See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/303416132

Microbial Fuel Cells for Wastewater Treatment and Energy Generation

Chapter · December 2016

DOI: 10.1016/B978-1-78242-375-1.00008-3

CITATIONS READS

4 5,160

1 author:

Veera Gnaneswar Gude

Mississippi State University
137 PUBLICATIONS   3,349 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Desalination and Water Reuse View project

Microbial Electrochemical Technologies for Resource-Efficient Waste Management View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Veera Gnaneswar Gude on 05 February 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Journal of Cleaner Production 122 (2016) 287e307

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

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

Review

Wastewater treatment in microbial fuel cells e an overview

Veera Gnaneswar Gude
Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering, Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, MS 39762, USA

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

Article history: Environmental issues associated with water sanitation are not confined to developing countries alone
Received 28 August 2015 but are the most basic human and environmental necessities all over the world. Wastewater sources are
Received in revised form major causes for environmental pollution in surface and ground water bodies. Current wastewater
5 February 2016
treatment technologies are not sustainable to meet the ever growing water sanitation needs due to rapid
Accepted 5 February 2016
Available online 12 February 2016
industrialization and population growth, simply because they are energy- and cost-intensive leaving
latitude for development of technologies that are energy-conservative or energy-yielding. For the pre-
sent and future context, microbial fuel cells technology may present a sustainable and an environ-
Keywords:
Microbial fuel cell
mentally friendly route to meet the water sanitation needs. Microbial fuel cell based wastewater systems
Bioelectrochemical systems employ bioelectrochemical catalytic activity of microbes to produce electricity from the oxidation of
Wastewater organic, and in some cases inorganic, substrates present in urban sewage, agricultural, dairy, food and
Bioenergy industrial wastewaters. This article presents the potential for energy generation and comprehensive
Algae wastewater treatment in microbial fuel cells. The article provides an overview of recent literature with
Source separation two specific aims. First, it provides an overview of current energy needs for wastewater treatment and
potential energy recovery options followed by a comprehensive review of the principles of wastewater
treatment, substrate utilization (organic removal), recent process developments, nutrient and metal
removal capacities in microbial fuel cells. Several issues related to process performance, organic removal
capacities and potential environmental impacts were discussed in detail. From the economic and life
cycle assessment point of view, although recent developments in power production are encouraging,
important discoveries in electrode materials, innovative and integrated process configurations along
with experience in pilot scale studies are urgently required to determine the real potential of the mi-
crobial fuel cell technology to provide sustainable and energy-positive wastewater treatment.
© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 288
2. Energy consumption and recovery in wastewater treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 289
2.1. Energy recovery in wastewater treatment systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 289
2.2. Energy recovery options from wastewater sludge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 290
2.2.1. Anaerobic digestion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 290
2.2.2. Thermochemical processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 290
2.2.3. Other energy recovery options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 291
3. Microbial fuel cells (MFCs) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 291
3.1. Advantages of MFCs over other available options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 292
3.2. Principles of waste treatment via MFCs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 292
3.3. Oxidationereduction reactions (ORR) in MFCs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 292
3.3.1. Oxidation reactions (anode) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 293
3.3.2. Reduction reactions (cathode) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 293
4. Organic removal in MFCs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 293
4.1. MFCs with synthetic wastewater as substrates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 293

E-mail addresses: gude@cee.msstate.edu, gudevg@gmail.com.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.02.022
0959-6526/© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
288 V.G. Gude / Journal of Cleaner Production 122 (2016) 287e307

4.2. MFCs with actual wastewater as substrates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 293

4.3. Effect of process parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 295
5. Biocathodes in MFCs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 296
6. Nutrient removal in MFCs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 297
6.1. Nitrogen removal in MFCs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 297
6.2. Phosphorous removal in MFCs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 298
7. Metal removal in MFCs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 298
8. Source separation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 299
8.1. Urine as energy source . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 299
8.2. Energy from human feces and other wastes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 299
9. Current challenges and potential opportunities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 300
9.1. COD removal rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 300
9.2. Low power densities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 300
9.3. Air cathode performance and biocathode development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 301
9.4. Integration with other beneficial processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 301
9.5. Advanced treatment in MFCs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 302
10. Economics and life cycle assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 302
10.1. MFC cost analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 302
10.2. Life cycle assessment of MFCs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 303
11. Concluding remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 303
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 303
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 303

1. Introduction dioxide (CO2) and nitrous oxide (N2O), and other volatile substances
are released into the atmosphere, and in the meantime excess sludge
Wastewater treatment is not only a concern for developing is produced which needs further disposal. For example, each kWh of
countries but it continues to be the most basic sanitation need to electricity production involves release of 0.9 kg CO2 emissions and
protect the environment and the water bodies that serve as for every 1000 tons of wastewater treated, 1500 tons of greenhouse
drinking water sources around the world. Wastewater treatment gases are released (EIA, 2009; Wang et al., 2010). Emissions associ-
accounts for about 3e4% of the United States' electrical energy load, ated with the energy demand of wastewater treatment systems in
which is approximately 110 TWh/year, or equivalent to 9.6 million
households' annual electricity use (McCarty et al., 2011). In UK,
wastewater treatment requires approximately 6.34 GWh of elec-
tricity, almost 1% of the average daily electricity consumption of
England and Wales (DTI, 2005). Wastewater treatment requires
about 0.5e2 kWh/m3 which depends on the process and waste-
water composition and interestingly, it contains about 3e10 times
the energy required to treat it (Gude, 2015a). The energy locked in
wastewater is mainly present in three forms: 1 e organic matter
(~1.79 kWh/m3); 2 e nutritional elements such as nitrogen, phos-
phorous (~0.7 kWh/m3); and 3 e thermal energy (~7 kWh/m3)
(McCarty et al., 2011). Energy available in domestic wastewater
source can be classified as chemical and thermal energy. Chemical
energy (~26%) is available in the forms of carbon (measured as
chemical oxygen demand, COD) and nutrient compounds (nitro-
gen, N and phosphorous, P). Thermal energy holds a major portion
of this energy potential (74%). Chemical energy can be efficiently
harvested while thermal energy may not be extracted except by use
of a heat pump and subject to wastewater source temperature. By
extracting this hidden chemical energy, wastewater treatment can
be turned into an energy-yielding or energy-independent process
rather than an energy consuming process while eliminating envi-
ronmental pollution (Gude et al., 2013).
Direct disposal of wastewater generating from various sources
such as domestic, agricultural and industrial facilities is the major
cause for various environmental impacts including eutrophication
of surface waters, hypoxia, and algal blooms impairing potential
drinking water sources. Current wastewater treatment processes are
energy- and chemical-intensive and require large investments
without any revenue generation. Wastewater treatment processes Fig. 1. (A) Energy required for carbon and nitrogen removal in activated sludge (AS);
trickling filters (TF); advanced wastewater treatment without nitrogen removal (AWT
have an energy demand of 0.5e2 kWh/m3 of the wastewater treated
w/o N) and advanced wastewater treatment with nitrogen removal (AWT w/N); (B)
for carbon and partial nitrogen removal. During the treatment a Low, median and high values for energy consumption at different wastewater treat-
considerable amount of greenhouse gases (GHGs), such as carbon ment capacities.
 V.G. Gude / Journal of Cleaner Production 122 (2016) 287e307
2000 have been estimated as 15.5 Tera grams (Tg) CO2-equivalents
(CO2-eq.), an acidification potential of 145 Gigagrams (Gg) SO2
equivalents, and eutrophication potential of 4 Gg PO3
4 equivalents
(US EPA, 2012). These facts show that current wastewater treatment
systems are not sustainable and newer energy positive configura-
tions should developed (Khandan et al., 2014).
Currently wastewater treatment systems are mostly based on
well-established activated sludge process in most parts of the
world. While activated sludge process produces superior results
with quick processing times, the process is chemical-, and energy-
intensive requiring high capital and operation/maintenance costs
(Sustarsic, 2009). Activated sludge process requires aeration which
can count up to 75% of wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) energy
costs, while the treatment and disposal of sludge may count up to
60% of the total operation costs. The United States spends approx-
imately $25 billion annually on domestic wastewater treatment,
and another $300 billion is needed for improving publicly owned
treatment works (USEPA, 2008). On the other hand, anaerobic
treatment has been practiced for high strength wastewaters and
various industrial wastewaters and excess sludge streams from the
wastewater treatment plants. This technology has been developed
over a century to treat wastewaters successfully while recovering
valuable bioenergy (Visvanathan and Abeynayaka, 2012). Waste-
water treatment plants with an anaerobic digestion unit in place
have demonstrated the potential for energy savings through
energy-rich biogas production. Conventionally, energy is extracted
from wastewater though anaerobic digestion in the form of biogas,
which requires further separation and purification steps. An esti-
mated 628e4940 million kWh could be saved annually in the
United States by anaerobic digestion if all wastewater treatment
plants could use the biogas produced (Stillwell, 2010).
2. Energy consumption and recovery in wastewater
treatment
A typical domestic wastewater treatment plant with aerobic
activated sludge treatment and anaerobic sludge digestion
Fig. 2. Potential energy and resource recovery options in wastewater treatment systems.
289
technology consumes 0.6 kWh of energy per m3 of wastewater
treated, about 50% of which is for electrical energy to supply air for
the aeration basins (McCarty et al., 2011). Wastewater treatment by
lagoons, trickling filters, activated sludge and advanced wastewater
treatment require 0.09e0.29, 0.18e0.42, 0.33e0.60, and
0.31e0.40 kWh/m3 respectively (Logan, 2008). Biogas (CH4) pro-
duced from anaerobic digestion could satisfy 25e50% of the energy
requirements for aerobic activated sludge treatment and other
plant modifications may further reduce energy needs considerably.
However, if more of the energy potential in wastewater were
captured for use and even less were used for wastewater treatment,
then, wastewater treatment might become a net energy producer
rather than a consumer (Logan, 2004).
Energy requirements for carbon removing processes are lower
than those processes that remove nitrogen (BNR) (Fig. 1A). It can be
noted that energy consumption tends to get lower as the treatment
capacity increases. Fig. 1B shows the low, median and high energy
consumption values for wastewater treatment plants varying in
size. Energy requirements decrease with the plant size, the trend
being similar for low, medium and high ranges. Treatment energy
requirements generally decline as facility capacity increases; even
within this category, variation in energy requirements is large and
is driven by other factors including the type of filtration and source
water quality. Facilities using pressure filtration and oxidation are
likely at the higher end of the range, whereas facilities using direct
or sand filtration are likely at the lower end of the range. For large-
scale plants, a very high variation between the low and high values
can be seen due to an advanced treatment train for biological
nutrient removal or lack of an energy recovery unit such as an
anaerobic digester (AWWA, 2007).
2.1. Energy recovery in wastewater treatment systems
The focus of traditional wastewater treatment systems has been
to meet the discharge standards (by removing the carbonaceous
and nutrient compounds) for effluent and stabilize the sludge for
land application. The problems of fossil-fuel depletion,
290 V.G. Gude / Journal of Cleaner Production 122 (2016) 287e307
environmental pollution, water and other resource shortages are
driving intensive efforts towards more sustainable treatment and
utilization of wastewater. In view of the above issues, current
wastewater treatment systems design and operation has shifted
from removing the pollutants to recovering resources and mini-
mizing energy consumption and maximizing the energy recovery.
As such the wastewater treatment systems are now being recog-
nized as “Water Resource Recovery Facilities e WRRFs”.
A few studies have evaluated the energy content in the waste-
water sludge. These studies reported an energy content of 3e10
times higher than the energy required to treat the wastewater. For
example, a study of a 35,700 m3/d POTW by Shizas and Bagley
(2004) concluded that the energy content of the methane pro-
duced by anaerobic digestion of the sludge generated by the pri-
mary and secondary processes in this plant was equivalent to 3.5
times the energy consumed by the plant. Toronto wastewater had
an energy content of 10 times higher than the energy required to
treat it. An average of 40e80 gBOD5 is generated per capita per day
which is about 60e120 gCOD/person/day. If 14.7 kJ per gCOD is
available, the total energy that could be available around the world
(6.8 billion people) in the wastewater is approximately
2.2e4.4  1018 J of energy per year is available, or a continuous
supply rate of 70e140 GW of energy, the equivalent of burning
52e104 million tons of oil in a modern power station, or up to
24,000 of the world's largest wind turbines working continuously.
This estimation does not even include all the energy contained in
our agricultural and industrial wastewater (Heidtich et al., 2010).
Fig. 2 shows a general schematic and potential energy and resource
recovery options in wastewater treatment systems. Source sepa-
ration allows for collection of nutrient-rich urine for fertilizer
production. The primary and secondary sludge can be treated using
various physical, chemical and biological processes such as anaer-
obic digestion, thermal treatment (gasification, incineration,
liquefaction, and pyrolysis) and finally composting to produce
various forms of bioenergy and nutrient-rich biosolids.
2.2. Energy recovery options from wastewater sludge
Wastewater sludges are complex substrates, rich in organic
carbon and nutrients, as well as energy. The energy content of
wastewater sludges was quantified through bomb calorimetry.
Zanoni and Mueller (1982) reported energy content of a primary
sludge as 15.0 MJ/kg; and, that of a secondary sludge as 13.5 MJ/kg,
on dry solids basis. Similar values were reported by Shizas and
Bagley (2004) (15.9 and 12.4 MJ/kg, respectively) and by Manara
and Zabaniotou (2012) (15.1 MJ/kg and 17.3 MJ/kg, respectively).
These results suggest that most of the energy content of the raw
wastewater is concentrated in the settleable volatile solids,
captured by the primary process as primary sludge.
2.2.1. Anaerobic digestion
Energy recovery from wastewater sludges by anaerobic digestion
(AD) is well established. Traditionally, primary and secondary
sludges have been combined and fed to AD, where their organic
Table 1
Energy recovery potential from algae based wastewater systems using various configurations.
Technology Nutrient HTL
HRAP N 75e160
P 320e1500
PBR N 270e590
P 230e500
Stirred tank P 900e1900
ATS N 110e240
P 580e1300
carbon content is converted to a gaseous energy carrier e methane
(Khandan et al., 2014). Anaerobic digestion involves a series of three
key reactions where the complex constituents of the sludge such as
proteins, carbohydrates, and fats are first converted to amino acids,
fatty acids, and sugar by hydrolysis, followed by their conversion to
volatile fatty acids and short-chain fatty acids and hydrogen by
acidogenesis and acetogenesis, and finally to methane and carbon
dioxide by methanogenesis. The energy that can be potentially
harvested via AD can be estimated stoichiometrically as follows:
1 kg of methane can be harvested from 4 kg of COD or about (4/1.47)
kg of volatile suspended solids (VSS) destroyed (Khandan et al.,
2014). Assuming the energy content of methane as 50.4 MJ/kg,
and an efficiency of 35% for its conversion to electrical energy via an
internal combustion engine/alternator, the potential for electricity
production by AD can be estimated as 1.8 kWh/kg VSS destroyed.
Electricity generation using biogas from anaerobic digestion
varies depending on the generation technology employed. Research
from Burton and the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) shows
that anaerobic digestion with biogas utilization can produce about
350 kWh of electricity for each million gallons of wastewater
treated at the plant (Burton, 1996). The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) Combined Heat and Power Partnership estimates that
approximately 491 kWh of electricity can be produced with a
microturbine and 525 kWh of electricity can be produced with an
internal combustion engine for each million gallons of wastewater
treated at a plant with anaerobic digestion (Stillwell et al., 2010).
Research shows that wastewater treatment plants with treatment
capacities less than 5 million gallons per day (mgd) or (18,900 m3/
d) do not produce enough biogas to make electricity generation
feasible or cost-effective (Stillwell et al., 2011).
2.2.2. Thermochemical processes
Chemical and thermochemical processes have been well
explored as potential technologies for energy recovery from
wastewater sludges in recent years. These technologies include
gasification, liquefaction, and pyrolysis. A recent review concluded
that thermochemical extraction of lipids from the sludge is the
most energy-efficient approach (Manara and Zabaniotou, 2012).
Sludge generated from wastewater treatment can serve as an
excellent feedstock for biodiesel production due to high concen-
tration of lipids. The bacteria cells in wastewater systems can
utilize the carbon and nitrogen compounds to produce lipids and
store in the cells along with surface adsorption of lipids in the
wastewater. Dry cell mass of 24e25% of the cells are composed of
lipids while other studies report 37% of fatty acids and steroids
(Kargbo, 2010). These fatty acids and lipids include triglycerides,
diglycerides, monoglycerides, phospholipids, and free fatty acids
contained in the oils and fats. The free fatty acid chains are in the
range of C10eC18. An estimated 6.2 million dry metric tons of
sludge is produced annually in the US. If lipids from this sludge
can be extracted at a reasonable extraction efficiency of 50%
following transesterification reaction, the process could produce
1.8 billion gallons of biodiesel which is roughly 0.5% of the annual
petroleum diesel demand. In recent studies about 10e14% of
Anaerobic digestion Transesterification Combustion
32e160 34e100 90e130
730e1600 330e980 880e1300
120e580 120e370 330e500
100e490 100e310 280e420
400e1900 400e1200 1100e1600
47e230 49e150 130e200
250e1200 260e790 700e1100
 V.G. Gude / Journal of Cleaner Production 122 (2016) 287e307 291

Fig. 3. Microbial fuel cell for wastewater treatment with a chemical cathode: anode chamber can be fed with various wastewater sources while the cathode chamber can be used to
produce useful chemicals or remove environmental pollutants.

Fig. 4. Energy yield from wastewater through different options.

biodiesel yields were reported (Mondala et al., 2009; Olkiewicz
et al., 2012). An economic analysis estimated the cost of $3.23/
gallon for a neat biodiesel obtained from this process at an
assumed yield of 10% FAMEs/dry weight of sludge (Mondala et al.,
2009). Thermochemical liquefaction of sewage sludge resulted in
bio-oil yields of nearly 40% with higher heating values of 36.14 MJ/
kg. Catalytic hydro-liquefaction of primary sludge using two
different solvents showed gravimetric oil yields ranging between
53 and 74% with HHV ranging 35e39.8 MJ/kg. While this approach
seems energy-efficient yielding oils similar to biofuels, its practical
applicability may be limited by the reliance on solvents, which
may have to be recovered and reused to improve its economics
and environmental sustainability (Lemoine et al., 2013).
pond (WSP), and algal turf scrubber (ATS). These systems can
produce energy-rich algal biomass that can be used as feedstock for
high value energy products. A comparison between the anaerobic
and phototrophic technologies showed that the average bioenergy
feedstock production by phototrophic technologies ranged from
1200 to 4700 kJ per capita per day or 3400e13,000 kJ/m3
(exceeding anaerobic technologies and, at times, the energetic
content of the influent organic carbon), with usable energy pro-
duction dependent upon downstream conversion to fuels (Shoener
et al., 2014). Table 1 shows the energy production potential (kJ) per
g of nutrients removed from wastewater via different energy-
conversion processes such as hydrothermal liquefaction (HTL),
anaerobic digestion, transesterification and combustion. More de-
tails of this analysis are presented in Shoener et al. (2014).

2.2.3. Other energy recovery options

Algae based wastewater treatment has shown promise to be an 3. Microbial fuel cells (MFCs)
energy-positive process (see Fig. 2). Phototrophic (algae based)
technologies can be designed as high rate algal pond (HRAP), Direct conversion of waste into clean electricity or high value
photobioreactor (PBR), stirred tank reactor, waste stabilization energy or chemical products was recognized as a better option to
292 V.G. Gude / Journal of Cleaner Production 122 (2016) 287e307
eliminate the excess sludge and energy issues in conventional
wastewater treatment systems (Logan, 2008; Logan and Rabaey,
2012). Biological systems that convert chemical energy (in the
form of organic substrate in wastewater) into electrical energy or
other high value products are known as bio-electro-chemical sys-
tems (BESs) (Kumar et al., 2012). Bioelectrochemical systems har-
vest clean energy from waste organic sources by employing
indigenous exoelectrogenic bacteria (Lovley, 2006) (Fig. 3). This
energy is extracted in the form of bioelectricity in MFCs or valuable
biofuels such as ethanol, methane, hydrogen, and hydrogen
peroxide in case of microbial electrolysis cells. A cation exchange
membrane also known as proton exchange membrane (PEM) is
used to separate the anode and cathode compartments.
3.1. Advantages of MFCs over other available options
MFCs offer several energy (direct electricity generation, energy
savings by anaerobic treatment due to elimination of aeration, low
sludge yield, and centralized and decentralized applications);
environmental (water reclamation, low carbon footprint, lower
sludge volumes for disposal); economic (revenue through energy
and value-added products-chemicals, low operational costs, elim-
inate downstream processes) and operational benefits (self-gen-
eration of microorganisms, good resistance to environmental
stress, and amenable to real-time monitoring and control) (W.W. Li
et al., 2014; Y. Li et al., 2014). MFCs produce clean electricity directly
from organic matter in wastewater without any need for separa-
tion, purification and conversion of the energy products. In com-
parison, methane and hydrogen can be produced from anaerobic
digestion process which require separation and purification prior to
their use. MFCs are environmentally friendly technologies since
they can produce clean electricity directly and function at mild
operating conditions especially at ambient temperatures. MFCs
may produce up to 1.43 kWh/m3 from a primary sludge or 1.8 kWh/
m3 from a treated effluent (Ge et al., 2013). MFCs consume only
0.024 kW or 0.076 kWh/kg-COD in average (mainly for feeding and
mixing in the reactor), about one order of magnitude less than
activated sludge-based aerobic processes (~0.3 kW or 0.6 kWh/kg-
COD) (Zhang et al., 2013a,b). This means MFCs consume only about
10 percent of the external energy for their operation when
compared with conventional activated sludge process showing
great potential for energy savings as well as possible energy re-
covery from wastewater treatment. Finally, cell yield of exoelec-
trogenic bacteria (0.07e0.16 gVSS/gCOD) is much less than the
activated sludge (0.35e0.45 gVSS/gCOD), which reduces sludge
production significantly. Sludge management is a major concern for
the wastewater treatment plants (Rittmann and McCarty, 2001).
Several studies have proposed alternate pathways to harvest the
energy content of the wastewater. Rittmann (2006) considered
glucose as a surrogate for wastewater to estimate the potential
energy yield by five alternate pathways that convert its energy
content to electricity, each with a different energy carrier. Fig. 4
summarizes the results of Rittmann (2006) comparing the elec-
trical energy yield from the five pathways relative to the electrical
energy (Khandan et al., 2014).
Organic matter in wastewater is represented as Glucose
(C6H12O6). Standard free energy and net energy yield are in kJ/mol
glucose. The analysis shows that the overall reaction (the last re-
action for each energy carrier) is the same in each case. However,
routing the electrons to methane (CH4), ethanol (C2H5OH),
hydrogen (H2), or directly to electricity in a microbial fuel cell
makes a noticeable difference in the net energy yield, mainly
because the energies of energy capture differ. Energy conversion
losses are predominant in the combustion and fuel cells technol-
ogies. MFCs recover much higher energy via electricity production
from various substrates. While thermodynamic analysis presents a
favorable perspective on MFCs, the actual process performance and
practical issues associated with electron harvesting mechanisms
continue to be major concerns which need to be addressed in future
MFC research.
3.2. Principles of waste treatment via MFCs
An MFC is a galvanic cell. The electrochemical reactions are
exergonic, i.e. the reaction possesses a negative free reaction energy
(Gibb's free energy) and this proceeds spontaneously with energy
release (electric or electron release). The standard free energy can
easily be converted into a standard cell voltage (or electromotive
force, emf) DE as shown in Eq. (1).
hX 
X 
i. DG
DE ¼
vi DGi;products
vi DGi;reactants nF ¼
nF (1)
Here, the DG values represent the free energies of formation of
the respective products and reactants (J/mol), n (moles) represents
the stoichiometry factors of the redox reaction, and F Faraday's
constant (96,485.3 C/mol). The Gibbs free energy of a reaction
measures the maximum amount of useful work that can be ob-
tained from a reaction of thermodynamic system. The theoretical
cell voltage or electromotive force (emf) of the overall reaction (the
difference between the anode and cathode potential) determines if
the system is capable of electricity generation [Eq (2)].
 
DEcell ¼ DEcathode
DEanode (2)
As shown in Eq. (3), a negative free reaction energy leads to a
positive standard cell voltage. This distinguishes a galvanic cell
from an electrolysis cell, as the latter, associated with a positive free
reaction energy and thus with a negative cell voltage, requires the
input of electric energy. The standard cell voltage can also be ob-
tained from the biological standard redox potentials of the
respective redox couples, as shown below (Harnisch and Schro €der,
2010).
In an MFC, the Gibbs free energy of the reaction is negative.
Therefore, the emf is positive, indicating the potential for sponta-
neous electricity generation from the reaction. For example, if ac-
etate is used as the organic substrate
([CH3COO
] ¼ [HCO
3 ] ¼ 10 mM, pH 7, 298.15 K, pO2 ¼ 0.2 bar), with
oxygen reduction, the combined redox reaction would be (Rozendal
et al., 2008) as shown in Eqs. (3)e(5):
Anode: CH3COO
þ 4H2O / 2HCO
þ

3 þ 9H þ 8e (E ¼
0.289 V
vs. SHE) (3)
Cathode: 2O2 þ 8Hþ þ 8e
/ 4H2O (E ¼ 0.805 V vs. SHE) (4)
Total: CH3COO
þ 2O2 / 2HCO
þ
3 þ H (DG ¼
847.60 kJ/mol;
emf ¼ 1.094 V) (5)
3.3. Oxidationereduction reactions (ORR) in MFCs
Pollutants in the wastewater such as organic substances and
other nutrient products and metals can be used to produce clean
and direct electricity. Electricity production in MFCs is the result of
oxidationereduction reactions that result in electron release,
transfer and acceptance through biochemical or electrochemical
reactions at the electrodes in the anode and cathode chambers. One
acts as an electron donor while the other essentially serves as an
electron acceptor. The chemical compounds that are responsible for
accepting electrons are called terminal electron acceptors (TEA).
 V.G. Gude / Journal of Cleaner Production 122 (2016) 287e307 293

The following oxidationereduction reactions (Eqs. (6)e(18)) (Pant et al., 2010, 2011). Acetate is a simple and most commonly
represent possible bioelectro-chemical reactions in microbial fuel used substrate in MFCs as a carbon source for exoelectrogenic
cells generating electricity utilizing wastewater as a substrate bacteria. Acetate is readily biodegradable by these bacteria as it
(electron donor) and other pollutants such as nitrates, phosphates, provides a simple metabolism. Acetate is also the end product of
and others as electron acceptors. several metabolic pathways for higher order carbon sources
(Biffinger et al., 2008), for example in anaerobic digestion of
3.3.1. Oxidation reactions (anode) wastewater sludges, carbonaceous matter is converted into
smaller chain organic acids such as acetic acid. MFCs with acetate
substrates produced higher power densities when compared with
Glucose: glucose substrates and domestic wastewater. Using a single-
C6H12O6 þ 12H2O / 6HCO
þ
3 þ 30H þ 24e


E ¼
0.429 V chamber MFC, Liu et al. (2005) reported that the power gener-
vs. SHE (6) ated with acetate (506 mW/m2, 800 mg/L) was up to 66% higher
than that produced with butyrate (305 mW/m2, 1000 mg/L). Very
Glycerol: C3H8O3 þ 6H2O / 3HCO
þ
3 þ 17H þ 14e


E ¼
0.289 V recently, Chae et al. (2009) compared the performance of four
vs. SHE (7) different substrates in terms of coulombic efficiency (CE) and
power output. Acetate-fed MFC showed the highest CE (72.3%),
Malate: C4H5O
þ
5 þ 7H2O / 4H2CO3 þ 11H þ 12e


E ¼
0.289 V followed by butyrate (43.0%), propionate (36.0%) and glucose
vs. SHE (8) (15.0%). When acetate was compared with a protein-rich waste-
water as substrate in MFC, the MFC based on acetate-induced
Sulfur: HS
/ S0 þ Hþ þ 2e
E ¼
0.230 V vs. SHE (9) consortia achieved more than 2-fold maximum electric power,
and one half of optimal external load resistance compared to the
MFC based on consortia induced by a protein-rich wastewater (Liu
et al., 2009). Glucose is another commonly studied substrate in
3.3.2. Reduction reactions (cathode) MFCs research. A maximum power density of 216 W/m3 was ob-
tained from a glucose fed-batch MFC using 100 mM ferric cyanide
as cathode oxidant (Rabaey et al., 2003). Hu (2008) evaluated the
O2 þ 4Hþ þ 4e
/ 2H2O E ¼ þ1.230 V vs. SHE (10) feasibility of anaerobic sludge as fuel for electricity generation in
MFC and compared it with glucose. In a baffle-chamber mem-
O2 þ 2Hþ þ 2e
/ H2O2 E ¼ þ0.269 V vs. SHE (11) brane-less MFC, anaerobic sludge added very limited substrate and
a limited power (0.3 mW/m2) could be generated. However, with
NO

þ

3 þ 2e þ 2H / NO2 þ H2O E ¼ þ0.433 V vs. SHE (12) glucose in the same system, a maximum power of 161 mW/m2
was generated. In another study, the energy conversion efficiency
NO

þ 
2 þ e þ 2H / NO þ H2O E ¼ þ0.350 V vs. SHE (13) (ECE) of acetate and glucose as substrates in MFC was compared
(Lee et al., 2008). The ECE was 42% with acetate, but was only 3%
NO þ e
þ Hþ / 1/2N2O þ 1/2H2O E ¼ þ1.175 V vs. SHE (14) with glucose which led to a low current and power density as well.
In a recent study by Chae et al. (2009), glucose-fed MFC generated
1/2N2O þ e
þ Hþ / 1/2N2 þ 1/2H2O E ¼ þ1.355 V vs. SHE(15) the lowest CE as a result of electron loss by competing bacteria,
but its relatively diverse bacterial structure enabled much wider
2NO
þ

3 þ 12H þ 10e / N2 þ 6H2O E ¼ þ0.734 V vs. SHE (16) substrate utilization and the greatest power density. The results
presented by many independent studies prove that power outputs
Fe3þ þ e
þ Hþ / Fe2þ þ 1/2H2O E ¼ þ0.773 V vs. SHE (17) for complex wastewaters are factor of 5 or lower compared to
discrete substrates. While substrate removal rates for actual
MnO2 þ 4Hþ þ 3e
/ Mn2þ þ 2H2O E ¼ þ0.602 V vs. SHE (18) wastewaters range from 0.5 to 2.99 kg COD per m3 reactor per day,
the removal rates for artificial wastewater can reach up to 8.9 kg
COD per m3 reactor per day, indicating the potential to treat high-
strength substrates (Aelterman et al., 2006a).
4. Organic removal in MFCs
4.2. MFCs with actual wastewater as substrates
MFCs can utilize various biodegradable organic compounds
originating from agricultural, dairy, domestic (municipal waste- Municipal wastewaters have lower BOD concentrations usually
water), food, industrial, and landfill leachates and many others. less than 300 mg/L which are categorized as low energy density
Earlier studies investigated MFC performances with artificial carriers or feedstocks for MFCs. However MFCs are also capable of
(synthetic) wastewaters to understand the feasibility of the work- treating high strength wastewaters (high energy density) with BOD
ing principle and the mechanisms to improve energy recovery and concentrations exceeding 2000 mg/L due to the anaerobic condi-
organic removal efficiencies. Recent studies focused on using actual tions in the anode chamber. These high strength wastewater
wastewaters from various aforementioned waste sources to sources generate from food processing industry, brewer plants,
determine practical feasibility of MFCs, because actual wastewater dairy farms and animal feeding operations and other industrial
composition is quite different from the synthetic wastewaters. waste streams. Table 2 shows the current/power density perfor-
mances in MFCs using various wastewater sources as fuel in the
4.1. MFCs with synthetic wastewater as substrates anode.
The food processing wastewaters are rich in readily biode-
MFCs have shown high percentages of carbon removal (>90%) gradable carbohydrates and organic acids with relatively low con-
from wastewaters. Synthetic wastewaters used in the MFCs centrations of organic nitrogen (e.g., proteins) (Fuchs et al., 2003;
include acetate, glucose, sucrose and xylose and many other Gohil and Nakhla, 2006; Lepisto € and Rintala, 1997). MFCs can
organic substrates for microbial oxidation in the anode chamber produce electricity in the range of 2e260 kWh/ton of product from
294 V.G. Gude / Journal of Cleaner Production 122 (2016) 287e307

Table 2
Energy recovery from various wastewater substrates in MFCs.

Wastewater source MFC Power density Reference

Acetate Dual 0.08 (mA/cm2) Min et al., 2008

Ethanol Dual 0.025 (mA/cm2) Kim et al., 2007
Glucose Dual 283 (mW/m2) Rahimnejad et al., 2011
Synthetic acid-mine drainage water Dual 0.064 (mA/cm2) Cheng et al., 2007
Synthetic wastewater Dual 0.086 (mA/cm2) Mohan et al., 2008
Synthetic wastewater Single 0.017 (mA/cm2) Aldrovandi et al., 2009
Synthetic wastewater Dual 0.008 (mA/cm2) Jadhav and Ghangrekar, 2009
Synthetic WW-molasses and urea Dual 0.005 (mA/cm2) Kargi and Eker, 2007

Domestic wastewater Single 1.7, 3.7 (W/m3) Liu et al., 2004; Liu and Logan, 2004
Domestic wastewater Dual 0.06 (mA/cm2) Wang et al., 2011
Domestic wastewater @30.1  C Single 422 (mA/m2) Ahn and Logan, 2010
Domestic wastewater Single 42 (mA/m2) Nimje et al., 2012
Primary effluent Single 13 (mA/m2) Ishii et al., 2012
Influent from AD Dual 58 ± 2 (W/m3) Aelterman et al., 2006a
Effluent for AD Dual 42 ± 8 (W/m3) Aelterman et al., 2006a

Alcohol distillery Dual 1000 (mA/m2) Ha et al., 2012

Agriculture wastewater Single 13 (mA/m2) Nimje et al., 2012
Bad wine wastewater Dual 3.8 (W/m3) Rengasamy and Berchmans, 2012
Brewery wastewater Single 0.2 (mA/cm2) Feng et al., 2008
Brewery wastewater Single 0.18 (mA/cm2) Wen et al., 2009
Brewery and bakery Single 10 (mA/m2) Velasquez-Orta et al., 2011
Cheese whey Dual 42 (mA/m2) Stamatelstou et al., 2010
Chocolate industry wastewater Dual 0.302 (mA/cm2) Patil et al., 2009
Dairy wastewater Single 25 (mA/m2) Velasquez-Orta et al., 2011
Dairy wastewater Single 5.7 (W/m3) Ayyaru and Dharmalingam, 2011
Dairy/food wastewater Single 15 (mA/m2) Nimje et al., 2012
Distillery wastewater Single 245.3 (mA/m2) Mohanakrishna et al., 2012
Distillery wastewater Dual 63.8 (mW/m2) Samsudeen et al., 2015
Farm manure Single 0.004 (mA/cm2) Scott and Murano, 2007
Food processing wastewater Dual 0.05 (mA/cm2) Oh and Logan, 2005
Food waste Single 207 (W/m3) Goud et al., 2011
Food (composite) waste Single 107.9 (W/m3) Goud et al., 2011
Food waste-compost leachate Dual 209 (mA/m2) Cercado-Quezada et al., 2010
Forest detritus Dual 1.27 mA Dai et al., 2015
Hospital wastewater Dual 8 ± 5 (W/m3) Rabaey and Verstraete, 2005
Hospital wastewater Dual 14 ± 1 (W/m3) Aelterman et al., 2006a
Human feces wastewater Dual 70.8 (W/m3) Fangzhou et al., 2011
Landfill leachate Dual 0.0004 (mA/cm2) Greenman et al., 2009
Landfill leachates Single 20.9 (W/m3) Vazquez-Larios et al., 2014
Landfill leachate Single 344 (mW/m3) Puig et al., 2011
Landfill leachate Single 114 (mA/m2) Ganesh and Jambeck, 2013
Pre-digested landfill leachate Dual 418e548 (mA/m2) Tugtas et al., 2013
Liquid waste from solid waste Dual 152e218 (mA/m2) Koo k et al., 2016
Meat processing wastewater Single 0.115 (mA/cm2) Heilmann and Logan, 2006
Palm oil effluent with acetate Dual 622 (mW/m2) Jong et al., 2011
Paper recycling wastewater Single 0.25 (mA/cm2) Huang and Logan, 2008
Paper wastewater Single 125 (mA/m2) Velasquez-Orta et al., 2011
Paper wastewater Single 8 (mA/m2) Nimje et al., 2012
Pharmaceutical Single 177.36 (W/m3) Velvizhi and Venkatamohan, 2012
Protein-rich wastewater Dual 0.008 (mA/cm2) Liu et al., 2009
Real urban wastewater Dual 0.018 (mA/cm2) Rodrigo et al., 2007
Rhizodeposits (wetland) Single 105 (mA/m2) Lu et al., 2015
Sewage sludge Tubular 73 (mA/m2) Yuan et al., 2012
Starch processing wastewater Single 0.09 (mA/cm2) Lu et al., 2009
Swine wastewater Single 0.015 (mA/cm2) Min et al., 2005

the wastewater used for processing the food products, depending
on the BOD and volume of water used in the process. A total of
46 MW of power can potentially be produced from wastewaters
from low BOD wastewaters of milk dairy farms in the US while a
maximum of 1960 MW of electricity can be produced from high
BOD wastewater from the dairy industry (Borole and Hamilton,
2010).
Animal wastewaters from the livestock related industry are
often particularly high in organic material content (ca. 100,000 mg/
L COD for animal wastes) and may contain high levels of nitrogen-
containing components, such as proteins, and harder to degrade
organic materials, such as cellulose (Hoffmann et al., 2008). In
addition, slaughterhouse wastewaters from the livestock related
industry may also include lipids besides carbohydrates, organic
acids, and proteins. Although the concentration of brewery
wastewater varies, it is typically in the range of 3000e5000 mg/L
COD which is approximately 10 times more concentrated than
domestic wastewater (Vijayaraghavan et al., 2006). It could also be
an ideal substrate for MFCs due to its nature of high carbohydrate
content (high energy density) and low ammonium nitrogen con-
centration. Beer brewery wastewater treatment using air cathode
MFC was investigated by Feng et al. (2008) and a maximum power
density of 528 mW/m2 was achieved when 50 mM phosphate
buffer was added to the wastewater. In this case the maximum
power produced by brewery wastewater was lower than that
 V.G. Gude / Journal of Cleaner Production 122 (2016) 287e307
achieved using domestic wastewater, when both wastewaters were
compared at similar strengths.
4.3. Effect of process parameters
Among the critical operating parameters, the efficiency of MFCs
is reported in terms of substrate conversion rate which depends on
the biofilm establishment, growth, mixing and mass transfer trends
in the reactors, bacterial substrate utilization-growth-energy gain
kinetics (mmax, the maximum specific growth rate of the bacteria,
and Ks, the bacterial affinity constant for the substrate), the biomass
organic loading rate (g substrate per g biomass present per day)
(Rabaey et al., 2003), the efficiency of the proton exchange mem-
brane for transporting protons (Liu and Logan, 2004; Jang et al.,
2004) and the potential over the MFC. Next, the overpotentials at
anode and cathode electrodes are important. This is measured in
terms of open circuit potential and is commonly reported in the
range of 750 mV and 798 mV. Parameters influencing the over-
potentials are the electrode surface, the electrochemical charac-
teristics of the electrode, the electrode potential, and the kinetics
together with the mechanism of the electron transfer and the
current of the MFC. Similarly, the cathode (whether abiotic or bi-
otic) exhibits significant potential losses. Finally, the internal
resistance of the electrolyte between the electrodes and the
membrane resistance to proton migration is another important
parameter that affects the performance of the MFCs significantly. To
mitigate this resistance, the electrodes need to be placed as close as
possible with possible mixing of the reactor contents (Rabaey and
Verstraete, 2005).
Electrode surface area and reactor geometry relative to solution
conditions such as conductivity and substrate concentration were
studied (Cheng et al., 2011). Substrate concentration had significant
effect on anode but not cathode performance, while the solution
conductivity has a significant effect on the cathode but not the
anode. Doubling the cathode size can increase power by 62% with
domestic wastewater, but doubling the anode size increases power
by 12%. This information is critical in scaling up the microbial fuel
cells. Organic loading rates may also have significant effect on
electrogenic activity and potential losses. Various actual pharma-
ceutical wastewater organic loading rates (kg COD/m3) 1.98, 3.96,
5.93, 7.98 were evaluated (Velvizhi and Mohan, 2011). Higher
organic loading rates resulted in higher voltage and power den-
sities and lower organic loading rates resulted in lower voltage and
lower power densities. They were 346 mV, 205.61 mW/m2;
320 mV, 158.58 mW/m2; 290 mV, 112.87 mW/m2; 256 mV,
72.60 mW/m2 for 7.98, 5.93, 3.96, and 1.98 organic loading rates
respectively.
Increasing the surface area of anode and cathode electrodes
seems to increase the power output. Multi-chamber treatment may
also increase the ability to treat higher organic loading rates. A16-L
multi anode/cathode granular activated carbon MFC (MAC-GAC
MFC) was tested to study the effects of organic loading rates and
hydraulic retention times on the electricity production with addi-
tion of a cost-effective manganese dioxide (MnO2) catalyst (WERF).
The GAC material helped build biofilms. A single cathode configu-
ration resulted in high COD removals greater than 80%, and effec-
tive power densities on the order of 300 mW/m3. Further, the
power generation of a 2-anode/cathode MFC was twice that of a
single-anode/cathode MFC. Also, the power generation of 4-anode/
cathode MFC was 3.5 times that of a single-anode-cathode MFC. In
addition, the 4-anode/cathode MFCs can still generate desirable
power at high COD (>3000 mg/L), while the single-anode/cathode
MFCs leveled off at COD higher than 1000 mg/L. This clearly reveals
the effectiveness of multi-anode/cathode MFCs in terms of power
generation and wastewater treatment. In another study, multi-
295
anode/cathode MFC (termed as MAC-MFC) containing 12 anodes/
cathodes were developed to harvest electric power treating do-
mestic wastewater (Jiang et al., 2012). The power density of MAC
MFCs increased from 300 to 380 mW/m2 at the range of the organic
loading rates (0.19e0.66 kg/m3/day). MAC-MFCs achieved 80% of
contaminant removal at the hydraulic retention time (HRT) of 20 h
but the contaminant removal deceased to 66% at the HRT of 5 h. In
addition, metal-doped manganese dioxide (MnO2) cathodes were
developed to replace the costly platinum cathodes, and exhibited
high power density. CueMnO2 cathodes produced 465 mW/m2 and
CoeMnO2 cathodes produced 500 mW/m2. Due to the cathode
fouling of the precipitation of calcium and sodium, a decrease in the
power density (from 400 to 150 mW/m2) and an increase in in-
ternal resistance (Rin) (from 175 to 225 U) were observed in MAC-
MFCs.
Flow arrangement to optimize hydraulic variations in stacked or
multiple MFCs is an integral part of the MFC operations. Seven
miniature MFCs were hydraulically linked in sequence and oper-
ated in continuous-flow (cascade) to investigate power output and
treatment efficiency using varying organic loads, flow-rates and
electrical configurations (Winfield et al., 2012). When fed synthetic
wastewater low in organic load (1 mM acetate) only the first MFC
operated stably over a 72-h period. 5 mM acetate feedstock was
enough to sustain the first four MFCs, and 10 mM acetate was
sufficient to maintain all MFCs at stable power densities. COD was
reduced from 69 to 25 mg/L (64%, 1 mM acetate), 319 to 34 mg/L
(90%, 5 mM acetate) and 545 to 264 mg/L (52%, 10 mM acetate).
Fluctuating flowrates improved performance in downstream MFCs.
When connected electrically in parallel, power output was two-fold
and current production ten-fold higher than when connected in
series. The results suggest cascades of MFCs could be employed to
complement, improve or replace biological trickling filters
(Winfield et al., 2012). A continuous flow membraneless MFC with
separated electrodes was studied (Fangzhou et al., 2011). The two
separated chambers are connected via a channel and the contin-
uous electrolyte flow from anode to cathode drives proton transfer.
The proton mass transfer efficiency in this MFC is 0.9086 cm/s,
which is higher than reported MFCs with membranes, such as J-
cloth and glass fiber. The maximum output voltage is 160.7 mV,
with 1000 U resistor. Its peak power density is 24.33 mW/m3.
Soluble COD removal efficiency can reach 90.45% via this MFC. Two
flow patterns (plug flow (PF) and complete mixing (CM)) of in MFCs
with multiple anodes/cathodes were compared in a continuous
flow mode for wastewater treatment and power generation (Karra
et al., 2013). The results showed that PF-MFCs had higher power
generation and coulombic efficiency (CE) than CM-MFCs, and the
power generation varied along with the flow pathway in the PF-
MFCs. The gradient of substrate concentrations along the PF-
MFCs was the driving force for the power generation. Upflow
dual-chambered MFC was tested with actual domestic wastewater
biocatalyzed with aerobic activated sludge (mixed cultures) and
strain of Bacillus subtilis (Ismail and Jaeel, 2013). COD removal rate
in the MFC inoculated with B. subtilis strain was slightly higher (90%
vs 84%) but the maximum power production was significantly
higher than the mixed cultures (270 mW/m2 vs 120 mW/m2). This
study shows that the type of inoculum in the anode chamber could
have significant effect on the electricity production. In another
study, a fluidized bed membrane bioelectrochemical reactor
(MBER) was linked to an MFC treating cheese factory wastewater
(W.W. Li et al., 2014; Y. Li et al., 2014). The integrated system could
achieve the following reductions: 90% of COD and >80% of sus-
pended solids while showing potential to become energy-neutral
due to electricity production from MFC.
296 V.G. Gude / Journal of Cleaner Production 122 (2016) 287e307
Fig. 5. (A) Direction of electron flow from bacterium to electrode; (B) electron transfer from metabolic product redox reaction; (C) direct electron transfer from cathode to algae; (D)
mediator (metabolic products) assisted electron transfer; and (E) Reduction of in-situ generated oxygen.
5. Biocathodes in MFCs
The major issue with current laboratory scale MFC studies is
the use of air cathodes with platinum catalyst or expensive, toxic
and hazardous chemical agents such as ferricyanide for electron
accepting mechanism. Use of these chemical agents/catalysts was
permissible for verification of principle feasibility of the method.
However, it was realized that the use of these chemical substances
is not sustainable and even impractical for large scale environ-
mental applications. This problem can be addressed by under-
standing the underlying bio-electro-chemical principles of
electron acceptance mechanisms in the cathode chamber. Bio-
cathodes have recently emerged as an option to replace the
expensive abiotic cathodes. The application of biocathode as a
driver for the electricity generation process may improve the
functionality of the technology by providing advanced wastewater
treatment while reducing the energy, environmental and cost
footprint of the overall technology (Pandit et al., 2012). Moreover,
cathode driven processes carry a number of advantages: cathode
chambers can be altered to use environmentally friendly processes
to provide strong electron acceptors in the form of pure oxygen,
nitrites, nitrates and sulfates (which are other environmental
pollutants that will be reduced to less toxic forms in this process);
and there is no need for external chemicals for electron acceptors,
which omits the need for their transport, storage, dosing and post-
treatment; the dosing of the electron donor occurs in situ (if
necessary, e.g. denitrification) (Gude et al., 2013). In particular,
biocathodes offer an environmentally friendly and cost-effective
solution for many environmental issues like nutrient removal
and waste degradation. They eliminate the need for expensive
chemical media as catholytes and the need for their recovery and
safe disposal (Gude et al., 2013).
Algae can serve as a simple biocatalyst to provide the electron
acceptors in cathode chamber. Algae-based MFCs mimic syntrophic
relationship between photosynthetic algae and bacteria commonly
observed in natural water bodies. For instance, during sunlight
hours, algae convert carbon dioxide into organic matter and
simultaneously release oxygen. The benthic heterotrophs degrade
the organic matter (i.e. naturally evolving from algae and anthro-
pogenic waste) into carbon dioxide and water. The resulting carbon
dioxide is utilized by algae to produce organic matter and oxygen.
Similarly, algae play an important role in nitrogen and phosphorus
cycles in natural waters. It has been hypothesized that the natural
systems can be engineered to reap the benefits of energy
production and water treatment by using MFCs technology. In
particular, the electrochemical reactions occurring between the
microorganisms and algae have been reported to generate elec-
tricity that can be captured in MFCs (He et al., 2009). Thus, algae can
be used as biocatalysts to treat biodegradable matter and nutrients
in MFCs with minimal net energy input.
The electron transfer between the exoelectrogenic bacteria and
algae can be coordinated to produce electricity. Fig. 5 shows the
possible electron transfer mechanisms in anode and cathode
compartments inoculated with bacteria and algae respectively.
Electron transfer to the anode electrode can be achieved either by
direct contact of the microorganisms or a mediator (usually a
metabolic product) generated by the microbial metabolic process
(Rodrigo et al., 2010). Some studies investigated the possibility of
adding external chemical mediator to enhance the electron transfer
(Du et al., 2007). But this process can be costly and unsustainable.
On the cathode side, the electrons are received through circuit
either by the algal biofilm adhering to the electrode (known as
direct electron transfer) or it could be accomplished by use of
mediators that are often the products of oxidation reduction re-
actions caused by algae. Understanding these electron releasee-
transfereacceptance mechanisms is the key to enhanced electricity
production in MFCs.
Wastewater effluent from the anode chamber can be used as a
growth medium for algal biomass to gain the following advantages
(Zhang et al., 2011; Gude et al., 2013): 1) high carbonate compounds
can be readily converted into organic matter by algae; 2) nitrates
and ammonia nitrogen in the effluent can be used in cell produc-
tion; 3) phosphorous compounds may be absorbed by the cell and
utilized in cell growth; 4) oxygen released by algae could be readily
available as electron acceptor; 5) flow-through configuration
eliminates pH-drop-rise issues in both chambers; and 6) algal
biomass can be used for a variety of high value bio-products and
biofuel production (Kokabian and Gude, 2013, 2015a, 2015b).
Algae biomass can be used in bioelectrochemical systems: i) as
electron donor (at anode); ii) to remove organic matter (hetero-
trophic algae at anode); and iii) to produce electron acceptor
(photosynthetic algae at cathode). The photosynthetic microalgae
(Chlorella vulgaris) have been recently used in cathodic half cells in
MFCs (Strik et al., 2008; Powell et al., 2009, 2011; Mitra and Hill,
2012, Zhou et al., 2012). Growth kinetics of C. vulgaris revealed
that high CO2 concentrations may result in inhibitory effects
(Powell et al., 2009). These studies used Saccharomyces cerevisiae in
anode chamber. The Chlorella sp. is generally preferred for carbon
 V.G. Gude / Journal of Cleaner Production 122 (2016) 287e307
sequestration because of their tolerance for high levels of CO2 and
high efficiency in utilizing CO2 through photosynthesis. C. vulgaris
in combination with S. cerevisiae fermentation can produce both
bioethanol and bioelectricity simultaneously. A foreseeable issue
with this arrangement is that the growth rate of S. cerevisiae is
significantly higher than the growth rate of C. vulgaris. This phe-
nomenon may retard high current densities and reliable current
flow. This issue was addressed later by developing a continuous
flow MFC to increase algal cell density which eventually increased
the power production (Mitra and Hill, 2012). Marine algae have
been demonstrated as viable electron donors in MFC application.
For instance, Velasquez et al. used two types of marine algae in dry
powder form (microalgae e C. vulgaris and macroalgae e Ulva
lactuca) as the sole feedstock in the anode chamber of MFCs. They
reported that the C. vulgaris MFC recovered more energy per sub-
strate (2.5 kW-h/kg-Dry Weight) compared to U. lactuca MFC
(2.0 kWh/kg-Dry Weight) and hence higher COD removal. The
maximum power densities in their experiments reached as high as
0.98 W/m2 (277 W/m3) (Velasquez-Orta et al., 2009). De
Schamphelaire and Verstraete (2009) used anaerobic digester
effluent in the anode and algae suspension in cathode to produce a
power density of 0.25 W/m3 and a coulombic efficiency of 40% (De
Schamphelaire and Verstraete, 2009). Other studies used glucose as
substrate and algal biocathodes with greater than 90% COD removal
(Jiang et al., 2012; Wang et al., 2012). Patil et al. (2012) reported a
power density of 52e100 mW/m2 using cyanobacteria in the
cathode chamber. Kondaveeti et al. (2014) reported a maximum
power density of 951 W/m3 using Scenedesmus obliquus as a sub-
strate in a two chamber microbial fuel cell. Another study reported
the effect of light effect (12 h:12 h, light:dark cycles) with a power
density of 13.5 mW/m2 (del Campo et al., 2013). Gadhamshetty
et al. (2013) evaluated the use of unprocessed algae (Laminaria
saccharina sp.) as a feedstock in MFCs. The salt content associated
with marine algae appeared to boost the MFC performance by
increasing the solution conductivity and reducing ohmic resistance.
Power output for luminaria-fed MFCs was reported (250 mW/m2 or
900 mA/m2) to be comparable with glucose-fed MFCs.
6. Nutrient removal in MFCs
Wastewater leaving the anode chamber is rich in nitrogen and
phosphorous compounds. However, these nutrient compounds can
be efficiently removed in MFCs especially in biocathode chambers
to enhance the effluent water quality or they can be recovered as
ammonia or magnesium ammonium phosphate (MgNH4PO4$6H2O)
known as struvite. Struvite is a crystal of magnesium ammonium
phosphate (MAP) with equal molar concentrations of Mg, ammo-
nium (NH4), and P combined with six water molecules. The purity of
struvite mineral depends on the elemental composition of Mg:N:P
1:1:1 (Le Corre et al., 2009; Etter, 2011).
6.1. Nitrogen removal in MFCs
Conventional biological nitrogen removal through well-known
nitrification-denitrification reaction is energy-, carbon-, and cost-
intensive. This process involves aerobic oxidation of ammonia to
nitrite (NO


2 ) and nitrate (NO3 ), and denitrification, which is the
dissimilatory reduction of nitrate to nitrogen gas (Ahn, 2006). The
latter requires an electron donor, typically organic compounds, to
enable the bacteria to gain energy from the nitrate/nitrite reduction
reaction. Nitrate can accept electrons from organic compounds to
be reduced to nitrogen gas (e.g., in a conventional denitrification
process). Such an electron-transferring process makes it possible to
use nitrate as a terminal electron acceptor in a BES. The reduction of
nitrate can generate a positive electric potential of 0.98 V when
297
using organic compounds (e.g., acetate) as an electron source as
shown in Section 3.3 (Madigan et al., 2010; see Section 3.3). In a
MFC, the electricity required to provide the necessary reducing
power for denitrification can be drastically reduced if bacteria use
the cathodic electrode directly as the electron donor. Gregory et al.
(2004) firstly reported of Geobacter species capable of using a
graphite electrode as direct electron donor during nitrate reduction
to nitrite. More recently, the cathodic denitrification without in-
termediate H2 production was coupled with anodic oxidation of
organic carbon using MFCs (Clauwaert et al., 2007; Virdis et al.,
2008).
Clauwaert et al. (2007) firstly demonstrated electrochemical
denitrification in biocathode MFC, and the power output was about
8 W/m3 NCC (net cathodic compartment: NCC). Virdis et al. (2008)
investigated simultaneous power generation, and carbon and nitro-
gen removal by using a combined denitrification MFC and nitrifying
bioreactor. In this configuration, the ammonium containing effluent
from the anode of the MFC was pumped into an external aerobic
reactor for nitrification, and the nitrified liquid subsequently flowed
into the cathode of the MFC for denitrification. This system obtained a
maximum power output and a maximum nitrogen removal rate of
34.6 W/m3 and 0.41 kgNO
3
3 eN/m -d, respectively. Virdis et al. (2010)
reported simultaneous nitrification and denitrification at the bio-
cathode of MFC by varying the oxygen level and carbon/nitrogen
concentration (and ratio). A nitrogen removal efficiency of 94.1% was
obtained in the MFC reactor. You et al. (2009) reported ammonium
oxidation in the oxic biocathode when inoculating the nitrifying
mixed consortia. Simultaneous aerobic nitrification in biocathode
MFC reduced footprint for both power generation and. Furthermore,
the nitrification process produced additional protons, which
contributed to the electricity generation process by reducing the
ohmic resistance and maintaining pH balance.
Nitrogen can affect the BES performance, especially electricity
generation, through inhibiting effects on microbes, adjusting pH,
and competition for electron donors/acceptors. It was reported that
a concentration of total ammonia nitrogen (TAN) higher than
500 mg L
1 could severely inhibit power production, and the
maximum power density decreased from 4.2 to 1.7 W m3 when the
TAN concentration increased from 500 to 4000 mg L
1 (Nam et al.,
2010). It was concluded that a high concentration of free ammonia
nitrogen had inhibited the activity of the anode-respiring bacteria.
The researchers further demonstrated ammonia inhibition in a
continuously-operated MFC, in which the maximum power density
dropped from 6.1 to 1.4 W/m3 when the TAN concentration
increased from 3500 to 10,000 mg L
1 (Kim et al., 2011). Other
modified MFC configurations such as MDCs and MECs were also
used for nitrogen removal and ammonia recovery (Zhang and
Angeladiki, 2013; Villano et al., 2013).
The main factors affecting the nitrogen removal performance in
MFCs are dissolved oxygen (DO) concentration, pH, carbon to ni-
trogen (C/N) ratio and electricity generation by the anode process.
High levels of DO inhibit the denitrification process as well as high
pH conditions. Neutral pH conditions are suitable for nitrifica-
tionedenitrification processes in MFCs. Since the cathode process is
affected by the number of electrons released by the anode process,
the ratio of C/N ratio becomes an important parameter for the
process performance (Kelly and He, 2014). A high C/N ratio seems to
be better for denitrification although higher C/N ratios are not
completely favorable due to the possibility of heterotrophic deni-
trification which will affect the MFC performance. Ammonia re-
covery is also possible at the cathode with high pH conditions and
aeration and subsequent absorption by an acid solution (Kuntke
et al., 2012). Further details can be found in a detailed review on
nutrient removal and recovery in bioelectrochemical systems by
Kelly and He (2014).
298 V.G. Gude / Journal of Cleaner Production 122 (2016) 287e307

6.2. Phosphorous removal in MFCs
Phosphorous is usually removed from the wastewater in the form
of struvite. Controlled struvite recovery from wastewater can be
achieved by several approaches e chemical addition or carbon di-
oxide stripping or electrolysis. Most struvite recovery studies have
focused on increasing solution pH via chemical base addition such as
NaOH, Mg(OH)2, and Ca(OH)2 or stripping carbon dioxide through
aeration (Cusick and Logan, 2012). A few studies investigated the
removal or recovery of phosphorous from wastewaters in MFCs. In
an earlier study, digested sewage sludge was used to release the
orthophosphate from iron phosphate. This followed by addition of
magnesium and ammonium along with pH adjustments resulted in
struvite formation (Fischer et al., 2011). Orthophosphate was
recovered in yields of 48% and 82% from pure ferric phosphate hy-
drate and digester sludge, respectively. Phosphorous removal from
MFCs appears to be incidental in recent studies where large amount
of precipitate containing highly concentrated phosphorous on the
surface of the liquid side of the air-cathode was used in an MFC fed
with swine wastewater (Ichihashi and Hirooka, 2012). Since the
precipitate also contained a high concentration of magnesium (Mg),
it was hypothesized that phosphate is removed as struvite because
the pH near the cathode was higher than the anode side. 70e82% of
phosphorus was removed and struvite precipitation only occurred
on the cathode surface in this study. Although the electrolyte pH was
not very high (~8), it was believed that oxygen reduction on the
cathode increased the localized pH, which facilitated struvite for-
mation. In another study by Zang et al. (2012), 94.6% of phosphate
was recovered. Cusick and Logan (2012) combined the struvite for-
mation with hydrogen production in an MEC unit to enhance the
process benefits. Phosphorus was successfully precipitated as stru-
vite (0.3e0.9 g/m2-h) in single chamber unit with up to 40% of sol-
uble phosphate removed at high overall energy efficiency (73 ± 4%).
The hydrogen production rates (0.7e2.3 m3H2/m3-d) and energy
efficiencies obtained in this study suggest the energy demands of
struvite production with an MEC would be significantly offset by
energy recovered as hydrogen. This could substantially lower the
operational costs for struvite recovery. The limitations for struvite
recovery in MFCs are availability of high strength wastewaters
containing high concentrations of ammonia and phosphate which
makes this process suitable for wastewaters originating from dairy
farms, agricultural fields and animal feeding operations. Mg supplies
could also be an issue with this process and optimum pH conditions
at which struvite can be formed. Finally, a proper stoichiometric
composition of struvite is important for its quality and suitability for
use as a fertilizer and viable revenue generation. In addition, pre-
cipitation of struvite on the membranes and electrode materials
could become an issue in the MFCs which may need proper control
of pH conditions as well as process flow configurations.
7. Metal removal in MFCs
Metal ions present in wastewater do not biodegrade into
harmless end products and therefore require special methods for
treatment. Moreover, some of these heavy metal-containing groups
have high redox potentials, and these could, therefore, be utilized

Table 3
Metal removal capacities in MFCs.

Metal Process conditions e concentration; consortium; detention time; removal efficiency; power; MFC type (TC e two Reference
chamber; SC e single chamber)

Cr (VI) 204 ppm; Anaerobic sludge; 25 h; 99.5%; Cr(VI); 66.2% total Cr; 1600 mW m
2 Real electroplating wastewater Li et al., 2008
treatment in TC-MFC
Cr (VI) 200 mg L
1; Domestic wastewater; 150 h; Complete removal; 150 mW m
2; TC-MFC Wang et al.,
2008
Cr (VI) 26 mg L
1; Anaerobic sludge 26 h 97% 0.80 V TC-MFC with rutile-coated cathode H. Li et al., 2009
Cr (VI) 10 mg L
1; Shewanella decolorationis S12, Klebsiella pneumoniae L17 and mixed culture; 4 h; Complete reduction; Liu et al., 2012
52.1 mW cm
2 air-bubbling cathode (carbon felt); TC-MFC
Cr (VI) 5 and 25 mg L
1; b-Proteobacteria, Actinobacteria, Acinetobacter; 6 days; 93% of 5 mg L
1; and 61% of 25 mg L
1 Yeon et al., 2011
Cr(VI); 0.5e0.6 mA; TC-MFC
NaVO3 300 mg/L; Rhodoferax ferrireducens; 7 d; 75.8%; 0.6 mA; MFC Y. Li et al., 2009
Tetrachloroaurate 60 mL; 2000 ppm Au(III) catholyte; 12.2 mM acetate anolyte; 99.9% and 0.22 ppm 6.58 W m
2 Choi and Hu,
2013
Au3þ 200 ppm Au3þ With 1000 ppm standard solutions of HAuCl4; Shewanella putrefaciens; electrodeposition of gold Varia et al., 2014
on grade G-10 graphite electrodes
Ag-ion- wastewaters 50e200 ppm; Sludge; 8 h; 99.91% Ag recovery; 4.25 W m
2; TC-MFC Choi and Cui,
2012
2þ
1
3 2þ
Cu -containing wastewater 1000 mg L ; Excess sludge as anolyte and CuSO4 solution as the catholytes; 288 h; 97.8%; 536 mW m at Cu Liang et al.,
concentration of 6400 mg L
1; TC-MFC 2011
Metal Cu and/or cuprous Anaerobic sludge; e 99% of Cu(II) reduced to Cu2O and metallic Cu on the cathodes; 339 mW m
3; TC-MFC Tao et al., 2011a
oxide (Cu2O)
Synthetic Cu(II) 500 mg L
1; 144 h; 70% cathodic reduction of Cu(II); 314 mW m
3; Membrane-free baffled MFC Tao et al., 2011b
sulfatecontaining
wastewater
Selenium 200 mg L
1 Se; 72 h; 98% Se; 12.8 mW m
2; Wetland-MFC Yang et al., 2013
Oil sands tailings 1700 h; 97.8% 78Se; 96.8% Ba; 94.7% 88Sr; 81.3% 66Zn; 77.1% 95Mo; 66.9% 63Cu; 44.9% 53Cr; 32.5% Pb 392 ± 15 mW m
2 Jiang et al., 2013
Cd and Zn 200 mM Cd; 400 mM for Zn Electrochemically active microorganisms e 90% Cd and 97% Zn removal 3.6 W m
2 SC Abourached
membraneless airecathode MFC et al., 2014
Selenium 50 and 200 mg Se L
1; Mixed bacterial culture of Domestic wastewater; 48 and 72 h; 99%; 1500 mW m
2; SC-MFC with Catal et al., 2009
acetate and glucose as carbon sources
Co (II) as hydroxide Cobalt recovery rate of 0.079 ± 0.001 mmo lL
1 h
1) and Cobalt hydroxide yield of 0.24 ± 0.00 mol/mol COD with Huang et al.,
1.5 W/m3 at optimal condition of a dissolved oxygen of 0.031 mM, an initial pH of 5.6, and an initial Co(II) 2015
concentration of 0.508 mM.
Fe (III) Fe(III) concentrations (10, 30, and 50 mg L
1) SC-MFC maximum power density was 658 ± 6 mW m
2 at 50 mg L
1 of Li et al., 2014
Fe(III) at 48 h, conversion efficiency of Fe(III) > 89% at 150 h, and coulombic efficiency ranged 23e100%.
Cr (VI) Cr(VI) concentrations (1, 3, and 10 mg L
1), SC-MFC, maximum power density was 419 ± 4 mW m
2 at 10 mg L
1 Cr(VI) Li et al., 2014
at 48 h, conversion efficiency of Fe(III) > 89% at 150 h, and coulombic efficiency ranged 23e100%.
 V.G. Gude / Journal of Cleaner Production 122 (2016) 287e307
as electron acceptors in order to reduce and precipitate (Wang and
Ren, 2014). If incorporated, this method could equip MFCs not only
to serve the function of removing heavy metal ions in wastewater,
but also as a method for recovering heavy metals (Mathuriya and
Yakhmi, 2014). Dissimilatory metal reduction is a process that is
utilized by microbes to conserve energy through oxidizing organic
or inorganic electron donors and reducing a metal or metalloid.
Microbial metal reduction enables organisms to create electro-
chemical gradients, which provides the chemical energy required
for growth. Metal reducing micro-organisms are becoming a
research focus due to their potential to facilitate bioremediation in
areas that are contaminated with heavy metals or radionuclides.
Furthermore, these organisms are integral for the development of
microbial fuel cell. The mechanisms of dissimilatory metal reduc-
tion are significant in order to exploit its detoxifying and electric-
generating advantage (Lovley, 1993). A summary of metal
removal in cathode chamber of MFCs is presented in Table 3
(Mathuriya and Yakhmi, 2014). A dedicated review of this subject
is presented elsewhere (Wang and Ren, 2014). Recovery Co(II) as
Co(OH)2 in oxygen reducing biocathode was reported in a recent
study (Ryu and Lee, 2011; Huang et al., 2015). The highest cobalt
recovery rate of 0.079 ± 0.001 mmol L
1 h
1 and Co(OH)2 yield of
0.24 ± 0.00 mol/mol COD were obtained with simultaneous elec-
tricity production of 1.5 W/m3 under the optimal conditions of a
dissolved oxygen of 0.031 mM, an initial pH of 5.6, and an initial
Co(II) concentration of 0.508 mM. This seems to be a promising
approach for recovering cobalt hydroxide in an environmentally
friendly manner.
8. Source separation
Since treatment of the whole wastewater stream is not an
optimal approach leading to maximization of nutrient recovery and
recycling, in some (already existing) cases urine can be separately
collected and processed for nutrient recovery and reuse purposes
(Kujawa-Roeleveld and Zeeman, 2006). This process is called
source separation. It has been recognized as a resource-efficient
method (Larsen et al., 2009). But this depends on the resource re-
covery scheme and process selection. Because the selected process
should be energy-efficient and outcompete the treatment or re-
covery at wastewater treatment plants and it should be an
economically viable process. Resource recovery (nitrogen and
phosphorus) techniques of nutrients from concentrated urine
involve struvite formation (Lind et al., 2000; Ronteltap et al., 2003),
ammonia stripping following absorption, volume reduction by
evaporation, partial freezing or reverse osmosis (Maurer et al.,
2003a,b) or ion exchange (Nguyen and Tanner, 1998). The
remaining wastewater mixture, brown water and gray water, con-
tains significantly less nutrients which can be treated at the
wastewater treatment plants.
8.1. Urine as energy source
Urine can be separated at the source for use as energy feedstock
in MFCs. The composition of the human urine consists of urea
(6e18 g/d); uric acid (1.8 g/d) creatinine (0.5e0.8 g/d); amino acids
(0.12 g/d) and peptides (0.5 g/d). Variable amounts of lactic acid,
citric acid, bilirubin and porphyrins, ketone bodies (aceto-acetic
acid; b-hydroxybutyrate; acetone), and small amounts of hexose
(glucose) and pentose (arabinose) sugars may also be present in
normal urine. Since urea and uric acid cannot be readily utilized by
bacteria, excluding these the total dry weight content of organic
substrates (biodegradable) was estimated as 0.78 g/person/day.
Therefore, the mean calorific value of 1 g of carbohydrates, pep-
tides, proteins or amino-acids in the urine has been estimated as
299
2.08 kcal (Ieropoulos et al., 2012). COD in urine was effectively
degraded with removal efficiency of 25e40% in 1-day cycles,
35e60% in the 2-day cycles, and 60e75% in 4-day cycles in single
chamber MFCs. In these studies an increase in ammonium ions (up
to 5 gNHþ4 eN/L) was detected in batch-mode cycles. Ca
2þ
and Mg2þ
were precipitated in the form of struvite, potassium struvite and
hydroxyapatite and were found on the cathode surface. Mem-
braneless MFCs with Pt-based or Pt-free cathode were studied for
over 1000 h of operation. Interestingly, the pH of the anode solution
increased from 5.4e6.4 to 9 due to urea hydrolysis, which conse-
quently decreased the anodic performance even though the cath-
ode was not affected, indicating that the MFCs were anode-limited.
The solution conductivity increased up to 3 times the initial value.
The initial current generated by the Pt-free cathodes SCMFCs was
0.13e0.15 mA, and stabilized at 0.1 mA. The Pt-based cathode
SCMFC decreased from 0.18e0.23 mA to 0.13 mA. This study
showed that high pH caused by urea hydrolysis lowered the anodic
reactions and the SCMFCs overall performance. The Pt-free cathode
performance was comparable to that of Pt-based cathodes, thus
offering a cost effective alternative for future developments.
Further studies using artificial urine investigated the cascading
MFCs at a micro scale reactors (1 mL). eight MFCs were connected
in a cascading effect were studied over 17 days with an initial low
flow rate of 0.09 mL/h and a high flow rate of 1 mL/h. Peak power
output levels of the order of 39.6 mW which corresponds to 39.6 W/
m3 (normalized value) were reported (Ieropoulos et al., 2013).
These micro reactor MFCs could satisfy the energy demands of
digital wristwatches, LEDs and small motors.
8.2. Energy from human feces and other wastes
Human feces wastewater was evaluated as a substrate in the
MFC for electricity production (Fangzhou et al., 2011). The removal
efficiencies for total chemical oxygen demand, soluble chemical
oxygen demand and NHþ 4 reached 71%, 88% and 44%, respectively
with two-chamber MFC operated for over 190 h. A maximum po-
wer density of 70.8 mW/m2 was noted, which implicated that MFC
technology was feasible and appropriate for treating human feces
wastewater. In the next step, fermentation of human feces waste-
water as a pretreatment process resulted in 47% higher power
density (22 mW/m2) when compared to a control unit without
pretreatment (15 mW/m2). Liter scale MFC with three air cathodes
produced a power output of 787.1 mW and power density of
240 mW/m2.
A recent study investigated an easy-to-operate multiple plug-
gable MFC for septic tank wastewater treatment (Yazdi et al., 2015).
Both parallel and series configurations were evaluated. A power
density of 142 ± 6.71 mW/m2 when three units are connected in
parallel, and preliminary calculation indicates that a system that
costs approximately US $25 can power a 6-W LED light for 4 h per
day with great improvement potential. The purpose of pluggable
units is to counteract the scale up issues in stacked MFC units which
could fail if one unit stops producing electricity in the series making
replacement or maintenance a big issue. Another study evaluated
the long term performance of a manure fed MFC system over 171
days with the goal of maximizing the power generation (Zhang
et al., 2015). This study reported a maximum power density,
charge efficiency, total COD removals were 14.11 ± 0.20 W/m3,
9.87 ± 2.48% and 8302 ± 856 mg/L, respectively. Lee and
Nirmalakhandan (2011) used screened cattle manure as anode
substrate with a maximum power density of 0.2 W/m3 in a single
compartment MFC combined with membrane-electrodes and of
0.3 W/m3 with a twin-compartment MFC and brush-type anode
electrodes. With revised structure and electrode material of MFC,
Zhang et al. (2012) and Inoue et al. (2013) obtained power densities
300 V.G. Gude / Journal of Cleaner Production 122 (2016) 287e307
of 15.1 W/m3 (biocathode MFC) and 16.3 W/m3 (cassette electrode
MFC) respectively from a dairy manure-water mix. Wang et al.
(2014) demonstrated that dairy manure with <80% moisture
could also be used as MFC fuel. Compost fed MFCs produced 3 times
higher power densities compared to a paddy plant (PMFC) MFCs.
All these studies indicate a great potential for human and animal
excreta and other wastes to be used as feedstock or substrates in
MFCs allowing a sustainable and efficient onsite waste manage-
ment coupled with electricity generation. Liquid waste from
municipal solid waste was used as a substrate in a double chamber
MFC with an aerated cathode to investigate the biodegradation and
bioelectricity production potentials (Koo  k et al., 2016). The initial
total COD and pH values of the inoculum were 30 g/L and 7.8,
respectively. Highest energy yields (8e9 J/g COD/d) could be
attained at the lowest input COD (~35 g/L) concentrations. The
maximal and average COD removal efficiencies were 94% and 87%,
respectively, which indicate the excellent biodegradability of this
liquid waste with a COD removal rate of 1.2e1.9 kg COD/m3/d could
be reached. Another study reported on compost utilization in mi-
crobial fuel cells (Moqsud et al., 2015), while another study was on
AC power generation (Lobo et al., 2015).
9. Current challenges and potential opportunities
The above sections discussed the microbial fuel cells technology
as a potential alternative to sustainable wastewater treatment with
energy production. However, to realize this potential and to make it
practical, several hurdles need to be overcome. Among the prin-
cipal issues are low power densities, low pollutant degradation
rates, poor air cathode performance and costs associated with
electrode and membrane materials and their environmental (life
cycle) impact in comparison with conventional wastewater treat-
ment processes. The following sections will discuss the current
status, recent developments and the desired attributes of an ideal
MFC to make this intriguing technology an exciting reality.
9.1. COD removal rates
The rate at which the carbon, nutrients and other pollutants are
removed in MFCs is very low indicating additional design, and
process management issues including costs. Organic removal rate
of 5e10 kg COD per m3 BES or MFC reactor per day was proposed to
meet the cost-effective wastewater treatment objective in MFCs
(i.e., around $0.5/m3) (Clauwaert et al., 2008). A wide range of
organic removal rates were reported in the literature ranging be-
tween 0.0053 and 5.57 gCOD/L/d with different feedstock including
synthetic wastewaters, domestic wastewater, primary effluents,
landfill leachate and manure slurry (Janicek et al., 2014). Many of
these studies investigated MFCs under fed-batch conditions with
very small working volumes. This leaves a very high uncertainty
factor in estimating the MFC performance at large scale, say at 1 m3
reactor volume. In some studies, long hydraulic retention times
were reported. Longer reaction times (low kinetic rates) mean that
larger reactor volumes are required which add to the capital and
maintenance costs. The kinetics should be improved further for
MFCs to be practically feasible. For example, long term operational
performance of MFCs for sludge treatment was investigated over
500 days (Ge et al., 2013). These MFCs were tested in two different
phases. In the first phase, one MFC treated primary sludge while the
other was fed with digested sludge from anaerobic digesters, each
with a hydraulic retention time of 9 days. In the second phase, the
two MFCs were connected to form a two-stage MFC systems with a
total HRT of 14 days (each for 7 days). In the two-stage system, the
effluent from the first MFC treating primary sludge was passed
through the second MFC. The first and second MFCs removed
69.8 ± 24.1% of total COD and 68.4 ± 17.9% of volatile suspended
solids (VSS); 36.2 ± 24.4% of total COD and 46.1 ± 19.2% of VSS
respectively. In Phase II, both MFCs were operated as a two-stage
system that removed 60% of TCOD and 70% of VSS from the pri-
mary sludge. When compared between the bioelectricity and
biogas production, electricity produced by MFCs was very low
(1.8 kWh/m3, max.), while the biogas production was about 8 times
higher (14.3 kWh/m3). This study clearly presents two issues with
current MFCs research: i) their long hydraulic times indicating low
process degradation kinetics and ii) their poor performance with
actual wastewater in real systems (low electricity production).
Meanwhile, Wang et al. (2013) reported that anaerobic sludge may
serve as a good feedstock for bioelectricity production compared to
conventional waste activated sludge with a maximum power
output of 38.1 W/m3. About 60% of total COD was removed at a
solids retention time of 8 days. The energy produced from this MFC
was sufficient to offset about 30e50% of operational costs. In
another study by Zhang et al. (2013b), the feasibility of integrating
MFC with activated sludge system (in-situ) was investigated for
over 400 days of actual operation. This system removed only 53% of
COD while nutrient removal capability was not reported. Cathode
biofouling was identified as a potential reason for low performance
of the MFCs. This study together with the previous ones suggested
that MFCs are more suitable for digester effluents for final polish-
ing. In addition, further studies in in-situ conditions may be crucial
for determining the actual potential of MFCs for real world
applications.
9.2. Low power densities
There is some inconsistency in power densities reported to date.
A wide range of power densities between 0.0018 and 2 W/m2
(0.2e200 W/m3) were reported (Janicek et al., 2014). Recent
research efforts in this area have seen promising growth in the
power production capacities. A six-fold increase in electricity pro-
duction was reported. In some studies, very high power densities
(W/m3) were reported. But these results should be verified since
the results were based on very small reactor volumes and electrode
surface areas with uncertainties. A record high power density of
2.87 kW/m3 (or 4.30 W/m2 or 16.4 A/m2) was reported by Fan et al.
(2012). It was achieved by a new separator material and U-shaped
current collectors. The COD removal rate of 93.5 kg COD/m3 of MFC
per day at a high coulombic efficiency of 83.5% was achieved.
Overall energy efficiencies were between 21 and 35% which
depended on the operating voltage. Another study (Ahn and Logan,
2010) reported COD removal rate of 54 kg COD/m3 of MFC per day at
mesophilic (30.1  C) temperatures. These values are much higher
than the desired characteristics that were proposed earlier. About
3.78 and 5.57 kg/m3 per day of COD removals were also reported by
others (Zhuang et al., 2012; Galvez, 2009). The power density re-
ported by Fan et al. is two times higher than the power densities
that could be produced by anaerobic digestion (1.1 kW/m3) at a
conversion rate of 25 kg COD/m3 per day and an overall energy
efficiency of 30% (Ter Heijne et al., 2011). It should be noted that
high power densities were achieved by the swine wastewater and
landfill leachate but not with actual domestic wastewater. Often
system configuration, electrode circuit architecture, membranes
and electrode materials have been reported to be the causes for
power density improvements. This suggests that more efforts
should be dedicated to develop efficient reactor configurations
(Logan et al., 2015). Meanwhile, further understanding on the role
of biofilms and their metabolic functions in electron transfer may
help develop robust and resilient MFC systems (Gude, 2015b,c).
 V.G. Gude / Journal of Cleaner Production 122 (2016) 287e307 301

Fig. 6. Examples of MFC applications in wastewater treatment: (A) MFC integrated with septic systems in decentralized and remote communities (Zamalloa et al., 2013); (B) MFC
integrated with wetlands, suitable for small community wastewater systems (Villasenor et al., 2013); (C) MFCs immersed in activated sludge systems at large scale for centralized
wastewater systems (Logan, 208); and (D) MFCs integrated with Yeast fermenters supported by algal photo-bioreactors in an industrial application (Powell, 2009).

9.3. Air cathode performance and biocathode development
The kinetic limitation also applies to the cathode performance
where both proton and OH- transport is very critical in maintaining
the ionic balance and in turn electron flow in the MFC (Rozendal et
al., 2006). pH imbalance significantly affects the power production
in MFCs (Desloover et al., 2012; Popat et al., 2012). Low cathode
reduction activities were recently attributed to low OHe transport
from the catalyst layer to the bulk liquid. This electron transfer
hurdle to the ORR (oxygen reduction reaction) mechanisms could
be overcome by biocathodes which also eliminate the need for
expensive catalysts. However, keeping active biocathodes becomes
another issue. If the current MFCs can be developed to utilize bio-
cathodes for enhancing their environmental relevance and for
increasing their role in wastewater treatment (for example:
nutrient removal), then such systems can become more sustainable
and self-sufficient.
9.4. Integration with other beneficial processes
Simple and ambient operations in MFCs make them suitable for
various environmental remediation applications. MFCs can be in-
tegrated with existing wastewater treatment system whether
active or passive systems to harvest clean electricity (Xu et al.,
2016). MFCs can be utilized as a processing unit after the primary
treatment or after the anaerobic digestion process or even as
standalone process to remove the organic compounds (Fig. 6AeD).
MFCs can be integrated within the existing wastewater treatment
and management systems from domestic levels (decentralized
systems) to a community level (centralized) as well as systems in
the industrial sectors to increase their energy and resource utili-
zation efficiencies. At domestic scale, the MFCs can be readily
incorporated into existing septic tanks to produce both biogas and
bioelectricity (as shown in Fig. 6A). For large systems, MFCs provide
a wide range of possibilities to be incorporated into the existing
wastewater treatment systems (before the primary treatment and
in the activated sludge systems and after the anaerobic digestion
systems). For example, MFCs can be directly immersed into the
activated sludge tanks or operated standalone or they could be
placed after the anaerobic digestion to treat digester supernatants
(see Fig. 6C). It should be noted that integrated processes may
present a new set of operational and maintenance issues which
need to be given proper consideration.
The feasibility of primary wastewater treatment using labora-
tory scale (1.5 L) anaerobic digesters (AD) and secondary treat-
ment using laboratory-scale (0.1 L) microbial fuel cells (MFC) was
studied recently (Gregoire et al., 2013). The results indicate the
capability to generate electrical power with the MFCs (7 mW/L)
even after high levels of methane-enriched biogas was extracted
by AD (0.2e0.3 L CH4 per kg COD), resulting in an effluent that
meets international standards for safe environmental discharge
(e.g. < 300 mg BOD/L, <105 CFU/100 mL), with nitrogen levels
appropriate for agricultural application (1e1.2 g NH3eN/L). In
another study, the power output from the MC treating the influent
of AD did not sustain for more than 12 h (Aelterman et al., 2006a).
However, the effluent from the AD as a substrate in the MFC
produced a stable current of 42 ± 8 W/m3. The pH of the solution
also showed a significant effect in these tests. These studies sug-
gest that the AD effluents can be used as excellent substrates for
MFC indicating possible integration of the MFC in conventional
wastewater treatment systems.
MFCs can be integrated with other wastewater treatment sys-
tems such as aerated lagoons and wetlands (Villasenor et al., 2013;
Yang et al., 2013) (see Fig. 6B). Lagoon MFCs were studied with and
without power management system for self-aeration. The results
from artificial and real wastewaters showed that integrated LMFC-
PMS configuration improve the COD removal by 21% for artificial
wastewater and by 54% for dairy wastewater. The LMFCPMS
302 V.G. Gude / Journal of Cleaner Production 122 (2016) 287e307
Fig. 7. Costebenefit estimates for different BES systems (euro/m3), present laboratory and future large scale MFC cost allocations.
wastewater treatment system operated for over a year and proved
to be robust and provide a measure of sustainability (Ewing et al.,
2014). Two 3.7 L constructed wetland MFCs (CW-MFCs) have
been constructed to treat swine wastewater with one (System 1)
operated in batch mode while the other (System 2) was operated in
continuous, upward flow mode and incorporated air diffusion
heads to aerate the cathode. System 1 removed, on average, 71.5% of
COD (with initial concentration of 3190e7080 mg/L) and produced
a peak power density of 12.83 mW/m2. The aeration of the cathode
significantly enhanced the performance of the CW-MFC, with
System 2 demonstrating an average of 76.5% COD removal (average
influent COD concentration of 1058.45 ± 420.89 mg/L) with a peak
power density of 9.4 mW/m2 (Zhao et al., 2013). In another study,
vertical subsurface flow constructed wetland was integrated with
three different types of biocathode materials stainless steel mesh
(SSM), carbon cloth (CC) and granular activated carbon (GAC).
GACeSSM biocathode produced highest power density (55.05 mW/
m2). Further, it was reported that the planted constructed wetlands
integrated with MFCs produced superior results with periodic
fluctuations corresponding to light/dark cycles (Liu et al., 2014).
9.5. Advanced treatment in MFCs
Any novel technology should compare well and perform even
better than the existing alternatives. In this context, microbial fuel
cells should be able to provide superior benefits apart from energy
savings and include advanced treatment. A good number of studies
focused on metal removal in MFCs (see Table 3). Removal of other
toxic and micro pollutants belonging to radioactive compounds and
pharmaceutical and personal care products should be evaluated.
The removal mechanisms vary from system to system depending
on the process chemistry. Research efforts need to be expanded in
this area to properly document the actual ability and capacity of
MFCs in removing these pollutants along with reliability issues.
10. Economics and life cycle assessment
Environmental performance and cost objectives should be well
addressed in order to promote the MFC technology as an alternative
wastewater treatment technology. A few studies focused on these
objectives to determine the plausible goals for the near future. The
following sections summarize the outcomes from recent literature.
10.1. MFC cost analysis
Very few studies reported on economic and environmental
impact analysis of MFCs (Pham et al., 2006). Considering a potential
electricity production capacity of 1000 mW/m2, Logan proposed
some rudimentary economics for an MFC based wastewater treat-
ment system (Logan, 2005). A city with 100,000 population would
generate 16.4 billion liters of wastewater over a year with a po-
tential to produce 2.3 MW of electricity (based on 300 mg/L BOD
concentration) which can be harvested in MFCs. Accounting for
other barriers such as reactor detention times and energy recovery
limitations, about 0.5 MW of electricity can be easily captured using
MFCs. The economics of such a system for power production were
reported to be comparable with other conventional alternatives.
Rozendal et al. (2008) presented an economic analysis comparing
wastewater treatment options using conventional (activated sludge
with and without anaerobic digestion systems), MFCs and MECs
(producing hydrogen). Two different scenarios including present
laboratory scale and future industrial scale were presented. Cost-
ebenefit scenarios for anaerobic digestion (AD), microbial fuel cells
(MFCs), and microbial electrolysis cells (MECs) are shown in Fig. 7.
From this comparison, the activated sludge system clearly did not
have the revenue generation capability. While the anaerobic
digestion system was capable of producing net positive revenue,
the MFC technology is not economical. The MFC option is able to
meet 50% total costs while MECs seem to be cost-competitive at
present. Cost distribution shows that anode and cathode materials
contribute the major portion followed by current collector mate-
rials and other essential parts. A future analysis presents a different
cost distribution scenario in that the anode and cathode material
costs have been reduced significantly which makes the current
collector materials to be the major contributors for the MFC capital
costs. For this to happen, cheap electrode materials should be
considered for improving the power performance and economic
objectives of MFCs. Inexpensive materials such as semicoke and
activated carbon were evaluated as electrode materials (Wei et al.,
2011). The power densities obtained by these biocathodes (20.1 W/
m3 and 24.3 W/m3 for semicoke and activated carbon respectively)
were higher than the power densities obtained by graphite and
carbon cloth electrodes (14.1 and 17.1 W/m3 respectively). More-
over the costs per watt (W) electricity for semicoke and activated
carbon were only 2.8% and 22.7% of that for graphite cathode
respectively. Further, a comparison between the carbon cloth and
finest stainless steel mesh electrodes showed that carbon cloth
outperformed (by 34%) reaching 1.72 W/m2 with a high static
pressure head of 1.9 m (Janicek et al., 2015). High electrochemical
 V.G. Gude / Journal of Cleaner Production 122 (2016) 287e307
tolerance, hydrostatic pressure tolerance and corrosion resistance
of carbon cloth present these materials as better alternatives for
corrosion-prone metal electrodes.
Current economic analyses suggest that electricity generation
alone from MFCs may not be adequate to turnout the wastewater
systems to be energy-neutral or energy-positive or even cost-
effective. For this reason, energy recovery strategies from waste-
water should be diversified to produce methane, lipid-rich biomass
and bioelectricity. With this advanced scheme, the overall eco-
nomics of the process could be significantly improved. Pham et al.
(2006) suggest the complementary scheme of sequential MFC and
AD processes (similar to Fig. 6C) to improve the net energy and cost
benefits. Powell and Hill, 2009 reported the economic feasibility of
yeast fermenters combined with photobioreactors (see Fig. 6D) to
produce complementary electricity production. The economics
show a positive net present worth (NPW) value over the 20 year
plant life at a 10% rate of return in investment (IRR). This integrated
facility would generate bioethanol, bioelectricity (to be used in
bioethanol production process), and produce valuable biomass
while sequestering CO2 emissions in the integrated process.
10.2. Life cycle assessment of MFCs
Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is defined as the compilation and
evaluation of the outputs and potential environmental impacts of a
product system throughout its life cycle. LCA has been widely used
in wastewater systems due to the advantages associated with its
holistic approach in terms of environmental impacts (Pant et al.,
2011; Li et al., 2013). Foley et al. (2010) conducted a life cycle
analysis study for three different wastewater treatment options,
pre-treatment system being the same for all. In the first option,
wastewater is processed through anaerobic treatment scheme to
produce methane (biogas), and in the second option, the pre-
treated wastewater was processed through a MFC to produce
bioelectricity while in the third option, wastewater was processed
in a microbial electrolysis system to produce H2O2. For comparison
purpose, anaerobic digestion produces about 1 kWh/kg COD and a
power density of 400 W/m3 when the technology is applied to treat
about 5e25 kg of COD per m3 of the reactor per day. In the case of
MFCs, 4 kWh/kg COD of electrical energy can be produced in theory.
An average power density of MFCs is reported as 40 W/m3.
Recently, stacked MFCs configurations have reached power den-
sities of 250 W/m3 (Aelterman et al., 2006b), indicating the possi-
bility for further improvements in MFC performance.
All the options had a negative environmental impact due to
electricity utilization in various process units and transportation
and disposal of solids. The MFC unit did not have a significant
positive impact by saving the grid electricity replaced by the
generated bioelectricity. The positive impacts associated with
electricity production have outweighed the negative impacts albeit
at an assumed power density of 1000 A/m3 and 0.5 V net voltage
which is a major challenge at present. Overall, MECs had higher
environmental benefits due to the production of hydrogen peroxide
which eliminated the need for industrial production and associated
construction and management. For MFCs, the major portion of
negative environmental impacts was identified to be coming from
production of carbon fiber electrodes, membranes and stainless
steel components for contactors, mesh and brushes. However, more
detailed LCA analyses with consistent assumptions are required to
compare the potential benefits that MFCs may offer relative to
other existing options.
303
11. Concluding remarks
Microbial fuel cells show the potential for a sustainable route to
mitigate the growing energy demands for wastewater treatment
and environmental protection. The indigenous exoelectrogenic
microbial communities in the MFCs are capable of degrading
various forms of wastewaters. Although the research efforts over
the last decade have increased the power densities by several or-
ders of magnitude, further breakthroughs are required to promote
these systems into large scale practical applications. The following
issues should be given priority for significant developments in MFC
technology:
 Electrode surface areas and low cost materials of construction
should be incorporated for cost-effective electricity production
in MFCs.
 Experience with actual wastewaters should be the focus of
future research and process development activities.
 Experimental outcomes should be reported in well-known and
acceptable units allowing comparison between different
configurations.
 Understanding of the electron releaseetransfereacceptance
mechanisms and minimizing electron transfer losses by devel-
oping novel configurations in the anodeecathode architecture
should be given proper attention to maximize the benefits.
 More in-depth studies focusing on life cycle impact analysis of
the microbial fuel cell technology should be developed to
identify critical areas of development.
Large scale system demonstrations are urgently required but
they may present new challenges and limitations which need to be
addressed in a systematic manner (Dong et al., 2015; Ge et al.,
2015). The future of MFC technologies is full of exciting opportu-
nities and challenges which demands greater discoveries and ad-
vancements in science and engineering aspects to overcome
several barriers and to develop sustainable energy harvesting
wastewater treatment technology based on bioelectrochemical
principles.
Acknowledgments
This work was supported by the Office of Research and Eco-
nomic Development (ORED), Bagley College of Engineering (BCoE),
and the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering (CEE)
at Mississippi State University. The author acknowledges the
funding support from the United States Environmental Protection
Agency (USEPA) through P3 (People, Planet, and Prosperity) Phase I
Awards SU835721 and SU835722.
References
Abourached, C., Catal, T., Liu, H., 2014. Efficacy of single-chamber microbial fuel cells
for removal of cadmium and zinc with simultaneous electricity production.
Water Res. 51, 228e233.
Aelterman, P., Rabaey, K., Clauwaert, P., Verstraete, W., 2006a. Microbial fuel cells for
wastewater treatment. Water Sci. Technol. 54 (8), 9e15.
Aelterman, P., Rabaey, K., Pham, H.T., Boon, N., Verstraete, W., 2006b. Continuous
electricity generation at high voltages and currents using stacked microbial fuel
cells. Environ. Sci. Technol. 40 (10), 3388e3394.
Ahn, Y.H., 2006. Sustainable nitrogen elimination biotechnologies: a review. Process
Biochemistry 41 (8), 1709e1721.
Ahn, Y., Logan, B.E., 2010. Effectiveness of domestic wastewater treatment using
microbial fuel cells at ambient and mesophilic temperatures. Bioresour. Tech-
nol. 101 (2), 469e475.
Aldrovandi, A., Marsili, E., Stante, L., Paganin, P., Tabacchioni, S., Giordano, A., 2009.
Sustainable power production in a membrane-less and mediator-less synthetic
wastewater microbial fuel cell. Bioresour. Technol. 100 (13), 3252e3260.
304 V.G. Gude / Journal of Cleaner Production 122 (2016) 287e307
AWWA Research Foundation, California Energy commission (CEC), New York State
Energy Research and Development Authority, 2007. Energy Index Development
for Benchmarking Water and Wastewater Utilities. AWWARF, Denver, CO.
Ayyaru, S., Dharmalingam, S., 2011. Development of MFC using sulfonated polyether
ether ketone (SPEEK) membrane for electricity generation from waste water.
Bioresour. Technol. 102 (24), 11167e11171.
Biffinger, J.C., Byrd, J.N., Dudley, B.L., Ringeisen, B.R., 2008. Oxygen exposure pro-
motes fuel diversity for Shewanella oneidensis microbial fuel cells. Biosens.
Bioelectron. 23 (6), 820e826.
Borole, A.P., Hamilton, C.Y., 2010. Energy production from food industry wastewa-
ters using bioelectrochemical cells. In: Emerging Environmental Technologies,
vol. II. Springer Netherlands, pp. 97e113.
Burton, F.L., 1996. Water and Wastewater Industries: Characteristics and Energy
Management Opportunities. Burton Engineering, Los Altos, CA, p. ES-1. Report
CR-106941. Electric Power Research Institute Report.
Catal, T., Bermek, H., Liu, H., 2009. Removal of selenite from wastewater using
microbial fuel cells. Biotechnol. Lett. 31 (8), 1211e1216.
Cercado-Quezada, B., Delia, M.L., Bergel, A., 2010. Testing various food-industry
wastes for electricity production in microbial fuel cell. Bioresour. Technol. 101
(8), 2748e2754.
Chae, K.J., Choi, M.J., Lee, J.W., Kim, K.Y., Kim, I.S., 2009. Effect of different substrates
on the performance, bacterial diversity, and bacterial viability in microbial fuel
cells. Bioresour. Technol. 100 (14), 3518e3525.
Cheng, S., Dempsey, B.A., Logan, B.E., 2007. Electricity generation from synthetic
acid-mine drainage (AMD) water using fuel cell technologies. Environ. Sci.. &
Technol 41 (23), 8149e8153.
Cheng, S., Jang, J.H., Dempsey, B.A., Logan, B.E., 2011. Efficient recovery of nano-sized
iron oxide particles from synthetic acid-mine drainage (AMD) water using fuel
cell technologies. Water Res. 45 (1), 303e307.
Choi, C., Cui, Y., 2012. Recovery of silver from wastewater coupled with power
generation using a microbial fuel cell. Bioresou. Technol 107, 522e525.
Choi, C., Hu, N., 2013. The modeling of gold recovery from tetrachloroaurate
wastewater using a microbial fuel cell. Bioresour. Technol. 133, 589e598.
Clauwaert, P., Aelterman, P., De Schamphelaire, L., Carballa, M., Rabaey, K.,
Verstraete, W., 2008. Minimizing losses in bio-electrochemical systems: the
road to applications. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 79 (6), 901e913.
Clauwaert, P., Rabaey, K., Aelterman, P., De Schamphelaire, L., Pham, T.H., Boeckx, P.,
Verstraete, W., 2007. Biological denitrification in microbial fuel cells. Environ.
Sci. Technol. 41 (9), 3354e3360.
Cusick, R.D., Logan, B.E., 2012. Phosphate recovery as struvite within a single
chamber microbial electrolysis cell. Bioresour. Technol. 107, 110e115.
Dai, J., Wang, J.J., Chow, A.T., Conner, W.H., 2015. Electrical energy production from
forest detritus in a forested wetland using microbial fuel cells. GCB Bioenergy 7
(2), 244e252.
De Schamphelaire, L., Verstraete, W., 2009. Revival of the biological sunlight-to-
biogas energy conversion system. Biotechnol. Bioeng. 103, 296e304.
del Campo, A.G., Can ~ izares, P., Rodrigo, M.A., Fernandez, F.J., Lobato, J., 2013. Mi-
crobial fuel cell with an algae-assisted cathode: a preliminary assessment.
J. Power Sources 242, 638e645.
Desloover, J., Arends, J.A., Hennebel, T., Rabaey, K., 2012. Operational and tech-
nical considerations for microbial electrosynthesis. Biochem. Soc. Trans. 40
(6), 1233.
Dong, Y., Qu, Y., He, W., Du, Y., Liu, J., Han, X., Feng, Y., 2015. A 90-liter stackable
baffled microbial fuel cell for brewery wastewater treatment based on energy
self-sufficient mode. Bioresour. Technol. 195, 66e72.
DTI, 2005. Regional Electricity Consumption Statistics, UK.
Du, Z., Li, H., Gu, T., 2007. A state of the art review on microbial fuel cells: a
promising technology for wastewater treatment and bioenergy. Biotechnol.
Adv. 25 (5), 464e482.
EIA, 2009. http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id¼74&t¼11 (accessed online on
05.08.15.).
Etter, B., Tilley, E., Khadka, R., Udert, K.M., 2011. Low-cost struvite production using
source-separated urine in Nepal. Water Res. 45 (2), 852e862.
Ewing, T., Babauta, J.T., Atci, E., Tang, N., Orellana, J., Heo, D., Beyenal, H., 2014. Self-
powered wastewater treatment for the enhanced operation of a facultative
lagoon. J. Power Sources 269, 284e292.
Fan, Y., Han, S.K., Liu, H., 2012. Improved performance of CEA microbial fuel cells
with increased reactor size. Energy Environ. Sci. 5 (8), 8273e8280.
Fangzhou, D., Zhenglong, L., Shaoqiang, Y., Beizhen, X., Hong, L., 2011. Electricity
generation directly using human feces wastewater for life support system. Acta
Astronaut. 68 (9), 1537e1547.
Feng, Y., Wang, X., Logan, B.E., Lee, H., 2008. Brewery wastewater treatment using
air-cathode microbial fuel cells. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 78 (5), 873e880.
Fischer, F., Bastian, C., Happe, M., Mabillard, E., Schmidt, N., 2011. Microbial fuel cell
enables phosphate recovery from digested sewage sludge as struvite. Bioresour.
Technol. 102 (10), 5824e5830.
Foley, J.M., Rozendal, R.A., Hertle, C.K., Lant, P.A., Rabaey, K., 2010. Life cycle
assessment of high-rate anaerobic treatment, microbial fuel cells, and microbial
electrolysis cells. Environ. Sci. Technol. 44 (9), 3629e3637.
Fuchs, W., Binder, H., Mavrias, G., Braun, R., 2003. Anaerobic treatment of waste-
water with high organic content using a stirred tank reactor coupled with a
membrane filtration unit. Water Res. 37 (4), 902e908.
Gadhamshetty, V., Belanger, D., Gardiner, C.J., Cummings, A., Hynes, A., 2013.
Evaluation of Laminaria-based microbial fuel cells (LbMs) for electricity pro-
duction. Bioresour. Technol. 127, 378e385.
Ganesh, K., Jambeck, J.R., 2013. Treatment of landfill leachate using microbial fuel
cells: alternative anodes and semi-continuous operation. Bioresour. Technol.
139, 383e387.
Ge, Z., Wu, L., Zhang, F., He, Z., 2015. Energy extraction from a large-scale microbial
fuel cell system treating municipal wastewater. J. Power Sources 297,
260e264.
Ge, Z., Zhang, F., Grimaud, J., Hurst, J., He, Z., 2013. Long-term investigation of mi-
crobial fuel cells treating primary sludge or digested sludge. Bioresour. Technol.
136, 509e514.
Gohil, A., Nakhla, G., 2006. Treatment of food industry waste by bench-scale upflow
anaerobic sludge blanketeanoxiceaerobic system. Water Environ. Res.
974e985.
Goud, R.K., Babu, P.S., Mohan, S.V., 2011. Canteen based composite food waste as
potential anodic fuel for bioelectricity generation in single chambered microbial
fuel cell (MFC): bio-electrochemical evaluation under increasing substrate
loading condition. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 36 (10), 6210e6218.
Greenman, J., Ga lvez, A., Giusti, L., Ieropoulos, I., 2009. Electricity from landfill
leachate using microbial fuel cells: comparison with a biological aerated filter.
Enzyme Microb. Technol. 44 (2), 112e119.
Gregoire, K., Tatinclaux, M., Biffinger, J., Tender, L., Lansing, S., 2013, October. Hybrid
anaerobic digester-microbial fuel cell for waste water treatment. In: Meeting
Abstracts. The Electrochemical Society, p. 225. No. 4.
Gregory, K.B., Bond, D.R., Lovley, D.R., 2004. Graphite electrodes as electron donors
for anaerobic respiration. Environ. Microbiol. 6 (6), 596e604.
Gude, V.G., Kokabian, B., Gadhamshetty, V., 2013. Beneficial bioelectrochemical
systems for energy, water, and biomass production. J. Microb. Biochem. Technol.
6, 2.
Gude, V.G., 2015a. Energy and water autarky of wastewater treatment and power
generation systems. Renew. Sust. Energy Rev. 45, 52e68.
Gude, V.G., 2015b. A new perspective on microbiome and resource management in
wastewater systems. J. Biotechnol. Biomater. 5 (184), 2.
Gude, V.G., 2015c. Energy positive wastewater treatment and sludge management.
Edorium J. Waste Manag 1, 10e15.
Ha, P.T., Lee, T.K., Rittmann, B.E., Park, J., Chang, I.S., 2012. Treatment of alcohol
distillery wastewater using a bacteroidetes-dominant thermophilic microbial
fuel cell. Environ. Sci. Technol. 46 (5), 3022e3030.
Harnisch, F., Schro €der, U., 2010. From MFC to MXC: chemical and biological cathodes
and their potential for microbial bioelectrochemical systems. Chem. Soc. Rev. 39
(11), 4433e4448.
He, Z., Kan, J., Mansfeld, F., Angenent, L.T., Nealson, K.H., 2009. Self-sustained
phototrophic microbial fuel cells based on the synergistic cooperation between
photosynthetic microorganisms and heterotrophic bacteria. Environ. Sci.
Technol. 43, 1648e1654.
Heilmann, J., Logan, B.E., 2006. Production of electricity from proteins using a mi-
crobial fuel cell. Water Environ. Res. 531e537.
Heidrich, E.S., Curtis, T.P., Dolfing, J., 2010. Determination of the internal chemical
energy of wastewater. Environ. Sci.. & Technol 45 (2), 827e832.
Hoffmann, R.A., Garcia, M.L., Veskivar, M., Karim, K., Al-Dahhan, M.H.,
Angenent, L.T., 2008. Effect of shear on performance and microbial ecology of
continuously stirred anaerobic digesters treating animal manure. Biotechnol.
Bioeng. 100 (1), 38e48.
Hu, Z., 2008. Electricity generation by a baffle-chamber membraneless microbial
fuel cell. J. Power Sources 179 (1), 27e33.
Huang, L., Logan, B.E., 2008. Electricity generation and treatment of paper recycling
wastewater using a microbial fuel cell. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 80 (2),
349e355.
Huang, L., Liu, Y., Yu, L., Quan, X., Chen, G., 2015. A new clean approach for pro-
duction of cobalt dihydroxide from aqueous Co (II) using oxygen-reducing
biocathode microbial fuel cells. J. Clean. Prod. 86, 441e446.
Ichihashi, O., Hirooka, K., 2012. Removal and recovery of phosphorus as struvite
from swine wastewater using microbial fuel cell. Bioresour. Technol. 114,
303e307.
Ieropoulos, I.A., Ledezma, P., Stinchcombe, A., Papaharalabos, G., Melhuish, C.,
Greenman, J., 2013. Waste to real energy: the first MFC powered mobile phone.
Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 15 (37), 15312e15316.
Ieropoulos, I., Greenman, J., Melhuish, C., 2012. Urine utilisation by microbial fuel
cells; energy fuel for the future. Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 14 (1), 94e98.
Inoue, K., Ito, T., Kawano, Y., Iguchi, A., Miyahara, M., Suzuki, Y., Watanabe, K., 2013.
Electricity generation from cattle manure slurry by cassette-electrode microbial
fuel cells. J. Biosci. Bioeng. 116 (5), 610e615.
Ishii, S.I., Suzuki, S., Norden-Krichmar, T.M., Nealson, K.H., Sekiguchi, Y., Gorby, Y.A.,
Bretschger, O., 2012. Functionally stable and phylogenetically diverse microbial
enrichments from microbial fuel cells during wastewater treatment. PLoS One 7
(2), e30495.
Ismail, Z.Z., Jaeel, A.J., 2013. Sustainable power generation in continuous flow mi-
crobial fuel cell treating actual wastewater: influence of biocatalyst type on
electricity production. Sci. World J. 2013. http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2013/713515.
Jadhav, G.S., Ghangrekar, M.M., 2009. Performance of microbial fuel cell subjected to
variation in pH, temperature, external load and substrate concentration. Bio-
resour. Technol. 100 (2), 717e723.
Jang, J.K., Pham, T.H., Chang, I.S., Kang, K.H., Moon, H., Cho, K.S., Kim, B.H., 2004.
Construction and operation of a novel mediator-and membrane-less microbial
fuel cell. Process Biochem. 39 (8), 1007e1012.
Janicek, A., Fan, Y., Liu, H., 2015. Performance and stability of different cathode base
materials for use in microbial fuel cells. J. Power Sources 280, 159e165.
 V.G. Gude / Journal of Cleaner Production 122 (2016) 287e307
Janicek, A., Fan, Y., Liu, H., 2014. Design of microbial fuel cells for practical appli-
cation: a review and analysis of scale-up studies. Biofuels 5 (1), 79e92.
Jiang, H., Luo, S., Shi, X., Dai, M., Guo, R.B., 2012. A novel microbial fuel cell and
photobioreactor system for continuous domestic wastewater treatment and
bioelectricity generation. Biotechnol. Lett. 34 (7), 1269e1274.
Jiang, Y., Ulrich, A.C., Liu, Y., 2013. Coupling bioelectricity generation and oil sands
tailings treatment using microbial fuel cells. Biores Technol 139, 349e354.
Jong, B.C., Liew, P.W.Y., Juri, M.L., Kim, B.H., Leo, K.W., Awang, M.R., 2011. Perfor-
mance and microbial diversity of palm oil mill effluent microbial fuel cell. Lett.
Appl. Microbiol. 53 (6), 660e667.
Kargbo, D.M., 2010. Biodiesel production from municipal sewage sludges. Energy
Fuels 24 (5), 2791e2794.
Kargi, F., Eker, S., 2007. Electricity generation with simultaneous wastewater
treatment by a microbial fuel cell (MFC) with Cu and CueAu electrodes. J. Chem.
Technol. Biotechnol. 82 (7), 658e662.
Karra, U., Troop, E., Curtis, M., Scheible, K., Li, B., 2013. Performance evaluation of
plug flow microbial fuel cell (PF-MFC) and complete mixing microbial fuel cell
(CM-MFC) for wastewater treatment and power generation. Proc. Water Envi-
ron. Fed. 2013 (16), 2014e2023.
Kelly, P.T., He, Z., 2014. Nutrients removal and recovery in bioelectrochemical sys-
tems: a review. Bioresour. Technol. 153, 351e360.
Khandan, N., Selvaratnam, t., Pegallapati, A.K., 2014. Options for energy recovery
from urban wastewaters. In: 9th Conference on Sustainable Development of
Energy, Water, and Environmental Systems. SDEWES2014.0596-1.
Kim, Byung Hong, Chang, In Seop, Gadd, Geoffrey M., 2007. Challenges in microbial fuel
cell development and operation. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 76 (3), 485e494.
Kim, H.W., Nam, J.Y., Shin, H.S., 2011. Ammonia inhibition and microbial adaptation
in continuous single-chamber microbial fuel cells. J. Power Sources 196 (15),
6210e6213.
Kim, J.R., Jung, S.H., Regan, J.M., Logan, B.E., 2007. Electricity generation and mi-
crobial community analysis of alcohol powered microbial fuel cells. Bioresour.
Technol. 98 (13), 2568e2577.
Kokabian, B., Gude, V.G., 2013. Photosynthetic microbial desalination cells (PMDCs)
for clean energy, water and biomass production. Environ. Sci. Process. Impacts
15 (12), 2178e2185.
Kokabian, B., Gude, V.G., 2015a. Role of membranes in bioelectrochemical systems.
Membr. Water Treat. 6 (1), 53e75.
Kokabian, B., Gude, V.G., 2015b. Sustainable photosynthetic biocathode in microbial
desalination cells. Chem. Eng. J. 262, 958e965.
Kondaveeti, S., Choi, K.S., Kakarla, R., Min, B., 2014. Microalgae Scenedesmus obliquus
as renewable biomass feedstock for electricity generation in microbial fuel cells
(MFCs). Front. Environ. Sci. Eng. 8 (5), 784e791.
Koo  k, L., Ro zsenberszki, T., Nemesto thy, N., Be
lafi-Bako
 , K., Bakonyi, P., 2016. Bio-
electrochemical treatment of municipal waste liquor in microbial fuel cells for
energy valorization. J. Clean. Prod. 112, 4406e4412.
Kujawa-Roeleveld, K., Zeeman, G., 2006. Anaerobic treatment in decentralised and
source-separation-based sanitation concepts. Rev. Environ. Sci. Bio/Technol. 5
(1), 115e139.
Kumar, A.K., Reddy, M.V., Chandrasekhar, K., Srikanth, S., Mohan, S.V., 2012. Endo-
crine disruptive estrogens role in electron transfer: bio-electrochemical reme-
diation with microbial mediated electrogenesis. Bioresour. Technol. 104,
547e556.

Kuntke, P., Smiech, K.M., Bruning, H., Zeeman, G., Saakes, M., Sleutels, T.H.J.A., ,
et al.Buisman, C.J.N., 2012. Ammonium recovery and energy production from
urine by a microbial fuel cell. Water Res. 46 (8), 2627e2636.
Larsen, T.A., Alder, A.C., Eggen, R.I., Maurer, M., Lienert, J., 2009. Source separation:
will we see a paradigm shift in wastewater handling? Environ. Sci. Technol. 43
(16), 6121e6125.
Le Corre, K.S., Valsami-Jones, E., Hobbs, P., Parsons, S.A., 2009. Phosphorus recovery
from wastewater by struvite crystallization: a review. Crit. Rev. Environ. Sci.
Technol. 39 (6), 433e477.
Lee, H.S., Parameswaran, P., Kato-Marcus, A., Torres, C.I., Rittmann, B.E., 2008.
Evaluation of energy-conversion efficiencies in microbial fuel cells (MFCs) uti-
lizing fermentable and non-fermentable substrates. Water Res. 42 (6),
1501e1510.
Lee, Y., Nirmalakhandan, N., 2011. Electricity production in membrane-less micro-
bial fuel cell fed with livestock organic solid waste. Bioresour. Technol. 102 (10),
5831e5835.
Lemoine, F., Maupin, I., Leme e, L., Lavoie, J.M., Lemberton, J.L., Pouilloux, Y.,
Pinard, L., 2013. Alternative fuel production by catalytic hydroliquefaction of
solid municipal wastes, primary sludges and microalgae. Bioresour. Technol.
142, 1e8.
Lepisto €, S.S., Rintala, J.A., 1997. Start-up and operation of laboratory-scale thermo-
philic upflow anaerobic sludge blanket reactors treating vegetable processing
wastewaters. J. Chem. Technol. Biotechnol. 68 (3), 331e339.
Liang, M., Tao, H.C., Li, S.F., et al., 2011. Treatment of Cu2þ-containing wastewater by
microbial fuel cell with excess sludge as anodic substrate. Environ. Sci. Technol
32, 179e185.
Li, H., Feng, Y., Zou, X., Luo, X., 2009. Study on microbial reduction of vanadium
matallurgical waste water. Hydrometallurgy 99 (1), 13e17.
Li, W.W., Yu, H.Q., He, Z., 2014. Towards sustainable wastewater treatment by using
microbial fuel cells-centered technologies. Energy Environ. Sci. 7 (3), 911e924.
Li, Y., Lu, A., Ding, H., Jin, S., Yan, Y., Wang, C., …, Wang, X., 2009. Cr (VI) reduction at
rutile-catalyzed cathode in microbial fuel cells. Electrochem. Commun. 11 (7),
1496e1499.
305
Li, Y., Luo, X., Huang, X., Wang, D., Zhang, W., 2013. Life cycle assessment of a
municipal wastewater treatment plant: a case study in Suzhou, China. J. Clean.
Prod. 57, 221e227.
Li, Y., Wu, Y., Puranik, S., Lei, Y., Vadas, T., Li, B., 2014. Metals as electron acceptors in
single-chamber microbial fuel cells. J. Power Sources 269, 430e439.
Li, Z., Zhang, X., Lei, L., 2008. Electricity production during the treatment of real
electroplating wastewater containing Cr 6þ using microbial fuel cell. Process
Biochem. 43 (12), 1352e1358.
Lind, B.B., Ban, Z., Byden, S., 2000. Nutrient recovery from human urine by struvite
crystallization with ammonia adsorption on zeolite and wollastonite. Bioresour.
Technol. 73 (2), 169e174.
Liu, H., Logan, B.E., 2004. Electricity generation using an air-cathode single chamber
microbial fuel cell in the presence and absence of a proton exchange mem-
brane. Environ. Sci. Technol. 38 (14), 4040e4046.
Liu, H., Cheng, S., Logan, B.E., 2005. Power generation in fed-batch microbial fuel
cells as a function of ionic strength, temperature, and reactor configuration.
Environ. Sci. Technol. 39 (14), 5488e5493.
Liu, H., Ramnarayanan, R., Logan, B.E., 2004. Production of electricity during
wastewater treatment using a single chamber microbial fuel cell. Environ. Sci.
Technol. 38 (7), 2281e2285.
Liu, L., Yang, Y., Li, D.L., 2012. Accelerated hexavalent chromium [Cr (VI)] reduction
with electrogenerated hydrogen peroxide in microbial fuel cells. Adv. Mater.
Res. 512, 1525e1528.
Liu, S., Song, H., Wei, S., Yang, F., Li, X., 2014. Bio-cathode materials evaluation and
configuration optimization for power output of vertical subsurface flow con-
structed wetlanddmicrobial fuel cell systems. Bioresour. Technol. 166,
575e583.
Liu, Z., Liu, J., Zhang, S., Su, Z., 2009. Study of operational performance and electrical
response on mediator-less microbial fuel cells fed with carbon-and protein-rich
substrates. Biochem. Eng. J. 45 (3), 185e191.
Lobo, F.L., Wang, H., Forrestal, C., Ren, Z.J., 2015. AC power generation from mi-
crobial fuel cells. J. Power Sources 297, 252e259.
Logan, B.E., 2004. Peer reviewed: extracting hydrogen and electricity from
renewable resources. Environ. Sci. Technol. 38 (9), 160Ae167A.
Logan, B.E., 2005. Simultaneous wastewater treatment and biological electricity
generation. Water Sci. Technol. 52 (1), 31e37.
Logan, B.E., 2008. Microbial Fuel Cells. John Wiley & Sons.
Logan, B.E., Rabaey, K., 2012. Conversion of wastes into bioelectricity and chem-
icals by using microbial electrochemical technologies. Science 337 (6095),
686e690.
Logan, B.E., Wallack, M.J., Kim, K.Y., He, W., Feng, Y., Saikaly, P.E., 2015. Assessment of
microbial fuel cell configurations and power densities. Environ. Sci. Technol.
Lett. 2 (8), 206e214.
Lovley, D.R., 1993. Dissimilatory metal reduction. Ann. Rev. Microbiol 47, 263e290.
Lovley, D.R., 2006. Bug juice: harvesting electricity with microorganisms. Nat. Rev.
Microbiol. 4 (7), 497e508.
Lu, L., Xing, D., Ren, Z.J., 2015. Microbial community structure accompanied with
electricity production in a constructed wetland plant microbial fuel cell. Bio-
resour. Technol. 195, 115e121.
Lu, N., Zhou, S.G., Zhuang, L., Zhang, J.T., Ni, J.R., 2009. Electricity generation from
starch processing wastewater using microbial fuel cell technology. Biochem.
Eng. J. 43 (3), 246e251.
Madigan, M.T., Martinko, J.M., Stahl, D., Parker, J., 2010. Brock Biology of Microor-
ganisms, thirteenth ed. Benjamin Cummings, San Francisco, California, USA.
Manara, P., Zabaniotou, A., 2012. Towards sewage sludge based biofuels via ther-
mochemical conversion e a review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 16 (5),
2566e2582.
Mathuriya, A.S., Yakhmi, J.V., 2014. Microbial fuel cells to recover heavy metals.
Environ. Chem. Lett. 12 (4), 483e494.
Maurer, M., Muncke, J., Larsen, T., 2003a. Techniques for nitrogen recovery and reuse.
In: Lens, P., et al. (Eds.), Water and Resource Recovery in Industry. IWA Publishing.
Maurer, M., Schwegler, P., Larsen, T.A., 2003b. Nutrients in urine: energetic aspects
of removal and recovery. Water Sci. Technol. 48 (1), 37e46.
McCarty, P.L., Bae, J., Kim, J., 2011. Domestic wastewater treatment as a net energy
producer e can this be achieved? Environ. Sci. Technol. 45 (17), 7100e7106.
Min, B., Kim, J., Oh, S., Regan, J.M., Logan, B.E., 2005. Electricity generation from
swine wastewater using microbial fuel cells. Water Res. 39 (20), 4961e4968.
Min, B., Rom 
an, O.B., Angelidaki, I., 2008. Importance of temperature and anodic
medium composition on microbial fuel cell (MFC) performance. Biotechnol.
Lett. 30 (7), 1213e1218.
Mitra, P., Hill, G.A., 2012. Continuous microbial fuel cell using a photoautotrophic
cathode and a fermentative anode. Can. J. Chem. Eng. 90, 1006e1010.
Mohan, S.V., Raghavulu, S.V., Sarma, P.N., 2008. Influence of anodic biofilm
growth on bioelectricity production in single chambered mediatorless mi-
crobial fuel cell using mixed anaerobic consortia. Biosens. Bioelectron. 24 (1),
41e47.
Mohanakrishna, G., Mohan, S.K., Mohan, S.V., 2012. Carbon based nanotubes and
nanopowder as impregnated electrode structures for enhanced power gener-
ation: evaluation with real field wastewater. Appl. Energy 95, 31e37.
Mondala, A., Liang, K., Toghiani, H., Hernandez, R., French, T., 2009. Biodiesel pro-
duction by in situ transesterification of municipal primary and secondary
sludges. Bioresour. Technol. 100 (3), 1203e1210.
Moqsud, M.A., Yoshitake, J., Bushra, Q.S., Hyodo, M., Omine, K., Strik, D., 2015.
Compost in plant microbial fuel cell for bioelectricity generation. Waste Manag.
36, 63e69.
306 V.G. Gude / Journal of Cleaner Production 122 (2016) 287e307
Nam, J.Y., Kim, H.W., Shin, H.S., 2010. Ammonia inhibition of electricity generation
in single-chambered microbial fuel cells. J. Power Sources 195 (19), 6428e6433.
Nguyen, M.L., Tanner, C.C., 1998. Ammonium removal from wastewaters using
natural New Zealand zeolites cations in the synthetic solutions. N. Z. J. Agric.
Res. 41, 427e446.
Nimje, V.R., Chen, C.Y., Chen, H.R., Chen, C.C., Huang, Y.M., Tseng, M.J., ,
et al.Chang, Y.F., 2012. Comparative bioelectricity production from various
wastewaters in microbial fuel cells using mixed cultures and a pure strain of
Shewanella oneidensis. Bioresour. Technol. 104, 315e323.
Oh, S., Logan, B.E., 2005. Hydrogen and electricity production from a food pro-
cessing wastewater using fermentation and microbial fuel cell technologies.
Water Res. 39 (19), 4673e4682.
Olkiewicz, M., Fortuny, A., Stüber, F., Fabregat, A., Font, J., Bengoa, C., 2012. Evalu-
ation of different sludges from WWTP as a potential source for biodiesel pro-
duction. Procedia Eng. 42, 634e643.
Pandit, S., Nayak, B.K., Das, D., 2012. Microbial carbon capture cell using cyano-
bacteria for simultaneous power generation, carbon dioxide sequestration and
wastewater treatment. Bioresour. Technol. 107, 97e102.
Pant, D., Singh, A., Van Bogaert, G., Gallego, Y.A., Diels, L., Vanbroekhoven, K., 2011.
An introduction to the life cycle assessment (LCA) of bioelectrochemical sys-
tems (BES) for sustainable energy and product generation: relevance and key
aspects. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 15 (2), 1305e1313.
Pant, D., Van Bogaert, G., Diels, L., Vanbroekhoven, K., 2010. A review of the sub-
strates used in microbial fuel cells (MFCs) for sustainable energy production.
Bioresour. Technol. 101 (6), 1533e1543.
Patil, S.A., Surakasi, V.P., Koul, S., Ijmulwar, S., Vivek, A., Shouche, Y.S., Kapadnis, B.P.,
2009. Electricity generation using chocolate industry wastewater and its
treatment in activated sludge based microbial fuel cell and analysis of devel-
oped microbial community in the anode chamber. Bioresour. Technol. 100 (21),
5132e5139.
Pham, T.H., Rabaey, K., Aelterman, P., Clauwaert, P., De Schamphelaire, L., Boon, N.,
Verstraete, W., 2006. Microbial fuel cells in relation to conventional anaerobic
digestion technology. Eng. Life Sci. 6 (3), 285e292.
Popat, S.C., Ki, D., Rittmann, B.E., Torres, C.I., 2012. Importance of OH
transport
from cathodes in microbial fuel cells. ChemSusChem 5 (6), 1071e1079.
Powell, E.E., Bolster, J., Hill, G.A., Evitts, R.W., 2011. Microbial fuel cell with a
photosynthetic microalgae cathodic half cell coupled to a yeast anodic half cell.
Energy Sources A 33, 440e448.
Powell, E.E., Mapiour, M.L., Evitts, R.W., Hill, G.A., 2009. Growth kinetics of Chlorella
vulgaris and its use as a cathodic half cell. Bioresour. Technol. 100, 269e274.
Powell, E.E., Hill, G.A., 2009. Economic assessment of an integrated bio-
ethanolebiodieselemicrobial fuel cell facility utilizing yeast and photosynthetic
algae. Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 87 (9), 1340e1348.
Puig, S., Serra, M., Coma, M., Cabre , M., Balaguer, M.D., Colprim, J., 2011. Microbial fuel
cell application in landfill leachate treatment. J. Hazard. Mater. 185 (2), 763e767.
Rabaey, K., Verstraete, W., 2005. Microbial fuel cells: novel biotechnology for energy
generation. Trends Biotechnol. 23 (6), 291e298.
Rabaey, K., Lissens, G., Siciliano, S.D., Verstraete, W., 2003. A microbial fuel cell
capable of converting glucose to electricity at high rate and efficiency. Bio-
technol. Lett. 25 (18), 1531e1535.
Rahimnejad, M., Ghoreyshi, A.A., Najafpour, G., Jafary, T., 2011. Power generation
from organic substrate in batch and continuous flow microbial fuel cell oper-
ations. Appl. Energy 88 (11), 3999e4004.
Rengasamy, K., Berchmans, S., 2012. Simultaneous degradation of bad wine and
electricity generation with the aid of the coexisting biocatalysts Acetobacter
aceti and Gluconobacter roseus. Bioresour. Technol. 104, 388e393.
Rittmann, B.E., 2006. Microbial ecology to manage processes in environmental
biotechnology. Trends Biotechnol. 24 (6), 261e266.
Rittmann, B.E., McCarty, P.L., 2001. Biotecnología del medio ambiente: Principios y
aplicaciones. McGraw-Hill Interamericana de Espan ~ a.
Rodrigo, M.A., Can ~ izares, P., Lobato, J., 2010. Effect of the electron-acceptors on the
performance of a MFC. Bioresour. Technol. 101 (18), 7014e7018.
Rodrigo, M.A., Canizares, P., Lobato, J., Paz, R., S aez, C., Linares, J.J., 2007. Production
of electricity from the treatment of urban waste water using a microbial fuel
cell. J. Power Source 169 (1), 198e204.
Ronteltap, M., Biebow, M., Maurer, M., Gujer, W., 2003. Thermodynamics of struvite
precipitation in source-separated urine. In: Proceedings of the 2nd IWA/GTZ In-
ternational Symposium on Ecological Sanitation, LüBeck, Germany, pp. 463e470.
Rozendal, R.A., Hamelers, H.V., Buisman, C.J., 2006. Effects of membrane cation
transport on pH and microbial fuel cell performance. Environ. Sci. Technol. 40
(17), 5206e5211.
Rozendal, R.A., Hamelers, H.V., Rabaey, K., Keller, J., Buisman, C.J., 2008. Towards
practical implementation of bioelectrochemical wastewater treatment. Trends
Biotechnol. 26 (8), 450e459.
Ryu, E.Y., Lee, S.J., 2011. Characterization of microbial fuel cells enriched using Cr
(VI)-containing sludge. J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 21 (2), 187e191.
Samsudeen, N., Radhakrishnan, T.K., Matheswaran, M., 2015. Bioelectricity pro-
duction from microbial fuel cell using mixed bacterial culture isolated from
distillery wastewater. Bioresour. Technol. 195, 242e247.
Scott, K., Murano, C., 2007. Microbial fuel cells utilising carbohydrates. J. Chem.
Technol. Biotechnol. 82 (1), 92e100.
Shizas, I., Bagley, D.M., 2004. Experimental determination of energy content of
unknown organics in municipal wastewater streams. J. Energy Eng. 130 (2),
45e53.
Shoener, B.D., Bradley, I.M., Cusick, R.D., Guest, J.S., 2014. Energy positive domestic
wastewater treatment: the roles of anaerobic and phototrophic technologies.
Environ. Sci. Process. Impacts 16 (6), 1204e1222.
Stamatelatou, K., Antonopoulou, G., Tremouli, A., Lyberatos, G., 2010. Production of
gaseous biofuels and electricity from cheese whey. Industrial & Eng. Chem. Res
50 (2), 639e644.
Stillwell, A.S., Hoppock, D.C., Webber, M.E., 2010. Energy recovery from wastewater
treatment plants in the United States: a case study of the energyewater nexus.
Sustainability 2 (4), 945e962.
Stillwell, A.S., King, C.W., Webber, M.E., Duncan, I.J., Hardberger, A., 2011. The
energyewater nexus in Texas. Ecol. Soc. 16 (1), 2.
Strik, D.P.B.T.B., Terlouw, H., Hamelers, H.V.M., Buisman, C.J.N., 2008. Renewable
sustainable biocatalyzed electricity production in a photosynthetic algal mi-
crobial fuel cell (PAMFC). Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 81, 659e668.
Sustarsic, M., 2009. Wastewater Treatment: Understanding the Activated Sludge
Process. CEP, pp. 26e29.
Tao, H.C., Li, W., Liang, M., Xu, N., Ni, J.R., Wu, W.M., 2011a. A membrane-free baffled
microbial fuel cell for cathodic reduction of Cu (II) with electricity generation.
Bioresour. Technol. 102 (7), 4774e4778.
Tao, H.C., Liang, M., Li, W., Zhang, L.J., Ni, J.R., Wu, W.M., 2011b. Removal of copper
from aqueous solution by electrodeposition in cathode chamber of microbial
fuel cell. J. Hazard. Mater. 189 (1), 186e192.
Ter Heijne, A., Liu, F., Van Rijnsoever, L.S., Saakes, M., Hamelers, H.V., Buisman, C.J.,
2011. Performance of a scaled-up microbial fuel cell with iron reduction as the
cathode reaction. J. Power Sources 196 (18), 7572e7577.
Tugtas, A.E., Cavdar, P., Calli, B., 2013. Bio-electrochemical post-treatment of
anaerobically treated landfill leachate. Bioresour. Technol. 128, 266e272.
US EPA, 2008. Clean Watersheds Needs Survey Overview.
US EPA, 2012. Inventory of US Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks:
1990e2010.
Varia, J.C., Martinez, S.S., Velasquez-Orta, S., Bull, S., 2014. Microbiological influence
of metal ion electrodeposition: studies using graphite electrodes, [AuCl 4]
and
Shewanella putrefaciens. Electrochim. Acta 115, 344e351.
zquez-Larios, A.L., Solorza-Feria, O., Poggi-Varaldo, H.M., de Guadalupe
Va
Gonz alez-Huerta, R., Ponce-Noyola, M.T., Ríos-Leal, E., Rinderknecht-Seijas, N.,
2014. Bioelectricity production from municipal leachate in a microbial fuel
cell: effect of two cathodic catalysts. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 39 (29),
16667e16675.
Velasquez-Orta, S., Curtis, T., Logan, B.E., 2009. Energy from algae using microbial
fuel cells. Biotechnol. Bioeng. 103, 1068e1076.
Velasquez-Orta, S.B., Head, I.M., Curtis, T.P., Scott, K., 2011. Factors affecting current
production in microbial fuel cells using different industrial wastewaters. Bio-
resour. Technol. 102 (8), 5105e5112.
Velvizhi, G., Mohan, S.V., 2011. Biocatalyst behavior under self-induced electrogenic
microenvironment in comparison with anaerobic treatment: evaluation with
pharmaceutical wastewater for multi-pollutant removal. Bioresour. Technol.
102 (23), 10784e10793.
Vijayaraghavan, K., Ahmad, D., Lesa, R., 2006. Electrolytic treatment of beer brewery
wastewater. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 45 (20), 6854e6859.
Villano, M., Scardala, S., Aulenta, F., Majone, M., 2013. Carbon and nitrogen removal
and enhanced methane production in a microbial electrolysis cell. Bioresour.
Technol. 130, 366e371.
Villasenor, J., Capilla, P., Rodrigo, M.A., Canizares, P., Fernandez, F.J., 2013. Operation
of a horizontal subsurface flow constructed wetlandemicrobial fuel cell treat-
ing wastewater under different organic loading rates. Water Res. 47 (17),
6731e6738.
Virdis, B., Rabaey, K., Rozendal, R.A., Yuan, Z., Keller, J., 2010. Simultaneous nitrifi-
cation, denitrification and carbon removal in microbial fuel cells. Water Res. 44
(9), 2970e2980.
Virdis, B., Rabaey, K., Yuan, Z., Keller, J., 2008. Microbial fuel cells for simultaneous
carbon and nitrogen removal. Water Res. 42 (12), 3013e3024.
Visvanathan, C., Abeynayaka, A., 2012. Developments and future potentials of
anaerobic membrane bioreactors (AnMBRs). Membr. Water Treat. 3, 1e23.
Wang, H., Ren, Z.J., 2014. Bioelectrochemical metal recovery from wastewater: a
review. Water Res. 66, 219e232.
Wang, X., Feng, Y., Liu, J., Lee, H., Li, C., Li, N., Ren, N., 2010. Sequestration of CO2
discharged from anode by algal cathode in microbial carbon capture cells
(MCCs). Biosens. Bioelectron. 25 (12), 2639e2643.
Wang, G., Huang, L., Zhang, Y., 2008. Cathodic reduction of hexavalent chromium
[Cr (VI)] coupled with electricity generation in microbial fuel cells. Biotechnol.
Lett. 30 (11), 1959e1966.
Wang, X., Tang, J., Cui, J., Liu, Q., Giesy, J.P., Hecker, M., 2014. Synergy of electricity
generation and wasted disposal in solid-state microbial fuel cell (MFC) of cow
manure composting. Int. J. Electrochem. Sci. 9, 3144e3157.
Wang, Y.K., Sheng, G.P., Li, W.W., Huang, Y.X., Yu, Y.Y., Zeng, R.J., Yu, H.Q., 2011.
Development of a novel bioelectrochemical membrane reactor for wastewater
treatment. Environ. Sci.. & Technol 45 (21), 9256e9261.
Wang, Z., Ma, J., Xu, Y., Yu, H., Wu, Z., 2013. Power production from different
types of sewage sludge using microbial fuel cells: a comparative study
with energetic and microbiological perspectives. J. Power Sources 235,
280e288.
Wei, J., Liang, P., Cao, X., Huang, X., 2011. Use of inexpensive semicoke and activated
carbon as biocathode in microbial fuel cells. Bioresour. Technol. 102 (22),
10431e10435.
 V.G. Gude / Journal of Cleaner Production 122 (2016) 287e307
Wen, Q., Wu, Y., Cao, D., Zhao, L., Sun, Q., 2009. Electricity generation and modeling
of microbial fuel cell from continuous beer brewery wastewater. Bioresour.
Technol. 100 (18), 4171e4175.
Winfield, J., Ieropoulos, I., Greenman, J., 2012. Investigating a cascade of seven
hydraulically connected microbial fuel cells. Bioresour. Technol. 110,
245e250.
Xu, L., Zhao, Y., Doherty, L., Hu, Y., Hao, X., 2016. The integrated processes for
wastewater treatment based on the principle of microbial fuel cells (MFCs): a
review. Crit. Rev. Environ. Sci. Technol. 46 (1), 60e91.
Yang, L., Wu, Z., Wu, J., Zhang, Y., Li, M., Lin, Z.Q., Ban~ uelos, G., 2013. Simultaneous
removal of selenite and electricity production from Se-laden wastewater by
constructed wetland coupled with microbial fuel cells. Selenium Environ. Hum.
Health 212.
Yazdi, H., Alzate-Gaviria, L., Ren, Z.J., 2015. Pluggable microbial fuel cell stacks for
septic wastewater treatment and electricity production. Bioresour. Technol. 180,
258e263.
Yeon, R.E., Kim, M., Lee, S.J., 2011. Characterization of microbial fuel cells enriched
using Cr(VI)-containing sludge. J. Microbiol. Biotechnol 21, 187e191.
You, S.J., Ren, N.Q., Zhao, Q.L., Kiely, P.D., Wang, J.Y., Yang, F.L., …, Peng, L.,
2009. Improving phosphate buffer-free cathode performance of microbial
fuel cell based on biological nitrification. Biosens. Bioelectron. 24 (12),
3698e3701.
Yuan, Y., Chen, Q., Zhou, S., Zhuang, L., Hu, P., 2012. Improved electricity production
from sewage sludge under alkaline conditions in an insert-type air-cathode
microbial fuel cell. J. Chem. Technol. Biotechnol. 87 (1), 80e86.
Zamalloa, C., Arends, J.B., Boon, N., Verstraete, W., 2013. Performance of a lab-scale
bio-electrochemical assisted septic tank for the anaerobic treatment of black
water. New Biotechnol. 30 (5), 573e580.
Zang, G.L., Sheng, G.P., Li, W.W., Tong, Z.H., Zeng, R.J., Shi, C., Yu, H.Q., 2012. Nutrient
removal and energy production in a urine treatment process using magnesium
View publication stats
307
ammonium phosphate precipitation and a microbial fuel cell technique. Phys.
Chem. Chem. Phys. 14 (6), 1978e1984.
Zanoni, A.E., Mueller, D.L., 1982. Calorific value of wastewater plant sludges.
J. Environ. Eng. Div. Am. Soc. Civ. Eng. U.S. 108.
Zhang, Y., Noori, J.S., Angelidaki, I., 2011. Simultaneous organic carbon, nutrients
removal and energy production in a photomicrobial fuel cell (PFC). Energy
Environ. Sci. 4, 4340e4346.
Zhang, F., Ge, Z., Grimaud, J., Hurst, J., He, Z., 2013a. Long-term performance of liter-
scale microbial fuel cells treating primary effluent installed in a municipal
wastewater treatment facility. Environ. Sci. Technol. 47 (9), 4941e4948.
Zhang, F., Ge, Z., Grimaud, J., Hurst, J., He, Z., 2013b. In situ investigation of tubular
microbial fuel cells deployed in an aeration tank at a municipal wastewater
treatment plant. Bioresour. Technol. 136, 316e321.
Zhang, G., Zhao, Q., Jiao, Y., Lee, D.J., 2015. Long-term operation of manure-microbial
fuel cell. Bioresour. Technol. 180, 365e369.
Zhang, G., Zhao, Q., Jiao, Y., Wang, K., Lee, D.J., Ren, N., 2012. Biocathode microbial
fuel cell for efficient electricity recovery from dairy manure. Biosens. Bio-
electron. 31 (1), 537e543.
Zhang, Y., Angelidaki, I., 2013. A new method for in situ nitrate removal from
groundwater using submerged microbial desalinationedenitrification cell
(SMDDC). Water Res. 47 (5), 1827e1836.
Zhao, Y., Collum, S., Phelan, M., Goodbody, T., Doherty, L., Hu, Y., 2013. Preliminary
investigation of constructed wetland incorporating microbial fuel cell: batch
and continuous flow trials. Chem. Eng. J. 229, 364e370.
Zhou, M., He, H., Jin, T., Wang, H., 2012. Power generation enhancement in novel
microbial carbon capture cells with immobilized Chlorella vulgaris. J. Power
Sources 214, 216e219.
Zhuang, L., Zheng, Y., Zhou, S., Yuan, Y., Yuan, H., Chen, Y., 2012. Scalable microbial
fuel cell (MFC) stack for continuous real wastewater treatment. Bioresour.
Technol. 106, 82e88.