Bioresource Technology 198 (2015) 891–895

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Bioresource Technology
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/biortech

Review

Microalgae–microbial fuel cell: A mini review

Duu-Jong Lee a,b,⇑, Jo-Shu Chang c, Juin-Yih Lai d
a
Department of Chemical Engineering, National Taiwan University, Taipei 106, Taiwan
b
Department of Chemical Engineering, National Taiwan University of Science and Technology, Taipei 106, Taiwan
c
Research Center for Energy Technology and Strategy, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan 701, Taiwan
d
R&D Center for Membrane Technology, Department of Chemical Engineering, Chung Yuan Christian University, Chungli, Taiwan

h i g h l i g h t s g r a p h i c a l a b s t r a c t

Current status of R&D works on

e- e-
LOAD
microalgae–microbial fuel cells is
listed. Anode Anode Cathode

Limitations of microalgal and MFC Respiring
Bacteria CEM Aached algae
processes are discussed.

Challenges and prospects for Feed Algae
e--donors
commercialization of mMFC are e- H2O
e- SUN
highlighted.
O2
H-

Oxidized forms CO2

+ CO2 + H-

Residue

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

Article history: Microalgae–microbial fuel cells (mMFCs) are a device that can convert solar energy to electrical energy
Received 6 September 2015 via biological pathways. This mini-review lists new research and development works on microalgae
Received in revised form 11 September 2015 processes, microbial fuel cell (MFC) processes, and their combined version, mMFC. The substantial
Accepted 13 September 2015
improvement and technological advancement are highlighted, with a discussion on the challenges and
Available online 25 September 2015
prospects for possible commercialization of mMFC technologies.
Ó 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords:
CO2 sequestration
Commercialization
Microalgae
Microbial fuel cell
Technical obstacles

1. Introduction freshwater biology (3069), energy fuels (1956), and environmental

Numerous studies were reported on all aspects of microalgae
processes. The Web of ScienceTM database search using topic of
‘‘microalgae” on 2015.09.06 led to a total of 12,548 papers, in fields
such as biotechnology applied microbiology (3617), marine
⇑ Corresponding author at: Department of Chemical Engineering, National
Taiwan University, Taipei 106, Taiwan. Tel.: +886 2 26325632; fax: +886 2
23623040.
E-mail address: djlee@ntu.edu.tw (D.-J. Lee).
sciences (1431), and with authors from United States and China
contributing about 28% of these published papers. In all platforms,
Bioresource Technology ranked top in number of microalgae
papers published (1066), followed by Journal of Phycology (487)
and Marine Ecology Progress Series (281). The number of these
papers in the sub-category ‘‘biofuels or biorefinery” is 1816, which
had received over 35,000 citations, with about 8600 and 11,000
hits in 2013 and 2014, respectively, suggesting that this research
topic is of current focus. Relevant review articles with >600

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2015.09.061
0960-8524/Ó 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
892 D.-J. Lee et al. / Bioresource Technology 198 (2015) 891–895
e-
Anode Anode
Respiring
Bacteria
Feed
e--donors
e-
Oxidized forms
+ CO2 + H-
Fig. 1. Schematic of microalgae–microbial fuel cells. Dash lines indicate possible integration of anodic and cathodic chambers with carbon flows.
citations are available (Chisti, 2007, 2008; Hu et al., 2008; Mata
et al., 2010; Brennan and Owende, 2010).
Similar search on the topic of microbial fuel cells (MFC) on
2015.06.15 led to a total of 4558 papers. These papers received
over 110,000 citations, with about 18,000 and 21,700 hits in
2013 and 2014, respectively, suggesting that this research topic
is also a field of current focus. Relevant review articles with >700
citations are listed (Logan et al., 2006; Bond and Lovley, 2003;
Rabaey and Verstraete, 2005; Liu and Logan, 2004).
Researches on microalgae and on MFC were intensively con-
ducted (Raschitor et al., 2015; Mendoza et al., 2015; Yu et al.,
2015; Chen et al., 2015; Wieczorek et al., 2015), with their integra-
tion leading to the development of microalgae-MFC (mMFC) (Cao
et al., 2009). The mMFC (Fig. 1) containing photosynthetic microor-
ganisms are capable of converting solar energy into electricity
through the metabolic reactions of photosynthetic microorganisms
(Bombelli et al., 2011). In addition to bioelectricity generation,
mMFCs can also sequestrate CO2 from air and remove nitrogen
contaminants from waters (Wang et al., 2010; Li et al., 2012).
This mini-review lists recent studies on microalgae process,
MFC process and mMFC, from which the current R&D trends on
this interesting integrated system can be demonstrated. Since
the mMFC device combines both photoreactor for microalgae
cultivation and MFC (Rosenbaum et al., 2010), it has advantages
and disadvantages of both processes (Elmekawy et al., 2014; Xiao
and He, 2014; Mao and Verwoerd, 2013). This mini-review lists
the limitations for both processes, based on which the challenges
and prospects of mMFC are outlined.
2. Microalgae processes
Algae have been identified by many researchers as a promising
resource for biofuel and biochemicals production (Chisti, 2007;
Deirue et al., 2012; Liu et al., 2012; Chen et al., 2013; Lin et al.,
2015a; Show et al., 2013, 2015; Tran et al., 2013; Yen et al.,
2013). As algae biomass was capable of producing much more oil
yield per unit cultivation area than other biomass such as corn
and soybean, production of algal biodiesel has drawn interest of
scientists because of its potential prospect for practical application.
As carbon dioxide (CO2) sequestration via algae was one to two
orders of magnitude higher than terrestrial plants (Ho et al.,
e-
LOAD
Cathode
CEM Aached algae
Algae
H2O
e- SUN
O2
H-
CO2
Residue
2011), algae are considered a potential carbon sink in removing
overloaded carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
The production scheme for algal products starts with algal
strain development and cultivation, harvesting via algal biomass
separation or screening from the broth, and subsequent thickening,
dewatering and drying, post-processing (may include oil extraction
and fractionation) (Chen et al., 2011). Autotrophic growth of algal
cells is limited by the light sources. Under intensive light the
growth of cells is limited; while at high algal cells density the light
penetration depth can be only a few millimeters from light
receiving surface. Hence, a photoreactor with large specific area
(surface area per unit reactor volume) and with appropriate light
intensity is required (Lin et al., 2015b).
Algal harvesting is applied to concentrate algal cells by
removing as much water as possible in an economically viable
manner (Chen et al., 1996). Microbial cells have simple cellular
construction at rapid cell growth, which mostly grow in the motile
unicellular state to be cumbersome to harvest (Show et al., 2013).
High concentration of metallic coagulants could affect the quality
of the final product (Utomo et al., 2013). Subsequent processing
needs excess chemicals that poses challenge to reduce cost of
product separation and solvent recovery (Dismukes et al., 2008;
Reijnders, 2008). Expensive processes were proposed for avoiding
the pre-drying stage (Jazzar et al., 2015; Im et al., 2015; Park
et al., 2015).
3. Microbial fuel cells
The beauty of MFC technologies is the capability of direct
converting chemical energy to electrical energy via biological
pathway, thereby allowing it the biological adaption to handling
various chemical substrates at different concentrations.
The main obstacles to apply MFC in practical use included the
high installation/operation costs (with the use of expensive proton
exchange membrane (PEM) and the Pt-implemented cathode, and
the use of mediators in catholyte for enhancing electron transfer
efficiency) and low power outputs (generally of a few tens to a
few watts per m2 of electrode surface area, much lower than
chemical MFC of 104 W/m2). Research efforts were devoted to
reduce the costs of MFC technologies with refinement of the MFC
architecture (Chisti, 2008), application of single-chamber design
to remove the need of PEM (Liu and Logan, 2004), and the use of
 D.-J. Lee et al. / Bioresource Technology 198 (2015) 891–895
biocathode to replace the Pt-catalytic cathode (Zhang et al., 2015a).
These efforts had increased the power outputs from less than
10 mW/m2 to >1 W/m2. In certain liter-scale tests the Ohm resis-
tance of electron transfer over the whole MFC has been reduced
to a few tens ohms, suggesting that only few can be done to further
reducing the external resistances of the MFC cells by optimizing
the hydrodynamic and mass transfer factors (Zhang et al., 2015b,
c). Restated, further increase the power output is limited by the
inherent nature of exoelectrogens.
Recently, the possible use of MFC devices as pollutant treatment
unit is studied. For instance, if an MFC was started up with sulfate-
reducing bacteria (SBR) and the electrogens, the so established
SBR-MFC can convert sulfate and chemical oxygen demand (COD)
in wastewater to elementary sulfur and CO2, respectively (Lee
et al., 2012a,b, 2014). Some studies revealed that the MFC can con-
vert sulfide to elementary sulfur, with sulfide as the single electron
donor for anode (Sun et al., 2009; Lee et al., 2012a,b). Another
example of using MFC for pollutant control is to apply it in treat-
ment of landfill leachate (Zhang et al., 2015b,c).The use of a 3.5-L
membraneless MFC with biocathode to remove 90% COD and 99%
NH+4 at 3 kg COD m3 d1 loading and 24-h hydraulic retention
time, a remarkable achievement by the tested MFC technologies
on pollution treatment tests. Recently, the consistency of MFC
started up using identical protocol has been proposed to be poor
(Weng and Lee, 2015), which needs further research works for
resolving this possible threat for the MFC technologies.
4. Microalgae–microbial fuel cells
In an MFC CO2 can be produced at anodic chamber as the
oxidized product of organic feeds while electron acceptor such as
O2 or ferricyanide is needed at cathode chamber to receive the
excess protons from anodic chamber and electrons from the
external circuit. Restated,at anode,
Organics ! CO2 þ Hþ ðto cathodeÞ þ e ðexternal circuitÞ
at cathode,
O2 þ Hþ ðfrom cathodeÞ þ e ðexternal circuitÞ ! H2 O
Th ese half two reactions lead to overall reaction as
Organics þ O2 ! CO2 þ H2 O þ external power
a process converting chemical energy to electrical energy. In a
microalgae photoreactor the unicellular chlorophyll-containing
algal cells convert CO2 with the help of incident light to biomass
and O2. Restated,
CO2 þ H2 O þ light ! biomass þ O2
The photosynthesis reaction by the Chlorella vulgaris in the
cathodic chamber released oxygen to the suspension or these
microalgal cells could serve as electron acceptor (Powell et al.,
2009; Wang et al., 2010; Kakaria and Min, 2014a,b). Wu et al.
(2013) detailed the relationship between cell voltage and dissolved
oxygen (DO) for an mMFC. These authors noted that the concentra-
tion of DO has a clear positive correlation with the voltage output.
As proposed in MFC studies, the algae biocathode was tested in
mMFC (Liu et al., 2013; Juang et al., 2012; Gonzalez del Campo
et al., 2013; Mohan et al., 2013). Cao et al. (2009) applied a
photo-biocathode for CO2 reduction in a completely anoxic mMFC.
Hence, microalgae existing in suspended or attached form in
cathodic chamber could be applicable for mMFC applications.
Additionally, McCormick et al. (2011) revealed that the presence
of microalgae reduced the over-potential on cathodic surface.
However, whether the algal cells directly receiving electrons from
893
cathodic surface or indirectly receiving the electrons via produced
O2 molecules is to be confirmed (Freguia et al., 2010).
A few studies (Cui et al., 2014; Kondaveeti et al., 2014; Rashid
et al., 2013) tested the mMFC with live green algae growing in
cathode chamber and dead microalgae biomass as substrate for
anodic biofilm. These tests, if succeeded, may lead to possible
use of the biomass generated in Eq. (4) as feed (organics) in
Eq. (3) so a zero-carbon discharge scheme can be realized.
As practiced in regular MFC, a natural extension of the mMFC
process was applied anodic chamber for pollutant removal (Li
et al., 2012; Zhang et al., 2011; He et al., 2009). The anodic biofilm
plays the same role as regular MFC to receive electrons from elec-
tron donors, the pollutants. We can expect that most pollutants
reported to be removable in MFCs such as sulfide or organic
matters in landfill leachate should be applicable to mMFC units.
Wu et al. (2014) investigated the effects of light intensity on the
cathodic resistance of Desmodesmus sp. A8-MFC. These authors
proposed that the DO content at cathodic chamber was increased
under photosynthesis which presented the principal factor
determining the cathodic resistance. Also, Wu et al. (2013)
revealed that intermittent illumination benefits the operation of
MFC with C. vulgaris biocathode. Continuous illumination would
shorten the microalgal life time.
5. Challenges and prospects
The mMFCs have advantages and disadvantages of both
microalgae and MFC processes. To have economically feasible
mMFC, most technical obstacles by both microalgal process and
MFC processes need to be removed.
The mMFC should need large surface area for light receiving at
cathodic chamber while the subsequent harvesting and post-
processing of the cultivated cells would be costly. Microalgae can
grow under various conditions; however, CO2 sequestration pre-
ð1Þ fers autotrophic growth for algal cell cultivation, whose rate is,
however, limited by the light sources. Under intensive light the
growth of cells is inhibited; while at high algal cells density the
light penetration depth in the reactor can be only a few millimeters
ð2Þ that largely decelerate cell growth. Hence, a photo-cathodic cham-
ber with large specific area (surface area per unit reactor volume)
and with appropriate light intensity is needed (Lin et al., 2015b):
ð3Þ with the former the chamber should have a large foot print while
with the latter, open cultivation at varying light intensity is not
encouraged. These constraints yield a high production and opera-
tional costs for running a mNFC.
At anode, the Columbic efficiency for substrate utilization and
performance consistency by identical startup protocol is low. The
efficiency at anodic biofilm will pose limit to the efficiency of
ð4Þ
whole mMFC with low surface density of cells by a factor of
101, electron transfer resistance in biofilm by another factor of
101, and the intracellular and extracellular mass transfer
gradients built up in the anodic biofilm which can be serious at
MFC larger than liter size (Zhang et al., 2015b,c). After geometry
and hydrodynamic environment optimization, ultimate limits by
exoelectrogenic cells come into play. At ‘‘high” current regime
MFCs often encounter power-overshoot problem: both cell voltage
and electrical current decrease at decreasing external loads
(Ieropoulos et al., 2010; Nien et al., 2011). Power overshoot is from
cell failure at high current loading which may be produced by the
local accumulation of protons to limit extracellular electron trans-
fer rate. The mMFC cannot have a power output higher than the
ceiling value affordable by anodic biofilm, which is generally of
order a few hundred mW/m2.
In the mMFC, ideally when all yielded CO2 produced by anodic
biofilm can be consumed by microalgal cells in cathodic chamber
894 D.-J. Lee et al. / Bioresource Technology 198 (2015) 891–895
in the presence of light, while all so-yielded O2 can be served as the
electron acceptors needed for the cathodic chamber, then the
overall reaction in the mMFC becomes:
Organics þ light ! biomass þ external power
Restated, the mMFC is a device to directly convert light energy
to electrical energy via biological pathway (Bombelli et al., 2011),
or a bio-photovoltaic cell with minimal generation of CO2. The
possible use of the biomass generated in Eq. (5) as feed (organics)
so a zero-carbon discharge scheme can be realized. However, to
realize this proposal, the production and consumption rates of
CO2, O2, and biomass have to be balanced in the system. The
control of these fluxes will be a challenge for full-scale operation.
The encouraging news is that all current R&D efforts to enhance
MFC power output and to increase quantum efficiency for microal-
gal cultivation should also work for improving efficiency of mMFC.
Full-scale mMFCs have not been installed. Owing to the light
source constraint, the feasible scenario for mMFC application
may be the installation of anodic chamber besides the large scale
microalgal cultivation plants but not vice versa. The reduced costs
for CO2 supply and aeration for mMFC should be welcome for such
an addition. A field concern is the very different time constants for
individual processes and very different toxicity thresholds for dis-
tinct microorganism groups to feed concentrations involved in
mMFC that make the control impractical. The mMFC as a platform
for biofuel/biochemical production (extracted from cultivated
microalgal cells) using organics in wastewater and residue after
algal extraction as anodic feeds should also be beneficial to balance
the finance. A rigorous techno-economic analysis considering use
of land, water and emission of greenhouse gas (GHG) was neces-
sary to draw a clearer prospect comparison between use of mMFC
or individual microalgae and MFC units. Further research and
development are needed to make mMFC a practical device for use.
6. Conclusions
There have been substantial improvement and technological
advancement in the microalgae and MFC processes. The develop-
ments on mFMC applications, a device combining microalgal culti-
vation as cathodic chamber and conventional anodic chamber
handing electron donors as fuel, provide a new pathway converting
light energy to electrical energy with minimal generation of CO2.
This mini-review discussed the current status of developments
and challenges and prospects for further R&D needs on the mMFC
technologies.
Acknowledgement
Financial supports from Ministry of Science and Technology
(MOST), Taiwan is highly appreciated.
References
Bombelli, P., Bradley, R.W., Scott, A.M., Philips, A.J., McCormick, A.J., Cruz, S.M.,
Anderson, A., Yunus, K., Bendall, D.S., Cameron, P.J., Davies, J.M., Smith, A.G.,
Howe, C.J., Fisher, A.C., 2011. Quantitative analysis of the factors limiting solar
power transduction by Synechocystis sp. PCC 6803 in biological photovoltaic
devices. Energy Environ. Sci. 2011 (4), 4690–4698.
Bond, D.R., Lovley, D.R., 2003. Electricity production by Geobacter sulfurreducens
attached to electrodes. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 69, 1548–1555.
Brennan, L., Owende, P., 2010. Biofuels from microalgae – a review of technologies
for production, processing, and extractions of biofuels and co-products.
Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev. 14, 557–577.
Cao, X.X., Huang, X., Lig, P., Boon, N., Fan, M.Z., Zhang, L., Zhang, X.Y., 2009. A
completely anoxic microbial fuel cell using a photo-biocathode for cathodic
carbon dioxide reduction. Energy Environ. Sci. 2, 498–501.
Chen, C.Y., Yeh, K.L., Aisyah, R., Lee, D.J., Chang, J.S., 2011. Cultivation,
photobioreactor design and harvesting of microalgae for biodiesel production:
a critical review. Bioresour. Technol. 102, 71–81.
Chen, C.Y., Kao, P.C., Tsai, C.J., Lee, D.J., Chang, J.S., 2013. Engineering strategies for
simultaneous enhancement of C-phycocyanin production and CO2 fixation with
Spirulina platensis. Bioresour. Technol. 145, 307–312.
Chen, C.L., Huang, C.C., Ho, K.C., Hsiao, P.X., Wu, M.S., Chang, J.S., 2015. Biodiesel
production from wet microalgae feedstock using sequential wet
ð5Þ extraction/transesterification and direct transesterification processes.
Bioresour. Technol. 194, 179–186.
Chen, G.W., Lin, W.W., Lee, D.J., 1996. Capillary suction time (CST) as a measure of
sludge dewaterability. Water Sci. Technol. 34 (3–4), 443–448.
Chisti, Y., 2007. Biodiesel from microalgae. Biotechnol. Adv. 25, 294–306.
Chisti, Y., 2008. Biodiesel from microalgae beats bioethanol. Trends Biotechnol. 26,
126–131.
Cui, Y.F., Rashid, N., Hu, N.X., Rehman, M.S., Han, J.I., 2014. Electricity generation and
microalgae cultivation in microbial fuel cell using microalgae-enriched anode
and bio-cathode. Energy Convers. Manage. 79, 674–680.
Deirue, F., Seiter, P.A., Sahut, C., Cournac, L., Roubltier, G., Froment, A.K., 2012. An
economic, sustainability, and energenic model of biodiesel production from
microalgae. Bioresour. Technol. 112, 191–200.
Dismukes, G.C., Carrieri, D., Bennette, N., Ananyev, G.M., Posewitz, M.C., 2008.
Aquatic phototrophs: efficient alternatives to land-based crops for biofuels.
Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 19, 235–240.
Elmekawy, A., Hegab, H.M., Vanbroekhoven, K., Pant, D., 2014. Techno-productive
potential of photosynthetic microbial fuel cells through different
configurations. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev. 39, 617–627.
Freguia, S., Tsujimura, S., Kano, K., 2010. Electron transfer pathways in microbial
oxygen biocathodes. Electrochim. Acta 55, 813–818.
Gonzalez del Campo, A., Canizares, P., Rodrigo, M.A., Fernandez, F.J., Lobato, J., 2013.
Microbial fuel cell with an algae-assisted cathode: preliminary assessment. J.
Power Sources 242, 638–645.
He, Z., Kan, J., Mansfeld, F., Angenent, L.T., Nealson, K.H., 2009. Self sustained
phototrophic microbial fuel cells based on the synergistic cooperation between
photosynthetic microorganisms and heterotrophic bacteria. Environ. Sci.
Technol. 43, 1648–1654.
Ho, S.H., Chen, C.Y., Lee, D.J., Chang, J.S., 2011. Perspectives on microalgae CO2-
emission mitigation systems – a review. Biotechnol. Adv. 29, 189–198.
Ieropoulos, I., Winfield, J., Greenman, J., 2010. Effects of flow-rate, inoculum and
time on the internal resistance of microbial fuel cells. Bioresour. Technol. 101,
3520–3525.
Hu, Q., Sommerfeld, M., Jarvis, E., Ghirardi, M., Posewitz, M., Seibert, M., Darzins, A.,
2008. Microbial triacylglycerols as feedstocks for biofuel production:
perspectives and advances. Plant J. 54, 621–639.
Im, H., Kim, B., Lee, J.W., 2015. Concurrnet production of biodiesel and chemicals
through wet in situ transesterification of microalgae. Bioresour. Technol. 193,
386–392.
Jazzar, S., Quesada-Medina, J., Olivares-Carrillo, P., Marzouki, M.N., Acien-
Fernandez, F.G., Fernandez-Sevilla, J.M., Molina-Grima, E., Smaali, I., 2015. A
whole biodiesel conversion process combining isolation, cultivation and in situ
supercritical methanol transesterification of native microalgae. Bioresour.
Technol. 190, 281–288.
Juang, D.F., Lee, C.H., Hsueh, S.C., 2012. Comparison of electrogenic capabilities of
microbial fuel cell with different light power on algae growth on cathode.
Bioresour. Technol. 123, 23–29.
Kakaria, R., Min, B., 2014a. Photoautotrophic microalgae Scenedesmus obliquus
attached on a cathode as oxygen producers for microbial fuel cell (MFC)
operation. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 39, 10275–10283.
Kakaria, R., Min, B., 2014b. Evaluation of microbial fuel cell operation using algae as
an oxygen supplier: carbon paper cathode vs. carbon brush cathode. Bioprocess.
Biosyst. Eng. 37, 2453–2461.
Kondaveeti, S., Choi, K.S., Kakarla, R., Min, B., 2014. Microalgae Scenedesmus obliquus
as renewable biomass feedstock for electricity generation in microbial fuel cells
(MFCs). Front. Environ. Sci. Eng. 8, 784–791.
Lee, C.Y., Ho, K.L., Lee, D.J., Su, A., Chang, J.S., 2012a. Electricity harvest from nitrate/
sulfide-containing wastewaters using microbial fuel cell with autotrophic
denitrifier, Pseudomonas sp. C27. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 37, 15827–15832.
Lee, D.J., Lee, C.Y., Chang, J.S., 2012b. Treatment and electricity harvesting from
sulfate/sulfide-containing wastewaters using microbial fuel cell with enriched
sulfate-reducing mixed culture. J. Hazard. Mater. 243, 67–72.
Lee, D.J., Liu, X., Weng, H.L., 2014. Sulfate and organic carbon removal by microbial
fuel cell with sulfate-reducing bacteria and sulfide-oxidising bacteria anodic
biofilm. Bioresour. Technol. 156, 14–19.
Li, X., John, A.B., He, Z., 2012. Integrated photo-bioelectrochemical system for
contaminants removal and bioenergy production. Environ. Sci. Technol. 46,
11459–11466.
Lin, J.H., Lee, D.J., Chang, J.S., 2015a. Lutein in specific marigold flowers and
microalgae. J. Taiwan Inst. Chem. Eng. 49, 90–94.
Lin, J.H., Lee, D.J., Chang, J.S., 2015b. Lutein production from biomass: marigold
flowers versus microalgae. Bioresour. Technol. 2015 (184), 421–428.
Liu, W.X., Clarens, A.F., Colosi, L.M., 2012. Algae biodiesel has potential despite
inconclusive results to date. Bioresour. Technol. 104, 803–806.
Liu, H., Logan, B.E., 2004. Electricity generation using an air-cathode single chamber
microbial fuel cell in the presence and absence of a proton exchange membrane.
Environ. Sci. Technol. 38, 4040–4046.
Liu, X.W., Sun, X.F., Huang, Y.X., Li, D.B., Zeng, R.J., Xiong, L., Sheng, G.P., Li, W.W.,
Cheng, Y.Y., Wang, S.G., Yu, H.Q., 2013. Photoautotrophic cathodic oxygen
reduction catalyzed by a green alga, Chlamydomonas reinhardtii. Biotechnol.
Bioeng. 110, 173–179.
 D.-J. Lee et al. / Bioresource Technology 198 (2015) 891–895
Logan, B.E., Hamelers, B., Rozendal, R.A., Schrorder, U., Keller, J., Freguia, S.,
Aelterman, P., Verstraete, W., Rabaey, K., 2006. Microbial fuel cells:
methodology and technology. Environ. Sci. Technol. 40, 5181–5192.
Mao, L., Verwoerd, W.S., 2013. Selection of organisms for systems biology study of
microbial electricity generation: a review. Int. J. Energy Environ. Eng. 4, 1–18.
Mata, T.M., Martins, A.A., Caetano, N.S., 2010. Microalgae for biodiesel production and
other applications: a review. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev. 14, 217–232.
McCormick, A.J., Bombelli, P., Scott, A.M., Philips, A.J., Smith, A.G., Fisher, A.C., Howe,
C.J., 2011. Photosynthetic biofilms in pure culture harness solar energy in a
mediatorless bio-photovoltaic cell (BPV) system. Energy Environ. Sci. 4,
4699–4709.
Mendoza, H., Carmona, L., Assuncao, P., Freijanes, K., de la Jara, A., Portillo, E., Torres,
A., 2015. Variation in lipid extractability by solvent in microalgae. Additional
criterion for selecting species and strains for biofuel production from
microalgae. Bioresour. Technol. 197, 369–374.
Mohan, V., Srikanth, S., Chiranjeevi, P., Arora, S., Chandra, R., 2013. Algal biocathode
for in situ terminal electron acceptor (TEA) production: synergetic association
of bacteria-microalgae metabolism for the functioning of biofuel cell. Bioresour.
Technol. 166, 566–574.
Nien, P.C., Lee, C.Y., Ho, K.C., Adav, S.S., Liu, L.H., Wang, A.J., Ren, N.Q., Lee, D.J., 2011.
Power overshoot in two-chambered microbial fuel cell (MFC). Bioresour.
Technol. 102, 4742–4746.
Park, J.Y., Park, M.S., Lee, Y.C., Yang, J.W., 2015. Advances in direct transesterification
of algal oils from wet biomass. Bioresour. Technol. 184, 267–275.
Powell, E.E., Mapiour, M.L., Evitts, R.W., Hill, G.A., 2009. Growth kinetics of Chlorella
vulgaris and its use as a cathodic half cell. Bioresour. Technol. 100, 269–274.
Rabaey, K., Verstraete, W., 2005. Microbial fuel cells: novel biotechnology for energy
generation. Trends Biotechnol. 23, 291–298.
Raschitor, A., Soreanu, G., Fernandez-Marchante, C.M., Lobato, J., Canizares, P.,
Cretescu, I., Rodrigo, M.A., 2015. Bioelectro-Claus processes using MFC
technology: influence of co-substrate. Bioresour. Technol. 189, 94–98.
Rashid, N., Cui, Y.F., Muhammad, S.U.R., Han, J.I., 2013. Enhanced electricity
generation by using algae biomass and activated sludge in microbial fuel cell.
Sci. Total Environ. 456–457, 91–94.
Reijnders, L., 2008. Do biofuels from microalgae beat biofuels from terrestrial plant?
Trends Biotechnol. 26, 349–350.
Rosenbaum, M., He, Z., Angenent, L.T., 2010. Light energy to bioelectricity:
photosynthetic microbial fuel cells. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 21, 259–264.
Show, K.Y., Lee, D.J., Tay, J.H., Lee, T.M., Chang, J.S., 2015. Microbial drying and cell
disruption – recent advances. Bioresour. Technol. 184, 258–266.
Show, K.Y., Lee, D.J., Chang, J.S., 2013. Algal biomass dehydration. Bioresour.
Technol. 2013 (135), 720–729.
895
Sun, M., Mu, Z.X., Chen, Y.P., Sheng, G.P., Liu, X.W., Chen, Y.Z., Zhao, Y., Wang, H.L.,
Yu, H.Q., Wei, L., Ma, F., 2009. Microbe-assisted sulfide oxidation in the anode of
a microbial fuel cell. Environ. Sci. Technol. 43, 3372–3377.
Tran, D.T., Le, B.H., Lee, D.J., Chen, C.L., Wang, H.Y., Chang, J.S., 2013. Microbial
harvesting and subsequent biodiesel conversion. Bioresour. Technol. 140,
179–186.
Utomo, R.P., Chang, Y.R., Lee, D.J., Chang, J.S., 2013. Lutein recovery from Chlorella
sp. ESP-6 with coagulants. Bioresour. Technol. 139, 176–180.
Wang, X., Feng, Y.J., Liu, J., Lee, H., Li, C., Li, N., Ren, N.Q., 2010. Sequestration of CO2
discharged from anode by algal cathode in microbial carbon capture cells
(MCCs). Biosens. Bioelectron. 2010 (25), 2639–2643.
Weng, H.L., Lee, D.J., 2015. Performance of sulfate reducing bacteria-microbial fuel
cells: reproducibility. J. Taiwan Inst. Chem. Eng. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j/
jtice.2015.04.028, in press.
Wieczorek, N., Ali Kucuker, M., Kuchta, K., 2015. Microalgae-bacteria flocs
(MaB-Flocs) as a substrate for fermentation biogas production. Bioresour.
Technol. 194, 130–136.
Wu, X.Y., Song, T.S., Zhu, X.J., Wei, P., Zhou, C.C., 2013. Construction and operation of
microbial fuel cell with Chlorella vulgaris biocathode for electricity generation.
Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol. 171, 2082–2092.
Wu, Y.C., Wang, Z.J., Zheng, Y., Xiao, Y., Yang, Z.H., Zhao, F., 2014. Light intensity
affects the performance of photo microbial fuel cells with Desmodesmus sp. A8
as cathodic microorganism. Appl. Energy 116, 86–90.
Xiao, L., He, Z., 2014. Applications of perspectives of phototrophic microorganisms
for electricity generation from organic compounds in microbial fuel cells.
Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev. 37, 550–559.
Yen, H.W., Hu, I.C., Chen, C.Y., Ho, S.H., Lee, D.J., Chang, J.S., 2013. Microalgae-based
biorefinery-from biofuels to natural products. Bioresour. Technol. 2013 (135),
166–174.
Yu, N., Dieu, L.T.J., Harvey, S., Lee, D.Y., 2015. Optimization of process configuration
and strain selection for microalgae-based biodiesel production. Bioresour.
Technol. 193, 25–34.
Zhang, G.D., Zhao, Q.L., Jiao, Y., Lee, D.J., 2015a. Long-term operation of manure-
microbial fuel cell. Bioresour. Technol. 180, 365–369.
Zhang, G.D., Jiao, Y., Lee, D.J., 2015b. A lab-scale anoxic/oxic-bioelectrochemical
reactor for leachate treatments. Bioresour. Technol. 186, 97–105.
Zhang, G.D., Jiao, Y., Lee, D.J., 2015c. Transformation of dissolved organic matters
in landfill leachate-bioelectrochemical system. Bioresour. Technol. 191,
350–354.
Zhang, Y., Noori, J.S., Angelidaki, I., 2011. Simultaneous organic carbon, nutrients
removal and energy production in a photomicrobial fuel cell (PFC). Energy
Environ. Sci. 4, 4340–4346.