Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 323

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 148 of the 148 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Microbial electrolysis cell (MEC): Strengths, weaknesses and research needs from electrochemical engineering standpoint

Open access
Rousseau, Raphaël, Etcheverry, Luc, Roubaud, Emma, Basséguy, Régine, Délia, Marie-Line, Bergel, Alain·2020·Applied Energy

Abstract

Abstract Microbial electrolysis cells (MECs) produce hydrogen at the cathode associated with the oxidation of organic matter at the anode. This technology can produce hydrogen by consuming less electrical energy than water electrolysis does. However, it has been very difficult so far to scale up efficient MECs beyond the size of small laboratory cells. This article firstly revisits the fundamentals of MECs to assert their theoretical advantages. The low formal equilibrium cell voltage of 0.123 V and electrical and thermal energy yields as high as 10 and 12, respectively, are major assets. Other theoretical strengths are discussed, including the possibility to produce methane, and some safety advantages. The experimental achievements at pilot scale (several litres volume) are analysed through the prism of electrochemical engineering. This analysis leads to recommendations to modify some research efforts, notably by giving priority to increasing current density rather than working with volumetric parameters, using Faradaic yields to detect dysfunctions, and systematizing control experiments at open circuit. The critical analysis successively addresses electrolytes, electrode kinetics, temperature, substrate concentration, reactor architecture, and control procedures. It brings to light intrinsic weaknesses of the MEC concept and identifies improvements that can be made using current technology, for instance, by the catalysis of hydrogen evolution at neutral pH. The problem of the low electrolyte conductivity is pointed out and, in return, how increasing it can be detrimental to the key issue of anode acidification. Finally, research lines are proposed with the objective of moving ahead towards MEC development.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.113938

Cites

148 of 148 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 148 references

Cited by

See all 323

Metadata

Authors
Rousseau, R., Etcheverry, L., Roubaud, E., Basséguy, R., Délia, M.-L., & Bergel, A.
Venue
Applied Energy
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2020-01
Volume
257
Pages
113938
ISSN
0306-2619 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2987041669
Cited by
323
References
148
FWCI
10.78
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Microbial electrolysis cell (MEC): Strengths, weaknesses and research needs from electrochemical engineering standpoint. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.113938
The paper
Rousseau, R., Etcheverry, L., Roubaud, E., Basséguy, R., Délia, M.-L., & Bergel, A. (2020). Microbial electrolysis cell (MEC): Strengths, weaknesses and research needs from electrochemical engineering standpoint. Applied Energy. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.113938

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.