Science of the Total Environment 639 (2018) 910–920

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Science of the Total Environment

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

Review

Challenges in the application of microbial fuel cells to wastewater

treatment and energy production: A mini review
M.H. Do a, H.H. Ngo a,b,⁎, W.S. Guo a,b, Y. Liu a, S.W. Chang c,⁎⁎, D.D. Nguyen c,d, L.D. Nghiem a, B.J. Ni a
a
Centre for Technology in Water and Wastewater, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, NWS 2007, Australia
b
Joint Research Centre for Protective Infrastructure Technology and Environmental Green Bioprocess, Department of Environmental and Municipal Engineering, Tianjin Chengjian University,
Tianjin 300384, China
c
Department of Environmental Energy & Engineering, Kyonggi University, 442-760, Republic of Korea
d
Institution of Research and Development, Duy Tan University, Da Nang, Viet Nam

H I G H L I G H T S G R A P H I C A L A B S T R A C T

• MFCs are a promising technology for

wastewater treatment and energy pro-
duction.
• Costs of MFC material fabrication and
electricity production are challenged.
• Current instability and high internal re-
sistance are also problematic issues.
• Membrane fouling and low rate of
growth of microbes limit the MFCs' ap-
plication.
• Practical version of tonne scale MFC is
proposed and tested with real
wastewaters.

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

Article history: Wastewater is now considered to be a vital reusable source of water reuse and saving energy. However, current
Received 10 April 2018 wastewater has multiple limitations such as high energy costs, large quantities of residuals being generated and
Received in revised form 10 May 2018 lacking in potential resources. Recently, great attention has been paid to microbial fuel cells (MFCs) due to their
Accepted 10 May 2018
mild operating conditions where a variety of biodegradable substrates can serve as fuel. MFCs can be used in
Available online 26 May 2018
wastewater treatment facilities to break down organic matter, and they have also been analysed for application
Editor: D. Barcelo as a biosensor such as a sensor for biological oxygen which demands monitoring. MFCs represent an innovation
technology solution that is simple and rapid. Despite the advantages of this technology, there are still practical
Keywords: barriers to consider including low electricity production, current instability, high internal resistance and costly
Microbial fuel cells materials used. Thus, many problems must be overcome and doing this requires a more detailed analysis of en-
Energy product ergy production, consumption, and application. Currently, real-world applications of MFCs are limited due to
Wastewater treatment their low power density level of only several thousand mW/m2. Efforts are being made to improve the perfor-
Challenges mance and reduce the construction and operating costs of MFCs. This paper explores several aspects of MFCs
such as anode, cathode and membrane, and in an effort to overcome the practical challenges of this system.
© 2018 Published by Elsevier B.V.

⁎ Correspondence to: H. H. Ngo, Centre for Technology in Water and Wastewater, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, NWS 2007,
Australia.
⁎⁎ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: [email protected], (H.H. Ngo), [email protected] (S.W. Chang).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.05.136
0048-9697/© 2018 Published by Elsevier B.V.
 M.H. Do et al. / Science of the Total Environment 639 (2018) 910–920 911

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 911
2. General features of microbial fuel cells . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 911
2.1. MFCs' configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 912
2.1.1. Two-chamber microbial fuel cell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 912
2.1.2. Single chamber microbial fuel cell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 912
2.2. Electrode material of MFCs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 913
2.2.1. Anode material . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 913
2.2.2. Cathode material . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 913
2.3. Microbes used in microbial fuel cells . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 913
2.4. Proton exchange membrane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 914
2.5. Substrates used in MFCs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 915
3. Application of MFCs in wastewater and energy product. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 915
3.1. Wastewater treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 915
3.2. Generation of bio-electricity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 915
3.3. Biohydrogen production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 916
3.4. Biosensor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 917
4. Challenges of MFCs in wastewater treatment and energy production. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 917
5. Future perspectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 918
6. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 918
Acknowledgement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 918
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 918

1. Introduction electricity. Second, using MFCs allows wastewater processes to reduce

activated sludge compared to anaerobic digestion and CAAS processes.
Wastewater is now recommended as a vital resource for water reuse The third advantage is insensitivity to the operational environment.
and saving energy. Conversely, traditional treatment technologies such The fourth one is that MFCs do not require any treatment for gas be-
as conventional aerobic activated sludge (CAAS) require large amounts cause of the recycling and conversion. Much more energy can be
of energy and generated residuals; there is also the problem of not re- saved by MFCs without any energy input required for aeration. Fifth
covering enough or any potential resources available in wastewater and finally, MFCs can be used widely in locations where there is insuffi-
(He et al., 2017). Currently, anaerobic digester (AD) technology is cient electrical infrastructure.
widely accepted as a vital treatment strategy in that it saves energy Despite of the fact that, MFCs technology is an innovation strategy
sources and is highly effective in converting organic chemicals into for improving waste/wastewater treatment and energy product. How-
methane (CH4) gas. This in turn can be changed into electricity by ever, many challenges must be addressed including electron transfer
CH4-driven engines or chemical fuel cells. However, some research indi- mechanism, the microscales with biofilm formation and associated
cates that treated wastewater does not always meet stringent regula- transport process, and the macro-scales with electrodes and separators
tory standards, and more technical advances are demanded for the in bioanode (Kim et al., 2015).
post-treatment scenario. Despite these problems, water reuse has al- Despite the MFCs' application at lab level, researchers have proved
ready been widely implemented especially in some dry areas. However, their suitability in industrial contexts such as the reactor volume opera-
it invariably requires more energy for treatment, principally arising tional time and wastewaters investigated in MFCs (He et al., 2017).
from the increased water quality requirements for reuse (Venkata With these possibilities in mind, this study aims to discuss the MFC
Mohan et al., 2011). concept and its practical application for wastewater treatment and en-
Microbial fuel cells (MFCs) have been recognized as an encouraging ergy production. By introducing a wide range of MFCs and looking at
and challenging technology in saving energy and simultaneous waste- each one in detail, the challenges of MFCs are highlighted. Moreover,
water treatment, overcoming environmental problems (Pandey et al., the combination of MFCs with other treatment processes is explained
2016). This is particularly the case in isolated areas that are supplied in terms of practicality and effectiveness. Furthermore, the challenges
with biosensors, bio hydrogen production, as well as in-situ power and opportunities for scaling up and future applications of MFC in
sources for bioremediation and wastewater treatment (He et al., 2017; wastewater are also discussed in this paper.
Surya Ramadan and Purwono, 2017).
In recent years, the number of papers on MFCs being published in 2. General features of microbial fuel cells
journals has markedly increased. The Web of Science ™ database
searching with keyword of “microbial fuel cell” on December 25, 2016 Recently, a type of technology using microbial fuel cells (MFCs) that
leaded to a total of 6198 papers, in the field of “biotechnology applied converts the energy stored in chemical bonds in organic compounds
microbiology” (1896), “energy fuels” (1664), “electrochemistry” into electrical energy has been achieved through the catalytic reactions
(1154) and “environmental sciences” (1006) (Hu et al., 2017). In the generated by microorganisms. This process has aroused considerable
last few years, MFCs as a new source of bioenergy have been extensively interest among academic researchers since the early 1990s (Allen and
reviewed with different emphasis, such as designs and configurations, Bennetto, 1993; Choi et al., 2003; Gil et al., 2003; Moon et al., 2006). Mi-
electrodes and electrode surface modifications, microbial communities, crobial fuel cell technology has become an innovation renewable energy
operation conditions for performance and biofilm formation, challenges resource by degrading organic pollutants in wastewater (Mustakeem,
and possibilities, fundamental electron transfer mechanisms and appli- 2015; Wang et al., 2015).
cations (Pandey et al., 2016; Surya Ramadan and Purwono, 2017). Microbial fuel cells (MFCs) are devices that use bacteria as catalysts
He et al. (2017) indicated there are many reasons why MFCs are to oxidize organic and inorganic matter and generate electrical current.
more sustainable when applied to wastewater treatment. The first ad- Microbes in the anodic chamber of an MFC oxidize added substrates and
vantage is their ability to directly convert substrate energy into generate electrons and protons in the process. Carbon dioxide is
912 M.H. Do et al. / Science of the Total Environment 639 (2018) 910–920

produced as an oxidation product. However, there is no net carbon 2.1. MFCs' configuration
emission because the carbon dioxide in the renewable biomass origi-
nates from the atmosphere in the photosynthesis process. The bacteria The most essential requirement for MFCs is that they have been ap-
on the anode decompose organic matter and free H+ ions and electrons. propriately designed. MFCs are built according to a range of architec-
Electrons produced by the bacteria from these substrates are transferred tural requirements, and various kinds of MFCs are usually appraised
to the anode (negative terminal) and flow to the cathode (positive ter- by power output, Coulombic efficiency, stability, and longevity
minal) linked by a conductive material containing a resistor, or operated (Parkash, 2016). Apart from that microbial fuel cell can be optimized
under a load, i.e., producing electricity that runs a device (Hernández- in two types on the basis of number of compartments of chambers.
Flores et al., 2015; Surya Ramadan and Purwono, 2017). The H+ ions
flow through the semi-permeable membrane to the cathode. This pro- 2.1.1. Two-chamber microbial fuel cell
cess is driven by the electrochemical gradient resulting from the high Research by Logan et al. (2006) shows that MFCs can have many dif-
concentration of H+ ions near the anode. The electrons from the cath- ferent configurations. A widely used and inexpensive design is a two-
ode combine with dissolved oxygen and the H+ ions to form pure chamber MFC built in a traditional “H” shape, usually consisting of
water (Brown, 2012). two bottles connected by a tube containing a separator which is nor-
Microbial fuel cells are being constructed using a diverse range of mally a cation exchange membrane (CEM) such as Nafion or Ultrex or
materials and in a variety of configurations. Fig. 1 is a schematic diagram a plain salt bridge, to allow protons to move across to the cathode
of a typical MFC for producing electricity. It consists of anodic and ca- while blocking the diffusion of oxygen into the anode. The compart-
thodic chambers partitioned by a proton exchange membrane (PEM). ments can function in various practical shapes such as cylindrical, rect-
Electrode reactions are shown below using acetate as an example angular and miniature. The two-chamber design of MFCs is frequently
substrate. operated in batch mode and fed-batch mode. A typical MFC consists of
Anodic reaction: an anodic chamber and a cathodic chamber separated by a PEM as
depicted in Fig. 2.
CH3 COO− þ 2H2 O→CO2 þ 7Hþ þ 8e−
2.1.2. Single chamber microbial fuel cell
A standard single chambered MFC is illustrated in Fig. 3. In this de-
Cathodic reaction:
sign the anode and cathode are not placed in different compartments.
They are both in a simple anode compartment where there is no defin-
O2 þ 4e− þ 4Hþ →2H2 O itive cathode compartment and may not contain proton exchange
membranes as shown in Fig. 3 (Lee et al., 2015). A porous cathode
The overall reaction is the breakdown of the substrate to carbon di- which is located on one side of the wall of the cathode chamber utilizes
oxide and water with a concomitant production of electricity as a by- oxygen from atmosphere and lets protons transfer through them. Single
product. Based on the electrode reaction pair above, an MFC bioreactor compartment MFCs offer simpler designs and are cheaper (Das and
can generate electricity from the electron flow originating in the anode Mangwani, 2010).
and going to the cathode in the external circuit. Based on the transfer of Besides these two common designs, several adaptions have been
produced electrons by active microorganisms from media to anode made in MFC design and structure; many single chambered MFC de-
electrode, MFCs can be divided into two different types: firstly, MFCs signs are available for different construction methods.
with a mediator, where electron shuttles or mediators are added into In order to achieve the high power densities in MFCs, the main issue
the system; and secondly, mediator-less MFCs where no mediator is the system architecture, not the composition of the bacteria commu-
needs to be added (Rahimnejad et al., 2015). nity (Logan and Regan, 2006a). Indeed, many studies have indicated
There are various factors that affect the performance of MFCs and its that the performance of MFCs with mixed inoculation would be better
energy production in wastewater treatment such as microorganims, than that with pure culture inoculation in terms of both power density
substrates which can be utilized as the source of electron donors, oper- and efficiency in removing contaminations. The commercialization of
ating conditions in terms of pH, temperature, electrode surface area, MFCs can be achieved by employing an appropriate design, efficient
material and construction of the anode, cathode and membrane could scaling up, manageable costs, ensuring high performance and being
have a markable impact on electricity generation (Aghababaie et al., conveniently combined with existing wastewater treatment facilities.
2015). Currently, MFCs are still at the laboratory level stage of analysis and
Due to the ability to convert chemical energy into electrical energy, evaluation, but some ingenious designs have been developed to incor-
MFCs have many potential applications, for example electricity genera- porate MFCs into other wastewater treatment processes.
tion, bio hydrogen production, wastewater treatment and biosensor
(Parkash, 2016; Santoro et al., 2017).

Fig. 1. The MFC system consists of anode and cathode compartments. Fig. 2. Two-chamber MFC.
 M.H. Do et al. / Science of the Total Environment 639 (2018) 910–920 913

biocompatibility; (iii) chemical stability and anti-corrosion; (iv) large

surface area; and (v) appropriate mechanical strength and toughness.
The most popular utilized materials in anode are made of carbon mate-
rials containing graphite fiber brush, carbon cloth, and graphite rod
(Logan et al., 2006). The simplest materials for anode electrodes are
graphite plates or rods since they are inexpensive, easy to handle, and
have a defined surface area. Table 2 summarizes different materials
used for anode electrodes with their respective advantages and
disadvantages.

2.2.2. Cathode material

The cathode materials play an important role on the power capacity
of MFCs, which have a high redox potential, easily to capture protons.
Most of the materials used as an anode can be used as a cathode. Cur-
rently, graphite, carbon cloth and carbon paper are the common cath-
ode materials (Zhou et al., 2011). To improve performance of MFC,
utilizing Pt at the cathode is one of the innovation technologies in
order to reduce the cathodic reaction activation energy and increase
the reaction rate. Moon et al. (2006) created an MFC that used graphite
felt including Pt as the cathode. The power density reached
150 mW m−2, which was three times higher than that for the pure
Fig. 3. A single chamber microbial fuel cell without an air cathode.
graphite cathode. However, Pt is an expensive metal, so it can effect to
the MFC’ application (Logan et al., 2006). Many efforts have been
2.2. Electrode material of MFCs made to reduce the cathode cost by reducing Pt loading or finding a
new types of inexpensive catalyst. Recently, noble- metal free catalysts
Electrode material is ideal for the performance of MFCs in terms of that utilize pyrolyzed iron (II) phthalocyanine or CoTMPP have been
bacterial adhesion, rate of electron transfer and electrochemical effi- proposed as MFCs cathodes (Cheng et al., 2006).
ciency. To implement MFC technology in a real world scenario, the
cost of materials must be reduced and power densities must be maxi- 2.3. Microbes used in microbial fuel cells
mized. Furthermore, the cathode materials should have catalytic prop-
erties for oxygen reduction (Mustakeem, 2015). There are some The key to understanding the theory of how MFCs work is the anodic
differences when selecting materials for the anode and cathode, how- electron transfer mechanism in them. Microbes transfer electrons to the
ever, both should have the following properties: (Aelterman, 2009) sur- electrode through an electron transport system that includes a series of
face area and porosity; (Aghababaie et al., 2015) electrical conductivity; components in the bacteria extracellular matrix and together with elec-
(Ahn and Logan, 2010) stability and durability; and (Allen and tron shuttles are dissolved in the bulk solution (Du et al., 2007). Many
Bennetto, 1993) cost and accessibility. Table 1 below summarizes the microorganisms possess the ability to transfer electrons derived from
MFC components and materials used to construct them (Bullen et al., the metabolism of organic matters to the anode. A list of them is
2006; Logan and Regan, 2006b; Lovley, 2006; Rabaey et al., 2006). shown in Table 3 together with their substrates.
According to Logan et al., a MFC utilizes bacteria to catalyze the con-
version of organic matter into electricity by transferring electrons to a
2.2.1. Anode material developed circuit (Bond et al., 2002; Logan and Regan, 2006a; Logan
The anaerobic anode compartment is a major part of a MFC. It is and Regan, 2006b). Logan et al. (2006) suggest that microorganisms
filled with substrate, mediator or no mediator, and the microorganisms can transfer electrons to the anode electrode in three ways: firstly,
and anode electrode function as electron acceptors. Various factors af- exogeneous mediators (external to the cell) such as potassium ferricya-
fect the performance of MFCs such as electrode material and equipment nide, thionines, or neutral red; secondly, using mediators produced by
configuration (Logan et al., 2006; Oh et al., 2004). One of the most effec- the bacteria; or thirdly, by direct transfer of electrons from the respira-
tive factors is anodic microbial electron transfer, which amplifies the tory enzymes (i.e., cytochromes) to the electrode.
microbial electron transfer rate, through miscellaneous applications Bennetto (1990) suggests that these mediators can divert electrons
such as adding electron mediators and optimizing cell design and elec- from the respiratory chain by entering the outer cell membrane, becom-
trode. Ideally, electrode material should have the following features: ing smaller in size, and then leaving in a reduced state to shuttle the
(i) good electrical conductivity and low resistance; (ii) strong electron to the electrode. Marine sediment, soil wastewater, freshwater
sediment and activated sludge are all rich sources for these microorgan-
isms (Du et al., 2007). Studies earlier this century have discussed: firstly,
Table 1 the screening and identification of microbes; and secondly, the con-
Basic components of a microbial fuel cell. struction of a chromosome library for microorganisms that are able to
Items Materials generate electricity by degrading organic matter (Holmes et al., 2004;
Anode Graphite, graphite felt, carbon paper, carbon cloth, Pt, Pt black,
Logan et al., 2005).
reticulated vitreous carbon (RVC) As shown in Fig. 4, bacteria use the electrons to produce energy by
Cathode Graphite, graphite felt, carbon paper, carbon cloth, Pt, Pt black, way of the electron transfer chain. The microbial fuel cell breakdowns
(RVC) the electron transfer transport chain using a mediator molecule to shut-
Anodic chamber Glass, polycarbonate, Plexiglas
tle electrons to the anode. The electrons transport chain begins with
Cathodic chamber Glass, polycarbonate, Plexiglas
Proton exchange Nafion, Ultrex, polyethylene.poly (styrene – co – NADH, a biological transport molecule, releasing a high energy electron
system divinylbenzene), salt bridge, porcelain septum, or solely (e−) and a proton (H+). The electron follows the red path through the
electrotyle proteins in the mitochondrial membrane. As the electron passes
Electron catalyst Pt, Pt black, MnO2, Fe3+, polyaniline, electron mediator through each protein, it pumps hydrogen ions (H+) through the mem-
immobilized on anode
brane. In a normal bacterial cell, the electron continues along the dotted
914 M.H. Do et al. / Science of the Total Environment 639 (2018) 910–920

Table 2
Different types of materials used for MFC anode.

Anode material Advantage Disadvantage References

Carbon cloth – Large relative porosity – Relative expensive (Ishii et al., 2008)
– Higher specific area and mechanical strength
Carbon paper – Easy-to-connect wiring – Fragile (Kim et al., 2007)
– Relative porous – Expensive
Carbon Felt – High porosity, high electrical conductive – Large resistance (Kim et al., 2002)
– Relative low cost
– Wide surface area
RVC – High electrical conductivity – Large resistance, fragile (He et al., 2005)
Stainless steel (plate/mesh/foam or scrubber) – High conductivity – Low surface area (Dumas et al., 2007)
– Relatively cheap – Biocompatibility issue
– Easy accessibility – Corrosion
Graphite rods/plate – Good electrical conductivity and chemical stability – Difficult to increase surface area (Liu et al., 2005a)
– Relative inexpensive
– Easy accessibility
Graphite fiber brush – High specific area – Clogging (Ahn and Logan, 2010)
– Easy construction

red path where it combines with oxygen to make water. In a microbial (Membranes International Incorp, Glen Rock, NJ. (Logan et al., 2006)
fuel cell, the electron continues along the solid red path where it is also are well suited for MFC applications and are considerably more
picked up by a mediator molecule and taken to the anode. cost-effective than Nafion. Active research on replacing Nafion separa-
tors by other membranes has been carried out in recent years and
2.4. Proton exchange membrane such analyses include: ultrafiltration and microfiltration membranes,
sulphonated polyether ether ketone membrane, anion and cation ex-
The proton exchange membrane (PEM) plays an important role to change membranes, bipolar membrane, and forward osmosis
the configuration and operation of the MFCs (Hernández-Flores et al., membrane.
2015). Du et al. (2007) indicated that proton exchange membrane can Other researchers reported that they prepare interpolymer cation
affect to the internal resistance and concentration polarization loss of exchange membranes with polyethylene by sulfonation with a solution
the MFC and they in turn influence the power output of the MFC. The of chlorosulfonic acid in 1,2 – dichloreoethane (Grzebyk and Poźniak,
functions of the PEM in MFCs are to: (i) separate two chambers: 2005). Ayyaru and Dharmalingam (2011) developed a sulphonated
anode and cathode; (ii) reduce the substrate flux from the anode to polyether ether ketone (SPEEK) for employment in a MFC instead of
cathode and to minimize back diffusion of oxygen to the anodic cham- NF. When using PEM, it is important to realize that it might be perme-
ber; (iii) increase the Coulombic efficiency (CE); and (iv) ensure an ef- able to chemicals such as oxygen, ferricyanide, other irons, or organic
ficient and sustainable operation over time. matter used as the substrate. The market for the ion exchange mem-
The most commonly used PEM is Nafion due to its highly selective brane is constantly growing, and more systematic studies are necessary
permeability of protons. Despite Nafion being expensive it is still the to evaluate the effect of the membrane on performance and long-term
best choice. Alternatives to Nafion such as Ultrex CMI – 7000 stability (Rozendal et al., 2006).

Table 3
Summary some of the MFCs utilized for wastewater treatment.

Type of MFC Electrode Inoculum and substrate Results Reference

Two chamber MFC – Anode: Graphite cylinder Municipal wastewater inoculated by Maximum power 25 mW m−2, the (Rodrigo et al.,
with total surface 20 cm2. activated sludge removal efficiency of COD was 30.0% 2007)
– Cathode: porous graphite
bar with total surface
20 cm2
Single-chamber air cathode MFC – Anode: graphite fiber Domestic wastewater plus olive mill Total COD and BOD5 was reduce of 65.0% (Sciarria et al.,
brush. wastewater and 50.0%, respectively, recovering 29% 2013)
– The cathodes (3,8 cm of the coulombic efficiency
diameter, 7 cm2 total
exposed surface area)
MFCs with single-chamber air The electrodes 2.5 × 24.5 cm Agriculture wastewater The maximum power density was 45 (Min et al.,
cathode and two chamber with an were made of Carbon paper mW/m2 and the removal efficiency of 2005)
aqueous cathode COD and ammonia were 86.0% and 83.0%,
respectively
Two chamber MFC – Anode: carbon paper (6 Agriculture wastewater (human feces Total COD, soluble COD, and NH+4 were (Fangzhou
cmx 8 cm). wastewater) reduced by 71.0%, 88.0%, and 44.0% et al., 2011)
– Cathode: Carbon paper respectively.
(4 cm × 5 cm) with 40%
platinum
Annular single chamber MFC – Anode: graphite-coated Dairy wastewater (COD of 1000 mg/L) Maximum power density: 20.2 W/m3. (Mahdi
stainless steel mesh. inoculated by activated sludge from dairy Maximum columbic efficiency of 26.87%. Mardanpour
– Cathode: carbon cloth type wastewater treatment plant 91% COD removal et al., 2012)
B
Granular activated carbon – Anode: a graphite rod Domestic wastewater was used as (Jiang and Li,
single-chamber microbial fuel cell inserted into the GAC bed. inoculums and supplemental sodium 2009)
(GAC-SCMFCs) – Cathode: platinum-- acetate was added to domestic
coached carbon cloth wastewater to achieved the designated
COD concentrations of 100–1500 mg/L
 M.H. Do et al. / Science of the Total Environment 639 (2018) 910–920 915

The ability of MFC technology to simultaneously generate electricity

and remove salinity from Se-containing wastewater was observed,
leading to the conclusion that at higher serenity concentration both
power output and Columbic efficiency are lower (Rahimnejad et al.,
2015). Kim et al. (2008) showed that MFC-based technology increases
the speed of removing odor if the electricity production reaches
228 mW/m2. Furthermore, biodegradable organic matter and electricity
generation with high nitrogen and salinity content can be treated by
biofuel cells using landfill leachate (Puig et al., 2011). Continuous flow
and single compartment MFCs and membrane-less MFCs are preferred
in wastewater treatment due to concerns in scaling up these kinds of
operations (He et al., 2005; Jang et al., 2004; Moon et al., 2005).
Corbella and Puigagut (2018) illustrated that constructed wetlands
Fig. 4. The electron transfer chain.
operated as MFCs is a promising strategy in order to improve domestic
wastewater treatment efficiency. Researchers set up 6 lab –scale
2.5. Substrates used in MFCs membrane- less MFCs and loaded in batch mode with domestic waste-
water for 13 weeks. The results showed that 220 Ω was the best opera-
Liu et al. (2009) indicated that substrate is a critical factor affecting tion condition for the highest MFCs treatment efficiency (Corbella and
the generation of electricity. Various kinds of substrate can be utilized Puigagut, 2018).
in MFCs for producing electricity such as pure compounds and complex Conventional anaerobic digestion wastewater treatment has been
mixtures of organic matter present in wastewater. MFC performance considered as a green technology due to its low-cost. However, there
depends on many variables such as operating conditions, surface area has some barriers including low temperature and low organic concen-
and type of electrodes and various kinds of microorganisms being trations have exited in anaerobic wastewater treatment (Chen et al.,
utilized. 2016; Lu et al., 2016; Sadhukhan et al., 2016).
Researchers use different units to explain and describe the perfor- Indeed, anaerobic treatment and MFCs are quite different treatment
mance of MFCs. Current density is considered to be one of the most technologies with generating clean energy in wastewater. Anaerobic di-
common units. It acts as the current generated per unit area of the gestion and MFC technologies can be considered as implementary tech-
anode surface area (mA/cm2) or current generated per unit volume of nology. MFCs have limitation in energy conversion efficiency and capital
the cell (mA/m3). Bond et al. (2002) assert that acetate is a simple sub- investment, however, the effluent from MFCs is better than that from
strate and it is extensively used as a carbon source to induce anaerobic digestion. In comparison with conventional anaerobic diges-
electroactive bacteria. Aelterman (2009) contends that in order to cre- tion, the MFC technology has some specific advantages, such as its appli-
ate new MFC components, reactor designs or operational conditions, ac- cability for the treatment of low concentration substrate at
etate commonly serves as a substrate because of its inertness towards temperatures below 20 °C, where anaerobic digestion generally fails to
alternative microbial conversions at room temperature. Glucose is an- function. Moreover, volatile fatty acids, like acetate and butyrate, can
other commonly used substrate in MFCs. In one study, the performance be effectively degraded by MFCs, even at low concentration, but in an-
of a MFC containing Proteus vulgaris depended on the carbon source in aerobic digestion the volatile fatty acids are metabolic products, and
the initial medium of the microorganism. It was discovered that glucose their accumulation would have a passive effect on the treatment pro-
initiated cells in MFC ran for a short period of time compared to galac- cess (Oh et al., 2010). Pham et al. (2006) showed a list of critical com-
tose (Kim et al., 2000). parison between the anaerobic digestion and MFCs as shown in Table 4.
In order to overcome the MFCs' limitation, expand the application
and commercial its operation, numerous researchers have indicated
3. Application of MFCs in wastewater and energy product that it was necessary to integrate MFCs with conventional wastewater
treatment process, which are classified as sediment MFCs (SMFCs), con-
3.1. Wastewater treatment structed wetland MFCs (CW-MFCs), membrane bioreactor MFCs (MBR-
MFCs), desalination MFCs (DS-MFCs) and others. These combinations
MFCs technology was first considered for use in treating wastewater can not only enhance the treatment efficiency, but also has the ability
in the early 1990s (Habermann and Pommer, 1991). Recently, He et al. to be a self-sustained or even net energy producer (Fang et al., 2015;
(2017) have shown that MFCs are a promising technology for various Ren et al., 2014; Wang et al., 2011). Table 5 summarizes the combina-
kinds of wastewater treatment in municipal, agricultural and industrial tion between MFCs with other wastewater treatment.
contexts. For an efficient treating system, high operational sustainability
and low material costs are worthwhile characteristics. MFCs are also ap- 3.2. Generation of bio-electricity
plied on field scale to monitor remote areas and combined with other
treatment unit to treat wastewater. Although electricity production is Microbial fuel cells can convert the chemical energy stored in the
still in allow level (maximum power production efficiency is ±60%), chemical compounds in a biomass into electrical energy by microorgan-
but this issue is regarded as a challenge for researchers to improve isms. (Chaudhuri and Lovley, 2003) showed that R. ferrireducens can
MFCs performance (Surya Ramadan and Purwono, 2017). Table 3 sum- generate electricity with an electron yield as high as 80%. An extremely
marizes some of the MFCs utilized for wastewater treatment. high Coulombic efficiency of 97% was reported during the oxidation of
Scientists have indicated that to remove nitrogen and organic matter formate with the catalysis of Pt black (Rosenbaum et al., 2006). MFCs
from leachate, biological treatment is popularly used as a reliable and are especially suitable for powering small telemetry systems and wire-
highly cost effective strategy (Mehmood et al., 2009). MFCs using cer- less sensors that have only small power requirements for the purpose
tain microbes have a special ability to remove sulfides as required in of transmitting signals such as temperature to receivers in remote
wastewater treatment (Rabaey et al., 2005). MFCs can enhance the areas (Ioannis et al., 2005). In addition, bioelectricity was successfully
growth of bio-electrochemically active microbes during wastewater created utilizing orange peel waste as a renewable carbon source in a
treatment, thus confirming they have good operational stabilities. Up dual chamber mediator-less microbial fuel cell. High reproducibility in
to 90% of the COD can be removed in some cases and a Columbic effi- terms of voltage generation (max. = 0.59 ± 0.02 V at 500 Ω) was
ciency as high as 80% has been reported (Kim et al., 2005). achieved for batches fed with different forms of orange peel waste
916 M.H. Do et al. / Science of the Total Environment 639 (2018) 910–920

Table 4
Comparison of conventional anaerobic digestion technology with microbial fuel cells technology.
(Adapted from Pham et al., 2006.)

Items Anaerobic digestion technology Microbial fuel cells technology

Configuration – Upflow Anaerobic Sludge Blanket (UASB) reactor – Two chamber

– Anaerobic Migrating Blanket Reactor (AMBR) – Single chamber
– Expanded Granular Sludge Bed (EGSB) and Internal Circulator – Cylindrical reactors
(IC) reactors – Tubular system
– Stacked MFC
Biocatalyst A complex “food chain” type microbial consortium catalyzes the The microbial catalysts can be an axenic culture or a mixed culture
process
Power input Can application for both high and low concentration COD biomass at Can be utilized rather low strength influents containing glucose,
temperatures about 30 °C. sucrose or acetate at temperatures below 20 °C.
Power output types – Produces methane or hydrogen. – Convert energy available in biomass directly to electricity.
– Usually 1/3 of the biogas produced is converted with a high – The energy produced by single MFCs is at a low level since the
energy level (producing 220 Volt electricity) and the remaining voltage generated per MFC amounted to approx. 0.5–0.7 Volt.
2/3 with a low energy level (producing 60–80 °C heat), which
can be used to heat the digester
Power output units – Anaerobic digestion allows 1 kg of COD to be converted to an – 1 kg of COD can be converted to 4 kWh of electrical energy. The
energy amount of roughly 1 kWh current has not exceeded 0.1 A.
– The power density obtained is about 400 W/m3 when the tech- – The average power density of MFCs is about 40 W/m3. Recently,
nology is applied to treat about 5 to 25 kg of COD per m3 of the stacked configurations of MFCs have reached power densities of
reactor per day. 250 W/m3
Advantages – Removal of higher organic loading. – Less excess activated sludge compared to the process of AD.
– Low sludge production and high pathogen removal, methane gas – Intensive to operation environmental.
production. – No require gas treatment.
– Low energy consumption – Widespread application in location with insufficient electrical
infrastructures.
Disadvantages – Difficult to store biogas. – Limited effectivity of the open-air cathodes.
– High cost to remove H2S. – High cost of electrode materials and proton exchange
– Approximately €100,000/ton of COD treated per day. membrane.
– low cost of the current non-renewable energy sources

namely powdered, filtered and unfiltered peel waste (Miran et al., using ferricyanide at the cathode also increased power output (Oh and
2016). Logan, 2006). In other research, Liu et al. (2005a, b, c) examined the ef-
Another element - Ferric iron can affect the current generation of fect of the solution's ionic strength, electrode spacing, and temperature
MFCs. Researchers shows the response of microbial electrode communi- on power generation in a single chamber, membrane–free MFC. The re-
ties to insoluble ferric iron at different concentrations in MFCs. The re- searchers showed that power output will rise when increasing the solu-
sults illustrate that a low concentrate of Fe3+ facilitated the power tion ionic strength by adding NaCl. It was also shown here that by
output of MFCs and shaped community structures of the electrode bio- moving the anode closer to the cathode (to within 2 cm), power density
film (Liu et al., 2018). could be increased by 67%. Liu et al. (2005a, b, c) also indicated that
Logan proposed that MFCs can be used as a practical energy source power output rose by 68% when the cathode was replaced by a carbon
because the power density reported in MFC studies rose from cloth cathode containing the same Pt loading. However, the power out-
0.1 W/m2 to 6.9 W/m2 during the period 1999 to 2008 (Fan et al., put fell by 9% when the temperature fell from 32 to 20 °C (Liu et al.,
2008). In order to turn MFCs into practical energy production units, 2005b).
larger reactors with enough energy output should be promoted (Hu
et al., 2017). 3.3. Biohydrogen production
Oh and Logan (2006) have shown that two-chambered MFCs can
operate with variously sized anode and cathode, and PEM with three MFCs can be readily modified to produce hydrogen instead of electric-
different surface areas (3.5, 6.2, 30.6 cm2). The power density normal- ity. Hydrogen can be accumulated for later applications (Du et al., 2007).
ized to the anode surface area increased according to the PEM size. Under normal operating conditions, protons released by the anodic reac-
PEM surface area was shown to limit power output when this surface tion migrate to the cathode to combine with oxygen to form water. The
area was smaller than that of the electrodes due to an increase in inter- generation of hydrogen from the protons and the electrons produced by
nal resistance. They also suggest that increasing the ionic strength and the metabolism of microbes in an MFC is thermodynamically unfavorable.

Table 5
Integration MFCs with other wastewater treatment process.

Type of MFCs Inoculum and substrates Power density Removal efficiency of COD and Reference
VFA

Sediment microbial fuel cells Domestic sewage and 211.14–224.93 (mA/m2) 86.67% and 72.32% (Venkata Mohan et al., 2011)
(SMFCs) fermented- distillery wastewater
2
Wetland-MFCs (CW-MFC) Swine wastewater 9.4 mW/m anode area under 76.50% under continuous mode (Zhao et al., 2013)
continuous mode
Upward continuous flow CW-MFC Synthetic wastewater with azo dye 0.852 W/m3 working volume of 85.66% with HRT 3 days, (Fang et al., 2015)
anode, with HRT 3 days, 300 mg 135 ± 10 mg COD/L (25% dye)
COD/L (30% dye)
Membrane-less biocathode MFCs Synthetic wastewater 2.34 W/m3 18.7% (Xian-Wei et al., 2011)
integrate sequencing batch
reactor (SBR-MFC)
Batch mode MBR-MFCs Domestic wastewater 14.5 W/m3 N97% for both soluble COD (Malaeb et al., 2013)
and NH3-N)
 M.H. Do et al. / Science of the Total Environment 639 (2018) 910–920 917

MFCs can produce about 8–9 mol H2/mol glucose compared to the typical Firstly, the cost of electrode material is still a key factor limiting their
4 mol H2/mol glucose achieved in conventional fermentation(Liu et al., practical application. Their prices are nevertheless expensive even
2005). To generate hydrogen gas in a typical MFC, anodic potential though relatively high output power can be generated using carbon
must be increased with an additional voltage of approximately 0.23 V or cloth and carbon paper. Secondly, the long-term stability of electrode
more. As well the oxygen in the cathode chamber should be removed materials is also a very crucial problem in wastewater treatment tech-
(Rabaey et al., 2005). nology. However, most studies have paid much more attention to the
In bio hydrogen production using MFCs, oxygen is not necessary in output power, not fully discussing the stability of the electrode mate-
the cathodic chamber. This has enabled MFC's efficiencies to improve rials, which would not provide a valuable guideline for their long-term
because oxygen leaking to the anodic chamber is no longer an issue. An- service in industrial applications.
other advantage is that hydrogen can be generated and stored for later Presently, practical applications of traditional carbon-based mate-
application. Therefore, MFCs supply a renewable hydrogen source that rials are limited by high capital cost. Researchers also indicated that
can be donated to the overall hydrogen demand in a hydrogen economy the development of low-cost, high-current-output, carbon-rich anode
(Holzman, 2005). materials from waste tires for use MFCs would therefore be significant.
This work was to use carbonized waste tires as anode materials in MFCs,
3.4. Biosensor not only to avoid the secondary pollution caused by waste tires, but also
to provide a new source of anode materials for engineering applications
Another application of MFC technology is in sensor pollutant analy- of MFCs (Chen et al., 2018). To reduce the inhomogeneity of flow and
sis and in situ process monitoring and control (Feng et al., 2013). MFC concentration fields in a large-scale MFC, multiple electrodes in individ-
technology has been applied to constructing biosensors for fast BOD es- ual chambers may constitute a novel design (Lee et al., 2015). On this
timation, in which a biological sensing element and a transducer are issue of electrodes, the cost of electrode materials used to construct
combined. The MFC-based sensors are advantageous in that they have MFCs is the main factor when implementing MFCs technology in the
long-term stability and can be utilized continuously for online wastewa- large-scale context.
ter monitoring. However, the higher BOD concentration means the lon- In order to support biofilm, large surface areas are required, and the
ger response time it takes, since the Coulombic yield can be calculated structure must be able to bear the weight of the water and biofilm. The
only after the BOD has been depleted unless a dilution mechanism is basic materials used for electrode include carbon cloth, carbon paper,
in place (Moon et al., 2004). graphite rods, plates and RVC. Some materials are not expected to be
adaptable to scaling up due to their inherent lack of durability or structure
4. Challenges of MFCs in wastewater treatment and energy strength or cost such as carbon paper or graphite rods. Future researchers
production should focus on conductive coatings for supporting material structure.
Cathode materials might also be extended to carbon fibers being linked
The advantage of MFC technologies is its ability to directly convert to noncorrosive substances such as nickel and titanium (Hasvold et al.,
chemical energy into electrical energy by biological pathways, therefore 1997). Modification of anode electrode could be useful in promoting
allowing it to biologically adapt to treating various chemical substrates the MFC's performance by utilizing nanoengineering techniques that
at diverse concentrations. One positive impact has been the fact that nu- help the electron be more easily transferred (Scott et al., 2007).
merous research groups are utilizing MFC technology to understand mi- Apart from this, to improve the power density and enlarge the capa-
crobial, biochemical, electrochemical and material surface reactions bility of electron to accept heterogeneous fabrication, other methods
under specific, controlled conditions. They are investigating how these and modification strategies involving nanomaterials have been tried
can be influenced by the choice of materials, feedstock substrates and (Zhou et al., 2011). Qiao et al. (2007) highlighted that carbon nanotubes
chemical compounds among others (Santoro et al., 2017). On the (CNTs) can amplify the electron transfer capability and electrode sur-
other hand, an emerging problem is the fact that the technology has face area using carbon nanotubes/polyaniline nanostructure composite
never been considered a serious contender in the wastewater treatment as anode.
field or in the renewable energy sector. This is despite the fact it is per- Researchers are paying more attention to MFCs for wastewater
haps the only example of a technology that can generate rather than treatment because they can recover energy from waste and reduce the
consume energy from the cold oxidation of waste organic matter and production of excess sludge. However, fouling at the membrane is the
under certain conditions inorganic carbon as well. major factor that limits the MFCs' application in wastewater treatment.
The MFCs have both advantages and disadvantages regarding their It should also be noted that membranes are expensive and they consti-
applications in the field. The operational problems comprise high oper- tute the over-arching cost when constructing a MFC. In particular, bio-
ating costs and low power output, and these should be resolved before fouling leads to a decline in MFC performance because of the
commercializing the MFC technology. The capital cost of the MFC, on av- interruption of proton migration and completion for substrate utiliza-
erage, is 30 times higher than that of traditional activated sludge treat- tion (Choi et al., 2011; Xu et al., 2012). Therefore, a membrane-less
ment systems for domestic wastewater, due to its configuration and MFC has the ability to reduce the problem of expense when treating
treatment (He et al., 2017). Normally, the high-level capital cost in an wastewater. Membrane-less MFCs are now being widely researched
MFC is mainly caused by the use of expensive electrode materials such since their construction costs are less than the basic two-chamber
as current collector, catalyst and separator materials. Power created by MFC (Zhang et al., 2016).
the cell might not be enough to run a sensor or a transmitter continu- Nonetheless it is difficult to contain all fed organic matter in the an-
ously. This is the main issue with utilizing microbial fuel cells. It can odic chamber without cross-over owing to the ionic membrane's ab-
be treated by increasing the electrodes' surface area or using a suitable sence. Furthermore, because of the no membrane design
power management program because the data are transferred only configuration, electrolyte mixing on both sides of the anode and cath-
when enough energy is stored. This occurs when an ultra-capacitor is ode commonly occurs because of migration, convection and diffusion
used (Rahimnejad et al., 2014). The other limitation of MFCs is that (Tartakovsky and Guiot, 2006). This problem will affect the perfor-
they cannot operate at low temperatures because microbial reactions mance of membrane-less MFCs due to oxygen and substrate cross-
are slow at low temperatures (Shantaram et al., 2005). over to the anode and cathode, causing a low Coulombic efficiency
In the last two decades, many efforts have been made in the devel- and power density. Kim et al. (2016) applied dual anode in
opment and modification of electrode material in order to promote membrane-less MFC to supply a larger reaction surface to prevent the
MFCs' performance. However, many problems in current MFCs technol- pollution of the organic cross-over, and this consequently enhanced
ogy still have to be resolved if industrial application is to be successful. the MFCs' performance.
918 M.H. Do et al. / Science of the Total Environment 639 (2018) 910–920

Liu et al. (2013) showed that membrane fouling was mitigated sig- accelerate the application and effectiveness of MFCs in wastewater
nificantly in the membrane bioreactor (MBR). An innovation membrane treatment (He et al., 2017).
bioreactor was combined with an inserted bio-electrochemical cell in-
cluding iron anodes, microbes and conductive membrane modified by
polypyrrole, which allowed to keep all benefits of MBR as well as gener- 6. Conclusion
ated constant electrical potential for cathode membrane fouling reduc-
tion As mentioned above, MFCs have overcome the deficiencies in Wastewater is recognized as making a major contribution to envi-
existing technologies and can now save more energy, produce less ronmental pollution. Current wastewater treatment technologies have
sludge and create more energy. While researchers have made signifi- energy- and cost-related limitations and therefore wastewater recovery
cant efforts to improve the performance of MFCs by developing novel is difficult to achieve and sustain. Microbial fuel cells (MFCs) have been
structure designs, electrode materials, catalytic, and microorganisms, researched and are now recognized as an innovative technology that
MFCs are far from ready for commercial applications. Their energy out- has certain advantages especially in the field of wastewater treatment.
put is still too low to make an energy-neutral operation feasible at the The general features of Microbial fuel cell such as design and architec-
practical scale, and both capital and operational costs are high. Long- ture were described in this research. Some unique features make
term stability is another huge challenge for researchers along with find- MFCs superior to other wastewater treatment methods and these in-
ing solutions for power output and expense (Rahimnejad et al., 2015). clude anaerobic digestion (AD). MFCs save energy, result in less sludge
Currently, MFCs are still at the laboratory stage of investigation and production and produce more energy. Despite the fact that in recent
experiment, but some ingenious designs have been developed to incor- years the amount of power generated from MFCs has improved consid-
porate MFCs into other wastewater treatment processes. For example, erably and reached the level of primary power target at least in small
integration with anaerobic digestion will make up the deficiency of in- lab-scale systems, scaling up is still a big challenge. Moreover, the high
dividual technology and improve the water quality of effluent with cost of cation exchange membranes, the potential for biofouling and as-
membrane technology (He et al., 2017). Liu et al. (2017) revealed that sociated high internal resistance restrain the generation of power and
combining MFCs with FO and anaerobic acidification (AAFO-MFC) was limit the practical application of MFCs.
a novel process, enhancing bio-electricity and water recovery from Many other studies have indicated that MFCs are capable of effec-
low-strength wastewater. In treatment process using membrane mod- tively removing several kinds of contaminants. Some aspects of MFCs
ules fouling becomes an emerging issue. However, it has been illus- regarding wastewater treatment technology should be the focus of
trated that the integration of MFCs in membrane bioreactor (MBR- more analysis in the future, such as cost and power requirements. Fur-
MFCs) systems helps to reduce membrane fouling (Li et al., 2014; Liu ther research should also pay attention to new MFC materials in order
et al., 2013; Ren et al., 2014). to make wastewater treatment more effective. Finally, it is necessary
Rashid et al. (2013) has been illustrated that using algae biomass to better understand the nature and function of electrode materials.
with activated sludge as a substrate in MFC can produces much higher Multiform wastewaters can be significantly degraded by advancing
power density than other reported substrates. Among test concentra- MFCs alone or integrating them with other processes.
tions of dry algae biomass, 5000 mg COD/L produced the highest voltage
of 0.89 V and power density of 1.78 W/m2 under 1000 Ω electric resis-
Acknowledgement
tance. The use of algae biomass with activated sludge served dual pur-
pose, the waste mitigation and electricity generation.
This review research was supported by the Centre for Technology in
Although some basic and important knowledge has been generated
Water and Wastewater, University of Technology, Sydney (UTS, RIA
due to intensive MFC research, much still has to be learned in the scaling
NGO), Korean Ministry of Environment as a “Global Top Project”, Project
up of MFCs for large-scale applications. The power densities for larger-
No. 201600220005, and Australian Research Council (ARC) Future Fel-
scale MFC reported in recent literature are of the order 100 mW/m2,
lowship (FT160100195). The authors are also grateful to the Joint Re-
five orders of magnitude lower than the chemical FC (104–105 W/m2).
search Centre for Protective Infrastructure Technology and
Hence it is not practical to use MFC as an alternative for chemical FC.
Environmental Green Bioprocess (UTS and Tianjin Chengjian
When working with full-scale MFCs, the external mass transfer resis-
University).
tances produced by incomplete mixing and inhomogeneous biofilm
structures developed on electrodes and other scale-up factors will re-
References
duce the power density when compared to their mini-sized
counterpart. Aelterman, P., 2009. Microbial Fuel Cells for the Treatment of Waste Streams With Energy
Recovery. Ghent University.
Aghababaie, M., Farhadian, M., Jeihanipour, A., Biria, D., 2015. Effective factors on the per-
5. Future perspectives formance of microbial fuel cells in wastewater treatment — a review. Environ.
Technol. Rev. 4 (1), 71–89.
MFCs are regarded as a new trend in wastewater treatment, and Ahn, Y., Logan, B.E., 2010. Effectiveness of domestic wastewater treatment using microbial
fuel cells at ambient and mesophilic temperatures. Bioresour. Technol. 101 (2),
therefore future research should focus on the following issues. Firstly, 469–475.
there is the topic of metabolic mechanism, in that to further understand Allen, R.M., Bennetto, H.P., 1993. Microbial fuel-cells. Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol. 39 (1),
metabolic mechanism, electrochemically active microorganisms will 27–40.
Ayyaru, S., Dharmalingam, S., 2011. Development of MFC using sulphonated polyether
contribute to selecting high electrochemical activity microorganisms. ether ketone (SPEEK) membrane for electricity generation from wastewater.
This means constructing a conductive thick biofilm and optimizing the Bioresour. Technol. 102 (24), 11167–11171.
operating conditions. Secondly, the design and architecture of the reac- Bennetto, H.P., 1990. Electricity generation by microorganisms. Biochem. Educ. 1 (4),
163–168.
tor for MFCs will directly decide their application in wastewater treat- Bond, D.R., Holmes, D.E., Tender, L.M., Lovley, D.R., 2002. Electrode-reducing microorgan-
ment. Thirdly, MFC stacks are important due to voltage reversal and isms that harvest energy from marine sediments. Science 295 (5554), 483–485.
ionic short circuit still existing as huge barriers to practical application. Brown, J.L., 2012. Fuel cells treat wastewater, generate electricity. Civ. Eng. 82 (7/8),
34–35 (08857024).
This is due to biocatalyzed electrode reactions in the MFC. Fourthly,
Bullen, R.A., Arnot, T.C., Lakeman, J.B., Walsh, F.C., 2006. Biofuel cells and their develop-
power collection and utilization need to be investigated in more detail, ment. Biosens. Bioelectron. 21 (11), 2015–2045.
given that the development of a power collection and utilization system Chaudhuri, S.K., Lovley, D.R., 2003. Electricity generation by direct oxidation of glucose in
will accelerate the commercial application of MFCs. Fifthly and final, mediatorless microbial fuel cells. Nat. Biotechnol. 21, 1229.
Chen, W., Feng, H., Shen, D., Jia, Y., Li, N., Ying, X., Chen, T., Zhou, Y., Guo, J., Zhou, M., 2018.
there is the possibility of synergy with other wastewater treatment Carbon materials derived from waste tires as high-performance anodes in microbial
technologies to consider, given that a combined technology may fuel cells. Sci. Total Environ. 618, 804–809.
 M.H. Do et al. / Science of the Total Environment 639 (2018) 910–920 919

Chen, Y., He, L., Li, J., Cheng, X., Lu, H., 2016. An inexact bi-level simulation–optimization Lee, D.-J., Chang, J.-S., Lai, J.-Y., 2015. Microalgae–microbial fuel cell: a mini review.
model for conjunctive regional renewable energy planning and air pollution control Bioresour. Technol. 198, 891–895.
for electric power generation systems. Appl. Energy 183, 969–983. Li, Y., Liu, L., Liu, J., Yang, F., Ren, N., 2014. PPy/AQS (9, 10-anthraquinone-2-sulfonic acid)
Cheng, S., Liu, H., Logan, B.E., 2006. Power densities using different cathode catalysts (Pt and PPy/ARS (alizarin Red's) modified stainless steel mesh as cathode membrane in
and CoTMPP) and polymer binders (Nafion and PTFE) in single chamber microbial an integrated MBR/MFC system. Desalination 349, 94–101.
fuel cells. Environ. Sci. Technol. 40 (1), 364–369. Liu, H., Cheng, S., Logan, B.E., 2005a. Power generation in fed-batch microbial fuel cells as
Choi, M.-J., Chae, K.-J., Ajayi, F.F., Kim, K.-Y., Yu, H.-W., Kim, C.-W., Kim, I.S., 2011. Effects of a function of ionic strength, temperature, and reactor configuration. Environ. Sci.
biofouling on ion transport through cation exchange membranes and microbial fuel Technol. 39 (14), 5488–5493.
cell performance. Bioresour. Technol. 102 (1), 298–303. Liu, H., Cheng, S., Logan, B.E., 2005b. Production of electricity from acetate or butyrate
Choi, Y., Jung, E., Kim, S., Jung, S., 2003. Membrane fluidity sensoring microbial fuel cell. using a single-chamber microbial fuel cell. Environ. Sci. Technol. 39 (2), 658–662.
Bioelectrochemistry 59 (1), 121–127. Liu, H., Grot, S., Logan, B.E., 2005. Electrochemically assisted microbial production of hy-
Corbella, C., Puigagut, J., 2018. Improving domestic wastewater treatment efficiency with drogen from acetate. Environ. Sci. Technol. 39 (11), 4317–4320.
constructed wetland microbial fuel cells: influence of anode material and external re- Liu, J., Liu, L., Gao, B., Yang, F., 2013. Integration of bio-electrochemical cell in membrane
sistance. Sci. Total Environ. 631-632, 1406–1414. bioreactor for membrane cathode fouling reduction through electricity generation.
Das, S., Mangwani, N., 2010. Recent developments in microbial fuel cells: A review. J. Sci. J. Membr. Sci. 430, 196–202.
Ind. Res. 69 (10), 727–731. Liu, Z., Liu, J., Zhang, S., Su, Z., 2009. Study of operational performance and electrical re-
Du, Z., Li, H., Gu, T., 2007. A state of the art review on microbial fuel cells: a promising sponse on mediator-less microbial fuel cells fed with carbon- and protein-rich sub-
technology for wastewater treatment and bioenergy. Biotechnol. Adv. 25 (5), strates. Biochem. Eng. J. 45 (3), 185–191.
464–482. Liu, J., Wang, X., Wang, Z., Lu, Y., Li, X., Ren, Y., 2017. Integrating microbial fuel cells with
Dumas, C., Mollica, A., Féron, D., Basséguy, R., Etcheverry, L., Bergel, A., 2007. Marine mi- anaerobic acidification and forward osmosis membrane for enhancing bio-electricity
crobial fuel cell: use of stainless steel electrodes as anode and cathode materials. and water recovery from low-strength wastewater. Water Res. 110, 74–82.
Electrochim. Acta 53 (2), 468–473. Liu, Q., Yang, Y., Mei, X., Liu, B., Chen, C., Xing, D., 2018. Response of the microbial commu-
Fan, Y., Sharbrough, E., Liu, H., 2008. Quantification of the internal resistance distribution nity structure of biofilms to ferric iron in microbial fuel cells. Sci. Total Environ. 631-
of microbial fuel cells. Environ. Sci. Technol. 42 (21), 8101–8107. 632, 695–701.
Fang, Z., Song, H.-l., Cang, N., Li, X.-N., 2015. Electricity production from azo dye wastewa- Logan, B.E., Hamelers, B., Rozendal, R., Schröder, U., Keller, J., Freguia, S., Aelterman, P.,
ter using a microbial fuel cell coupled constructed wetland operating under different Verstraete, W., Rabaey, K., 2006. Microbial fuel cells: methodology and technology.
operating conditions. Biosens. Bioelectron. 68, 135–141. Environ. Sci. Technol. 40 (17), 5181–5192.
Fangzhou, D., Zhenglong, L., Shaoqiang, Y., Beizhen, X., Hong, L., 2011. Electricity genera- Logan, B.E., Murano, C., Scott, K., Gray, N.D., Head, I.M., 2005. Electricity generation from
tion directly using human feces wastewater for life support system. Acta Astronautica cysteine in a microbial fuel cell. Water Res. 39 (5), 942–952.
68 (9), 1537–1547. Logan, B.E., Regan, J.M., 2006a. Electricity-producing bacterial communities in microbial
Feng, Y., Barr, W., Harper Jr, W.F., 2013. Neural network processing of microbial fuel cell fuel cells. Trends Microbiol. 14 (12), 512–518.
signals for the identification of chemicals present in water. J. Environ. Manag. 120, Logan, B.E., Regan, J.M., 2006b. Microbial fuel cells—challenges and applications. Environ.
84–92. Sci. Technol. 40 (17), 5172–5180.
Gil, G.-C., Chang, I.-S., Kim, B.H., Kim, M., Jang, J.-K., Park, H.S., Kim, H.J., 2003. Operational Lovley, D.R., 2006. Microbial fuel cells: novel microbial physiologies and engineering ap-
parameters affecting the performance of a mediator-less microbial fuel cell. Biosens. proaches. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 17 (3), 327–332.
Bioelectron. 18 (4), 327–334. Lu, H.W., Pan, H.Y., He, L., Zhang, J.Q., 2016. Importance analysis of off-grid wind power
Grzebyk, M., Poźniak, G., 2005. Microbial fuel cells (MFCs) with interpolymer cation ex- generation systems. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 60, 999–1007.
change membranes. Sep. Purif. Technol. 41 (3), 321–328. Mahdi Mardanpour, M., Nasr Esfahany, M., Behzad, T., Sedaqatvand, R., 2012. Single
Habermann, W., Pommer, E.H., 1991. Biological fuel cells with sulphide storage capacity. chamber microbial fuel cell with spiral anode for dairy wastewater treatment.
Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 35 (1), 128–133. Biosens. Bioelectron. 38 (1), 264–269.
Hasvold, Ø., Henriksen, H., Melv˦r, E., Citi, G., Johansen, B.Ø., Kjønigsen, T., Galetti, R., 1997. Malaeb, L., Katuri, K.P., Logan, B.E., Maab, H., Nunes, S.P., Saikaly, P.E., 2013. A hybrid mi-
Sea-water battery for subsea control systems. J. Power Sources 65 (1), 253–261. crobial fuel cell membrane bioreactor with a conductive ultrafiltration membrane
He, L., Du, P., Chen, Y., Lu, H., Cheng, X., Chang, B., Wang, Z., 2017. Advances in microbial biocathode for wastewater treatment. Environ. Sci. Technol. 47 (20), 11821–11828.
fuel cells for wastewater treatment. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 71, 388–403. Mehmood, M.K., Adetutu, E., Nedwell, D.B., Ball, A.S., 2009. In situ microbial treatment of
He, Z., Minteer, S.D., Angenent, L.T., 2005. Electricity generation from artificial wastewater landfill leachate using aerated lagoons. Bioresour. Technol. 100 (10), 2741–2744.
using an upflow microbial fuel cell. Environ. Sci. Technol. 39 (14), 5262–5267. Min, B., Kim, J., Oh, S., Regan, J.M., Logan, B.E., 2005. Electricity generation from swine
Hernández-Flores, G., Poggi-Varaldo, H.M., Solorza-Feria, O., Ponce-Noyola, M.T., Romero- wastewater using microbial fuel cells. Water Res. 39 (20), 4961–4968.
Castañón, T., Rinderknecht-Seijas, N., Galíndez-Mayer, J., 2015. Characteristics of a Miran, W., Nawaz, M., Jang, J., Lee, D.S., 2016. Conversion of orange peel waste biomass to
single chamber microbial fuel cell equipped with a low cost membrane. Int. bioelectricity using a mediator-less microbial fuel cell. Sci. Total Environ. 547,
J. Hydrog. Energy 40 (48), 17380–17387. 197–205.
Holmes, D.E., Bond, D.R., O'Neil, R.A., Reimers, C.E., Tender, L.R., Lovley, D.R., 2004. Micro- Moon, H., Chang, I.S., Jang, J.K., Kim, B.H., 2005. Residence time distribution in microbial
bial communities associated with electrodes harvesting electricity from a variety of fuel cell and its influence on COD removal with electricity generation. Biochem.
aquatic sediments. Microb. Ecol. 48 (2), 178–190. Eng. J. 27 (1), 59–65.
Holzman, D.C., 2005. Microbe power! Environ. Health Perspect. 113 (11), A754–A757. Moon, H., Chang, I.S., Kang, K.H., Jang, J.K., Kim, B.H., 2004. Improving the dynamic re-
Hu, J., Zhang, Q., Lee, D.-J., Ngo, H.H., 2017. Feasible use of microbial fuel cells for pollution sponse of a mediator-less microbial fuel cell as a biochemical oxygen demand
treatment. Renew. Energy https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2017.02.001. (BOD) sensor. Biotechnol. Lett. 26 (22), 1717–1721.
Ioannis, I., Chris, M., John, G., Ian, H., 2005. EcoBot-II: an artificial agent with a natural me- Moon, H., Chang, I.S., Kim, B.H., 2006. Continuous electricity production from artificial waste-
tabolism. Int. J. Adv. Robot. Syst. 2 (4), 31. water using a mediator-less microbial fuel cell. Bioresour. Technol. 97 (4), 621–627.
Ishii, S.i., Watanabe, K., Yabuki, S., Logan, B.E., Sekiguchi, Y., 2008. Comparison of electrode Mustakeem, M., 2015. Electrode materials for microbial fuel cells: nanomaterial approach.
reduction activities of Geobacter sulfurreducens and an enriched consortium in an air- Materials for Renewable and Sustainable Energy 4 (4), 1–11.
cathode microbial fuel cell. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 74 (23), 7348–7355. Oh, S.T., Kim, J.R., Premier, G.C., Lee, T.H., Kim, C., Sloan, W.T., 2010. Sustainable wastewa-
Jang, J.K., Pham, T.H., Chang, I.S., Kang, K.H., Moon, H., Cho, K.S., Kim, B.H., 2004. Construc- ter treatment: how might microbial fuel cells contribute. Biotechnol. Adv. 28 (6),
tion and operation of a novel mediator- and membrane-less microbial fuel cell. Pro- 871–881.
cess Biochem. 39 (8), 1007–1012. Oh, S.-E., Logan, B.E., 2006. Proton exchange membrane and electrode surface areas as fac-
Jiang, D., Li, B., 2009. Granular activated carbon single-chamber microbial fuel cells (GAC- tors that affect power generation in microbial fuel cells. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol.
SCMFCs): a design suitable for large-scale wastewater treatment processes. Biochem. 70 (2), 162–169.
Eng. J. 47 (1), 31–37. Oh, S., Min, B., Logan, B.E., 2004. Cathode performance as a factor in electricity generation
Kim, B., An, J., Fapyane, D., Chang, I.S., 2015. Bioelectronic platforms for optimal bio-anode in microbial fuel cells. Environ. Sci. Technol. 38 (18), 4900–4904.
of bio-electrochemical systems: from nano- to macro scopes. Bioresour. Technol. 195, Pandey, P., Shinde, V.N., Deopurkar, R.L., Kale, S.P., Patil, S.A., Pant, D., 2016. Recent ad-
2–13. vances in the use of different substrates in microbial fuel cells toward wastewater
Kim, N., Choi, Y., Jung, S., Kim, S., 2000. Effect of initial carbon sources on the performance treatment and simultaneous energy recovery. Appl. Energy 168, 706–723.
of microbial fuel cells containing Proteus vulgaris. Biotechnol. Bioeng. 70 (1), Parkash, A., 2016. Microbial fuel cells: a source of bioenergy. J. Micro. Biochem. Technol. 8,
109–114. 247–255.
Kim, J.R., Dec, J., Bruns, M.A., Logan, B.E., 2008. Removal of odors from swine wastewater Pham, T.H., Rabaey, K., Aelterman, P., Clauwaert, P., De Schamphelaire, L., Boon, N.,
by using microbial fuel cells. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 74 (8), 2540–2543. Verstraete, W., 2006. Microbial fuel cells in relation to conventional anaerobic diges-
Kim, J.R., Jung, S.H., Regan, J.M., Logan, B.E., 2007. Electricity generation and microbial tion technology. Eng. Life Sci. 6 (3), 285–292.
community analysis of alcohol powered microbial fuel cells. Bioresour. Technol. 98 Puig, S., Serra, M., Coma, M., Cabré, M., Dolors Balaguer, M., Colprim, J., 2011. Microbial
(13), 2568–2577. fuel cell application in landfill leachate treatment. J. Hazard. Mater. 185 (2), 763–767.
Kim, J., Kim, B., An, J., Lee, Y.S., Chang, I.S., 2016. Development of anode zone using dual- Qiao, Y., Li, C.M., Bao, S.-J., Bao, Q.-L., 2007. Carbon nanotube/polyaniline composite as
anode system to reduce organic matter crossover in membraneless microbial fuel anode material for microbial fuel cells. J. Power Sources 170 (1), 79–84.
cells. Bioresour. Technol. 213, 140–145. Rabaey, K., Clauwaert, P., Aelterman, P., Verstraete, W., 2005. Tubular microbial fuel cells
Kim, J.R., Min, B., Logan, B.E., 2005. Evaluation of procedures to acclimate a microbial fuel for efficient electricity generation. Environ. Sci. Technol. 39 (20), 8077–8082.
cell for electricity production. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 68 (1), 23–30. Rabaey, K., Van de Sompel, K., Maignien, L., Boon, N., Aelterman, P., Clauwaert, P., De
Kim, H.J., Park, H.S., Hyun, M.S., Chang, I.S., Kim, M., Kim, B.H., 2002. A mediator-less mi- Schamphelaire, L., Pham, H.T., Vermeulen, J., Verhaege, M., Lens, P., Verstraete, W.,
crobial fuel cell using a metal reducing bacterium, Shewanella putrefaciens. Enzym. 2006. Microbial fuel cells for sulfide removal. Environ. Sci. Technol. 40 (17),
Microb. Technol. 30 (2), 145–152. 5218–5224.
920 M.H. Do et al. / Science of the Total Environment 639 (2018) 910–920

Rahimnejad, M., Adhami, A., Darvari, S., Zirepour, A., Oh, S.-E., 2015. Microbial fuel cell as Shantaram, A., Beyenal, H., Veluchamy, R.R.A., Lewandowski, Z., 2005. Wireless sensors
new technology for bioelectricity generation: a review. Alexandria Engineering Jour- powered by microbial fuel cells. Environ. Sci. Technol. 39 (13), 5037–5042.
nal 54 (3), 745–756. Surya Ramadan, B., Purwono, 2017. Challenges and opportunities of microbial fuel cells
Rahimnejad, M., Bakeri, G., Najafpour, G., Ghasemi, M., Oh, S.-E., 2014. A review on the ef- (MFCs) technology development in Indonesia. MATEC Web Conf. 101, 02018.
fect of proton exchange membranes in microbial fuel cells. Biofuel Research Journal 1 Tartakovsky, B., Guiot, S.R., 2006. A comparison of air and hydrogen peroxide oxygenated
(1), 7–15. microbial fuel cell reactors. Biotechnol. Prog. 22 (1), 241–246.
Rashid, N., Cui, Y.-F., Saif Ur Rehman, M., Han, J.-I., 2013. Enhanced electricity generation Venkata Mohan, S., Mohanakrishna, G., Chiranjeevi, P., 2011. Sustainable power genera-
by using algae biomass and activated sludge in microbial fuel cell. Sci. Total Environ. tion from floating macrophytes based ecological microenvironment through embed-
456-457, 91–94. ded fuel cells along with simultaneous wastewater treatment. Bioresour. Technol.
Ren, L., Ahn, Y., Logan, B.E., 2014. A two-stage microbial fuel cell and anaerobic fluidized 102 (14), 7036–7042.
bed membrane bioreactor (MFC-AFMBR) system for effective domestic wastewater Wang, H., Park, J.-D., Ren, Z.J., 2015. Practical energy harvesting for microbial fuel cells: a
treatment. Environ. Sci. Technol. 48 (7), 4199–4206. review. Environ. Sci. Technol. 49 (6), 3267–3277.
Rodrigo, M., Canizares, P., Lobato, J., Paz, R., Sáez, C., Linares, J., 2007. Production of elec- Wang, Y.-K., Sheng, G.-P., Li, W.-W., Huang, Y.-X., Yu, Y.-Y., Zeng, R.J., Yu, H.-Q., 2011. De-
tricity from the treatment of urban waste water using a microbial fuel cell. J. Power velopment of a novel bioelectrochemical membrane reactor for wastewater treat-
Sources 169 (1), 198–204. ment. Environ. Sci. Technol. 45 (21), 9256–9261.
Rosenbaum, M., Schröder, U., Scholz, F., 2006. Investigation of the electrocatalytic oxida- Xian-Wei, L., Yong-Peng, W., Yu-Xi, H., Xue-Fei, S., Guo-Ping, S., J., Z.R., Feng, L., Fang, D.,
tion of formate and ethanol at platinum black under microbial fuel cell conditions. Shu-Guang, W., Zhong-Hua, T., Han-Qing, Y., 2011. Integration of a microbial fuel
J. Solid State Electrochem. 10 (10), 872–878. cell with activated sludge process for energy-saving wastewater treatment: taking
Rozendal, R.A., Hamelers, H.V.M., Buisman, C.J.N., 2006. Effects of membrane cation trans- a sequencing batch reactor as an example. Biotechnol. Bioeng. 108 (6), 1260–1267.
port on pH and microbial fuel cell performance. Environ. Sci. Technol. 40 (17), Xu, J., Sheng, G.-P., Luo, H.-W., Li, W.-W., Wang, L.-F., Yu, H.-Q., 2012. Fouling of proton ex-
5206–5211. change membrane (PEM) deteriorates the performance of microbial fuel cell. Water
Sadhukhan, J., Lloyd, J.R., Scott, K., Premier, G.C., Yu, E.H., Curtis, T., Head, I.M., 2016. A crit- Res. 46 (6), 1817–1824.
ical review of integration analysis of microbial electrosynthesis (MES) systems with Zhang, G., Lee, D.-J., Cheng, F., 2016. Treatment of domestic sewage with anoxic/oxic
waste biorefineries for the production of biofuel and chemical from reuse of CO2. membrane-less microbial fuel cell with intermittent aeration. Bioresour. Technol.
Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 56, 116–132. 218, 680–686.
Santoro, C., Arbizzani, C., Erable, B., Ieropoulos, I., 2017. Microbial fuel cells: from funda- Zhao, Y., Collum, S., Phelan, M., Goodbody, T., Doherty, L., Hu, Y., 2013. Preliminary inves-
mentals to applications. A review. J. Power Sources 356, 225–244. tigation of constructed wetland incorporating microbial fuel cell: batch and continu-
Sciarria, T.P., Tenca, A., D'Epifanio, A., Mecheri, B., Merlino, G., Barbato, M., Borin, S., ous flow trials. Chem. Eng. J. 229, 364–370.
Licoccia, S., Garavaglia, V., Adani, F., 2013. Using olive mill wastewater to improve Zhou, M., Chi, M., Luo, J., He, H., Jin, T., 2011. An overview of electrode materials in micro-
performance in producing electricity from domestic wastewater by using single- bial fuel cells. J. Power Sources 196 (10), 4427–4435.
chamber microbial fuel cell. Bioresour. Technol. 147, 246–253.
Scott, K., Rimbu, G.A., Katuri, K.P., Prasad, K.K., Head, I.M., 2007. Application of modified
carbon anodes in microbial fuel cells. Process. Saf. Environ. Prot. 85 (5), 481–488.