Review

Received: 6 March 2022 Revised: 22 June 2022 Accepted article published: 30 June 2022 Published online in Wiley Online Library:

(wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI 10.1002/jctb.7176

Broad-ranging review: configurations,

membrane types, governing equations, and
influencing factors on microbial desalination
cell technology
Hussein H Abd-almohi,a Ziad T Alismaeela and Mohanad J. M-Ridhab*

Abstract
Seawater might serve as a fresh-water supply for future generations to help meet the growing need for clean drinking water.
Desalination and waste management using newer and more energy intensive processes are not viable options in the long term.
Thus, an integrated and sustainable strategy is required to accomplish cost-effective desalination via wastewater treatment. A
microbial desalination cell (MDC) is a new technology that can treat wastewater, desalinate saltwater, and produce green
energy simultaneously. Bio-electrochemical oxidation of wastewater organics creates power using this method. Desalination
and the creation of value-added by-products are expected because of this ionic movement. According to assessments, recent
investigations on MDC configurations have led to significant changes in their operating characteristics, as well as their design
and operational factors. Additionally, the study notes the expanding uses of MDC in bioremediation, nutrient recovery, water
softening, and value-added chemical manufacturing. Significant results show that the MDC system produced outstanding desa-
lination without the need for external power, in addition to achieving wastewater treatment and energy recovery without the
need for intermediary processes. When it comes to its practical application, some of the technical obstacles include keeping pH
stable in cathodic and anodic fluids, increasing internal resistance using catalysts as electrode fillers, along with issues of
biofouling and durability. Although MDC technology is currently being developed and scaled up, additional research on mem-
brane fouling avoidance, material feasibility, electron transport kinetics, growth of microorganisms, and catalyst durability is
needed.
© 2022 Society of Chemical Industry (SCI).

Keywords: microbial desalination cells; microbial fuel cells; power generation; wastewater treatment

MEDCC Microbial electrolysis desalination and chemical-

ABBREVIATIONS production cell
AC Anode chamber MFC Microbial fuel cell.
AEM Anion-exchange membrane. OsMDC Osmotic microbial desalination cell.
AP Acid production. PBS Phosphate buffer solution.
A’P Alkali production. PMDC Photosynthetic MDC.
BAC BPM–AEM–CEM stack structure. rMDC Re-circulation microbial desalination cell.
BES Bio-electrochemical systems. RO Reverse osmosis.
BPM Bipolar membrane. SEM Scanning electron microscope.
CE Coulombic efficiency. SMDC Stacked microbial desalination cell.
CEM Cation-exchange membrane. TDS Total dissolved solid.
DR Desalination rate. UMDC Upflow MDC
ED Electro dialysis.
FO Forward osmosis.
IEM Ion-exchange membrane.
IEMs Ion-exchange membranes.
IER Ion-exchange resin. * Correspondence to: MJM Ridha, Department of Environmental Engineering,
IER- Ion-exchange resin packed MDC. College of Engineering, University of Baghdad, Al-Jadryah, P.O. Box 47012,
MDC Baghdad, Iraq. E-mail: muhannadenviro@coeng.uobaghdad.edu.iq
MCDC Microbial capacitive desalination cell.
a Department of Biochemical Engineering, Al-Khwarizmi College of Engineering,
MDC Microbial desalination cell. University of Baghdad, Baghdad, Iraq
MEDC Microbial electrolysis
desalination cell. b Department of Environmental Engineering, College of Engineering, University
of Baghdad, Baghdad, Iraq
1

J Chem Technol Biotechnol 2022 www.soci.org © 2022 Society of Chemical Industry (SCI).
 www.soci.org
INTRODUCTION
Energy has become critical for society to maintain economic
development and a good quality of life. IEA (International Energy
Agency) predicted that the global energy demand in 2030 will be
50% higher than it is at present.1 However, in addition to the mas-
sive growth of the population and their increased demand for
fresh water, climate change has negatively affected large areas
of the planet, resulting in, for example, an increase in desert areas.
Studies have proven that human consumption of clean water has
increased sevenfold since the year 1900, as the percentage dou-
bles every 20 years.1 Currently, many countries around the world
suffer from scarcity of fresh water, and countries in the Middle
East are those most affected. The amount of fresh water accessi-
ble for human use is only 1% of the water that covers the
globe.2–4 Meanwhile, traditional thermal-desalination and high-
pressure membrane-desalination methods are extremely
energy-intensive, using 3.7 to 650 kWh of energy per m3 of water
desalinated.5,6 The effort of building water treatment plants pow-
ered by renewable energy aims not only to meet the global need
for potable water but also to reduce the harmful gas emissions
that affect humans and living organisms; the use of fossil fuels
and combustion processes results in toxic gases, global warming,
and climate change.7 On this basis, several technologies have
been introduced to avoid these technical problems; one of these
latest technologies is the microbial desalination cell (MDC)
system,8,9 which is a modified form of the microbial fuel system
(MFC) and the bio-electrochemical system (BES) system.10,11
MDC has exhibited a high efficiency in reducing pollution in
wastewater, even with water containing less than 2000 mg L−1
of COD, by converting it into electrical energy. This system will
help the processing and production of wastewater and electrical
energy, respectively. It has given promising results in wastewater
treatment and energy production over the years.12 MFC is a type
of BEC, wherein the production of bio-electrochemical energy
comes from the bacterial oxidation of the organic matter present
in the wastewater by bacteria that grow in anaerobic conditions;
this method exhibited very high efficiency in the production of
electrical energy and in the treatment of wastewater.13
CONVENTIONAL DESALINATION
TREATMENT PROCESS AND ENERGY
CONSUMPTION
Clean water consumption has increased and the expected aver-
age of clean water per capita would decrease by 1/3 in the next
20 years.14 The systems that work on desalinating salt water can
be divided into two types: the most widely used (e.g., phase-
change thermal processes) and the commercially approved (e.g.,
membrane processes).15 Desalination technologies significantly
reduce the water shortage problem and improve water quality,
quality of life, and economic status. One of the most crucial factors
that should be included in most literature is the study of energy
consumption. To determine the appropriate fields of application
for the MDC system, the energy performance of the system must
be understood.16 Studies have shown that the energy consump-
tion of the system is still higher than those of traditional electrol-
ysis or wastewater treatments. Thus, reducing the energy
consumption of the system is necessary for its practical applica-
tion; several ways have been proposed to modify the system to
avoid a large consumption of energy through a modified system
that recycles the catholyte and the applied voltage. Reducing
2
wileyonlinelibrary.com/jctb © 2022 Society of Chemical Industry (SCI).
HH Abd-almohi, ZT Alismaeel, MJM Ridha
the external voltage of the system significantly reduced energy
consumption. Reducing the intensity of cathodic recycling, for
example, from 18.2 to 8.9 L per minute, reduced energy consump-
tion and COD removal, plus salt removal was reduced by 40%.16
To continue the oxygen reduction process, ‘wet’ catholyte recircu-
lation was used. This process also allowed for an increase in COD
removal via aerobic treatment. Consequently, improving opera-
tional conditions may decrease energy use. Importantly, an MDC
uses the same amount of power for wastewater treatment as it
does for saltwater desalination when assessing its energy use.17
Thermal (phase-change) process
Thermal distillation techniques are commonly used in the Middle
East because the oil reserves in this region maintain a consistent
cost for the energy used in the process.18 The primary thermal
desalination process involves multi-effect distillation (MED), mul-
tistage flash distillation (MSF), and vapour compression (VC).
The VC process includes two types: mechanical (MVC) and
thermal (TVC).
MED
One of the most common methods of seawater distillation and
purification is carried out in several stages, the first of which is
heating the seawater that enters the system using the water
vapours inside the tubes in all steps, where some of the water
evaporates. Then, the water vapor flows to the later stages, the
process is repeated, and the water is heated and evaporated.15
MSF
In the desalination method, seawater is distilled by flashing a
part of it into steam in distinct stages of what are basically
counter current heat exchangers. Although desalination facili-
ties provide approximately 26% of all desalinated water on
the globe, nearly all new desalination plants now utilise reverse
osmosis (RO) because of the significantly reduced energy
usage.19,20
The concept of solar energy was recently introduced to treating
water through a solar collector-assisted multi-effect desalination
(MED) and multi-stage flash (MSF) plant. The station consists of
several stages. Solar energy is used to heat the water fed by steam
in the tubes. Part of the water is evaporated and the steam moves
to the pipes in the next stage. The steam heats up and more water
evaporates. The concentration of salts at the top of the plant is
non-existent, whereas the concentration of salts at the bottom
of the unit is very high. In the centre of the unit, a gradient is
observed in the extraction of salts.21 In each stage, when heating
the water from the previous stages, additional energy must be
derived from the collected solar energy, thus reducing the energy
required for the seawater desalination unit. Using a solar collector,
saltwater is pumped in and heated before being pumped into a
heat accumulator made up of many neighbouring tanks. With
the help of a heat accumulator, the evaporator's temperature
remains stable no matter how much solar energy is pumped into
it. However, the evaporator runs at extremely low pressures and
extremely high temperatures (up to 99 °C) (e.g., 0.07 atm). Once
the warmed water has been collected, it will go into the first tank,
whilst the water that enters the evaporator will be drawn from the
very top of the first tank and recirculated to the very bottom. This
instance raises the temperature of the water before it enters the
evaporator.21
J Chem Technol Biotechnol 2022
Broad-ranging review: configurations, membrane types, governing equations www.soci.org

Table 1. Types of membrane process, methods of separation, and their applications

Membrane process Membrane type Driving force Method separation Range of application

Microfiltration20 Symmetric microporous
membrane; 0.1 to 10 μm pore
reduce
Ultrafiltration20 Asymmetric microporous
membrane; 1 to 10 μm pore
radius
Reverse osmosis20 Asymmetric skin type
membrane
Dialysis20 Symmetric microporous
membrane; 0.1 to 10 μm pore
radius
Electrodialysis20 Cation and anion exchange
membrane
Gas separation20 Homogeneous or porous
polymer
Hydrostatic pressure
difference 0.1 to 1 bar
Hydrostatic pressure
difference 0.5 to 5 bar
Hydrostatic pressure
difference 20 to 100 bar
Concentration gradient
Electrical potential gradient
Hydrostatic pressure
concentration gradient
Sieving mechanism due to
pore radius and
absorption
Sieving mechanism
Solution diffusion
mechanism
Diffusion in convention-free
layer
Electrical charge of particle
and size
Solubility diffusion
Sterile filtration clarification
Separation of
micromolecular solution
Separation of salt and micro-
solutes from solution
Separation of salt and micro-
solutes from
macromolecular solution
Desalination of ionic solution
Separation of gas mixture

Membrane processes and the energy consumption of every conventional desalination

Membrane technologies are driven by one of these two forces: process are explained in detail in Tables 1 and 2.
electrical potential or pressure. It is vital to note the usual pressure
driving force ranges and separation mechanisms when under- MDCs
standing the removal abilities of the membrane system because MDC is an integrated form of MFC and ED cell that is developed
they can influence their power consumption.22,23 The type of for simultaneous desalination, wastewater treatment, and elec-
membrane process and method of separation, their application, tricity production. Cao et al. first introduced MDC in 2009, and
the developed system achieved a 90% salt removal rate within a
single cycle.24 The system consists of three chambers: anode,
desalination, and cathode. In these chambers, electrical energy
is produced from the movement of electrons outside the cell
Table 2. Energy consumption of every conventional desalination through the oxidation of the available organic materials in the
process anode chamber; this is due to the growth of anaerobic bacteria
Desalination units Energy consumption on the anode electrode that helps oxidise organic materials to
produce carbon dioxide. A proton and an electron are transmitted
MVC Only electricity needed and the energy through an external circuit. The cation and anion of the salt water
cost is accountable for about 50% of are separated in the middle chamber by the electrode in the
the product water cost.19 anode chamber and the electrode in the cathode chamber
[MSV, MED, and TVC] Two energy forms required for the through ion exchange membranes (IEMs); these membranes help
operation of thermal distillation in separating anions and their movement across the ion separa-
process (MSF, MED, and TVC): heat tion membrane (CEM) towards the electrode in the anode
with low temperature and electricity
power. The energy cost is
accountable for about 50% of the
product water cost.18
RO unit process Depends on two factors: (i) salinity of
the rate feed water, (ii) the recovery
rate. The capacity size of RO units
ranges between 0.1–
395 000 m3 day−1 and the plant
consumption is ranges from 3.7–8
kWh m−3,18.19
Seawater RO unit process Consumption range from 4–6 kWh m−3
for standard RO unit capacity
(24 000 m3 day−1).18,19
ED unit process Electricity consumption of an ED unit
from 0.7–2.5 kWh m−3 for low salinity
(< 2500 ppm) and from 2.64–
5.5 kWh m−3 for a salinity between
(2500–5000 ppm).19
Figure 1. Typical scheme of microbial desalination cell.
3

J Chem Technol Biotechnol 2022 © 2022 Society of Chemical Industry (SCI). wileyonlinelibrary.com/jctb
 www.soci.org HH Abd-almohi, ZT Alismaeel, MJM Ridha

chamber and the movement of cation across the ionic separation

membrane (AEM) towards the electrode in the cathode chamber,
where the electron accepted. O2 is an acceptor that is usually used
to reduce water. The proton is moved from the anode chamber to
the cathode chamber and combined with the oxygen and elec-
tron to form water. The potential difference between the anode
and cathode helps the electrons to flow in the system through
the external electrical circuit, and this can be operated in
self-powered mode, as shown in Fig. 1.25
The anode chemical equation is expressed as:

Active microorganisms +biodegradables organics

+ anaerobic condition ð1Þ
→nCO2 +4ne− +4nH +

The cathode chemical equation is expressed as:

O2 +4ne− +4nH + →2H2 O ð2Þ

− −2
The removal of the anions (Cl and SO4 ) from the middle cham-
ber to the anode chamber through the AEM and the removal of
the (Na+1 and Ca+2) to the cathode chamber through the CEM
lead to the removal of 99% of the salt from the middle cham-
ber.21,26,27 To the best of the authors' knowledge, MDC was first
studied in 2009 by a group of researchers from Tsinghua Univer-
sity, China, in collaboration with Penn State University,
United States. The researchers investigated the creation of a
cubic-shaped MFC with three chambers instead of two and
divided by AEM and CEM clampers. The anode, desalination,
and cathode chamber volumes were 27, 3, and 27 mL, respec-
tively. By introducing carbon felt as an electrode material into
the anode and cathode chambers, the volumes of the corre-
sponding chambers decreased from 27 to 11 mL. A 5 mm graph-
ite rod was inserted into the carbon felt and a 1.6 g L−1 sodium
acetate solution was introduced to the anode chamber. The cath-
ode chamber was fed with ferricyanide catholyte, whilst the desa-
lination chamber was filled with NaCl in varying quantities,
namely 5, 20, and 35 g L−1. The cell's exterior resistance was kept
constant at 200. The results indicated a power output of
31 W m−3 and a salt removal rate of 90% in a single desalination
cycle. As the salt was withdrawn, it was discovered that the cell's
ohmic resistance grew from 25 to 970 at the conclusion of the
cycle.24
APPLICATIONS OF MDC IN DIFFERENT
INDUSTRIES
The seawater content is not limited to the presence of Na+ and Cl−
ions in its composition. However, seawater presenting ions, such
as HPO4−, PO4−2, Cl−, K+, and NH4+, is possible. When using real
wastewater, its content may consist of several complex com-
pounds, such as CaSO4, CaCO3, MgCO3, Ca(NO3)2, Mg(NO3)2, and
MgSO4. The desalination process of seawater transfer of some of
these ions may lead to water contamination, as well as the pollu-
tion of IEMs. These results can be observed by the SEM test of IEMs
and cation exchange membranes when treating domestic waste-
water.28 Several MDC configurations, including (cMDC) configura-
tion, have been proposed to overcome this IEM contamination
(AEM, CEM).29 On the industrial side, the microbial desalination
cell (MDC) has proven its efficiency in the production of biosen-
sors, wastewater treatment, and water desalination plants. The
4
Figure 2. SMDC configuration.
downside is that traditional sensors are manufactured with batte-
ries of a limited life, such as lithium batteries and others like them.
Therefore, the microbial desalination cell (MDC) has proven the
possibility of generating long-term energy for biosensors and
remote monitoring. It was found that the cost of manufacturing
sensors has decreased significantly and become environmentally
friendly.30 The desalination cell is also used to determine COD
levels in water pollutants.31 Controlling COD levels in water is
important to maintain the level of pollution in rivers, groundwa-
ter, and other parts of the environment. It is possible to use the
microbial desalination cell to sense, purify, and treat many com-
pounds (for example CaSO4, CaCO3, MgCO3, Ca(NO3)2,
Mg(NO3)2, and MgSO4), but the microbial desalination cell still
needs periodic maintenance of the cell (in terms of washing the
ion separation membranes, monitoring the acidity of the solu-
tions, etc.) for cell sustainability.31
MDC CONFIGURATIONS
Stack structure MDC (SMDC)
The efficiency of removing salts from the desalination chamber
and the efficiency of electronic transfer can be improved by using
multiple pairs of electronic exchange membranes (IMS) between
the anode and the cathode chambers. This system is called SMDC.
Figure 2 contains several pairs. A series of separation films further
increases the separation of ion pairs from the brine for each elec-
tron that passes through the circuit.32 Table 3(a)–(d) summarises
the results of research conducted on SMDC.
Choi and Ahn investigated five kinds of stacking connections for
the treatment of household wastewater: series in parallel flow,
parallel in parallel flow, series in series flow, parallel in series flow,
and individual in series flow. According to the findings of their
research, parallel electrode connections in sequence flow mode
produced 15% to 20% greater power production and 80% to
85% higher coulombic efficiency when compared with series con-
nections.33 One of the issues with this design is the increase in the
IEM pairs in the stack that causes the MDC internal resistance to
grow. The resistance inside the MDC stacks rises with the rate of
simultaneous desalination. As a result, the use of stacks improves
the charge transport efficiency and accelerates desalination.34
Thus, the stacked MDC system should be designed to produce
the most energy from exoelectrogens while providing a

wileyonlinelibrary.com/jctb © 2022 Society of Chemical Industry (SCI). J Chem Technol Biotechnol 2022
 Table 3. The SMDC and results found from the research

(a)

J Chem Technol Biotechnol 2022

NaCl concentration
in the middle External TDS
Configuration Anode/cathode material with volumes AEM & CEM Anolyte/catholyte chamber Resistance, (Ω) Power density removal Ref.
−1 −1 6 −2
Stacked MDC Graphite fibre brush, (Mill-Rose Lab Inc., USA) AMV/Asahi glass, Sodium Acetate (1 g L )/ 35 g L 10 1140 mW m 98% 34
with 30 mL/Carbon cloth as air-cathode Japan & Selemion Synthetic Seawater
(30% wetproofed, Eltek, Type B with 18 mL CMV

(b)

NaCl
Anode/cathode concentration in
material with the middle External Coulombic
Configuration volumes AEM & CEM Anolyte/catholyte chamber resistance, (Ω) COD removal efficiency (CE), % Power density TDS removal Ref.

Stacked MDC Carbon graphite DF120/Tianwei Xylose (1 g L−1) in 20 g L−1 101 000 60 ± 2–59 ± 2 49 ± 4–35 ± 1 860 ± 11 76% ± 1–97% 32
fibre brushes with Membrane & 50 mmol L−1 mW m−2 ±1
28 mL/Carbon Ultrex PBS/50 mmol L−1
cloth as air- CMI7000/ PBS buffer
Broad-ranging review: configurations, membrane types, governing equations

cathode (30% wet Membra ne

proofed, BASF, International
USA) with14 mL

© 2022 Society of Chemical Industry (SCI).

(c)

Anode/cathode material NaCl concentration

Configuration with volumes AEM & CEM Anolyte/catholyte in the middle chamber COD removal Power density TDS removal Ref.
−1 −1 −2
Stacked MDC Graphite fibre brush AMV/Asahi glass, Japan Sodium Acetate (1 g L ) in 50 35 g L 55.2 ± 1.7–62.8 ± 0.4 685 mW m 26% ± 0.5% 35
(Mill-Rose Lab Inc., & Selemion CMV mmol L−1 PBS/Synthetic Seawater
USA) with 160 (35 g L−1 NaCl)
www.soci.org

mL/Carbon cloth as
air-cathode30% wet
proofed) with 53 mL

wileyonlinelibrary.com/jctb
5
 www.soci.org HH Abd-almohi, ZT Alismaeel, MJM Ridha

significant decrease in the system's internal resistance. If more

than one chamber is used between both poles, the pH imbalance

Ref.

31

36
between the anode and the cathode chambers may also affect
MDC efficiency.35
Shehab et al. discovered that its anode chamber pH inside the
SMDC structure dropped from about 7.03 to 6.30, and the cathode
desalination rate)

chamber pH increased from around 7.40 to 11.60.36

−1

90.8 ± 8.3
TDR (total

In another article by Qu et al.,35 they found that extending the

25.2 mg L

mg h−1
salt solution's hydraulic retention period from 1 to 2 days when
using four hydraulically linked MDCs improved salt removal rates
from about 76% to 97%; meanwhile. the coulombic efficiency
declined from about 49% to 35%. This finding shows that increas-
ing the number of MDC units may improve desalination
efficiency.
TDS removal

According to the requirements of SMDC's alternate AEM and

99.4%

CEM stacks, when compared with a standard MDC reactor, the

desalination rate increases by 40%. Furthermore, the charge
transfer that is efficient for energy recovery and ionic pair separa-
tion have been improved.35

Recirculation MDC
resistance,
External

1–1000

The pH imbalance in the anode chamber is caused by the ion sep-

10

aration membranes. As a result, these membranes were blocked,

leading to the non-transfer of protons to the cathode chamber,
which in turn caused the production of hydroxyl because of the
reduction reaction and pH imbalance.24,37,38 The buffer that is
NaCl concentration in

added in the anode and cathode chambers of the MDC system

the middle chamber

may be financially costly. Thus, a technique known as re-

−1

5 g L−1

circulation MDC (rMDC) has helped reduce the anolyte and cath-
20 g L

olyte without using buffer (Fig. 3) by successively recirculating

the cathode and anode chamber solutions in the cell for pH neu-
tralisation. New studies have shown the difference in the produc-
tivity of rMDC and other cells that produced rMDC cells after
adding 50 mmol L−1 of phosphate buffer solution (PBS) and gave
Potassium phosphate

30% greater power density. Another study added 25 mmol L−1 of

(2 g L−1)/Phosphate
Anolyte/catholyte

Phosphate buffered
Sodium Acetate

PBS and produced a 53% increase in power density. Therefore,

(100 mmol L−1)
Buffer solution
salts solutions
Sodium acetate
(1.64 g L−1)/

increasing the buffer solution concentration does not always

improve power density, and an optimal buffer concentration
should be provided. Recirculation also improved the desalination
performance by 48% and 13% for the 25 and 33 mmol L−1 PBS
solutions, respectively.38
Kim and Logan studied the possibility of exchanging oxygen
Membrane & Ultrex

with valuation hydrogen to improve the coulomb efficiency of

CMI7000/Me brane

the cell. One of the most important things that must be empha-
AEM & CEM

International
DF120/Tianwei

sised is that the recycling process must happen in very thin tubes
to avoid the appearance of equal potentials in the anode and
cathode chambers.32 Table 4 summarises the results on rMDC.
—

Microbial electrolysis desalination cell (MEDC)

The multi-chamber MDC in Fig. 4, for which several configurations
Carbon brushes (Gordon
Anode/cathode material

Commerce, CA, USA)/

Carbon felt as bioanode
with 21.1 mL/Carbon
cloth as air-cathode

Eltek, Type B, BASF)

have been proposed, provides energy production, wastewater

Brush Mfg. Co. Inc.,
(30% wetproofed,
with volumes

desalination, and useful by-gas production. A system named

Carbon cloth

microbial electrolysis desalination cell (MEDC), which consisted

with 7.1 mL

of MDC coupling with microbial electrolysis cells (MEC), was pro-

posed and helped provide useful chemical products. In 2010,
Table 3. Continued

Luo et al. and Mehanna et al. carried out the first research that clar-
ified the principle of MDC, where the system consists of three
chambers (anode, desalination, and cathode). The anode cham-
Configuration

Stacked MDC

Stacked MDC

ber is separated from the cathode chamber by AEM, and the cath-
ode and desalination chambers are separated by CEM. The results
obtained are presented as follows: the desalination percentage
(d)

was 68% (20 g L−1 NaCl) and 98.8% (10 g L−1 NaCl), and the
6

wileyonlinelibrary.com/jctb © 2022 Society of Chemical Industry (SCI). J Chem Technol Biotechnol 2022
Broad-ranging review: configurations, membrane types, governing equations www.soci.org

resistance due to the aggregation of dissolved solids, they must be replaced

e- frequently.46,47 In 2012, Forrestal et al. proposed the cMCD sys-
e-
tem, where the MDC system was combined with CDI (capacitive
deionised), which was inserted in the form of adsorptive activated
carbon ACC as electrodes and CEM between the middle chamber
NaOH H++O2 and the cathode chamber to obtain 69.4% of the products of salt
Co2
H2O + NaCl Cl - separation of the adsorbed ions and without increasing the salts
in the cathode and anode chambers.27 Here, the ions are trans-
ferred from the middle chamber to the cathode chamber and

Sea water
AEM

CEM
H+ are kept in electrical double layers. The transfer of ions from the
desalination chamber prevents them from entering the anode
HCl H2O and cathode chambers, thus helping reduce the pH imbalance.
organic This work obtained results that were 18 times higher than those
Na+
maers obtained using conventional capacitive deionisation processes.46
Some research has been conducted on the establishment of the
anode
MDC-MCDI system, and this has assisted in treating the liquid
waste generated through MDC. The reduction in energy con-
Air Cathode sumed by MCDI was advantageous for the system, which was pro-
pump
vided with an energy source through a different group of MDCs
Figure 3. Recirculation microbial desalination cell (rMDC). whose connection is in series or in parallel. The results were
obtained with the desalination rate as high as 3.7 mg h−1 in paral-
lel connection.48
Stoll et al. used an MCDC plant to process shale gas generated
amount of hydrogen produced spontaneously was 0.16 and
water while also removing salt from salt water. This batch micro-
1.5 m3 m−3 day−1, respectively.38,39 The system was developed
bial reactor removed 6.4 mg of organic matter per hour and desa-
by introducing a device called microbial electrolysis and chemical
linated at 0.036 g salt per gram carbon electrode.49
production cell (MEDCC), thus inserting a bipolar membrane
Capacitive MDCs make use of the capacitive and deionisation
between the AEM and anode chamber. The device must be
principles. These essential concepts must be understood.
inserted to treat the pH imbalance in the system that resulted
Double-layered capacitors are formed on the surface of the elec-
from the introduction of ion separation membranes. The ion
trodes and salts are removed from electrodes on a continuous
migration from the desalination chamber to the anode chamber
or periodic basis. Ion migration is made less difficult when the pol-
and cathode chamber resulted in a reduction of the pH in the
lution of the electrodes decreases. A total of 69.4% of the salinity is
anode chamber and an increase of pH in the cathode cham-
removed.48,50 Table 6 summarises the results on capacitive MDCs.
ber.40–42
The MEDCC consist of four chambers: anode, acid production, Upflow MDC (UMDC)
desalination, and cathode chambers. H+ ions are separated from
The system (Fig. 6) consists of a tubular unit separated by an IEM.
the anolyte to the acid-producing chamber and form the acid.
The inner cavity is filled with graphite particles, which help
OH− moves from the acid-producing chamber to the anolyte,
increase the surface area for oxidation processes and microbes
and this process neutralises the pH of the anolyte solution.43
by keeping them in suspension to help oxidise organic materials
The membrane ion separation (AEM-CEM) BPM was used
with higher efficiency. It is replacing the anode chamber sur-
between the anode chamber and the desalination chamber (first
rounded by a tube with anion and cation exchange membranes,
type) or between the cathode chamber and the desalination
which represent the desalting chamber and the cathode, respec-
chamber (second type), and is called BPM - AEM - CEM or BAC
tively. This design helps increase the surface area for saline water
mode. Chen et al. obtained a 43% increase in desalination rate
treatment.51,52 In this system form, the cathode chamber was
with an estimated value (0.58 mmol h−1) with the use of AC mode
replaced with a carbon cloth around the reactor that surrounded
and 1.5 mm membrane space.44
the desalination chamber, which consisted of a mixture of plati-
In addition, MDC can be combined with a metal reduction reac-
num and carbon. The flow of saline water enters from the bottom
tion to aid in the separation of heavy metals present in wastewa-
of the system and comes out desalinated at the top. The water can
ter. For example, An et al. used a four-chamber MDC, which was
be desalinated with an efficiency of 100% using hydro osmosis
achieved by using a membrane (AEM) between the cathode
technology with UMDC. The UMDC system is one of the most suc-
chamber and the (CEM) membrane to avoid the rest of the cham-
cessful systems in controlling the pH imbalance.52–54
bers; the copper (II) was treated in industrial water in the cathode
Jacobson et al. studied the possibility of power generation and
chamber at a removal rate 0.941, the maximum removal of salts
continuous water desalination using another configuration of
from the desalination chamber reached 43.9%; while the highest
the microbial desalination cell system (UMDC), using synthetic
current density was 2 A m-2-.45 Table 5 summarises results in half
wastewater (Phosphate buffered Sodium Acetate) with 500 mL
cell coupled MDCs.
and acidified water with 350 mL as anolyte and catholyte solu-
tions, respectively; the initial TDS concentration in the middle
Capacitive MDC chamber was 30 g L−1, the maximum power obtained was
Na+ and Cl− are transported from the desalination chamber to the 30 800 mW m−3, and 99% of water desalination was achieved.55
cathode and anode chambers through the ionic membranes to Jacobson et al. used synthetic wastewater containing acetate
precipitate in the anolyte and the catholyte (Fig. 5). Considering (35 g L−1) with 1.9 L and acidified water as anolyte solution and
that the use of solutions in other experiments may be impossible catholyte solution in the system, respectively; the middle
7

J Chem Technol Biotechnol 2022 © 2022 Society of Chemical Industry (SCI). wileyonlinelibrary.com/jctb
 8

Table 4. Summarizes rMDC and the result of the researches

wileyonlinelibrary.com/jctb
Coulombic
Anode/Cathode Desalination External efficiency Total desalination COD Power Desalination
Configuration material with volume AEM & CEM Anolyte & catholyte chamber resistance,ꭥ (CE), % rate (TDR) removal, (%) density efficiency Ref.

rMDC Carbon cloth DF120/Tianwei Xylose (1 20 g L−1 1000 22 ± 2, 25 — 79 ± 4, 931 ± 34 ± 1, 37 ± 40

as air-cathode Membrane & Ultrex g L−1) in 25 or ±1 78 ± 3 29 2
(30% wet CMI7000/Membra 50 mmol L−1 PBS & mW
proofed, ne International 25 or 50 mmol L−1 m−2
BASF, US) with 14 PBS
mL/Carbon cloth
www.soci.org

as air-cathode
(30% wet
proofed,
BASF, US) with 14
ml
rMDC Activated Carbon 1.8 mol kg−1, Phosphate buffered 10 g L−1 150, 100, 124.4 95.4 mg h−1 — 11 800 93.4 41
granules Shanghua, China & Sodium 50 and 10 mW m−3
Weishimei 2.0 mol kg−1, Acetate
Environmenta Shanghua, China (1.64 g L−1) &
l Technology Co., Ltd., Phosphate

© 2022 Society of Chemical Industry (SCI).

China) with 675 buffered
mL/Activated sodium
carbon granules as bicarbonate
biocathode + ammonium
(Weishimei chloride +
Environmental
Technology Co.,
Ltd., China) with
338 mL

J Chem Technol Biotechnol 2022

HH Abd-almohi, ZT Alismaeel, MJM Ridha
Broad-ranging review: configurations, membrane types, governing equations
resistance
e-
Na+
N N
Sea water
BPM
AEM
CEM
BPM
Cl-
OH- H+ OH- H+
HCL
Figure 4. Microbial electrolysis
production cell.
chamber used real seawater, the maximum power obtained was
38 900 mW m−3, and 73.8% of water desalination was achieved.51
Osmotic MDC
The MDC (Fig. 7) was developed with the principle of forward
osmosis (FO) by replacing the ion separation membranes with
FO membranes similar to those used in the ion separation process
from the desalination chamber to the anode and cathode cham-
bers.32,56 This MDC configuration achieved wastewater treatment
by transferring water from the anode chamber to the desalination
chamber and from the cathode chamber to the desalination
chamber. This process decreases the concentration of salts in
the desalination chamber. This method still contains many chal-
lenges that should be solved, as its overlays are subject to fouling
and can increase the internal resistance of the system.
According to Pardeshi et al., the efficiency of an FO membrane
consolidated inside an MFC that uses dextrose as a source was
investigated, and they discovered a power density of
27.38 W m−3.57
Zhang and He created a two-membrane bio-electrochemical
reactor with a hydraulically linked OsMFC and MDC. While using
the diluting and desalination possibilities in OsMFC and MDC, this
combination demonstrated a considerably higher desalination
efficiency of 95.9% and a power output of 0.160 kWh m−3.58
Zhang and He used sodium acetate with sodium bicarbonate
and sodium chloride as anolyte solution, potassium ferricyanide
as catholyte solution, and 10 g L−1 initial concentration of NaCl
in the middle chamber. While using the diluting and desalination
possibilities in OsMFC, this combination demonstrated a consider-
ably higher desalination efficiency of 57.8%.50
Bipolar membrane MDC
The system (Fig. 8) consists of an MDC with an anion-selective
dipolar membrane and cation-selective membrane together as a
single membrane. The increase in the migration of Na and Cl ions
from the middle chamber of the system helps increase the desa-
lination of water in the middle chamber. These membranes are
always exposed to organic and biological fouling that increase
the internal resistance of the system. One of the reasons may be
that the dirt on the membranes is exposed to wastewater in the
J Chem Technol Biotechnol 2022
www.soci.org
anolyte solution. A bipolar membrane can be usually added next
to the anode chamber, thereby forming a fourth chamber that
e-
NaOH helps reduce the pH in the system.32,59 The main advantages of
using a bipolar membrane are its long life duration, and the min-
imal voltage drop and resistance when separating the water;
Na+
H++O2 increasing the ion-exchange membrane capacity of a membrane
would increase the desalination efficiency from 50% to 63%,
improve the anode pH balance, and yield columbic effectiveness
Sea water
ranges from 62% to 97%. The disadvantage of using a bipolar
AEM
CEM
membrane for MDC is that, in order to divide water into hydroxyl
H2O ions inside the anolyte and H+ in the catholyte, an external power
supply is needed, thus bringing a high cost to this type of MDC.5,53
Cl-
Decoupled MDC
This form of MDC was developed to solve the problem of chang-
ing the volume of liquid needed in the anode or cathode cham-
bers or to avoid the need for maintenance. The anode and
cathode units are placed in a saline solution instead of being
desalination and chemical- placed in the chambers. In addition to collecting current, a
stainless-steel mesh is used and carbon is wrapped with cloth as
the electrode to serve as a support structure.60
Zhang et al. studied the possibility of improving the MDC: car-
bon fibre felt was used as anode and cathode electrodes, as well
as acetate-laden synthetic wastewater with phosphate buffer
(90 mL) with 100 mL and 50 mmol L−1 potassium ferricyanide
with 100 mL as anolyte and catholyte solutions in the system,
respectively. The maximum power obtained was 360 Mw m−2
with 95–98% of water desalination.61
Shehab et al. tried to improve the COD removal in the anode
chamber and increase the desalination efficiency: phosphate
buffered with sodium acetate (1 g L−) with 30 mL and brackish
water with 18 mL were used as anolyte solution and catholyte
solution in the system, respectively. The maximum COD removal
obtained was 78% in the anode chamber and93–100 % TDS
removal in the middle chamber.36
Ion-exchange resin coupled MDC (IER-MDC)
The MDC configuration in Fig. 9 helped reduce the ohmic resis-
tance to improve the efficiency of MDC in terms of improving
wastewater treatment and power production in the system. The
addition of mixed anions and cation exchange resins in the
MDC desalination chamber resulted in the conjugation of ion
exchange (r-MDC). These ion exchange resins have given high
conductivity even in low salinity water.24,62,63 The low NaCl con-
centration (2–10 g L−1) increased the desalination rate by 1.5–8
times, and the resistance decreased to 3–4.7 Ω when compared
with conventional MDC resistance (5.5–12.7 Ω), as studied by
Morel et al.64 Each MDC configuration helps overcome one of
the obstacles that reduce the desalination rate and energy pro-
duction in MDC systems.
MDCs in hybrid systems
The efficiency of water desalination can be improved in different
ways, such as by combining several desalination methods (e.g.,
RO, FO, or electrodialysis (ED)). The FO cell depends on the move-
ment of water molecules from the permeable membrane due to
the difference in concentrations between the feeding solution
and the intake solution.65 In an FO-MDC system, an MDC may
function as an after-treatment cell because the intake solution
can flow from the FO cell to the MDC.66,67 This phenomenon
means that a better MDC/FO cell combination may be achieved
by increasing the feed solution flow rate, lowering the HRT, and
9
© 2022 Society of Chemical Industry (SCI). wileyonlinelibrary.com/jctb
 10

Table 5. Summaries of the half cell coupled MDCs and of different research results

Acid production/
Desalination Produced chemical External alkali
chamber & production resistance/ production COD Power density/
Anolyte/catholyte with Anode/cathode material fed NaCl volume/ coulombic chamber removal, desalination
Configuration volumes and AEM/CEM material concentration recovery, (%) efficiency (CE), % electrolyte (%) efficiency, (%) Ref.

wileyonlinelibrary.com/jctb
MEDC 50 mmol L−1 Carbon cloth (type A; 5 or 20 g L−1 H2 10/ — 38 ± 3, 54 ± 4 — 42
Phosphate buffer ETEK)/Carbon cloth & 48 ± 4,
solution/50 mmol L−1 (type B-1B; ETEK) (6.5 ± 1.4) mL/44 38 ± 3
PBS buffer And ± 10, (2.7 ± 1.0)
AMI-7001/CMI-7000 mL/15
±4
MEDC Phosphate buffered Graphite Brushes 10 g L−1 H2 10/— — — — 38
Sodium Acetate (Golden brush, &
(1 g L−1) with CA)/Stainless 48.7 mL/72
25 mL/50 mmol L−1 steel mesh (Type 304,
www.soci.org

phosphate buffer with 36 mL McMaster, IL)

&
AMI-7001/CMI – 7000
MEDCC Phosphate buffered Graphite brush/Carbon 10 g L−1 (10 Acid and 10/— 10 mL of 10 62–97 • /− 47
Sodium Acetate cloth with Pt (30% Wet mL) Alkali g L−1 NaCl
(1 g L−1) with 30 mL/30 mL proofed) &
of 10 g L−1 NaCl with & 2.1 ± 0.7
30 mL Ultrex AMI-7001/Ultrex mmol
CMI-7000 (AP)/75,
206 ± 0.9

© 2022 Society of Chemical Industry (SCI).

MEDCC Phosphate buffered Graphite 35 g L−1 Acid and 10/>95% 14 g L−1 of NaCl — —/63% 47
Sodium Acetate Brush/Carbon Alkali solution
(1 g L−1) with 30 mL/ cloth (30% wet proofed) &
Deionized water with & 0.079 ±
15 mL UltrexAMI-7001/ 0.006
UltrexCMI-7000 mmol h−1 (AP),
0.13
± 0.02 mmol h−1
(A’P)
MEDCC Sodium Acetate Carbon brush/Fabricated 35 g L−1 Acid 10/113 ± 9 1 g L−1 of NaCl — — 49
(1 g L−1) in 50 using Dong et al. & Solution
Mm PBS with 336 mL/1 g L−1 method (Dong et al., —
of NaCl solution with 2012 & Ultrex AMI-
1 g L−1 7001, MI, USA/Ultrex
CMI-7000, MI, USA

J Chem Technol Biotechnol 2022

HH Abd-almohi, ZT Alismaeel, MJM Ridha
Broad-ranging review: configurations, membrane types, governing equations
resistance
Na+
Acetate N Ferri cya nide
Cl-
AEM
CEM
Co2
Na+
Cl-
N reduction process at the cathode and aid in the transmission of
microbes
OH- H+ OH-
Sea water
Figure 5. Capacitive microbial desalination cell.
increasing NaCl concentration initially. Yuan et al. studied the effi-
ciency of COD removal and desalination when placing the MDC
before and after the FO cell. MDC-OF achieved 93% of COD
removal and 99.4% TDS removal; OF-MDC achieved 65.4% of
TDS removal and 90% of COD removal.66 MEDCC is an MDC con-
figuration used with RO cells to desalinate seawater with acid pro-
duction. RO cells purify water by forcing water molecules to move
in the opposite direction of natural osmosis.68 Luo et al.65 studied
the performance efficiency of the RO-MEDCC system by examin-
ing two different sizes of membranes (15, 1.5 mm) inside MEDCCs:
RO-MEDCC provided 79% and 86% desalination rates, 4.1 and
7 A m−2 current densities, and 77% and 127% of CE, respectively.
MDC treatment can be used as a pre-treatment of water before
the ED cell. An ED cell works to desalinate seawater by applying
an external electrical voltage to force the charges (anion, cation)
to move towards the anode and cathode electrodes.69 The four
phases of procedure can possibly take place in four MDCs with
five chambers each in the MDC-ED system. Once the stages have
been linked, an ED cell is added to the experiment. MDC-ED
achieved 92.2% of COD removal, 76.5% removal of saline in
MDC, and 30.4% saline removal in ED cell.70
MDC PARTS
Types and shapes of electrodes
Electrodes in the anode and cathode chambers are some of the
most important parts of the MDC system. Basic materials, such
as carbon felt electrodes, carbon cloth electrodes, carbon brush
electrodes, graphite granule electrodes, graphite fibre granules
electrodes, graphite rod electrodes, and carbon fibre felt, are gen-
erally used as electrodes in MDC (Fig. 10).71
The electrodes used in the MDC system should be very conduc-
tive, non-corrosive, have a large specific surface area (area per vol-
ume), and be a highly porous, non-fouling material that is
inexpensive and can be easily made and scaled to larger sizes.71
Nanostructured materials, including 3D carbon black, carbon
nanotubes (CNT), porous carbon, graphene, and polyanilines,
are beneficial for modifying or implementing standard carbon-
structured electrode materials, such as graphene and polyani-
lines. The alteration of anodes with metals or their oxide-based
nanocomposites reduced ohmic loss and improved bacterial cell
adherence. For example, a new anode made of Fe3O4, with a
power density of 830 mW m−3, was produced recently. Hematite
J Chem Technol Biotechnol 2022
www.soci.org
was coated with electrodes, a process that is inexpensive and
straightforward. As a result, the efficiency of S. oneidensis was sig-
nificantly improved, and the current density in MDC was nearly six
times greater than that of an unprocessed electrode.72 Using
rGO/SnO2-CC hybrid nanocomposite electrode as an anode, the
power density of 1624 mWm−2, which was 4.8 times more than
that of a unprocessed electrode, was attained.73 An increase in
specific surface area was largely responsible for the improved per-
formance. The hybrid composite also improved bacterial adhe-
sion and electron transfer efficiency due to greater
biocompatibility. Amongst the many functions of the hybrid elec-
Ferrocya nide trode system, the Ni nanoparticles can be catalysts for the oxygen
electrons from Escherichia coli.74 Exoelectrogenic bacteria adhe-
H+
sion has been improved using a composite electrode that consists
of reduced graphene oxide–manganese oxide coated on carbon
felt (rGO-MnO2-CF). This electrode attained a power density of
2065 mW m−2. The greatest power density of 2143 mW m−2 is
generated by using stainless-steel fibre felt (SSFF) coated on a thin
graphene film as an anode material in MDC,75,76 Table 7 summa-
rises the electrode materials used in MDC and MFC for bioelectric-
ity generation.
Types of membrane
Generally, IEMs consist of arrays on which groups of ions (which
are either positively charged or negatively charged) are attached
(Fig. 11). These membranes are either anion exchange mem-
branes (AEMs) or cation exchange membranes (CEMs).77 The most
important thing that distinguishes MDC from MFC is the use of
ionic separation membranes, which help transfer ions (anions
and cations) from the desalination chamber to the anode and
cathode chambers. Zuo et al. used a cellulose acetate membrane
in an experiment and achieved 62% of TDS removal.78 The main
compounds that can be removed by IEM in the MDCs are sum-
marised in Table 8. The IEM prevents large bacteria cells from
transferring (for example, Nitrosoarchaeum limnia and Photo-
trophic eukaryotes).79 One of the biggest problems caused by bac-
teria is biofouling, which prevents the maximum performance of
MDC for an extended period. The hydrogen sulphide produced
by bacteria (Pseudomonas and Desulfovibrio) causes corrosion in
the ultrafiltration membrane. All these problems call for mainte-
nance during the operation process. One of the main H2O dissoci-
ations in MDC during operation in the current density being low.
Catholyte and anolyte solution
Given that the toxicity of the solutions used in the cathode cham-
ber prevents the development of the system, the catholyte solu-
tion is the most important obstacle in the development of the
MDC system. Therefore, some research has been conducted to
address this problem by reducing the use of a concentration of
PBS, which is a non-buffer saline solution and biocathode.80 A
total of 0.1 M phosphate buffer was used as catholyte, which
exhibited 9.87% efficiency in removing COD of the salts from
the wastewater.81 Sodium percarbonate solution was used with
a concentration of 0.05 M as the catholyte, and it provided a
COD removal efficiency of 14.74% of TDS.82 The wastewater in
the MDC anode chamber contains many components that may
be harmful in high concentrations (e.g., boron,83 phenol,84,85
nickel, lead,86 arsenic)87. Many types of wastewater, including
those produced from petroleum refining processes and wastewa-
ter from paper factories and wetlands, can be treated.88,89 Don-
11
nan dialysis (DD) was used to remove boron by adding
© 2022 Society of Chemical Industry (SCI). wileyonlinelibrary.com/jctb
 12

Table 6. Summaries of capacitive microbial desalination cell and research results

Coulombic Total COD Power density/

Anode/cathode material and Desalination chamber efficiency External desalination removal, desalination
Configuration Anolyte/catholyte with volumes AEM/CEM Material fed NaCl Concentration (CE), % resistance rate (TDR) (%) efficiency, (%) Ref

wileyonlinelibrary.com/jctb
−1 −1
MDC-MCDI Phosphate buffered Sodium Acetate Carbon felt/Carbon felt and 10 g L — 200 3.7 mg h — —/74.4 45
(1.6 g L−1)/Phosphate buffered AMI 7001S; Membranes
Sodium Acetate (1.6 g L−1) International, USA/CMI-7000S;
Membranes International, USA
cMDC Phosphate buffered Sodium Acetate Graphite Brush (Golden Brush, CA)/ Salt solution comprising — — — — —/74.4 54
(1.6 g L−1) with 23 mL/Phosphate Carbon cloth as air-cathode (30% of Sodium Chloride,
buffered Potassium Chloride (10 wet Proofed) and Assembly: Sodium Phosphate
g L−1) with 27 mL CEM/ACC/Ni or Cu (CMXSB, Astom and Sodium
Corporation, Japan; activated Biphosphate
carbon cloth (McMaster Carr, IL);
www.soci.org

cMDC Phosphate buffered Sodium Acetate
(1.6 g L−1) with
23 mL/50 mmol L−1 Ferricyanide
Solution with 27 mL
Ni or Cu mesh current)/Assembly:
(Ni or Cu/ACC/CEM/Ni or Cu)
mesh current; activated carbon
cloth/CMXSB, Astom Corporation,
Japan)
Activated Carbon Cloth (ACC) 10 g L−1 — 1 — — —/69.4 25
(Chemviron Carbon, UK/Same as
anode Electrode and Assembly:
AEM/Ni or Cu/ACC (AMX, Astom
Corporation, Japan)/Ni or Cu

© 2022 Society of Chemical Industry (SCI).

mesh current collector/activated
carbon cloth/Assembly: CEM/Ni or
Cu/ACC (CMX, Astom Corporation,
Japan)/Ni or Cu mesh current
collector/activated carbon cloth
MCDC with CDI Phosphate buffered Sodium Acetate Carbon fibre brush as bioanode Produced water — — — — —/70 55
module inside DC (1.6 g L−1) with 23 mL/Sodium (Gordon Brush, CA)/Carbon cloth
phosphate buffer as air cathode (30% Teflon
coated) and No AEM used.
Another CEM was inserted at
place of AEM./CMX-SB, Astom
Corporation, Japan

J Chem Technol Biotechnol 2022

HH Abd-almohi, ZT Alismaeel, MJM Ridha
Broad-ranging review: configurations, membrane types, governing equations www.soci.org

wastewater effluent

sea water effluent

anode

Reci rculaon
Ca thode

s eawater influent
wastewater influent

Figure 6. Upflow microbial desalination cell.

Organics Cl -
Ferri cya nide
seawater

CEM
FO

Figure 9. Ion-exchange resin coupled microbial desalination cell.

Na+ Ferrocya nide

CO2 H2O Axenic Pseudomonas aeruginosa has been used alone in an
a node ca thode anode chamber of MDC that can remove 94% of phenol, 77% of
COD, and 64% of TDS.85
Figure 7. Osmotic microbial desalination cell.
Pseudomonas putida with sludge for phenol removal eliminated
82% of phenol, 70% of COD, and 68% of the TDS.84
Nickel and lead residues from industrial processes may affect
the environment. Mirzaienia et al.86 studied the conditions of
V nickel and lead removal and found that 74.5% of nickel and
75.1% of lead were removed for a maximum of 100 mg L−1
removal.
Malakootian et al.87 studied the removal of arsenic (a highly
toxic compound) from wastewater by using an MDC that
Organics Cl - achieved 75% of arsenic removal in ideal conditions. However,
Ferri cyanide in real wastewater, the ammonia affected the anaerobic digestion
and the performance of the desalination process.90
Acid chamber

seawater
AEM
BPM

CEM

Nannochloropsis salina algae can be used in the cathode cham-

CO2
OH- H+
a node
Figure 8. Bipolar membrane microbial desalination cell.
sodium hydroxide as catholyte (boron is considered toxic at a
concentration of 2.5/L in water), and this resulted in the
removal of 20–25% of boron. Before and after the MDC used
Donnan dialysis, 42–40% and 30–40% of boron were
removed,83 respectively.
ber and improve the TDS removal. This type of algae results in
Ferrocya nide 45% removal of NaCl with 35 g L−1 initial concertation, 79%
Na+
removal of NaCl with 17.5 g L−1 initial concertation, and 46%
cathode removal of NaCl with 8.25 g L−1 initial concertation and 90% of
nitrite.91,92
As shown in an experiment, Debaryomyces hansenii yeast has a
desalination rate of 29.17% for salty water with NaCl when the
substrate utilised was 1.5 times as much as the bacterial culture
in the anode. It may also help degrade organic materials in the
anodic chamber to increase the desalination rate.93
In the anolyte solution, many microorganism cells can oxidise
organic materials in wastewater in the anode chamber of MDC.
13

Studies are still focused on identifying the organism that provides

J Chem Technol Biotechnol 2022 © 2022 Society of Chemical Industry (SCI). wileyonlinelibrary.com/jctb
 www.soci.org HH Abd-almohi, ZT Alismaeel, MJM Ridha

Figure 10. The basic materials of the electrode.

the best oxidation or reduction processes for organic materials to
produce electrons in MDC. The following challenges must be con-
sidered. The growth of living organisms under anaerobic condi-
tions, since the presence of any oxygen during the growth of
living organisms is toxic and discourages the growth of microor-
ganisms.82 When treating real wastewater, difficulties are encoun-
tered in obtaining the required bacterial growth during the
treatment process because microorganisms other than the added
organisms can also grow and because the growth of organisms
depends on the imprinting of microorganisms on the wastewater.
The process of transferring electrons from living organisms takes
place in three ways (Fig. 12): Firstly, electrons are transferred to
the growth medium, to the anode, and then through the external
circuit to the cathode. Secondly, electrons are transmitted
through a terminal protein attached to the outer surface of the
microorganism cells (Geobacteraceae species contains cyto-
chromes attached to the cell surface responsible for transfer elec-
trons, while Shewanella oneidensis has the same cytochrome;
nevertheless, an anaerobic condition is essential).94 Thirdly, the
anode attaches directly to the cells, transferring electrons without

Table 7. Summary of electrode materials used in MDC and MFC for bioelectricity generation

Anode Cathode Power density mW m−2 Reference

Graphite fibre brush Iron phthalocyanine/Pirlindole/Carbon 799 ± 41 84

nanotubes (FePc/PID/CNT)
Carbon mesh treated with ammonia Carbon cloth 1015 85
Ni-ACFs/CNFs Ni-ACFs/CNFs 1145 ± 20 81
Carbon fibre brush Iron-rich nanoparticle encapsulated, 1227 86
nitrogen doped porous carbon materials
Alumina and nickel nanoparticles-dispersed Polymer-Alumina and nickel nanoparticles 1270 ± 30 87
multi-scale web of activated carbon fibre dispersed multi-scale web of activated
and carbon nanofibers carbon fibre and carbon nanofiber
Porous carbon with a defined pore size Air cathode 1606 88
GO-SnO2 Pt rod 1624 80
Graphite plates Graphite plate 1771 89
Reduced graphene oxide (rGO) and Carbon brush 2065 90
manganese oxide (MnO2) coated on
carbon felt
Carbon brush Carbon cloth 2110 91
Graphene coated stainless steel fibre felt Carbon felt 2142 92
Carbon felt Fe-N-C 2437 93
Nitrogen-depend porous carbon cloth Carbon brush 2777.7 94
3D-carbon black/stainless steel fibre felt Graphite plate 3215 ± 80 12
14

wileyonlinelibrary.com/jctb © 2022 Society of Chemical Industry (SCI). J Chem Technol Biotechnol 2022
Broad-ranging review: configurations, membrane types, governing equations www.soci.org

Figure 11. Mechanism of anion-exchange membranes.

the need for an intermediary when using a cell immobilisation ability to transfer electrons to the anode electrodes without
method. The microorganisms that produce an electrical current the need for an electron acceptor. The age and thickness of
by oxidising the substrate and transferring it through the outer the biofilms are amongst the most important factors that affect
circuit to the cathode chamber are called exoelectrogenic. The the production of electrical energy and the treatment of waste-
high-performance efficiency of MDC depends on the optimal water because it can prevent the penetration of the
growth of a microorganism.Exoelectrogenic bacteria were found
in the sludge of a wastewater facility and biogas plant. Exoelectro-
genic bacteria use glucose and wastewater as carbon sources
(substrate) in MDC.95–99. Bacteria use their metabolic process to
oxidise the substrate and produce power. The quantity of gener-
ated power is determined by the choice of exoelectrogen and
the integration technique in the MDC system.33

Biofilm in MDCs
In the anode chamber, electrons are produced from the avail-
able bacteria in wastewater that produce electrons directly
without the need for an intermediary because they convert
the organic materials in the wastewater into electrical
energy.100 Another characteristic of these bacteria is their

Table 8. Compounds and wastewaters that can be removed by

MDCs

Compound or
wastewater target of
removal Removal, % Ref.

Boron 20–30% 132

Phenol 62–94% depending on the 134, 133
culture used in the anode
chamber
Nickel 74.5% 135
Lead 75.1% 135
Arsenic 75% 99
Ammonia 88% 136
Nitric 90% 91, 139
Sodium 84.2% 140
Chlorine 58.25% 140
NaCl 8.92–79% depending on the 93
anolyte and catholyte
Salts 9.87–32% depending on the 130
type of buffer used in the
anolyte and catholyte
Petroleum refinement 19.9% 141, 11
wastewater Figure 12. The process of transferring electrons from living organisms
15

takes place in three ways.94

J Chem Technol Biotechnol 2022 © 2022 Society of Chemical Industry (SCI). wileyonlinelibrary.com/jctb
 www.soci.org
Figure 13. Stages of biofilm formation on a surface.147
substrate.100 Figure 13 describes the growth of microorganisms
on the electrode in the anode chamber. The first process of
accumulating microorganisms on the electrodes is the bonding
of microorganisms together through their adherence to a
mucilage-like substance secreted by microorganisms.101 Here,
the sticky substance consists of polysaccharides and proteins
known as slime. Colonies form bound structures on the surface
of the electrodes due to the suitability of the surface and to the
environmental conditions in the chamber, where the cells
adhere to each other before they adhere to the electrodes. A
detached stage leaves behind a hollow mound that leads to
the termination of the biofilm. These stages can be detected
in order using SEM analysis.102 Table 9 defines the microorgan-
isms and the TDS removal in MDC is shown in Table 10.
MDC CATHODIC TYPES
Air catholyte
The chemical electron acceptor can be replaced with pure oxygen
from a the broad range of sources. Since it is free and ecologically
acceptable, oxygen from the air may be employed as an electron
acceptor in the cathode chamber (Fig. 14).103 Mehanna et al. used
(Pt/C) electrodes and the results obtained from the air cathode
MDC showed a decrease in the water–salt conductivity to 43%.
On the other hand, it gave good results in producing the maxi-
mum power density and columbic efficiency of 480 Mw m−2
and (68 ± 11) %, respectively.5
Compared with the other catholytes used, the use of air cathode
in the MDC showed a slowdown in the kinetics of the oxidation–
reduction reaction in ambient conditions and in the equipment
required to maintain dissolved oxygen levels in the cathode
chamber. This may be one of the most important reasons for
using catalysts, such as platinum, to improve the oxidation and
reduction processes. The main advantage of using air cathode
16
modification in the MDC is its high reduction potential. Oxygen
wileyonlinelibrary.com/jctb © 2022 Society of Chemical Industry (SCI).
HH Abd-almohi, ZT Alismaeel, MJM Ridha
acts as terminal acceptor, so that would be environmentally
sustainable.4
Biocathode
It has been discussed how the use of chemicals is harmful and
economically costly. In addition, they must be replaced periodi-
cally, and they are not considered a sustainable source to be used
as catalysts or as catholytes in the MDC. The use of electrically
active bacteria as a cathode can help collect electrons in the cath-
ode biofilm and improve the oxidation–reduction process
(Fig. 15). The density power production depends on the density
growth of biofilm, and biofilm growth is applied in the anode
chamber to produce more optimised cells that help reduce the
start-up time. Table 11 presents the research that used the bio-
cathode as catholyte solution. Wen et al. investigated the bio-
cathode used in MDC with aerobic conditions, and the carbon
felt that increased the voltage produced compared with that volt-
age produced by the air cathode. When biocathode was used, the
voltage produced in MDC 136 mV, 92% salinity removal, and
96.2% coulombic efficiency.104–108
Depending on the type of terminal electron acceptor being uti-
lized in the cathode chamber can be divided into aerobic and
anaerobic cathodes. Under anaerobic conditions, oxygen is used
as an oxidant because of its availability and low cost.
Bergel et al. used a seawater biofilm-covered biocathode in MFC
and the results obtained showed a power density of 0.32 W m−2
and a current density of 1.34 A m−2.109
Meng et al built a biocathode for desalination, electricity pro-
duction, and anodic sludge stabilisation. The anodic pH value
was between 6.6 and 7.6,and it had ±1.14% and 40.74 ± 0.89%
desalination rates, initial NaCl concentrations of 5 and 10 g L−1,
and maximum power outputs of 3.178 W m−3 and 1.118 V in
the open circuit.110
Anaerobic conditions have been intensively studied to avoid
the introduction of dissolved oxygen because the lack of
J Chem Technol Biotechnol 2022
Broad-ranging review: configurations, membrane types, governing equations www.soci.org

Table 9. Microorganisms used and their TDS removal in MDC

Microorganism type TDS removal, % Power intensity Ref.

Debaryomyces hansenii 55% 7.4 mW m−3 93

Mix anaerobic consortia 72.3% 1470 mW m−3 142
Anaerobic sludge from wastewater 74% 4060 mW m−2 143
Proteobacteria 55% 3600 mW m−3 27
Pretreated consortia 80.7% 348 mW m−3 144
Bacillus subtilis 62.2% 150 mW m−3 145
Sludge from wastewater 90.4% 30.85 mW m−3 146
Debaryomyces hansenii yeast 29.17% — 96
Nannochloropsis saline algae Depending on the compound removal — 96
(90% of nitrite removal) and 79% of NaCl
Pseudomonas putida with sludge 82% of phenol removal — 96
Axenic Pseudomonas aeruginosa 64% of NaCl removal and 94% of phenol removal — 96
Only sludge 94% of phenol removal — 133
Pseudomonas putida pure culture 65% of phenol — 134
Pseudomonas aeruginosa 91% of phenol — 133
mixed with sludge in anode

sufficient oxygen in the system may reduce its performance. Nev-
ertheless, anaerobic conditions have shown difficulty and delay in
the processes of separation and power production.111,112
Microbial electrosynthesis, which transforms carbon dioxide
and water into valuable multi-carbon organic molecules, is one
of the most transformational uses of electrography. In the litera-
ture, many methods for creating biocathodes under anaerobic
conditions have been published. One of the few ways established
for producing anaerobic biocathodes that showed tremendous
promise was the inclusion of hydrogen/organic chemicals to
cathodes.113,114
In 2008, Rozendal et al. first investigated a novel anaerobic micro-
bial biocathode system by MDC with a three-phase chamber that
depended on the concept of reversibility of hydrogenases.
Hydrogen production was improved to 0.63 m3 when compared
to the 0.08 m3 production by controlled electrode.115
Wen in 2012, Sharma in 2010 and Sun in 2012 studied a new
technology to reduce the start-up costs of the anaerobic condi-
tions. To speed up the establishment of an anaerobic facultative
autotrophic biocathode, heterotrophic pre-enrichment was cre-
ated. By substituting H2 with the cathode as a source of energy
and electrons, acetogenic bacteria converted CO2 into organic
molecules. Initially, the heterotrophic enrichment of bacteria with
dextrose was conducted via a pre-enrichment technique that was
also based on the facultative autotrophy of anaerobic microor-
ganisms. As a result, microbes were able to transition from being
heterotrophic to autotrophic metabolic by supplying CO2 as the
only source of electron uptake and carbon.107,116,117

Table 10. Summary of the MDC with chemical cathode and the results

TDS removal from

Anode/cathode Anode/cathode Anolyte/desalination/ External Power desalination
Type of MDC volume electrode AEM/CEM catholyte resistance density chamber (%) (Ref.)

Three 11 mL/11 mL Carbon DFI120 or Tianwei Sodium 200 2000 mW m−2 90 21

Chamber Felt/Carbon Membrane/Ultrex Acetate (1.6
MDC Felt CMI7000, g L−1)/5, 20 and 35
Membrane g L−1/Ferricyanide
International
Three — Carbon Cloth, AMI-7001 or Sodium 50–1000 480 mW/m−2 43–67 42
Chamber (BASF, NJ)/30% Membrane Acetate (1
MDC Wetproofed International or 2 g L−1)/(5 g L−1)/
Carbon Cloth + Experimental 50 mmol L−1 PBS
(0.5 mg cm−2 AEM or Aminated Buffer
Pt, 4 layers of Radel R-5500/
PTFE), (type CMI-7000 or
B 1B, E-TEK) Membrane
International +
Experimental
CEM Sulfonated
Radel R-5500
17

J Chem Technol Biotechnol 2022 © 2022 Society of Chemical Industry (SCI). wileyonlinelibrary.com/jctb
 www.soci.org
ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES
OF MDC
The microbial desalination cell (MDC) has introduced a new concept
for desalination processes: producing electrical power with high effi-
ciency and removing COD from wastewater simultaneously. In addi-
tion, it has proven its ability to remove salts and other ions (such as
boron, lead, nickel, etc.) from water, as well as its efficiency in remov-
ing COD from real wastewater (such as oil wastewater, industrial
wastewater, etc.).81,86,87 However, one of the disadvantages of the
microbial desalination cell is the extra chamber that was introduced
into the system, which causes an increase in the internal resistance of
about 10 when compared to the MFC; in addition, the separation of
salt ions in the cell led to an imbalance of pH in the cathode and
anode chambers.118 One of the advantages of the MDC is that it is
environmentally friendly if non-chemical catholyte solutions are
used. Extensive research and studies in the field of MDC have shown
different configurations and cathodic types of energy production
and wastewater treatment. Table 12 provides a summary of the ben-
efits and disadvantages of each of the MDC system configuration
Table 13.
FACTORS AFFECTING MDC OPERATION
EFFICIENCY
Effect of illumination
The MDC system (including PMDC, one of the configurations of
the MDC system) is affected by lighting in terms of the growth
of biological microorganisms under dark and light cycles. The
effect of algae growth in batch mode and the amount of dissolved
oxygen and oxygen generated because of algae growth in the
cathode chamber were studied. The total voltage increased at
the beginning after a short period of delay due to the adaptation
of the organisms in the cathode and anode chambers.13 The influ-
ence of light/dark on microorganisms or substrate depletion in
the anode chamber showed a sinusoidal effect of PMDC. During
the dark period, a slight voltage drop occurs because of the lack
of light for the photosynthetic activity in the cathode chamber.
The voltage is restored during the light period due to the photo-
synthetic activity. One of the studies indicated the reason for
e- e-
Load
CEM
AEM
biofilm
- +
Co 2+H ++e+
released
into anolyte
concentraon gradient
anode chamber desalinaon chamber
Cathode chamber
18
Figure 14. Air cathode microbial desalination cell.
wileyonlinelibrary.com/jctb © 2022 Society of Chemical Industry (SCI).
HH Abd-almohi, ZT Alismaeel, MJM Ridha
the slight decrease in voltage in periods of darkness and for the
significant lack of voltage drop. Moreover, the non-
photosynthetic respiration of algae cells produces carbon dioxide,
which is also an electron acceptor.119 Some studies showed that
algae cells did not grow and divide due to the prolonged illumina-
tion. That is, the high intensity of illumination damages the chlo-
roplast plates and disrupts the enzymes responsible for
inhibiting the growth of carbon dioxide. The growth rate of Duna-
liella viridis decreased to 63% with an increase in the intensity of
lighting at around 700–1500 μmol m−2 s−1.120,121
Effect of intermembrane distance
Increasing the distance between the ion separation membranes
in MDC can affect the performance of power production and
desalination rate. A small distance provides a low resistance in
MDC and a large distance between the ion separation mem-
branes leads to higher internal resistance in MDC, but the
increased spacing of the ionic films provides more desalination
volume. The effect of membrane distance (from 0.3–2.5 cm) was
investigated in terms of desalination efficiency; the results pro-
vided a desalination rate that is 12 times higher at a distance of
0.3 cm by 7 at a distance 2.5 cm and a concentration of 10 and
30 g L−1, respectively.60
In later studies, reducing the distance between the membranes
led to high power density and improved the desalination and
high recovery of freshwater.122,32
Effects of electrical set up
Bio-electrochemical reactors can be connected in two ways: series
and parallel. In the MDC system, it is preferable to have a parallel
coupling over a series coupling. The shilling of a series coupling
generates short circuit effects for neighbouring reactors because
of the conductivity of fluids.123 Two connection methods have
been proposed to connect the electrodes of the MDC system.
The first method aims for the combined connection where all
the anode electrodes or cathode electrodes are collected and
made into one pole (either one anode pole or cathode pole) as
the circuit consists of only one external resistance. The second
method refers to individual connection, where an individual elec-
trical circuit is configured for each MDC system and the circuit will
Resistance
Anode
Desalinaon chamber Cathode
Organics
O2+H
O2 +H2
Na +
e-
Seawater
Cl - H 2O
H2 O H ++CO2
AEM CEM Air
Figure 15. Biocathode microbial desalination cell.
J Chem Technol Biotechnol 2022
J Chem Technol Biotechnol 2022
Table 11. Summary of the MDC biocathode configuration

Desalination Power density/

Anolyte/Catholyte with Anode/cathode material chamber fed External Coulombic Total desalination desalination
Configuration volumes and AEM/CEM material NaCl concentrations resistance, (Ω) efficiency (CE), % rate (TDR) COD removal, (%) efficiency, (%) Ref.

Biocathode Sodium Carbon 35 g L−1 200 96.2 ± 3.8 2.83 mg h−1 56.2 ± 6 960 mW m−3 107
MDC Acetate (1.6 Felt/Carbon /92%
g L−1)/Sodium Felt
Acetate. and
49 mL/40 mL AMI 7001S/CMI-7000S
Biocathode Dewatered Graphite fibre 5,10,35 g L−1 1000 — — 25.71 ± 0.15 — 110
MDC Sludge/Soil solution brush/Graphite
in deionized brush
water. embedded in
1400 mL/500 mL graphite
Broad-ranging review: configurations, membrane types, governing equations

granules
and
Ultrex AMI-7001/CEM,

© 2022 Society of Chemical Industry (SCI).

Ultrex CMI-7000
PMDC Synthetic Wastewater with Graphite paper/Graphite 10 g L−1 10 000 — 6.7 mg L−1 65.6 84 mW m−3/40% 149
aerobic sludge with paper and AMI 7001/
180 mL/Mineral CMI 7000
solution with microalgae as
biocatalyst with 180 mL
www.soci.org

wileyonlinelibrary.com/jctb
19
 www.soci.org HH Abd-almohi, ZT Alismaeel, MJM Ridha

consist of no less than 30 external resistances in the electrical cir-
cuit of each MDC system. Some studies have compared the per-
formance of the system between the two parallel connection
methods. No significant difference was observed between the
two types of binding in the MDC system. The combination of
the two methods resulted in 96% COD removal and 42% salt
removal. The only difference was given by two different connec-
tions. The single connection system produced 30 mA, while the
combined connection provided a current of 13.8 mA. One of the
most important reasons for this difference in current yield may
be the exchange between the anode electrodes caused by the dif-
ferences in their potentials. However, this possibility has not been
confirmed yet.124
Effect of anolyte feeding modes
The form of the feed affects the performance of a multi-MDC sys-
tem, as a single-stream feed (the feed flows through all units in a
chain) or through multiple inputs. Expectations of multiple feed-
ings give a better distribution of units, unlike single-stream feed-
ing, because there are no mixing or recycling units currently
existing in the system. Zhang He experimented by feeding the
system with either a single feeding or a four-point feeding. The
system fed with four points gave an extremely high current pro-
ductivity of about 663 mA, while the single fed one gave about
445 mA, but the amount of COD removed by the single fed
method was much higher than that of the multi-fed, reaching
76% and 57.2%, respectively. It is possible that the electrochemi-
cally active bacteria outcompete better COD oxidisers when
exposed to high current generation. Nevertheless, further
research is needed to confirm this.124
Effects of the applied voltage
MDC consists of BES and MFC, and its system is derived from elec-
trolysis. However, to improve some of the productivity of remov-
ing salts, organic substances, COD and others, the system was
operated with an external effort and was used to assist the effort
generated by the system during the operation process. Studies
show that the system runs at a primitive COD of 3000 mg L−1 with
four different voltages (e.g., 0, 0.4, 0.8, and 1.1 V). The amount of
COD removed from the system was not affected because the
removal amount was fixed at 95%.124 However, the amount of
current was greatly affected by the difference in voltage because
it increased by 1000 mA from 0 to 1.1 V, causing the TDS removal
to increase. The results confirmed that the extra effort could help
in improving the performance of the system. However, the addi-
tional external voltage added must be evaluated with the eco-
nomic feasibility of the system, which may vary in power
consumption from 0.26 to 0.37 kWh kg−1 TDS with 0.4–1.1 V. 0 V
is not needed for external voltage.124

Table 12. Advantages and disadvantages of different configurations of microbial desalination cells (MDCs)26

Type of MDC Advantages Disadvantages

Air cathode MDC High reduction potential. The kinetics of redox reactions takes a long time.
Environmentally friendly. Expensive catalysts are required (e.g., platinum)
Biocathode MDC Self-renewing and long-lasting. The setup of a biocathode is difficult and time consuming.
Desalination of seawater is being improved. Pre-enrichment process is required.
Start-up time has been reduced.
Scalability is simple.
Stacked-structure MDC More energy is recovered. Internal resistance in MDC stacks has increased.
Charge transfer efficiency has improved. Unbalanced pH
Desalination efficiency has improved.
Power density has been increased.
Recirculation MDC pH in the cell is stabilized. Decreased coulombic efficiency.
Power density has been increased.
Desalination rate has increased.
Capacitive MDC Desalination rate has increased.
pH is stabilized.
Prevents salt ions from migrating between chambers.
Upflow MDC Microbes are still floating in the air. Longer period of retention.
Increased surface area. Large reactor capacity.
No need for mixing. Expenses of capital have risen.
Osmotic MDC Desalination is being improved. Membrane fouling decreases internal resistance.
FO membrane is less expensive than IEM. FO membranes increase generation of current.
Degradation of organic waste has improved.
Bipolar membrane MDC Chemicals, such as HCl and NaOH, are produced. Mineral precipitation causes cathode scaling.
pH equilibrium is improved. BPM has been tainted.
Necessitates the use of an external power source.
Decoupled MDC Easy to control. Due to the lack of separate chambers, desalination
Parts are simple to fix and replace. efficiency may suffer.
Easy to scale up.
Ion exchange The ohmic resistance has been reduced. Mineral encrustation on the resin surface causes scaling.
resin–coupled MDC Energy usage is reduced. Internal resistance is increasing.
Increased salty water conductivity and desalination rate. Coulombic efficiency may be reduced.
20

wileyonlinelibrary.com/jctb © 2022 Society of Chemical Industry (SCI). J Chem Technol Biotechnol 2022
 Table 13. Important equations used to calculate the MDC parameters

Factors Variables defined Equation Ref.

The potential Ecell: potential of cell (V). E cell =Rexternal ×I 150

Rexternal: external resistance connected (Ω).
I: electric current (A)
The potential Ea: refer for the anode potential (V). E cell = ðE c −E a Þ−I×ðRmembrane +Rsaline Þ 151
Ec: refer for the cathode potential (V).
Rmemb: refer for the sum of the electric resistance (Ω).

J Chem Technol Biotechnol 2022

Rsaline: refer for the electric resistance due to the saline
compartment (Ω).


Resistance of saline EC: refer for the electric conductivity of the saline stream Rsaline = ð1=ECÞ× L=Am 152
(S m−1)
L: refer for thickness of the saline compartment (m).
Am: refer to the geometric area of electrode (cm2).
The power Ecell: potential of MDC (V). Pcell =E cell ×I 151
Pcell: the power of the MDC cell (W).
I: refer to electric current (A).
Current density I: refer to electric current (A). j = AIm 150
Am: refer to the geometric area of electrode (cm2).
j: refer to current density (mA cm−2).
Percentage of the salt removal from cell Csi; refer to the initial concentration of salt in the saline tank C is −C fs 152
SR%= C is
×100%
(mol m−3).
f
Cs : refer to the end concentration (after desalination process)
of salt in the saline tank (mol m−3).
Broad-ranging review: configurations, membrane types, governing equations

SR %: the percentage of the salt removal from desalination

chamber.
The nominal desalination rate (NDR) NDR: refer for the nominal desalination rate (L m−2 h−1). NDR= AmQ×tt d 152

© 2022 Society of Chemical Industry (SCI).

Am: refer to the geometric area of electrode (cm2).
td: refer for the desalination time (h).
Qt: the desalination water volume (L).
The amount of transferred salt from cell TNaCl: refer for the amount of transferred salt. Qt ×M:W:×ðC is −C fs Þ 151
T NaCl = V s ×t d
TNaCl Qt: the desalination water volume (L).
MW: refer for the molecular weight of NaCl.
Vs: refer to the volume of the desalination chamber (m3).
Csi; refer to the initial concentration of salt in the saline tank
www.soci.org

(mol m−3).
Csf: refer to the end concentration (after desalination process)
of salt in the saline tank (mol m−3).
td: refer for the desalination time (h).


Current efficiency ηc: the current efficiency. z×F× C is −C fs 152
z: is the salt ions valence. ηc =
ðCEC
F: faraday constant (96 485 C mol−1). 1
CEC = IðtÞdt
Qt

wileyonlinelibrary.com/jctb
21
 22
Table 13. Continued
Factors
wileyonlinelibrary.com/jctb
The efficiency of columbic
The removal of chemical oxygen demand
rate
The specific energy production (SEP)
Power density
© 2022 Society of Chemical Industry (SCI).
Power density
Power density produced for the surface
area of anode in MFC
The desalination rate (DR)
J Chem Technol Biotechnol 2022
Variables defined Equation Ref.
i
Cs ; refer to the initial concentration of salt in the saline tank
(mol m−3).
Csf: refer to the end concentration (after desalination process)
of salt in the saline tank (mol m−3).
I: refer to electric current (A).
CEC: the circulated electric charge (CEC, C m−3).
Ð
M: is the oxygen molecular weight (32 g mol−1) M× Iðt Þdt 153
ηcb = F×b×QAn ×ΔCOD
b: is the exchanged number of electrons (i.e., for oxygen the
exchange number of electrons = 4).
I: refer to electric current (A).
QAn: is the anolyte tank volume (L).
ΔCOD: is different of chemical oxygen demand during the
experiment (g O2 L−1).
F: faraday constant (96 485 C mol−1).
VA: is the volume of liquid in the anode compartment (m3). CODrate = ΔCOD
V A ×t d
153
CODrate: is rate of the COD removal (g m−3 day−1).
www.soci.org
ΔCOD: is different of chemical oxygen demand during the
experiment (g O2 L−1).
td: refer for the desalination time (h).
Ð
SEP: is the specific energy production (kWh m−3). SEP = Q1t × E cell :IðtÞdt 161
Ecell: potential of MDC (V).
I: refer to electric current (A).
Qt: the desalination water volume (L).
I: refer to electric current (A). P = I×E
A
153
E: the voltage of cell
A: the surface area of electrode
P: power density (W m−2)
I: refer to electric current (A). P = I×E
V
157
E: the voltage of cell
A: the surface area of electrode
P: power density (W m−3)
PAn = power density (W m−2) V2
cell 155
ext
P = AAn ×R
AAn = anode surface area (m2)
Vcell = cell voltage (V)
Rext = external resistance (Ω).
DR: desalination rate g h−1 e Þ×Q×60 160
DR= ðCi −C
2×1000
Ci: conductivities of influent (mS cm−1)
Ce: conductivities of effluent (mS cm−1)
Q: is the flux (mL min−1)
(60, 1000, 2): used to conversion the mS cm−1 to g L−1 and the
minute to hour.
HH Abd-almohi, ZT Alismaeel, MJM Ridha
 Table 13. Continued
Factors
The consumption rate of carbon source at
the anode chamber
J Chem Technol Biotechnol 2022
The reduction reaction of dissolved oxygen
in the cathode chamber
Rate of charge
The cell voltage Vcell is decreasing from the
© 2022 Society of Chemical Industry (SCI).
equilibrium potential by a series of
irreversible losses
Resistance due to the membrane resistance
The cell impedance due to the resistance of
substrate
The membrane resistance
wileyonlinelibrary.com/jctb
23
Variables defined Equation Ref.

F

Cs: Substrate concentration in the anode chamber (mg L−1). r 1 =K 1 × exp ⊍× R×T ×V act1 × KCs Cs s ×X 156
Ks: The half velocity rate constant for substrate (mol m−3).
X: Concentration of biomass on the anodic electrode (mg L−1).
Vact1: Anodic over potential (v).
⊍: Charge transfer coefficient of the anodic reaction.
K1: Rate constant of the anode reaction at standard
conditions(mol m−2 s−1).
r1: Reaction rate of the anode chamber (mol m−2 s−1).
R: Gas constant (8.314 J
mol−1 K−1)
T: Temperature (K)
F: Faraday number (96 485 C mol−1)

F
 C O2
CO2: Concentration of oxygen in the cathode chamber r 2 =−K 2 × exp ð⊎−1Þ× R×T ×V act2 × 157
ðK O2 +C O2 Þ
KO2: Half velocity rate constant for O2
Vact2: Cathodic over potential
⊎: Coefficient of charge transport for the cathodic reaction
K2: Rate constant of the cathode reaction at standard
conditions
r2: The rate of reaction in the cathode chamber
R: Gas constant (8.314 J mol−1 K−1)
T: Temperature (K)
F: Faraday number (96 485 C mol−1)
Broad-ranging review: configurations, membrane types, governing equations
Q: is the charge I = dQ
dt
155
t: is the time


Vcell: MDC voltage V cell =V ocv −ðV act anod + V act cath Þ−V Ω − V CONC anode +V CONC cathodeÞ 157
Vocv: MDC open circuit voltage
Vact_anode: anodic activation potential
Vact_cathode: cathodic activation potential
V(CONCanode):anodic concentration potential
V(CONCcathode):cathodic concentration potential
VΩ: the ohmic potential
Rionic: Ionic resistance of membrane (Ω) I = dQ
dt
159
www.soci.org
tm: Thickness of membrane (m)
⊞1 : Conductivity of membrane (Ω−1 m−1)
Am: Area of membrane (m2)
Relect : Electric resistance of solution (Ω) m 161
s
Relect = ⊞2d×A
dm : Depth of solution (m)
⊞2 : Conductivity of solution (Ω−1 m−1)
As : Cross sectional area of solution (m2)
Rionic : ionic resistance of membrane (Ω) m 162
m
Rionic = ⊞1t×A
tm : thickness of membrane (m)
 www.soci.org HH Abd-almohi, ZT Alismaeel, MJM Ridha

One important characteristic of these systems (MFCs and MDCs)

58

81
Ref. is that the cell is strongly affected by mass transfer limitations. It is
expected that a more turbulent regime in the vicinity of the anode
will lead to a slight polarisation of the electrode, giving the illusion
of producing more energy, especially at very low current densi-

dt =Dsalt ðC salt,in −C salt,m Þ−d ðC salt,m −C salt,a Þ−d ðC salt,m −C salt,c Þ− FV salt
IMDC
ties. However, the turbulence will also cause bacterial stress, neg-
atively impacting its performance and impeding the formation of
biofilms.125

Effect of hydraulic retention time (HRT)

The HRT component has a significant influence on the evident
reaction mechanisms in MDC systems. Qu et al. studied increasing
the effect of HRT from 1 to 2 days in the continuous mode of MDC.
V ohmic =Rionic ×i cell + Relect ×i cell + Rsalt ×i cell

The result of the study gave a flow rate of 0.02 mL min−1 of trea-
dt = d ðC salt,m −C salt,a Þ−Danode ×C salt,a

ted water with a decrease in the amount of energy produced in

the system, as well as a reduction in the imbalances of the pH.35
Jacobson et al. confirmed that the amount of generated current
increases with HRT because of the increment in the total dissolved
dt = d ðC salt,m −C salt,c Þ

TDS removal.55
Ping and He concluded that the increase in HRT for water puri-
fication in the desalination chamber of the MDC improved the
purification and treatment of saline water, but that the increase
Equation

in the distance between the membranes and the increase in the

dC salt,m
dC salt,a

dC salt,c

volume of the desalination chamber led to an increment in the

ohmic resistance and affected the improvement of water desali-
nation. There were no detrimental effects on performance due
to a greater intermembrane distance with an equal influent flow
Csalt,a, Csalt,m, Csalt,c: concentrations of salt in the anode, middle,

rate, whereas a short intermembrane distance increased desalina-

tion efficiency and specific desalination rate substantially.60
Rsaline: refer for the electric resistance due to the saline

Liu et al. created two MDCs under different hydraulic retention

dsalt: coefficient of membrane salt transfer (day−1).

times (4, 6, 8, 10 h), and the study observed that when the time
increased the conductivity was increased. The desalination rate
was increased twice as much as most similar systems.126
⊞1 : Conductivity of membrane (Ω−1 m−1)

R_elect : Electric resistance of solution ðΩÞ

Variables defined

Rionic : ionic resistance of membrane (Ω)

cathode chamber, respectively.

Evaluation of desalination alternatives

Dsalt: the rate of dilution (day−1)

Temperature, water desalination, liquid waste composition, and

Am : area of membrane (m2)

waste disposal site are amongst the most crucial factors that
affect the efficiency of MDC performance. For example, gases
compartment (Ω).

and liquids that contain toxic compounds (or complex salts) and
organic substances are known to affect living organisms when
they are discharged into areas that contain rich marine organ-
isms.127 The World Health Organisation directs all factories and
treatment and desalination plants to follow a specific protocol
regarding concentration percentages suitable for the disposal of
desalination and treatment waste into rivers or seawater. Recent
studies have focused on the impact of the MDC system on the
environment and in reducing its damage. Some studies have
The salts concentration was quantified by

researched the future and sustainability of the system, especially

when it comes to the management of wastewater stations.128,12
the following developed ordinary

However, studies have a minimal impact on the MDC system envi-

ronment. Due to the comparison of the effects of MDC in relation
to the effects of other technologies of treatment on the environ-
ment, MDC has zero waste on the environment when using a bio-
Table 13. Continued

The internal resistance

cathode. Steven and Kotz proved this when they studied the
effect of Scenedesmus, an abundant microalga used as a catholyte,
with petroleum wastewater as an anolyte. The result of the pro-
differential

cess with 35 g L−1 NaCl resulted in 55.3% of NaCl removal and

that with 20 g L−1 NaCl resulted in 42.6% of NaCl removal.129,130
Factors

Table 14 defines the type of catalyst that can be used in MDC to

24

improve the performance of the MDC process.

wileyonlinelibrary.com/jctb © 2022 Society of Chemical Industry (SCI). J Chem Technol Biotechnol 2022
Broad-ranging review: configurations, membrane types, governing equations www.soci.org

Table 14. The types of catalyst that can be used in MDC to improve process performance

Initial power Current Desalination Columbic

Catalyst type density Power density production, A efficiency, % Voltage, V efficiency, % Ref.

Platinized carbon — — — — — — 107

Platinum 49 μW cm−2 — — — — 38% 97
Iron nitrogen carbon (Fe-N-C) 34 μW cm−2 — — — — 39% 97
Activated carbon 23.5 μW cm−2 — — — — 24% 97
Biocatalysts — 0.35 W m−2 10 mA 51.5% — — 144
Methylene blue (MB), — 337.13 mW m−3 — 16.1–5.86% 77.9 mv — 124
known as methylthioninium decreasing with
chloride increasing MB
concentration

MEMBRANE FOULING AND SCALING IN MDC U

The biofouling/scaling that occurs on the IEMs due to bacterial
growth in the anode chamber decreases the performance of the
MDC in general. The ion transfer, low power density generation,
and desalination rate in MDC, as well as the pH imbalance in the
anode chamber and cathode chambers, all decreased.116,127
Luo et al. explained the migration of ions, with studies that clar-
ified the basic concepts of ion migration and the reason for the
biofouling/scaling on the IEMs (AEM, CEM). Only 0.4–0.1% of the
ions (Ca+2, Mg+2) move through the membranes, while the rest
of the ions are scaled on the IEMs. The internal resistance in the
MDC increases because of the accumulation on the IEMs, where
resistance increased to 3.7 times its normal value, and the amount
of current density production decreased to 210 mA m−1. The
water desalination efficiency reached 13 due to the presence of
Cl− (with Mg+2, Ca+2) in treated saline water as a common counter
ion, even compared with the 660 and 29 produced without scal-
ing on the membranes.126
The accumulation of biofouling on the CEM membrane in the
mixed IER-MDC reduced the performance of the system from
the water desalination process. This result is due to the scaling
of Ca + and Mg + compounds on the membrane and to their
exchange with sulphate or carbonate groups within.62
Studies on the treatment of real wastewater or synthetic waste-
water have been conducted. Membrane fouling increased the
resistance of the CEM membrane compared with that of the
AEM membrane because of the scaling of inorganic materials on
the CEM membrane. Thus, reactor maintenance is necessary.127
Luo et al. discovered a significant variation in current density,
which they ascribed to membrane scaling and the changes in
transport behaviour between divalent anions and cations.
Although they provided methods to reduce membrane scaling,
such as changing the membrane surface, lowering the pH of a
cathode chamber, and cleaning the membranes on a regular
basis, further study is needed to improve long-term use.128 Scal-
ing the size of the membrane will always reduce the performance
in comparison to small-scale devices.128
GENERAL GOVERNING EQUATIONS AND
PARAMETERS IN MDC
The generated current (I) can be calculated according to Ohm's
law, as follows:
I=
R
The power density (P) produced across each membrane stack
could be determined as follows:
U×I
P=
A
Where, U: external circuit voltage, I: current under certain external
resistance, and A: the desalination sectional area (DA) of the MDC.
Internal resistance or ohmic losses are the final substantial losses
that should be avoided for the optimum MDC design. These losses
appear from the resistance of proton conduction due the following:
bio-solution, membrane, salty solution. To reduce the internal resis-
tance and ohmic losses, the distances between the electrodes are
reduced; selecting to use low-resistance ion exchange membranes
and coating the electrodes can help reduce internal resistance, and
increasing the conductivity of solutions may reduce the value of the
internal membrane.71 Table 13 defines the important equations used
in calculating the MDC parameters.
Oxidation and reduction reactions are divided into two parts:
reduced half and oxidized half, both of which occur together. When
reducing processes gain electrons, theamountofoxidations decreases,
but when electrons are lost from oxidation processes, the number of
oxidations increases. There is no change in the number of electrons in
the oxidation–reduction reaction, as the number of electrons lost is
always equal to the number of electrons gained in the reaction.129
The following is an example of an oxidation–reduction reaction:130
Zn+2H +2 àZn +2 +H2 ð3Þ
−
ðCH2 OÞ2 +2 H2 Oà2CO2 +8H +8e +
ð4Þ
− −
O2 +4 e +2 H2 Oà4OH ð5Þ
MDC POWER GENERATION AND ITS FUTURE
APPLICATION
The production of electrical power is one of the advantages of the
microbial desalination cell, and studies are still in progress with
the goals of harnessing energy and dispensing with energy desa-
lination systems that need additional external energy. The addi-
tional chamber in MDC did not only serve for water desalination
25

J Chem Technol Biotechnol 2022 © 2022 Society of Chemical Industry (SCI). wileyonlinelibrary.com/jctb
 www.soci.org
but it also provided a higher productivity of electrical power and a
higher stability than the MFC system with stable pH.78
Ebrahimi et al.131 studied the amount of additional resistance
resulting from adding a chamber to the MDCs and noticed that,
at a concentration of 30 g L−1, the amount of current and energy
density increased to 3.17 mA and 204.5 mW m−2, compared with
MFCs 2.59 g L−1 and 141.6 mW m−2, respectively.
Studies have been conducted to find the best catholytes with
the least environmental defects. Ebrahimi et al.132 studied the
comparison of different cathodic solutions and concluded that
the best catholyte solution is a bio-catholyte that gives volatile
organic compounds 0.818 V and 32.6 W m−3 of power density.
Due to the improved quantity of organic compounds in the cath-
ode (which improves the electron capacity of the chamber), a
6.15 mA current and 0.85 NaCl L−1 per hour desalination rate
were obtained. Various catholytes were used to vary the pH value,
with the risk of damaging the MDC bacteria.107 Wet carbon was
used as a catalyst membrane to cover the cathode electrode in
MDC. The catalyst helped increase the electric power output
and the production of volatile organic compounds in MDC.133
Santoro et al.134 compared the types of catalyst (e.g., platinum,
activated carbon, and iron nitrogen carbon) and found that their
initial power density is 49, 34, and 23.5 μW cm−2 and CE was
38%, 24%, and 39%, respectively. The bio-catalyst provided
10.1 mA, 0.35 W m−2 in close circle, and 51.5% desalination effi-
ciency.80 In another study, the continuous operation of the MDC
system improved the power density, which reached 15.9 W m−3,
and achieved an average of 68.1% desalination, 83.7% COD
removal, and 13.9 W m−3 power density.131
SCALE UP OF MDC
In recent years, studies have been directed towards the scaling
up and configuration of MDC systems because of the character-
istics and solutions they provided to most of the problems
encountered in wastewater treatment, and because of their
ability to generate electric power and spontaneously desali-
nate water. Despite their characteristics and ability to treat
sewage water, the implementation of water desalination
directly from the MDC by using municipal wastewater has not
been realised. The pH value imbalance in the system negatively
affected the possibility of scaling up the MDC because of the
generation of protons in the anode chamber and to the con-
sumption of protons in the cathode chamber.135–139 In addi-
tion, the MDC system requires 200 mL of synthetic
wastewater to treat approximately 3 mL of saline water, so
the scale-up of the MDC is still under analysis and study.21,102
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
Many recent studies have assessed the economic impact of the
MDC system in desalinating sea and brackish waters. These stud-
ies were focused on analysing the economic feasibility of MDC as
one of the water desalination technologies, as well as electricity
generation and water treatment utilising the concept of net pre-
sent value.135 The ability to produce electric power while desali-
nating water makes it possible to develop for a large-scale
application with low operating and manufacturing costs and
improved production efficiency. One of the solutions that have
been proposed to reduce the operating and manufacturing costs
of the MDC system is to find alternatives to the low-cost solutions
26
used in the cathode and anode chambers, such as low-
wileyonlinelibrary.com/jctb © 2022 Society of Chemical Industry (SCI).
HH Abd-almohi, ZT Alismaeel, MJM Ridha
concentration PBS (10 mmol L−1 PBS), (100 mmol L−1 NaCl),
saline buffer solution (50 mmol L−1 PBS with 100 mmol L−1 NaCl),
as well as the possibility of using biocathodes, such as algae or
bacteria.136
N. R. Faze investigated the economic analysis and the possibility
of developing the existing MDC system into cost-effective future
technologies. The MDC reactor was designed to produce
100 cm3 of desalinated water each day. Desalinating a cubic
metre of water from a single MDC system, including the time
required to clean rooms, inoculate solutions, replace materials,
and perform annual maintenance, takes approximately 28 years.
However, if multiple MDC systems were constructed in parallel,
the rate of electricity production and water desalination might
be increased.135
RO is the most common method used in water desalination.
Desalinating 1 cubic metre of water by using RO technique
requires approximately 2.2 kW. However, desalinating the same
volume of water in the MDC system resulted in an electricity pro-
ductivity of approximately 1.8 kW per hour of clean energy.137
Finally, research and development in this subject is still ongoing.
To introduce the MDC system on a large scale, a wide range of
economic analyses and comparisons with the rest of the existing
desalination technologies is required.
CONCLUSIONS
The study dealt with the concept and applications of the microbial
desalination cell in terms of the working principle, the mem-
branes used, and their forms. The microbial desalination cell is still
under development and research. The microbial desalination cell
produces electrical energy during the desalination process that
can be used in desalination plants and wastewater treatment; this
can significantly reduce the process's energy requirements. The
electrically active microbes showed the possibility of electron
transfer in the system as well as wastewater treatment under
anaerobic conditions. The factors affecting the microbial desalina-
tion cell were studied; they showed the reasons for the deteriora-
tion of the cell over time and the causes of the pH imbalance, as
well as the effect of external and internal resistance on the micro-
bial desalination cell. The different criteria for operating the cell, as
well as the different configurations of the system, gave different
results to the system according to the standards and configura-
tion, and this is one of the reasons why it was not possible to make
a comparison of the performance of the system. However, the sys-
tem is still under research and studies are underway to determine
the solutions to several problems of MDC (concerning scaling/
fouling of the membrane, electrode compatibility, electron trans-
fer kinetics, and microbial growth).
REFERENCES
1 Atabani AE, Badruddin IA, Mekhilef S and Silitonga AS, A review on
global fuel economy standards, labels and technologies in the trans-
portation sector. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev 15:4586–4610
(2011). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2011.07.092.
2 Eltawil MA, Zhengming Z and Yuan L, A review of renewable energy
technologies integrated with desalination systems. Renewable Sus-
tainable Energy Rev 13:2245–2262 (2009).
3 Elimelech M and Phillip WA, The future of seawater desalination:
energy, technology, and the environment. Science 333:712–717
(2011).
4 Al-Mamun A, Baawain MS, Dhar BR and Kim IS, Improved recovery of
bioenergy and osmotic water in an osmotic microbial fuel cell using
J Chem Technol Biotechnol 2022
Broad-ranging review: configurations, membrane types, governing equations
micro-diffuser assisted marine aerobic biofilm on cathode. Biochem
Eng J 128:235–242 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bej.2017.09.020.
5 Mehanna M, Saito T, Yan J, Hickner M, Cao X, Huang X et al., Using
microbial desalination cells to reduce water salinity prior to reverse
osmosis. Energy Environ Sci 3:1114–1120 (2010).
6 Gude VG, Nirmalakhandan N and Deng S, Renewable and sustainable
approaches for desalination. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev 14:
2641–2654 (2010).
7 Al-Karaghouli A and Kazmerski LL, Energy consumption and water
production cost of conventional and renewable-energy-powered
desalination processes. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev 24:343–
356 (2013).
8 Abdulwahab YD, Mohammed AK and Abbas TR, Improving the per-
formance of constructed wetland microbial fuel cell (CW-MFC) for
wastewater treatment and electricity generation. Baghdad Sci J 18:
7–17 (2021).
9 Ismai ZZ and Habeeb AA, Pharmaceutical wastewater treatment asso-
ciated with renewable energy generation in microbial fuel cell based
on mobilized electro active biofilm, in IMETI 2014—7th International
Multi-Conference Engineering Technology Innovation Proceeding,
Journal of Engineering, University of Baghdad, Iraq, 21:83–88 (2014).
10 Alismaeel ZT, Abbar AH and Saeed OF, Application of central compos-
ite design approach for optimisation of zinc removal from aqueous
solution using a flow-by fixed bed bioelectrochemical reactor. Sep
Purif Technol 287:120510 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seppur.
2022.120510.
11 Saad DR, Alismaeel ZT and Abbar AH, Cobalt removal from simulated
wastewaters using a novel flow-by fixed bed bio-electrochemical
reactor. Chem Eng Process 156:108097 (2020). https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.cep.2020.108097.
12 Gude VG, Desalination and sustainability—an appraisal and current
perspective. Water Res 89:87–106 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
watres.2015.11.012.
13 Kokabian B and Gude VG, Sustainable photosynthetic biocathode in
microbial desalination cells. Chem Eng J 262:958–965 (2015).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2014.10.048.
14 US EIA, International energy outlook 2013—DOE/EIA-0484(2013). Out-
look, USA, U.S. Energy Information Administration, Vol. 2013, p.
312 (2013).
15 Shatat M and Riffat SB, Water desalination technologies utilizing con-
ventional and renewable energy sources. Int J Low-Carbon Technol 9:
1–19 (2014).
16 Ge Z, Li J, Xiao L, Tong Y and He Z, Recovery of electrical energy in
microbial fuel cells. Environ Sci Technol Lett 1:137–141 (2014).
17 Turek M, Cost effective electrodialytic seawater desalination. Desali-
nation 153:371–376 (2003).
18 Desalination Methods for Producing Drinking Water—Source Waters
2022. https://agrilifeextension.tamu.edu/library/water/desalination-
methods-for-producing-drinking-water/
19 Buros OK, ABCs1.pdf. Int Desalin Assoc. International Desalination
Association, Topsfield, Massachusetts, USA, 2000.
20 Heather C, Peter HG and Gary W, Desalination, with a grain of salt. A
California perspective, in Statistics, Pacific institute, USA, Vol. 35, p.
21 (2006).
21 Chen JP, Wang LK, Yang L and Zheng Y, Membrane and desalination
technologies. Membr Desalin Technol 13:525–558 (2011).
22 Semiat R, Critical review energy issues in desalination processes. Am
Chem Soc 42:8193–8201 (2008).
23 Avlonitis SA, Kouroumbas K and Vlachakis N, Energy consumption
and membrane replacement cost for seawater RO desalination
plants. Desalination 157:151–158 (2003).
24 Cao X, Huang X, Liang P, Xiao K, Zhou Y, Zhang X et al., A new method
for water desalination using microbial desalination cells. Environ Sci
Technol 43:7148–7152 (2009).
25 Torres C, Improving microbial fuel cells. Membr Technol 2012:8–9
(2012). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0958-2118(12)70165-9.
26 Wang H and Ren ZJ, A comprehensive review of microbial electro-
chemical systems as a platform technology. Biotechnol Adv 31:
1796–1807 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biotechadv.2013.10.001.
27 Forrestal C, Xu P, Jenkins PE and Ren Z, Microbial desalination cell
with capacitive adsorption for ion migration control. Bioresour Tech-
nol 120:332–336 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2012.
06.044.
28 Luo H, Xu P and Ren Z, Long-term performance and characterization
of microbial desalination cells in treating domestic wastewater.
J Chem Technol Biotechnol 2022 © 2022 Society of Chemical Industry (SCI).
www.soci.org
Bioresour Technol 120:187–193 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
biortech.2012.06.054.
29 Forrestal C, Stoll Z, Xu P and Ren ZJ, Microbial capacitive desalination
for integrated organic matter and salt removal and energy produc-
tion from unconventional natural gas produced water. Environ Sci
Water Res Technol 1:47–55 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1039/
C4EW00050A.
30 Ivars-Barceló F, Zuliani A, Fallah M, Mashkour M, Rahimnejad M and
Luque R, Novel applications of microbial fuel cells in sensors and bio-
sensors. Appl Sci 20:8(7) (2018).
31 Gadkari S and Sadhukhan J, A robust correlation based on dimen-
sional analysis to characterize microbial fuel cells. Sci Rep 10:8407
(2020).
32 Kim Y and Logan BE, Microbial desalination cells for energy produc-
tion and desalination. Desalination 308:122–130 (2013). https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.desal.2012.07.022.
33 Choi J and Ahn Y, Continuous electricity generation in stacked air
cathode microbial fuel cell treating domestic wastewater. J Environ
Manage 130:146–152 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.
2013.08.065.
34 Cheng KY, Ho G and Cord-Ruwisch R, Novel methanogenic rotatable
bioelectrochemical system operated with polarity inversion. Environ
Sci Technol 45:796–802 (2011).
35 Qu Y, Feng Y, Liu J, He W, Shi X, Yang Q et al., Salt removal using mul-
tiple microbial desalination cells under continuous flow conditions.
Desalination 317:17–22 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.
2013.02.016.
36 Shehab NA, Logan BE, Amy GL and Saikaly PE, Microbial electrodeio-
nization cell stack for sustainable desalination, wastewater treat-
ment and energy recovery, in 86th Annual Water Environment
Federation Technical Exhibition and Conference WEFTEC 2013, Pro-
ceedings of the Water Environment Federation, Vol. 1, pp. 222–
227 (2013).
37 Luo H, Xu P, Jenkins PE and Ren Z, Ionic composition and transport
mechanisms in microbial desalination cells. J Membr Sci 409–410:
16–23 (2012).
38 Luo H, Jenkins PE and Ren Z, Concurrent desalination and hydrogen
generation using microbial electrolysis and desalination cells. Envi-
ron Sci Technol 45:340–344 (2011).
39 Mehanna M, Kiely PD, Call DF and Logan BE, Microbial electrodialysis
cell for simultaneous water desalination and hydrogen gas produc-
tion. Environ Sci Technol 44:9578–9583 (2010).
40 Harnisch F, Schröder U and Scholz F, The suitability of monopolar and
bipolar ion exchange membranes as separators for biological fuel
cells. Environ Sci Technol 42:1740–1746 (2008).
41 Xu T, Development of bipolar membrane-based processes. Desalina-
tion 140:247–258 (2001).
42 Torres CI, Lee HS and Rittmann BE, Carbonate species as OH- carriers
for decreasing the pH gradient between cathode and anode in bio-
logical fuel cells. Environ Sci Technol 42:8773–8777 (2008).
43 Chen X, Liang P, Wei Z, Zhang X and Huang X, Sustainable water desa-
lination and electricity generation in a separator coupled stacked
microbial desalination cell with buffer free electrolyte circulation.
Bioresour Technol 119:88–93 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
biortech.2012.05.135.
44 Chen S, Liu G, Zhang R, Qin B, Luo Y and Hou Y, Improved perfor-
mance of the microbial electrolysis desalination and chemical-
production cell using the stack structure. Bioresour Technol 116:
507–511 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2012.03.073.
45 An Z, Zhang H, Wen Q, Chen Z and Du M, Desalination combined with
copper(II) removal in a novel microbial desalination cell. Desalination
346:115–121 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2014.05.012.
46 Forrestal C, Xu P and Ren Z, Sustainable desalination using a microbial
capacitive desalination cell. Energ Environ Sci 5:7161–7167 (2012).
47 Xu P, Drewes JE and Heil D, Beneficial use of co-produced water
through membrane treatment: technical-economic assessment.
Desalination 225:139–155 (2008).
48 Wen Q, Zhang H, Yang H, Chen Z, Nan J and Feng Y, Improving desa-
lination by coupling membrane capacitive deionization with micro-
bial desalination cell. Desalination 354:23–29 (2014). https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.desal.2014.09.027.
49 Stoll ZA, Forrestal C, Ren ZJ and Xu P, Shale gas produced water treat-
ment using innovative microbial capacitive desalination cell.
J Hazard Mater 283:847–855 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jhazmat.2014.10.015.
27
wileyonlinelibrary.com/jctb
 www.soci.org
50 Zhang B and He Z, Energy production, use and saving in a bioelectro-
chemical desalination system. RSC Adv 2:10673–10679 (2012).
51 Jacobson KS, Drew DM and He Z, Use of a liter-scale microbial desali-
nation cell as a platform to study bioelectrochemical desalination
with salt solution or artificial seawater. Environ Sci Technol 45:
4652–4657 (2011).
52 He Z, Wagner N, Minteer SD and Angenent LT, An upflow microbial
fuel cell with an interior cathode: assessment of the internal resis-
tance by impedance spectroscopy. Environ Sci Technol 40:5212–
5217 (2006).
53 Ge Z and He Z, Effects of draw solutions and membrane conditions on
electricity generation and water flux in osmotic microbial fuel cells.
Bioresour Technol 109:70–76 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
biortech.2012.01.044.
54 Zhang F, Jacobson KS, Torres P and He Z, Effects of anolyte recircula-
tion rates and catholytes on electricity generation in a litre-scale
upflow microbial fuel cell. Energ Environ Sci 3:1347–1352 (2010).
55 Jacobson KS, Drew DM and He Z, Efficient salt removal in a continu-
ously operated upflow microbial desalination cell with an air cath-
ode. Bioresour Technol 102:376–380 (2011). https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.biortech.2010.06.030.
56 Cath TY, Childress AE and Elimelech M, Forward osmosis: principles, appli-
cations, and recent developments. J Membr Sci 281:70–87 (2006).
57 Pardeshi P and Mungray A, High flux layer by layer polyelectrolyte fo
membrane: toward enhanced performance for osmotic microbial
fuel cell. Int J Polym Mater Polym Biomater 63:595–601 (2014).
58 Zhang B and He Z, Improving water desalination by hydraulically cou-
pling an osmotic microbial fuel cell with a microbial desalination
cell. J Membr Sci 441:18–24 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
memsci.2013.04.005.
59 Alvarez F, Alvarez R, Coca J, Sandeaux J, Sandeaux R and Gavach C,
Salicylic acid production by electrodialysis with bipolar membranes.
J Membr Sci 123:61–69 (1997).
60 Ping Q and He Z, Effects of inter-membrane distance and hydraulic
retention time on the desalination performance of microbial desali-
nation cells. Desalin Water Treat 52:1324–1331 (2014).
61 Zhang F, Chen M, Zhang Y and Zeng RJ, Microbial desalination cells
with ion exchange resin packed to enhance desalination at low salt
concentration. J Memb Sci 417–418:28–33 (2012). https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.memsci.2012.06.009.
62 Zuo K, Yuan L, Wei J, Liang P and Huang X, Competitive migration
behaviors of multiple ions and their impacts on ion-exchange resin
packed microbial desalination cell. Bioresour Technol 146:637–642
(2013). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2013.07.139.
63 Bouhidel KE and Lakehal A, Influence of voltage and flow rate on elec-
trodeionization (EDI) process efficiency. Desalination 193:411–421
(2006).
64 Morel A, Zuo K, Xia X, Wei J, Luo X, Liang P et al., Microbial desalination
cells packed with ion-exchange resin to enhance water desalination
rate. Bioresour Technol 118:243–248 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.biortech.2012.04.093.
65 Luo H, Li H, Lu Y, Liu G and Zhang R, Treatment of reverse osmosis
concentrate using microbial electrolysis desalination and chemical
production cell. Desalination 408:52–59 (2017). https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.desal.2017.01.003.
66 Yuan H, Abu-Reesh IM and He Z, Mathematical modeling assisted
investigation of forward osmosis as pretreatment for microbial desa-
lination cells to achieve continuous water desalination and waste-
water treatment. J Memb Sci 502:116–123 (2016). https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.memsci.2015.12.026.
67 Iskander SM, Novak JT and He Z, Enhancing forward osmosis water
recovery from landfill leachate by desalinating brine and recovering
ammonia in a microbial desalination cell. Bioresour Technol 255:76–
82 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2018.01.097.
68 Greenlee LF, Lawler DF, Freeman BD, Marrot B and Moulin P, Reverse
osmosis desalination: water sources, technology, and today's chal-
lenges. Water Res 43:2317–2348 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
watres.2009.03.010.
69 Sadrzadeh M and Mohammadi T, Sea water desalination using elec-
trodialysis. Desalination 221:440–447 (2008).
70 Dong Y, Liu J, Sui M, Qu Y, Ambuchi JJ, Wang H et al., A combined
microbial desalination cell and electrodialysis system for copper-
containing wastewater treatment and high-salinity-water desalina-
tion. J Hazard Mater 321:307–315 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jhazmat.2016.08.034.
28
wileyonlinelibrary.com/jctb © 2022 Society of Chemical Industry (SCI).
HH Abd-almohi, ZT Alismaeel, MJM Ridha
71 Logan BE, Call D, Cheng S, Hamelers HVM, Sleutels THJA,
Jeremiasse AW et al., Microbial electrolysis cells for high yield hydro-
gen gas production from organic matter. Environ Sci Technol 42:
8630–8640 (2008).
72 Zhou S, Tang J and Yuan Y, Conduction-band edge dependence of
carbon-coated hematite stimulated extracellular electron transfer
of shewanella oneidensis in bioelectrochemical systems. Bioelectro-
chemistry 102:29–34 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bioelechem.
2014.11.005.
73 Mehdinia A, Ziaei E and Jabbari A, Facile microwave-assisted synthe-
sized reduced graphene oxide/tin oxide nanocomposite and using
as anode material of microbial fuel cell to improve power genera-
tion. Int J Hydrogen Energy 39:10724–10730 (2014). https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ijhydene.2014.05.008.
74 Singh S and Verma N, Fabrication of Ni nanoparticles-dispersed car-
bon micro-nanofibers as the electrodes of a microbial fuel cell for
bio-energy production. Int J Hydrogen Energy 40:1145–1153 (2015).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2014.11.073.
75 Hou J, Liu Z, Li Y, Yang S and Zhou Y, A comparative study of
graphene-coated stainless steel fiber felt and carbon cloth as
anodes in MFCs. Bioprocess Biosyst Eng 38:881–888 (2015).
76 Palanisamy G, Jung HY, Sadhasivam T, Kurkuri MD, Kim SC and
Roh SH, A comprehensive review on microbial fuel cell technologies:
processes, utilization, and advanced developments in electrodes
and membranes. J Cleaner Prod 221:598–621 (2019). https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.02.172.
77 Domenech M, García E and Moscoso M, Biofilm formation in
Streptococcus pneumoniae. J Microbial Biotechnol 5:455–465
(2012).
78 Zuo K, Liu F, Ren S, Zhang X, Liang P and Huang X, A novel multi-stage
microbial desalination cell for simultaneous desalination and
enhanced organics and nitrogen removal from domestic wastewa-
ter. Environ Sci Water Res Technol 2:832–837 (2016).
79 Hong PY, Moosa N and Mink J, Dynamics of microbial communities in
an integrated ultrafiltration–reverse osmosis desalination pilot plant
located at the Arabian Gulf. Desalin Water Treat 57:16310–16323
(2016).
80 Ebrahimi A, Najafpour GD and Kebria DY, Effect of batch
vs. continuous mode of operation on microbial desalination cell per-
formance treating municipal wastewater. Iran J Hydrogen Fuel Cell 4:
281–290 (2017).
81 Hardiyanti G, Arbianti R, Utami TS and Hermansyah H, Microbial desa-
lination cell using Tempe wastewater as substrate with varying
phosphate buffer concentration and salinity, in 6th Indonesia Bio-
technology Conference, pp. 496–502 (2016). https://doi.org/10.
4186/ej.2020.24.4.217
82 Kamila ED, Utami TS and Arbianti R, Sodium percarbonate as naturally
buffering catholyte in microbial desalination cell system:5–8.
83 Ping Q, Abu-Reesh IM and He Z, Boron removal from saline water by a
microbial desalination cell integrated with donnan dialysis. Desali-
nation 376:55–61 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2015.
08.019.
84 Shinde OA, Bansal A, Banerjee A and Sarkar S, Bioremediation of steel
plant wastewater and enhanced electricity generation in microbial
desalination cell. Water Sci Technol 77:2101–2112 (2018).
85 Pradhan H, Jain SC and Ghangrekar MM, Simultaneous removal of
phenol and dissolved solids from wastewater using multicham-
bered microbial desalination cell. Appl Biochem Biotechnol 177:
1638–1653 (2015).
86 Mirzaienia F, Asadipour A, Jafari AJ and Malakootian M, Removal effi-
ciency of nickel and lead from industrial wastewater using microbial
desalination cell. Appl Water Sci 7:3617–3624 (2017).
87 Malakootian M, Mahdizadeh H, Nasiri A, Mirzaienia F, Hajhoseini M
and Amirmahani N, Investigation of the efficiency of microbial
desalination cell in removal of arsenic from aqueous solutions.
Desalination 438:19–23 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.
2018.03.025.
88 Meng F, Zhao Q, Zheng Z, Wei L, Wang K, Jiang J et al., Simultaneous
sludge degradation, desalination and bioelectricity generation in
two-phase microbial desalination cells. Chem Eng J 361:180–188
(2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2018.12.063.
89 Tawalbeh M, Rajangam AS, Salameh T, Al-Othman A and Alkasrawi M,
Characterization of paper mill sludge as a renewable feedstock for
sustainable hydrogen and biofuels production. Int J Hydrogen Energy
46:4761–4775 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2020.02.166.
J Chem Technol Biotechnol 2022
Broad-ranging review: configurations, membrane types, governing equations
90 Nielsen HB and Angelidaki I, Strategies for optimizing recovery of the
biogas process following ammonia inhibition. Bioresour Technol 99:
7995–8001 (2008).
91 Kokabian B, Ghimire U and Gude VG, Water deionization with renew-
able energy production in microalgae—microbial desalination pro-
cess. Renewable Energy 122:354–361 (2018). https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.renene.2018.01.061.
92 Saba B, Christy AD, Yu Z, Co AC and Park T, Simultaneous power gen-
eration and desalination of microbial desalination cells using nanno-
chloropsis Salina (marine algae) versus potassium ferricyanide as
catholytes. Environ Eng Sci 34:185–196 (2017).
93 Utami TS, Arbianti R and Manaf BN, Sea water desalination using
Debaryomyces hansenii with microbial desalination cell technology.
Int J Technol 6:1094–1100 (2015).
94 Mukherjee J and Ghosh D, Environmental biotechnology. Chem Eng
Technol 39:1592 (2016).
95 Logan BE, Exoelectrogenic bacteria that power microbial fuel cells.
Nat Rev Microbiol 7:375–381 (2009).
96 Al-Mamun A, Ahmad W, Baawain MS, Khadem M and Dhar BR, A
review of microbial desalination cell technology: configurations,
optimization and applications. J Cleaner Prod 183:458–480 (2018).
97 Pandit S, Sarode S and Das D, Fundamentals of microbial desalination
cell. Microb Fuel Cell 2:353–371 (2017).
98 Tiwari ON, Choudhury P, Shahane S, Mishra U and Bhunia B, Exoelec-
trogenic bactreria:acandidate for sustainable bio-electricity genera-
tion in microbial fuel cells. Waste Sustainable Energy:106–124 (2019).
99 Jafary T, Al-Mamun A, Alhimali H, Baawain MS, Rahman MS, Rahman S
et al., Enhanced power generation and desalination rate in a novel
quadruple microbial desalination cell with a single desalination
chamber. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev 127:109855 (2020).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2020.109855.
100 Otto M, Virulence factors of the coagulase-negative staphylococci.
Front Biosci 9:841 (2004).
101 López D, Vlamakis H and Kolter R, Biofilms. Cold Spring Harb Perspect
Biol 2:1–11 (2010).
102 Saeed HM, Husseini GA, Yousef S, Saif J, Al-Asheh S, Abu Fara A et al.,
Microbial desalination cell technology: a review and a case study.
Desalination 359:1–13 (2015).
103 Logan BE, Scaling up microbial fuel cells and other bioelectrochem-
ical systems. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 85:1665–1671 (2010).
104 Clauwaert P, Van Der Ha D, Boon N, Verbeken K, Verhaege M,
Rabaey K et al., Open air biocathode enables effective electricity
generation with microbial fuel cells. Environ Sci Technol 41:7564–
7569 (2007).
105 Croese E, Pereira MA, Euverink GJW, Stams AJM and Geelhoed JS,
Analysis of the microbial community of the biocathode of a
hydrogen-producing microbial electrolysis cell. Appl Microbiol Bio-
technol 92:1083–1093 (2011).
106 Walter XA, Greenman J and Ieropoulos IA, Oxygenic phototrophic
biofilms for improved cathode performance in microbial fuel cells.
Algal Res 2:183–187 (2013).
107 Wen Q, Zhang H, Chen Z, Li Y, Nan J and Feng Y, Using bacterial cat-
alyst in the cathode of microbial desalination cell to improve waste-
water treatment and desalination. Bioresour Technol 125:108–113
(2012). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2012.08.140.
108 Huang L, Chai X, Chen G and Logan BE, Effect of set potential on hex-
avalent chromium reduction and electricity generation from bio-
cathode microbial fuel cells. Environ Sci Technol 45:5025–5031
(2011).
109 Bergel A, Féron D and Mollica A, Catalysis of oxygen reduction in PEM
fuel cell by seawater biofilm. Electrochem Commun 7:900–904
(2005).
110 Meng F, Jiang J, Zhao Q, Wang K, Zhang G, Fan Q et al., Bioelectro-
chemical desalination and electricity generation in microbial desali-
nation cell with dewatered sludge as fuel. Bioresour Technol 157:
120–126 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2014.01.056.
111 Butler C, Clauwaert P, Green S, Verstraete W and Nerenberg R, Bioe-
lectrochemical perchlorate reduction in a microbial fuel cell. Environ
Sci Technol 44:4685–4691 (2010).
112 Morita M, Malvankar N, Franks A, Summers ZM, Giloteaux L, Rotaru A
et al., Potential for direct interspecies electron transfer in methano-
genic. mBio 2:5–7 (2011).
113 Villano M, De Bonis L, Rossetti S, Aulenta F and Majone M, Bioelectro-
chemical hydrogen production with hydrogenophilic
J Chem Technol Biotechnol 2022 © 2022 Society of Chemical Industry (SCI).
www.soci.org
dechlorinating bacteria as electrocatalytic agents. Bioresour Technol
102:3193–3199 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2010.
10.146.
114 Jeremiasse AW, Hamelers HVM, Croese E and Buisman CJN, Acetate
enhances startup of a H 2-producing microbial biocathode. Biotech-
nol Bioeng 109:657–664 (2012).
115 Rozendal RA, Hamelers HVM, Rabaey K, Keller J and Buisman CJN,
Towards practical implementation of bioelectrochemical wastewa-
ter treatment. Trends Biotechnol 26:450–459 (2008).
116 Sharma V and Kundu PP, Biocatalysts in microbial fuel cells. Enzyme
Microb Technol 47:179–188 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
enzmictec.2010.07.001.
117 Sun Y, Wei J, Liang P and Huang X, Microbial community analysis in
biocathode microbial fuel cells packed with different materials.
AMB Express 2:1–8 (2012).
118 Shrestha A, Dhamwichukorn S and Jenwitheesuk E, Modeling of pyru-
vate decarboxylases from ethanol producing bacteria. Bioinforma-
tion 4:378–384 (2010) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/
20975902.
119 Pandit S, Nayak BK and Das D, Microbial carbon capture cell using
cyanobacteria for simultaneous power generation, carbon dioxide
sequestration and wastewater treatment. Bioresour Technol 107:
97–102 (2012).
120 Gordillo FJL, Goutx M, Figueroa FL and Niell FX, Effects of light inten-
sity, CO2 and nitrogen supply on lipid class composition of Duna-
liella viridis. J Appl Phycol 10:135–144 (1998).
121 Iqbal M and Zafar SI, Effects of photon flux density, CO2, aeration rate,
and inoculum density on growth and extracellular polysaccharide
production by Porphyridium cruentum. Folia Microbiol 38:509–514
(1993).
122 Davis RJ, Kim Y and Logan BE, Increasing desalination by mitigating
anolyte ph imbalance using catholyte effluent addition in a multi-
anode bench scale microbial desalination cell. ACS Sustainable Chem
Eng 1:1200–1206 (2013).
123 Aelterman P, Rabaey K and Verstraete W, Labmet publicatie
807 P. Aelterman continuous. Environ Sci Technol 40:3388–3394
(2006).
124 Zhang F and He Z, Scaling up microbial desalination cell system with
a post-aerobic process for simultaneous wastewater treatment and
seawater desalination. Desalination 360:28–34 (2015). https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.desal.2015.01.009.
125 Sangeetha T, Yan WM, Chen PT, Yang CJ and Huang KD, Electrochem-
ical polarization analysis for optimization of external operation
parameters in zinc fuel cells. RSC Adv 10:28807–28818 (2020).
126 Liu F, Luo S, Wang H, Zuo K, Wang L, Zhang X et al., Improving waste-
water treatment capacity by optimizing hydraulic retention time of
dual-anode assembled microbial desalination cell system. Sep Purif
Technol 1:39–47 (2019).
127 Ping Q, Cohen B, Dosoretz C, He Z. Long-term investigation of fouling
of cation and anion exchange membranes in microbial desalination
cells. Desalination [Internet] 325:48–55 (2013). Available: https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.desal.2013.06.025
128 Jingyu H, Ewusi-Mensah D, Norgbey E. Article in Desalination and
Water Treatment 2017. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/
320890679
129 Steven S and Zumdahl SAZ, CHM1045 chemistry, in Properties and
Selection: Nonferrous Alloys and Special-Purpose Materials, Cengage
Learning, pp. 1098–1098 (2018). Available: https://books.google.iq/
books?id=LSMLAAAAQBAJ
130 Kotz J, Chemistry & Chemical Reactivity, 9th edn. Brooks/Cole,
Australia, p. 2014 (2015).
131 Ebrahimi A, Najafpour GD and Kebria DY, Enhanced Energy Recovery
and Wastewater Treatment Efficiency in Microbial Desalination
Enhanced Energy Recovery and Wastewater Treatment Efficiency in
Microbial Desalination Cell, Fusion of Science & Technology,
pp. 664–668 (2016).
132 Ebrahimi A, Yousefi Kebria D and Darzi GN, Improving bioelectricity
generation and COD removal of sewage sludge in microbial desali-
nation cell. Environ Technol 39:1188–1197 (2018). https://doi.org/
10.1080/09593330.2017.1323958.
133 Mateo S, Fernandez-Morales FJ, Cañizares P and Rodrigo MA, Influ-
ence of the cathode platinum loading and of the implementation
of membranes on the performance of air-breathing microbial fuel
cells. Electrocatalysis 8:442–449 (2017).
29
wileyonlinelibrary.com/jctb
 www.soci.org
134 Santoro C, Talarposhti MR, Kodali M, Gokhale R, Serov A, Merino-
Jimenez I et al., Microbial desalination cells with efficient platinum-
group-metal-free cathode catalysts. ChemElectroChem 4:3322–3330
(2017).
135 Faze NR. Life Cycle and Economic Analysis Comparing Microbial Desali-
nation Cell and Reverse Osmosis Technologies Thesis. 2015; ID:
133196047.
136 Ebrahimi A, Najafpour GD and Yousefi KD, Performance of microbial
desalination cell for salt removal and energy generation using differ-
ent catholyte solutions. Desalination 432:1–9 (2018).
137 Arana TJ and Gude VG, A microbial desalination process with micro-
algae biocathode using sodium bicarbonate as an inorganic carbon
source. Int Biodeterior Biodegrad 130:91–97 (2018).
138 Gil GC, Chang IS, Kim BH, Kim M, Jang JK, Park HS et al., Operational
parameters affecting the performannce of a mediator-less microbial
fuel cell. Biosens Bioelectron 18:327–334 (2003).
139 Ortiz-Martínez VM, Salar-García MJ, de los Ríos AP, Hernández-
Fernández FJ, Egea JA and Lozano LJ, Developments in microbial
fuel cell modeling. Chem Eng J 1:50–60 (2015 Jul).
140 Sophia AC and Bhalambaal VM, Utilization of coconut shell carbon in
the anode compartment of microbial desalination cell (MDC) for
enhanced desalination and bio-electricity production. J Environ
Chem Eng 3:2768–2776 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jece.2015.
10.026.
141 Sevda S, Abu-Reesh IM, Yuan H and He Z, Bioelectricity generation
from treatment of petroleum refinery wastewater with simulta-
neous seawater desalination in microbial desalination cells. Energy
Convers Manage 141:101–107 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
enconman.2016.05.050.
142 Anusha G, Noori MT and Ghangrekar MM, Application of silver-tin
dioxide composite cathode catalyst for enhancing performance of
microbial desalination cell. Mater Sci Energy Technol 1:188–195
(2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mset.2018.08.002.
143 Gholizadeh A, Ebrahimi AA, Salmani MH and Ehrampoush MH,
Ozone-cathode microbial desalination cell; An innovative option to
bioelectricity generation and water desalination. Chemosphere
188:470–477 (2017).
144 Hemalatha M, Butti SK, Velvizhi G and Venkata MS, Microbial medi-
ated desalination for ground water softening with simultaneous
30
wileyonlinelibrary.com/jctb © 2022 Society of Chemical Industry (SCI).
HH Abd-almohi, ZT Alismaeel, MJM Ridha
power generation. Bioresour Technol 242:28–35 (2017). https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.biortech.2017.05.020.
145 Kalleary S, Mohammed Abbas F, Ganesan A, Meenatchisundaram S,
Srinivasan B, Packirisamy ASB et al., Biodegradation and bioelectric-
ity generation by microbial desalination cell. Int Biodeterior Biode-
grad 92:20–25 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibiod.2014.04.002.
146 Tamta P, Rani N and Yadav AK, Enhanced wastewater treatment and
electricity generation using stacked constructed wetland–microbial
fuel cells. Environ Chem Lett 18:871–879 (2020). https://doi.org/10.
1007/s10311-020-00966-2.
147 El-Dessouky H, Shaban HI and Al-Ramadan H, Steady-state analysis of
multi-stage flash desalination process. Desalination 103:271–287 (1995).
148 Kokabian B and Gude VG, Photosynthetic microbial desalination cells
(PMDCs) for clean energy, water and biomass production. Environ Sci
Process Impacts 15:2178–2185 (2013).
149 Cheng KY, Ho G and Cord-Ruwisch R, Anodophilic biofilm catalyzes
Cathodic oxygen reduction. Environ Sci Technol 44:518–525 (2010).
150 Ortiz JM, Sotoca JA, Expósito E, Gallud F, García-García V, Montiel V et al.,
Brackish water desalination by electrodialysis: batch recirculation oper-
ation modeling. J Membr Sci. 252:65–75 (2005).
151 Lee HJ, Sarfert F, Strathmann H and Moon SH, Designing of an electro-
dialysis desalination plant. Desalination 142:267–286 (2002).
152 Logan BE, Hamelers B, Rozendal R, Schröder U, Keller J, Freguia S et al.,
Microbial fuel cells: methodology and technology. Environ Sci Tech-
nol 40:5181–5192 (2006).
153 Ramírez-Moreno M, Esteve-Núñez A and Ortiz JM, Desalination of
brackish water using a microbial desalination cell: analysis of the
electrochemical behaviour. Electrochim Acta 45:388 (2021).
154 Picioreanu C, Katuri KP, Head IM, Van Loosdrecht MCM and Scott K,
Mathematical model for microbial fuel cells with anodic biofilms
and anaerobic digestion. Water Sci Technol 57:965–971 (2008).
155 Marcus AK, Torres CI and Rittmann BE, Analysis of a microbial electro-
chemical cell using the proton condition in biofilm (PCBIOFILM)
model. Bioresour Technol 102:253–262 (2011). https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.biortech.2010.03.100.
156 Hall JL, Cell components. Phytochemistry 26:1235–1236 (1987).
157 Slade S, Campbell SA, Ralph TR and Walsh FC, Ionic conductivity of an
extruded Nafion 1100 EW series of membranes. J Electrochem Soc
149:A1556 (2002).
J Chem Technol Biotechnol 2022