Next Article in Journal
Seismic and Tsunami Risk Analysis for Installing Resilient Power Systems Based on Isolated Microgrids on Buildings: The Case of Puerto Ayora in Santa Cruz Island, Galapagos
Previous Article in Journal
Improving the Livelihood Resilience of Poverty-Stricken Population under Rural Revitalization: A Case Study of Chongqing M Reservoir Area
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 15
Issue 18
10.3390/su151813767
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Activated Carbon Electrodes for Bioenergy Production in Microbial Fuel Cells Using Synthetic Wastewater as Substrate

by
Rickelmi Agüero-Quiñones
1,
Zairi Ávila-Sánchez
1,
Segundo Rojas-Flores
2,*,
Luis Cabanillas-Chirinos
3,
Magaly De La Cruz-Noriega
3,
Renny Nazario-Naveda
4 and
Walter Rojas-Villacorta
5
1
Escuela de Ingeniería Ambiental, Facultad de Ingeniería, Universidad Cesar Vallejo, Trujillo 13007, Peru
2
Escuela de Ingeniería Mecánica Eléctrica, Universidad Señor de Sipán, Chiclayo 14000, Peru
3
Instituto de Investigación en Ciencia y Tecnología, Universidad César Vallejo, Trujillo 13001, Peru
4
Departamento de Ciencias, Universidad Privada del Norte, Trujillo 13007, Peru
5
Programa de Investigación Formativa e Integridad Científica, Universidad César Vallejo, Trujillo 13001, Peru
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2023, 15(18), 13767; https://doi.org/10.3390/su151813767
Submission received: 14 August 2023 / Revised: 7 September 2023 / Accepted: 11 September 2023 / Published: 15 September 2023
(This article belongs to the Section Sustainable Materials)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The growing global energy demand drives the need to develop new clean energy technologies. In this context, microbial fuel cells (MFC) are one of the emerging technologies with great potential for eco-friendly energy generation; however, the correct choice of electrode material is a significant limitation in the optimal configuration of MFCs. Therefore, this research evaluated the efficiency of activated carbon (AC) anode electrodes for bioenergy production in MFC using synthetic wastewater as a substrate. Peak values of voltage (1120 ± 0.050 mV), current (4.64 ± 0.040 mA), power density (208.14 ± 17.15 mW/cm2), and current density (5.03 A/cm2) were generated, and the Rint obtained was 214.52 ± 5.22 Ω. The substrate was operated at pH values from 5.31 to 7.66, maximum ORP values (858 mV) were reached, and turbidity was reduced to 25.11 NTU. The SEM-EDS (scanning electron microscopy–energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy) analyses allowed us to observe the morphology and composition of the AC electrodes, revealing a predominance of O, C, Si, Al, Fe, K, and Ca. It is concluded that the AC electrodes have the potential to produce bioenergy at a laboratory by means of MFC.

1. Introduction

In the growing global demand for energy, the growing dependence on fossil fuels poses a major challenge for modern and developed society [1]. Addressing these problems requires the development of clean technologies that use renewable energy sources that promote sustainability [2,3,4,5]. Recently emerging energy technologies are growing remarkably [6,7]. An emerging technology is microbial fuel cells (MFC) [8]. These MFCs are innovative bioelectrochemical systems with various applications ranging from bioenergy production to wastewater treatment [9]. The process involves converting chemical energy within biodegradable organic compounds into renewable bioenergy through exoelectrogenic microorganisms [10,11]. Microorganisms are in charge of degrading organic matter and releasing electrons, which are transferred through an external circuit, reach the cathode, and produce ecological energy [12,13].
MFCs have been designed with a dual chamber (dcMFC) and a single chamber (scMFC) [14]. dcMFCs have certain disadvantages that imply an unadaptable and inflexible application since they use an expensive membrane as separator, in addition to the fact that, in many cases, the ion transfer rate is low [15]. On the other hand, the scMFC is a more prospective option, it is developed without spacers, and at the same time, that they are economical and ecofriendly. Its configuration is relatively simple, consisting of a chamber where the electrodes (anode and cathode) are located [16]. However, the drawbacks that they present are the correct choice of materials for the electrodes that allow the performance of the MFCs to be improved [17,18].
This research focuses on the evaluation of a carbon-based electrode (anode) to improve the efficiency of electricity production in scMFCs. However, these scMFCs also use a zinc-based cathode. The cathode is fundamental in MFCs because an electrochemical reduction reaction occurs in it, where the oxygen taken from the air is reduced with the electrons and protons that are released from the metabolism of the substrate [19]. On the other hand, the material of the cathode is also important; zinc is a lower cost material that could replace platinum in oxidation-reduction reactions, and it could improve the efficiency of bioenergy production in MFCs, as has been observed in some studies [20,21]. The anode electrode is an essential component in the configuration of MFCs, since it is the support for the bacterial biofilm and the conductor of the released electrons [22,23]. The main characteristics that the anode material must have are biocompatibility, high electrical conductivity, corrosion resistance, chemical stability, high surface area, non-toxicity, good toughness, low cost, and being hydrophilic, and they should not decompose in the substrate [24,25]. Taking these characteristics into account, metal-based and carbon-based materials have been used [26]. The most used metallic materials are platinum, stainless steel, copper, aluminum, cobalt, titanium, nickel, gold, and silver [12]. These materials are used mainly because they are highly conductive, which allows the energy efficiency of MFCs to be improved [27]. However, they have significant limitations that prevent their use on a large scale. For example, titanium, platinum, gold, and silver are costly; cobalt and titanium do not have good biocompatibility; copper, aluminum, and stainless steel are susceptible to corrosion; and platinum tends to be toxic when wastewater is used as a substrate and can affect microorganisms present [19,28,29].
On the other hand, interest in carbon-based electrodes has increased among researchers due to their chemical, thermal, and electrochemical stability, significantly improving electricity production and removing contaminants from wastewater in MFCs [28]. These materials include graphite plate, carbon felt, carbon cloth, reticulated glassy carbon, carbon rod, carbon paper, carbon-fiber brush, carbon brush, graphite-fiber brush, graphite felt, granular graphite, graphene [29,30], and granular activated carbon (GAC) [31]. The latter has not seen many applications as a material for making MFC anode electrodes, but it has many properties that make it a good candidate [32]. It has a high surface area and excellent biocompatibility, which facilitates bacterial adhesion and allows the uniform formation of biofilms; it has high conductivity, chemical stability, corrosion resistance, and low cost [33,34,35].
There are studies with results that support the use of activated carbon presented by Karra et al. [36], which used polyaniline-functionalized activated carbon anodes coated on stainless steel mesh (SSM—PANi/FAC) to produce a voltage of 0.72 ± 0.010 V and a power density of 322 mW/m2 using a dcMFC. Likewise, Rojas et al. [37] fabricated activated carbon cloth anode electrodes to generate a maximum voltage of 0.66 V and a maximum power density of 272.14 mW/m2 using a double-chamber MFC fed with municipal wastewater from Yilan County in Taiwan. Using organic sediments from Mirror Lake at the University of Connecticut as a substrate, Silva et al. [38] achieved maximum values of 0.56 W/m2 and 0.25 A/m2 using granular activated carbon anodes.
Regarding the substrate, synthetic wastewater obtained from different sources has been studied in MFCs to generate bioelectricity because they are rich in organic substrates with high glucose, soluble starch, and sucrose contents, which are metabolized by proteobacteria that exist in these wastewaters; they have also been reported as electrogenic [39,40].
The main objective of this research was to evaluate the efficiency of activated carbon anode electrodes for bioenergy production in laboratory-scale single-chamber microbial fuel cells using a synthetic wastewater sample as substrate. For this, the values of voltage (mV), electric current (mA), current density (mA/cm2), power density (mW/cm2), and the internal resistance of the MFCs were monitored, and the oxidation and reduction potential (ORP) (mV), pH and turbidity (NTU) of the substrate for 30 days. This research will contribute to developing MFCs to generate sustainable bioelectricity through economic, eco-friendly, and eco-efficient electrodes.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Manufacture of Granular Activated Carbon (GAC) Electrodes

Seven activated carbon electrodes weighing 25.35 ± 2.70 g, 5.2 ± 1 cm in diameter, and 0.7 ± 0.1 cm thick, connected to a 1 mm thick copper wire, were manufactured, for which 200 g GAC were crushed (NHC-500) using a blender (Oster BPST02-BOO 600 W, Boca Raton, FL, USA) to a fine powder, to which was added a mixture of 60 g of sucrose and 80 mL of water (61° Brix). The solution was mixed until a homogeneous and consistent paste was obtained. Subsequently, a circular metallic mold of 5.7 cm in diameter and 1.2 cm thick was covered with aluminum foil, and a circular metallic base of 4.7 cm in diameter covered with commercial vegetable oil was placed (to facilitate the extraction of the electrode). Then, a layer of 15 g of the mixture was added, followed by a 4.5 cm diameter aluminum mesh diagonally intertwined with a copper wire, and finally by another layer of 15 g of the mixture, to be covered with another metal base. The mold was placed in an electric stove (Whiteline 220 V/50 Hz/1000 W, Torremolinos, Spain) for 15 min at a temperature of 300 °C; then, it was carefully removed and allowed to cool to remove the electrode (Figure 1).

2.2. Electrode Waterproofing

For the waterproofing of the electrodes, a solution of 70 mL of ethanol and 50 g of pine resin was used, which was previously boiled for 15 min with 100 mL of water to eliminate the volatile substances. Then, the electrodes were immersed several times in the solution until they were completely covered and were allowed to rest at room temperature (27 ± 1.5 °C) for 24 h.

2.3. Construction of MFCs

Two single-chamber microbial fuel cells (MFC-SC) were constructed from 680 mL polypropylene vessels. For the anode, electrodes made of activated carbon were used, which were placed at one end inside the chamber, while for the cathode, a zinc (Zn) plate was used that was attached to the wall of the chamber at another end of the cell so that one face was in contact with the oxygen. Both electrodes had a surface area of 21.60 cm2 and were connected to a 1 mm thick copper (Cu) wire to the outside, where they were joined with a 100 Ω resistance to form a closed circuit, as shown in Figure 2.

2.4. Substrate Preparation

The substrate was prepared with residual water from dishwashing and food remains from the Cesar Vallejo University at Trujillo, Peru cafeteria. These residues passed through a processor (Oster BPST02-BOO 600 W, USA), obtaining 1 L of synthetic wastewater stored in sterilized hermetic containers for use. The substrate had an initial pH of 6.55, an electrical conductivity of 2450.48 ± 0.1 μS/cm, an ORP of 134.5 ± 1 mV, and a turbidity of 75 NTU. An amount of 500 mL of the substrate was supplied to each well.

2.5. Characterization of MFCs

The electrochemical parameters of voltage (mV) and current (mA) were measured with a calibrated digital multimeter (Truper MUT—830). For the measurement of current density (DC) and power density (PD) the procedure carried out by Segundo et al. (2022) using external resistances (Rext) with values of 1.92 (±0.08), 10 (±1.81), 50 (±1.2), 100 (±4.3), 200 (±9.8), 300 (±8), 500 (±15), 750 (±18), 800 (±10), and 1000 (±40) Ω [39]. An energy sensor (Vernier VES-TBA ±30 V and ±1000 mA) was used to measure the internal resistance (Rint) of the MFCs. The pH values (Digital Meter EZ-9909, Thincol, Guangzhou, China), ORP (Portable Meter PT-380, BOECO, Hamburg, Germany), and turbidity (Digital Turbidimeter TU-2016, Lutron, Taipei, Taiwan) of the substrate were also monitored. All measurements were made daily for 30 days at room temperature (21 ± 1.5 °C). Likewise, three measurements of each parameter were made in order to report the means of the values. In addition, SEM-EDS analyses were carried out to know the morphology and elemental composition of the activated carbon electrodes.

2.6. Electrodes Resistance Test to Synthetic Residual Water

The resistance of the activated carbon-based electrodes towards the liquid substrate was evaluated based on percentage weight loss. To see the effectiveness of the use of these electrodes, a resistance test was carried out in distilled water. Waterproofed electrodes with pine resin and without waterproofing were manufactured. These were immersed in 500 mL of distilled water for 15 days, and then dried in an oven for 15 min to eliminate moisture content. Finally, they were weighed, and the final weight percentages were obtained, obtaining that the electrodes waterproofed with pine resin had less weight loss compared to those that were not waterproofed. The loss of activated carbon from the electrodes within the substrate with synthetic wastewater was evaluated by performing the previously described procedure. For this, weight was taken initially and then at the end of the measurement period (30 days). With these values, the percentages of final weight loss were obtained.
Through the evaluation, it was found that the electrodes covered with pine resin experienced a significantly lower decrease in their weight compared to the non-waterproofed electrode. Therefore, the effectiveness of pine resin as a waterproofing agent is validated, thus preventing the detachment of the activated carbon electrodes when in contact with water, in this way it can be tested with the substrates.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Measurement of Electrochemical Parameters of MFCs

Figure 3a shows the voltage values generated by the MFCs during the 30 days of monitoring. The highest values were recorded during the first days of operation, with the highest voltage peak observed on the first day (1120 mV). In the following days, the production decreased until day 8 (916 mV), where a slightly variable generation was observed until day 16 (908 mV). In the following days, there was a progressive decrease until day 30, when 789 mV was generated. The high voltage production during the first days is because the bacteria began to proliferate in the MFCs due to the high presence of organic substrates in the wastewater that allowed the development of microbial electrogenesis through redox reactions [40,41]. At the same time, the decrease in voltage is due to the reduction in organic matter in the substrate, consumed by microorganisms through their metabolic process to convert chemical energy into electrical energy [42].
The electrodes used play a crucial role since, being carbon-based, they facilitate better biocompatibility with the microbes present [43], achieving better voltage production throughout the operation period compared to other investigations where electrodes were used metals, and their stress production was markedly reduced in the final days of their experiment. The voltage values obtained are higher than those reported by Bose et al. (2023) where they used wastewater from the sugarcane industry in MFC with biomass-derived activated carbon as the cathode and pretreated carbon wire-based brush as the anode and managed to produce maximum voltage peaks of 870 ± 20 mV [44], and Agüero-Quiñones et al. (2022), who used municipal wastewater in MFC-SC with aluminum as the cathode and graphite as the anode, generating maximum values of 220 mV. Compared to our research, it may be due to the fact that the aluminum electrodes used do not have as good conductive properties as the zinc or copper used as connectors [45]. Figure 3b shows the values of electric current the cells produce during monitoring. High current values were generated during the first days of operation (4.64 mA on the first day), while in the following days, the production decreased until day 12 (3.33 mA), where a relatively constant production was presented until day 24 (3.33 mA). In the following days, the values experienced a gradual decrease until they produced 1.93 mA on day 30. The peak current values shown in the first days are attributed to the good formation of the electrogenic biofilm [46], which depends largely on the measurement of the carbon sources present in the substrates [47], which act as an energy supply in the biological process of microorganisms to produce electric current [48]. As the organic compounds decrease, the production of electrons is reduced, thus generating a lower electrical current in the last few days [49]. The values shown in this research are higher than those reported by other authors; for example, De La Cruz-Noriega et al. (2023) managed to generate maximum current values of 0.71 ± 0.02 mA using MFC-DC from wastewater in the anodic chamber and electrogenic bacteria in the cathodic chamber [50].
Figure 4a shows the value of the internal resistance of the MFC, showing a peak value of 214.52 ± 5.22 Ω, calculated with the maximum value of voltage generation and electrical current. The high value of Rint obtained can be attributed to the characteristics of the substrate, which contains solids in suspension that hinder electrical conduction, increasing internal resistance [51,52]. Other authors, such as Du and Shao (2022), reported a peak internal resistance value of 163.2 Ω in MFC-DC with carbon felt electrodes using solid potato waste and activated sludge [53]. Figure 4b shows the power density (PD) values as a current density (DC) function, observing a maximum power density of 208.14 ± 17 mW/cm2 and a maximum current density of 5.03 A/cm2. It can be observed in the graphs that the power density reaches a maximum value and subsequently presents a decrease due to the operability of the operating time and also due to the reduction in the organic matter available in the medium [54]. In addition, the values of DP and DC depend on the rate of degradation of the organic energy of the substrates by the microbial community, on the external operating conditions [55], as well as on the internal resistance of the MFCs, due to the fact that a higher Rint hinders the flow of electrons through the system [56]. The values obtained in this research are higher than those shown in other studies, such as that of Lee et al. (2018), who obtained a power density and maximum current density of 0.0251 mW/m2 and 285.71 mA/m2, respectively, in MFC-SC with hybrid and conventional carbon felt bioanodes using municipal wastewater [57], while Rossi et al. (2022) achieved maximum power density values of 0.135 W/m2 and 0.278 A/m2 current density in 850 L air cathode MFC of domestic wastewater with carbon-fiber brush anodes and stainless steel carbon-fiber cathodes [58].

3.2. Monitoring of Physicochemical Parameters of the Substrate

Figure 5a shows the recorded values of the turbidity of the residual water during the monitoring period. It is observed that the values presented a progressive decrease over the days, beginning with 75.50 NTU on day one and reaching 25.11 NTU on day 30. The reduction in turbidity is due to the decrease in organic and suspended material matter content due to microbial metabolic activity over days [59]. In addition, the anode material (activated carbon) has adsorption properties that trap suspended wastewater particles on the electrode surface [60]. Tee et al. (2017) removed 98.00 ± 0.7% of the turbidity of wastewater generated in a palm oil plant in MFC-SC with graphite-fiber brush electrodes and granular activated carbon [61].
On the other hand, the ORP values of the substrate are observed in Figure 5b, presenting an increasing behavior from day 1 (134 mV) to day 7 (858 mV) and then slowly decreased, presenting decreases and increases until day 13, where a value of 378 mV was found. High ORP values indicate that there is a more oxidizing environment in the cell [62,63], which makes it easier for some electroactive bacterial species to thrive in these conditions, resulting in increased production of electrons at the anode and favoring the generation of energy in MFCs [64]. Zhao et al. (2023) reported a peak value of around 325 mV for wastewater ORP in the MFC of sediment coupled with Vallisneria natans [65]. The monitored data of the pH of the substrate are shown in Figure 5c, where it can be seen that in the first days, the values decreased from 6.55 to slightly acid on day 8 (5.31), and then in the following days, a significant increase was observed reaching values of 7.66 on day 30, showing optimal pH values in this period (6–9) for the development of biofilms by microorganisms [66]. During the oxidation process of the organic compounds in the anode chamber of the MFC in the first days of operation, the microorganisms, in addition to generating electrons, also release protons (H+ ions) [67]. If the proton production rate is high compared to its consumption or transfers to the cathode, there could be an accumulation of protons at the anode, lowering the pH (5.31) [68]. At the same time, the increase in pH (7.66) can be attributed to the greater use of protons during microbial and electrochemical reactions at the anode instead of their release [69]. In other investigations, it has been observed that the pH values exhibit different variations due to the unique composition of each substrate; for example, Radeef and Ismail worked with car wash wastewater in MFCs with graphite electrodes and observed increases in pH from 7.5 to 8.3 after 90 days of operation [70].

3.3. SEM-EDS Analysis of Activated Carbon Electrodes

Figure 6 shows the micrographs obtained from the SEM analysis of the activated carbon anode electrodes after the period of operation in the MFCs. Figure 6a shows the electrode surface (5 mm), evidencing the presence of tiny pores scattered throughout the area and presenting a relatively smooth texture that favored the adhesion of the bacterial biofilm. Figure 6b shows a more detailed image of the pores distributed throughout the surface and with solid activated carbon particles. Figure 6c shows the structure of the electrode (5 mm), revealing the presence of the aluminum mesh with the copper wire between the solid layers of activated carbon. Figure 6d shows the integration between the aluminum mesh, the copper wire, and the layers of activated carbon (1 mm). In other studies, SEM analyses were also carried out to know the morphology of the electrodes and to observe the adhered biofilm during their experiments. Nishio, Nguyen, and Taguchi (2023) used urethane filter electrodes in MFCs with soil and cow dung and obtained SEM images showing a porous surface with a large amount of activated carbon after their experiments [71]. Likewise, Li et al. (2023), using their SEM images of their graphite rod electrodes in their MFCs supplied with anaerobic sludge from a wastewater treatment plant, observed that the anodic biofilm attached to the electrode was composed of bacilli and filamentous bacteria [72]. In addition, Li et al. (2017) used carbon cloth electrodes in MFCs assisted with the effluent from the anode chamber in another previously operating cell and revealed that the biofilm dissociated from the anode surface, indicating that long-term operation with inversion voltage could damage the biofilm and ultimately cause the failure of the MFC [73].
Figure 7 presents the composition spectra of the elements in the activated carbon electrodes obtained from the EDS analysis. A majority presence of elements such as oxygen (O), carbon (C), silicon (Si), aluminum (Al), iron (Fe), potassium (K), and calcium (Ca) is observed. The high presence of oxygen reported in the spectra is due to several reasons, ranging from the composition of the electrode material, which, being activated carbon-based, contains a high proportion of oxygen atoms due to its activation process, to the surface pollution of the electrode that could have been contaminated with compounds rich in oxygen, such as oxides, due to exposure to air during the operation process of the MFC [74]. At the same time, the high detection of carbon is due to the electrode material based on activated carbon [75], while the Al is due to the presence of the aluminum mesh, respectively. The considerable presence of silicon can be attributed to the composition of the substrate, which was based on food remains and residual water from washing dishes using cleaning products [76]. Finally, the low presence of Fe, K, and Ca can be attributed to the activated carbon material used, which may contain low concentrations of these elements [77]. Other researchers such as Liu, Lu, and Zhang (2022) performed EDS analyses on their graphite felt anode electrodes used in MFC with mariculture wastewater, and the spectra before the operation showed a more significant presence of carbon, oxygen, platinum, silicon, aluminum, and iron; however, after the operation, the presence of other additional compounds such as sodium, magnesium, sulfur, potassium, calcium and titanium were reported; even so, there was a greater predominance of carbon and oxygen in the electrode sample [78].

3.4. Resistance Test of Activated Carbon-Based Electrode in Liquid Substrate

The resistance of the activated carbon based electrodes were low, as shown in Table 1.

4. Conclusions

The electrodes based on activated carbon and zinc were efficient in terms of producing electrical energy using an scMFC. By using synthetic wastewater as a substrate, it was possible to generate maximum values of voltage (1120 ± 0.050 mV) and current (4.64 ± 0.040 mA), respectively. Another important aspect is the reduction in substrate turbidity to 25.11 NTU and ORP values of 858 mV. In the same way, values of internal resistance of the cell (214.52 ± 5.22 Ω), power density (208.14 ± 17.15 mW/cm2), and a current density (5.03 A/cm2) were obtained. EDS analyses revealed that the most predominant elements in the electrodes were oxygen, carbon, silicon, aluminum, iron, potassium, and calcium. The potential of activated carbon anode electrodes for laboratory-level bioenergy production in MFC has been demonstrated. In addition, it has contributed to the development of these sustainable technologies through the development of economical, ecological, and eco-efficient electrodes. Although electrodes are inexpensive, there are still certain technical challenges for MFCs to increase bioelectricity generation. It is recommended to optimize MFC designs to improve the electron utilization of substrates for bioenergy generation.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, R.A.-Q., Z.Á.-S. and S.R.-F.; methodology, R.A.-Q., Z.Á.-S. and S.R.-F.; software, R.A.-Q. and S.R.-F.; validation, Z.Á.-S. and M.D.L.C.-N.; formal analysis, R.A.-Q. and W.R.-V.; research, R.A.-Q. and Z.Á.-S.; resources, R.A.-Q., Z.Á.-S. and L.C.-C.; data retention, R.A.-Q., Z.Á.-S. and S.R.-F.; writing—preparing original draft, R.A.-Q. and Z.Á.-S.; Writing—Proofreading and Editing, S.R.-F., M.D.L.C.-N. and L.C.-C.; visualization, R.A.-Q. and S.R.-F.; supervision, R.A.-Q., Z.Á.-S., L.C.-C. and R.N.-N.; project management, R.A.-Q., Z.Á.-S. and W.R.-V. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Hoang, A.; Nižetić, S.; Ng, K.H.; Papadopoulos, A.M.; Le, A.T.; Kumar, S.; Hadiyanto, H.; Pham, V.V. Microbial fuel cells for bioelectricity production from waste as sustainable prospect of future energy sector. Chemosphere 2022, 287, 132285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Verma, P.; Daverey, A.; Kumar, A.; Arunachalam, K. Microbial Fuel Cell—A Sustainable Approach for Simultaneous Wastewater Treatment and Energy Recovery. J. Water Process Eng. 2021, 40, 101768. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Nookwam, K.; Cheirsilp, B.; Maneechote, W.; Boonsawang, P.; Sukkasem, C. Microbial fuel cells with Photosynthetic-Cathodic chamber in vertical cascade for integrated Bioelectricity, biodiesel feedstock production and wastewater treatment. Bioresour. Technol. 2022, 346, 126559. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Li, X.; Liu, G.; Ma, F.; Sun, S.; Zhou, S.; Ardhi, R.E.A.; Lee, J.K.; Yao, H. Enhanced power generation in a single-chamber dynamic membrane microbial fuel cell using a nonstructural air-breathing activated carbon fiber felt cathode. Energy Convers. Manag. 2018, 172, e98–e104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Bose, D.; Sridharan, S.; Dhawan, H.; Vijay, P.; Gopinath, M. Biomass derived activated carbon cathode performance for sustainable power generation from Microbial Fuel Cells. Fuel 2019, 236, e325–e337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Van Limbergen, T.; Bonné, R.; Hustings, J.; Valcke, R.; Thijs, S.; Vangronsveld, J.; Manca, J.V. Plant microbial fuel cells from the perspective of photovoltaics: Efficiency, power, and applications. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2022, 169, 112953. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Mirza, S.S.; Al-Ansari, M.N.; Ali, M.; Aslam, S.; Akmal, M.; Al-Humaid, L.; Hussain, A. Towards sustainable wastewater treatment: Influence of iron, zinc and aluminum as anode in combination with salt bridge on microbial fuel cell performance. Environ. Res. 2022, 209, 112781. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Cuicui, L.; Liang, B.; Zhong, M.; Li, K.; Qi, Y. Activated carbon-supported multi-doped graphene as high-efficient catalyst to modify air cathode in microbial fuel cells. Electrochim. Acta 2019, 304, e360–e369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Guo, H.; Huang, C.; Geng, X.; Jia, X.; Huo, H.; Yue, W. Influence of the original electrogenic bacteria on the performance of oily sludge Microbial Fuel Cells. Energy Rep. 2022, 8, e14374–e14381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Tan, S.-M.; Ong, S.-A.; Ho, L.-N.; Wong, Y.-S.; Abidin, C.Z.A.; Thung, W.-E.; Teoh, T.-P. Polypropylene biofilm carrier and fabricated stainless steel mesh supporting activated carbon: Integrated configuration for performances enhancement of microbial fuel cell. Sustain. Energy Technol. Assess. 2021, 46, 101268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Ahirwar, A.; Das, S.; Das, S.; Yang, Y.-H.; Bhatia, S.K.; Vinayak, V.; Ghangrekar, M.M. Photosynthetic microbial fuel cell for bioenergy and valuable production: A review of circular bio-economy approach. Algal Res. 2023, 70, 102973. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Sonawane, J.M.; Mahadevan, M.; Pandey, A.; Greener, J. Recent progress in microbial fuel cells using substrates from diverse sources. Heliyon 2022, 8, e12353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Mukimin, A.; Vistanty, H. Low carbon development based on microbial fuel cells as electrical generation and wastewater treatment unit. Renew. Energy Focus 2023, 44, e132–e138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Kouam-Ida, T.; Mandal, B. Microbial fuel cell design, application and performance: A review. Materials Today. Proceedings 2023, 76, e88–e94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Kamali, M.; Guo, Y.; Aminabhavi, T.M.; Abbassi, R.; Dewil, R.; Appels, L. Pathway towards the commercialization of sustainable microbial fuel cell-based wastewater treatment technologies. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2023, 173, 113095. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Saran, C.; Purchase, D.; Saratale, G.D.; Saratale, R.G.; Romanholo-Ferreira, L.F.; Bilal, M.; Iqbal, H.M.N.; Hussain, C.M.; Mulla, S.I.; Bharagava, R.N. Microbial fuel cell: A green eco-friendly agent for tannery wastewater treatment and simultaneous bioelectricity/power generation. Chemosphere 2023, 312, 137072. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Borja-Maldonado, F.; López Zavala, M.Á. Contribution of Configurations, Electrode and Membrane Materials, Electron Transfer Mechanisms, and Cost of Components on the Current and Future Development of Microbial Fuel Cells. Heliyon 2022, 8, e09849. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Ingavale, S.; Marbaniang, P.; Kakade, B.; Swami, A. Starbon with Zn-N and Zn-O Active Sites: An Efficient Electrocatalyst for Oxygen Reduction Reaction in Energy Conversion Devices. Catal. Today 2021, 370, 55–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Lai, M.-F.; Lou, C.-W.; Lin, J.-H. Improve 3D Electrode Materials Performance on Electricity Generation from Livestock Wastewater in Microbial Fuel Cell. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2018, 43, 11520–11529. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Ouzi, Z.A.; Aber, S.; Nofouzi, K.; Khajeh, R.T.; Rezaei, A. Carbon paste/LDH/bacteria biohybrid for the modification of the anode electrode of a microbial fuel cell. J. Taiwan Inst. Chem. Eng. 2023, 142, 104668. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Muñoz-Cupa, C.; Hu, Y.; Xu, C.; Bassi, A. An overview of microbial fuel cell usage in wastewater treatment, resource recovery and energy production. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 754, 142429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Neethu, B.; Bhowmick, G.D.; Ghangrekar, M.M. Improving performance of microbial fuel cell by enhanced bacterial-anode interaction using sludge immobilized beads with activated carbon. Process Saf. Environ. Prot. 2020, 143, e285–e292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Meylani, V.; Surahman, E.; Fudholi, A.; Almalki, W.H.; Ilyas, N.; Sayyed, R.Z. Biodiversity in microbial fuel cells: Review of a promising technology for wastewater treatment. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 2023, 11, 109503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Palanisamy, G.; Jung, H.-Y.; Sadhasivam, T.; Kurkuri, M.D.; Kim, S.C.; Roh, S.-H. A comprehensive review on microbial fuel cell technologies: Processes, utilization, and advanced developments in electrodes and membranes. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 221, e598–e621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Mwale, S.; Munyati, M.O.; Nyirenda, J. Preparation, characterization and optimization of a porous polyaniline-copper anode microbial fuel cell. J. Solid State Electrochem. 2021, 25, 639–650. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Papiya, F.; Das, S.; Pattanayak, P.; Kundu, P.P. The fabrication of silane modified graphene oxide supported Ni–Co bimetallic electrocatalysts: A catalytic system for superior oxygen reduction in microbial fuel cells. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2019, 44, e25874–e25893. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Sharif, H.; Farooq, M.; Hussain, I.; Ali, M.; Mujtaba, M.A.; Sultan, M.; Yang, B. Recent innovations for scaling up microbial fuel cell systems: Significance of physicochemical factors for electrodes and membranes materials. J. Taiwan Inst. Chem. Eng. 2021, 129, e207–e226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Cheraghipoor, M.; Mohebbi-Kalhori, D.; Noroozifar, M.; Maghsoodlou, M.T. Enhancing the efficiency of ceramic native soil membrane using Zircon in a continuous microbial fuel cell for wastewater treatment and sustainable energy. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 2022, 10, 108255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Slate, A.J.; Whitehead, K.A.; Brownson, D.A.C.; Banks, C.E. Microbial fuel cells: An overview of current technology. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2019, 101, e60–e81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Gajda, I.; You, J.; Santoro, C.; Greenman, J.; Ieropoulos, I.A. A new method for urine electrofiltration and long term power enhancement using surface modified anodes with activated carbon in ceramic microbial fuel cells. Electrochim. Acta 2020, 353, 136388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Poli, F.; Santoro, C.; Soavi, F. Improving microbial fuel cells power output using internal and external optimized, tailored and totally green supercapacitor. J. Power Sources 2023, 564, 232780. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Chen, Y.; Zhao, F.; Pu, Y.; Lin, X.; Yin, H.; Tang, X. Nano-Fe3O4 coated on carbon monolith for anode enhancement in microbial fuel cells. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 2023, 11, 109608. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Liu, Y.; Zhao, Y.; Li, K.; Wang, Z.; Tian, P.; Liu, D.; Yang, T.; Wang, J. Activated carbon derived from chitosan as air cathode catalyst for high performance in microbial fuel cells. J. Power Sources 2018, 378, e1–e9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Pan, Y.; Mo, X.; Li, K.; Pu, L.; Liu, D.; Yang, T. Iron–nitrogen–activated carbon as cathode catalyst to improve the power generation of single-chamber air-cathode microbial fuel cells. Bioresour. Technol. 2016, 206, e285–e289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Yellappa, M.; Modestra, J.A.; Reddy, Y.V.R.; Mohan, S.V. Functionalized conductive activated carbon-polyaniline composite anode for augmented energy recovery in microbial fuel cells. Bioresour. Technol. 2021, 320, 124340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Huang, S.-J.; Dwivedi, K.A.; Kumar, S.; Wang, C.-T.; Yadav, A.K. Binder-free NiO/MnO2 coated carbon based anodes for simultaneous norfloxacin removal, wastewater treatment and power generation in dual-chamber microbial fuel cell. Environ. Pollut. 2023, 317, 120578. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Karra, U.; Muto, E.; Umaz, R.; Kölln, M.; Santoro, C.; Wang, L.; Li, B. Performance evaluation of activated carbon-based electrodes with novel power management system for long-term benthic microbial fuel cells. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2014, 39, e21847–e21856. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Rojas-Flores, S.; De La Cruz-Noriega, M.; Benites, S.M.; Delfín-Narciso, D.; Luis, A.S.; Díaz, F.; Luis, C.C.; Moises, G.C. Electric Current Generation by Increasing Sucrose in Papaya Waste in Microbial Fuel Cells. Molecules 2022, 27, 5198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Silva-Palacios, F.; Salvador-Salinas, A.; Quezada-Alvarez, M.; Rodriguez-Yupanqui, M.; Rojas-Flores, S.; Nazario-Naveda, R.; Cabanillas-Chirinos, L. Bioelectricity generation through Microbial Fuel Cells using Serratia fonticola bacteria and Rhodotorula glutinis yeast. Energy Rep. 2023, 9, e295–e301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Yu, J.; Park, Y.; Widyaningsih, E.; Kim, S.; Kim, Y.; Lee, T. Microbial fuel cells: Devices for real wastewater treatment, rather than electricity production. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 775, 145904. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Yang, Y.; Xu, P.; Dong, S.; Yu, Y.; Chen, H.; Xiao, J. Using watermelon rind and nitrite-containing wastewater for electricity production in a membraneless biocathode microbial fuel cell. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 307, 127306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Rojas-Flores, S.; De La Cruz-Noriega, M.; Cabanillas-Chirinos, L.; Nazario-Naveda, R.; Gallozzo-Cardenas, M.; Diaz, F.; Murga-Torres, E. Potential Use of Coriander Waste as Fuel for the Generation of Electric Power. Sustainability 2023, 15, 896. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Sikder, S.; Rahman, M.M. Efficiency of microbial fuel cell in wastewater (municipal, textile and tannery) treatment and bioelectricity production. Case Stud. Chem. Environ. Eng. 2023, 8, 100421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Bose, D.; Bhattacharya, R.; Gopinath, M.; Vijay, P.; Krishnakumar, B. Bioelectricity production and bioremediation from sugarcane industry wastewater using microbial fuel cells with activated carbon cathodes. Results Eng. 2023, 18, 101052. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Agüero-Quiñones, R.A.; Díaz-Coronado, J.J.; Enríquez-León, R.M.C.; Zelada-Cabellos, P.C.; Rojas-Flores, S. Electricity generation and wastewater treatment using microbial fuel cells with graphite and aluminum electrodes. LACCEI 2022, 2, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Rojas-Flores, S.; Cabanillas-Chirinos, L.; Nazario-Naveda, R.; Gallozzo-Cardenas, M.; Diaz, F.; Delfin-Narciso, D.; Rojas-Villacorta, W. Use of Tangerine Waste as Fuel for the Generation of Electric Current. Sustainability 2023, 15, 3559. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. El-Hag Ali, A.; Gomaa, O.M.; Fathey, R.; El Kareem, H.A.; Zaid, M.A. Optimization of double chamber microbial fuel cell for domestic wastewater treatment and electricity production. J. Fuel Chem. Technol. 2015, 43, e1092–e1099. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Rojas-Villacorta, W.; Rojas-Flores, W.; Benites, S.M.; Nazario-Naveda, R.; Romero, C.V.; Gallozzo-Cardenas, M.; Delfín-Narciso, D.; Díaz, F.; Murga-Torres, E. Preliminary Study of Bioelectricity Generation Using Lettuce Waste as Substrate by Microbial Fuel Cells. Sustainability 2023, 15, 10339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Koo, B.; Lee, S.-M.; Oh, S.-E.; Kim, E.J.; Hwang, Y.; Seo, D.; Kim, J.Y.; Kahng, Y.H.; Lee, Y.W.; Chung, S.-Y.; et al. Addition of reduced graphene oxide to an activated-carbon cathode increases electrical power generation of a microbial fuel cell by enhancing cathodic performance. Electrochim. Acta 2019, 297, e613–e622. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. De La Cruz-Noriega, M.; Benites, S.M.; Rojas-Flores, S.; Otiniano, N.M.; Sabogal-Vargas, A.M.; Alfaro, R.; Cabanillas-Chirinos, L.; Rojas-Villacorta, W.; Nazario-Naveda, R.; Delfín-Narciso, D. Use of Wastewater and Electrogenic Bacteria to Generate Eco-Friendly Electricity through Microbial Fuel Cells. Sustainability 2023, 15, 10640. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Li, S.; Jiang, J.; Ho, S.-H.; Zhang, S.; Zeng, W.; Li, F. Sustainable conversion of antibiotic wastewater using microbial fuel cells: Energy harvesting and resistance mechanism analysis. Chemosphere 2023, 313, 137584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Pasternak, G.; Greenman, J.; Ieropoulos, I. Dynamic evolution of anodic biofilm when maturing under different external resistive loads in microbial fuel cells. Electrochemical perspective. J. Power Sources 2018, 400, e392–e401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Du, H.; Shao, Z. Synergistic effects between solid potato waste and waste activated sludge for waste-to-power conversion in microbial fuel cells. Appl. Energy 2022, 314, 118994. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Rojas-Flores, S.; De La Cruz-Noriega, M.; Benites, S.M.; Delfín-Narciso, D.; Angelats-Silva, L.; Díaz, F.; Cabanillas-Chirinos, L.; Silva-Palacios, F. Increase in Electrical Parameters Using Sucrose in Tomato Waste. Fermentation 2022, 8, 335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Li, S.; Cheng, C.; Thomas, A. Carbon-Based Microbial-Fuel-Cell Electrodes: From Conductive Supports to Active Catalysts. Adv. Mater. 2017, 29, 1602547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Bazina, N.; Ahmed, T.G.; Almdaaf, M.; Jibia, S.; Sarker, M. Power generation from wastewater using microbial fuel cells: A review. J. Biotechnol. 2023, 374, e17–e30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Lee, S.H.; Lee, K.-S.; Sorcar, S.; Razzaq, A.; Grimes, C.A.; In, S.-I. Wastewater treatment and electricity generation from a sunlight-powered single chamber microbial fuel cell. J. Photochem. Photobiol. A Chem. 2018, 358, e432–e440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Rossi, R.; Hur, A.Y.; Page, M.A.; Thomas, A.O.; Butkiewicz, J.J.; Jones, D.W.; Baek, G.; Saikaly, P.E.; Cropek, D.M.; Logan, B.E. Pilot scale microbial fuel cells using air cathodes for producing electricity while treating wastewater. Water Res. 2022, 215, 118208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Lutterbeck, C.A.; Colares, G.S.; Oliveira, G.A.; Mohr, G.; Beckenkamp, F.; Rieger, A.; Lobo, E.A.; Ribeiro-Rodrigues, L.H.; Machado, E.L. Microbial fuel cells and constructed wetlands as a sustainable alternative for the treatment of hospital laundry wastewaters: Assessment of load parameters and genotoxicity. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 2022, 10, 108105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Xu, X.; Feng, W.; Guo, L.; Huang, X.; Shi, B. Controlled synthesis of distiller’s grains biochar for turbidity removal in Baijiu. Sci. Total Environ. 2023, 867, 161382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Tee, P.F.; Abdullah, M.O.; Tan, I.A.W.; Amin, M.A.N.; Nolasco-Hipolito, C.; Bujang, K. Effects of temperature on wastewater treatment in an affordable microbial fuel cell-adsorption hybrid system. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 2017, 5, e178–e188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Xing, F.; Xi, H.; Yu, Y.; Zhou, Y. Anode biofilm influence on the toxic response of microbial fuel cells under different operating conditions. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 775, 145048. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Yang, G.; Wang, J.; Zhang, H.; Jia, H.; Zhang, Y.; Fang, H.; Gao, F.; Li, J. Fluctuation of electrode potential based on molecular regulation induced diversity of electrogenesis behavior in multiple equilibrium microbial fuel cell. Chemosphere 2019, 237, 124453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Cai, L.; Zhang, H.; Feng, Y.; Wang, Y.; Yu, M. Sludge decrement and electricity generation of sludge microbial fuel cell enhanced by zero valent iron. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 174, e35–e41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Zhao, T.; Hu, H.; Chow, A.T.; Chen, P.; Wang, Y.; Xu, X.; Gong, Z.; Huang, S. Evaluation of organic matter and nitrogen removals, electricity generation and bacterial community responses in sediment microbial fuel cell coupled with Vallisneria natans. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 2023, 11, 110058. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Ren, Z.; Ji, G.; Liu, H.; Yang, M.; Xu, S.; Ye, M.; Lichtfouse, E. Accelerated start-up and improved performance of wastewater microbial fuel cells in four circuit modes: Role of anodic potential. J. Power Sources 2022, 535, 231403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Salehmin, M.N.I.; Me, M.F.H.; Daud, W.R.W.; Yasin, N.H.N.; Bakar, M.H.A.; Sulong, A.B.; Lim, S.S. Construction of microbial electrodialysis cells equipped with internal proton migration pathways: Enhancement of wastewater treatment, desalination, and hydrogen production. Sci. Total Environ. 2023, 855, 158527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Vilas-Boas, J.; Marcon, L.R.C.; Oliveira, V.B.; Simões, M.; Pinto, A.M.F.R. Performance evaluation of a single-chamber microbial fuel cell with Zygosaccharomyces bailii. Bioresour. Technol. Rep. 2023, 23, 101547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Tian, E.; Liu, Y.; Yin, F.; Lu, S.; Zheng, L.; Wang, X.; Wang, Z.; Liu, H. Facilitating proton transport by endowing forward osmosis membrane with proton conductive sites in osmotic microbial fuel cell. Chem. Eng. J. 2023, 451, 138767. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Radeef, A.Y.; Ismail, Z.Z. Bioelectrochemical treatment of actual carwash wastewater associated with sustainable energy generation in three-dimensional microbial fuel cell. Bioelectrochemistry 2021, 142, 107925. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Nishio, Y.; Nguyen, D.-T.; Taguchi, K. Urethane-based electrode material for microbial fuel cells. Energy Rep. 2023, 9, e66–e73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Li, C.; Zhang, Y.; Ling, Y.; Wang, H.; Wang, H.; Yan, G.; Duan, L.; Dong, W.; Chang, Y. Novel slow-release carbon source improves anodic denitrification and electricity generation efficiency in microbial fuel cells. Environ. Res. 2023, 236, 116644. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  73. Li, J.; Li, H.; Fu, Q.; Liao, Q.; Zhu, X.; Kobayashi, H.; Ye, D. Voltage reversal causes bioanode corrosion in microbial fuel cell stacks. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2017, 42, e7649–e27656. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Li, C.; Omine, K.; Zhang, Z.; Sivasankar, V.; Sano, H.; Chicas, S.D. Development of peat microbial fuel cells (Peat MFCs)—The green and sustainable generators of electricity. Energy Convers. Manag. 2023, 279, 116771. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Silveira, G.; De Aquino-Neto, S.; José Maurício Schneedorf, J.M. Development, characterization and application of a low-cost single chamber microbial fuel cell based on hydraulic couplers. Energy 2020, 208, 118395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Zeytuncu, B.; Pasaoglu, M.E.; Eryildiz, B.; Kazak, A.; Yuksekdag, A.; Korkut, S.; Kaya, R.; Turken, T.; Ceylan, M.; Koyuncu, I. Application of different treatment systems for boron removal from industrial wastewater with extremely high boron content. J. Water Process Eng. 2023, 55, 104083. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Mani, D.; Elango, D.; Priyadharsan, A.; Al-Humaid, L.A.; Al- Dahmash, N.D.; Ragupathy, S.; Jayanthi, P.; Ahn, Y.-H. Groundnut shell chemically treated with KOH to prepare inexpensive activated carbon: Methylene blue adsorption and equilibrium isotherm studies. Environ. Res. 2023, 231, 116026. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Liu, F.-F.; Lu, T.; Zhang, Y.-X. Performance assessment of constructed wetland-microbial fuel cell for treatment of mariculture wastewater containing heavy metals. Process Saf. Environ. Prot. 2022, 168, e633–e641. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 15 13767 g001
Figure 1. (a) Prototype and (b) structure of the electrodes made with activated carbon.
Figure 1. (a) Prototype and (b) structure of the electrodes made with activated carbon.
Sustainability 15 13767 g001
Sustainability 15 13767 g002
Figure 2. (a) Prototype and (b) experimental setup of MFC-SC with activated carbon and zinc electrodes.
Figure 2. (a) Prototype and (b) experimental setup of MFC-SC with activated carbon and zinc electrodes.
Sustainability 15 13767 g002
Sustainability 15 13767 g003
Figure 3. Monitoring of values of (a) voltage and (b) electrical current of the MFCs.
Figure 3. Monitoring of values of (a) voltage and (b) electrical current of the MFCs.
Sustainability 15 13767 g003
Sustainability 15 13767 g004
Figure 4. Characterization of (a) internal resistance and (b) power density concerning the current density of the MFCs.
Figure 4. Characterization of (a) internal resistance and (b) power density concerning the current density of the MFCs.
Sustainability 15 13767 g004
Sustainability 15 13767 g005
Figure 5. Monitoring of (a) turbidity, (b) ORP, and (c) pH of the MFC substrate.
Figure 5. Monitoring of (a) turbidity, (b) ORP, and (c) pH of the MFC substrate.
Sustainability 15 13767 g005
Sustainability 15 13767 g006
Figure 6. SEM micrographs of activated carbon electrodes (a) electrode surface morphology, (b) activated carbon, (c) electrode structure, and (d) aluminum mesh with activated carbon and carbon wire copper.
Figure 6. SEM micrographs of activated carbon electrodes (a) electrode surface morphology, (b) activated carbon, (c) electrode structure, and (d) aluminum mesh with activated carbon and carbon wire copper.
Sustainability 15 13767 g006
Sustainability 15 13767 g007
Figure 7. EDS analysis of the activated carbon electrodes after the period of operation.
Figure 7. EDS analysis of the activated carbon electrodes after the period of operation.
Sustainability 15 13767 g007
Table 1. Evaluation of the resistance of the activated carbon-based electrodes in synthetic wastewater contained in MFC for 30 days.
Table 1. Evaluation of the resistance of the activated carbon-based electrodes in synthetic wastewater contained in MFC for 30 days.
ID ElectrodeWaterproofing AgentInitial Weight (g)Final Weight (g)Weight Loss Percentage (%)
MFC-Apine resin27.5827.181.45
MFC-B27.3626.991.35
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Agüero-Quiñones, R.; Ávila-Sánchez, Z.; Rojas-Flores, S.; Cabanillas-Chirinos, L.; De La Cruz-Noriega, M.; Nazario-Naveda, R.; Rojas-Villacorta, W. Activated Carbon Electrodes for Bioenergy Production in Microbial Fuel Cells Using Synthetic Wastewater as Substrate. Sustainability 2023, 15, 13767. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151813767

AMA Style

Agüero-Quiñones R, Ávila-Sánchez Z, Rojas-Flores S, Cabanillas-Chirinos L, De La Cruz-Noriega M, Nazario-Naveda R, Rojas-Villacorta W. Activated Carbon Electrodes for Bioenergy Production in Microbial Fuel Cells Using Synthetic Wastewater as Substrate. Sustainability. 2023; 15(18):13767. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151813767

Chicago/Turabian Style

Agüero-Quiñones, Rickelmi, Zairi Ávila-Sánchez, Segundo Rojas-Flores, Luis Cabanillas-Chirinos, Magaly De La Cruz-Noriega, Renny Nazario-Naveda, and Walter Rojas-Villacorta. 2023. "Activated Carbon Electrodes for Bioenergy Production in Microbial Fuel Cells Using Synthetic Wastewater as Substrate" Sustainability 15, no. 18: 13767. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151813767

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop