Wang B, Wang Y, Liu K, Li M, Jiang H, Lu Z, Wang D.
Hierarchically three-dimensional nanofiber based textile with high con-
ductivity and biocompatibility as a microbial fuel cell anode. Environ Sci
Technol 2016;50:7889e95. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.6b00648.
[139] Gurung A, Oh S-E. Rice straw as a potential biomass for generation of
bioelectrical energy using microbial fuel cells (MFCs). Energy sources, Part A
recover. Util Environ Eff 2015;37:2625e31. https://doi.org/10.1080/
15567036.2012.728678.
[140] Jablonska MA, Rybarczyk MK, Lieder M. Electricity generation from rapeseed
straw hydrolysates using microbial fuel cells. Bioresour Technol 2016;208:
117e22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2016.01.062.
[141] Liu L, Lee D-J, Wang A, Ren N, Su A, Lai J-Y. Isolation of Fe(III)-reducing
bacterium, Citrobacter sp. LAR-1, for startup of microbial fuel cell. Int J
Hydrogen Energy 2016;41:4498e503. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ijhydene.2015.07.072.
[142] Modi A, Singh S, Verma N. In situ nitrogen-doping of nickel nanoparticle-
dispersed carbon nanofiber-based electrodes: its positive effects on the
performance of a microbial fuel cell. Electrochim Acta 2016;190:620e7.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electacta.2015.12.191.
[143] Liu Z, He Y, Shen R, Zhu Z, Xing X-H, Li B, Zhang Y. Performance and mi-
crobial community of carbon nanotube fixed-bed microbial fuel cell
continuously fed with hydrothermal liquefied cornstalk biomass. Bioresour
Technol 2015;185:294e301. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2015.03.021.
[144] Tee PF, Abdullah MO, Tan IAW, Rashid NKA, Amin MAM, Nolasco-Hipolito C,
Bujang K. Review on hybrid energy systems for wastewater treatment and
bio-energy production. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2016;54:235e46.
[145] Habermann W, Pommer EH. Biological fuel cells with sulphide storage ca-
pacity. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 1991;35:128e33.
[146] Seo Y, Kang H, Chang S, Lee Y-Y, Cho K-S. Effects of nitrate and sulfate on the
performance and bacterial community structure of membrane-less single-
chamber air-cathode microbial fuel cells. J Environ Sci Health Part A
2018;53:13e24. https://doi.org/10.1080/10934529.2017.1366242.
[147] Dong Y, Qu Y, He W, Du Y, Liu J, Han X, Feng Y. A 90-liter stackable baffled
microbial fuel cell for brewery wastewater treatment based on energy self-
sufficient mode. Bioresour Technol 2015;195:66e72. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.biortech.2015.06.026.
[148] Kumar R, Singh L, Zularisam AW. Exoelectrogens: recent advances in mo-
lecular drivers involved in extracellular electron transfer and strategies used
to improve it for microbial fuel cell applications. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2016;56:1322e36.
[149] Punzi M, Anbalagan A, Bo € rner RA, Svensson B-M, Jonstrup M, Mattiasson B.
Degradation of a textile azo dye using biological treatment followed by
photo-Fenton oxidation: evaluation of toxicity and microbial community
structure. Chem Eng J 2015;270:290e9.
[150] Durruty I, Bonanni PS, Gonz alez JF, Busalmen JP. Evaluation of potato-
processing wastewater treatment in a microbial fuel cell. Bioresour Tech-
nol 2012;105:81e7.
[151] Stavkova J, Marou
sek J. Novel sorbent shows promising financial results on P
recovery from sludge water. Chemosphere 2021;276:130097.
[152] Ding W, Cheng S, Yu L, Huang H. Effective swine wastewater treatment by
combining microbial fuel cells with flocculation. Chemosphere 2017;182:
567e73.
[153] Li X, Zhu N, Wang Y, Li P, Wu P, Wu J. Animal carcass wastewater treatment
and bioelectricity generation in up-flow tubular microbial fuel cells: effects
of HRT and non-precious metallic catalyst. Bioresour Technol 2013;128:
454e60.
[154] Rodríguez Arredondo M, Kuntke P, Jeremiasse AW, Sleutels THJA,
Buisman CJN, ter Heijne A. Bioelectrochemical systems for nitrogen removal
and recovery from wastewater. Environ Sci Water Res Technol 2015;1:
22e33. https://doi.org/10.1039/C4EW00066H.
[155] Zhou Y, Zhao S, Yin L, Zhang J, Bao Y, Shi H. Development of a novel
membrane-less microbial fuel cell (ML-MFC) with a sandwiched nitrifying
chamber for efficient wastewater treatment. Electroanalysis 2018;30:
2145e52.
[156] Toczyłowska-Mamin  ska R, Szymona K, Kloch M. Bioelectricity production
from wood hydrothermal-treatment wastewater: enhanced power genera-
tion in MFC-fed mixed wastewaters. Sci Total Environ 2018;634:586e94.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.04.002.
[157] Orellana R, Leavitt JJ, Comolli LR, Csencsits R, Janot N, Flanagan KA, Gray AS,
Leang C, Izallalen M, Mester T, Lovley DR. U(VI) Reduction by Diverse Outer
Surface <em>c</em>-Type Cytochromes of <span class¼"named-content
genus-species" id¼"named-content-1">Geobacter sulfurreducens</span>
Appl. Environ. Microbiol 2013;79:6369 LPe6374. https://doi.org/10.1128/
AEM.02551-13.
[158] Kumar R, Singh L, Wahid ZA, Din MFM. Exoelectrogens in microbial fuel cells
toward bioelectricity generation: a review. Int J Energy Res 2015;39:
1048e67.
[159] Vazquez-Larios AL, Solorza-Feria O, Poggi-Varaldo HM, de Guadalupe
Gonz alez-Huerta R, Ponce-Noyola MT, Ríos-Leal E, Rinderknecht-Seijas N.
Bioelectricity production from municipal leachate in a microbial fuel cell:
effect of two cathodic catalysts. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2014;39:16667e75.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2014.05.178.
[160] Nayak JK, , Amit, Ghosh UK. An innovative mixotrophic approach of distillery
23
Energy 254 (2022) 124163
spent wash with sewage wastewater for biodegradation and bioelectricity
generation using microbial fuel cell. J Water Proc Eng 2018;23:306e13.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwpe.2018.04.003.
[161] Katuri KP, Enright A-M, O'Flaherty V, Leech D. Microbial analysis of anodic
biofilm in a microbial fuel cell using slaughterhouse wastewater. Bio-
electrochemistry 2012;87:164e71. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.bioelechem.2011.12.002.
[162] Kaewkannetra P, Chiwes W, Chiu TY. Treatment of cassava mill wastewater
and production of electricity through microbial fuel cell technology. Fuel
2011;90:2746e50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2011.03.031.
[163] Yuan Y, Chen Q, Zhou S, Zhuang L, Hu P. Improved electricity production
from sewage sludge under alkaline conditions in an insert-type air-cathode
microbial fuel cell. J Chem Technol Biotechnol 2012;87:80e6.
[164] Zhuang L, Zheng Y, Zhou S, Yuan Y, Yuan H, Chen Y. Scalable microbial fuel
cell (MFC) stack for continuous real wastewater treatment. Bioresour Tech-
nol 2012;106:82e8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2011.11.019.
[165] Oon Y-L, Ong S-A, Ho L-N, Wong Y-S, Oon Y-S, Lehl HK, Thung W-E. Hybrid
system up-flow constructed wetland integrated with microbial fuel cell for
simultaneous wastewater treatment and electricity generation. Bioresour
Technol 2015;186:270e5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2015.03.014.
[166] Lai M-F, Lou C-W, Lin J-H. Improve 3D electrode materials performance on
electricity generation from livestock wastewater in microbial fuel cell. Int J
Hydrogen Energy 2018;43:11520e9. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ijhydene.2017.06.047.
[167] Liang P, Duan R, Jiang Y, Zhang X, Qiu Y, Huang X. One-year operation of
1000-L modularized microbial fuel cell for municipal wastewater treatment.
Water Res 2018;141:1e8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2018.04.066.
[168] Sharif HMA, Farooq M, Hussain I, Ali M, Mujtaba MA, Sultan M, Yang B.
Recent innovations for scaling up microbial fuel cell systems: significance of
physicochemical factors for electrodes and membranes materials. J Taiwan
Inst Chem Eng 2021;129:207e26.
[169] Huggins T, Wang H, Kearns J, Jenkins P, Ren ZJ. Biochar as a sustainable
electrode material for electricity production in microbial fuel cells. Bioresour
Technol 2014;157:114e9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2014.01.058.
[170] Ren H, Pyo S, Lee J-I, Park T-J, Gittleson FS, Leung FCC, Kim J, Taylor AD,
Lee H-S, Chae J. A high power density miniaturized microbial fuel cell having
carbon nanotube anodes. J Power Sources 2015;273:823e30. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jpowsour.2014.09.165.
[171] Rossi R, Hall DM, Wang X, Regan JM, Logan BE. Quantifying the factors
limiting performance and rates in microbial fuel cells using the electrode
potential slope analysis combined with electrical impedance spectroscopy.
Electrochim Acta 2020;348:136330.
[172] Feng Y, Yang Q, Wang X, Liu Y, Lee H, Ren N. Treatment of biodiesel pro-
duction wastes with simultaneous electricity generation using a single-
chamber microbial fuel cell. Bioresour Technol 2011;102:411e5. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2010.05.059.
[173] Ishii Y, Miyahara M, Watanabe K. Anode macrostructures influence elec-
tricity generation in microbial fuel cells for wastewater treatment. J Biosci
Bioeng 2017;123:91e5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiosc.2016.07.014.
[174] Bi L, Ci S, Cai P, Li H, Wen Z. One-step pyrolysis route to three dimensional
nitrogen-doped porous carbon as anode materials for microbial fuel cells.
Appl Surf Sci 2018;427:10e6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsusc.2017.08.030.
[175] Iannaci A, Pepe  Sciarria T, Mecheri B, Adani F, Licoccia S, D'Epifanio A. Power
generation using a low-cost sulfated zirconium oxide based cathode in single
chamber microbial fuel cells. J Alloys Compd 2017;693:170e6. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jallcom.2016.09.159.
[176] Yin T, Lin Z, Su L, Yuan C, Fu D. Preparation of vertically oriented TiO2
nanosheets modified carbon paper electrode and its enhancement to the
performance of MFCs. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces 2015;7:400e8. https://
doi.org/10.1021/am506360x.
[177] Park IH, Christy M, Kim P, Nahm KS. Enhanced electrical contact of microbes
using Fe3O4/CNT nanocomposite anode in mediator-less microbial fuel cell.
Biosens Bioelectron 2014;58:75e80. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.bios.2014.02.044.
[178] Mehdinia A, Ziaei E, Jabbari A. Facile microwave-assisted synthesized
reduced graphene oxide/tin oxide nanocomposite and using as anode ma-
terial of microbial fuel cell to improve power generation. Int J Hydrogen
Energy 2014;39:10724e30.
[179] Deng L, Yuan Y, Zhang Y, Wang Y, Chen Yong, Yuan H, Chen Ying. Alfalfa leaf-
derived porous heteroatom-doped carbon materials as efficient cathodic
catalysts in microbial fuel cells. ACS Sustainable Chem Eng 2017;5:9766e73.
https://doi.org/10.1021/acssuschemeng.7b01585.
[180] Li S, Hu Y, Xu Q, Sun J, Hou B, Zhang Y. Iron- and nitrogen-functionalized
graphene as a non-precious metal catalyst for enhanced oxygen reduction
in an air-cathode microbial fuel cell. J Power Sources 2012;213:265e9.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpowsour.2012.04.002.
[181] Raheem A, Sikarwar VS, He J, Dastyar W, Dionysiou DD, Wang W, Zhao M.
Opportunities and challenges in sustainable treatment and resource reuse of
sewage sludge: a review. Chem Eng J 2018;337:616e41.
[182] Kokabian B, Gude VG, Smith R, Brooks JP. Evaluation of anammox biocathode
in microbial desalination and wastewater treatment. Chem Eng J 2018;342:
410e9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2018.02.088.
[183] Sure S, Ackland ML, Torriero AAJ, Adholeya A, Kochar M. Microbial nano-
wires: an electrifying tale. Microbiology 2016;162:2017e28.
[184] Saloma S, Hanafiah H, Andani DR. Analysis of Microstructure of foamed
S.F. Ahmed, M. Mofijur, N. Islam et al.
concrete with variation curing temperature and fly Ash. Int J Mech Eng
Technol 2018;9:329e37.
[185] Li S, Cheng C, Thomas A. Carbon-based microbial-fuel-cell electrodes: from
conductive supports to active catalysts. Adv Mater 2017;29:1602547.
[186] Wei J, Liang P, Huang X. Recent progress in electrodes for microbial fuel cells.
Bioresour Technol 2011;102:9335e44.
[187] Tommasi T, Sacco A, Armato C, Hidalgo D, Millone L, Sanginario A, Tresso E,
 T, Pirri CF. Dynamical analysis of microbial fuel cells based on planar
Schiliro
and 3D-packed anodes. Chem Eng J 2016;288:38e49.
[188] Tatinclaux M, Gregoire K, Leininger A, Biffinger JC, Tender L, Ramirez M,
Torrents A, Kjellerup BV. Electricity generation from wastewater using a
floating air cathode microbial fuel cell. Water-Energy Nexus 2018;1:97e103.
[189] Rahimnejad M, Bakeri G, Ghasemi M, Zirepour A. A review on the role of
proton exchange membrane on the performance of microbial fuel cell. Polym
Adv Technol 2014;25:1426e32.
[190] €
Omero lu S, Sanin FD. Bioelectricity generation from wastewater sludge
g performance of a microbial fuel cell using sulfonated poly (ether ether ke-
using microbial fuel cells: a critical review. Clean 2016;44:1225e33.
[191] Shitanda I, Fujimura Y, Nohara S, Hoshi Y, Itagaki M, Tsujimura S. Based disk-
type self-powered glucose biosensor based on screen-printed biofuel cell
array. J Electrochem Soc 2019;166:B1063.
[192] Larrazabal GO, Strøm-Hansen P, Heli JP, Zeiter K, Therkildsen KT,
Chorkendorff I, Seger B. Analysis of mass flows and membrane cross-over in
CO2 reduction at high current densities in an MEA-type electrolyzer. ACS
Appl Mater Interfaces 2019;11:41281e8.
[193] Anam M, Yousaf S, Ali N. Comparative assessment of microbial-fuel-cell
operating parameters. J Environ Eng 2020;146:4020093.
[194] Roh S-H. Microbial fuel cells as the real source of sustainable energy. In:
Advanced Functional Materials. Springer; 2011. p. 195e219.
[195] Li S, Chen G. Factors affecting the effectiveness of bioelectrochemical system
applications: data synthesis and meta-analysis. Batteries 2018;4:34.
[196] Elakkiya E, Matheswaran M. Comparison of anodic metabolisms in
bioelectricity production during treatment of dairy wastewater in Microbial
Fuel Cell. Bioresour Technol 2013;136:407e12.
[197] Bose D, Kandpal V, Dhawan H, Vijay P, Gopinath M. Energy recovery with
microbial fuel cells: bioremediation and bioelectricity. In: Waste Bioreme-
diation. Springer; 2018c. p. 7e33.
[198] Guerrini E, Cristiani P, Trasatti SPM. Relation of anodic and cathodic per-
formance to pH variations in membraneless microbial fuel cells. Int J
Hydrogen Energy 2013;38:345e53.
[199] Ho NAD, Babel S, Kurisu F. Bio-electrochemical reactors using AMI-7001S
and CMI-7000S membranes as separators for silver recovery and power
generation. Bioresour Technol 2017;244:1006e14. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.biortech.2017.08.086.
[200] Nor MHM, Mubarak MFM, Elmi HSA, Ibrahim N, Wahab MFA, Ibrahim Z.
Bioelectricity generation in microbial fuel cell using natural microflora and
isolated pure culture bacteria from anaerobic palm oil mill effluent sludge.
Bioresour Technol 2015;190:458e65. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.biortech.2015.02.103.
[201] Asensio Y, Fernandez-Marchante CM, Lobato J, Can ~ izares P, Rodrigo MA.
Influence of the ion-exchange membrane on the performance of double-
compartment microbial fuel cells. J Electroanal Chem 2018;808:427e32.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jelechem.2017.06.018.
[202] Daud SM, Kim BH, Ghasemi M, Daud WRW. Separators used in microbial
electrochemical technologies: current status and future prospects. Bioresour
Technol 2015;195:170e9.
[203] Angioni S, Millia L, Bruni G, Tealdi C, Mustarelli P, Quartarone E. Improving
the performances of NafionTM-based membranes for microbial fuel cells
with silica-based, organically-functionalized mesostructured fillers. J Power
Sources 2016;334:120e7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpowsour.2016.10.014.
[204] Tiwari BR, Ghangrekar MM. Electricity production during distillery waste-
water treatment in a microbial fuel cell equipped with low cost PVA-nafion-
borosilicate membrane. J Clean Energy Technol 2018;6:155e8.
[205] Kondaveeti S, Lee J, Kakarla R, Kim HS, Min B. Low-cost separators for
24
Energy 254 (2022) 124163
enhanced power production and field application of microbial fuel cells
(MFCs). Electrochim Acta 2014;132:434e40.
[206] Daud SM, Daud WRW, Bakar MHA, Kim BH, Somalu MR, Muchtar A,
Jahim JM, Ali SAM. Low-cost novel clay earthenware as separator in micro-
bial electrochemical technology for power output improvement. Bioproc
Biosyst Eng 2020:1e11.
[207] Liu S-H, Chang C-M, Lin C-W. Modifying proton exchange membrane in a
microbial fuel cell by adding clay mineral to improve electricity generation
without reducing removal of toluene. Biochem Eng J 2018;134:101e7.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bej.2018.03.013.
[208] Sivasankaran A, Sangeetha D, Ahn Y-H. Nanocomposite membranes based on
sulfonated polystyrene ethylene butylene polystyrene (SSEBS) and sulfo-
nated SiO2 for microbial fuel cell application. Chem Eng J 2016;289:442e51.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2015.12.095.
[209] Wu H, Fu Y, Guo C, Li Y, Jiang N, Yin C. Electricity generation and removal
tone) as proton exchange membrane to treat phenol/acetone wastewater.
Bioresour Technol 2018a;260:130e4. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.biortech.2018.03.133.
[210] Leong JX, Daud WRW, Ghasemi M, Ahmad A, Ismail M, Liew K Ben. Com-
posite membrane containing graphene oxide in sulfonated polyether ether
ketone in microbial fuel cell applications. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2015;40:
11604e14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2015.04.082.
[211] Winfield J, Chambers LD, Rossiter J, Greenman J, Ieropoulos I. Towards
disposable microbial fuel cells: natural rubber glove membranes. Int J
Hydrogen Energy 2014;39:21803e10. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ijhydene.2014.09.071.
[212] He L, Du P, Chen Y, Lu H, Cheng X, Chang B, Wang Z. Advances in microbial
fuel cells for wastewater treatment. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2017;71:
388e403.
[213] Al Lawati MJ, Jafary T, Baawain MS, Al-Mamun A. A mini review on
biofouling on air cathode of single chamber microbial fuel cell; prevention
and mitigation strategies. Biocatal Agric Biotechnol 2019;22:101370. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.bcab.2019.101370.
[214] Rossi R, Cario BP, Santoro C, Yang W, Saikaly PE, Logan BE. Evaluation of
electrode and solution area-based resistances enables quantitative com-
parisons of factors impacting microbial fuel cell performance. Environ Sci
Technol 2019;53:3977e86.
[215] Raychaudhuri A, Behera M. Review of the process optimisation in microbial
fuel cell using design of experiment methodology. J Hazardous, Toxic,
Radioact Waste 2020;24:04020013. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)hz.2153-
5515.0000503.
[216] Deb D, Patel R, Balas VE. A review of control-oriented bioelectrochemical
Mathematical models of microbial fuel cells. Processes 2020;8:583. https://
doi.org/10.3390/pr8050583.
[217] Gajda I, Greenman J, Ieropoulos IA. Recent advancements in real-world
microbial fuel cell applications. Curr Opin Electrochem 2018;11:78e83.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coelec.2018.09.006.
[218] Ebrahimi A, Sivakumar M, McLauchlan C, Ansari A, Vishwanathan AS.
A critical review of the symbiotic relationship between constructed wetland
and microbial fuel cell for enhancing pollutant removal and energy gener-
ation. J Environ Chem Eng 2021;9:105011. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jece.2020.105011.
[219] Zhang Y, Liu M, Zhou M, Yang H, Liang L, Gu T. Microbial fuel cell hybrid
systems for wastewater treatment and bioenergy production: synergistic
effects, mechanisms and challenges. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2019b;103:
13e29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2018.12.027.
[220] Enamala MK, Dixit R, Tangellapally A, Singh M, Dinakarrao SMP, Chavali M,
Pamanji SR, Ashokkumar V, Kadier A, Chandrasekhar K. Photosynthetic mi-
croorganisms (Algae) mediated bioelectricity generation in microbial fuel
cell: concise review. Environ Technol Innovat 2020;19:100959. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.eti.2020.100959.