1. Introduction
In the growing global demand for energy, the growing dependence on fossil fuels poses a major challenge for modern and developed society [1]. Addressing these problems requires the development of clean technologies that use renewable energy sources that promote sustainability [2,3,4,5]. Recently emerging energy technologies are growing remarkably [6,7]. An emerging technology is microbial fuel cells (MFC) [8]. These MFCs are innovative bioelectrochemical systems with various applications ranging from bioenergy production to wastewater treatment [9]. The process involves converting chemical energy within biodegradable organic compounds into renewable bioenergy through exoelectrogenic microorganisms [10,11]. Microorganisms are in charge of degrading organic matter and releasing electrons, which are transferred through an external circuit, reach the cathode, and produce ecological energy [12,13].
MFCs have been designed with a dual chamber (dcMFC) and a single chamber (scMFC) [14]. dcMFCs have certain disadvantages that imply an unadaptable and inflexible application since they use an expensive membrane as separator, in addition to the fact that, in many cases, the ion transfer rate is low [15]. On the other hand, the scMFC is a more prospective option, it is developed without spacers, and at the same time, that they are economical and ecofriendly. Its configuration is relatively simple, consisting of a chamber where the electrodes (anode and cathode) are located [16]. However, the drawbacks that they present are the correct choice of materials for the electrodes that allow the performance of the MFCs to be improved [17,18].
This research focuses on the evaluation of a carbon-based electrode (anode) to improve the efficiency of electricity production in scMFCs. However, these scMFCs also use a zinc-based cathode. The cathode is fundamental in MFCs because an electrochemical reduction reaction occurs in it, where the oxygen taken from the air is reduced with the electrons and protons that are released from the metabolism of the substrate [19]. On the other hand, the material of the cathode is also important; zinc is a lower cost material that could replace platinum in oxidation-reduction reactions, and it could improve the efficiency of bioenergy production in MFCs, as has been observed in some studies [20,21]. The anode electrode is an essential component in the configuration of MFCs, since it is the support for the bacterial biofilm and the conductor of the released electrons [22,23]. The main characteristics that the anode material must have are biocompatibility, high electrical conductivity, corrosion resistance, chemical stability, high surface area, non-toxicity, good toughness, low cost, and being hydrophilic, and they should not decompose in the substrate [24,25]. Taking these characteristics into account, metal-based and carbon-based materials have been used [26]. The most used metallic materials are platinum, stainless steel, copper, aluminum, cobalt, titanium, nickel, gold, and silver [12]. These materials are used mainly because they are highly conductive, which allows the energy efficiency of MFCs to be improved [27]. However, they have significant limitations that prevent their use on a large scale. For example, titanium, platinum, gold, and silver are costly; cobalt and titanium do not have good biocompatibility; copper, aluminum, and stainless steel are susceptible to corrosion; and platinum tends to be toxic when wastewater is used as a substrate and can affect microorganisms present [19,28,29].
On the other hand, interest in carbon-based electrodes has increased among researchers due to their chemical, thermal, and electrochemical stability, significantly improving electricity production and removing contaminants from wastewater in MFCs [28]. These materials include graphite plate, carbon felt, carbon cloth, reticulated glassy carbon, carbon rod, carbon paper, carbon-fiber brush, carbon brush, graphite-fiber brush, graphite felt, granular graphite, graphene [29,30], and granular activated carbon (GAC) [31]. The latter has not seen many applications as a material for making MFC anode electrodes, but it has many properties that make it a good candidate [32]. It has a high surface area and excellent biocompatibility, which facilitates bacterial adhesion and allows the uniform formation of biofilms; it has high conductivity, chemical stability, corrosion resistance, and low cost [33,34,35].
There are studies with results that support the use of activated carbon presented by Karra et al. [36], which used polyaniline-functionalized activated carbon anodes coated on stainless steel mesh (SSM—PANi/FAC) to produce a voltage of 0.72 ± 0.010 V and a power density of 322 mW/m2 using a dcMFC. Likewise, Rojas et al. [37] fabricated activated carbon cloth anode electrodes to generate a maximum voltage of 0.66 V and a maximum power density of 272.14 mW/m2 using a double-chamber MFC fed with municipal wastewater from Yilan County in Taiwan. Using organic sediments from Mirror Lake at the University of Connecticut as a substrate, Silva et al. [38] achieved maximum values of 0.56 W/m2 and 0.25 A/m2 using granular activated carbon anodes.
Regarding the substrate, synthetic wastewater obtained from different sources has been studied in MFCs to generate bioelectricity because they are rich in organic substrates with high glucose, soluble starch, and sucrose contents, which are metabolized by proteobacteria that exist in these wastewaters; they have also been reported as electrogenic [39,40].
The main objective of this research was to evaluate the efficiency of activated carbon anode electrodes for bioenergy production in laboratory-scale single-chamber microbial fuel cells using a synthetic wastewater sample as substrate. For this, the values of voltage (mV), electric current (mA), current density (mA/cm2), power density (mW/cm2), and the internal resistance of the MFCs were monitored, and the oxidation and reduction potential (ORP) (mV), pH and turbidity (NTU) of the substrate for 30 days. This research will contribute to developing MFCs to generate sustainable bioelectricity through economic, eco-friendly, and eco-efficient electrodes.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Manufacture of Granular Activated Carbon (GAC) Electrodes
Seven activated carbon electrodes weighing 25.35 ± 2.70 g, 5.2 ± 1 cm in diameter, and 0.7 ± 0.1 cm thick, connected to a 1 mm thick copper wire, were manufactured, for which 200 g GAC were crushed (NHC-500) using a blender (Oster BPST02-BOO 600 W, Boca Raton, FL, USA) to a fine powder, to which was added a mixture of 60 g of sucrose and 80 mL of water (61° Brix). The solution was mixed until a homogeneous and consistent paste was obtained. Subsequently, a circular metallic mold of 5.7 cm in diameter and 1.2 cm thick was covered with aluminum foil, and a circular metallic base of 4.7 cm in diameter covered with commercial vegetable oil was placed (to facilitate the extraction of the electrode). Then, a layer of 15 g of the mixture was added, followed by a 4.5 cm diameter aluminum mesh diagonally intertwined with a copper wire, and finally by another layer of 15 g of the mixture, to be covered with another metal base. The mold was placed in an electric stove (Whiteline 220 V/50 Hz/1000 W, Torremolinos, Spain) for 15 min at a temperature of 300 °C; then, it was carefully removed and allowed to cool to remove the electrode (Figure 1).
2.2. Electrode Waterproofing
For the waterproofing of the electrodes, a solution of 70 mL of ethanol and 50 g of pine resin was used, which was previously boiled for 15 min with 100 mL of water to eliminate the volatile substances. Then, the electrodes were immersed several times in the solution until they were completely covered and were allowed to rest at room temperature (27 ± 1.5 °C) for 24 h.
2.3. Construction of MFCs
Two single-chamber microbial fuel cells (MFC-SC) were constructed from 680 mL polypropylene vessels. For the anode, electrodes made of activated carbon were used, which were placed at one end inside the chamber, while for the cathode, a zinc (Zn) plate was used that was attached to the wall of the chamber at another end of the cell so that one face was in contact with the oxygen. Both electrodes had a surface area of 21.60 cm2 and were connected to a 1 mm thick copper (Cu) wire to the outside, where they were joined with a 100 Ω resistance to form a closed circuit, as shown in Figure 2.
2.4. Substrate Preparation
The substrate was prepared with residual water from dishwashing and food remains from the Cesar Vallejo University at Trujillo, Peru cafeteria. These residues passed through a processor (Oster BPST02-BOO 600 W, USA), obtaining 1 L of synthetic wastewater stored in sterilized hermetic containers for use. The substrate had an initial pH of 6.55, an electrical conductivity of 2450.48 ± 0.1 μS/cm, an ORP of 134.5 ± 1 mV, and a turbidity of 75 NTU. An amount of 500 mL of the substrate was supplied to each well.
2.5. Characterization of MFCs
The electrochemical parameters of voltage (mV) and current (mA) were measured with a calibrated digital multimeter (Truper MUT—830). For the measurement of current density (DC) and power density (PD) the procedure carried out by Segundo et al. (2022) using external resistances (Rext) with values of 1.92 (±0.08), 10 (±1.81), 50 (±1.2), 100 (±4.3), 200 (±9.8), 300 (±8), 500 (±15), 750 (±18), 800 (±10), and 1000 (±40) Ω [39]. An energy sensor (Vernier VES-TBA ±30 V and ±1000 mA) was used to measure the internal resistance (Rint) of the MFCs. The pH values (Digital Meter EZ-9909, Thincol, Guangzhou, China), ORP (Portable Meter PT-380, BOECO, Hamburg, Germany), and turbidity (Digital Turbidimeter TU-2016, Lutron, Taipei, Taiwan) of the substrate were also monitored. All measurements were made daily for 30 days at room temperature (21 ± 1.5 °C). Likewise, three measurements of each parameter were made in order to report the means of the values. In addition, SEM-EDS analyses were carried out to know the morphology and elemental composition of the activated carbon electrodes.
2.6. Electrodes Resistance Test to Synthetic Residual Water
The resistance of the activated carbon-based electrodes towards the liquid substrate was evaluated based on percentage weight loss. To see the effectiveness of the use of these electrodes, a resistance test was carried out in distilled water. Waterproofed electrodes with pine resin and without waterproofing were manufactured. These were immersed in 500 mL of distilled water for 15 days, and then dried in an oven for 15 min to eliminate moisture content. Finally, they were weighed, and the final weight percentages were obtained, obtaining that the electrodes waterproofed with pine resin had less weight loss compared to those that were not waterproofed. The loss of activated carbon from the electrodes within the substrate with synthetic wastewater was evaluated by performing the previously described procedure. For this, weight was taken initially and then at the end of the measurement period (30 days). With these values, the percentages of final weight loss were obtained.
Through the evaluation, it was found that the electrodes covered with pine resin experienced a significantly lower decrease in their weight compared to the non-waterproofed electrode. Therefore, the effectiveness of pine resin as a waterproofing agent is validated, thus preventing the detachment of the activated carbon electrodes when in contact with water, in this way it can be tested with the substrates.
3. Results and Discussion
3.1. Measurement of Electrochemical Parameters of MFCs
Figure 3a shows the voltage values generated by the MFCs during the 30 days of monitoring. The highest values were recorded during the first days of operation, with the highest voltage peak observed on the first day (1120 mV). In the following days, the production decreased until day 8 (916 mV), where a slightly variable generation was observed until day 16 (908 mV). In the following days, there was a progressive decrease until day 30, when 789 mV was generated. The high voltage production during the first days is because the bacteria began to proliferate in the MFCs due to the high presence of organic substrates in the wastewater that allowed the development of microbial electrogenesis through redox reactions [40,41]. At the same time, the decrease in voltage is due to the reduction in organic matter in the substrate, consumed by microorganisms through their metabolic process to convert chemical energy into electrical energy [42].
The electrodes used play a crucial role since, being carbon-based, they facilitate better biocompatibility with the microbes present [43], achieving better voltage production throughout the operation period compared to other investigations where electrodes were used metals, and their stress production was markedly reduced in the final days of their experiment. The voltage values obtained are higher than those reported by Bose et al. (2023) where they used wastewater from the sugarcane industry in MFC with biomass-derived activated carbon as the cathode and pretreated carbon wire-based brush as the anode and managed to produce maximum voltage peaks of 870 ± 20 mV [44], and Agüero-Quiñones et al. (2022), who used municipal wastewater in MFC-SC with aluminum as the cathode and graphite as the anode, generating maximum values of 220 mV. Compared to our research, it may be due to the fact that the aluminum electrodes used do not have as good conductive properties as the zinc or copper used as connectors [45]. Figure 3b shows the values of electric current the cells produce during monitoring. High current values were generated during the first days of operation (4.64 mA on the first day), while in the following days, the production decreased until day 12 (3.33 mA), where a relatively constant production was presented until day 24 (3.33 mA). In the following days, the values experienced a gradual decrease until they produced 1.93 mA on day 30. The peak current values shown in the first days are attributed to the good formation of the electrogenic biofilm [46], which depends largely on the measurement of the carbon sources present in the substrates [47], which act as an energy supply in the biological process of microorganisms to produce electric current [48]. As the organic compounds decrease, the production of electrons is reduced, thus generating a lower electrical current in the last few days [49]. The values shown in this research are higher than those reported by other authors; for example, De La Cruz-Noriega et al. (2023) managed to generate maximum current values of 0.71 ± 0.02 mA using MFC-DC from wastewater in the anodic chamber and electrogenic bacteria in the cathodic chamber [50].
Figure 4a shows the value of the internal resistance of the MFC, showing a peak value of 214.52 ± 5.22 Ω, calculated with the maximum value of voltage generation and electrical current. The high value of Rint obtained can be attributed to the characteristics of the substrate, which contains solids in suspension that hinder electrical conduction, increasing internal resistance [51,52]. Other authors, such as Du and Shao (2022), reported a peak internal resistance value of 163.2 Ω in MFC-DC with carbon felt electrodes using solid potato waste and activated sludge [53]. Figure 4b shows the power density (PD) values as a current density (DC) function, observing a maximum power density of 208.14 ± 17 mW/cm2 and a maximum current density of 5.03 A/cm2. It can be observed in the graphs that the power density reaches a maximum value and subsequently presents a decrease due to the operability of the operating time and also due to the reduction in the organic matter available in the medium [54]. In addition, the values of DP and DC depend on the rate of degradation of the organic energy of the substrates by the microbial community, on the external operating conditions [55], as well as on the internal resistance of the MFCs, due to the fact that a higher Rint hinders the flow of electrons through the system [56]. The values obtained in this research are higher than those shown in other studies, such as that of Lee et al. (2018), who obtained a power density and maximum current density of 0.0251 mW/m2 and 285.71 mA/m2, respectively, in MFC-SC with hybrid and conventional carbon felt bioanodes using municipal wastewater [57], while Rossi et al. (2022) achieved maximum power density values of 0.135 W/m2 and 0.278 A/m2 current density in 850 L air cathode MFC of domestic wastewater with carbon-fiber brush anodes and stainless steel carbon-fiber cathodes [58].
3.2. Monitoring of Physicochemical Parameters of the Substrate
Figure 5a shows the recorded values of the turbidity of the residual water during the monitoring period. It is observed that the values presented a progressive decrease over the days, beginning with 75.50 NTU on day one and reaching 25.11 NTU on day 30. The reduction in turbidity is due to the decrease in organic and suspended material matter content due to microbial metabolic activity over days [59]. In addition, the anode material (activated carbon) has adsorption properties that trap suspended wastewater particles on the electrode surface [60]. Tee et al. (2017) removed 98.00 ± 0.7% of the turbidity of wastewater generated in a palm oil plant in MFC-SC with graphite-fiber brush electrodes and granular activated carbon [61].
On the other hand, the ORP values of the substrate are observed in Figure 5b, presenting an increasing behavior from day 1 (134 mV) to day 7 (858 mV) and then slowly decreased, presenting decreases and increases until day 13, where a value of 378 mV was found. High ORP values indicate that there is a more oxidizing environment in the cell [62,63], which makes it easier for some electroactive bacterial species to thrive in these conditions, resulting in increased production of electrons at the anode and favoring the generation of energy in MFCs [64]. Zhao et al. (2023) reported a peak value of around 325 mV for wastewater ORP in the MFC of sediment coupled with Vallisneria natans [65]. The monitored data of the pH of the substrate are shown in Figure 5c, where it can be seen that in the first days, the values decreased from 6.55 to slightly acid on day 8 (5.31), and then in the following days, a significant increase was observed reaching values of 7.66 on day 30, showing optimal pH values in this period (6–9) for the development of biofilms by microorganisms [66]. During the oxidation process of the organic compounds in the anode chamber of the MFC in the first days of operation, the microorganisms, in addition to generating electrons, also release protons (H+ ions) [67]. If the proton production rate is high compared to its consumption or transfers to the cathode, there could be an accumulation of protons at the anode, lowering the pH (5.31) [68]. At the same time, the increase in pH (7.66) can be attributed to the greater use of protons during microbial and electrochemical reactions at the anode instead of their release [69]. In other investigations, it has been observed that the pH values exhibit different variations due to the unique composition of each substrate; for example, Radeef and Ismail worked with car wash wastewater in MFCs with graphite electrodes and observed increases in pH from 7.5 to 8.3 after 90 days of operation [70].
3.3. SEM-EDS Analysis of Activated Carbon Electrodes
Figure 6 shows the micrographs obtained from the SEM analysis of the activated carbon anode electrodes after the period of operation in the MFCs. Figure 6a shows the electrode surface (5 mm), evidencing the presence of tiny pores scattered throughout the area and presenting a relatively smooth texture that favored the adhesion of the bacterial biofilm. Figure 6b shows a more detailed image of the pores distributed throughout the surface and with solid activated carbon particles. Figure 6c shows the structure of the electrode (5 mm), revealing the presence of the aluminum mesh with the copper wire between the solid layers of activated carbon. Figure 6d shows the integration between the aluminum mesh, the copper wire, and the layers of activated carbon (1 mm). In other studies, SEM analyses were also carried out to know the morphology of the electrodes and to observe the adhered biofilm during their experiments. Nishio, Nguyen, and Taguchi (2023) used urethane filter electrodes in MFCs with soil and cow dung and obtained SEM images showing a porous surface with a large amount of activated carbon after their experiments [71]. Likewise, Li et al. (2023), using their SEM images of their graphite rod electrodes in their MFCs supplied with anaerobic sludge from a wastewater treatment plant, observed that the anodic biofilm attached to the electrode was composed of bacilli and filamentous bacteria [72]. In addition, Li et al. (2017) used carbon cloth electrodes in MFCs assisted with the effluent from the anode chamber in another previously operating cell and revealed that the biofilm dissociated from the anode surface, indicating that long-term operation with inversion voltage could damage the biofilm and ultimately cause the failure of the MFC [73].
Figure 7 presents the composition spectra of the elements in the activated carbon electrodes obtained from the EDS analysis. A majority presence of elements such as oxygen (O), carbon (C), silicon (Si), aluminum (Al), iron (Fe), potassium (K), and calcium (Ca) is observed. The high presence of oxygen reported in the spectra is due to several reasons, ranging from the composition of the electrode material, which, being activated carbon-based, contains a high proportion of oxygen atoms due to its activation process, to the surface pollution of the electrode that could have been contaminated with compounds rich in oxygen, such as oxides, due to exposure to air during the operation process of the MFC [74]. At the same time, the high detection of carbon is due to the electrode material based on activated carbon [75], while the Al is due to the presence of the aluminum mesh, respectively. The considerable presence of silicon can be attributed to the composition of the substrate, which was based on food remains and residual water from washing dishes using cleaning products [76]. Finally, the low presence of Fe, K, and Ca can be attributed to the activated carbon material used, which may contain low concentrations of these elements [77]. Other researchers such as Liu, Lu, and Zhang (2022) performed EDS analyses on their graphite felt anode electrodes used in MFC with mariculture wastewater, and the spectra before the operation showed a more significant presence of carbon, oxygen, platinum, silicon, aluminum, and iron; however, after the operation, the presence of other additional compounds such as sodium, magnesium, sulfur, potassium, calcium and titanium were reported; even so, there was a greater predominance of carbon and oxygen in the electrode sample [78].
3.4. Resistance Test of Activated Carbon-Based Electrode in Liquid Substrate
The resistance of the activated carbon based electrodes were low, as shown in Table 1.
4. Conclusions
The electrodes based on activated carbon and zinc were efficient in terms of producing electrical energy using an scMFC. By using synthetic wastewater as a substrate, it was possible to generate maximum values of voltage (1120 ± 0.050 mV) and current (4.64 ± 0.040 mA), respectively. Another important aspect is the reduction in substrate turbidity to 25.11 NTU and ORP values of 858 mV. In the same way, values of internal resistance of the cell (214.52 ± 5.22 Ω), power density (208.14 ± 17.15 mW/cm2), and a current density (5.03 A/cm2) were obtained. EDS analyses revealed that the most predominant elements in the electrodes were oxygen, carbon, silicon, aluminum, iron, potassium, and calcium. The potential of activated carbon anode electrodes for laboratory-level bioenergy production in MFC has been demonstrated. In addition, it has contributed to the development of these sustainable technologies through the development of economical, ecological, and eco-efficient electrodes. Although electrodes are inexpensive, there are still certain technical challenges for MFCs to increase bioelectricity generation. It is recommended to optimize MFC designs to improve the electron utilization of substrates for bioenergy generation.
Conceptualization, R.A.-Q., Z.Á.-S. and S.R.-F.; methodology, R.A.-Q., Z.Á.-S. and S.R.-F.; software, R.A.-Q. and S.R.-F.; validation, Z.Á.-S. and M.D.L.C.-N.; formal analysis, R.A.-Q. and W.R.-V.; research, R.A.-Q. and Z.Á.-S.; resources, R.A.-Q., Z.Á.-S. and L.C.-C.; data retention, R.A.-Q., Z.Á.-S. and S.R.-F.; writing—preparing original draft, R.A.-Q. and Z.Á.-S.; Writing—Proofreading and Editing, S.R.-F., M.D.L.C.-N. and L.C.-C.; visualization, R.A.-Q. and S.R.-F.; supervision, R.A.-Q., Z.Á.-S., L.C.-C. and R.N.-N.; project management, R.A.-Q., Z.Á.-S. and W.R.-V. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Footnotes
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Enlarge this image.Figure 1. (a) Prototype and (b) structure of the electrodes made with activated carbon.
Enlarge this image.Figure 2. (a) Prototype and (b) experimental setup of MFC-SC with activated carbon and zinc electrodes.
Enlarge this image.Figure 3. Monitoring of values of (a) voltage and (b) electrical current of the MFCs.
Enlarge this image.Figure 4. Characterization of (a) internal resistance and (b) power density concerning the current density of the MFCs.
Enlarge this image.Figure 6. SEM micrographs of activated carbon electrodes (a) electrode surface morphology, (b) activated carbon, (c) electrode structure, and (d) aluminum mesh with activated carbon and carbon wire copper.
Enlarge this image.Figure 7. EDS analysis of the activated carbon electrodes after the period of operation.
Evaluation of the resistance of the activated carbon-based electrodes in synthetic wastewater contained in MFC for 30 days.
| ID Electrode | Waterproofing Agent | Initial Weight (g) | Final Weight (g) | Weight Loss Percentage (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MFC-A | pine resin | 27.58 | 27.18 | 1.45 |
| MFC-B | 27.36 | 26.99 | 1.35 |
References
1. Hoang, A.; Nižetić, S.; Ng, K.H.; Papadopoulos, A.M.; Le, A.T.; Kumar, S.; Hadiyanto, H.; Pham, V.V. Microbial fuel cells for bioelectricity production from waste as sustainable prospect of future energy sector. Chemosphere; 2022; 287, 132285. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2021.132285] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34563769]
2. Verma, P.; Daverey, A.; Kumar, A.; Arunachalam, K. Microbial Fuel Cell—A Sustainable Approach for Simultaneous Wastewater Treatment and Energy Recovery. J. Water Process Eng.; 2021; 40, 101768. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jwpe.2020.101768]
3. Nookwam, K.; Cheirsilp, B.; Maneechote, W.; Boonsawang, P.; Sukkasem, C. Microbial fuel cells with Photosynthetic-Cathodic chamber in vertical cascade for integrated Bioelectricity, biodiesel feedstock production and wastewater treatment. Bioresour. Technol.; 2022; 346, 126559. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2021.126559] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34929328]
4. Li, X.; Liu, G.; Ma, F.; Sun, S.; Zhou, S.; Ardhi, R.E.A.; Lee, J.K.; Yao, H. Enhanced power generation in a single-chamber dynamic membrane microbial fuel cell using a nonstructural air-breathing activated carbon fiber felt cathode. Energy Convers. Manag.; 2018; 172, pp. e98-e104. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2018.07.011]
5. Bose, D.; Sridharan, S.; Dhawan, H.; Vijay, P.; Gopinath, M. Biomass derived activated carbon cathode performance for sustainable power generation from Microbial Fuel Cells. Fuel; 2019; 236, pp. e325-e337. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2018.09.002]
6. Van Limbergen, T.; Bonné, R.; Hustings, J.; Valcke, R.; Thijs, S.; Vangronsveld, J.; Manca, J.V. Plant microbial fuel cells from the perspective of photovoltaics: Efficiency, power, and applications. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.; 2022; 169, 112953. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2022.112953]
7. Mirza, S.S.; Al-Ansari, M.N.; Ali, M.; Aslam, S.; Akmal, M.; Al-Humaid, L.; Hussain, A. Towards sustainable wastewater treatment: Influence of iron, zinc and aluminum as anode in combination with salt bridge on microbial fuel cell performance. Environ. Res.; 2022; 209, 112781. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2022.112781]
8. Cuicui, L.; Liang, B.; Zhong, M.; Li, K.; Qi, Y. Activated carbon-supported multi-doped graphene as high-efficient catalyst to modify air cathode in microbial fuel cells. Electrochim. Acta; 2019; 304, pp. e360-e369. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.electacta.2019.02.094]
9. Guo, H.; Huang, C.; Geng, X.; Jia, X.; Huo, H.; Yue, W. Influence of the original electrogenic bacteria on the performance of oily sludge Microbial Fuel Cells. Energy Rep.; 2022; 8, pp. e14374-e14381. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2022.10.440]
10. Tan, S.-M.; Ong, S.-A.; Ho, L.-N.; Wong, Y.-S.; Abidin, C.Z.A.; Thung, W.-E.; Teoh, T.-P. Polypropylene biofilm carrier and fabricated stainless steel mesh supporting activated carbon: Integrated configuration for performances enhancement of microbial fuel cell. Sustain. Energy Technol. Assess.; 2021; 46, 101268. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.seta.2021.101268]
11. Ahirwar, A.; Das, S.; Das, S.; Yang, Y.-H.; Bhatia, S.K.; Vinayak, V.; Ghangrekar, M.M. Photosynthetic microbial fuel cell for bioenergy and valuable production: A review of circular bio-economy approach. Algal Res.; 2023; 70, 102973. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.algal.2023.102973]
12. Sonawane, J.M.; Mahadevan, M.; Pandey, A.; Greener, J. Recent progress in microbial fuel cells using substrates from diverse sources. Heliyon; 2022; 8, e12353. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e12353] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36582703]
13. Mukimin, A.; Vistanty, H. Low carbon development based on microbial fuel cells as electrical generation and wastewater treatment unit. Renew. Energy Focus; 2023; 44, pp. e132-e138. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ref.2022.12.005]
14. Kouam-Ida, T.; Mandal, B. Microbial fuel cell design, application and performance: A review. Materials Today. Proceedings; 2023; 76, pp. e88-e94. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2022.10.131]
15. Kamali, M.; Guo, Y.; Aminabhavi, T.M.; Abbassi, R.; Dewil, R.; Appels, L. Pathway towards the commercialization of sustainable microbial fuel cell-based wastewater treatment technologies. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.; 2023; 173, 113095. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2022.113095]
16. Saran, C.; Purchase, D.; Saratale, G.D.; Saratale, R.G.; Romanholo-Ferreira, L.F.; Bilal, M.; Iqbal, H.M.N.; Hussain, C.M.; Mulla, S.I.; Bharagava, R.N. Microbial fuel cell: A green eco-friendly agent for tannery wastewater treatment and simultaneous bioelectricity/power generation. Chemosphere; 2023; 312, 137072. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2022.137072]
17. Borja-Maldonado, F.; López Zavala, M.Á. Contribution of Configurations, Electrode and Membrane Materials, Electron Transfer Mechanisms, and Cost of Components on the Current and Future Development of Microbial Fuel Cells. Heliyon; 2022; 8, e09849. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e09849]
18. Ingavale, S.; Marbaniang, P.; Kakade, B.; Swami, A. Starbon with Zn-N and Zn-O Active Sites: An Efficient Electrocatalyst for Oxygen Reduction Reaction in Energy Conversion Devices. Catal. Today; 2021; 370, pp. 55-65. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cattod.2020.11.016]
19. 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, pp. 11520-11529. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2017.06.047]
20. Ouzi, Z.A.; Aber, S.; Nofouzi, K.; Khajeh, R.T.; Rezaei, A. Carbon paste/LDH/bacteria biohybrid for the modification of the anode electrode of a microbial fuel cell. J. Taiwan Inst. Chem. Eng.; 2023; 142, 104668. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jtice.2022.104668]
21. Muñoz-Cupa, C.; Hu, Y.; Xu, C.; Bassi, A. An overview of microbial fuel cell usage in wastewater treatment, resource recovery and energy production. Sci. Total Environ.; 2021; 754, 142429. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.142429]
22. Neethu, B.; Bhowmick, G.D.; Ghangrekar, M.M. Improving performance of microbial fuel cell by enhanced bacterial-anode interaction using sludge immobilized beads with activated carbon. Process Saf. Environ. Prot.; 2020; 143, pp. e285-e292. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.psep.2020.06.043]
23. Meylani, V.; Surahman, E.; Fudholi, A.; Almalki, W.H.; Ilyas, N.; Sayyed, R.Z. Biodiversity in microbial fuel cells: Review of a promising technology for wastewater treatment. J. Environ. Chem. Eng.; 2023; 11, 109503. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jece.2023.109503]
24. Palanisamy, G.; Jung, H.-Y.; Sadhasivam, T.; Kurkuri, M.D.; Kim, S.C.; Roh, S.-H. A comprehensive review on microbial fuel cell technologies: Processes, utilization, and advanced developments in electrodes and membranes. J. Clean. Prod.; 2019; 221, pp. e598-e621. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.02.172]
25. Mwale, S.; Munyati, M.O.; Nyirenda, J. Preparation, characterization and optimization of a porous polyaniline-copper anode microbial fuel cell. J. Solid State Electrochem.; 2021; 25, pp. 639-650. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10008-020-04839-0]
26. Papiya, F.; Das, S.; Pattanayak, P.; Kundu, P.P. The fabrication of silane modified graphene oxide supported Ni–Co bimetallic electrocatalysts: A catalytic system for superior oxygen reduction in microbial fuel cells. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy; 2019; 44, pp. e25874-e25893. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2019.08.020]
27. Sharif, H.; Farooq, M.; Hussain, I.; Ali, M.; Mujtaba, M.A.; 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, pp. e207-e226. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jtice.2021.09.001]
28. Cheraghipoor, M.; Mohebbi-Kalhori, D.; Noroozifar, M.; Maghsoodlou, M.T. Enhancing the efficiency of ceramic native soil membrane using Zircon in a continuous microbial fuel cell for wastewater treatment and sustainable energy. J. Environ. Chem. Eng.; 2022; 10, 108255. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jece.2022.108255]
29. Slate, A.J.; Whitehead, K.A.; Brownson, D.A.C.; Banks, C.E. Microbial fuel cells: An overview of current technology. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.; 2019; 101, pp. e60-e81. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2018.09.044]
30. Gajda, I.; You, J.; Santoro, C.; Greenman, J.; Ieropoulos, I.A. A new method for urine electrofiltration and long term power enhancement using surface modified anodes with activated carbon in ceramic microbial fuel cells. Electrochim. Acta; 2020; 353, 136388. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.electacta.2020.136388]
31. Poli, F.; Santoro, C.; Soavi, F. Improving microbial fuel cells power output using internal and external optimized, tailored and totally green supercapacitor. J. Power Sources; 2023; 564, 232780. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jpowsour.2023.232780]
32. Chen, Y.; Zhao, F.; Pu, Y.; Lin, X.; Yin, H.; Tang, X. Nano-Fe3O4 coated on carbon monolith for anode enhancement in microbial fuel cells. J. Environ. Chem. Eng.; 2023; 11, 109608. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jece.2023.109608]
33. Liu, Y.; Zhao, Y.; Li, K.; Wang, Z.; Tian, P.; Liu, D.; Yang, T.; Wang, J. Activated carbon derived from chitosan as air cathode catalyst for high performance in microbial fuel cells. J. Power Sources; 2018; 378, pp. e1-e9. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jpowsour.2017.12.019]
34. Pan, Y.; Mo, X.; Li, K.; Pu, L.; Liu, D.; Yang, T. Iron–nitrogen–activated carbon as cathode catalyst to improve the power generation of single-chamber air-cathode microbial fuel cells. Bioresour. Technol.; 2016; 206, pp. e285-e289. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2016.01.112]
35. Yellappa, M.; Modestra, J.A.; Reddy, Y.V.R.; Mohan, S.V. Functionalized conductive activated carbon-polyaniline composite anode for augmented energy recovery in microbial fuel cells. Bioresour. Technol.; 2021; 320, 124340. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2020.124340]
36. Huang, S.-J.; Dwivedi, K.A.; Kumar, S.; Wang, C.-T.; Yadav, A.K. Binder-free NiO/MnO2 coated carbon based anodes for simultaneous norfloxacin removal, wastewater treatment and power generation in dual-chamber microbial fuel cell. Environ. Pollut.; 2023; 317, 120578. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2022.120578] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36395905]
37. Karra, U.; Muto, E.; Umaz, R.; Kölln, M.; Santoro, C.; Wang, L.; Li, B. Performance evaluation of activated carbon-based electrodes with novel power management system for long-term benthic microbial fuel cells. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy; 2014; 39, pp. e21847-e21856. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2014.06.095]
38. Rojas-Flores, S.; De La Cruz-Noriega, M.; Benites, S.M.; Delfín-Narciso, D.; Luis, A.S.; Díaz, F.; Luis, C.C.; Moises, G.C. Electric Current Generation by Increasing Sucrose in Papaya Waste in Microbial Fuel Cells. Molecules; 2022; 27, 5198. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/molecules27165198]
39. Silva-Palacios, F.; Salvador-Salinas, A.; Quezada-Alvarez, M.; Rodriguez-Yupanqui, M.; Rojas-Flores, S.; Nazario-Naveda, R.; Cabanillas-Chirinos, L. Bioelectricity generation through Microbial Fuel Cells using Serratia fonticola bacteria and Rhodotorula glutinis yeast. Energy Rep.; 2023; 9, pp. e295-e301. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2023.05.255]
40. Yu, J.; Park, Y.; Widyaningsih, E.; Kim, S.; Kim, Y.; Lee, T. Microbial fuel cells: Devices for real wastewater treatment, rather than electricity production. Sci. Total Environ.; 2021; 775, 145904. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.145904]
41. Yang, Y.; Xu, P.; Dong, S.; Yu, Y.; Chen, H.; Xiao, J. Using watermelon rind and nitrite-containing wastewater for electricity production in a membraneless biocathode microbial fuel cell. J. Clean. Prod.; 2021; 307, 127306. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.127306]
42. Rojas-Flores, S.; De La Cruz-Noriega, M.; Cabanillas-Chirinos, L.; Nazario-Naveda, R.; Gallozzo-Cardenas, M.; Diaz, F.; Murga-Torres, E. Potential Use of Coriander Waste as Fuel for the Generation of Electric Power. Sustainability; 2023; 15, 896. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su15020896]
43. Sikder, S.; Rahman, M.M. Efficiency of microbial fuel cell in wastewater (municipal, textile and tannery) treatment and bioelectricity production. Case Stud. Chem. Environ. Eng.; 2023; 8, 100421. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cscee.2023.100421]
44. Bose, D.; Bhattacharya, R.; Gopinath, M.; Vijay, P.; Krishnakumar, B. Bioelectricity production and bioremediation from sugarcane industry wastewater using microbial fuel cells with activated carbon cathodes. Results Eng.; 2023; 18, 101052. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rineng.2023.101052]
45. Agüero-Quiñones, R.A.; Díaz-Coronado, J.J.; Enríquez-León, R.M.C.; Zelada-Cabellos, P.C.; Rojas-Flores, S. Electricity generation and wastewater treatment using microbial fuel cells with graphite and aluminum electrodes. LACCEI; 2022; 2, pp. 1-6. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.18687/LEIRD2022.1.1.95]
46. Rojas-Flores, S.; Cabanillas-Chirinos, L.; Nazario-Naveda, R.; Gallozzo-Cardenas, M.; Diaz, F.; Delfin-Narciso, D.; Rojas-Villacorta, W. Use of Tangerine Waste as Fuel for the Generation of Electric Current. Sustainability; 2023; 15, 3559. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su15043559]
47. El-Hag Ali, A.; Gomaa, O.M.; Fathey, R.; El Kareem, H.A.; Zaid, M.A. Optimization of double chamber microbial fuel cell for domestic wastewater treatment and electricity production. J. Fuel Chem. Technol.; 2015; 43, pp. e1092-e1099. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1872-5813(15)30032-3]
48. Rojas-Villacorta, W.; Rojas-Flores, W.; Benites, S.M.; Nazario-Naveda, R.; Romero, C.V.; Gallozzo-Cardenas, M.; Delfín-Narciso, D.; Díaz, F.; Murga-Torres, E. Preliminary Study of Bioelectricity Generation Using Lettuce Waste as Substrate by Microbial Fuel Cells. Sustainability; 2023; 15, 10339. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su151310339]
49. Koo, B.; Lee, S.-M.; Oh, S.-E.; Kim, E.J.; Hwang, Y.; Seo, D.; Kim, J.Y.; Kahng, Y.H.; Lee, Y.W.; Chung, S.-Y. et al. Addition of reduced graphene oxide to an activated-carbon cathode increases electrical power generation of a microbial fuel cell by enhancing cathodic performance. Electrochim. Acta; 2019; 297, pp. e613-e622. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.electacta.2018.12.024]
50. De La Cruz-Noriega, M.; Benites, S.M.; Rojas-Flores, S.; Otiniano, N.M.; Sabogal-Vargas, A.M.; Alfaro, R.; Cabanillas-Chirinos, L.; Rojas-Villacorta, W.; Nazario-Naveda, R.; Delfín-Narciso, D. Use of Wastewater and Electrogenic Bacteria to Generate Eco-Friendly Electricity through Microbial Fuel Cells. Sustainability; 2023; 15, 10640. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su151310640]
51. Li, S.; Jiang, J.; Ho, S.-H.; Zhang, S.; Zeng, W.; Li, F. Sustainable conversion of antibiotic wastewater using microbial fuel cells: Energy harvesting and resistance mechanism analysis. Chemosphere; 2023; 313, 137584. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2022.137584]
52. Pasternak, G.; Greenman, J.; Ieropoulos, I. Dynamic evolution of anodic biofilm when maturing under different external resistive loads in microbial fuel cells. Electrochemical perspective. J. Power Sources; 2018; 400, pp. e392-e401. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jpowsour.2018.08.031]
53. Du, H.; Shao, Z. Synergistic effects between solid potato waste and waste activated sludge for waste-to-power conversion in microbial fuel cells. Appl. Energy; 2022; 314, 118994. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2022.118994]
54. Rojas-Flores, S.; De La Cruz-Noriega, M.; Benites, S.M.; Delfín-Narciso, D.; Angelats-Silva, L.; Díaz, F.; Cabanillas-Chirinos, L.; Silva-Palacios, F. Increase in Electrical Parameters Using Sucrose in Tomato Waste. Fermentation; 2022; 8, 335. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/fermentation8070335]
55. Li, S.; Cheng, C.; Thomas, A. Carbon-Based Microbial-Fuel-Cell Electrodes: From Conductive Supports to Active Catalysts. Adv. Mater.; 2017; 29, 1602547. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/adma.201602547]
56. Bazina, N.; Ahmed, T.G.; Almdaaf, M.; Jibia, S.; Sarker, M. Power generation from wastewater using microbial fuel cells: A review. J. Biotechnol.; 2023; 374, pp. e17-e30. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiotec.2023.07.006]
57. Lee, S.H.; Lee, K.-S.; Sorcar, S.; Razzaq, A.; Grimes, C.A.; In, S.-I. Wastewater treatment and electricity generation from a sunlight-powered single chamber microbial fuel cell. J. Photochem. Photobiol. A Chem.; 2018; 358, pp. e432-e440. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jphotochem.2017.10.030]
58. Rossi, R.; Hur, A.Y.; Page, M.A.; Thomas, A.O.; Butkiewicz, J.J.; Jones, D.W.; Baek, G.; Saikaly, P.E.; Cropek, D.M.; Logan, B.E. Pilot scale microbial fuel cells using air cathodes for producing electricity while treating wastewater. Water Res.; 2022; 215, 118208. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2022.118208]
59. Lutterbeck, C.A.; Colares, G.S.; Oliveira, G.A.; Mohr, G.; Beckenkamp, F.; Rieger, A.; Lobo, E.A.; Ribeiro-Rodrigues, L.H.; Machado, E.L. Microbial fuel cells and constructed wetlands as a sustainable alternative for the treatment of hospital laundry wastewaters: Assessment of load parameters and genotoxicity. J. Environ. Chem. Eng.; 2022; 10, 108105. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jece.2022.108105]
60. Xu, X.; Feng, W.; Guo, L.; Huang, X.; Shi, B. Controlled synthesis of distiller’s grains biochar for turbidity removal in Baijiu. Sci. Total Environ.; 2023; 867, 161382. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.161382]
61. Tee, P.F.; Abdullah, M.O.; Tan, I.A.W.; Amin, M.A.N.; Nolasco-Hipolito, C.; Bujang, K. Effects of temperature on wastewater treatment in an affordable microbial fuel cell-adsorption hybrid system. J. Environ. Chem. Eng.; 2017; 5, pp. e178-e188. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jece.2016.11.040]
62. Xing, F.; Xi, H.; Yu, Y.; Zhou, Y. Anode biofilm influence on the toxic response of microbial fuel cells under different operating conditions. Sci. Total Environ.; 2021; 775, 145048. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.145048]
63. Yang, G.; Wang, J.; Zhang, H.; Jia, H.; Zhang, Y.; Fang, H.; Gao, F.; Li, J. Fluctuation of electrode potential based on molecular regulation induced diversity of electrogenesis behavior in multiple equilibrium microbial fuel cell. Chemosphere; 2019; 237, 124453. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2019.124453] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31394439]
64. Cai, L.; Zhang, H.; Feng, Y.; Wang, Y.; Yu, M. Sludge decrement and electricity generation of sludge microbial fuel cell enhanced by zero valent iron. J. Clean. Prod.; 2018; 174, pp. e35-e41. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.10.300]
65. Zhao, T.; Hu, H.; Chow, A.T.; Chen, P.; Wang, Y.; Xu, X.; Gong, Z.; Huang, S. Evaluation of organic matter and nitrogen removals, electricity generation and bacterial community responses in sediment microbial fuel cell coupled with Vallisneria natans. J. Environ. Chem. Eng.; 2023; 11, 110058. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jece.2023.110058]
66. Ren, Z.; Ji, G.; Liu, H.; Yang, M.; Xu, S.; Ye, M.; Lichtfouse, E. Accelerated start-up and improved performance of wastewater microbial fuel cells in four circuit modes: Role of anodic potential. J. Power Sources; 2022; 535, 231403. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jpowsour.2022.231403]
67. Salehmin, M.N.I.; Me, M.F.H.; Daud, W.R.W.; Yasin, N.H.N.; Bakar, M.H.A.; Sulong, A.B.; Lim, S.S. Construction of microbial electrodialysis cells equipped with internal proton migration pathways: Enhancement of wastewater treatment, desalination, and hydrogen production. Sci. Total Environ.; 2023; 855, 158527. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.158527]
68. Vilas-Boas, J.; Marcon, L.R.C.; Oliveira, V.B.; Simões, M.; Pinto, A.M.F.R. Performance evaluation of a single-chamber microbial fuel cell with Zygosaccharomyces bailii. Bioresour. Technol. Rep.; 2023; 23, 101547. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biteb.2023.101547]
69. Tian, E.; Liu, Y.; Yin, F.; Lu, S.; Zheng, L.; Wang, X.; Wang, Z.; Liu, H. Facilitating proton transport by endowing forward osmosis membrane with proton conductive sites in osmotic microbial fuel cell. Chem. Eng. J.; 2023; 451, 138767. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2022.138767]
70. Radeef, A.Y.; Ismail, Z.Z. Bioelectrochemical treatment of actual carwash wastewater associated with sustainable energy generation in three-dimensional microbial fuel cell. Bioelectrochemistry; 2021; 142, 107925. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bioelechem.2021.107925]
71. Nishio, Y.; Nguyen, D.-T.; Taguchi, K. Urethane-based electrode material for microbial fuel cells. Energy Rep.; 2023; 9, pp. e66-e73. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2023.05.097]
72. Li, C.; Zhang, Y.; Ling, Y.; Wang, H.; Wang, H.; Yan, G.; Duan, L.; Dong, W.; Chang, Y. Novel slow-release carbon source improves anodic denitrification and electricity generation efficiency in microbial fuel cells. Environ. Res.; 2023; 236, 116644. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2023.116644] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37454797]
73. Li, J.; Li, H.; Fu, Q.; Liao, Q.; Zhu, X.; Kobayashi, H.; Ye, D. Voltage reversal causes bioanode corrosion in microbial fuel cell stacks. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy; 2017; 42, pp. e7649-e27656. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2017.05.221]
74. Li, C.; Omine, K.; Zhang, Z.; Sivasankar, V.; Sano, H.; Chicas, S.D. Development of peat microbial fuel cells (Peat MFCs)—The green and sustainable generators of electricity. Energy Convers. Manag.; 2023; 279, 116771. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2023.116771]
75. Silveira, G.; De Aquino-Neto, S.; José Maurício Schneedorf, J.M. Development, characterization and application of a low-cost single chamber microbial fuel cell based on hydraulic couplers. Energy; 2020; 208, 118395. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2020.118395]
76. Zeytuncu, B.; Pasaoglu, M.E.; Eryildiz, B.; Kazak, A.; Yuksekdag, A.; Korkut, S.; Kaya, R.; Turken, T.; Ceylan, M.; Koyuncu, I. Application of different treatment systems for boron removal from industrial wastewater with extremely high boron content. J. Water Process Eng.; 2023; 55, 104083. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jwpe.2023.104083]
77. Mani, D.; Elango, D.; Priyadharsan, A.; Al-Humaid, L.A.; Al- Dahmash, N.D.; Ragupathy, S.; Jayanthi, P.; Ahn, Y.-H. Groundnut shell chemically treated with KOH to prepare inexpensive activated carbon: Methylene blue adsorption and equilibrium isotherm studies. Environ. Res.; 2023; 231, 116026. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2023.116026]
78. Liu, F.-F.; Lu, T.; Zhang, Y.-X. Performance assessment of constructed wetland-microbial fuel cell for treatment of mariculture wastewater containing heavy metals. Process Saf. Environ. Prot.; 2022; 168, pp. e633-e641. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.psep.2022.10.026]
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.
Details
; Cabanillas-Chirinos, Luis 3
; De La Cruz-Noriega, Magaly 3
; Nazario-Naveda, Renny 4 ; Rojas-Villacorta, Walter 5
1 Escuela de Ingeniería Ambiental, Facultad de Ingeniería, Universidad Cesar Vallejo, Trujillo 13007, Peru;
2 Escuela de Ingeniería Mecánica Eléctrica, Universidad Señor de Sipán, Chiclayo 14000, Peru
3 Instituto de Investigación en Ciencia y Tecnología, Universidad César Vallejo, Trujillo 13001, Peru;
4 Departamento de Ciencias, Universidad Privada del Norte, Trujillo 13007, Peru;
5 Programa de Investigación Formativa e Integridad Científica, Universidad César Vallejo, Trujillo 13001, Peru;