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 accessAbstract
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Noble metal-free hydrogen evolution catalysts for water splitting
Zou, X., & Zhang, Y. (2015) · Chemical Society Reviews · doi:10.1039/c4cs00448e · Cited by 5,955
A comprehensive review on PEM water electrolysis
Carmo, M., Fritz, D. L., Mergel, J., & Stolten, D. (2013) · International Journal of Hydrogen Energy · doi:10.1016/j.ijhydene.2013.01.151 · Cited by 5,492
Recent progress in alkaline water electrolysis for hydrogen production and applications
Zeng, K., & Zhang, D. (2010) · Progress in Energy and Combustion Science · doi:10.1016/j.pecs.2009.11.002 · Cited by 3,611
A review of catalysts for the electroreduction of carbon dioxide to produce low-carbon fuels
Qiao, J., Liu, Y., Hong, F., & Zhang, J. (2014) · Chem. Soc. Rev. · doi:10.1039/c3cs60323g · Cited by 2,990
Renewable Power-to-Gas: A technological and economic review
Götz, M., Lefebvre, J., Mörs, F., McDaniel Koch, A., Graf, F., Bajohr, S., Reimert, R., & Kolb, T. (2016) · Renewable Energy · doi:10.1016/j.renene.2015.07.066 · Cited by 2,573
A review of the substrates used in microbial fuel cells (MFCs) for sustainable energy production
Pant, D., Van Bogaert, G., Diels, L., & Vanbroekhoven, K. (2010) · Bioresource Technology · doi:10.1016/j.biortech.2009.10.017 · Cited by 1,863
Kondratenko, E. V., Mul, G., Baltrusaitis, J., Larrazábal, G. O., & Pérez-Ramírez, J. (2013) · Energy & Environmental Science · doi:10.1039/c3ee41272e · Cited by 1,802
Wastewater Engineering: Treatment and Resource Recovery
Burton, F. L., Stensel, H. D., & Tchobanoglous, G. (2013) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 1,789
Microbial fuel cells: From fundamentals to applications. A review
Santoro, C., Arbizzani, C., Erable, B., & Ieropoulos, I. (2017) · Journal of Power Sources · doi:10.1016/j.jpowsour.2017.03.109 · Cited by 1,781
Hydrogen Production From Water Electrolysis: Current Status and Future Trends
Ursua, A., Gandia, L. M., & Sanchis, P. (2012) · Proceedings of the IEEE · doi:10.1109/jproc.2011.2156750 · Cited by 1,700
Cited by
Biomass-to-sustainable biohydrogen: Insights into the production routes, and technical challenges
Eloffy, M. G., Elgarahy, A. M., Saber, A. N., Hammad, A., El-Sherif, D. M., Shehata, M., Mohsen, A., & Elwakeel, K. Z. (2022) · Chemical Engineering Journal Advances · doi:10.1016/j.ceja.2022.100410 · Cited by 124
Electrochemical approach for biogas upgrading
Pasternak, G. (2021) · Emerging Technologies and Biological Systems for Biogas Upgrading · doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-822808-1.00009-x · Cited by 12
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.