ArticleFood technology and biotechnology2025
A Comparative Study of Microbial Fuel Cells and Microbial Electrolysis Cells for Bioenergy Production from Palm Oil Mill Effluent
Article in Food technology and biotechnology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Electroactive Microbiomes: Electron Transfer Mechanisms and Environmental Biotechnology Applications.Environmental microbiology reports · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Research background: The increasing environmental concerns due to fossil fuel consumption and industrial wastewater pollution necessitate sustainable solutions for bioenergy production and wastewater treatment. Palm oil mill effluent (POME), a high-strength industrial wastewater, poses significant environmental challenges. Microbial electrolysis cells (MEC) and microbial fuel cells (MFC) offer promising avenues for bioenergy recovery from such wastewaters. Experimental approach: Dual-chamber H-type reactors equipped with proton exchange membranes were used to separately evaluate the performance of MEC and MFC in the production of bioenergy from POME. Hydrogen production and chemical oxygen demand (COD) removal in MECs were evaluated at different applied voltages and influent COD expressed as oxygen concentrations, while in MFCs the effect of external resistance on power output and COD reduction was investigated. Response surface methodology (RSM) was used to optimise these operational parameters for maximum bioenergy recovery and efficient wastewater treatment. Results and conclusions: The results showed that the efficiency of hydrogen production and COD removal in MECs were maximised at low influent COD value and low voltage supply. The MEC effectively produced hydrogen and treated industrial wastewater, while the MFC successfully produced electricity and reduced COD. Field emission scanning electron microscopy confirmed the formation of biofilms on the electrodes, indicating active microbial communities involved in the production of bioenergy. A trade-off between power density and COD removal efficiency in MFCs was observed, with medium resistance values yielding maximum power output. The integration of MEC and MFC showed potential for treating high-strength industrial wastewater like POME, offering a greener and more energy-efficient approach. Novelty and scientific contribution: This study demonstrates the potential feasibility of integrating MEC and MFC technologies for simultaneous bioenergy production and wastewater treatment from POME. It extends the knowledge in biochemical engineering by optimising operational conditions for improved bioenergy recovery and highlights the role of microbial communities in bioelectrochemical systems. The results form a basis for future research on sustainable bioenergy production and contribute to efforts towards environmental sustainability.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.