Meixue Dai, Yujia Zhang, Yiming Wu et al.

Journal of environmental chemical engineering • 2021

Haris Nalakath Abubackar, İdris Biryol, Azize Ayol

International Journal of Hydrogen Energy • 2022

Young-Hyun Park, Hyunwoo Cho, Jaechul Yu et al.

Bioresource Technology • 2017

Gunda Mohanakrishna, Ibrahim M. Abu-Reesh, Riyadh I. Al‐Raoush et al.

Bioresource Technology • 2017

Junfeng Wang, Xinshan Song, Yuhui Wang et al.

Ecological Engineering • 2016

Ravi Kumar Yadav, P. Chiranjeevi, Sukrampal et al.

Bioresource Technology Reports • 2020

Yan-Fang Guan, Feng Zhang, Bao‐Cheng Huang et al.

Journal of Cleaner Production • 2019

Yingmu Wang, Ziyuan Lin, Xiaosuan Su et al.

Chemical Engineering Journal • 2019

Linfang Zhang, Guokai Fu, Zhang Zhi

Bioresource Technology • 2018

Cuijie Feng, Cheng-Chang Tsai, Chih-Yu Ma et al.

Chemical Engineering Journal • 2017

Supriya Gupta, Ankita Nayak, Chandrima Roy et al.

Chemosphere • 2020

Dianxun Hou, Lu Lü, Zhiyong Jason Ren

Water Research • 2016

Çağdaş Saz, Cengiz Türe, Onur Can Türker et al.

Environmental Science and Pollution Research • 2018

K. Tamilarasan, Ushani Uthirakrishnan, S Sivakumar et al.

International Journal of Hydrogen Energy • 2021

Priyanka Verma, Achlesh Daverey, Ashok Kumar et al.

Journal of Water Process Engineering • 2020

Prashansa Tamta, Neetu Rani, Asheesh Kumar Yadav

Environmental Chemistry Letters • 2020

Baiming Ren, Tongyue Wang, Yaqian Zhao

Chemosphere • 2020

Anıl Yakar, Cengiz Türe, Onur Can Türker et al.

Ecological Engineering • 2018

Gustavo Stolzenberg Colares, Naira Dell’Osbel, Carolina Vieira Barbosa et al.

The Science of The Total Environment • 2020

L.S. Vélez-Pérez, Jonathan Ramirez-Nava, Giovanni Hernández-Flores et al.

International Journal of Hydrogen Energy • 2020

Ermete Antolini

Journal of environmental chemical engineering • 2019

Sidan Lu, Hongna Li, Guangcai Tan et al.

Chemical Engineering Journal • 2019

Rohit Rathour, Dishant Patel, Shabnam Shaikh et al.

Bioresource Technology • 2019

C. Jayashree, K. Tamilarasan, M. Rajkumar et al.

Journal of Environmental Management • 2016

Linfang Zhang, Jiaqi Wang, Guokai Fu et al.

Journal of Cleaner Production • 2020

Weijun Ding, Shaoan Cheng, Liliang Yu et al.

Chemosphere • 2017

Kyoung‐Yeol Kim, Wulin Yang, Patrick Evans et al.

Bioresource Technology • 2016

Carole Abourached, Marshall English, Hong Liu

Journal of Cleaner Production • 2016

Clara Corbella, Jaume Puigagut, Marianna Garfí

The Science of The Total Environment • 2017

Asim Ali Yaqoob, Mohamad Nasir Mohamad Ibrahim, Khalid Umar et al.

Desalination and Water Treatment • 2021

Har Mohan Singh, Atin Kumar Pathak, K. Chopra et al.

Biofuels • 2018

A microbial fuel cell (MFC) is an advance device to contend with three-dimensional problems of fossil fuel-based energy production with high-cost and pollution-generating units. It is an emerging technology of wastewater treatment with energy production. It has the potential to utilize wastewater as feed substrate for microorganisms and to generate bio-electricity. MFCs can also applied in carbon capture, bioremediation, biosensing, bio-hydrogen production and desalination. In this review, the major focus is on treatment of wastewater integrated with bio-electricity production by MFC. Information about various designs of MFC, electrode materials, important process parameters (pH, temperature, etc.) and the most recent integrated technology of MFC with natural water bodies (hybrid MFCs) is also reviewed. This technology holds promise for a clean and green environment, and its successful applications provide a new outlook for engineers and scientists.

Ali Nawaz, Ikram ul Haq, Kinza Qaisar et al.

Process Safety and Environmental Protection • 2022

Burgeoning industrialization has escalated the energy demand and amplified the insistence on depleting petroleum-based reservoirs. Subsequently, this has imposed a study to pinpoint renewable alternative sources. Employing renewable resources promotes energy production coupled with environmental sustainability. Microbial fuel cells (MFCs) have an encouraging role in producing sustainable and viable electrical energy. It transforms chemical energy into electrical energy with the assistance of microorganisms acting as biocatalysts. It is an emerging technology that has the potential to treat wastewater with bioelectricity production simultaneously. However, scaling up this technology is a major challenge as a plethora of technical constraints limits its application in the real world. This review highlights MFC performance in terms of power generation by utilizing various wastewaters as substrate. Moreover, it sheds light on different MFC designs, mechanisms, and parameters affecting MFC performance along with their pros and cons to generate maximum power output. It concludes possible ways to combat its drawbacks and discusses its future prospects.

Yusuke Asai, Morio Miyahara, Atsushi Kouzuma et al.

Bioresources and Bioprocessing • 2017

Microbial fuel cells (MFCs) are devices that exploit living microbes for electricity generation coupled to organics degradation. MFCs are expected to be applied to energy-saving wastewater treatment (WWT) as alternatives to activated-sludge reactors (ASRs). Although extensive laboratory studies have been performed to develop technologies for WWT-MFCs, limited information is available for comparative evaluation of MFCs and ASRs in terms of organics removal and waste-sludge production. In the present study, laboratory WWT experiments were performed using cassette-electrode MFCs and ASRs that were continuously supplied either with artificial domestic wastewater (ADW) containing starch and peptone or with artificial industrial wastewater (AIW) containing methanol as the major organic matter. We found that these two types of WWT reactors achieved similar organics-removal efficiencies, namely, over 93% based on chemical oxygen demands for the ADW treatment and over 97% for the AIW treatment. Sludge was routinely removed from these reactors and quantified, showing that amounts of waste sludge produced in MFCs were approximately one-third or less compared to those in ASRs. During WWT, MFCs continuously generated electricity with Coulombic efficiencies of 20% or more. In reference to ASRs, MFCs are demonstrated to be attractive WWT facilities in terms of stable organics removal and low waste-sludge production. Along with the unnecessity of electric power for aeration and the generation of power during WWT, the results obtained in the present study suggest that MFCs enable substantial energy saving during WWT.

Peng Liang, Rui Duan, Yong Jiang et al.

Water Research • 2018

G. Gnana kumar, C. Joseph Kirubaharan, Dong Jin Yoo et al.

International Journal of Hydrogen Energy • 2016

Li He, Peng Du, Yizhong Chen et al.

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews • 2017

Seyed Masoud Parsa, Huu Hao Ngo, Ni Bing-Jie et al.

Chemical Engineering Journal • 2025

Anode electrodes are at the focal point of developing microbial electrochemical cells (MECs) for hydrogen production. The extracellular electron transfer (EET) of microorganisms at the interface of anodes and biofilm is the driving force of MECs. This signifies, the role of designing high-performance anodes to maximize the rate of EET and hydrogen production. In this paper, a thorough discussion on the adopted strategies over the past 15 years on anodes to improve biohydrogen production and pollutant removal was presented. Importantly, these strategies categorized as the direct and indirect methods. For the first scenario, the surface of anodes was subjected to various modification methods such as utilizing biochars, nanomaterials, polymers etc. while in the second scenario, the performance of electrodes improved by implementing indirect strategies such as regulating electrodes ratio/spacing, acclimation, electrodes arrangement, magnetic field etc. just to name a few. It was realized that, employing functional materials are at the spotlight of improving anode electrodes while methods such as applying electrical shocks or magnetic field are in early stages. The pros and cons and synergistic impacts on concurrent utilization of methods were also analyzed. Finally, current bottlenecks and future directions for implementing fundamental studies to tackle existing challenges were suggested. • State-of-the-art strategies adopted to improve performance of anode electrodes • Examining the pros and cons of all strategies for various configurations of MEC • Synergies of utilizing combined methods on anode electrodes were elucidated. • Extracting internal/external optimized design parameters boosting biofilm and EET • Presenting the current bottlenecks, challenges and future research directions

Jun Hyun Kim, Yongwon Jeon, Sunghyun Kim

Bulletin of the Korean Chemical Society • 2017

Figure S1. SEM image of synthesized Cu2O (a) and XPS of Cu 2p3/2 (b). Figure S2. Tauc (a) and Mott-Schottky (b) plots for the Cu2O sample. The interfacial capacitance was obtained by superimposing a small ac voltage (5 mV, 1 kHz) on dc bias voltage. Please note: The publisher is not responsible for the content or functionality of any supporting information supplied by the authors. Any queries (other than missing content) should be directed to the corresponding author for the article.

Kamalpreet Kaur Brar, Anelyse Abreu Cortez, Vanessa O.A. Pellegrini et al.

International Journal of Hydrogen Energy • 2022

Germán Buitrón, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Vianey Ruiz et al.

Revista Mexicana de Ingeniería Química • 2022