1. Introduction
Plastic waste has become one of the most pressing environmental challenges worldwide, as its production has increased dramatically in recent decades [1]. In 1950, global plastic production was only two million tons, whereas by 2021, it had emerged to nearly 400 million tons [2]. Most plastic products have an average lifespan of around 10 years, but depending on their composition and disposal method, they can take up to 500 years to decompose [3]. It is estimated that global plastic production generates approximately 350 million tons of waste annually [4], with about 0.5% of this ending up in the oceans, causing severe harm to marine life and ecosystems [5]. Between 1 and 2 million tons of plastic enter the oceans each year [6], posing a major threat to marine organisms, which risk ingesting or becoming entangled in plastic debris.
Unfortunately, only a small fraction of plastic waste is properly recycled, while roughly 25% is mismanaged—neither recycled, incinerated, nor contained in sealed landfills—making it highly prone to environmental pollution [7,8]. In Peru, the electricity supply in rural areas faces significant challenges. A total of 50.5% of the rural population lacks access to electricity through the public grid or has inadequate access [9,10]. This marks a notable increase from 2019, when the percentage was 47.2% [11]. Disparities in electrification are also evident: 42% of rural areas in the Peruvian jungle remain without electricity, compared to 78.5% along the coast and 72.4% in the mountains [12]. The lack of electricity severely impacts the social and economic development of rural communities, limiting access to essential services such as education, healthcare, and employment opportunities [13]. Addressing these interconnected issues—plastic pollution and energy shortages—requires innovative solutions that promote sustainability and environmental responsibility.
In this regard, microbial fuel cells represent a novel technology with considerable potential to address global challenges related to energy, environment, and sustainability [14]. The operation of these cells is based on using microorganisms, such as electroactive bacteria, to oxidize organic matter (e.g., wastewater, agricultural waste, or sludge) and generate electrons, thus producing electricity sustainably [15,16]. Unlike fossil fuels, they do not emit additional CO2, contributing to the energy transition and climate change mitigation [17]. Ahmad et al. (2024) used pineapple waste as a substrate in their MFCs, showing a peak voltage of 0.210 V and a power density of 1.92 mW/m2 [18]. Likewise, Misali et al. (2024) used sediments as a substrate in their MFCs, generating a maximum voltage of 0.553 V with a power density of 35.93 mW/m2 [19]. Chandra et al. (2024) used industrial water waste as a substrate in their MFCs, generating a maximum voltage of 0.21V with a resistance of 84.29 ± 3 Ω and reducing the chemical oxygen demand by 55% [20]. Microbial fuel cells have a wide variety of applications in the area of bioremediation of different types of waste; the combination of microbiology, engineering, and materials science to optimize the efficiency of electroactive bacteria through this technology promises to be a topic with great performance in the short term [21].
Microbial fuel cells are being investigated as an innovative tool for plastics bioremediation, particularly in the context of micro- and macroplastic pollution [22]. Their application combines the degradation of synthetic polymers with clean energy generation, providing a sustainable and versatile solution [23]. Microorganisms, including bacteria, fungi, and some algae, are capable of degrading plastics through specific biochemical processes, using specialized enzymes to break down the chemical bonds of synthetic polymers [24]. For example, the bacterium Klebsiella oxytoca can degrade plastics thanks to its specialized enzymes. These bacteria produce enzymes such as alkane-1-monooxygenase (alkB), which are capable of breaking the chemical bonds of synthetic polymers, such as polystyrene [25]. This biochemical process allows Klebsiella oxytoca to break down plastic into simpler and less environmentally harmful compounds [26]. This characteristic is key to a more efficient and less harmful process compared to traditional methods like incineration or chemical solvents, which generate toxic byproducts and high CO2 emissions [22]. Unlike other biodegradation strategies that rely on complex microbial consortia, Klebsiella oxytoca enables a more controlled and reproducible approach within MFCs [25]. Additionally, this bacterium offers a dual advantage: it not only facilitates plastic degradation but also enhances bioelectricity generation through efficient electron transfer to the MFC anode [24]. Other microorganisms used in MFCs have shown lower voltage and power density values or require more specific operating conditions, limiting their scalability [23]. There is no information in the literature on the use of Klebsiella oxytoca bacteria in microbial fuel cells as an agent to bioremediate plastic and simultaneously generate power.
This study explored the ability of Klebsiella oxytoca bacteria to reduce a plastic sample and simultaneously generate electrical power using microbial fuel cells in a laboratory environment for a period of 40 days. During the operation of the MFCs, parameters such as electrical conductivity, electric current, pH, voltage, chemical oxygen demand, current density, power density, and internal resistance are monitored. The plastic sample in its initial and final states was analyzed by FTIR (Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy) and SEM (scanning electron microscopy) to observe the transmittance spectrum and corresponding micrographs. The results demonstrated a tangible impact on plastic degradation, supported by FTIR analysis and SEM micrographs, revealing structural modifications such as porosity and fractures. This confirms the biological activity of Klebsiella oxytoca on synthetic polymers. The combination of biotechnology and renewable energy addresses the need for sustainable solutions in plastic waste management, contributing to the circular economy model and environmental pollution mitigation.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Assembly of the Single-Chamber Microbial Fuel Cells
To assemble the single-chamber microbial fuel cells, devices made of boron-silicon (Boron 3.3) with a capacity of 1000 mL were used, making a total of three. Each MFC had a 38.5 cm2 carbon anode and a 12.52 cm2 zinc cathode, connected externally by a 100 Ω resistor and internally by a Nafion 117 membrane as proton exchange membrane (PEM), as shown in Figure 1.
2.2. Electrochemical and Morphological Tests
A Truper digital multimeter (MUT-830) was used to monitor current (I) and voltage (V) in the microbial fuel cells. Chemical oxygen demand (COD) was determined using the closed reflux colorimetric method, following the NTP 360.502:2016 standard [27]. Power density (PD) and current density (CD) were calculated using the formulas PD = V2MFC/(Rext.A) and CD = VMFC/(Rext.A), where Vcell represents the MFC voltage and A denotes the electrode area. External resistors with 0.2 (±0.05), 5 (±0.50), 20 (±2.4), 50 (±6.52), 120 (±10.55), 240 (±15.62), 480 (±20.64), 520 (±30.88), 780 (±50.75) and 1000 (±60.55) Ω were used [28]. Micrographs of the plastic samples were obtained through scanning electron microscopy (SEM-EDX, JEOL-JSM, Thermionic, Medellín, Colombia), where the samples were washed with distilled water and 70% ethanol to remove surface residues, followed by ultrasonic treatment to eliminate unwanted particles, ensuring a clear observation of the material’s morphology. While the transmittance spectra of plastic films were measured using a Fourier transform infrared spectrometer (FTIR, Thermo Scientific IS50, Mumbai, India), to remove surface-adhered bacteria, the LDPE samples were washed with distilled water and 70% ethanol before measurement to eliminate any attached material, including bacteria. Subsequently, the samples were dried in a controlled environment to prevent residues that could interfere with FTIR transmittance. For oxidation-reduction potential (ORP), pH, and electrical conductivity, measurements were recorded using BioMars multiparameter equipment (HI98194, Mumbai, India). The experiment consisted of three identical MFCs, with mean values represented by circles and error bars denoting standard deviations.
2.3. Collection of Samples, Isolation, and Selection of Klebsiella oxytoca
The plastic remains used as samples were obtained from the municipal landfill of the El Milagro population center, Trujillo, Peru; they were placed in sterile containers and labeled for transport to the Cesar Vallejo University laboratory. Small fragments of the plastic sample were placed in tubes with 10 mL of Sterile Physiological Saline Solution (SSFS), from which 100ul of the suspension was extracted and seeded on the surface on plates with nutrient agar (NA) supplemented with Chloramphenicol. These plates were incubated at 35 °C for 24 h [29]. Then, the isolated bacteria were replicated in NA until axenic cultures were obtained. The purity of the cultures was confirmed through GRAM staining, which also facilitated their classification. The bacterial species were identified by sequencing the 16S rRNA [30] (see Table 1).
2.4. Microbial Fuel Cell Operation
The experiment was performed in a single-chamber microbial fuel cell, in which the sterile substrate and the bacterial suspension were placed. The substrate was autoclaved before being used and consisted of 90% of minimal salt medium (0.1% KH2PO4, 0.05% MgSO4, 0.05% NH4Cl, 0.5% MnSO4, 0.01% FeSO4, 0.01% CaCl2, and 0.01% ZnSO4, together with 10 g of sodium acetate as a carbon source) and 10% of the bacterial inoculum adjusted to the MacFarland tube number 5, equivalent to 15 × 108 cells/mL [31]. With the components ready for use and under sterile conditions, the sterile substrate, the microbial inoculum, and the 1.5 × 1.5 cm low-density polyethylene sheets were placed inside the MFC.
3. Results and Analysis
The generated voltages are observed in Figure 2a, which showed an increase from day 3 (0.022 ± 0.001 V), reaching a peak on day 28 at 0.714 ± 0.026 V, before decreasing until day 40 (0.621 ± 0.031 V). The voltages in microbial fuel cells using plastic waste and Klebsiella oxytoca bacteria vary because plastic has variable chemical compositions, which can affect the efficiency of microbial degradation and oxidation-reduction processes [32]. The chemical reactions create a potential differential that reaches a peak, after which the chemical compounds involved begin to be depleted, leading to a decrease in voltage values [33]. Pugazhendi et al. (2025) used a community of bacteria (Thiobacillus, Alicyclobacillus, Stenotrophomonas, and Bryobacte) in their MFCs showing a maximum voltage of 0.721 V, where they mention that changes in operating conditions modify the compounds used as nutrients in the substrates [34]. Patel et al. (2021), in their research, showed 107.01 ± 10.40 mV used by Exiguobacterium in their MFCs, mentioning the redox potential originates due to the bacterial redox activity of the microbes themselves [35]. Observation of the electric current values showed a progressive increase from day 3 (0.021 ± 0.003 mA) to day 28, reaching a peak of 3.149 ± 0.124 mA, followed by a decrease in current values until day 45 (2.534 ± 0.151 mA) (see Figure 2b). This increase in electric current values is attributed to the release of electrons by the Klebsiella oxytoca bacteria, which were captured by the anode and transported to the cathode [36]. The initial four-day delay in the increase in current values is due to the acclimatization period of the microbe and the formation of the mediating biofilm [37]. Klebsiella pneumoniae bacteria have been used in MFCs as a biocatalyst, with reports indicating that the generated electrons originate from the organic content of the native microflora responsible for transferring electrons to the electrode surface, where consequently, during the initial days, the current values tend to increase while the chemical oxygen demand decreases due to the activity of the microbiota [38]. Truong et al. (2021) used the bacteria Shewanella xiamenensis to degrade crystal violet and mentioned that the biodegradation potential depends on each fungus and its compatibility. Electron production and power generation are not always directly proportional, as they also depend on the resistance of the MFCs in operation [39].
It was observed that the pH values increased progressively from day 1, going from an acidic to a slightly alkaline region, reaching an optimal operating value of 5.32 ± 0.14 on day 28 (Figure 3a). The pH values vary due to the metabolic activity of Klebsiella oxytoca, which can produce acidic or basic byproducts, affecting the pH levels [40]. According to Mohyudin et al. (2022), in their research, they mention that the decomposition of plastic materials can release compounds that alter the pH of the system, as well as the fact that the type and concentration of electrolytes used in the MFC can influence pH variations [41]. In addition, Daud et al. (2021) mention that bacteria in MFCs are influenced by factors such as temperature, nutrient availability, and aeration, which can affect pH levels within the MFC [42]. The bacteria Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Acinetobacter Schindler, and Pseudomonas have also been used in MFCs as biocatalysts, achieving peak electric currents and voltages of 0.110 mA and 110 mV when operating at pH 7 [43]. In addition, the bacteria Lysinibacillus xylanilyticus has been used as a biocatalyst in H-type MFCs, generating peaks of 1127 mV using aluminum and graphite electrodes at pH 6 [44]. Figure 3b shows the observed values of electrical conductivity, which represent a similar trend to those observed in Figure 2a,b. The electrical conductivity values increased from 39.764 ± 0.05 mS/cm to 140.466 ± 5.180 mS/cm on day 28, before decreasing to 89.918 ± 6.781 mS/cm on day 40. This trend reflects the influence of Klebsiella oxytoca on plastic degradation, releasing ionic compounds that enhance electron mobility within the cell. As reported in previous studies, pH variations and microbial biofilm formation can alter the solubility of these compounds, thereby affecting the system’s conductivity [45]. Likewise, the final-phase decline suggests the gradual depletion of available substrates, impacting charge density [38]. Previous reports have mentioned that changes in pH can modify the solubility and mobility of ions, affecting the overall conductivity of the system [46]. Also, the development of microbial biofilms on the electrodes can enhance or hinder electron transfer and ion movement [47]. Figure 3c shows the oxidation-reduction potential (ORP), where an increase in values is observed from day 1 (9.267 ± 0.004 mV) to day 28 (109.519 ± 5.351 mV), followed by a slight decrease until day 35 (75.709 ± 6.817 mV). The metabolic activity of Klebsiella oxytoca bacteria can produce different redox-active compounds, which affects the redox potential, making it that as the bacteria decompose the plastic, the released compounds can alter the redox environment inside the MFC [48]. Rana et al. (2022) mention that Klebsiella oxytoca bacteria can break down plastic and generate electrons, but it depends on the availability of carbon sources, enzymatic activity, and environmental conditions [49]. There are also reports that variability in metabolic pathways can cause fluctuations in electron transfer efficiency, which affects ORP. Also, the bacterium Klebsiella oxytoca can use natural or synthetic mediators (e.g., flavins, quinones) to transfer electrons, and differences in the concentration and efficacy of mediators affect the redox potential [50,51].
The maximum power density values observed on day 28 were 11.391 ± 0.814 mW/cm2, with a current density of 5.106 mA/cm2 and a voltage of 501.965 ± 8.841 mV (see Figure 4. It has been shown that power density values tend to fluctuate due to the metabolic activity of Klebsiella oxytoca, which can produce various byproducts that influence power density. Additionally, as the bacteria degrade the plastic, the released compounds may alter the electrochemical environment, thereby affecting power density [52,53]. Arulmani et al. (2021) achieved a power density of 194.45 mW/m2 using Amaranthus viridis and Triticum aestivum bacteria in their MFCs, noting that the anode material (e.g., carbon cloth, graphite, or modified electrodes) affects bacterial adhesion and electron transfer. An electrode surface with poor conductivity or one that inhibits biofilm formation can reduce power density [54]. Similarly, Taşkan et al. (2021) reported a power density of 2965 mW/m2 in their MFCs with bacterial groups (Gammaproteobacteria, Deltaproteobacteria, and Alphaproteobacteria), mentioning that the microorganisms in the system can facilitate synergistic interactions that enhance biodegradation and electron transfer. They also highlighted that the presence of electroactive bacteria (e.g., Shewanella or Geobacter) can improve energy production [55].
Figure 5 presents the FTIR (Fourier transform infrared) spectrum of plastic waste degraded by Klebsiella oxytoca bacteria during observation. The broadband near 3354.65 cm−1 suggests the presence of hydroxyl groups (-OH) or amines (-NH), indicating possible oxidation or hydrolysis products generated during the degradation process [56]. Additionally, the peaks at 2847.67 cm−1 and 2914.99 cm−1 correspond to stretching vibrations of C-H bonds, characteristic of aliphatic hydrocarbons. A reduction in the intensity of these bands over time may indicate the degradation of the hydrocarbon chains within the plastic polymer [57]. Furthermore, the peak at 1633.27 cm−1 can be attributed to C=O bonds in carbonyl compounds, such as carboxylic acids, ketones, or esters [58]. The presence of these groups is likely associated with oxidative processes occurring during biodegradation. The peaks at 1069.03 cm−1 and 1471.47 cm−1 relate to stretching vibrations of C-O bonds, which suggest the formation of alcohols, ethers, or esters [54]. The peak at 729.98 cm−1 may indicate specific vibrations associated with the structure of the plastic polymer or its degradation products [55,56]. A comparison of the spectra from days 0, 15, and 35 reveals slight changes in the intensities and positions of the peaks, suggesting chemical modifications in the plastic over time due to the action of Klebsiella oxytoca. The observed decrease in the intensity of the C-H peaks, alongside an increase in the C=O peaks, indicates an oxidation process of the polymer, transforming it into more polar and degradable compounds [56].
The micrographs in Figure 6 illustrate the degradation of plastic samples mediated by Klebsiella oxytoca across three microbial fuel cells configurations. In MFC-1, the plastic surface shows early signs of decomposition, including small cracks and a slightly altered texture, indicating moderate bacterial activity. The presence of small fissures suggests that the bacteria are initiating the degradation process, although the extent of material breakdown remains relatively limited [59]. In MFC-2, the degradation effects are more pronounced, with deep cracks and regions of disintegrated material reflecting optimal bacterial activity. The structural integrity of the plastic is visibly compromised, showing significant surface disruptions [60]. This indicates that the conditions in MFC-2 are more favorable for microbial degradation, potentially due to optimal substrate availability and electrochemical conditions [61]. Finally, in MFC-3, the plastic exhibits advanced deterioration, characterized by completely eroded areas and a highly irregular texture. The increased porosity and extensive surface roughness confirm bacterial interaction and partial degradation of the material, likely involving enzymatic activity that breaks down polymer chains [60,61]. The combination of cracks, irregular zones, and material loss highlights the substantial impact of Klebsiella oxytoca on plastic decomposition. These findings highlighted the efficiency variations across different MFC setups, demonstrating how microbial activity and environmental conditions influence plastic biodegradation [61]. The irregular textures observed may result from microbial biofilm formation or residual biodegradation byproducts [62,63]. A comparative analysis of the micrographs confirms Klebsiella oxytoca’s effectiveness in plastic breakdown, offering insights into its potential application in sustainable waste management and bioelectricity generation.
Table 2 presents a detailed comparison of the electrochemical performance of various microbial fuel cells utilizing different microorganisms. This information is crucial for evaluating the efficiency of Klebsiella oxytoca in bioelectricity generation and plastic biodegradation compared to other systems reported in the literature. The current study achieved a maximum voltage of 0.714 ± 0.026 V and a power density of 11.391 ± 0.814 mW/cm2 using a single-chamber MFC configuration with Klebsiella oxytoca. In comparison, Ahmad et al. (2024) [18] recorded 0.210 V and 1.92 mW/cm2 with Planctomycetes, suggesting lower electrochemical activity. The difference in voltage can be attributed to variations in electron transfer mechanisms and the metabolic capacity of the microorganisms employed [63]. Misali et al. (2024) reported a significantly higher power density (35.93 mW/cm2) using a microbial consortium in a dual-chamber MFC. This indicates that synergistic interactions among different species can enhance electrochemical efficiency [19]. Arulmani et al. (2022) and Taşkan et al. (2021) present the highest power density values (194.45 mW/cm2 and 2965 mW/cm2, respectively), likely due to the presence of highly electrogenic microorganisms such as Gammaproteobacteria and Deltaproteobacteria, in addition to optimized electrode materials [55,62]. The low voltage observed in the study by Patel et al. (2021) (0.107 V) suggests that Exiguobacterium has limited electron transfer capability in MFCs, which may indicate the need for redox mediators to enhance its performance [35].
The performance of Klebsiella oxytoca in MFCs falls within a competitive range, although it does not reach the highest reported values in the literature. However, its ability to degrade plastics while generating bioelectricity makes it particularly valuable for applications in environmental biotechnology. Optimizing experimental conditions, such as anode composition and bacterial strain bioengineering, could further improve electrochemical efficiency and make this technology a viable solution for plastic waste valorization in sustainable energy systems.
4. Conclusions
The research demonstrated an innovative and sustainable approach to address the problem of plastic pollution. Through the bioremediation of the Klebsiella oxytoca bacteria, valuable byproducts were created through mechanisms such as bioelectricity through single-chamber microbial fuel cells at laboratory scale. The optimal pH observed during the monitoring was 5.32 ± 0.14 on day 28, where the best values of voltage (0.714 ± 0.026 V) and electric current (3.149 ± 0.124 mA) were obtained, where the substrate used showed an electrical conductivity of 140.466 ± 5.180 mS/cm and an oxidation-reduction potential of 109.519 ± 5.35. Likewise, a maximum power density of 11.391 ± 0.814 mW/cm2 was observed with the current density of 5.106 mA/cm2. It was also observed that the FTIR transmittance spectrum showed the peaks of the characteristic vibration modes in plastic samples, which decreased during monitoring, suggesting chemical modifications of the sample used due to the activity of the Klebsiella oxytoca bacteria. The micrographs of the plastic sample showed surface modifications, such as the appearance of porosities and cracks, due to the activity of the bacteria. These findings support the effectiveness of the bioelectrochemical process, demonstrating that plastic degradation is not only visible at the molecular level (FTIR) but also translates into physical modifications detectable by SEM. The integration of biotechnology and electrochemistry in this study enhances the potential of this strategy for plastic bioremediation, with applications in the development of more sustainable materials and the optimization of recycling processes. The ability of this bacteria to break down various types of plastics and convert them into renewable energy represents a significant advance in waste management and sustainable energy production.
The success of this project sets a precedent for the development of advanced bioelectrochemical systems, where plastic degradation and bioelectricity production are seamlessly integrated. The application of Klebsiella oxytoca in microbial fuel cells not only enhances the biodegradation of synthetic polymers but also improves efficiency in converting waste into renewable energy. This approach could be adapted to other types of plastic waste, including microplastics and hard-to-degrade polymers, through the selection of microorganisms with specific capabilities. Furthermore, optimizing electrode materials and improving electron transfer mechanisms could expand its feasibility for industrial and urban applications, strengthening its impact on sustainable waste management and clean energy production.
Data curation, N.S.-D., A.A.-M., and Á.D.G.-D.; Formal analysis, R.-F.S., C.-C.L., N.M.O., A.A.-M., and Á.D.G.-D.; Investigation, N.M.O. and M.D.L.C.-N.; Methodology, R.-F.S.; Resources, C.-C.L.; Software, M.D.L.C.-N.; Validation, R.-F.S. and M.D.L.C.-N. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Data are contained within the article.
The authors declare no conflicts 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.
Figure 1 Schematic of the MFC with the Klebsiella oxytoca bacteria.
Figure 2 Report on monitoring of the values of (a) voltage and (b) electric current.
Figure 3 Monitoring of (a) pH, (b) conductivity, and (c) ORP values.
Figure 4 Values of power density as a function of current density.
Figure 5 FTIR transmittance spectrum of the plastic waste used as a sample.
Figure 6 Micrographs of biodegradable plastic samples by Klebsiella oxytoca in (a) MFC-1, (b) MFC-2, and (c) MFC-3.
BLAST (version 1.48.0) characterization of the rDNA sequence of the bacteria isolated from the MFC anode plate with mango juice substrates.
| BLAST Characterization | Length of Consensus Sequence (nt) | % Maximum Identification | Accession Number | Phylogeny |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Klebsiella oxytoca | 1468 | 99.39 | NR_118853.1 | Cellular organisms; bacteria; Proteobacteria; Gammaproteobacteria; Enterobacterales; Enterobacteriaceae; Klebsiella |
Electrochemical performance of MFCs with Klebsiella oxytoca and other microorganisms.
| Author | Voltage (V) | PD (mW/cm2) | MFC Type | Organism |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| This research | 0.714 ± 0.026 | 11.391 ± 0.814 | single-chamber microbial fuel cells | Klebsiella oxytoca |
| Ahmad et al. (2024) [ | 0.210 | 1.92 | single-chamber microbial fuel cells | Planctomycetes |
| Misali et al. (2024) [ | 0.553 | 35.93 | dual-chamber microbial fuel cells | Consortium of microorganisms |
| Chandra et al. (2024) [ | 0.21 | N/D | dual-chamber microbial fuel cells | Consortium of microorganisms |
| Arulmani et al. (2022) [ | 0.721 | 194.45 | single-chamber microbial fuel cells | Amaranthus viridis, Triticum aestivum |
| Taşkan et al. (2021) [ | 2.965 | 2965 | single-chamber microbial fuel cells | Gammaproteobacteria, Deltaproteobacteria, Alphaproteobacteria |
| Patel et al. (2021) [ | 0.107 ± 10.40 | N/D | single-chamber microbial fuel cells | Exiguobacterium |
1. Evode, N.; Qamar, S.A.; Bilal, M.; Barceló, D.; Iqbal, H.M. Plastic waste and its management strategies for environmental sustainability. Case Stud. Chem. Environ. Eng.; 2021; 4, 100142. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cscee.2021.100142]
2. Kibria, G.; Masuk, N.I.; Safayet, R.; Nguyen, H.Q.; Mourshed, M. Plastic Waste: Challenges and Opportunities to Mitigate Pollution and Effective Management. Int. J. Environ. Res.; 2023; 17, 20. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s41742-023-00507-z] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36711426]
3. Chang, S.H. Plastic waste as pyrolysis feedstock for plastic oil production: A review. Sci. Total Environ.; 2023; 877, 162719. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.162719]
4. Liang, Y.; Tan, Q.; Song, Q.; Li, J. An analysis of the plastic waste trade and management in Asia. Waste Manag.; 2021; 119, pp. 242-253. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2020.09.049] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33091837]
5. Chen, H.L.; Nath, T.K.; Chong, S.; Foo, V.; Gibbins, C.; Lechner, A.M. The plastic waste problem in Malaysia: Management, recycling and disposal of local and global plastic waste. SN Appl. Sci.; 2021; 3, 437. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s42452-021-04234-y]
6. Shams, M.; Alam, I.; Mahbub, S. Plastic pollution during COVID-19: Plastic waste directives and its long-term impact on the environment. Environ. Adv.; 2021; 5, 100119. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envadv.2021.100119]
7. Kalali, E.N.; Lotfian, S.; Shabestari, M.E.; Khayatzadeh, S.; Zhao, C.; Nezhad, H.Y. A critical review of the current progress of plastic waste recycling technology in structural materials. Curr. Opin. Green Sustain. Chem.; 2023; 40, 100763. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cogsc.2023.100763]
8. Benson, N.U.; Bassey, D.E.; Palanisami, T. COVID pollution: Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on global plastic waste footprint. Heliyon; 2021; 7, e06343. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e06343]
9. Rinaldi, F.; Moghaddampoor, F.; Najafi, B.; Marchesi, R. Economic feasibility analysis and optimization of hybrid renewable energy systems for rural electrification in Peru. Clean Technol. Environ. Policy; 2021; 23, pp. 731-748. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10098-020-01906-y]
10. Lillo, P.; Ferrer-Martí, L.; Juanpera, M. Strengthening the sustainability of rural electrification projects: Renewable energy, management models and energy transitions in Peru, Ecuador and Bolivia. Energy Res. Soc. Sci.; 2021; 80, 102222. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2021.102222]
11. Fernandez-Fuentes, M.H.; Eras-Almeida, A.A.; Egido-Aguilera, M.A. Characterization of Technological Innovations in Photovoltaic Rural Electrification, Based on the Experiences of Bolivia, Peru, and Argentina: Third Generation Solar Home Systems. Sustainability; 2021; 13, 3032. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su13063032]
12. Canziani, F.; Vargas, R.; Gastelo-Roque, J.A. Hybrid Photovoltaic-Wind Microgrid With Battery Storage for Rural Electrification: A Case Study in Perú. Front. Energy Res.; 2021; 8, 528571. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fenrg.2020.528571]
13. Quispe, J.C.; Obispo, A.E.; Alcantara, F.J. Economic feasibility assessment of microgrids with renewable energy sources in Peruvian rural areas. Clean Technol. Environ. Policy; 2024; 26, pp. 1415-1438. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10098-023-02463-w]
14. James, A. Ceramic-microbial fuel cell (C-MFC) for waste water treatment: A mini review. Environ. Res.; 2022; 210, 112963. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2022.112963]
15. Huang, X.; Duan, C.; Duan, W.; Sun, F.; Cui, H.; Zhang, S.; Chen, X. Role of electrode materials on performance and microbial characteristics in the constructed wetland coupled microbial fuel cell (CW-MFC): A review. J. Clean. Prod.; 2021; 301, 126951. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126951]
16. Afrin, A.; Swamy, P.C.A. Symphony of light: AIE and MFC in carbazole-based cyanostilbenes. J. Mater. Chem. C; 2024; 12, pp. 1923-1944. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1039/D3TC04121B]
17. Kurniawan, T.A.; Othman, M.H.D.; Liang, X.; Ayub, M.; Goh, H.H.; Kusworo, T.D.; Mohyuddin, A.; Chew, K.W. Microbial Fuel Cells (MFC): A Potential Game-Changer in Renewable Energy Development. Sustainability; 2022; 14, 16847. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su142416847]
18. Ahmad, A.; Alshammari, M.B.; Ibrahim, M.N.M.; Dao, W.Y. Energy production with removal of lead and chromium from wastewater through microbial fuel cells energized by organic waste substrate. Biomass- Convers. Biorefinery; 2024; 4, pp. 1-13. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13399-024-06289-4]
19. Misali, R.; Noor, N.N.M.; Oktavitri, N.I.; Kim, K. The impact of bottom water light exposure on electrical and sediment remediation performance of sediment microbial fuel cells. Chemosphere; 2024; 362, 142720. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2024.142720]
20. Chandra, S.; Pandit, S.; Deb, S.; Mohan, C.; Rajeev, M.; Ranjan, N.; Kumar, A.; Dikshit, P.K. Utilization of water chestnut waste for biohydrogen production and enhanced power generation by stacked microbial fuel cell. Biocatal. Agric. Biotechnol.; 2024; 62, 103425. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bcab.2024.103425]
21. Huang, Y.; Liu, B.; Chi, Y.; Li, J.; Chi, Y.; Ji, M.; Zhai, H.; Wang, R.; Yuan, T.; Yu, H. Study on the treatment of simulated dye wastewater containing FMPs using the CW-MFC system. J. Water Process. Eng.; 2024; 66, 105810. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jwpe.2024.105810]
22. Ramesh, G.S.; Nayak, S.; Sevda, S. Biodegradation Mechanisms and Bioremediation Applications for Plastic Waste. Industrial Microbiology and Biotechnology: A New Horizon of the Microbial World; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2024; pp. 869-890. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-981-97-6270-5_29]
23. Kim, H.; Nam, E.; An, K.; Lim, H. Laboratory-scale plastic upcycling and green growth: Evaluating the upcycling of plastic waste into carbon nanotubes from economic and environmental aspects. Chem. Eng. J.; 2024; 495, 153300. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2024.153300]
24. Das, L.; Tripathi, A.; Biswas, K.G.; Nigam, K.D.P. Plastic Waste and Wheat Straw into Biofuels and Conversion of Wastewater into Agricultural Use Water. From Waste to Wealth; Springer Nature: Singapore, 2024; pp. 929-949. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-7552-5_41]
25. Ferheen, I.; Spurio, R.; Marcheggiani, S. Emerging Issues on Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria Colonizing Plastic Waste in Aquatic Ecosystems. Antibiotics; 2024; 13, 339. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics13040339] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/38667014]
26. Mupamhadzi, T.L.; Machona, O.; Chidzwondo, F.; Mangoyi, R. Molecular Detection and Phylogenetic Analysis of the alkB Gene in Klebsiella oxytoca Strains Isolated from the Gut of Tenebrio molitor. Sci. World J.; 2024; 2024, 3350591. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2024/3350591]
27. NTP 360.502, Water Quality, Peruvian, Peru, 2016. Available online: https://sni.org.pe/aprueban-normas-tecnicas-peruanas-sobre-carne-y-productos-carnicos-maiz-amilaceo-cebada-cerveza-aditivos-alimentarios-y-otros/ (accessed on 18 May 2025).
28. Segundo, R.-F.; Magaly, D.L.C.-N.; Luis, C.-C.; Otiniano, N.M.; Soto-Deza, N.; Terrones-Rodriguez, N.; Mayra, D.L.C.-C. Obtaining Sustainable Electrical Energy from Pepper Waste. Sustainability; 2024; 16, 3448. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su16083448]
29. Raaman, N.; Rajitha, N.; Jayshree, A.; Jegadeesh, R. Biodegradation of plastic by Aspergillus spp. isolated from polythene polluted sites around Chennai. J. Acad. Indus. Res.; 2012; 1, pp. 313-316. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-22467-1]
30. La Cruz-Noriega, D.; Nazario-Naveda, R.; Benites, S.M.; Rojas-Flores, S.; Delfín-Narciso, D.; Rojas-Villacorta, W.; Diaz, F. Potential use of mango waste and microalgae Spirulina sp. for bioelectricity generation. Environ. Res. Eng. Manag.; 2022; 78, 129. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5755/j01.erem.78.3.31117]
31. Munir, E.; Harefa, R.S.M.; Priyani, N.; Suryanto, D. Plastic degrading fungi Trichoderma viride and Aspergillus nomius isolated from local landfill soil in Medan. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science; IOP Publishing: Bristol, UK, 2018; Volume 126, 012145. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/126/1/012145]
32. Asiandu, A.P.; Wahyudi, A.; Sari, S.W. A Review: Plastics Waste Biodegradation Using Plastics-Degrading Bacteria. J. Environ. Treat. Tech.; 2021; 9, pp. 148-157. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47277/jett/9(1)157]
33. Sharma, H.; Neelam, D.K. Understanding challenges associated with plastic and bacterial approach toward plastic degradation. J. Basic Microbiol.; 2023; 63, pp. 292-307. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jobm.202200428]
34. Pugazhendi, A.; Al-Mur, B.A.; Jeyakumar, R.B. Cosmetic industrial wastewater treatment and bioelectricity production in upflow microbial fuel cell (UMFC) using extremophilic bacterial consortium. J. Taiwan Inst. Chem. Eng.; 2025; 166, 105438. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jtice.2024.105438]
35. Patel, D.; Bapodra, S.L.; Madamwar, D.; Desai, C. Electroactive bacterial community augmentation enhances the performance of a pilot scale constructed wetland microbial fuel cell for treatment of textile dye wastewater. Bioresour. Technol.; 2021; 332, 125088. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2021.125088] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33839511]
36. Fadzli, F.S.; Bhawani, S.A.; Mohammad, R.E.A. Microbial Fuel Cell: Recent Developments in Organic Substrate Use and Bacterial Electrode Interaction. J. Chem.; 2021; 2021, 4570388. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2021/4570388]
37. Obileke, K.; Onyeaka, H.; Meyer, E.L.; Nwokolo, N. Microbial fuel cells, a renewable energy technology for bio-electricity generation: A mini-review. Electrochem. Commun.; 2021; 125, 107003. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.elecom.2021.107003]
38. Guo, H.; Huang, C.; Geng, X.; Jia, X.; Huo, H.; Yue, W. Influence of the original electrogenic bacteria on the per-formance of oily sludge Microbial Fuel Cells. Energy Rep.; 2022; 8, pp. 14374-14381. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2022.10.440]
39. Truong, D.H.; Dam, M.S.; Bujna, E.; Rezessy-Szabo, J.; Farkas, C.; Vi, V.N.H.; Csernus, O.; Nguyen, V.D.; Gathergood, N.; Friedrich, L.
40. Gul, H.; Raza, W.; Lee, J.; Azam, M.; Ashraf, M.; Kim, K.-H. Progress in microbial fuel cell technology for wastewater treatment and energy harvesting. Chemosphere; 2021; 281, 130828. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2021.130828]
41. Mohyudin, S.; Farooq, R.; Jubeen, F.; Rasheed, T.; Fatima, M.; Sher, F. Microbial fuel cells a state-of-the-art technology for wastewater treatment and bioelectricity generation. Environ. Res.; 2022; 204, 112387. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2021.112387] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34785206]
42. Daud, N.N.M.; Ahmad, A.; Yaqoob, A.A.; Ibrahim, M.N.M. Application of rotten rice as a substrate for bacterial species to generate energy and the removal of toxic metals from wastewater through microbial fuel cells. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res.; 2021; 28, pp. 62816-62827. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-15104-w]
43. Yaakop, A.S.; Ahmad, A.; Hussain, F.; Oh, S.-E.; Alshammari, M.B.; Chauhan, R. Domestic Organic Waste: A Potential Source to Produce the Energy via a Single-Chamber Microbial Fuel Cell. Int. J. Chem. Eng.; 2023; 2023, 2425735. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2023/2425735]
44. Pan, P.; Bhattacharyya, N. Bioelectricity Production from Microbial Fuel Cell (MFC) Using Lysinibacillus xylanilyticus Strain nbpp1 as a Biocatalyst. Curr. Microbiol.; 2023; 80, 252. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00284-023-03338-5]
45. Zhao, Y.; Duan, L.; Hermanowicz, S.W. Influence of water transport characteristics on membrane internal conductive structure in forward osmosis microbial fuel cell. J. Mol. Liq.; 2023; 380, 121704. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.molliq.2023.121704]
46. Abd-Elrahman, N.K.; Al-Harbi, N.; Basfer, N.M.; Al-Hadeethi, Y.; Umar, A.; Akbar, S. Applications of Nanomaterials in Microbial Fuel Cells: A Review. Molecules; 2022; 27, 7483. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/molecules27217483] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36364309]
47. Ma, Y.; Wu, X.; Shi, Z.; Li, X.; Qian, S.; Sun, X.; Sun, W.; Guo, C.; Li, C.M. Photoactive Manganese Ferrite-Modified Bacterial Anode to Simultaneously Boost Both Mediated and Direct Electron Transfer Processes in Microbial Fuel Cells. ACS Sustain. Chem. Eng.; 2022; 10, pp. 3355-3362. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acssuschemeng.1c08683]
48. Khater, D.Z.; Amin, R.S.; Fetohi, A.E.; El-Khatib, K.M.; Mahmoud, G.A.E. Microbial fuel cells: Biobattery for environmental bioremediation and bioelectricity generation. Environmental Materials and Waste; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2024; pp. 813-833. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-443-22069-2.00019-x]
49. Rana, A.K.; Thakur, M.K.; Saini, A.K.; Mokhta, S.K.; Moradi, O.; Rydzkowski, T.; Alsanie, W.F.; Wang, Q.; Grammatikos, S.; Thakur, V.K. Recent developments in microbial degradation of polypropylene: Integrated approaches towards a sustainable environment. Sci. Total Environ.; 2022; 826, 154056. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.154056]
50. Abdullah,; Krukiewicz, K. Development of electrically-conducting biohybrid materials based on electroactive bacteria and conjugated polymers: Review and perspectives. Electrochim. Acta; 2023; 468, 143191. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.electacta.2023.143191]
51. Kapoor, R.T.; Shah, M.P. Synergistic Approaches for Bioremediation of Environmental Pollutants: Recent Advances and Challenges; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2022; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1201/9781003203438]
52. Rossi, R.; Logan, B.E. Using an anion exchange membrane for effective hydroxide ion transport enables high power densities in microbial fuel cells. Chem. Eng. J.; 2021; 422, 130150. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2021.130150]
53. Cao, B.; Zhao, Z.; Peng, L.; Shiu, H.-Y.; Ding, M.; Song, F.; Guan, X.; Lee, C.K.; Huang, J.; Zhu, D.
54. Arulmani, S.R.B.; Gnanamuthu, H.L.; Kandasamy, S.; Govindarajan, G.; Alsehli, M.; Elfasakhany, A.; Pugazhendhi, A.; Zhang, H. Sustainable bioelectricity production from Amaranthus viridis and Triticum aestivum mediated plant microbial fuel cells with efficient electrogenic bacteria selections. Process. Biochem.; 2021; 107, pp. 27-37. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.procbio.2021.04.015]
55. Taşkan, B.; Bakır, M.; Taşkan, E. Enhanced power generation from algal biomass using multi-anode membrane-less sediment microbial fuel cell. Int. J. Energy Res.; 2021; 45, pp. 2011-2022. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/er.5894]
56. Jang, Y.; Nyamjav, I.; Kim, H.R.; Suh, D.-E.; Park, N.; Lee, Y.E.; Lee, S. Identification of plastic-degrading bacteria in the human gut. Sci. Total Environ.; 2024; 929, 172775. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.172775]
57. Maidarjav, A.; Nyamjav, I.; Kim, H.R.; Suh, D.-E.; Lee, S. Biodegradation of Ethylene Vinyl Acetate Using Klebsiella aerogenes EM011 Isolated from Effective Microorganisms. J. Polym. Environ.; 2024; 32, pp. 5823-5836. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10924-024-03348-9]
58. Metcalf, R.; Messer, L.F.; White, H.L.; Ormsby, M.J.; Matallana-Surget, S.; Quilliam, R.S. Evidence of interspecific plasmid uptake by pathogenic strains of Klebsiella isolated from microplastic pollution on public beaches. J. Hazard. Mater.; 2024; 461, 132567. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2023.132567] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37741206]
59. Waqar, S.; Tariq, A.; Ullah, U.; Haleem, H.; Aimen, H.; Sattar, S.; Bostan, N. Arsenic efflux and bioremediation potential of Klebsiella oxytoca via the arsB gene. PLoS ONE; 2025; 20, e0307918. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307918]
60. Zhang, X.; Feng, X.; Lin, Y.; Gou, H.; Zhang, Y.; Yang, L. Degradation of polyethylene by Klebsiella pneumoniae Mk-1 isolated from soil. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf.; 2023; 258, 114965. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoenv.2023.114965] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37141682]
61. Iqbal, A.; Bhatti, Z.A.; Maqbool, F.; Siddiqui, M.F.; Zeb, S.; Zhao, Y.-G.; Xu, L.; Ahmad, S.; Hussain, Z. Effect of electrode in UASB-MFC reactor for nitrogen removal under anammox condition and its microbial community profile. Desalination Water Treat.; 2024; 318, 100300. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.dwt.2024.100300]
62. Arulmani, S.R.B.; Dai, J.; Li, H.; Chen, Z.; Sun, W.; Zhang, H.; Yan, J.; Kandasamy, S.; Xiao, T. Antimony reduction by a non-conventional sulfate reducer with simultaneous bioenergy production in microbial fuel cells. Chemosphere; 2022; 291, 132754. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2021.132754]
63. Taşkan, B.; Taşkan, E. Inhibition of AHL-mediated quorum sensing to control biofilm thickness in microbial fuel cell by using Rhodococcus sp. BH4. Chemosphere; 2021; 285, 131538. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2021.131538]
© 2025 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 1
; Milly, Otiniano Nélida 1
; De La Cruz-Noriega Magaly 1
; Soto-Deza, Nancy 2 ; Alviz-Meza Anibal 3
; González-Delgado, Ángel Darío 3
1 Institutos y Centros de Investigación, Universidad Cesar Vallejo, Trujillo 13001, Peru; [email protected] (C.-C.L.); [email protected] (N.M.O.); [email protected] (M.D.L.C.-N.); [email protected] (N.S.-D.), Renewable Resources Nanotech Group, Universidad Cesar Vallejo, Trujillo 13001, Peru
2 Institutos y Centros de Investigación, Universidad Cesar Vallejo, Trujillo 13001, Peru; [email protected] (C.-C.L.); [email protected] (N.M.O.); [email protected] (M.D.L.C.-N.); [email protected] (N.S.-D.)
3 Nanomaterials and Computer Aided Process Engineering Research Group (NIPAC), Chemical Engineering Department, Universidad de Cartagena, 130014 Cartagena, Bolivar, Colombia; [email protected] (A.A.-M.); [email protected] (Á.D.G.-D.)