MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406741883 · doi:10.1016/j.rineng.2025.104161

Possible bio cathode materials for usage in microbial fuel cells towards energy generation and wastewater treatment to sustain environment: A review

2025· review· en· W4406741883 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueResults in Engineering · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMicrobial Fuel Cells and Bioremediation
Canadian institutionsHorizon College and Seminary
FundersInternational Islamic University Malaysia
KeywordsMicrobial fuel cellWaste managementEnvironmental scienceWastewaterCathodeBiochemical engineeringElectricity generationChemistryEngineeringPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

• This paper discusses the promising bio-cathode materials in microbial fuel cells (MFCs) for renewable energy and wastewater treatment, outlining the advantages and challenges. • It reviews the design of MFC systems and includes the recent innovations in dual-chamber and hybrid designs, fabricated with stainless steel and graphite preferentially to achieve better organics degradation efficiencies. • The work shows that microbial fuel cells can generate electricity from organic waste while treating wastewater very well. • Scalability issues and cost issues, along with the future perspectives on research required for the development of bio-cathodes and the prospects for larger-scale bio-cathodes for industrial applications. The aim of this study is to review the effectiveness of bio-cathode materials usage in microbial fuel cells (MFCs) for power generation and wastewater treatment. The review focused on the Microbial fuel cell construction and design. The Anode and cathode materials of MFCs with their merits and demerits are compared. The first half of the study discusses the components for Anodes and cathodes. Typical anode and cathode materials are compared based on their power densities. The focus is narrowed down to discuss about bio cathode components and their materials including the most prominent/discussed ones such as Stainless steel and Graphite/carbon as bio cathode materials. Indirect electron transfer and direct electron transfer in MFCs are also reviewed. The second part of the review focused on bio cathode materials for electricity production and wastewater treatment. It was reported in many literatures that, MFCs can serve as supplementary, decentralized power sources. Also this review highlighted that MFCs can be employed with effective methods for removing sulfides from wastewater with certain microbes. It was reported that, a considerable coulombic efficiency of 80% can be achieved with MFCs. It was also found from the literatures that a well-designed MFC-membrane bioreactor for wastewater treatment could achieve good pollutant removal performance with a remarkable power density of 6 W/m 3 at an average current of 0.4 mA to 1.9 mA. The limitations of current technology, as well as some possible future developments, were discussed in the last section. Therefore, this may open up possibilities for further development and the use of bio-cathode materials in the future.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.974
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.229 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it