Next Article in Journal
Analysis of China’s Coal Reduction Path under the Goal of Peak Carbon Emissions and Carbon Neutralization
Next Article in Special Issue
Microclimatic Monitoring—The Beginning of Saving Historical Sacral Buildings in Europe
Previous Article in Journal
In Situ Thermal Ablation Repair of Delamination in Carbon Fiber-Reinforced Thermosetting Composites
Previous Article in Special Issue
Home Energy Upgrades as a Pathway to Home Decarbonization in the US: A Literature Review
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Energies
Volume 15
Issue 19
10.3390/en15196928
energies-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

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

Wastewater as a Renewable Energy Source—Utilisation of Microbial Fuel Cell Technology

by
Renata Toczyłowska-Mamińska
1,* and
Mariusz Ł. Mamiński
2
1
Department of Physics and Biophysics, Institute of Biology, Warsaw University of Life Sciences—WULS, 159 Nowoursynowska St., 02-776 Warsaw, Poland
2
Institute of Wood Sciences and Furniture, Warsaw University of Life Sciences—WULS, 159 Nowoursynowska St., 02-776 Warsaw, Poland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Energies 2022, 15(19), 6928; https://doi.org/10.3390/en15196928
Submission received: 6 September 2022 / Revised: 19 September 2022 / Accepted: 20 September 2022 / Published: 21 September 2022
(This article belongs to the Collection Review Papers in Energy and Environment)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
An underappreciated source of renewable energy is wastewater, both municipal and industrial, with global production exceeding 900 km3 a year. Wastewater is currently perceived as a waste that needs to be treated via energy-consuming processes. However, in the current environmental nexus, traditional wastewater treatment uses 1700–5100 TWh of energy on a global scale. The application of modern and innovative treatment techniques, such as microbial fuel cells (MFC), would allow the conversion of wastewater’s chemical energy into electricity without external energy input. It has been demonstrated that the chemically bound energy in globally produced wastewater exceeds 2.5 × 104 TWh, which is sufficient to meet Europe’s annual energy demand. The aim of this paper is to answer the following questions. How much energy is bound in municipal and industrial wastewaters? How much of that energy can be extracted? What benefits will result from alternative techniques of waste treatment? The main finding of this report is that currently achieved energy recovery efficiencies with the use of microbial fuel cells technology can save about 20% of the chemical energy bound in wastewater, which is 5000 TWh on a global scale. The recovery of energy from wastewater via MFC technology can reach as much as 15% of global energy demands.

1. Introduction

Global energy consumption is continually rising, and in 2019, it exceeded 1.7 × 105 TWh (19 TW) [1]. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) forecasts that energy demand will double by 2095 and reach 1200 × 1018 J/year [2], which is equal to 3.3 × 105 TWh/year. Unfortunately, approximately 84% of globally produced energy still comes from fossil fuels, which is the largest source of carbon dioxide (CO2), as shown in Figure 1.
In the quest to reduce CO2 emissions, wastewater needs attention. Currently, wastewater is perceived as a waste that must be treated with the use of energy-consuming processes; alternatively, the concept of the circular economy posits that a waste generated in one process becomes a valuable resource in another one [3]. In 2020, the global market for wastewater treatment was over 263 billion USD, and it is projected to reach almost 500 billion USD by 2028 [4]. The energy used for the conventional treatment of wastewater is 1–3% of global energy consumption, which is 1700–5100 TWh—an amount that is as high as the annual energy consumption of Germany and Spain combined [5,6]. Historically, wastewater is overlooked as a source of energy [7,8,9]. Wastewater contains considerable amounts of energy in the form of chemical and thermal energy, which is currently underutilised in conventional wastewater treatment. The chemical energy of wastewater accumulates in chemical compounds and may be extracted through the oxidation–reduction reactions of these substances. The amount of chemical energy in wastewater is usually called the chemical oxygen demand (COD), which represents the amount of oxygen that is needed to oxidise the organic matter present in wastewater [10]. It has been reported that municipal wastewater contains 9.3 times more energy than it requires for treatment, while the available energy is less, but still 4 times more than needed for its treatment [11,12]. The recovery of chemical energy from wastewater can be realised with the use of microorganisms, which can utilise organic matter from wastewater in their metabolic processes. A highly efficient method of organic contaminant removal from wastewater is anaerobic digestion (AD) [13]. Currently, the extraction of energy from wastewater with the use of microorganisms is realised on a practical scale via the AD process in which organic matter from wastewater is converted into biogas [14]. However, in the biogas produced via AD, in addition to energetically useful methane, CO2 (which can reach 50%), NOx, SO2 and CO are present too, which is why the AD process requires a separate co-generation plant [15,16]. Practically, it is limited to sludge treatment, and it requires post-treatment because its effluents have a high organic content [17]. Although various established water purification technologies have been commercialised and are widely used (i.e., distillation, membrane filtration and adsorption), they are not really sustainable due to their high energy consumption [18].
A more environmentally benign alternative to AD is microbial fuel cell (MFC) technology, which enables the direct production of energy from wastewater in the form of an electric current. The electricity produced in MFCs results from the flow of electrons released by bacteria during their metabolic processes [19,20,21,22]. An MFC electric current is produced due to electrogenic microorganisms oxidising organic substances from wastewater [23]. The current is generated without external energy input. Contrary to AD, which requires relatively high temperatures (> 30 °C), MFCs operate within a wide range of temperatures and COD loadings. Moreover, a stable power output is obtained in MFCs within a few days, whereas in AD it requires months. Electricity in MFCs is produced directly, whereas AD requires the conversion of methane into electricity with ca. 35% effciency [24]. However, MFC technology is currently restricted to the laboratory scale because it is considered incapable of producing an acceptable power density, which is a barrier to commercialisation. While most MFCs do not exceed the power production of 1 kW per 1 m3 of wastewater [25], a new look at the energy balance of MFC technology, as presented in this work, indicates that MFCs can be used for wastewater treatment as a self-sufficient technology that allows for significant energy savings on a global scale.
In this article, an attempt to estimate the global production of industrial wastewater has been undertaken for the first time. The article was written in response to the lack of data on industrial wastewater and especially lack of studies describing the energy potential of wastewater—particularly industrial ones. The estimation was made on the basis of available data of water use and recovery as well as on the production volume by the biggest industrial sectors.
This study asks key questions. How much energy is bound in municipal and industrial wastewaters? How much of that energy can be extracted? What benefits will result from alternative techniques of waste treatment, such as microbial fuel cell technology?

2. How Much Municipal and Industrial Wastewater Is Produced Globally?

According to United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (2017), the total water withdrawal can be estimated at 3928 km3 per year [26]. Globally, wastewater produced from municipal and industrial activity accounts for 24% of this amount, as illustrated in Figure 2. Municipal wastewater contains wastewater discharged from residences, institutions and public facilities and has a typical COD range of 300–900 mg/L. In 2019, the global production of municipal wastewater exceeded 305 × 109 m3, and the two largest producers were the USA (over 60 × 109 m3) and China (over 40 × 109 m3) [27]. Municipal wastewater is usually treated with the use of activated sludge (AS)—the most common biological method of wastewater treatment—which utilises microorganisms for organic matter decomposition in aerobic conditions. The AS process requires intensive aeration, which makes 55–90% of the energy consumed in the treatment plant [28]. Typically, AS consumes 0.3–2.1 kWh/m3 of energy, with higher values in small plants, but it usually does not exceed 1 kWh/m3 [29,30,31,32]. Thus, we can estimate that municipal wastewater treatment on a global scale requires ca. 300 TWh of energy.
Industrial wastewater includes effluents generated by various branches of industry at all stages of production and accompanying processes, including cooling or installation cleaning (Figure 3). According to the European Environmental Agency, industrial wastewater can be divided into two main categories: the manufacturing and energy supply industries [33]. Among manufacturing industry wastewater, there are effluents from the production of iron and steel, non-ferrous metals, non-metallic minerals, pulp and paper (P&P), chemicals, food and drink and other manufacturing activities. In the energy industry category, wastewater is generated in mining, the extraction of gas and oil, power plants and refineries. Based on AQUASTAT and the United Nations report (2017), industrial wastewater production in 2019 was ca. 630 × 109 m3, which accounts for 16% of total global water withdrawal [26,34,35]. Similar to the case of municipal wastewater, two of the world’s highest water consumers, which use 50% of global water for industrial purposes, are the USA (209.7 × 109 m3) and China (133.5 × 109 m3) [26]. Depending on the sector type, industrial wastewater is discharged or treated and re-used in place. For example, the Danish brewer Carlsberg claims to recycle 90% of the water used in its plants [36]. Conversely, in paint production, which uses up to 3.2 × 105 m3 of water per day, only 4% of water is recycled [37]. Large-scale industries account for a significant proportion of the direct release of wastewater (e.g., the energy supply industry, which accounts for ca. 86%) [38]. According to a United Nations report, ca. 80% of wastewater globally is discharged without sufficient treatment [25]. Industrial wastewater is much more diversified in terms of its degree of pollution than municipal wastewater. The COD values of industrial wastewater are quite diverse between different sectors and within particular branches (Table 1). Obviously, a higher contamination level of industrial effluents requires more energy for treatment. A case study of dairy wastewater treatment with the use of AS showed that energy consumption was 0.9–1.2 kWh/m3 when the COD of wastewater was 1900 mg/L, and it increased to 1.3–1.5 kWh/m3 when the COD was 3700 mg/L [39]. Similar to municipal wastewater, AS is the technique of first choice for industrial effluents. However, AS often requires more advanced treatment methods when efficiency is unsatisfactory, especially for wastewaters with high COD loadings. The most efficient treatment techniques, such as membrane methods, need 1–6 kWh/m3, which can obtain a COD removal efficiency >90% and reduce the production of sludge by as much as five-fold during treatment compared to AS [23,40]. In cases in which heavily polluted wastewater needs to be treated, the most effective electrochemical methods can consume as much as 153 kWh/m3 [41].
The majority of wastewater produced by global industries comes from energy sec-tors, reaching 10% of global water withdrawal [60]. The energy production industry uses water for fuel extraction, processing, transport, cooling and gas purification in power plants. Oil production is estimated to generate 10 barrels of wastewater per each barrel of produced oil [61]. Based on global oil production in 2019, which was ca. 4.1 × 109 m3, the amount of globally produced wastewater from oil production could reach 41 × 109 m3 [62]. The energy industry’s wastewater is polluted with chlorides, sulphates and heavy metals, such as Cr, As, Cd, Hg or Pb, which are recognised by the US Environmental Protection Agency and the American Lung Association as being responsible for cancer risks, heart attacks and asthma cases [60]. A wide spectrum of treatment techniques is used for energy industry effluents, from physical methods (e.g., coagulation, filtration and adsorption in the case of wastewater from gas desulphurisation in power plants) to membrane processes and electrochemical methods for petro-chemical wastewater, with energy demand reaching ca. 3–6 kWh per 1 m3 of wastewater [63,64,65,66].
Among all industrial manufacturing sectors, the P&P industry is the biggest in-dustrial water consumer, requiring 5–200 m3 of water per 1 tonne of product [23,67]. Based on global paper production in 2019, which was ca. 700 × 106 tonnes, and considering that the P&P industry is responsible for the generation of 42% of industrial wastewater, we estimate that the P&P sector can produce up to 123 × 109 m3 of highly polluted wastewater annually [23,68]. The COD of P&P wastewater varies widely, spanning from hundreds of mg/L to hundreds of g/L, depending on the specific process by which it was generated, with the average value being a few g/L [23]. Most P&P treatment plants use biological aerobic methods, including aerated lagoons or AS [69]. Their application produces large amounts of waste sludge (0.4 kg of sludge per kg of organic substrate consumed) [61,70]. Alternative treatment methods used in the P&P industry that reduce sludge production and enhance COD removal efficiency (> 90%) include membrane processes or electrochemical methods. However, these still require a high energy input, from 1 to 6 kWh/kg COD in membrane processes to 20 to 35 kWh/kg COD in electrochemical methods [23].
After the P&P industry, the textile industry consumes the largest amount of water per 1 tonne of product (ca. 200 m3/t), 90% of which ends up as wastewater [71]. In India, the third-largest textile exporter worldwide, the wastewater production of their textile industry is 640 mln m3 a year, based on official statistics [72]. Considering only the top 10 textile-exporting countries, in 2019, global wastewater generation from the textile industry exceeded 10 × 109 m3 [73]. The biggest problem with effluents from the textile industry is the use of dyes in the production process (ca. 280,000 tonnes of various dyes are discharged every year, causing serious environmental and health risks [64]). According to the World Bank, the textile industry may be responsible for as much as 20% of industrial water pollution [64,74,75]. Recent research has shown the toxic, carcinogenic and mutagenic activity of dyes used in the textile industry on biological organisms, which highlights the need for effective treatment of this type of waste [76,77,78,79,80]. Of the various treatments for textile effluents, the most economically beneficial are biological methods, in which microorganisms are utilised for the decomposition of dyes. However, membrane methods (membrane bioreactors and photocatalytic membrane bioreactors) are the most efficient, as they allow for COD and dye removal with an efficiency as high as 99% [59].
Metal production generates 26.5 m3 of wastewater per 1 tonne of steel [81]. In metallurgy, water is used for flotation, sintering, cooking or steel making. Global steel production in 2019 was 1869 mln tonnes, and for non-ferrous metals, it was 1265 mln tonnes, which led to world wastewater production from metallurgy, being ca. 65 × 109 m3 [82,83]. Due to the presence of cyanide in wastewater, AS has been found to be ineffective for metallurgy wastewater treatment [51]. In practical applications, a combination of two or more energy-consuming methods is usually used (e.g., membrane or electro-chemical methods, coagulation with microfiltration or advanced oxidation with H2O2 [57]).
The food processing industry, which is one of the most water-consuming sectors, produces diverse effluent pollution, depending on the production type (e.g., meat, dairy, alcohol, bakery or others, Table 1) [84]. The American food manufacturing sector has been identified as responsible for 20% of greenhouse emissions and 12% of water withdrawals [85]. For example, in the production of 1 tonne of poultry, 6–30 m3 of water is used. Other examples are 1.5–10 m3/t for pork and 2.5–40 m3/t for beef [86]. Additionally, 98% of water consumed during meat processing is discharged as wastewater [87]. While the COD of the greatest wastewater producers in the food industry—meat processing and the dairy sector—usually do not exceed 5000 mg/L, there are technologies that generate effluents with an extremely high COD (e.g., rapeseed oil production: 3,000,000 mg/L; mayonnaise production: 1,820,000 mg/L; cream: 1,550,000 mg/L [88]). Global meat production in 2018 was 341 mln tonnes, generating 3.7 × 109 m3 of wastewater [89]. Data from 2019 indicate that the annual amount of wastewater produced by the food and beverage industry in Europe was 3.7 × 109 m3 [90]. Given that Europe accounts for about 19% of the global food market, the world wastewater production from the food and beverage industry may reach ca. 19.5 × 109 m3 [91]. Depending on the wastewater composition and pollution degree, a wide spectrum of treatment techniques is applied, from co-treatment with municipal wastewater (e.g., for winery effluents) to sophisticated membrane, electrochemical and oxidation [88], enzymatic [92] or anaerobic [93] methods.
Other types of water-consuming industries are the chemical industry, building and construction, electronics and semiconductors, leather products and other engineering sectors. Among these, the chemical industry is extremely diversified and is the greatest consumer of water. In 2020, just in the EU the production of chemicals reached 270.8 mln tonnes [94]. In the chemical industry, water consumption may reach 20 m3/m3 (e.g., for methanol [95]) or 50–100 L of wastewater per 1 kg of produced substance, such as in the pharmaceutical sector, in which products are usually manufactured in multi-step processes and can involve as many as 30 steps [96,97]. In China alone, the pharma industry generates at least 1 × 109 m3 of wastewater per year (incomplete data) [98]. For chemical industry wastewater treatment, depending on the effluent type, a combination of an-aerobic and aerobic methods is used, and more often, membrane and chemical oxidation methods [99,100].

3. Recovery of Chemical Energy from Wastewater—Treatment with MFC Technology

Chemically bound energy in municipal wastewater is often expressed per mass of COD and is determined as 4.9 kWh/kg COD [101,102]. Additionally, the amount of thermal energy in wastewater is ca. 7 kWh/m3, which can be recovered through heat pumps for heating or cooling processes in plants [103]. Considering global municipal wastewater production and its typical COD range, the amount of chemical energy in municipal wastewater varies between 448 TWh and 1345 TWh per year. Regarding industrial wastewater, chemical internal energy can be estimated based on the research by Heidrich et al., whose study used mixed municipal and industrial wastewater of COD 718 mgO2/L and was estimated based on 7.97 kWh/kg COD [104]. However, given that the COD of industrial wastewater is typically on the order of a few g/L, we can assume that the value is heavily underestimated. It is known that the energy content of wastewater relies on its COD; however, there have been no investigations showing a direct relationship between these two parameters in high-strength wastewater to date [105]. Thus, the amount of chemical energy entrapped within industrial wastewater, when considering the estimations of Heidrich et al., global yearly production and assuming an average COD of 5000 mg/L for industrial effluents, can be estimated as ca. 2.5 × 104 TWh.
MFCs are currently perceived as a treatment technique (allowing for >90% COD removal) rather than a power production technology because the power produced is considered low, in the order of a few W/m3 [24,106,107,108,109]. However, recent research has shown that power production efficiency in MFCs has increased remarkably in recent years; more often, it is close to the 1 kW/m3 level in litre-scale reactors. Table 2 shows selected examples of the MFCs in which power productions are above 10 W/m3. The highest power densities (>1 kW/m3) are obtained in very small reactors as a result of reactor volume and electrode configuration optimisation, which are not yet reliable on a practical scale. Usually, power production in MFC is given in W/m3 of reactor or in W/m2 of electrode, but in such system there is a huge influence of reactor size and configuration on the power production amount. Increases in power densities obtained in MFCs have resulted in the description of their performance by a more objective and practically useful parameter—normalised energy recovery (NER), which gives the information about the energetic efficiency of MFCs without the influence of the reactor volume or electrode size. NER shows energy recovery on the basis of wastewater volume or COD and is expressed in kWh/m3 of substrate or kWh/kg COD. Most MFCs produce energies lower than 1.5 kWh/m3, which is 1 kWh/kg COD [110]. It is also generally accepted that MFCs need to produce power density in the order of 1 kW/m3 to become a self-sufficient technology [25]. However, currently obtained power densities may be enough to achieve energy self-sufficiency because, in practice, MFCs consume only 0.076 kWh/kg COD during wastewater treatment, which is one order of magnitude less that of AS (0.3–0.6 kWh/kg COD) [25]. Many investigations conducted on synthetic and real wastewater showed that MFC technology, contrary to the AD process, may remain self-sufficient because the amount of energy produced during the treatment process meets the total energy needs required to operate the system [111,112,113,114]. The data collected in Table 3 show that even below 1 kW/m3, MFCs have the potential to become energetically self-sufficient with a positive energy balance. Especially promising is the investigation conducted on real brewery wastewater in a 90-L reactor in which the net energy 0.034 kWh/m3 was obtained, with the COD removal efficiency reaching almost 90% [115]. In addition, there is still space to enhance energy recovery in MFCs, and the most recent research on synthetic wastewater shows that energy production during treatment in MFCs may be in the order of 11.5 kWh/m3 or even 22.5 kWh/m3 [116,117,118].

4. Conclusions

In the time of global energy shortages, searching for new renewable energy sources is an urgent need. In this article, we paid the attention to globally produced wastewater as an invaluable renewable energy source. On the basis of the most recent literature, the reports and databases of non-profit organizations as well as the reports of governmental institutions, we demonstrated the potential of energy recovery from various types of wastewater through MFC technology.
This is the first paper presenting the quantities of wastewaters available globally in conjunction with their energy content as well as identifying the unexploited reservoirs of clean energy. A great potential of wastewater-fed MFCs has been demonstrated as well as its three key advantages over the established approaches to wastewater treatments, which are: (1) no energy input requirement, (2) net energy produced during the treatment and (3) high organic contaminant removal efficiency.
If the self-sufficiency of wastewater treatment processes became technically possible due to the implementation of MFC technology on a practical scale, we could save the entire amount of energy spent on wastewater treatment, which currently, on a global scale, is ca. 5100 TWh. This value will constantly increase as a result of global water shortages and the need to meet stricter environmental standards, which will force the use of more efficient treatment techniques that consume less energy. Increases in power production in MFCs over the years have shown that there is still space to enhance the efficiency of energy recovery from wastewater and other organic substrates. Any net energy production in MFCs from wastewater will be an energetic gain. The considerations presented in this paper indicate that ca. 900 TWh can be produced in MFCs on a global scale only when their efficiency reaches 1 kWh/m3 of wastewater. However, the total chemical energy bound in wastewater that can be recovered with the use of MFC technology is ca. 2.6 × 104 TWh, which is 15% of the current global energy demand. These values demonstrate the real potential of MFCs in the exploitation of wastewater as a new source of renewable energy and indicate an urgent need to intensify research efforts on the development of MFC technology, which may become a green route to the energy of the future.
Further research should focus on overcoming the existing issues, which are: (1) limited power output [141], difficult scaling-up [142], increasing the overall efficiency of MFCs via systematic development of new electrode materials [143,144], improved performance at ambient temperature [108] and microbial consortia of the enhanced electrogenic activity—i.e., increased electron transfer rates [145]. When the above-mentioned issues are successfully resolved, the world will gain a powerful source of clean, environmentally benign energy.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, R.T.-M.; methodology, R.T.-M.; validation, R.T.-M. and M.Ł.M., formal analysis, R.T.-M.; investigation, R.T.-M.; resources, R.T.-M.; data curation, R.T.-M.; writing—original draft preparation, R.T.-M.; writing—review and editing, R.T.-M. and M.Ł.M.; visualization, R.T.-M. and M.Ł.M.; supervision, R.T.-M.; project administration, M.Ł.M.; funding acquisition, M.Ł.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by Institute of Wood Sciences and Furniture, Warsaw University of Life Sciences—WULS.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Abbreviations

ADanaerobic digestion
ASactivated sludge
CODchemical oxygen demand
kWhkilowatt-hour
Llitre
MFCmicrobial fuel cell
mLmillilitre
P&Ppulp and paper
TWhterawatt-hour
Wwatt
WWwastewater
NERnormalised energy recovery

References

  1. Ritchie, H.; Roser, M. Energy. Published in Our World in Data. 2021. Available online: https://ourworldindata.org/energy (accessed on 15 January 2022).
  2. IPCC. Special Report Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage. 2005. Available online: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/carbon-dioxide-capture-and-storage/ (accessed on 10 January 2022).
  3. Nastasi, B.; Markovska, N.; Puksec, T.; Duić, N.; Foley, A. Renewable and sustainable energy challenges to face for the achieve-ment of Sustainable Development Goals. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2022, 157, 112071. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Fortune Business Insights. Water & Sludge Treatment. 2020. Available online: https://www.fortunebusinessinsights.com/water-and-wastewater-treatment-market-102632 (accessed on 20 December 2021).
  5. Christoforidou, P.; Bariamis, G.; Iosifidou, M.; Nikolaidou, E.; Samaras, P. Energy Benchmarking and Optimization of Wastewater Treatment Plants in Greece. Environ. Sci. Proc. 2020, 2, 36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Capodaglio, A.G.; Olsson, G. Energy Issues in Sustainable Urban Wastewater Management: Use, Demand Reduction and Recovery in the Urban Water Cycle. Sustainability 2020, 12, 266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Zoppi, G.; Pipitone, G.; Pirone, R.; Bensaid, S. Aqueous phase reforming process for the valorization of wastewater streams: Ap-plication to different industrial scenarios. Catal. Today 2022, 387, 224–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Zoppi, G.; Pipitone, G.; Gruber, H.; Weber, G.; Reichhold, A.; Pirone, R.; Bensaid, S. Aqueous phase re-forming of pilot-scale Fischer-Tropsch water effluent for sustainable hydrogen production. Catal. Today 2021, 367, 239–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Tak, S.S.; Shetye, O.; Muley, O.; Jaiswal, H.; Malik, S.N. Emerging technologies for hydrogen production from wastewater. Int. J. Hydrog. Energy 2022, in press. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Dai, Z.; Heidrich, E.S.; Dolfing, J.; Jarvis, A.P. Determination of the Relationship between the Energy Content of Municipal Wastewater and Its Chemical Oxygen Demand. Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett. 2019, 6, 396–400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Shizas, I.; Bagley, D. Experimental Determination of Energy Content of Unknown Organics in Municipal Wastewater Streams. J. Energy Eng. 2004, 130, 45–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Scherson, Y.D.; Criddle, C.S. Recovery of Freshwater from Wastewater: Upgrading Process Configurations To Maximize Energy Recovery and Minimize Residuals. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2014, 48, 8420–8432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Liew, P.Y.; Varbanov, P.S.; Foley, A.; Klemeš, J.J. Smart energy management and recovery towards Sustainable Energy System Optimisation with bio-based renewable energy. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2020, 135, 110385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Nie, E.; He, P.; Zhang, H.; Hao, L.; Shao, L.; Lü, F. How does temperature regulate anaerobic digestion? Renew. Sust. Energy Rev. 2021, 150, 111453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Khoshnevisan, B.; Tsapekos, P.; Alfaro, N.; Diaz, I.; Fdz-Polanco, M.; Rafiee, S.; Angelidaki, I. A review on prospects and challenges of biological H2S removal from biogas with focus on biotrickling filtration and microaerobic desulfurization. Biofuel Res. J. 2017, 4, 741–750. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Kuo, J.; Dow, J. Biogas production from anaerobic digestion of food waste and relevant air quality implications. J. Air Waste Manag. Assoc. 2017, 67, 1000–1011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Särkkä, B.A.; Sillanpää, M. Recent developments of electro-oxidation in water treatment—A review. J. Electroanal. Chem. 2015, 754, 46–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Peydayesh, M.; Mezzenga, R. Protein nanofibrils for next generation sustainable water purification. Nat. Commun. 2021, 12, 1000–1011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Wang, T.; Li, C.; Wang, L.; Zhou, M.; Ning, J.; Pan, X.; Zhu, G. Anaerobic digestion of sludge filtrate assisted by symbionts of short chain fatty acid-oxidation syntrophs and exoelectrogens: Process performance, methane yield and microbial community. J. Hazard. Mater. 2019, 384, 121222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Logan, B. Microbial fuels for the future. Nature 2008, 454, 943–944. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Ball, P. Microbe fuel cell packs more power. Nature 2003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Reguera, G.; McCarthy, K.D.; Mehta, T.; Nicoll, J.S.; Tuominen, M.T.; Lovley, D.R. Extracellular electron transfer via microbial nan-owires. Nature 2005, 435, 1098–1101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Venkata, M.S.; Velvizhi, G.; Modestra, A.J.; Srikanth, S. Microbial fuel cell: Critical factors regulating bio-catalyzed electrochemical process and recent advancements. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2014, 40, 779–797. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Toczyłowska-Mamińska, R. Limits and perspectives of pulp and paper industry wastewater treatment—A review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 78, 764–772. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Li, W.-W.; Yu, H.-Q.; He, Z. Towards sustainable wastewater treatment by using microbial fuel cells-centered technologies. Energy Environ. Sci. 2013, 7, 911–924. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. The United Nations World Water Development Report. 2017. Available online: www.unwater.org (accessed on 22 December 2021).
  27. FAO. AQUASTAT-FAO’s Global Information System on Water and Agriculture. 2021. Available online: http://www.fao.org/aquastat/en/overview/methodology/water-use (accessed on 25 February 2022).
  28. Drewnowski, J.; Remiszewska-Skwarek, A.; Duda, S.; Łagód, G. Aeration Process in Bioreactors as the Main Energy Consumer in a Wastewater Treatment Plant. Review of Solutions and Methods of Process Optimization. Processes 2019, 7, 311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Seo, H.; Rahimi, M.; Hatton, T.A. Electrochemical Carbon Dioxide Capture and Release with a Redox-Active Amine. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2022, 144, 2164–2170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Vaccari, M.; Foladori, P.; Nembrini, S.; Vitali, F. Benchmarking of energy consumption in municipal wastewater treatment plants—A survey of over 200 plants in Italy. Water Sci. Technol. 2018, 77, 2242–2252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Maktabifard, M.; Zaborowska, E.; Makinia, J. Achieving energy neutrality in wastewater treatment plants through energy sav-ings and enhancing renewable energy production. Rev. Environ. Sci. Biotechnol. 2018, 17, 655–689. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Fu, Q.; Wang, D.; Li, X.; Yang, Q.; Xu, Q.; Ni, B.-J.; Wang, Q.; Liu, X. Towards hydrogen production from waste activated sludge: Principles, challenges and perspectives. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2020, 135, 110283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. European Environment Agency. Consolidated Annual Activity Report 2018. 2018. Available online: https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/consolidated-annual-activity-report-2018 (accessed on 3 December 2021).
  34. Ritchie, H.; Roser, M. Our World in Data. Water Use and Stress. 2017. Available online: https://ourworldindata.org/water-use-stress (accessed on 3 January 2022).
  35. United Nations Water. Global Consumption and Wastewater Production by Major Water Use Sector. 2017. Available online: https://twitter.com/un_water/status/850700510994849792 (accessed on 18 December 2021).
  36. Water Technology. Danish Brewer Opens Water Recycling Plant that Reuses 90% of Process Water. 2021. Available online: https://www.watertechonline.com/process-water/article/14202992/carlsberg-group-danish-brewer-opens-water-recycling-plant-that-reuses-90-of-process-water (accessed on 20 February 2022).
  37. Nair, S.; Manu, B.; Azhoni, A. Sustainable treatment of paint industry wastewater: Current techniques and challenges. J. Environ. Manag. 2021, 296, 113105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. European Environment Agency Report. Industrial Waste Water Treatment—Pressures on Europe’s Environment; Publications Office of the European Union: Luxembourg, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  39. Dąbrowski, W.; Żyłka, R.; Rynkiewicz, M. Evaluation of energy consumption in agro-industrial wastewater treatment plant. J. Ecol. Eng. 2016, 17, 73–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Visvanathan, C.; Ben Aim, R.; Parameshwaran, K. Membrane Separation Bioreactors for Wastewater Treatment. Crit. Rev. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2000, 30, 1–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Ozturk, D.; Yılmaz, E.A. Treatment of slaughterhouse wastewater with the electrochemical oxidation process: Role of operating parameters on treatment efficiency and energy consumption. J. Water Process Engineer. 2019, 31, 100834. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Alam, A.; Wang, Z. Microalgae Biotechnology for Development of Biofuel and Wastewater Treatment; Springer: Singapore, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  43. Marcinowski, P.; Bogacki, J.; Majewski, M.; Zawadzki, J.; Sivakumar, S. Application of aluminum-based coagulants for improving efficiency of flue gas desulfurization wastewater treatment in coal-fired power plant. E3S Web Conf. 2019, 108, 02006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Pliego, G.; Zazo, J.A.; Casas, J.A.; Rodriguez, J.J. Case study of the application of Fenton process to highly polluted wastewater from power plant. J. Hazard. Mater. 2013, 252–253, 180–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Wang, S.; Ghimire, N.; Xin, G.; Janka, E.; Bakke, R. Efficient high strength petrochemical wastewater treatment in a hybrid verti-cal anaerobic biofilm (HyVAB) reactor: A pilot study. Water Practice Technol. 2017, 12, 501–513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Sandhwar, V.K.; Saxena, D.; Verma, S.; Garg, K.K.; Prasad, B. Comparison of COD removal from petrochemical wastewater by electro-Fenton and electro oxidation processes: Optimization and kinetic analyses. Sep. Sci. Technol. 2020, 56, 2300–2309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Sarmin, S.; Ethiraj, B.; Islam, M.A.; Ideris, A.; Yee, C.S.; Khan, M.R. Bio-electrochemical power generation in petrochemical wastewater fed microbial fuel cell. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 695, 133820. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Aziz, H.A.; Puat, N.N.A.; Alazaiza, M.Y.D.; Hung, Y.-T. Poultry Slaughterhouse Wastewater Treatment Using Submerged Fibers in an Attached Growth Sequential Batch Reactor. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018, 15, 1734. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Bustillo-Lecompte, C.; Mehrvar, M. Slaughterhouse wastewater: Treatment, management and resource recovery. In Physico-Chemical Wastewater Treatment and Resource Recovery; Faroog, R., Ahmad, Z., Eds.; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Zkeri, E.; Iliopoulou, A.; Katsara, A.; Korda, A.; Aloupi, M.; Gatidou, G.; Fountoulakis, M.S.; Stasinakis, A.S. Comparing the use of a two-stage MBBR system with a methanogenic MBBR coupled with a microalgae reactor for medium-strength dairy wastewater treatment. Bioresour. Technol. 2020, 323, 124629. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Köroglu, E.O.; Özkaya, B.; Denktas, C.; Çakmakci, M. Electricity-generating capacity and performance deterioration of a microbi-alfuel cell fed with beer brewery wastewater. J. Biosci. Bioeng. 2014, 118, 672–678. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Wen, Q.; Wu, Y.; Cao, D.; Zhao, L.; Sun, Q. Electricity generation and modeling of microbial fuel cell from continuousbeer brew-ery wastewater. Bioresour. Technol. 2009, 100, 4171–4175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Brito, A.G.; Peixoto, J.; Oliveira, J.M.; Costa, C.; Nogueira, R.; Rodrigues, A. Brewery and winery wastewater treatment: Some focal points of design and operation. In Utilization of By-Products and Treatment of Waste in the Food Industry. Oreopoulou, V., Russ, W., Eds.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2007; pp. 109–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Strong, P.J.; Burgess, J. Fungal and enzymatic remediation of a wine lees and five wine-related distillery wastewaters. Bioresour. Technol. 2008, 99, 6134–6142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Bolzonella, D.; Zanette, M.; Battistoni, P.; Cecchi, F. Treatment of winery wastewater in a conventional municipal activated sludge process: Five years of experience. Water Sci. Technol. 2007, 56, 79–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Lin, C.-Y.; Lay, C.-H.; Chew, K.W.; Nomanbhay, S.; Gu, R.-L.; Chang, S.-H.; Kumar, G.; Show, P.L. Biogas production from beverage factory wastewater in a mobile bioenergy station. Chemosphere 2020, 264, 128564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Malakootian, M.; Heidari, M.R. Removal of phenol from steel wastewater by combined electrocoagulation with photo-Fenton. Water Sci. Technol. 2018, 78, 1260–1267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Wu, P.; Jiang, L.Y.; He, Z.; Song, Y. Treatment of metallurgical industry wastewater for organic removal in China: Status, chal-lenges, and perspectives. Environ. Sci.–Water Res. 2017, 3, 1015–1031. [Google Scholar]
  59. Samsami, S.; Mohamadi, M.; Sarrafzadeh, M.H.; Rene, E.R.; Firoozbahr, M. Recent advances in the treatment of dye-containing wastewater from textile industries: Overview and perspectives. Process Saf. Environ. 2020, 143, 138–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. EU Science Hub. JRC News. 2019. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/science-update/freshwater-use-european-energy-sector (accessed on 3 January 2022).
  61. Tetteh, E.K.; Ezugbe, E.O.; Rathilal, S.; Asante-Sackey, D. Removal of COD and SO42− from Oil Refinery Wastewater Using a Photo-Catalytic System—Comparing TiO2 and Zeolite Efficiencies. Water 2020, 12, 214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Statista. Chemicals & Resources. 2021. Available online: https://www.statista.com/statistics/265203/global-oil-production-since-in-barrels-per-day (accessed on 9 January 2022).
  63. Haneef, F.; Akıntuğ, B. Quantitative assessment of heavy metals in coal-fired power plant’s waste water. Int. J. Sci. Technol. 2015, 2, 135–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Bogacki, J.; Marcinkowski, P.; Majewski, M.; Zawadzki, J.; Sivakumar, S. Alternative approach to current EU BAT recommenda-tion for coal-fired power plant flue gas desulfurization wastewater treatment. Processes 2018, 6, 229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  65. Grundestam, J.; Hellström, D. Wastewater treatment with anaerobic membrane bioreactor and reverse osmosis. Water Sci. Technol. 2007, 56, 211–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Safari, S.; Aghdam, M.A.; Kariminia, H. Electrocoagulation for COD and diesel removal from oily wastewater. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2015, 13, 231–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Water Technology. Pulp & Paper: A Look at Wastewater Treatment Trends and Technologies. 2014. Available online: https://www.watertechonline.com/wastewater/article/16211172/pulp-paper-a-look-at-wastewater-treatment-trends-and-technologies (accessed on 28 February 2022).
  68. FAOSTAT. Forestry Production and Trade. 2021. Available online: http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/FO (accessed on 10 December 2021).
  69. Ashrafi, O.; Yerushalmi, L.; Haghighat, F. Wastewater treatment in the pulp-and-paper industry: A review of treatment pro-cesses and the associated greenhouse gas emission. J. Environ. Manag. 2015, 158, 146–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Rabaey, K.; Verstraete, W. Microbial fuel cells: Novel biotechnology for energy generation. Trends Biotechnol. 2005, 23, 291–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Mondal, P.; Baksi, S.; Bose, D. Study of environmental issues in textile industries and recent wastewater treatment technology. World Sci. News 2017, 61, 98–109. [Google Scholar]
  72. Jegatheesan, V.; Pramanik, B.K.; Chen, J.; Navaratna, D.; Chang, C.Y.; Shu, L. Treatment of textile wastewater with membrane bio-reactor: A critical review. Bioresour. Technol. 2016, 204, 202–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  73. Statista. Retail & Trade. 2021. Available online: https://www.statista.com/statistics/236397/value-of-the-leading-global-textile-exporters-by-country/ (accessed on 11 January 2022).
  74. Kant, R. Textile dyeing industry an environmental hazard. Nat. Sci. 2012, 4, 22–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Humes, E. Planet junk: A journey through discards. Nature 2019, 575, 278–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Crow, M.J. The greener route to indigo blue. Nature 2021, 599, 529. [Google Scholar]
  77. You, X.; Wu, H.; Zhang, R.; Su, Y.; Cao, L.; Yu, Q.; Yuan, J.; Xiao, K.; He, M.; Jiang, Z. Metal-coordinated sub-10 nm membranes for water purification. Nat. Commun. 2019, 10, 4160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Al-Tohamy, R.; Sun, J.; Fareed, M.F.; Kenawy, E.R.; Ali, S.S. Ecofriendly biodegradation of Reactive Black 5 by newly isolated Ster-igmatomyces halophilus SSA1575, valued for textile azo dye wastewater processing and detoxification. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 12370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Robinson, T.; McMullan, G.; Marchant, R.; Nigam, P. Remediation of dyes in textile effluent: A critical review on current treat-ment technologies with a proposed alternative. Bioresour. Technol. 2001, 77, 247–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Li, T.; Song, H.-L.; Xu, H.; Yang, X.-L.; Chen, Q.-L. Biological detoxification and decolorization enhancement of azo dye by introducing natural electron mediators in MFCs. J. Hazard. Mater. 2021, 416, 125864. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  81. World Steel Association. Water Management Policy Paper. 2020. Available online: https://www.worldsteel.org/publications/position-papers/water-management.html (accessed on 7 November 2021).
  82. The Business Research Company. Global Nonferrous Metal Production And Processing Market. 2020. Available online: https://www.thebusinessresearchcompany.com/report/nonferrous-metal-production-and-processing-global-market-report-2020-30-covid-19-impact-and-recovery (accessed on 7 November 2021).
  83. World Steel Association. 2021. Available online: www.worldsteel.org (accessed on 21 November 2021).
  84. Compton, M.; Willis, S.; Rezaie, B.; Humes, K. Food processing industry energy and water consumption in the Pacific northwest. Innov. Food Sci. Emerg. Technol. 2018, 47, 371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Sovacool, B.K.; Bazilian, M.; Griffiths, S.; Kim, J.; Foley, A.; Rooney, D. Decarbonizing the food and beverages industry: A critical and systematic review of developments, sociotechnical systems and policy options. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2021, 143, 110856. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Valta, K.; Kosanovic, T.; Malamis, D.; Moustakas, K.; Loizidou, M. Water consumption and wastewater generation and treatment in the Food and Beverage Industry. Desalin. Water Treat. 2013, 53, 12. [Google Scholar]
  87. Asgharnejad, H.; Nazloo, E.K.; Larijani, M.M.; Hajinajaf, N.; Rashidi, H. Comprehensive review of water management and wastewater treatment in food processing industries in the framework of water-food-environment nexus. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 2021, 20, 4779–4815. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  88. Elkin, D.; Stevens, C. Environmental and consumer issues regarding water and energy management in food processing. In Handbook of Water and Energy Management in Food Processing; Klemeš, J., Smith, R., Kim, J.-K., Eds.; Woodhead Publishing: Cambridge, UK, 2008; pp. 29–44. [Google Scholar]
  89. Ritchie, H.; Roser, M. Our World in Data. Meat and Dairy Production. 2019. Available online: https://ourworldindata.org/meat-production (accessed on 19 December 2021).
  90. Bio-Based Industries Europe. Solution for Wastewater in Bioplastics and Food Additives. 2019. Available online: https://www.bbi.europa.eu/solution-wastewater-bioplastics-and-food-additives (accessed on 10 November 2021).
  91. Research and Markets. Food and Beverages Global Market Report 2020–30: COVID-19 Impact and Recovery. 2021. Available online: https://www.researchandmarkets.com (accessed on 16 January 2022).
  92. Jeganathan, J.; Bassi, A.; Nakhla, G. Pre-treatment of high oil and grease pet food industrial wastewaters using immobilized lipase hydrolyzation. J. Hazard. Mater. 2006, 137, 121–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Şentürk, E.; Ince, M.; Engin, G.O. Treatment efficiency and VFA composition of a thermophilic anaerobic contact reactor treating food industry wastewater. J. Hazard. Mater. 2010, 176, 843–848. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Eurostat. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/env_chmhaz/default/table?lang=en (accessed on 25 August 2022).
  95. Snodgrass, M.; Vargs, R.; Li, J. Wastewater Reuse at a Methanol Production Plant. 2015. Available online: https://www.microdyn-nadir.com/wp-content/uploads/Reuse-Methanol-Plant.pdf (accessed on 22 November 2021).
  96. Schaber, S.D.; Gerogiorgis, D.I.; Ramachandran, R.; Evans, J.M.B.; Barton, P.I.; Trout, B.L. Economic Analysis of Integrated Continuous and Batch Pharmaceutical Manufacturing: A Case Study. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2011, 50, 10083–10092. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Rudin, S.N.F.M.; bin Shabri, H.A.; Ab Muis, Z.; Hashim, H.; Ho, W.S. Value-added waste potential of wastewater sludge from the pharmaceutical industry: A review. Chem. Eng. Trans. 2018, 63, 493–498. [Google Scholar]
  98. Li, X.; Li, G. A Review: Pharmaceutical Wastewater Treatment Technology and Research in China. In Proceedings of the 2015 Asia-Pacific Energy Equipment Engineering Research Conference, Zhuhai, China, 13–14 June 2015; Volume 9, pp. 345–348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Awaleh, M.O.; Soubaneh, Y.D. Wastewater treatment in chemical industries: The concept and current technologies. Hydrol. Current Res. 2014, 5, 1. [Google Scholar]
  100. Hu, Y.; Lei, D.; Wu, D.; Xia, J.; Zhou, W.; Cui, C. Residual β-lactam antibiotics and ecotoxicity to Vibrio fischeri, Daphnia magna of pharmaceutical wastewater in the treatment process. J. Hazard. Mater. 2021, 425, 127840. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Batstone, D.J.; Hülsen, T.; Mehta, C.M.; Keller, J. Platforms for energy and nutrient recovery from domestic wastewater: A re-view. Chemosphere 2015, 140, 2–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  102. Horstmeyer, N.; Weißbach, M.; Koch, K.; Drewes, J.E. A novel concept to integrate energy recovery into potable water reuse treatment schemes. J. Water Reuse Desalination 2017, 8, 455–467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Guven, H.; Dereli, R.K.; Ozgun, H.; Ersahin, M.E.; Ozturk, I. Towards sustainable and energy efficient municipal wastewater treatment by up-concentration of organics. Prog. Energy Combust. Sci. 2018, 70, 145–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Heidrich, E.S.; Curtis, T.P.; Dolfing, J. Determination of the Internal Chemical Energy of Wastewater. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2011, 45, 827–832. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  105. Korth, B.; Heber, C.; Normant-Saremba, M.; Maskow, T.; Harnisch, F. Precious Data from Tiny Samples: Revealing the Correlation Between Energy Content and the Chemical Oxygen Demand of Municipal Wastewater by Micro-Bomb Combustion Calorimetry. Front. Energy Res. 2021, 9, 705800. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Kloch, M.; Toczyłowska-Mamińska, R. Toward Optimization of Wood Industry Wastewater Treatment in Microbial Fuel Cells—Mixed Wastewaters Approach. Energies 2020, 13, 263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Yu, J.; Park, Y.; Widyaningsih, E.; Kim, S.; Kim, Y.; Lee, T. Microbial fuel cells: Devices for real wastewater treatment, rather than electricity production. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 775, 145904. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Kataki, S.; Chatterjee, S.; Vairale, M.; Sharma, S.; Dwivedi, S.; Gupta, D. Constructed wetland, an eco-technology for wastewater treatment: A review on various aspects of microbial fuel cell integration, low temperature strategies and life cycle impact of the technology. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2021, 148, 111261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Liu, S.-H.; Lin, H.-H.; Lin, C.-W. Gaseous isopropanol removal in a microbial fuel cell with deoxidizing anode: Performance anode characteristics microbial community. J. Hazard. Mater. 2022, 423, 127200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Ge, Z.; Li, J.; Xiao, L.; Tong, Y.; He, Z. Recovery of Electrical Energy in Microbial Fuel Cells. Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett. 2013, 1, 137–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Dong, Y.; Feng, Y.; Qu, Y.; Du, Y.; Zhou, X.; Liu, J. A combined system of microbial fuel cell and intermittently aerated biological filter for energy self-sufficient wastewater treatment. Sci. Rep. 2015, 5, 18070. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  112. Ren, L.; Ahn, Y.; Logan, B.E. A Two-Stage Microbial Fuel Cell and Anaerobic Fluidized Bed Membrane Bioreactor (MFC-AFMBR) System for Effective Domestic Wastewater Treatment. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2014, 48, 4199–4206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  113. Gude, V.G. Energy positive wastewater treatment and sludge management. Energy Posit. Wastewater Treat. Sludge Manag. 2020, 1, 10–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. He, J.; Xin, X.; Pei, Z.; Chen, L.; Chu, Z.; Zhao, M.; Wu, X.; Li, B.; Xia, T.; Xiao, X. Microbial profiles associated with improving bioe-lectricity generation from sludge fermentation liquid via microbial fuel cells with adding fruit waste extracts. Bioresour. Technol. 2021, 337, 125452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  115. Dong, Y.; Qu, Y.; He, W.; Du, Y.; Liu, J.; Han, X.; Feng, Y. A 90-L stackable baffled microbial fuel cell for brewery wastewater treatment based on energy self-sufficient mode. Bioresour. Technol. 2015, 195, 66–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  116. Khandelwal, A.; Chhabra, M.; Yadav, P. Performance evaluation of algae-assisted microbial fuel cell under outdoor condi-tions. Bioresour. Technol. 2020, 310, 123418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Tan, S.-M.; Ong, S.-A.; Ho, L.-N.; Wong, Y.-S.; Thung, W.-E.; Teoh, T.-P. The reaction of wastewater treatment and power generation of single chamber microbial fuel cell against substrate concentration and anode distributions. J. Environ. Health Sci. Eng. 2020, 18, 793–807. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  118. Nawaz, A.; Haq, I.U.; Qaisar, K.; Gunes, B.; Raja, S.I.; Mohyuddin, K.; Amin, H. Microbial fuel cells: Insight into simultaneous wastewater treatment and bioelectricity generation. Process Saf. Environ. Prot. 2022, 161, 357–373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Aelterman, P.; Rabaey, K.; Pham, H.T.; Boon, N.; Verstraete, W. Continuous Electricity Generation at High Voltages and Currents Using Stacked Microbial Fuel Cells. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2006, 40, 3388–3394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  120. Aelterman, P.; Rabaey, K.; Clauwaert, P.; Verstraete, W. Microbial fuel cells for wastewater treatment. Water Sci. Technol. 2006, 54, 9–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Xiao, B.; Yang, F.; Liu, J. Enhancing simultaneous electricity production and reduction of sewage sludge in two-chamber MFC by aerobic sludge digestion and sludge pretreatments. J. Hazard. Mater. 2011, 189, 444–449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  122. Pushkar, P.; Mungray, A.K. Real textile and domestic wastewater treatment by novel cross-linked microbial fuel cell (CMFC) reactor. Desalination Water Treat. 2015, 57, 6747–6760. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Leaño, E.P.; Anceno, A.J.; Babel, S. Ultrasonic pretreatment of palm oil mill effluent: Impact on biohydrogen production, bioelectricity generation, and underlying microbial communities. Int. J. Hydrog. Energy 2012, 37, 12241–12249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Dekker, A.; Heijne, A.T.; Saakes, M.; Hamelers, H.V.M.; Buismna, C.J.N. Analysis and improvement of a scaled-up and stacked microbial fuel cel. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2009, 43, 9038–9042. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Fan, Y.; Sharbrough, E.; Liu, H. Quantification of the Internal Resistance Distribution of Microbial Fuel Cells. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2008, 42, 8101–8107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  126. Nevin, K.P.; Richter, H.; Covalla, S.F.; Johnson, J.P.; Woodard, T.L.; Orloff, A.L.; Jia, H.; Zhang, M.; Lovley, D.R. Power output and co-lumbic efficiencies from biofilms of Geobacter sulfurreducens comparable to mixed community microbial fuel cells. Environ. Microbiol. 2008, 10, 2505–2514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Wang, H.; Yang, Y.; Keller, A.A.; Li, X.; Feng, S.; Dong, Y.-N.; Li, F. Comparative analysis of energy intensity and carbon emissions in wastewater treatment in USA, Germany, China and South Africa. Appl. Energy 2016, 184, 873–881. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Huggins, T.; Fallgren, P.H.; Jin, S.; Ren, Z.J. Energy and Performance Comparison of Microbial Fuel Cell and Conventional Aeration Treating of Wastewater. J. Microb. Biochem. Technol. 2013, 6, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Masłoń, A. Anakysis of energy consumption at the Rzeszów Wastewater Treatment Plant. E3S Web of Conf. 2017, 22, 115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. He, Z.; Zhang, F.; Ge, Z. Using Microbial Fuel Cells to Treat Raw Sludge and Primary Effluent for Bioelectricity Generation: Final Report 2013. 2013. Available online: https://www.mmsd.com/application/files/4414/8192/3340/Using_Microbial_Fuel_Cells_513.pdf (accessed on 25 February 2022).
  131. Zhang, F.; Ge, Z.; Grimaud, J.; Hurst, J.; He, Z. Long-Term Performance of Liter-Scale Microbial Fuel Cells Treating Primary Effluent Installed in a Municipal Wastewater Treatment Facility. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2013, 47, 4941–4948. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. AlSayed, A.; Soliman, M.; Eldyasti, A. Microbial fuel cells for municipal wastewater treatment: From technology fundamentals to full-scale development. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2020, 134, 110367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. Pei, H.; Yang, Z.; Nie, C.; Hou, Q.; Zhang, L.; Wang, Y.; Zhang, S. Using a tubular photosynthetic microbial fuel cell to treat anaer-obically digested effluent from kitchen waste: Mechanisms of organics and ammonium removal. Bioresour. Technol. 2018, 256, 11–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  134. Ge, Z.; Zhang, F.; Grimaud, J.; Hurst, J.; He, Z. Long-term investigation of microbial fuel cells treating primary sludge or digest-ed sludge. Bioresour. Technol. 2013, 136, 509–514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. Sultana, S. Treatment of High-Strength Brewery Wastewater Using Combined Electro-Oxidation and Electro-Fenton Process. Master’s Thesis, Concordia University, Montreal, QC, Canada, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  136. Iu, M.; Shing, C.; Babnova, S.; Phadke, S. Long-term performance of a 20-L continuous flow microbial fuel cell for treatment of brewery wastewater. J. Power Sources 2017, 356, 274–287. [Google Scholar]
  137. Cristovao, R.O.; Botelho, C.M.; Martins, R.J.E.; Loureiro, J.M.; Boaventura, R.A.R. Fish canning industry wastewater treatment for water reuse ea case study. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 87, 603–612. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  138. Bhowmick, G.D.; Neethu, B.; Ghangrekar, M.M.; Banerjee, R. Improved performance of microbial fuel cell by in situ methano-genesis suppression while treating fish market wastewater. Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol. 2020, 192, 1060–1075. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  139. Asaithambi, P.; Saravanathamizhan, R.; Matheswaran, M. Comparison of treatment and energy efficiency of advanced oxida-tion processes for the distillery wastewater. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2015, 12, 2213–2220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  140. Piya-Areetham, P.; Shenchunthichai, K.; Hunsom, M. Application of electrooxidation process for treating concentrated wastewater from distillery industry with a voluminous electrode. Water Res. 2006, 40, 2857–2864. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  141. Slate, A.J.; Whitehead, K.A.; Brownson, D.A.; Banks, C.E. Microbial fuel cells: An overview of current technology. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2019, 101, 60–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  142. He, L.; Du, P.; Chen, Y.; Lu, H.; Cheng, X.; Chang, B.; Wang, Z. Advances in microbial fuel cells for wastewater treatment. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 71, 388–403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  143. Li, J.; Dong, Y.; Hu, L.; Zhang, Y.; Fu, Q.; Zhang, L.; Zhu, X.; Liao, Q. Microalgae hydrogel-derived monolithicfree-standing air cathode for microbial fuel cells: Tailoring the macroporous structure for enhanced bioelectricity generation. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2021, 153, 111773. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  144. Kaur, R.; Marwaha, A.; Chhabra, V.A.; Kim, K.-H.; Tripathi, S. Recent developments on functional nanomaterial-based electrodes for microbial fuel cells. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2019, 119, 109551. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  145. Kumar, R.; Singh, L.; Zularisam, A. Exoelectrogens: Recent advances in molecular drivers involved in extracellular electron transfer and strategies used to improve it for microbial fuel cell applications. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2016, 56, 1322–1336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Energies 15 06928 g001 550
Figure 1. (a) Global production of energy in 2019 and (b) global production of energy from renewables in 2019 [1].
Figure 1. (a) Global production of energy in 2019 and (b) global production of energy from renewables in 2019 [1].
Energies 15 06928 g001
Energies 15 06928 g002 550
Figure 2. Global water use by sector [28].
Figure 2. Global water use by sector [28].
Energies 15 06928 g002
Energies 15 06928 g003 550
Figure 3. Global (a) industrial wastewater production and (b) manufacturing industry wastewater. The estimations are based on the statistical data of water use and production volume for various industrial sectors.
Figure 3. Global (a) industrial wastewater production and (b) manufacturing industry wastewater. The estimations are based on the statistical data of water use and production volume for various industrial sectors.
Energies 15 06928 g003
Table
Table 1. Global municipal and industrial wastewater production for selected sectors.
Table 1. Global municipal and industrial wastewater production for selected sectors.
Wastewater TypeEstimated Global Production in 109 m3COD [mg/L]References
Municipal305300–600[42]
IndustrialEnergy sectors392395–45,000[43,44,45,46,47]
Manufacturing industryPulp and paper industry123480–115,000 [23]
Food and beverage industrySlaughtery3.71140–16,000[48,49]
Dairy2.5500–100,000[33,50]
Wine, beer, beverages51200–211,800 [51,52,53,54,55,56]
Metallurgy65880–42,000[57,58]
Textile industry10150–30,000[59]
Table
Table 2. Power production in MFCs above the 10 W/m3 limit.
Table 2. Power production in MFCs above the 10 W/m3 limit.
Substrate W/m3Reactor VolumeReference
Anaerobic + aerobic sludge258360 mL[119]
Anaerobic + aerobic sludge280360 mL[120]
Sewage sludge451 L[121]
Domestic WW + textile WW7502 L[122]
Oil palm mill effluent184 L[123]
Synthetic wastewater1120 L[124]
Synthetic wastewater89010 L[112]
Acetate15502.5 mL[125]
Acetate21500.3 mL[126]
WW—wastewater.
Table
Table 3. Comparison of energy balances in real wastewater—conventional treatment methods vs. MFC technology.
Table 3. Comparison of energy balances in real wastewater—conventional treatment methods vs. MFC technology.
SubstrateConventional Wastewater TreatmentMFC TechnologyReferences
Treatment TypeEnergy
Consumption kWh/m3		Energy
Production kWh/m3		Energy
Balance kWh/m3		Energy Consumption
kWh/m3		Energy Production kWh/m3Energy Balance kWh/m3Max. Power Density W/m3
Municipal wastewaterAS0.520−0.52--0.024 -[127,128]
AD0.8650.52−0.3450.1410.2050.064-[129,130]
0.01470.02390.0094.1[131]
-0.08-11[132]
-0.57-2.6[133]
Primary sludge -3.2 - 6.4 [134]
Industrial wastewaterBreweryElectrochemi-cal methodsca. 300−300.0270.0970.034-[115,135]
-0.35-3[136]
Fish processingAS0.50−0.5-0.27-3.8[137,138]
Reverse osmosis3.3 0−3.3 [65]
DistilleryAdvanced oxidation processes0.1–1.19 0−(0.1 ÷ 1.19)-1.8 -4.7[132,139]
Electrooxida-tion processes24-280-(24 ÷ 28) [140]
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Toczyłowska-Mamińska, R.; Mamiński, M.Ł. Wastewater as a Renewable Energy Source—Utilisation of Microbial Fuel Cell Technology. Energies 2022, 15, 6928. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15196928

AMA Style

Toczyłowska-Mamińska R, Mamiński MŁ. Wastewater as a Renewable Energy Source—Utilisation of Microbial Fuel Cell Technology. Energies. 2022; 15(19):6928. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15196928

Chicago/Turabian Style

Toczyłowska-Mamińska, Renata, and Mariusz Ł. Mamiński. 2022. "Wastewater as a Renewable Energy Source—Utilisation of Microbial Fuel Cell Technology" Energies 15, no. 19: 6928. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15196928

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

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop