Abstract
Technologies for conversion of microbial energy have recently attracted interest to transform waste into bioenergy, thus addressing simultaneously environmental and energy issues. Nonetheless, actual microbial systems for energy conversion have limitations such as low rate of mass transfer, uneven energy distribution and strong inhibition of products and by-products. These technical bottlenecks can be alleviated by using membranes, which regulate the transfer of mass, heat and energy. Here we review applications of membranes for microbial energy conversion. We discuss mechanisms, functions and development of membranes for feedstock preparation, bioenergy production and bioproduct post-treatment. We present key membrane factors that control the efficiency of microbial fuel cells. We address membrane biofouling problems and anti-fouling approaches, in order to improve future commercialization.
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Nowadays, human beings still rely on traditional fossil fuels like natural gas, coal and petroleum as predominant fuel types for activities. But limited reservoir, depleting supply and ever-increasing consumption restrict the dependency on traditional fossil fuels as major energy sources (Chang et al. 2020a, b; Kumari and Singh 2018). Besides, many environmental problems associated with fossil fuels combustion have proposed pressing needs to develop renewable and environmental-friendly energy sources which are derived from non-fossil sources in ways that can be replenished (Bouabidi et al. 2018; Fu et al. 2018; Guo et al. 2019). Among various renewable energy types, like solar, wind, hydro, geothermal and biofuels (Aravind et al. 2020), the biofuels produced via microbial energy conversion are considered as one of the most promising energy types due to its high energy conversion efficiency, mild operating conditions and environmental remediation ability (Srivastava et al. 2017).
According to feedstock types, microbial biofuels were mainly classified into the first-, second- and third-generation biofuels (Nigam and Singh 2011), as shown in Table 1. The first-generation biofuels are produced using edible substrates as feedstocks, like oleaginous crops or starch-containing crops, which required relatively simple pretreatment of feedstocks since the materials are easy to be degraded than lignocellulose. But the competition of arable land and freshwater with human beings’ food for the first-generation biofuels production strongly restricted its application (Correa et al. 2017). The second-generation biofuels fulfill the gaps of the first-generation biofuels due to utilization of non-edible substrates from forestry and agricultural lignocellulose. But sophisticated pretreatment processes of feedstocks are necessary to hydrolyze tight crystalline structure of cellulose, leading to greatly increase the energy cost on the second-generation biofuels (Kumari and Singh 2018). Comparing with the first- and second-generation biofuels, the third-generation biofuels deriving from microorganisms (microalgae, microbes, etc.) are considered as promising alternatives since they can avoid major disadvantages of food competition and non-biodegradability (Zhu et al. Zhu et al. 2018). Many microorganism species (like microalgae, yeast and fungi) have abilities to accumulate fatty acids or sugar in the cells, which can be used as substrates for biodiesel or biohydrogen production through downstream processing of the microbial biomass (Leong et al. 2018, Hu et al. 2018).
Until now, the biofuel productivity and quality are poor due to many technical bottlenecks like low utilization and conversion efficiency of feedstocks, difficulty on products separation and purification (Hajilary et al. 2019; Hu et al. 2019). During microbial energy conversion processes, mass transfer and heat distribution usually determine the operating conditions of system (temperature, pH, material proportion, retention time, etc.), which ultimately affects direction and rate of the chemical reactions, like lignocellulose hydrolysis to produce sugars, sugars fermentation to produce bioethanol or biohydrogen (Pei et al. 2017). The introduction of membrane modules in microbial energy conversion system can obviously regulate the mass and heat transfer by acting as physical barrier, internal bridge, inhibitors separator or products extractor, which thus avoid many technique limitations of the system. The functions of membrane vary with its utilizing occasions. In the paper, major application of membranes on microbial energy conversion processes, i.e., liquid biofuels, gaseous biofuels and microbial fuel cell, is discussed and illustrated in Fig. 1. In detail, we reviewed (a) membrane application on liquid biofuels production, mainly on biomass cultivation and harvesting, liquid biofuel generation and liquid product refining, (b) membrane application on gaseous biofuel production, mainly on photo-dependent biohydrogen production, dark fermentative biohydrogen production and gaseous product purification, (c) membrane application on microbial fuel cell, (d) membrane biofouling and anti-biofouling technologies. This article is an abridged version of the chapter by Chang et al. (2020a, b).
Membrane application on liquid biofuel production
Liquid biofuels, like biolipids and bioethanol, are favored types of biofuels since they can blend with petroleum for combustion, realizing partly replacement of fossil energy by eco-friendly ways without sacrificing power output. The process of liquid biofuels production mainly includes feedstock preparation like microalgae cultivation and harvesting, liquid biofuels generation like fermentation and products refining like bioethanol and biodiesel recovery. Among these steps, membrane plays important role on enhancement of liquid biofuels production over the membrane-less approaches. Major application of membranes in liquid biofuels production and its advantages are shown in Table 2.
Membranes for microalgae cultivation and harvesting
Abundant biodegradable feedstocks are prerequisites for economy feasible liquid biofuel production (Hajilary et al. 2019). Among various feedstocks, microalgae biomass is considered as a promising candidate owing to more than ten times higher photosynthesis efficiency than land plants (Chang et al. 2018). Besides, microalgae can be cultivated on non-arable land with wastewater and exhausted gas as nutrients and carbon source to produce intracellular sugar and lipid (Guo et al. 2019). However, there are many limitations that need to be addressed for the microalgae biomass production system, like poor light penetration, low carbon transfer rate and inappropriate nutrients feeding. From these aspects, membranes are useful to enhance the performance of the microalgae production system.
As is known, final microalgal biomass concentration is affected by CO2 transfer rate, light and nutrients (Chang et al. 2016; Sun et al. 2018). To enhance CO2 transfer efficiency in microalgae cultivation system, hollow fiber membrane (Mortezaeikia et al. 2016), selective CO2 transfer membrane (Rahaman et al. 2011) and integrated alkali absorbent membrane system (Ibrahim et al. 2018) were successfully adopted in their works. Results demonstrated that the carbon availability in microalgae suspensions was effectively improved and microalgae biomass was enhanced. To exploit inorganic salts in wastewater as nutrients for microalgae cultivation, Chang et al. (2018) designed an annular photobioreactor based on ion exchange membranes for selectively transfer of cations and anions from wastewater chamber to microalgae cultivation chamber but prevented transport of suspended solids in wastewater, ensuring high light penetration and proper nutrients availability in microalgae culture. Furthermore, a scalable membrane-based tubular photobioreactor was used in microalgae biomass and biofuels production, which effectively enhanced economic and technical feasibility of microalgae cultivation with membrane photobioreactor (Chang et al. 2019).
Besides microalgae biomass cultivation, membrane is also used in microalgae harvesting to reduce energy cost on microalgae biomass enrichment. Filtration with microfiltration or ultrafiltration membrane is known as energy-saving method for microalgae biomass harvesting than other methods like centrifugation or drying, since energy cost on transmembrane pressure for membrane filtration is much lower than membrane-free methods (Wei et al. 2018). But membrane fouling is an inescapable problem for microalgae harvesting with membrane filtration. To cope with the fouling problem of filtering membrane, many approaches were proposed, like nanofiber membrane (Bilad et al. 2018), rotational–dynamic filtration membrane (Hapońska et al. 2018), axial vibration membrane (Zhao et al. 2016) and composite membrane (Khairuddin et al. 2019).
Membranes used for liquid biofuel fermentation
Saccharification and fermentation are important steps for biomass conversion to liquid biofuels, directly determining biofuel productivity and quality. Before fermentation, the macromolecular organic matters in the biomass should be first hydrolyzed into simple sugars by enzyme. In detail, the hexose sugar monomer contained in cellulose and the pentose sugar monomer contained in hemi-cellulose should be released and hydrolyzed into simple sugars like glucose. The complex lipid- and protein-containing organic matters in microalgae biomass should be hydrolyzed into simple structures like long-chain fatty acids, glycerol and amino acids (Kang et al. 2018). Enzymatic hydrolysis of feedstocks is commonly used methods attributing to many advantages, like mild operation, low energy cost and low inhibitors formation, but the economy input is high due to enzyme consumption. Recovery and reuse of the hydrolysis enzyme using membranes are a promising approach to reduce economic cost on enzyme utilization since membrane can retain the catalytic activity of the enzyme, ensuring high-efficiency and low cost of biomass conversion to fermentative sugars (Saha et al. 2017). According to pore size, membrane used for enzyme recovery mainly includes microfiltration and ultrafiltration types, in which microfiltration membrane is usually made of cellulose, acetate and polysulfone, and functioning as barrier to remove remaining biomass from enzyme solution (Singh and Purkait 2019), while ultrafiltration membrane is always made of polyethersulfone or polysulfone and is frequently used to extract enzyme from the hydrolysis solution (Enevoldsen et al. 2007).
Considering low sugar concentration and high inhibitors content of hydrolysate, membranes are also used on sugar enrichment and inhibitors removal for highly efficient fermentation. Comparing with conventional methods for sugar concentrating and inhibitors removal, like physical adsorption, thermal evaporation, solvent extraction and ion exchange, the membrane-based technology has additional benefits of low energy cost and biocompatibility (Tanaka et al. 2019). Up to date, the commonly used membrane technologies for sugar concentrating and inhibitors removal are ultrafiltration, nanofiltration, reverse osmosis and membrane distillation. The characteristics of different membrane technologies have been reviewed by previous authors (Zabed et al. 2017).
Membranes for recovery of liquid biofuels
In general, final biofuel purity is usually poor attributing to many factors, like sugar concentration of hydrolysate, activity of fermentation microbial, operating conditions. For example, bioethanol concentration is usually lower than 5% (in w/w) when using cellulose as feedstocks, indicating that recovery and enrichment of biofuels from hydrolysate are necessary. Among various biofuels' recovery processes, membrane-assisted biofuel recovery has particular advantages of low energy demand, pure products and mild operating conditions (Balat et al. 2008). The known membrane-based bioethanol recovery technologies include ultrafiltration, reverse osmosis, membrane distillation, membrane pervaporation and hybrid process, among which membrane distillation and membrane evaporation are two well-established methods nowadays (Bayrakci Ozdingis and Kocar 2018).
Working mechanism of membrane distillation is based on the vapor pressure differential at microporous hydrophobic membrane surface, which acts as the driving force for biofuels separation (Tomaszewska and Białończyk 2013). The commonly used membrane types for membrane distillation are prepared from low surface energy hydrophobic polymer like polypropylene, polytetrafluorethylene and polyvinylidene fluoride (Saha et al. 2017). For the membrane evaporation process, non-porous membrane is usually used for biofuels selectively recovery from hydrolysate via partial vaporization based on the solution–diffusion model (Trinh et al. 2019). Pervaporation membrane can be roughly classified into hydrophilic membrane and hydrophobic membrane, for which the former is mainly used to remove water from the mixed solution while the latter is mainly used to extract biofuels from the liquid stream (Huang et al. 2008). Therefore, the hydrophobic membrane is more energy efficient for the case with low product concentration, especially for the bioethanol recovery with concentration less than 10% (in w/w). In recent years, the hybrid processes integrating various unit operations together have attracted attentions for continuous biofuel production. For example, the hybrid fermentation–pervaporation process can remove the produced bioethanol in situ to offset product inhibition and avoid microbial washout by holding back the yeast biomass with the membrane module (Santos et al. 2018). A hybrid system integrating membrane fermentation and cogeneration was proposed by Lopez-Castrillon et al. (2018), which effectively improved energy output efficiency of the fermentation system with possibility of additional electricity generation (275 kWh/t of cane). A hybrid extractive distillation column with high selectivity pervaporation was implemented in alcohol dehydration process, which demonstrated that the hybrid system could save up to 25–40% of the total annual cost (Novita et al. 2018).
Membrane applications for gaseous biofuel production
Gaseous biofuels, like biohydrogen and biogas, are also important renewable energy types which have been widely used in practical. For example, the biogas digester is commonly constructed in medium or small size for household cases attributing to simple configuration and low investment (Chen et al. 2017; Xiao et al. 2020). The membrane bioreactor with sophisticated structure is not suitable for biogas production attributing to high investment but is frequently used in biohydrogen production. Biohydrogen production is a technology to produce hydrogen gas with microorganisms, which can be roughly classified into three types: (a) photo-dependent biohydrogen production via photolysis of water by algae and cyanobacteria, (b) photo-fermentation by decomposing organic matters with photosynthetic bacteria, and (c) dark fermentation for hydrogen production with facultative or obligate anaerobic bacteria (Trchounian et al. 2017; Srivastava et al. 2020). Among many emerging approaches for biohydrogen production, membrane integrated biohydrogen production system is for sure a promising technology allowing for dealing with various kinetic inhibitions, like biomass washout, substrate or product inhibition, as shown in Table 3.
Membranes for photo-dependent biohydrogen production
During photolysis, which is the first case of the photo-dependent biohydrogen production, some oxygenic photosynthetic microorganisms like algae or cyanobacteria strains absorb solar energy and convert it into chemical energy by splitting water to proton (H+) and molecular oxygen (O2) within intracellular pigments (Yilanci et al. 2009). Then, the generated H+ acts as electron acceptor for H2 production in the downstream combination with excessive electrons assisted by intracellular enzyme of algal or cyanobacterial cells (He et al. 2017). Biohydrogen production via photolysis is regarded as the cleanest way for hydrogen production because of high-efficiency carbon mitigation and quick solar energy conversion efficiency, but its application is severely inhibited by low hydrogen productivity, oxygen inhibition and strict light requirement (Argun and Kargi 2011).
Unlike photolysis with algae or cyanobacteria, photo-fermentation with photosynthetic bacteria like non-sulfur purple photosynthetic bacterium, which is regarded as the second case of photo-dependent biohydrogen production, is unable to derive electrons from water. Photo-fermentation bacteria usually use simple sugars and volatile fatty acids as feedstocks (Zhang et al. 2018), while many problems like high energy demand, low light conversion efficiency and uneven light distribution in bioreactors still need to be addressed for photo-fermentation. To optimize light distribution and light conversion efficiency, researchers have proposed many approaches like optical fibers (Zhong et al. 2019), light guide plates (Fu et al. 2017) and cell immobilization techniques (Tian et al. 2010), which improved biohydrogen productivity to some extent.
Unfortunately, applications of membrane technology on photo-dependent biohydrogen production system are relatively scarce up to date, which are mainly focused on downstream purification of hydrogen products. Since some membranes have ability to selectively separate gas and liquid components as well as regulate mass and heat transfer, membrane-integrated photobioreactors for biohydrogen production are expectable to enhance photo-biohydrogen production.
Membranes for dark fermentative biohydrogen production
Comparing with biohydrogen production via photolysis or photo-fermentation, dark fermentative biohydrogen production occupies higher proportion nowadays. Since light is unnecessary for dark fermentation, reactors' design is more flexible and the volume utilization of the bioreactors can be fully exploited. In addition, since oxygen inhibition is no longer a problem under anaerobic conditions, dark fermentative biohydrogen production shows more reliable and faster hydrogen production rate.
For conventional dark fermentation process, low biomass density in continuous stirred tank reactor caused by high biomass washout rate and by-products or product inhibitions is crucial shortcomings for hydrogen output (Kariyama et al. 2018). The introduction of membrane modules in anaerobic membrane bioreactor can effectively enhance the conversion efficiency from raw material to biohydrogen by ensuring high solid retention time and selectively removing inhibitors (Shin and Bae 2018). Besides, the mass transfer of metabolites in the system can be regulated with membrane for highly efficient biohydrogen production (Park et al. 2017). For example, Teplyakov et al. (2002) integrated active polyvinyl-trimethyl-silane membrane system with dark fermentative bioreactor for hydrogen removal to reduce partial pressure of hydrogen in the gaseous units.
In general, the membrane bioreactor can be mainly classified into submerged membrane bioreactor and side stream membrane bioreactor (as shown in Fig. 2). Membrane modules are always submerged in the liquid of the reactor for the submerged membrane bioreactor, while they are set outside of the reactor for the side stream bioreactor. The submerged membrane bioreactor is typically characterized by low energy cost but high membrane utilization and high complexity on membrane washing than the side stream membrane bioreactor. To solve the shortcomings of these two types of membrane bioreactor, many derived membrane bioreactors were recently proposed for high-efficiency biohydrogen production. Bakonyi et al. (2015) established a double-membrane bioreactor, in which a commercial microfiltration membrane module was added into a membrane hydrogen fermenter, which realized simultaneous biohydrogen production and purification. A dynamic membrane bioreactor integrating a self-forming dynamic membrane with a continuous fermenter was constructed by Park et al. (2017), which successfully retained bacterial consortia and resulted in a maximum hydrogen production rate of 51.38 L/L/day. Saleem et al. (2018) adopted a side stream dynamic membrane bioreactor using dynamic membrane as a solid–liquid separation media and significantly improved the dark fermentative biohydrogen production under mesophilic conditions.
Membranes for biohydrogen purification
Another important role of membrane in biohydrogen production system is purification of the gaseous products to obtain high-quality hydrogen fuel. To eliminate effect of by-products (CO2, CO, SOx) on combustion property of biohydrogen, membrane technologies for biohydrogen purification are a feasible approach because it avoids chemical conversion of the mixed gas (Zhang et al. 2020).
The membrane used for biohydrogen purification is usually a semi-permeable separator acting as a selective mass transfer barrier to separate various compositions (Bakonyi et al. 2018). Superior permeability and selectivity are two key criteria for the membrane applied in gas purification, but it is unfortunately that these two factors are usually not compatible with each other. This limits application of most available membrane types in industrial production of biohydrogen. Many researchers have been dedicating to enhance the gas separation characteristics of membranes for biohydrogen purification. Ahmad et al. (2016) constructed a nearly superhydrophobic and microporous membrane by blending amorphous poly-benzimidazole and semi-crystalline polyvinylidene fluoride, which removed 67% of CO2 in gas mixture of H2 and CO2 at highest CO2 flux of 4.16×10−4 mol/m2/s across the membrane. Wu et al. (2017a) synthesized a membrane made of glassy polymers, polyetherimide coated bio-cellulose nanofibers and a coconut shell active carbon as adsorbents carriers for CO2 separation in dark fermentative gas mixture. The synthesized membrane was convinced to have CO2 permeability of 16.72 Barrer and corresponding CO2/H2 selectivity of 0.15. Abd. Hamid et al. (2019) proposed a synthesized polysulfone-polyimide membrane with highest permeability of 348 GPU [gas permeation unit, 1 GPU equal to 1×10−6 cm3(STP)/(cm2 s cm Hg)] for H2 and 86 GPU for CO2, H2/CO2 selectivity of 4.4 and H2 purification efficiency of 80%.
Among various influencing factors for the cost of membrane bioreactor, membrane fouling is one of the most important problems, as shown in Fig. 3 (Buitrón et al. 2019). During microbial growth, soluble microbial products and extracellular polymeric substances consisting of complex biopolymer mixtures like proteins, polysaccharides, lipopolysaccharides and lipoproteins are produced in the cultures, which triggered biomass flocs formation and accumulation on membrane surface, resulting in membrane pore blocking and fouling (Shan et al. 2018). Membrane modification with physical structural rearranging, chemical coating and functional material embedding is considered as promising approaches for anti-fouling membrane development (López-Cázares et al. 2018; Qin et al. 2018; Shan et al. 2018). Schematic of some typical membrane modification methods for anti-fouling technology is shown in Fig. 4, like physical structural modification with nano-Ag cluster (Fig. 4a) and chemical solvents coating on membrane (Fig. 4b). For example, López-Cázares et al. (2018) enhanced the anti(bio)fouling of cation exchange membranes (Nafion and Ultrex membranes) by immobilizing nanocomposites of nanoparticles on graphene oxide as a thin film using a polydopamine adhesive. Shan et al. (2018) explored a facile and biomimetic method of amphiphobic surface with special structure and controllable wettability, which enhanced the flux and anti-fouling performances of the membrane.
Another important anti-fouling approach is dynamic membrane (like rotating membrane in Fig. 4c) using a physical barrier to prevent biomass accumulation on membrane surface (Yang et al. 2018). Comparing with the anti-fouling method of air bubbling, the dynamic membranes provide stronger shear force on the membrane by mechanical vibration, like rotation, vibration and oscillation (Bagheri and Mirbagheri 2018; Qin et al. 2018). The structure and function of dynamic membrane systems are also continually upgraded by researchers. Ruigómez et al. (2017) proposed a physical cleaning strategy based on membrane rotation in a submerged anaerobic membrane bioreactor and improved the fouling removal effectiveness, achieving a stable net permeate flux of 6.7 L/m2 h. Chatzikonstantinou et al. (2015) employed high-frequency powerful vibration technique in both hollow fiber and flat sheet modules to prevent membrane fouling. They reported that the strategy of high-frequency powerful vibration is capable in reducing membrane fouling and is promising with respect to energy savings. These emerging anti-fouling technologies provide great potential to reduce membrane manufacturing and operating costs, which then enhance the commercial feasibility of biohydrogen application.
Membrane applications in microbial fuel cells
Microbial fuel cell (MFC) as a bioelectrochemical device has attracted particular interests in environmental and energy fields (Liu et al. 2019). It uses microorganism as electrocatalysts to conduct oxidation–reduction reaction and convert chemical energy in wastewater into electrical energy (Leong et al. 2013; Wen et al. 2019). MFC can be mainly classified into single chamber and dual chamber MFC (Fig. 5) according to the structure. The dual chamber MFC contains an anode and a cathode chamber separated by a membrane as electrolyte bridge, while only anode chamber was included in the single chamber MFC. Membrane is an important component of the MFC, which physically divides but chemically and ionically connects the anode and cathode chamber, significantly influencing overall performance of the MFC. The possible membrane types used for the MFC include cation exchange membrane (Daud et al. 2018), anion exchange membrane (Elangovan and Dharmalingam 2017), porous membrane (Li et al. 2015), polymer/composite membrane (Ahilan et al. 2018; Filiz 2017), etc. Each type of membrane has its advantages and disadvantages. For example, cation exchange membrane can enhance columbic efficiency of the MFC since they directly conduct H+ transfer from anode to cathode, but pH splitting of the MFC with cation exchange membrane is easily happened (Chaudhuri and Lovley 2003). The anion exchange membrane can diminish pH splitting of the MFC, but substrate crossover is a major drawback (Varcoe et al. 2014). Though low internal resistance of porous membrane is beneficial for H+ transfer of the MFC, high crossover rate of oxygen and substrate through the membrane pores is detrimental to MFC performance (Slate et al. 2019). Until now, an ideal membrane taking all aspects into account is yet to be developed.
In general, the membrane affects MFCs’ performance and cost from aspects of membrane internal resistance, oxygen diffusion, substrate loss across the membrane, pH splitting and membrane biofouling. (Leong et al. 2013). The membrane with high resistance is not conducive to proton transfer due to low ion exchange capacity and reduce MFC power output. But low resistance membrane with porosity like microfiltration membrane can also reduce the power density attributing to high crossover rate of oxygen and substrate (Slate et al. 2019). Therefore, the membrane with low internal resistance and low oxygen and substrate crossover rate is an ideal type for the MFC (Ji et al. 2011). Gao et al. (2018) developed a novel carbon-based conductive membrane that had a lower internal resistance (752 Ω) relative to the proton exchange membrane (937 Ω) and enhanced the power density of the MFC to 228 mW/m3. Wu et al. (2017b) adopted an electroconductivity aerated membrane as biocathode in the MFC to enhance power density and wastewater treatment. The EAM had superior property in controlling oxygen and substrate diffusion as well as proton transfer, resulting in a power density of 4.20 ± 0.13 W/m3 at a current density of 4.10 ± 0.11 A/m2.
Oxygen and substrate diffusion across membrane are also important problems for the MFC. Oxygen could compete with the anode for electrons since oxygen is more favorable electron accepter, and substrate transfer could lead to an internal short circuit inside the MFC and reduce columbic efficiency (Kim et al. 2013). An important role of membrane in the MFC is to prevent oxygen and substrate crossover. It is reported that the coulombic efficiency of the MFC with membrane was 20% higher than the membrane-less one (Slate et al. 2019). Unfortunately, a membrane that can totally avoid oxygen and substrate diffusion is not developed, and some auxiliary approaches to minimize negative effects of oxygen and substrate were proposed. Ahilan et al. (2018) modified ceramic membrane with montmorillonite-H3PMo12O40/SiO2 composite to reduce the oxygen mass transfer coefficient to 5.62 × 10−4 cm/s, which is near the commercial polymeric Nafion membrane. Logan et al. (2005) used chemical oxygen scavenger, i.e., cysteine, in the anode chamber to remove the oxygen by reacting with oxygen to form disulfide dime (cystine). Yousefi et al. (2018) assembled a chitosan/montmorillonite nanocomposite film layer by layer over the surface of commercial unglazed wall ceramics, which reduced the oxygen diffusion coefficient to one-sixth of the blank ceramic membrane. Besides electrons competition and internal short circuit, oxygen and substrate diffusion can also induce biofouling of the membrane and pH splitting of the MFC. On the one hand, the diffused substrate provides food for the microbial biofilm, and diffused oxygen triggered biofilm formation of aerobic bacterial. On the other hand, the formed microbial biofilm acts as barrier for proton transfer and deteriorates pH splitting of the MFC. To ensure high performance of the MFC, the fouled membrane must be replaced with new one for proton diffuse, but this dramatically improved operating investment of the MFC. In recent years, researchers proposed some approaches to reduce membrane biofouling, like anti-microbial approach and anti-adhesion approach (Chatterjee and Ghangrekar 2014; Sun et al. 2016; Yang et al. 2016). Chatterjee and Ghangrekar (2014) constructed an anti-fouling MFC using vanillin as biocide. Yang et al. (2016) coated the membrane with a silver nanoparticle polydopamine to mitigate biofouling by taking advantage of anti-microbial effect of nano-Ag particle. Sun et al. (2016) used well-ordered multi-walled carbon nanotubes and its derivative modified with the carboxyl modified to prevent microbial adhesion. However, effectiveness of these anti-fouling methods drastically reduced after a certain period of operation. Until now, biofouling is still one of the biggest limitations for membrane application in MFC field, which will deteriorate membrane performance and durability and then negatively affect the power output and operational cost (Gajda et al. 2018).
Conclusion
Microbial energy conversion technology is a potential method for simultaneous realization of environmental remediation and energy production. Membranes play very important roles on enhancement of bioenergy productivity and quality. This paper presents a review on roles and mechanisms of membrane on bioenergy conversion processes and discussed important factors influencing the overall performances. For liquid biofuel production, membranes can enhance microalgae biomass productivity, concentrate sugar concentration, remove inhibitors from the hydrolysate and recover liquid biofuels from solution. For gaseous biofuels production, the membranes can enhance bioenergy output by ensuring high solid retention time and purify the produced biogas for high-quality fuel generation. For the microbial fuel cell, membrane can decrease internal short circuit and increase power density by acting as physical barrier and electrolyte bridge. But biofouling of membrane caused by microbial attachment is vital problem that needs to be addressed. Anti-fouling technologies, like anti-adhesion approach or anti-microbial growth approach, are discussed in the work. For future prospects, anti-fouling technology of membranes is still primary target to reduce membrane cost. Some versatile membrane types coated with functionalized groups or materials should be developed to fulfill various occasions. In addition, further application of membrane on microbial energy conversion should be explored, like membrane application on photo-dependent hydrogen production.
References
Abd. Hamid MA, Chung YT, Rohani R, Mohd. Junaidi MU (2019) Miscible-blend polysulfone/polyimide membrane for hydrogen purification from palm oil mill effluent fermentation. Sep Purif Technol 209:598–607. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seppur.2018.07.067
Ahilan V, Wilhelm M, Rezwan K (2018) Porous polymer derived ceramic (PDC)-montmorillonite-H3PMo12O40/SiO2 composite membranes for microbial fuel cell (MFC) application. Ceram Int 44(16):19191–19199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ceramint.2018.07.138
Ahmad NA, Leo CP, Ahmad AL, Mohammad AW (2016) Separation of CO2 from hydrogen using membrane gas absorption with PVDF/PBI membrane. Int J Hydrogen Energy 41(8):4855–4861. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2015.11.054
Aravind S, Kumar PS, Kumar NS, Siddarth N (2020) Conversion of green algal biomass into bioenergy by pyrolysis. A review. Environ Chem Lett 18:829–849. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10311-020-00990-2
Argun H, Kargi F (2011) Bio-hydrogen production by different operational modes of dark and photo-fermentation: an overview. Int J Hydrogen Energy 36(13):7443–7459. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2011.03.116
Bagheri M, Mirbagheri SA (2018) Critical review of fouling mitigation strategies in membrane bioreactors treating water and wastewater. Bioresour Technol 258:318–334. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2018.03.026
Bakonyi P, Nemestóthy N, Lankó J, Rivera I, Buitrón G, Bélafi-Bakó K (2015) Simultaneous biohydrogen production and purification in a double-membrane bioreactor system. Int J Hydrogen Energy 40(4):1690–1697. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2014.12.002
Bakonyi P, Kumar G, Belafi-Bako K, Kim SH, Koter S, Kujawski W, Nemestothy N, Peter J, Pientka Z (2018) A review of the innovative gas separation membrane bioreactor with mechanisms for integrated production and purification of biohydrogen. Bioresour Technol 270:643–655. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2018.09.020
Balat M, Balat H, Öz C (2008) Progress in bioethanol processing. Prog Energy Combust Sci 34(5):551–573. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pecs.2007.11.001
Bayrakci Ozdingis AG, Kocar G (2018) Current and future aspects of bioethanol production and utilization in Turkey. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 81:2196–2203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.06.031
Bilad MR, Azizo AS, Wirzal MDH, Jia Jia L, Putra ZA, Nordin NAHM, Mavukkandy MO, Jasni MJF, Yusoff ARM (2018) Tackling membrane fouling in microalgae filtration using nylon 6,6 nanofiber membrane. J Environ Manag 223:23–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.06.007
Bouabidi ZB, EI-Naas M, Zhang Z (2018) Immobilization of microbial cells for the biotreatment of wastewater: a review. Environ Chem Lett. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10311-018-0795-7
Buitrón G, Muñoz-Páez KM, Hernández-Mendoza CE (2019) Biohydrogen production using a granular sludge membrane bioreactor. Fuel 241:954–961. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2018.12.104
Chang HX, Huang Y, Fu Q, Liao Q, Zhu X (2016) Kinetic characteristics and modeling of microalgae Chlorella vulgaris growth and CO2 biofixation considering the coupled effects of light intensity and dissolved inorganic carbon. Bioresour Technol 206:231–238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2016.01.087
Chang H, Quan X, Zhong N, Zhang Z, Lu C, Li G, Cheng Z, Yang L (2018) High-efficiency nutrients reclamation from landfill leachate by microalgae Chlorella vulgaris in membrane photobioreactor for bio-lipid production. Biores Technol 266:374–381. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2018.06.077
Chang H, Fu Q, Zhong N, Yang X, Quan X, Li S, Fu J, Xiao C (2019) Microalgal lipids production and nutrients recovery from landfill leachate using membrane photobioreactor. Biores Technol 277:18–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2019.01.027
Chang H, Hu R, Zou Y, Quan X, Zhong N, Zhao S, Sun Y (2020a) Highly efficient reverse osmosis concentrate remediation by microalgae for biolipid production assisted with electrooxidation. Water Res 174:115162
Chang H, Zhong N, Quan X, Qi X, Zhang T, Hu R, Sun Y, Wang C (2020b) Membrane technologies for sustainable and eco-friendly microbial energy production. In: Zhang E et al (eds) Membranes for Environmental Applications. Springer Nature, Switzerland, pp 353–381
Chatterjee P, Ghangrekar M (2014) Preparation of a fouling-resistant sustainable cathode for a single-chambered microbial fuel cell. Water Sci Technol 69(3):634–639. https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2013.760
Chatzikonstantinou K, Tzamtzis N, Pappa A, Liodakis S (2015) Membrane fouling control using high-frequency power vibration, in an SMBR pilot system—preliminary studies. Desalination Water Treat 57(25):11550–11560. https://doi.org/10.1080/19443994.2015.1048309
Chaudhuri SK, Lovley DR (2003) Electricity generation by direct oxidation of glucose in mediatorless microbial fuel cells. Nat Biotechnol 21(10):1229. https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt867
Chen Y, Hu W, Chen P, Ruan R (2017) Household biogas CDM project development in rural China. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 67:184–191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.09.052
Correa DF, Beyer HL, Possingham HP, Thomas-Hall SR, Schenk PM (2017) Biodiversity impacts of bioenergy production: microalgae vs. first generation biofuels. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 74:1131–1146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.02.068
Daud SM, Daud WRW, Kim BH, Somalu MR, Bakar MHA, Muchtar A, Jahim JM, Lim SS, Chang IS (2018) Comparison of performance and ionic concentration gradient of two-chamber microbial fuel cell using ceramic membrane (CM) and cation exchange membrane (CEM) as separators. Electrochim Acta 259:365–376. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electacta.2017.10.118
Elangovan M, Dharmalingam S (2017) Application of polysulphone based anion exchange membrane electrolyte for improved electricity generation in microbial fuel cell. Mater Chem Phys 199:528–536. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matchemphys.2017.07.038
Enevoldsen AD, Hansen EB, Jonsson G (2007) Electro-ultrafiltration of amylase enzymes: process design and economy. Chem Eng Sci 62(23):6716–6725. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ces.2007.08.040
Filiz UN (2017) Complete desalination of seawater using a novel polyvinylidene fluoride/zeolite membrane. Environ Chem Lett. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10311-017-0684-5
Fu Q, Li Y, Zhong N, Liao Q, Huang Y, Xia A, Zhu X, Hou Y (2017) A novel biofilm photobioreactor using light guide plate enhances the hydrogen production. Int J Hydrogen Energy 42(45):27523–27531. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2017.05.182
Fu Q, Xiao S, Li Z, Li Y, Kobayashi H, Li J, Yang Y, Liao Q, Zhu X, He X, Ye D, Zhang L, Zhong M (2018) Hybrid solar-to-methane conversion system with a Faradaic efficiency of up to 96%. Nano Energy 53:232–239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nanoen.2018.08.051
Gajda I, Greenman J, Ieropoulos IA (2018) Recent advancements in real-world microbial fuel cell applications. Curr Opin Electrochem 11:78–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coelec.2018.09.006
Gao C, Liu L, Yu T, Yang F (2018) Development of a novel carbon-based conductive membrane with in-situ formed MnO2 catalyst for wastewater treatment in bio-electrochemical system (BES). J Membr Sci 549:533–542. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2017.12.053
Guo C-L, Wang W, Duan D-R, Zhao C-Y, Guo F-Q (2019) Enhanced CO2 biofixation and protein production by microalgae biofilm attached on modified surface of nickel foam. Bioprocess Biosyst Eng 42:521–528. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00449-018-2055-4
Hajilary N, Rezakazemi M, Shirazian S (2019) Biofuel types and membrane separation. Environ Chem Lett 17:1–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10311-018-0777-9
Hapońska M, Clavero E, Salvadó J, Torras C (2018) Application of ABS membranes in dynamic filtration for Chlorella sorokiniana dewatering. Biomass Bioenerg 111:224–231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2017.03.013
He S, Fan X, Luo S, Katukuri NR, Guo R (2017) Enhanced the energy outcomes from microalgal biomass by the novel biopretreatment. Energy Convers Manag 135:291–296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2016.12.049
Hu J, Nagarajan D, Zhang Q, Chang JS, Lee DJ (2018) Heterotrophic cultivation of microalgae for pigment production: a review. Biotechnol Adv 36(1):54–67
Hu J, Li D, Zhang Q (2019) Gasification and catalytic reforming of corn straw in closed-loop reactor. Biores Technol 282:530–533
Huang H-J, Ramaswamy S, Tschirner UW, Ramarao BV (2008) A review of separation technologies in current and future biorefineries. Sep Purif Technol 62(1):1–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seppur.2007.12.011
Ibrahim MH, El-Naas MH, Zhang Z, Van der Bruggen B (2018) CO2 capture using hollow fiber membranes: a review of membrane wetting. Energy Fuels 32(2):963–978. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.energyfuels.7b03493
Ji E, Moon H, Piao J, Ha PT, An J, Kim D, Woo JJ, Lee Y, Moon SH, Rittmann BE, Chang IS (2011) Interface resistances of anion exchange membranes in microbial fuel cells with low ionic strength. Biosens Bioelectron 26(7):3266–3271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bios.2010.12.039
Kang S, Fu J, Zhang G (2018) From lignocellulosic biomass to levulinic acid: a review on acid-catalyzed hydrolysis. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 94:340–362. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2018.06.016
Kariyama ID, Zhai X, Wu B (2018) Influence of mixing on anaerobic digestion efficiency in stirred tank digesters: a review. Water Res 143:503–517. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2018.06.065
Khairuddin NFM, Idris A, Hock LW (2019) Harvesting Nannochloropsis sp. using PES/MWCNT/LiBr membrane with good antifouling properties. Sep Purif Technol 212:1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seppur.2018.11.013
Kim K-Y, Chae K-J, Choi M-J, Yang E-T, Hwang MH, Kim IS (2013) High-quality effluent and electricity production from non-CEM based flow-through type microbial fuel cell. Chem Eng J 218:19–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2012.12.018
Kumari D, Singh R (2018) Pretreatment of lignocellulosic wastes for biofuel production: a critical review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 90:877–891. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2018.03.111
Leong JX, Daud WRW, Ghasemi M, Liew KB, Ismail M (2013) Ion exchange membranes as separators in microbial fuel cells for bioenergy conversion: a comprehensive review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 28:575–587. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2013.08.052
Leong W-H, Lim J-W, Lam M-K, Uemura Y, Ho Y-C (2018) Third generation biofuels: a nutritional perspective in enhancing microbial lipid production. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 91:950–961. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2018.04.066
Li Y, Liu L, Yang F, Ren N (2015) Performance of carbon fiber cathode membrane with C–Mn–Fe–O catalyst in MBR–MFC for wastewater treatment. J Membr Sci 484:27–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2015.03.006
Liu H, Lv Y, Xu S, Chen Z, Lichtfouse E (2019) Configuration and rapid start-up of a novel combined microbial electrolytic process treating fecal sewage. Sci Total Environ 705:135986. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.135986
Logan BE, Murano C, Scott K, Gray ND, Head IM (2005) Electricity generation from cysteine in a microbial fuel cell. Water Res 39(5):942–952. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2004.11.019
Lopez-Castrillon C, Leon JA, Palacios-Bereche MC, Palacios-Bereche R, Nebra SA (2018) Improvements in fermentation and cogeneration system in the ethanol production process: hybrid membrane fermentation and heat integration of the overall process through Pinch Analysis. Energy 156:468–480. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2018.05.092
López-Cázares MI, Pérez-Rodríguez F, Rangel-Méndez JR, Centeno-Sánchez M, Cházaro-Ruiz LF (2018) Improved conductivity and anti(bio)fouling of cation exchange membranes by AgNPs-GO nanocomposites. J Membr Sci 565:463–479. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2018.08.036
Lundin S-TB, Patki NS, Fuerst TF, Ricote S, Wolden CA, Way JD (2017) Dense inorganic membranes for hydrogen separation. Membr For Gas Sep 1:271. https://doi.org/10.1142/9789813207714-0007
Mortezaeikia V, Yegani R, Tavakoli O (2016) Membrane-sparger vs. membrane contactor as a photobioreactors for carbon dioxide biofixation of Synechococcus elongatus in batch and semi-continuous mode. J CO2 Util 16:23–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcou.2016.05.009
Nigam PS, Singh A (2011) Production of liquid biofuels from renewable resources. Prog Energy Combust Sci 37(1):52–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pecs.2010.01.003
Novita FJ, Lee H-Y, Lee M (2018) Energy-efficient and ecologically friendly hybrid extractive distillation using a pervaporation system for azeotropic feed compositions in alcohol dehydration process. J Taiwan Inst Chem Eng 91:251–265. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtice.2018.05.023
Park J-H, Anburajan P, Kumar G, Park H-D, Kim S-H (2017) Biohydrogen production integrated with an external dynamic membrane: a novel approach. Int J Hydrogen Energy 42(45):27543–27549. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2017.05.145
Pei H-S, Guo C-L, Zhang G-F, Tang Q-Y, Guo F-Q (2017) Dynamic behavior of bubble forming at capillary orifice in methane oxidizing bacteria suspension. Int J Heat Mass Transf 110:872–879. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.2017.03.094
Qin L, Zhang Y, Xu Z, Zhang G (2018) Advanced membrane bioreactors systems: new materials and hybrid process design. Bioresour Technol 269:476–488. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2018.08.062
Rahaman MSA, Cheng L-H, Xu X-H, Zhang L, Chen H-L (2011) A review of carbon dioxide capture and utilization by membrane integrated microalgal cultivation processes. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 15(8):4002–4012. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2011.07.031
Ruigómez I, González E, Guerra S, Rodríguez-Gómez LE, Vera L (2017) Evaluation of a novel physical cleaning strategy based on HF membrane rotation during the backwashing/relaxation phases for anaerobic submerged MBR. J Membr Sci 526:181–190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2016.12.042
Saha K et al (2017) Membranes as a tool to support biorefineries: applications in enzymatic hydrolysis, fermentation and dehydration for bioethanol production. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 74:873–890. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.03.015
Saleem M, Lavagnolo MC, Spagni A (2018) Biological hydrogen production via dark fermentation by using a side-stream dynamic membrane bioreactor: effect of substrate concentration. Chem Eng J 349:719–727. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2018.05.129
Santos ELI, Rostro-Alanis M, Parra-Saldivar R, Alvarez AJ (2018) A novel method for bioethanol production using immobilized yeast cells in calcium-alginate films and hybrid composite pervaporation membrane. Bioresour Technol 247:165–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2017.09.091
Shan H, Liu J, Li X, Li Y, Tezel FH, Li B, Wang S (2018) Nanocoated amphiphobic membrane for flux enhancement and comprehensive anti-fouling performance in direct contact membrane distillation. J Membr Sci 567:166–180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2018.09.038
Shin C, Bae J (2018) Current status of the pilot-scale anaerobic membrane bioreactor treatments of domestic wastewaters: a critical review. Bioresour Technol 247:1038–1046. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2017.09.002
Singh R, Purkait MK (2019) Microfiltration Membranes. In: Ismail AF et al (eds) Membrane Separation Principles and Applications. Elsevier, Netherland, pp 111–146
Slate AJ, Whitehead KA, Brownson DAC, Banks CE (2019) Microbial fuel cells: an overview of current technology. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 101:60–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2018.09.044
Srivastava N, Srivastava M, Manikanta A, Singh P, Ramteke PW, Mishra PK (2017) Nanomaterials for biofuel production using lignocellulosic waste. Environ Chem Lett 15:179–184. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10311-017-0622-6
Srivastava RK, Shetti NP, Reddy KR, Aminabhavi TM (2020) Biofuels, biodiesel and biohydrogen production using bioprocesses. A review. Environ Chem Lett. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10311-020-00999-7
Sun Y, Lang Y, Sun Q, Liang S, Liu Y, Zhang Z (2016) Effect of anti-biofouling potential of multi-walled carbon nanotubes-filled polydimethylsiloxane composites on pioneer microbial colonization. Colloids Surf B 145:30–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.colsurfb.2016.04.033
Sun Y, Huang Y, Liao Q, Xia A, Fu Q, Zhu X, Fu J (2018) Boosting Nannochloropsis oculata growth and lipid accumulation in a lab-scale open raceway pond characterized by improved light distributions employing built-in planar waveguide modules. Bioresour Technol 249:880–889. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2017.11.013
Tanaka K, Koyama M, Pham PT, Rollon AP, Habaki H, Egashira R, Nakasaki K (2019) Production of high-concentration bioethanol from cassava stem by repeated hydrolysis and intermittent yeast inoculation. Int Biodeterior Biodegradation 138:1–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibiod.2018.12.007
Teplyakov VV, Gassanova LG, Sostina EG, Slepova EV, Modigell M, Netrusov AI (2002) Lab-scale bioreactor integrated with active membrane system for hydrogen production: experience and prospects. Int J Hydrogen Energy 27(11):1149–1155. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0360-3199(02)00093-9
Tian X, Liao Q, Zhu X, Wang Y, Zhang P, Li J, Wang H (2010) Characteristics of a biofilm photobioreactor as applied to photo-hydrogen production. Biores Technol 101(3):977–983. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2009.09.007
Tomaszewska M, Białończyk L (2013) Production of ethanol from lactose in a bioreactor integrated with membrane distillation. Desalination 323:114–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2013.01.026
Trchounian K, Sawers RG, Trchounian A (2017) Improving biohydrogen productivity by microbial dark- and photo-fermentations: novel data and future approaches. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 80:1201–1216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.05.149
Trinh LTP, Lee Y-J, Park CS, Bae H-J (2019) Aqueous acidified ionic liquid pretreatment for bioethanol production and concentration of produced ethanol by pervaporation. J Ind Eng Chem 69:57–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jiec.2018.09.008
Varcoe JR, Atanassov P, Dekel DR, Herring AM, Hickner MA, Kohl PA, Kucernak AR, Mustain WE, Nijmeijer K, Scott K (2014) Anion-exchange membranes in electrochemical energy systems. Energy Environ Sci 7(10):3135–3191. https://doi.org/10.1039/C4EE01303D
Wei C, Huang Y, Liao Q, Fu Q, Xia A, Sun Y (2018) The kinetics of the polyacrylic superabsorbent polymers swelling in microalgae suspension to concentrate cells density. Bioresour Technol 249:713–719. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2017.10.066
Wen Y, Yuan J, Ma X, Wang S, Liu Y (2019) Polymeric nanocomposite membranes for water treatment: a review. Environ Chem Lett. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10311-019-00895-9
Wu S-Y, Hsiao IC, Liu C-M, Mt Yusuf NY, Wan Isahak WNR, Masdar MS (2017a) A novel bio-cellulose membrane and modified adsorption approach in CO2/H2 separation technique for PEM fuel cell applications. Int J Hydrogen Energy 42(45):27630–27640. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2017.05.148
Wu Y, Yang Q, Zeng Q, Ngo HH, Guo W, Zhang H (2017b) Enhanced low C/N nitrogen removal in an innovative microbial fuel cell (MFC) with electroconductivity aerated membrane (EAM) as biocathode. Chem Eng J 316:315–322. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2016.11.141
Xiao L, Liu F, Lichtfouse E, Zhang P, Feng D, Li F (2020) Methane production by acetate dismutation stimulated by Shewanella oneidensis and carbon materials: an alternative to classical CO2 reduction. Chem Eng J 389:124469. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2020.124469
Yang E, Chae K-J, Alayande AB, Kim K-Y, Kim IS (2016) Concurrent performance improvement and biofouling mitigation in osmotic microbial fuel cells using a silver nanoparticle-polydopamine coated forward osmosis membrane. J Membr Sci 513:217–225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2016.04.028
Yang T, Liu F, Xiong H, Yang Q, Chen F, Zhan C (2018) Fouling process and anti-fouling mechanisms of dynamic membrane assisted by photocatalytic oxidation under sub-critical fluxes. Chin J Chem Eng 27(8):1798–1806. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cjche.2018.10.019
Yilanci A, Dincer I, Ozturk HK (2009) A review on solar-hydrogen/fuel cell hybrid energy systems for stationary applications. Prog Energy Combust Sci 35(3):231–244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pecs.2008.07.004
Yousefi V, Mohebbi-Kalhori D, Samimi A (2018) Application of layer-by-layer assembled chitosan/montmorillonite nanocomposite as oxygen barrier film over the ceramic separator of the microbial fuel cell. Electrochim Acta 283:234–247. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electacta.2018.06.173
Zabed H, Sahu JN, Suely A, Boyce AN, Faruq G (2017) Bioethanol production from renewable sources: current perspectives and technological progress. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 71:475–501. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.12.076
Zhang Q, Zhang Z, Wang Y, Lee D-J, Li G, Zhou X, Jiang D, Xu B, Lu C, Li Y, Ge X (2018) Sequential dark and photo fermentation hydrogen production from hydrolyzed corn stover: a pilot test using 11 m3 reactor. Biores Technol 253:382–386. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2018.01.017
Zhang N, Pan Z, Zhang Z, Zhang W, Zhang L, Baena-moreno FM, Lichtfouse E (2020) CO2 capture from coalbed methane using membranes: a review. Environ Chem Lett 18:79–96. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10311-019-00919-4
Zhao F, Chu H, Su Y, Tan X, Zhang Y, Yang L, Zhou X (2016) Microalgae harvesting by an axial vibration membrane: the mechanism of mitigating membrane fouling. J Membr Sci 508:127–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2016.02.007
Zhong N, Chen M, Luo Y, Wang Z, Xin X, Rittmann BE (2019) A novel photocatalytic optical hollow-fiber with high photocatalytic activity for enhancement of 4-chlorophenol degradation. Chem Eng J 355:731–739. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2018.08.167
Zhu C, Zhai X, Wang J, Han D, Li Y, Xi Y, Tang Y, Chi Z (2018) Large-scale cultivation of Spirulina in a floating horizontal photobioreactor without aeration or an agitation device. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 102(20):8979–8987. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00253-018-9258-0
Acknowledgements
The authors are grateful for the financial support provided by the Open fund from Key Laboratory of Low-grade Energy Utilization Technologies and Systems, Ministry of Education of China (LLEUTS-202011), National Natural Science Funds for Young Scholar (No. 51806026), National Natural Science Foundation of China (51876018), National Social Sciences Founding Project (17CGJ003), Foundation and Frontier Research Project of Chongqing of China (cstc2018jcyjAX0608), Science and Technology Research Program of Chongqing Municipal Education Commission (KJQN201801130), Foundation and Frontier Research Project of Chongqing of China (cstc2018jcyjAX0513).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding authors
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Chang, H., Zou, Y., Hu, R. et al. Membrane applications for microbial energy conversion: a review. Environ Chem Lett 18, 1581–1592 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10311-020-01032-7
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10311-020-01032-7