Bioresource Technology Reports 7 (2019) 100290

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Bioresource Technology Reports

journal homepage: www.journals.elsevier.com/bioresource-technology-reports

Microalgae at niches of bioelectrochemical systems: A new platform for T

sustainable energy production coupled industrial effluent treatment
⁎
Surajbhan Sevdaa, , Vijay Kumar Garlapatib, Swati Sharmab, Sourish Bhattacharyac,
Sandhya Mishrac, T.R. Sreekrishnand, Deepak Pante
a
Department of Biosciences and Biotechnology, Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati, Assam 781039, India
b
Department of Biotechnology and Bioinformatics, Jaypee University of Information Technology (JUIT), Waknaghat, HP 173234, India
c
Division of Biotechnology and Phycology, CSIR-Central Salt and Marine Chemicals Research Institute, Bhavnagar 364002, India
d
Department of Biochemical Engineering and Biotechnology, Indian Institute of Technology Delhi, New Delhi 110016, India
e
Separation and Conversion Technology, Flemish Institute for Technological Research (VITO), Boeretang 200, Mol 2400, Belgium

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Bioelectrochemical system represents a novel technology where the microbial catalytic reaction occurs at
Microalgae bioanode and results in bioelectricity generation from waste and renewable biomass. At the current stage, fossil-
Bioelectricity generation based fuel is depleting, so newly sustainable form of renewable energy resources is required, where algal-based
Biological wastewater treatment biofuel generation provides a new source of energy along with sequestration of atmospheric carbon dioxide,
Microbial fuel cell
which in turn decreases the global warming issues. This review emphasizes the potential applications of mi-
croalgae-based bioelectrochemical systems for renewable power generation, wastewater treatment, CO2 se-
questration and value-added products. Moreover, this critical review also highlights the current developments in
microalgal MFC integrated systems by discussing the current potential challenges and drawbacks.

1. Introduction
The global population is estimated to enhance up to nine billion by
2050 and forecasts the demand for excess 50% fuel consumption, which
is eventually responsible for more greenhouse gas emissions. Presently,
one-fifth of world's total energy consumption is in the form of elec-
tricity, while four-fifth is utilized as fuel (Lee, 2017). The depletion of
fossil fuels and technological drawbacks associated with the biofuel
technology triggers the search for sustainable energy setup technologies
such as bioelectrochemical systems (BES) (Searchinger et al., 2017;
Joshi et al., 2017). In recent years, microalgae have been explored for
different bioenergy commodities due to various positive attributes such
as faster growth rates, fewer media requirements for growth, higher
biomass yield with CO2 sequestration abilities and probable capability
towards integrated high-value product chains (Kumar et al., 2017; Chen
et al., 2015a; Ho et al., 2011).Various research reports concluded its
sustainability for biofuels and industrial commodities production cost-
effectively through biorefinery approach (Yen et al., 2013). After
complete extraction of value-added compounds, the spent biomass can
be utilized for obtaining biofuels such as natural gas, crude oil or bio-
hydrogen through gasification of thermo-chemical liquefaction
(Gonzalez-Fernandez et al., 2015; Chen et al., 2015b).
The focus is currently directed to utilize the microalgae in BES that
has proven a sustainable, economical platform for the production of
bioelectricity, biohydrogen and different industrial commodities (Zou
and He, 2018). The main drawback associated with the BES's include
the high cost of the nutrients utilizing at the anode, energy-intensive
supply of oxygen at the cathode, the high cost of the cathode material
and undeveloped integrated start-up chains (Nitisoravut et al., 2017;
Pasupuleti et al., 2016). Microalgae seem to be a viable solution to
tackle the drawback associated with the BES's. Microalgae can grow
well even in waste/brackish/marine water by sequestering CO2 from
the environment by utilizing the sunlight (Baicha et al., 2016). BES is
also a proven technology for wastewater treatment by reducing the
chemical oxygen demand (COD) along with the removal of nitrogen and
phosphorous (Sevda et al., 2018). These nutrients serve as substrates at
the anode in Microbial Fuel Cell MFC (MFC) technology towards
bioelectricity production (Nguyen et al., 2017). Moreover, utilization of
microalgae at cathode also possesses some process advantages such as
sequestering ability of CO2 from anodic compartment which ends up
with the surplus supply of oxygen at the cathode (otherwise the oxygen
has to be supplied externally) (Kumar et al., 2017). Moreover, feeding
of treated wastewater from anode serves as a reliable growth medium
for existing microalgae at the cathode, which ends up with the high-

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: sevdasuraj@iitg.ac.in (S. Sevda).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biteb.2019.100290
Received 26 May 2019; Received in revised form 17 July 2019; Accepted 17 July 2019
Available online 18 July 2019
2589-014X/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
S. Sevda, et al. Bioresource Technology Reports 7 (2019) 100290

Fig. 1. Possible avenues of microalgae in BES.

biomass yields. The algal biomass is a viable source for high-value
products such as feed, pharmaceutical and industrial compounds (Jha
et al., 2017). The utilization of microalgae in BES's put forth the pos-
sibilities for integrated biorefinery approach, which is utmost essential
to enhance the economy of the process (Saratale et al., 2017). Fig. 1
depicts the possible avenues of microalgae in BES.
The present review encompasses the different opportunities and
technological interventions with the microalgae-based BES's for sus-
tainable energy technologies with integrated cleaner approaches to-
wards the healthier world.
2. Microalgae-based BES's for sustainable and cleaner
communities generation
In the last decade, BES emerged a new way for energy production by
treating wastewater and nutrient recovery (Colombo et al., 2017;
Goglio et al., 2019). There are many new designs, which were devel-
oped to achieve high-energy production system. MFC technology is the
well-studied BES technology where exo-electrogenic bacteria play im-
portant role utilization of substrate and e−generation at the anode. The
generated e− transferred to cathode with the aid of external circuit.
Proton exchange membrane helps in diffusion of protons from anode to
cathode (Montpart et al., 2014).
The well-steady route of biofuels from microalgae paves the way for
utilization in MFC technologies towards bioelectricity production. The
utilization of microalgae in MFC systems facilitates the bioelectricity
production coupled with the industrial effluent treatment, CO2capture
and high value-added product chain streams (Bajracharya et al., 2016).
Microalgae served as a favourable inclusion in MFC technology due to
the electron acceptor (during photosynthesis) and electron donor (at
anode/cathode) tendencies with the nutrient removal abilities (Gude,
2016; Wu et al., 2013, 2014).
The syntrophic interaction of microalgae and exo-electrogenic
bacteria facilitates the Microalgae-based MFC's to work with the least
energy input. The working principle of algal MFC comprises the oxi-
dation of substrates and electrons generations at anodic chamber and
evolution of CO2 at cathodic chamber. Production of oxygen at cathodic
chamber depends mainly on the oxygenic photosynthesis, which takes
place during the electron transfer from water to NADP (with the aid of
PS's I & II, cytochrome b6f complex, plastocyanin and plastoquinone)
(Commault et al., 2014). At the cathode, microalgae produce oxygen
and biomass from available CO2 in presence of light through photo-
synthesis. The produced oxygen in light phase used by microalgae in
the dark phase to produce energy through the direct oxidation of
available organic matter (Juang et al., 2012). In some studies, cyano-
bacteria have been reported to act as a catalyst at anodic chamber for
acquired exoelectrogenic activity by dividing the production of O2
(Parlevliet and Moheimani, 2014; Rosenbaum et al., 2010). Ma et al.
(2017) reported the efficiency of Chlorella –driven MFC in production of
electricity along with the biomass production. The potential of alga-
based MFC for nitrification/denitrification was reported by Zhu et al.
(2016), which highlight the efficiency of algal MFC's in removal of ni-
trogen from various industrial effluents. In another study by Salar-
García et al. (2016), enhanced energy production was reported by
utilizing the catholyte from ceramic MFC, which helps in more de-
gradation of algal biomass during light and dark phases. Saba et al.
(2017) studied the effect of different parameters on the MFC perfor-
mance towards wastewater treatment, bioelectricity and biomass pro-
duction. The other study by Baicha et al. (2016) showed the efficacy of
algal MFC in energy production with concomitant usage of CO2 for
biomass production in cathodic chamber.
Several researchers also investigated intervention of microalgae in
BES and microbial desalination cells (MDCs). A comparative study on
the usage of Nannochloropsis salina and KFe (CN) 6 as catholyte was
done by Saba et al. (2017) for desalination and power production with
MDC and concluded that enhanced results were obtained with N. salina

2
S. Sevda, et al. Bioresource Technology Reports 7 (2019) 100290

Table 1
Microalgae-based MFC systems for bioelectricity production.
Algal used MFC design Power density Electrodes Reference

−2
Scenedesmus obliquus Double chamber 153 mW m Anode: Plain carbon paper Cathode: platinum coated carbon paper (Kakarla and Min, 2014)
Chlorella vulgaris Double chamber 13.5 mW m−2 Anode: Toray carbon cloths 1
Cathode: Toray carbon Cloths with 10% Teflon (Del Campo et al., 2014)
Chlorella vulgaris Double chamber 8.79 mW m−2 Anode: Carbon felt Cathode: Carbon fiber cloth (Zhou et al., 2012)
Chlorella vulgaris Double chamber 1926 mW m−2 Anode: Carbon fiber brush Cathode: Carbon cloth (Cui et al., 2014)
Chlorella vulgaris Double chamber 62.7 mW m−2 Anode: Plain Graphite Cathode: Plain Graphite (Gouveia et al., 2014)
Escherichia coli Single chamber 91 mW m−2 Anode: Mn4þgraphite Cathode: Fe graphite (Park and Zeikus, 2003)
Sludge wastewater Double chamber 125 mW cm−2 Anode: Graphite carbon Cathode: Graphite carbon cathode (Bond and Lovley, 2003)
Geobacterspp Double chamber 0.16e1.14 A m−2 Anode: Graphite Cathode: Graphite (Zhang et al., 2011)
Chlorella vulgaris Single chamber 0.068 W m−2 Anode: Carbon paper Cathode: Carbon paper (Zhang et al., 2011)
Spirulina platensis Single chamber 6.5 mW m−2 Anode: Platinum electrodes Cathode: Platinum cathode (Fu et al., 2010)
Arthrospira maxima Double chamber 20.5 mW m−2 Anode: Graphite Cathode: Graphite (Inglesby et al., 2013)
Chlorella vulgaris Single chamber 2.7 mW m−2 Anode: glassy graphite rods Cathode: Glassy graphite rods (Powell et al., 2011)
Scenedesmus obliquus Double chamber 102 mW m−2 Anode: Toray carbon paper Cathode: Toray carbon paper (Kondaveeti et al., 2014)

and KFe (CN) 6for desalination and with KFe (CN) 6 for power produc-
tion.
The effect of light on biomass and electricity production in
Desmodesmus driven single chambered membrane less MFC was studied
by Wu et al. (2013) and found that enhanced results were obtained with
the usage of bright light. The study showed the efficiency of microalgae
in catalysing the electron transfer to the respective electrode without
the usage of any external circuit. Blue-green microalgae namely Spir-
ulina platensis was also studied in membrane MFC and reported the
power density outputs of 0.132 mW m−2 (under light conditions) and
1.64 mW m−2(under dark conditions) (Fu et al., 2010) The microalgal
based MFC systems for the treatment of wastewater, power and bioe-
lectricity generation have been summarized in Table 1.
The enhanced results under dark conditions avoids the cost in-
curring for providing light conditions, the proposed microalgal based
single chambered is an ideal choice for long runs. This design also
helpful to add the microalgae in immobilized forms on the electrodes,
which can serve as a green biocatalyst for bioelectricity production
(Fig. 2).
Some researchers reported the enhanced results with the synergistic
action of microalgae with the bacteria (Lactobacillus/Geobactersp. and
Chlamydomonas reinhardtii) towards higher efficiency of the single
chambered MFC. In this configuration, initially microalgae produce
organic acids with the aid of light conditions, the produced organic
acids serve as substrates for the bacteria for further generation of
electricity (0.078 W m−2power density) (Nishio et al., 2013). Yuan
et al. (2011) reported the efficiency of blue-green driven single
chambered MFC for bioremediation of industrial effluents with con-
comitant electricity. The treatment of industrial effluent with algal
driven MFC results in a considerable reduction of COD (78.9%) and
nitrogen (96.8%) with a resultant of 114 mW m−2power generation.
The proposed configuration also removes the algal toxins released by
the microalgae.
In another research, development of microalgal driven MFC was
reported by De Caprariis et al. (2014), where they developed a Chlorella
vulgaris driven photovoltaic cell for clean energy generation. The setup
comprises the immersed anode in and the cathode exposed to the
contiguous air which omits the usage of organic and mediators. Without
any CO2 production, the exo-electrogenic capabilities of C. vulgaris, the
developed system generated the electricity with a14 mW m−2 power
density. The study reveals the possible application of microalgae in
MFC systems for better process configurations with enhanced electricity
production.
The present review emphasizes the new configurations of micro-
algae driven MFC's for electricity production. The major types of de-
signs used in conjunction with microalgae include single- and dual
chamber types, photosynthetic sediment MFC, microbial carbon cap-
ture cells, anode catalysed MFC, dark anode compartment MFC (using
microalgae as a substrate) and photo-bio electrochemical integrated
systems. All the types of algal driven MFC's have their merits and de-
merits in production of bioelectricity with different extents of power
densities. However, the exact mechanism for different mechanistic
pathways in the electrochemical environment is not yet elucidated.
Revealing the mechanisms for the algal intervention in MFC systems

Fig. 2. Schematic diagram of a double chamber MFC (bacteria in anode and microalgae in cathode) incorporated with wastewater handling/hydrogen producing
bioreactor.

3
S. Sevda, et al.
will helpful to understand the heuristics of the systems with probable
optimization of developed algal-MFC configurations.
Apart from the mechanistic pathways, the role of ecological para-
meters on the synergetic action of algae with bacteria in electricity
production has to be addressed. The present scenario of lack of sub-
strate in bioenergy sector, microalgal biomass represents a viable sub-
strate and receiving more attention. In near future, the algal applied
research extends to utilize in MFC technologies for bioelectricity pro-
duction research/development.
The proposed research of algal driven MFC technology also needs to
aim for well-designed sustainable commercially viable platform for
growing market demands of electricity. More research and development
efforts have to be made to streamline the microalgae based BES's for
various energy commodities through utilization of isolated / mixed
microalgal species.
2.1. Microalgae at the anode
Xu et al. (2015) investigated the green microalgae Chlorella pyr-
enoidosa as an electron donor at the anode of MFC. In this study, light
intensity, microalgal cell density and oxygen content was controlled at
the anode for the enhanced performance of MFC. The study reveals the
highest current generation (6.03 W/m2) using allows light intensity
(2500 lx) and 5 x 106cell/ml of microalgal cell density. Cui et al. (2014)
compared the microalgae-based MFC with acetate-based MFC for
bioelectricity production. The use of microalgae as biomass MFC
showed better performance compared to acetate based MFC. However,
the performed studies were state of the art baseline for using microalgal
biomass as a substrate at the MFC anode. The obtained maximum
power density and columbic efficiency seemed to be equal to 1.92 W/
m2 and 6.3%, respectively.
2.2. Phototrophic microalgae assisting the cathode process
Biocathodes seems to be possible alternatives for abiotic cathodes
used in BES. The process advantages of biocathodes over abiotic cath-
odes include the less cost, sustainability, easy assistance, lesser de-
gradation and toxicity (Nitisoravut et al., 2017; Lee et al., 2015). Mi-
croalgae at the cathode in the BES put forth multiple benefits such as
carbon dioxide reduction, oxygen supply, industrial effluent treatment
and biomass production and (, (Luo et al., 2017; Xiao and He, 2014).
Microalgae present at cathode chamber of MFC carry out photosynth-
esis in the presence of light and converts CO2 to generate oxygen and
biomass (Wu et al., 2013).
Production of oxygen by algae at the cathode is an energy-intensive
process in BES. Usually, the low values of power generation with mi-
croalgae at MFC cathode compartment attributed to the reduction of
oxygen to water. Utilization of microalgae at MFC's cathode is the vi-
able strategy to tackle the oxygen reduction (Saba et al., 2017). Mi-
croalgae at cathode provide a continuous supply of oxygen which is one
of the viable strategies than the proposed strategies of addition of re-
ducing salt (Lay et al., 2015), catalyst application at cathode (Ren et al.,
2013), sparging of oxygen at cathodic chamber and rotation of elec-
trode (He et al., 2007). Microalgae as a thin biofilm on cathode surface
can limit the diffusion of oxygen, which eventually enhances the MFC
performance towards improved power generation (Gajda et al., 2015).
Production of oxygen at cathode also stimulates the power generation
in MFC along with the light illumination (Del Campo et al., 2013;
Lobato et al., 2013; Xiao et al., 2012). The dissolved oxygen (DO)
concentration at cathode compartment assisted with microalgae will be
in a range of 0–20 mg L−1 which was equivalent or superior to the
mechanical oxygen supply (Xiao et al., 2012). The utilization of Sce-
nedismus obliquus as biocathode of MFC results in oxygen generation,
which provides the aeration to the system and helps in generating a
higher power density (32%) than the mechanical aeration (Kakarla and
Min, 2014). The oxygen produced by phototrophic biocathode also
4
Bioresource Technology Reports 7 (2019) 100290
provides enough gas for oxygen reduction, which has been revealed
through the studies in first stack-biotic-MFCs using microalgae at
cathode compartment (Gajda et al., 2015). Light intensity is also an
important parameter, which affects algae-assisted cathodes. The studies
on the effect of light and dark conditions on cathodic MFC performance
revealed the no power generation under dark conditions (Xiao et al.,
2012; Chandra et al., 2012). The effect of light intensity on the bio-
cathodic photo-MFC's comprising the Desmodesmus sp. A8 and Chlorella
vulgaris reveal the profound impact of light intensity on cathode and
anode resistances subsequently on voltage. The results suggested that a
light intensity around 3000 lx, the voltage pattern of photo-MFC
reaches a plateau (Wu et al., 2013). Liu and Cheng (2014) also reported
a higher power density (187 mW m−2) under light illumination condi-
tions rather than utilizing the dark conditions (21 mW m−2). Lan et al.
(2013) studied the effect of different light and its intensities on cathodic
MFC microalgae Chlamydomonas reinhardtii transformationF5 and
found that better performance with higher light intensities, significant
power density (12.95 mW m− 2) with red light illumination and op-
posing results with blue light illumination. Moreover, higher power
output was reported with continuous mode of photo-MFC with bio-
cathode (Chlorella vulgaris) rather than with the sequencing- batch
mode (Del Campo et al., 2013). The oxygen production at cathode as-
sisted with microalgae is reduced by accepting the electrode from a
cathode (Wu et al., 2013). Along with the oxygen production, the
cathode assisted microalgae helps in catalysing the cathode reactions
such as enhanced current density than the abiotic cathode utilization.
The reactive oxygen species such as H2O2 and superoxide anion radicals
serve as electron acceptors for electricity generation (Cai et al., 2013)
Apart from Chlorella sp., cyanobacteria and Scenedesmus obliquus utili-
zation at MFC cathode results in a power density of 52–100 mW/m2 and
951 W/m3, respectively (Patil et al., 2012; Kokabian and Gude, 2013).
The research findings of Zhou et al. (2012) suggested the utilization of
immobilized algal cells at cathode enhanced columbic efficiency up to
88% rather than using suspended algal cells. The better performance of
cathode assisted with the C. vulgaris at abiotic cathode was also re-
ported in microbial desalination (MDS) cell operation which results in
twice salt removal (40.1%) than the MDC with the abiotic cathode
(Kokabian and Gude, 2013).
Biocathode of microalgae was also utilized to capture the CO2
generated at anodic compartment of MFC through the oxidation of
carbon sources, known as “microbial carbon capture (MCC)” cell. The
captured CO2 is utilized by microalgae (C. vulgaris) for photosynthesis
purpose i.e. reduction of carbon dioxide (Cui et al., 2014). Development
of MCC with CO2sequestration by microalgae and further utilization for
CO2 reduction sustainably imposes a carbon-neutral technology
(Table 2).
Microalgae at cathode were also reported for the accumulation of
suspended biomass and different industrial commodities because of
photosynthesis (Cao et al., 2009). The highest biomass concentrations
of 4060 mgL−1 and 2800 mgL−1 were achieved with the sediment type
single-and two-chambered MFC, respectively (Gouveia et al., 2014;
Zhang et al., 2011). Hydraulic retention time (HRT) also plays an im-
portant role in biomass production as more biomass accumulation with
higher HRT's (Kokabian et al., 2013; Jeon et al., 2012). The accumu-
lated biomass serves as the source for algal lipids, high-value car-
otenoids and pharmaceuticals. The range of industrial commodities
from the accumulated algal biomass mainly dictated by the supplied
light intensities and nutrient supply (Gouveia et al., 2014). Design of
integrated photobioreactor (IPB) allows the production of higher en-
ergy content from the algal biomass conversion than the direct elec-
tricity generation by the MFC (Xiao et al., 2012). The concurrent supply
of treated wastewater from the anode to cathode facilitates the het-
erotrophic bacterial growth and organic compounds, which may act as
electron donors by competing with the cathode electrode that even-
tually hampers the electricity generation efficiency of the MFC. A
possible strategy to tackle the problem includes direct feeding of treated
 Table 2
Summary of role of different microalgae species as a substrate, cathodic and anodic material in BES's.
S. no. Species
As a substrate
1 Microcystis aeruginosa, Chlorella vulgaris
2 Arthrospira maxima
3 Scenedesmus sp.
4 Laminaria saccharina
5 Scenedesmus obliquus
6 Chlorella vulgaris, Dunaliella tertiolecta
7 Mixed algae
8 Chlamydomonas reinhardtii
9 Chlorella vulgaris,Ulva lactuca
10 Cyanobacteria
11 Chlorella vulgaris
As assisting anode material
5
1 Chlorobium limicola
2 Rhodopseudomonaspalustris
3 Mixed culture
4 Rhodobacter sphaeroides
5 Rhodopseudomonaspalustris
6. Chlamydomonas reinhardtii
As an assisting cathode
1 Chlorella vulgaris
2 Chlorella vulgaris
3 Desmodesmus sp. A8
4 Microcystis aeruginosa IPP
5 Mixed culture
6 Chlorella vulgaris
7 Mixed algae
8 Chlorella vulgaris, Scendesmus sp.
Outcomes MFC configuration/yield References
S. Sevda, et al.
As there is formation of algal bloom in the environment, there is production of algal Two chambers / 80% reduction in COD with production (Wang et al., 2012)
organic matter (AOM). It removes the trihalomethane (THM) by the MFC. of electricity.
The biomass contain large amount of waste during anaerobic digestion for production of Two chamber/COD removal and coulombic efficiency (Inglesby et al., 2012, 2013)
biogas. For remove and utilization of this effluent in digester, MFC placed below. enhanced with respect to the power generation.
For the production of electricity the algal biomass and activated sludge both act as Two chamber/0.89 V voltage of power generation. (Rashid et al., 2013)
feedstock in MFC
The two chamber system in MFC where microbial culture used as biocatalyst and Two chamber/charge transfer resistance 50 fold higher. (Gadhamshetty et al., 2013)
Laminaria as anode. Different pretreatment given to the algal biomass to attain maximum
power.
The microalgae Scendesmus biomass act as feedstock. The acetate and lactate present in Two chamber/ electricity production 276 mA·m−2. [41, 69] (Kondaveeti et al., 2014;
the biomass shows max. Power generation and highly COD removal. Hur et al., 2014)
These algal cultures grow anaerobically in the waste sludge digester. Both have capacity Two chamber/ Butanol 2.5 mM–16 mM (Lakaniemi et al., 2012)
to produce the electricity.
The algal biomass because of its growth and high lipid content make its more promising Two chamber / removal of algal sludge and power (Strik et al., 2008; De Schamphelaire
to formation of biogas by their anaerobic digestion. production. and Verstraete, 2009)
The production of electricity in MFC where chalmydomonas and microbial consortia such Single chamber / Power production (Nishio et al., 2013)
as Lactobacillus and Geobacter used as biomass.
The C. vulgaris shows maximum power density and U. lactuca degraded more in MFC. Single chamber/Power density 0.98 W/m2 and 0.76 W/ (Velasquez-Orta et al., 2009)
m2.
There is production of electricity in MFC with COD and nitrate removal and bio energy Single chamber/ Current density 0.55 mA/m2 and power (Yuan et al., 2011; Zhao et al., 2012)
production. density 11 4 mW/m2.
The growth conditions of microalgae in the cathode half-cell remove CO2 and generate Single chamber/ current level1.0 μA/mg cell dry weight (Powell et al., 2009)
electricity.
The Geobacter and Chlorobium in Microbial electrochemical cells produce current in the Two chamber/ Max. power density 84 mW m−3 at anode (Badalamenti et al., 2014)
dark condition where Chlorobium transfer the electron to Geobacter. and 151 mW m−3 in cathode volume.
The A. maxima used as source of carbon for growth of Rhodopseudomonaspalustris in micro Two chamber/ volumetric power 10.4 mW m−3. (Inglesby et al., 2012)
MFC for power generation.
The mixing of different culture for H-typed MFC, which has maximum power output. Two-chamber/ power density of 2650 mW m−2 in H– (Cao et al., 2008)
type MFC.
The solar energy can be considered as the good source of electricity production in MFC. Single chamber/ 2.9 W m−3 of power generation in light. (Cho et al., 2008)
The exposure of light with nitrogen source enhanced the power generation as compare to
dark conditions.
The purple bacteria use different types of substrate to generate electricity without light Single chamber/Max. power density 2720 mW/m2 (Xing et al., 2008)
conditions by directly transfer of electron.
The formate formed during dark periods in the Chalamydomonas sp. was utilized by Single chamber/ 0.1% energy conversion efficiency in ((Nishio et al., 2013)
Geobacter sp. to produce current by the oxidation process. dark.
The assessment in microbial desalination cells by the use of chemical catalyst with no Three chamber/max. power density up to 151 mW m−3 (Kokabian et al., 2013)
mixing in bio cathode and air cathode.
The P-MFC produces biomass and electricity by use of immobilized Chlorella vulgaris in Two chamber/ Power density upgrade upto 88.4% and (He et al., 2014)
the cathode chamber. COD abolish up to 92% in wastewater.
Variation in light intensity effectively enhance the voltage as the modulation intensity Two chamber/ Cathode potential increased upto −0.44 (Wu et al., 2014)
reach up to the 1500–3000 lx. to −0.33 V.
The production of reactive oxygen species in M. aeruginosa IPP (act as cathodic Two chamber/ increase in electricity production. (Cai et al., 2013)
microorganism) results in increase in con. simultaneously with the density of algal cells
MFC, which had high light intensity capacity, shows elevation in density and voltage as Two chamber/ 6 W- 12 W voltage (Parlevliet and Moheimani, 2014)
compare to algae grow in anode.
The microalgae with electro active bacteria simultaneously produce electricity and Single chamber/ power density 68 ± 5 mW m−2 (Ma et al., 2017)
remove nitrogen, phosphorus and carbon from waste water
Simultaneously nitrogen removal and increase in the voltage at different intensity of the Double chamber/ 0.31 V (Kakarla and Min, 2019
light.
2
The dead microalgal biomass produces CO2 used for growth of microalgae at cathode. Dual chamber/ Max. power density 1926 mW/m (Cui et al., 2014)
Bioresource Technology Reports 7 (2019) 100290
(continued on next page)
S. Sevda, et al. Bioresource Technology Reports 7 (2019) 100290

wastewater (by anode) into the cathode compartment which provides

required nitrogen and phosphorus for algal growth and subsequent
removal of organic residues and nutrients (Olguín, 2012; Subhadra and
Edwards, 2011).The feasibility of IPB system with algal biocathode
towards the wastewater treatment and nutrient removal was put forth

(Logroño et al., 2017)

(Bazdar et al., 2018)

(Pandit et al., 2012)

(Gajda et al., 2015)

(Wang et al., 2010)

(Zhou et al., 2012) by one of the studies where 96% and 55% removal of nitrogen and
phosphorous contents, respectively were achieved with a slight reduc-
tion of organic concentration (Xiao et al., 2012). The positive results
References

encourage the further utilization of algal biocathodes for wastewater

treatment without the requirement of additional nutrients/water (El
Mekawya et al., 2014). The algal-microbial community at cathodes also
Double chamber/ Max. power density 2485.35 mW m−3.

reported for treatment of landfill leachate wastewater by removing the

Double chamber/ max. power production100.1 mW/m2.

Single chamber/ max. power in algal cathode 128 μW.

Double chamber/ Voltage output 610 mV and power

COD and nutrient removal along with the power generation through
Single chamber/Max. power density123.2 mW m−3.
.

integrated photobioreactor system (Luo et al., 2017; Nguyen et al.,

−3
Double chamber/ power density of 126 mW m

2017).

3. Future perspectives

Microalgae-based BES could be a viable technology for production

of bioelectricity and biohydrogen by integrating the options of biomass
density 4.1 to 5.6 W/m3.
MFC configuration/yield

production and industrial effluent treatment. However, to reach the

commercialization stage, this platform has to address the different
challenging tasks such as selection of algal strain, its performance under
harsh conditions, lower yields, and economic viability. Heterotrophic
cultivation facilitates large-scale culturing of microalgae under dark
conditions while, handling the waste waters fed to the BES's but, this
technology is impeding due to the less explored heterotrophic micro-
The algae grown in pond used for electricity production and wastewater treatment within

algal strains. To achieve this, genome search is one of the options to

Immobilized microalgae with negligible discharge of carbon dioxide and reduction of

screen the putative microalgal strains based on the sugar transport

The MFC produces electricity and simultaneously enhances the removal of textile
The different intensities of light with alternate dark and light periods effectively

Microbial carbon captured cells with CO2 air mixture sparging for production of

abilities towards the suitability for heterotrophic growth. Genome

The algae grown cathode used for sequestration of CO2 and power generation.

editing approaches (such as CRISPR/Cas9, ZFN (zinc-finger nuclease)

and TALEN) are some of the recent metabolic approaches to modify the
algal genomic DNA for further utilization in BES's for enhanced biomass
and biofuel products (Maeda et al., 2018). Moreover, more studies are
needed to overcome the obstacles encountered due to the produced
oxygen and allowed illumination on anodic activities (Xiao et al.,
2014). More research focus has to be done to tackle the encountered
wastewater and abolish the COD level up to 92–98%.

problems on a large scale, such as built of intra- and extra- cellular mass
transfer gradients in the anodic biofilm. Bio-cathodes have to study
further for enhanced power generation with less dependence on illu-
mination by selecting a suitable biocatalyst species and increasing the
electricity and wastewater treatment.

cathode surface area (Lee et al., 2015). Moreover, the advent of dif-
ferent integrated biorefinery approaches has to bring into the picture
towards an economic process to commercialize (Baicha et al., 2016).
COD level in wastewater.

Another noteworthy future study is the performance of microalgal BES's

with seasonal variations. Finally, for successful commercialization, a
produced electricity.

rigorous life cycle analysis (LCA) of microalgal BES's was necessary by

considering the land and water resources with the GHG emission pro-
files. At last, encouragement from national and state subsidies have to
Outcomes

be developed for the successful establishment of microalgae BES's on an

MFC.

industrial scale.

4. Conclusion

This review represents an overview and development of the com-

bination of microalgae and BES. The integrated system considered a
self-sustainable process by providing the simultaneous treatment was-
tewater treatment and energy production with low cost and energy
Chlorella vulgaris

Chlorella vulgaris

Chlorella vulgaris

Chlorella vulgaris
Cyanobacteria

Mixed culture

expenditures. Hence, the critical review represents the key aspects of

Table 2 (continued)

the usage of new algal biomass-based BES's for production of bioelec-

Species

tricity and wastewater treatment. The synergy between both the tech-
nologies has more economic value for the overall system. Still, more
research is needed to be streamlined and concentrated towards more
S. no.

scale up experiment and validation before commercialization of this

10

11

12

13

14
9

technique.

6
S. Sevda, et al.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Acknowledgement
Authors are grateful to IIT Guwahati, India; IIT Delhi, India; CSIR-
CSMCR, India; JUIT, India and VITO, Belgium for providing the facil-
ities to execute the proposed review article.
References
Badalamenti, J.P., Torres, C.I., Krajmalnik-Brown, R., 2014. Coupling dark metabolism to
electricity generation using photosynthetic cocultures. Biotechnol. Bioeng. 111,
223–231.
Baicha, Z., Salar-García, M.J., Ortiz-Martínez, V.M., Hernández-Fernández, F.J., De los
Ríos, A.P., Labjar, N., Lotfi, E., Elmahi, M., 2016. A critical review on microalgae as
an alternative source for bioenergy production: a promising low cost substrate for
microbial fuel cells. Fuel Process. Technol. 154, 104–116.
Bajracharya, S., Sharma, M., Mohanakrishna, G., Benneton, X.D., Strik, D.P., Sarma, P.M.,
Pant, D., 2016. An overview on emerging bioelectrochemical systems (BESs): tech-
nology for sustainable electricity, waste remediation, resource recovery, chemical
production and beyond. Renew. Energy 98, 153–170.
Bazdar, E., Roshandel, R., Yaghmaei, S., Mardanpour, M.M., 2018. The effect of different
light intensities and light/dark regimes on the performance of photosynthetic mi-
croalgae microbial fuel cell. Bioresour. Technol. 261, 350–360.
Bond, D.R., Lovley, D.R., 2003. Electricity production by Geobacter sulfurreducens at-
tached to electrodes. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 69, 1548–1555.
Cai, P.J., Xiao, X., He, Y.R., Li, W.W., Zang, G.L., Sheng, G.P., Lam, M.H.W., Yu, L., Yu,
H.Q., 2013. Reactive oxygen species (ROS) generated by cyanobacteria act as an
electron acceptor in the biocathode of a bio-electrochemical system. Biosens.
Bioelectron. 39, 306–310.
Cao, X., Huang, X., Boon, N., Liang, P., Fan, M., 2008. Electricity generation by an en-
riched phototrophic consortium in a microbial fuel cell. Electrochem. Commun. 10,
1392–1395.
Cao, X., Huang, X., Liang, P., Boon, N., Fan, M., Zhanga, L., 2009. A completely anoxic
microbial fuel cell using a photo-biocathode for cathodic carbondioxide reduction.
Energy Environ. Sci. 2, 498-01.
Chandra, R., Subhash, G.V., Mohan, S.V., 2012. Mixotrophic operation of photo-bioe-
lectrocatalytic fuel cell under anoxygenic microenvironment enhances the light de-
pendent bioelectrogenic activity. Bioresour. Technol. 109, 46–56.
Chen, W.H., Lin, B.J., Huang, M.Y., Chang, J.S., 2015a. Thermochemical conversion of
microalgal biomass into biofuels: a review. Bioresour. Technol. 184, 314–327.
Chen, H., Qiu, T., Rong, J., He, C., Wang, Q., 2015b. Microalgal biofuel revisited: an
informatics-based analysis of developments to date and future prospects. Appl.
Energy 155, 585–598.
Cho, Y.K., Donohue, T.J., Tejedor, I., Anderson, M.A., McMahon, K.D., Noguera, D.R.,
2008. Development of a solar powered microbial fuel cell. J. Appl. Microbiol. 104,
640–650.
Colombo, A., Marzorati, S., Lucchini, G., Cristiani, P., Pant, D., Schievano, A., 2017.
Assisting cultivation of photosynthetic microorganisms by microbial fuel cells to
enhance nutrients recovery from wastewater. Bioresour. Technol. 237, 240–248.
Commault, A.S., Lear, G., Novis, P., Weld, R.J., 2014. Photosynthetic biocathode en-
hances the power output of a sediment-type microbial fuel cell. New Zeal. J. Bot. 52,
48–59.
Cui, Y., Rashid, N., Hu, N., Rehman, M.S.U., Han, J.I., 2014. Electricity generation and
microalgae cultivation in microbial fuel cell using microalgae-enriched anode and
bio-cathode. Energy Convers. Manag. 79, 674–680.
De Caprariis, B., De Filippis, P., Di Battista, A., Di Palma, L., Scarsella, M., 2014.
Exoelectrogenic activity of a green microalgae, Chlorella vulgaris, in a bio-photo-
voltaic cells (BPVs). Chem. Eng. Trans. 38, 523–528.
De Schamphelaire, L., Verstraete, W., 2009. Revival of the biological sunlight-to-biogas
energy conversion system. Biotechnol. Bioeng. 103, 296–304.
Del Campo, A.G., Cañizares, P., Rodrigo, M.A., Fernández, F.J., Lobato, J., 2013.
Microbial fuel cell with an algae-assisted cathode: a preliminary assessment. J. Power
Sources 242, 638–645.
Del Campo, A.G., Perez, J.F., Cañizares, P., Rodrigo, M.A., Fernandez, F.J., Lobato, J.,
2014. Study of a photosynthetic MFC for energy recovery from synthetic industrial
fruit juice wastewater. Int. J. Hydrog. Energy 39, 21828–21836.
El Mekawya, A., Hegab, H.M., Vanbroekhoven, K., Pant, D., 2014. Techno-productive
potential of photosynthetic microbial fuel cells through different configurations.
Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 39, 617–627.
Fu, C.C., Hung, T.C., Wu, W.T., Wen, T.C., Su, C.H., 2010. Current and voltage responses
in instant photosynthetic microbial cells with Spirulina platensis. Biochem. Eng. J. 52,
175–180.
Gadhamshetty, V., Belanger, D., Gardiner, C.J., Cummings, A., Hynes, A., 2013.
Evaluation of Laminaria-based microbial fuel cells (LbMs) for electricity production.
Bioresour. Technol. 127, 378–385.
Gajda, I., Greenman, J., Melhuish, C., Ieropoulos, I., 2015. Self-sustainable electricity
production from algae grown in a microbial fuel cell system. Biomass Bioenergy 82,
87–93.
Goglio, A., Marzorati, S., Rago, L., Pant, D., Cristiani, P., Schievano, A., 2019. Microbial
7
Bioresource Technology Reports 7 (2019) 100290
recycling cells: first steps into a new type of microbial electrochemical technologies,
aimed at recovering nutrients from wastewater. Bioresour. Technol. 277, 117–127.
Gonzalez-Fernandez, C., Sialve, B., Molinuevo-Salces, B., 2015. Anaerobic digestion of
microalgal biomass: challenges, opportunities and research needs. Bioresour.
Technol. 198, 896–906.
Gouveia, L., Neves, C., Sebastião, D., Nobre, B.P., Matos, C.T., 2014. Effect of light on the
production of bioelectricity and added-value microalgae biomass in a photosynthetic
alga microbial fuel cell. Bioresour. Technol. 154, 171–177.
Gude, V.G., 2016. Wastewater treatment in microbial fuel cells–an overview. J. Clean.
Prod. 122, 287–307.
He, Z., Shao, H., Angenent, L.T., 2007. Increased power production from a sediment
microbial fuel cell with a rotating cathode. Biosens. Bioelectron. 22, 3252–3255.
He, H., Zhou, M., Yang, J., Hu, Y., Zhao, Y., 2014. Simultaneous wastewater treatment,
electricity generation and biomass production by an immobilized photosynthetic
algal microbial fuel cell. Bioprocess Biosyst. Eng. 37, 873–880.
Ho, S.H., Chen, C.Y., Lee, D.J., Chang, J.S., 2011. Perspectives on microalgal CO2-
emission mitigation systems—a review. Biotechnol. Adv. 29, 189–198.
Hur, J., Lee, B.M., Choi, K.S., Min, B., 2014. Tracking the spectroscopic and chromato-
graphic changes of algal derived organic matter in a microbial fuel cell. Environ. Sci.
Pollut. R. 21, 2230–2239.
Inglesby, A.E., Beatty, D.A., Fisher, A.C., 2012. Rhodopseudomonas palustris purple bac-
teria fed Arthrospira maxima cyanobacteria: demonstration of application in microbial
fuel cells. RSC Adv. 2, 4829–4838.
Inglesby, A.E., Yunus, K., Fisher, A.C., 2013. In situ fluorescence and electrochemical
monitoring of a photosynthetic microbial fuel cell. Phys. Chem. Phys. 15, 6903–6911.
Jeon, H.J., Seo, K.W., Lee, S.H., Yang, Y.H., Kumaran, R.S., Kim, S., 2012. Production of
algal biomass (Chlorella vulgaris) using sediment microbial fuel cells. Bioresour.
Technol. 109, 308–311.
Jha, D., Jain, V., Sharma, B., Kant, A., Garlapati, V.K., 2017. Microalgae-based pharma-
ceuticals and nutraceuticals: an emerging field with immense market potential.
Chem. BioEng. Rev. 4, 257–272.
Joshi, G., Pandey, J.K., Rana, S., Rawat, D.S., 2017. Challenges and opportunities for the
application of biofuel. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 79, 850–866.
Juang, D.F., Lee, C.H., Hsueh, S.C., 2012. Comparison of electrogenic capabilities of
microbial fuel cell with different light power on algae grown cathode. Bioresour.
Technol. 123, 23–29.
Kakarla, R., Min, B., 2014. Photoautotrophic microalgae Scenedesmus obliquus attached on
a cathode as oxygen producers for microbial fuel cell (MFC) operation. Int. J. Hydrog.
Energy 39, 10275–10283.
Kakarla, R., Min, B., 2019. Sustainable electricity generation and ammonium removal by
microbial fuel cell with a microalgae assisted cathode at various environmental
conditions. Bioresour. Technol. 284, 161–167.
Kokabian, B., Gude, V.G., 2013. Photosynthetic microbial desalination cells (PMDCs) for
clean energy, water and biomass production. Environ. Sci. Process.Impact. 15,
2178–2185.
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, 784–791.
Kumar, S.P.J., Garlapati, V.K., Dash, A., Scholz, P., Banerjee, R., 2017. Sustainable green
solvents and techniques for lipid extraction from microalgae: a review. Algal Res. 21,
138–147.
Lakaniemi, A.M., Tuovinen, O.H., Puhakka, J.A., 2012. Production of electricity and
butanol from microalgal biomass in microbial fuel cells. BioEnergy Res 5, 481–489.
Lan, J.C.W., Raman, K., Huang, C.M., Chang, C.M., 2013. The impact of monochromatic
blue and red LED light upon performance of photo microbial fuel cells (PMFCs) using
Chlamydomonas reinhardtii transformation F5 as biocatalyst. Biochem. Eng. J. 78,
39–43.
Lay, C.H., Kokko, M.E., Puhakka, J.A., 2015. Power generation in fed-batch and con-
tinuous up-flow microbial fuel cell from synthetic wastewater. Energy 91, 235–241.
Lee, D.H., 2017. Econometric assessment of bioenergy development. Int. J. of Hydrogen
Energy. 42, 27701–27717.
Lee, D.J., Chang, J.S., Lai, J.Y., 2015. Microalgae–microbial fuel cell: a mini review.
Bioresour. Technol. 198, 891–895.
Liu, W.F., Cheng, S.A., 2014. Microbial fuel cells for energy production from wastewaters:
the way toward practical application. J. Zhejiang Univ. SciA. 15, 841–861.
Lobato, J., del Campo, A.G., Fernández, F.J., Cañizares, P., Rodrigo, M.A., 2013.
Lagooning microbial fuel cells: a first approach by coupling electricity-producing
microorganisms and algae. Appl.energy. 110, 220–226.
Logroño, W., Pérez, M., Urquizo, G., Kadier, A., Echeverría, M., Recalde, C., Rákhely, G.,
2017. Single chamber microbial fuel cell (SCMFC) with a cathodic microalgal biofilm:
a preliminary assessment of the generation of bioelectricity and biodegradation of
real dye textile wastewater. Chemosphere 176, 378–388.
Luo, S., Berges, J.A., He, Z., Young, E.B., 2017. Algal-microbial community collaboration
for energy recovery and nutrient remediation from wastewater in integrated photo-
bioelectrochemical systems. Algal Res. 24, 527–539.
Ma, J., Wang, Z., Zhang, J., Waite, T.D., Wu, Z., 2017. Cost-effective Chlorella biomass
production from dilute wastewater using a novel photosynthetic microbial fuel cell
(PMFC). Water Res. 108, 356–364.
Maeda, Y., Yoshino, T., Matsunaga, T., Matsumoto, M., Tanaka, T., 2018. Marine mi-
croalgae for production of biofuels and chemicals. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 50,
111–120.
Montpart, N., Ribot-Llobet, E., Garlapati, V.K., Rago, L., Baeza, J.A., Guisasola, A., 2014.
Methanol opportunities for electricity and hydrogen production in bioelec-
trochemical systems. Int. J. HydrogEnergy. 39, 770–777.
Nguyen, H.T., Kakarla, R., Min, B., 2017. Algae cathode microbial fuel cells for electricity
generation and nutrient removal from landfill leachate wastewater. Int. J. Hydrog.
S. Sevda, et al.
Energy 42, 29433–29442.
Nishio, K., Hashimoto, K., Watanabe, K., 2013. Light/electricity conversion by defined
cocultures of Chlamydomonas and Geobacter. J. Biosci. Bioeng. 115, 412–417.
Nitisoravut, R., Thanh, C.N., Regmi, R., 2017. Microbial fuel cells: advances in electrode
modifications for improvement of system performance. Int. J. Green Energy. 14,
712–723.
Olguín, E.J., 2012. Dual purpose microalgae–bacteria-based systems that treat waste-
water and produce biodiesel and chemical products within a Biorefinery. Biotechnol.
Adv. 30, 1031–1046.
Pandit, S., Nayak, B.K., Das, D., 2012. Microbial carbons capture cell using cyanobacteria
for simultaneous power generation, carbon dioxide sequestration and wastewater
treatment. Bioresour. Technol. 107, 97–102.
Park, D.H., Zeikus, J.G., 2003. Improved fuel cell and electrode designs for producing
electricity from microbial degradation. Biotechnol. Bioeng. 81, 348–355.
Parlevliet, D., Moheimani, N.R., 2014. Efficient conversion of solar energy to biomass and
electricity. Aquatic biosyst 10, 4.
Pasupuleti, S.B., Srikanth, S., Dominguez-Benetton, X., Mohan, S.V., 2016. Dual gas dif-
fusion cathode design for microbial fuel cell (MFC): optimizing the suitable mode of
operation in terms of bioelectrochemical and bioelectro-kinetic evaluation. J. Chem.
Technol. Biotechnol. 91 (3), 624–639.
Patil, S.A., Hägerhäll, C., Gorton, L., 2012. Electron transfer mechanisms between mi-
croorganisms and electrodes in bioelectrochemical systems. Bioanal. Rev. 4,
159–192.
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, 269–274.
Powell, E.E., Evitts, R.W., Hill, G.A., Bolster, J.C., 2011. A microbial fuel cell with a
photosynthetic microalgae cathodic half cell coupled to a yeast anodic half cell.
Energy SourcA Recovery Util. Environ. Effects. 33, 440–448.
Rashid, N., Rehman, M.S.U., Han, J.I., 2013. Recycling and reuse of spent microalgal
biomass for sustainable biofuels. Biochem. Eng. J. 75, 101–107.
Ren, Y., Pan, D., Li, X., Fu, F., Zhao, Y., Wang, X., 2013. Effect of polyaniline-graphene
nanosheets modified cathode on the performance of sediment microbial fuel cell. J.
Chem. Technol. Biotechnol. 88, 1946–1950.
Rosenbaum, M., He, Z., Angenent, L.T., 2010. Light energy to bioelectricity: photo-
synthetic microbial fuel cells. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 21, 259–264.
Saba, B., Christy, A.D., Yu, Z., Co, A.C., 2017. Sustainable power generation from bac-
terio-algal microbial fuel cells (MFCs): an overview. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 73,
75–84.
Salar-García, M.J., Gajda, I., Ortiz-Martínez, V.M., Greenman, J., Hanczyc, M.M., de Los
Ríos, A.P., Ieropoulos, I.A., 2016. Microalgae as substrate in low cost terracotta-based
microbial fuel cells: novel application of the catholyte produced. Bioresour. Technol.
209, 380–385.
Saratale, R.G., Kuppam, C., Mudhoo, A., Saratale, G.D., Periyasamy, S., Zhen, G., Koók, L.,
Bakonyi, P., Nemestóthy, N., Kumar, G., 2017. Bioelectrochemical systems using
microalgae–a concise research update. Chemosphere 177, 35–43.
Searchinger, T.D., Beringer, T., Strong, A., 2017. Does the world have low-carbon bioe-
nergy potential from the dedicated use of land? Energy Policy 110, 434–446.
Sevda, S., Sreekishnan, T.R., Pous, N., Puig, S., Pant, D., 2018. Bioelectroremediation of
perchlorate and nitrate contaminated water: a review. Bioresour. Technol. 255,
331–339.
Bioresource Technology Reports 7 (2019) 100290
Strik, D.P., Terlouw, H., Hamelers, H.V., Buisman, C.J., 2008. Renewable sustainable
biocatalyzed electricity production in a photosynthetic algal microbial fuel cell
(PAMFC). Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 81, 659–668.
Subhadra, B.G., Edwards, M., 2011. Coproduct market analysis and water footprint of
simulated commercial algal biorefineries. Appl. Energy 88, 3515–3523.
Velasquez-Orta, S.B., Curtis, T.P., Logan, B.E., 2009. Energy from algae using microbial
fuel cells. Biotechnol. Bioeng. 103, 1068–1076.
Wang, X., Feng, Y., Liu, J., Lee, H., Li, C., Li, N., 2010. Sequestration of CO2 discharged
from anode by algal cathode in microbial carbon capture cells (MCCs). Biosens.
Bioelectron. 25, 2639–2643.
Wang, H., Liu, D., Lu, L., Zhao, Z., Xu, Y., Cui, F., 2012. Degradation of algal organic
matter using microbial fuel cells and its association with trihalomethane precursor
removal. Bioresour. Technol. 116, 80–85.
Wu, X.Y., Song, T.S., Zhu, X.J., Wei, P., Zhou, C.C., 2013. Construction and operation of
microbial fuel cell with Chlorella vulgaris biocathode for electricity generation. Appl.
Biochem. Biotechnol. 171, 2082–2092.
Wu, Y.C., Wang, Z.J., Zheng, Y., Xiao, Y., Yang, Z.H., Zhao, F., 2014. Light intensity
affects the performance of photo microbial fuel cells with Desmodesmus sp. A8 as
cathodic microorganism. Appl. Energy 116, 86–90.
Xiao, L., He, Z., 2014. Applications and perspectives of phototrophic microorganisms for
electricity generation from organic compounds in microbial fuel cells. Renew. Sust.
Energ. Rev. 37, 550–559.
Xiao, L., Young, E.B., Berges, J.A., He, Z., 2012. Integrated photo−bioelectrochemical
system for contaminants removal and bioenergy production. Environ. Sci. Technol.
46, 11459–11466.
Xing, D., Zuo, Y., Cheng, S., Regan, J.M., Logan, B.E., 2008. Electricity generation by
Rhodopseudomonas palustris DX-1. Environ. Sci. Technol. 42, 4146–4151.
Xu, C., Poon, K., Choi, M.M., Wang, R., 2015. Using live algae at the anode of a microbial
fuel cell to generate electricity. Environ Sci Pollut R 22, 15621–15635.
Yen, H.W., Hu, I.C., Chen, C.Y., Ho, S.H., Lee, D.J., Chang, J.S., 2013. Microalgae-based
biorefinery–from biofuels to natural products. Bioresour. Technol. 135, 166–174.
Yuan, Y., Chen, Q., Zhou, S., Zhuang, L., Hu, P., 2011. Bioelectricity generation and
microcystins removal in a blue-green algae powered microbial fuel cell. J. Hazard.
Mater. 187, 591–595.
Zhang, Y., Noori, J.S., Angelidaki, I., 2011. Simultaneous organic carbon, nutrients re-
moval and energy production in a photomicrobial fuel cell (PFC). Energy Environ.
Sci. 4, 4340–4346.
Zhao, J., Li, X.F., Ren, Y.P., Wang, X.H., Jian, C., 2012. Electricity generation from Taihu
Lake cyanobacteria by sediment microbial fuel cells. J. Chem. Technol. Biotechnol.
87, 1567–1573.
Zhou, M., He, H., Jin, T., Wang, H., 2012. Power generation enhancement in novel mi-
crobial carbon capture cells with immobilized Chlorella vulgaris. J. Power Sources
214, 216–219.
Zhu, G., Chen, G., Yu, R., Li, H., Wang, C., 2016. Enhanced simultaneous nitrification/
denitrification in the biocathode of a microbial fuel cell fed with cyanobacteria so-
lution. Process Biochem. 51, 80–88.
Zou, S., He, Z., 2018. Efficiently “pumping out” value-added resources from wastewater
by bioelectrochemical systems: a review from energy perspectives. Water Res. 131,
62–73.