Comparative review of natural and synthetic binders for microbial fuel cell electrodes

Pratama, A. P. A., Suhartini , S., Rohma, N. A., Nimas, M. S., Dewi, I. A., Fatriasari, W., Melville, L., and Ieropoulos , I. A. (2025). "Comparative review of natural and synthetic binders for microbial fuel cell electrodes," BioResources 20(4), 11267-11294.

Abstract

Microbial fuel cells (MFCs) are a promising technology for renewable energy and environmental remediation. The performance of MFCs is greatly influenced by the binder materials used on the electrodes, which must have good conductivity, stability, and compatibility with microorganisms. Synthetic binders, such as polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF), polyuretane (PU), geopolymer binder, and polyvinyl alcohol (PVOH), are commonly used due to their electrochemical properties but are expensive and not environmentally friendly. In contrast, natural binders, such as chitosan, sucrose, carboxymethylcellulose (CMC), and vegetable oils, provide cost-effective and environmentally friendly alternatives. This review synthesizes findings from various studies, comparing the electrochemical properties, stability, and sustainability of chemical and natural binders. The review identifies key research gaps and suggests future directions to improve the performance of natural binders in MFCs, making them more viable for large-scale applications in terms of cost and environmental impact. Natural binders have the potential to be a sustainable alternative in MFC electrode development.

Download PDF

Full Article

Comparative Review of Natural and Synthetic Binders for Microbial Fuel Cell Electrodes

Andhika Putra Agus Pratama ,^a,b Sri Suhartini,^a,b,* Novita Ainur Rohma,^a,bNimas Mayang Sabrina Sunyoto ,^a Ika Atsari Dewi ,^aWidya Fatriasari ,^cLynsey Melville ,^d and Ioannis A. Ieropoulos ,^e

DOI: 10.15376/biores.20.4.Pratama

Keywords: Binding materials; Bioelectrochemical system; Electrode; Environmental sustainability; Microbial fuel cell

Contact information: a: Department of Agro-Industrial Technology, Faculty of Agricultural Technology, Universitas Brawijaya, Malang, Indonesia; b: Centre of Excellence Bioenergy and Biorefinery, Faculty of Agricultural Technology, Universitas Brawijaya, Malang, Indonesia; c: National Research and Innovation Agency (BRIN), Cibinong, Indonesia; d: The Global Environmental Challenges Research Group, Faculty of Computing, Engineering and Built Environment, Birmingham City University, Birmingham, West Midlands, United Kingdom; e: Civil, Maritime and Environmental Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Physical Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, SO167QF, United Kingdom;

* Corresponding author: ssuhartini@ub.a.c.id

Graphical Abstract

INTRODUCTION

A fuel cell is an electrochemical device that directly converts chemical energy into electrical energy (Ali et al. 2024). In similar schemes involving microorganisms, the term microbial fuel cells (MFCs) is also used. MFC offers a promising approach to renewable energy generation and environmental remediation. The MFC involves the decomposition of contaminants by microorganisms, thus producing electrical energy (Hernández-Fernández et al. 2023; Zamri et al. 2023; You et al. 2024). One of the potential raw materials for MFC is tofu wastewater (Satar and Permadi 2022; Hadiyanto et al. 2023). An MFC consists of anode, cathode, and separation membrane compartments (Hernández-Fernández et al. 2023; Yalcinkaya et al. 2024). The electricity generated comes from the decomposition of microorganisms at the anode (Gajda et al. 2020; Roy et al. 2023). The cathode will undergo an oxygen reduction reaction (ORR), thus producing H₂O (Anjum et al. 2021). This reaction generally requires a long time, so a catalyst is needed in the cathode, for example platinum (Pt). Pt catalysts are expensive and relatively unstable in the long term (Salar-García and Ieropoulos 2020). An alternative catalyst in the cathode is a carbon-based electrode, such as activated carbon or graphite (Anjum et al. 2021; Mahmoud et al. 2021). Alternative electrodes are required to have good conductivity properties, porous microstructure, and long term stability (Agrahari et al. 2022).

Despite the promising potential of MFCs, their commercial viability is hindered by certain technological limitations, particularly related to the electrode materials. The key to improving MFC performance lies in optimizing the electrodes, especially in terms of the binder materials used to hold the electrodes together. The binder material plays an essential role in maintaining the electrode’s mechanical stability, ensuring conductivity, and enhancing the efficiency of electron transfer (Walter et al. 2018; Agrahari et al. 2022). Currently, most MFC systems rely on synthetic binders such as polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF), and polyvinyl alcohol (PVOH), which are well-regarded for their electrochemical stability and conductivity (Jadhav et al. 2022; Salleh et al. 2023; Anit et al. 2024). However, these materials come with significant drawbacks, including high costs, environmental impact, and limited long-term stability under operational conditions (Salleh et al. 2023).

In light of these challenges, there is growing interest in exploring natural binders as a more sustainable and cost-effective alternative. Natural materials, such as chitosan, sucrose, carboxymethylcellulose (CMC), and vegetable oils have emerged as promising candidates for binder materials in MFCs. These binders offer several advantages over synthetic polymers: they are biodegradable, less expensive, and environmentally friendly (Anjum et al. 2021; Xu et al. 2022; Akhlaq et al. 2023; Cai et al. 2023). Furthermore, certain natural binders can contribute to enhanced microbial growth, leading to improved electron transfer and MFC performance. Despite the potential of these materials, their use in MFCs is still under-researched, and their performance remains less understood compared to traditional synthetic binders (Xu et al. 2022).

T he novelty of this review lies in its focused and timely comparative analysis of natural versus synthetic binders in MFC systems, particularly in the context of sustainability and scalability. As global efforts intensify to promote environmentally friendly technologies and reduce reliance on fluorinated materials, this comparison addresses a critical and underexplored research area. Current literature predominantly centers on synthetic binders such as PTFE and PVDF, often overlooking the performance and feasibility of biomaterial-based alternatives. This review aims to fill that gap by systematically evaluating and comparing the electrochemical properties, stability, and commercialization potential of various binders, thereby highlighting some important recent research results that are beginning to show promising approaches from natural and synthetics binders and their roles.

The findings presented in this review not only contribute to the advancement of MFC research but also promote the development of more sustainable, cost-efficient, and environmentally friendly technologies for energy recovery and wastewater treatment. Given the growing interest in renewable energy and waste-to-energy technologies, the results of this review are expected to inform future research and applications, driving innovations in MFC design and material selection.

THE MICROBIAL FUEL CELL AND ITS COMPONENTS

The Microbial Fuel Cell

Microbial fuel cell is a bio-electrochemical device capable of generating electrical energy through a series of anaerobic reactions on organic substrates. Generally, MFCs are composed of a container, anode, cathode, and proton exchange membrane (Ucar et al. 2017). Electrical energy comes from electrons from the respiration of microorganisms at the anode, then electrons flow on the conductor, while protons will go through the membrane to the cathode. At the cathode, electrons and protons will bind back together with the help of free oxygen to form H₂O (Harimawan et al. 2018b; Gajda et al. 2020; Salar-García and Ieropoulos 2020). The MFC media can include various types, such as acetic acid, and/or lactate acid, ethanol, cysteine, and other organic materials. MFC can reduce contaminants up to 80%, in soil or water. Such action can be a solution to remediate the environment as well as an alternative energy source (Permana and Djaenudin 2019). Therefore, MFC technology can be applied to wastewater treatment systems rich in organic matter, such as starch and protein (Hadiyanto et al. 2023). This system can also be used to remediate environments polluted by hazardous waste (Chandrasekhar et al. 2020; Vijay et al. 2020).

The MFCs are popularly applied in environmental remediation, hydrogen production, and biosensors. Although the technology can be integrated with other sectors, the challenge in MFC is to enlarge the energy output produced (Boas et al. 2022). Improving the performance of MFCs can basically be done by focusing on MFC cells, such as electrode materials, to increase the oxygen reduction reaction (ORR) and electron collecting potential at the anode.

Fig. 1. Schematics of microbial fuel cell; Source: Adapted from Borja-Maldonado and López Zavala (2022)

Fig. 2. Schematic of energy loss in every energy converter; Source: Adapted from (Bickerton and Fox 2017; Zheng et al. 2021; Desalegn et al. 2022; Khaleel et al. 2022)

Electrode selection is also based on cost efficiency (Rezaei et al. 2023). MFC is influenced by several parameters such as temperature, type of microorganism, type of anolyte (substrate in the anode compartment), hydraulic retention time (HTR), catholyte, and type of membrane. The anode, cathode, and separation membrane are important parameters in the MFC system (Borja-Maldonado and López Zavala 2022). The fundamental scheme of MFC can be seen in Fig. 1.

Figure 1 shows that there are four schemes of electron collection by the anode, namely direct contact with microorganisms, where electrons are transferred directly from microbial cells to the anode through physical contact (Borja-Maldonado and López Zavala 2022). The second is membrane bone, which facilitate electron transport across the cell membrane to the anode. The third is nanowires in the form of conductive protein fibers (bacteria wire) as electron pathways, i.e. electrical conductors (Zhang et al. 2020; Borja-Maldonado and López Zavala 2022). The fourth pathway employs redox mediators, which are small molecules that shuttle electrons from the microbial cell to the anode. These can be either endogenous compounds secreted by the microbes or exogenous substances such as yeast extract added to enhance electron transfer (Mohamed et al. 2018). Due to these direct electron conversion processes, MFCs are categorized as direct energy converters, enabling them to achieve relatively high energy conversion efficiencies—up to 80% (Lee and Rittmann 2010). In contrast, conventional energy systems such as generators or steam turbines rely on multiple energy conversion stages, which lead to lower overall efficiencies. For example, boiler-steam turbine systems typically achieve 34 to 58% efficiency (Bickerton and Fox 2017; Khaleel et al. 2022), wind and hydro turbines about 30% (Desalegn et al. 2022), and solar photovoltaic systems around 24.8% (Zheng et al. 2021). The energy loss model can be seen in Fig. 2.

Carbon-Based Electrode

In the MFC system, the electrode becomes one of the important parts because it plays a role in the output of the power produced. MFC electrodes are divided into two types, namely anode and cathode (Mashkour and Rahimnejad 2015). Reduction reactions occur in the cathode compartments. Oxidation reaction occurs in the anode compartment (Rikame et al. 2018). The reactions that occur in the two compartments are as follows (Agrahari et al. 2022):

Anode reaction: C₁₂H₂₂O₁₁+ 13H₂O 🡪 12CO₂ + 48H⁺ + 48e⁻ (oxidation)

Cathode reaction: 4H⁺ + O₂ + 4e⁻ 🡪 2H₂O (reduction)

Essentially, electrodes should be compatible, have good conductivity, and long-term stability (Agrahari et al. 2022). A common material used for electrodes is platinum (Pt), but this material lacks long-term stability and involves high investment costs. In contrast, Pt also has an unfavourable effect on the environment (Salar-García and Ieropoulos 2020; Agrahari et al. 2022). Alternatives that can be used are carbon-based, such as activated carbon, carbon nano tubes, graphite, and so on (Mashkour and Rahimnejad 2015; Li et al. 2017; Rusli et al. 2019; Huang et al. 2021a). Carbon-based electrodes can provide improvements to MFC performance due to their porosity. This allows microorganisms to thrive in them (Huang et al. 2021b). In addition, the use of carbon enhances the growth of microorganisms and the kinetics of electron transfer without giving side effects in the form of corrosion as occurs in metals (Slate et al. 2019). Side effects that need to be controlled include the onset of cellular stress that can reduce the efficiency of MFCs (Godain et al. 2024). The appearance of microorganisms on the carbon-based anode can be seen in Fig. 3a. Meanwhile, the cathode must have a good gain in oxygen reduction reaction (ORR) so that the cations that accept electrons can quickly react to oxygen (Huang et al. 2024).

Microorganisms will naturally form bacteria wire from protein fibers on the surface of the anode, so material selection and anode modification can be the right step to increase MFC power density. The anode material must have structural strength and porosity to multiply microorganism colonies. The use of activated carbon modified to resemble a brush is a good alternative to increase the surface area of the anode and has good conductivity. Meanwhile, cathodes with activated carbon have an economic life of 1.5 to 5 months longer and smaller power loss than metal-based cathodes (Bhargavi et al. 2018; Slate et al. 2019; Rezaei et al. 2023).

Binding Material

In general current practice, the binders used are fluorinated polymers, as they have good conductivity properties dan mechanical stability at the molecular level (Azega et al. 2022). Binder material is used as a binder for the electrode constituent materials. The binder material must demonstrate adequate conductivity, be environmentally friendly, and involve a simple electrode manufacturing process (Walter et al. 2018). Some types of binders used for making electrodes in general can be seen in Table 1. On the other hand, the nature of the binder can affect the stability of the electrode and its mechanical properties in current collection. Binders also provide different properties in terms of flexibility, toxicity, solubility, and moisture chemistry. Organic and inorganic binders have different properties (Salleh et al. 2023). Some research trends related to MFCs using synthetic and natural binders and their performance on MFCs can be seen in Table 2.

Table 1. Commonly Used Binder Types for Manufacturing Lithium-ion Batteries, Supercapacitors, and MFCs

Polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE)

In general, PTFE is used as a bonding material for electrodes that have good hydrophobic properties towards electrolytes. This results in increased oxygen solubility and conductivity. As a binder, PTFE plays a role in bonding the conductive material so that it does not come off during the usage process (Priyono et al. 2019; Salleh et al. 2023). PTFE is basically composed of hydroxyl groups, so it will form strong hydrogen bonds with conductive materials. This provides an advantage in minimizing the absorption of excess electrolyte and good current collection (Priyono et al. 2019). This is because PTFE has a low level of molecular orbitals, making it easier to absorb electrons. This causes the PTFE binder to have a lower PTFE initial coulombic efficiency than the filling and discharges coulombic efficiency. This causes PTFE to be less suitable for use as an anode bonding material (Zhang et al. 2022; Zhang et al. 2024). The PTFE undergoes a fibrillation (fiber formation) process during the electrode molding process. This increases its specific area binding properties, so the energy density increases (Han et al. 2024a). The PTFE bonding scheme on the electrode can be seen in Fig. 3.

Fig. 3. The PTFE bonding scheme on the electrode; Source: Adapted from Han et al. (2024a)

Polyvinylidene Fluoride (PVDF)

Lithium (Li) battery electrodes use commercial materials such as PVDF. This is due to its good dimensional properties and good electrochemical stability (Priyono et al. 2019). PVDF is also commonly used as a bonding material for supercapacitor electrodes. The presence of interactive groups makes PVDF resistant to oxidizing in organic electrolyte solutions. However, excessive use of PVDF can reduce the conductivity of the material, while using less PVDF can weaken the bond between active materials (Priyono et al. 2019; Salleh et al. 2023). So far, PVDF gives good results compared to Nafion as a binder with only 5% PVDF added. PVDF is also reported to provide a good level of conductivity (Rajeevan et al. 2021). PVDF combined with activated carbon will form a phase layer for electrons, protons, and oxygen to meet. In addition, PVDF also forms a porous structure for oxygen diffusion (Wang et al. 2018). In addition, for use as an electrode, PVDF can also be used as a proton exchange membrane due to its proportionality (Priyono et al. 2019). The role of PVDF as a binding agent can be seen in Fig. 4.

Fig. 4. PVDF as binding agent for electrodes; Source: Adapted from Rajeevan et al. (2021)

Polyvinyl Alcohol (PVOH)

Polyvinyl alcohol is made by hydrolysis of polyvinyl acetate (PVAc). It is classified as a heat-resistant polymer that is polar, water-soluble, odourless, non-toxic, and biocompatible, PVOH contains at least 1 to 2% moles of acetyl groups. As a result, PVOH also has environmentally friendly properties, as it tends to degrade easily. Photodegradation occurs readily, and PVOH is not a fluorinated polymer, so it can be regarded as much more eco-friendly (Feldman 2020). In addition, the by-products of burning PVOH are H₂ and CO₂, so it is classified as more environmentally friendly (He et al. 2019). On the other hand, after going through the heating process, the structure of PVOH becomes harder and more compact. This compatibility property affects the growth of electroactive microorganisms due to the presence of repeating -OH groups. This facilitates biofilm formation, which can enhance electron transfer when used as an anode or cathode (Dessie and Tadesse 2022). The PVOH can be rated as more efficient than PTFE because it produces greater power with the same proportion of catalyst material. In contrast, PVOH is also cheaper (USD 2/kg) than PTFE (USD 6/kg) (Walter et al. 2018; Christwardana et al. 2023). Generally, PVOH is used as a thickening agent, coating, adhesive, stabiliser, and gelatine. Although it has lower power than PTFE, the stability and difference in output power produced is not too far. As in the research conducted by Walter et al. (2018), the power output provided by the activated carbon cathode with PVOH binder produces 24% lower power than PTFE but has a relatively more stable power. The role of PVOH binder as binding agent can be seen in Fig. 5.

Fig. 5. PVOH binder as binding agent for electrode; Source: (modified from Ming et al. 2024)

Geopolymer Binder

Geopolymer binders, which are synthesized from aluminosilicate-rich precursors activated by alkaline solutions, offer a sustainable alternative to conventional cement due to their lower carbon emissions and adaptable properties. Composed primarily of Si and Al networks, their structure can be tuned through variations in the Si/Al ratio, activator type, and curing conditions to achieve desirable mechanical and chemical performance. Studies such as that of Kai and Dai (2021) demonstrated that geopolymer composites exhibit strong interfacial bonding and superior tensile behavior due to the formation of covalent Al–O–Si bridges and hydrogen bonding within the interfacial transition zone (Kai and Dai 2021).

Research by Astariani et al. (2021) showed that adjusting the ratio of sodium silicate to sodium hydroxide in the activator significantly affects the setting time and strength of binders derived from Umeanyar slate powder, highlighting the material’s tunability for field applications. Meanwhile, Schuster et al. (2023) introduced geopolymer matrices as functional electrodes for electrochemical CO₂ reduction, marking their potential beyond structural roles. These findings suggest that geopolymer binders not only provide environmental benefits but also hold promise for integration into bioelectrochemical systems like microbial fuel cells (MFCs), especially when combined with conductive additives (Jeremiah et al. 2021; Schuster et al. 2023).

Polyurethane (PU)

Polyurethane is an artificial polymer widely used for buildings, polymer composites, biomedicine, and electronics. It has good flexibility and compatibility, and is an insulator, so that it can keep heat from escaping (Okokpujie et al. 2024). In the utilization scheme for electronic components, PU acts as an insulator that holds the electric current. However, in other studies it was found that PU can be used as a carbon binder material for flexible and porous electrodes for capacitors (Loeffler et al. 2015; Park et al. 2017). PU also has high absorbency due to its porosity, so it has a large surface area. This provides great potential for electron capture on PU electrodes (Munir et al. 2021). PU synthesis can be done by mixing polyols with para-paraffenylene diisocyanate. Synthesized PU can be made by mixing polyols with para-paraffenylene diisocyanate. The aim is to have all hydroxyl groups (-OH) reacted with isocyanate groups. The water in the mixture is then dehydrated to 100 °C. After that, it is mixed with fullerenol so that there is a bond between -OH and -NCO. (Ohmukai and Kyokane 2017).

Research conducted by Cotta et al. (2024), crosslinking between PU with poly(3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene) (PEDOT) provides good porosity, which is used as a biosensor to detect Oscillatoria sp. bioelectricity due to Ca²⁺ stimulus. Therefore, this biosensor scheme can be used as a detection of cyanobacteria and the source of their metabolites to provide an alternative solution to remove their metabolites. In another study, electrodes with PU binder were modified by making rigid PU foam (RPUF). The RPUF was carbonized and activated. This capacitor can store up to 458.2 F/g. The application of PUs as bio-sensors and capacitors that can accept electrical charges demonstrates that PUs have strong potential to become MFCs, although their application is still not widespread (Han et al. 2024b). The manufacturing scheme of the supercapacitor electrode with RPUF can be seen in Fig.6.

Fig. 6. The manufacturing scheme of the supercapacitor electrode with RPUF; Source: Adapted from (Han et al. 2024b, Creative Commons CC-BY

Sucrose

Sucrose is a disaccharide formed from fructose and glucose. It is the sugar of the end product of photosynthesis. In general, sucrose is used by plants for biochemical efficiency in metabolic processes, which are related to development, inter-tissue signalling, and tissue control (Lara-Cruz and Jaramillo-Botero 2022). Sucrose is classified as a carbohydrate polymer, making it suitable for use as a bonding agent. It also provides environmentally friendly properties and flame retardants (Kundu et al. 2021).

The role of sucrose as a binding agent, particularly in electrode fabrication, is seen in the conversion of sucrose to carbon layer during the heating process. This shows that sucrose has a dual role, namely as a binding agent and as a carbon source. After heating, the structure and mechanical properties of sucrose change to become more dense and compact in binding particles (Cai et al. 2023). The utilisation of sucrose as a binding agent for electrodes has been done by Agüero-Quinones et al. (2023). Sucrose is added to activated carbon and formed into a paste, then dried. Sucrose can increase the power density in MFCs and provide economical and environmentally friendly materials. Sucrose undergoes caramelization then carbonization, so that it has a dual function (as an adhesive and carbon source) (Cai et al. 2023). The schematic of sucrose binder can be shown in Fig. 7.

Fig. 7. Schematic of manufacturing carbon-based electrode with sucrose binder; Source: Adapted from (Cai et al. 2023)

Carboxymethylcellulose

Carboxymethylcellulose (CMC) is a carboxymethyl derivative of cellulose that is classified as an environmentally friendly polymer and has good biocompatibility. In addition, CMC has chemical resistant properties and can form cross-links between ions through charge interactions (Xu et al. 2022). The main difference between CMC and cellulose is the carboxy-methyl (-CH₂COOH) group, which causes this cellulose derivative to have conductive properties (Rahman et al. 2021). A comparison of cellulose and CMC structures can be seen in Fig. 10. CMC is commonly used as an electrolyte mixture together with other mineral salts. This mixture forms an electrolyte paste that has good conductivity in terms of energy storage. For example, mixing mineral Na with CMC forms a potential cross linking for Li-ion batteries (Akhlaq et al. 2023). CMC can increase the negative charge on cellulose so that it can attract cations. CMC also shows positive results in terms of mass and electron transport (Fu et al. 2015). The utilisation of CMC as an electrode has been carried out in the research of Xu et al. (2022). CMC-PANI/CNT provides good stability and electrical conductivity. On the other hand, the carbon nanotubes (CNTs) make the electrode more flexible, have a high-power density (400.02 μW/cm²), and good electrochemical activity (Xu et al. 2022). Cheng et al. (2020) fabricated supercapacitors using CMC-polypyrole (PPy) crosslinking. These electrodes have properties that are flexible, soft, and conductive. The power capacity that can be stored is 126.38 F/g.

Fig. 8. Comparison of cellulose (a) and CMC (b) structure (red lettering is carboxy-methyl group); Source: modified from (Rahman et al. 2021)

Chitosan

Chitosan is composed of 2-deoxy-2-amino-D-glucopyranose that is bonded with β-(1,4) glycosidic linkages. Chitosan is derived from chitin, which is commonly found in animal shells, such as crabs. The structure of chitosan is similar to cellulose, with the only difference involving the positive glucosamine unit (R-NH3+), while in chitin, the group is replaced with an acetamide group (-NHCOCH₃) (Srivastava et al. 2024).

Fig. 9. Comparison of chitin (a) and chitosan (b) chemical structure; Source: (Haz-Map, 2025; PubChem, 2025; Bargnesi et al. 2022)

Chitosan is not electronically conductive by nature; thus, it often requires the addition of highly conductive materials such as copper, carbon nanotubes (CNT) (Liu et al. 2011), or combined with conductive binders, such as polyaniline (PANI) (Xu et al. 2020). A comparison of the structures of chitosan and chitin can be seen in Fig. 9. The characteristics of chitosan are its rigid structure and high crystallinity due to three hydrogen atoms. However, it exhibits intrinsic protonic conductivity due to the presence of amine (–NH₂) and hydroxyl (–OH) groups, which can participate in proton hopping under acidic or hydrated conditions (Bai et al. 2022). This causes chitosan to be selective in proton conduction. In addition, it tends to attract water due to its polycationic nature (Hanna Rosli et al. 2020). Chitosan can be an alternative water-soluble natural binder for the manufacture of non-aqueous Li-ion batteries (dry Li-ion batteries). It is commonly used as a battery paste. However, recent developments have shown that chitosan can be a binder for making flexible, lightweight, and low-cost electrodes (Bargnesi et al. 2022; Srivastava et al. 2024).

Chitosan is also utilized for membranes in battery manufacturing. This shows the versatility of using chitosan includes making pastes and membranes (similar to the versatility of CMC, PVDF, and PVOH) (Bargnesi et al. 2022). The utilization of chitosan was also reported as a smart electrocatalyst for plant-MFC synthesized using gelatin and several metals (Cu, Pd, Mn, Pt, and Ni). The power density obtained was 1298 mW/m². Chitosan gives the electrode a porous structure thus enhancing the oxygen reduction reaction (Türker et al. 2020).

Vegetable Oil

One of the important reactions in MFC is oxygen reduction reaction (ORR) that occurs on the cathode. Optimization of this reaction has been widely researched using a variety of materials, one of which is electrode binder or binder material (Anjum et al. 2021; Siwiec et al. 2024). In general, ORR can be formed by hydrophobic solutions in polar solvents. However, on the other hand, it turns out that ORR also occurs in hydrophilic solutions that form H₂O₂. This can be found in vegetable oils and acidic solutions. The electrochemical recycling cycle can occur in a mixture of triglycerides, such as cis-9-oleic (Omega 9), linoleic and linolenic acids. Therefore, vegetable oils that can be qualified as binders or electrolyte pastes are those that contain high triglycerides and Omega 9 (Siwiec et al. 2024). Zabcikova and Cervenka (2015) used vegetable oil-based electrode paste using rapeseed oil (RO). RO can provide currents up to 9 μA and has good stability when used in the long term. The ORR scheme of the carbon paste with vegetable oil can be seen in Fig. 10.

Fig. 10. ORR scheme of carbon paste with vegetable oil blend; Source: Adapted from (Siwiec et al. 2024, Creative Commons CC-BY-NC)

Table 2. Previous Studies on Chemical and Natural Binder for Electrode in MFC Technology

THREE SCENARIOS AND FUTURE IMPLEMENTATION

MFCs have emerged as a promising technology for sustainable energy production and wastewater treatment, addressing the dual challenges of energy scarcity and environmental pollution. These bioelectrochemical systems utilize microorganisms to break down organic matter, generating electrical energy as a byproduct. As the world continues to confront the pressing issues of climate change, pollution, and growing energy demand, the potential applications of MFCs become more pertinent. However, despite the technological promise, several challenges still limit the widespread adoption of MFCs, including high operational costs, low energy conversion efficiency, and the need for better electrode materials. Among these, the development of efficient, cost-effective, and environmentally friendly binder materials for MFC electrodes plays a crucial role in improving performance and reducing costs. Therefore, there are potential scenarios and future implementation strategies for MFCs, particularly focusing on the role of binder materials, their scalability, and integration into real-world applications. Through examining the prospects for future developments in binder technology, this discussion aims to highlight how MFCs could evolve into a commercially viable solution for energy production and wastewater treatment.

Scenario 1: Integration in Conventional Wastewater Treatment Plants (WWTPs)

This scenario focuses on complementing or replacing components in existing wastewater treatment infrastructure. Natural binders offer economic and ecological advantages when scaling up anode materials within municipal or industrial WWTPs. The goal is to reduce operational costs, particularly in aeration, by enabling simultaneous wastewater treatment and energy recovery (Imani et al. 2021; Zamri et al. 2023). Here, material durability, electrochemical stability in high-load effluents, and ease of integration with existing systems are key parameters. Chitosan and cellulose derivatives may suit this purpose due to their binding strength and resistance to biological degradation in high-strength wastewater. This approach offers several benefits:

Energy Recovery: MFCs can utilize organic waste found in wastewater to generate electricity. Through replacing conventional energy-intensive treatment methods with MFC technology, wastewater treatment plants can reduce their reliance on external power sources. The electrical energy produced can be used to power plant operations or even be sold back to the grid, providing an additional revenue stream for operators.
Reduction of Carbon Footprint: Traditional wastewater treatment processes, such as aeration, are energy-intensive and contribute to greenhouse gas emissions. Utilizing MFC will not only reduce energy consumption for aeration but also potentially reduce emissions, supporting global sustainability goals.

Scenario 2: MFCs for Decentralized and Off-Grid Settings

In remote or underdeveloped areas with limited infrastructure, MFCs can provide decentralized energy and basic sanitation. This scenario prioritizes portability, material availability, and ease of maintenance. The binder must allow flexible fabrication methods using locally sourced biomass, such as starch-based or sucrose binders (Walter et al. 2018; Simeon et al. 2022). These systems do not necessarily aim for maximum power output, but rather long-term sustainability, minimal reliance on external resources, and community-level deployment. The simplicity of the design becomes an asset in regions lacking technical personnel or facilities. The implementation of MFC technology could provide a decentralized, self-sustaining solution for these communities.

Sustainability and Local Resource Utilization: MFCs could be used to harness organic waste from local sources, such as agricultural residues, food waste, or organic industrial byproducts, to generate electricity. This would provide a continuous, renewable source of energy without the need for external fuel supply chains. The use of local organic waste as a substrate also ensures that the environmental impact of energy generation is minimized.
Modular Systems: The scalability of MFC technology makes it suitable for implementation in smaller, modular units that can be tailored to meet the specific energy needs of remote locations. These systems can be deployed in villages, farms, or small communities, where they can power lights, communication devices, and basic infrastructure.

Scenario 3: Integration of MFCs into Smart Cities and Circular Economy Systems

Urban environments present opportunities for advanced MFC deployment integrated with IoT systems, smart metering, or waste-to-energy loops. In this scenario, natural binders must meet performance criteria suited for data-driven and modular systems. PVDF-free designs using crosslinked PVOH or hybrid organic binders could reduce toxicity concerns while ensuring high responsiveness to load variation. This setting emphasizes innovation, system feedback, and integration into multi-energy platforms. The role of MFCs is extended beyond electricity generation to include environmental monitoring and smart waste valorization (Gajda et al. 2020; Vijay et al. 2020). MFCs could play a pivotal role in these cities by contributing to waste-to-energy systems that efficiently recycle organic waste into usable energy.

Circular Economy: Smart cities are increasingly focusing on implementing circular economy principles, where waste products are converted into resources. MFCs could contribute to this model by converting organic waste from households, restaurants, and food industries into bioelectricity. This would not only help to reduce the burden on landfill sites but also create a decentralized energy generation system that reduces the strain on the urban grid.
Integration with Other Renewable Energy Sources: MFCs could be integrated with other renewable energy technologies, such as solar panels and wind turbines, to form hybrid energy systems. By utilizing the waste-to-energy potential of MFCs, smart cities could achieve a more resilient and flexible energy grid, reducing dependence on fossil fuels and improving energy security.

Future Implementation: Technological Advancements and Research Needs

While the three practical scenarios previously discussed outline context-specific applications of natural binders in microbial fuel cells (MFCs), broader technological advancements and targeted research are still crucial for the successful mainstreaming of these systems.

Enhanced Binder Properties: One of the key challenges in improving the performance of MFCs is to develop binders that offer better conductivity, longevity and mechanical stability that includes interfacial compatibility and effective adhesion at the molecular level. While natural binders like chitosan, sucrose, and vegetable oils have shown promise in laboratory settings, they still need to be optimized for long-term use in real-world applications. Future research should focus on enhancing the electrochemical properties of these binders, possibly through modifications or hybridization with other materials (Christwardana et al. 2023).
Scalability and Manufacturing: For MFCs to be implemented on a large scale, manufacturing processes must be cost-effective and scalable. This includes the mass production of electrodes and binders that can meet the demands of large MFC systems, particularly in industrial and municipal applications. Developing efficient, low-cost methods for producing binder materials and electrode components at scale will be critical for commercializing MFC technology (Desalegn et al. 2022; Sawunyama et al. 2024; Taha et al. 2024).
Energy Conversion Efficiency: Another area of future implementation is improving the energy conversion efficiency of MFCs. Currently, MFCs produce relatively low power outputs compared to conventional energy sources. Future research should focus on optimizing the design of MFCs to maximize energy output, including innovations in electrode materials, the integration of catalysts, and improvements in the microbial electrochemical processes that drive the system (Walter et al. 2022).

Finally, future research should address long-term performance and environmental safety, ensuring that natural binder residues do not introduce new contaminants or biohazards into treated water or soil environments. Taken together, these research needs form a strategic framework that complements the practical implementation scenarios, ensuring that natural binder-based MFCs evolve not only as viable energy and treatment solutions but also as robust and adaptable technologies for the future. The future of MFCs lies in optimizing binder materials, improving energy efficiency, and scaling the technology for wide adoption in various applications. In addition, the operation of MFCs is quite simple as the reaction takes place naturally. Life-cycle assessments and techno-economic analyses will be vital tools in determining the true sustainability and feasibility of upscaled systems (Chandrasekhar et al. 2020; Vijay et al. 2020; Sato et al. 2023

CONCLUSIONS

MFCs provide a promising solution to energy and environmental challenges. The selection of binder materials needs to be done carefully by considering technical, economic, environmental, and sustainability factors. Further research is needed to optimize their properties and explore their performance in various MFC systems. These findings suggest that natural binders can also be an option in MFCs for waste treatment as well as alternative energy sources.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The author would like to thank the Ministry of Education, Culture, Research, and Technology of Indonesia for the research funding support through Penelitian Tesis Magister (Grant Number 0459/E5/PG.02.00/2024 and Contract Number 1 045/E5/PG.02.00.PL/2024). The authors would also like to thank Universitas Brawijaya, Faculty of Agricultural Technology, and the Department of Agro-industrial Technology for the support in this research.

REFERENCES CITED

Agrahari, R., Bayar, B., Abubackar, H. N., Giri, B. S., Rene, E. R., and Rani, R. (2022). “Advances in the development of electrode materials for improving the reactor kinetics in microbial fuel cells,” Chemosphere 290, article 133184. DOI: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2021.133184

Agüero-Quiñones, R., Ávila-Sánchez, Z., Rojas-Flores, S., Cabanillas-Chirinos, L., De La Cruz-Noriega, M., Nazario-Naveda, R., and Rojas-Villacorta, W. (2023). “Activated carbon electrodes for bioenergy production in microbial fuel cells using synthetic wastewater as substrate,” Sustainability 15(18), article 13767. DOI: 10.3390/su151813767

Akhlaq, M., Mushtaq, U., Naz, S., and Uroos, M. (2023). “Carboxymethyl cellulose

Ali, A. B. M., Nemah, A. K., Al Bahadli, Y. A., Kianfar, E. (2024). “Principles and performance and types, advantages and disadvantages of fuel cells: A review,” Case Studies in Chemical and Environmental Engineering 10, article 100920. DOI: 10.1016/j.cscee.2024.100920.

Anit, J., Mathew, A., Perikkathra, S., and Thomas, T. (2024). “Recent advances in and perspectives on binder materials for supercapacitors–A review,” European Polymer Journal 2101-20. DOI: 10.1016/j.eurpolymj.2024.112941

Anjum, A., Ali Mazari, S., Hashmi, Z., Sattar Jatoi, A., and Abro, R. (2021). “A review of role of cathodes in the performance of microbial fuel cells,” Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry 899, article 115673. DOI: 10.1016/j.jelechem.2021.115673

Astariani, N. K., Salain, I. M. A., Sutarja, I. N., Widiarsa, I. B. R. (2021). “Setting time of geopolymer binder based on Umeanyar slate stone powder,” in: IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 871 (1), article 12002. DOI: 10.1088/1755-1315/871/1/012002

Astrani, N. K., Salain, I. M. A. K., Sutarja, I. N., and Widiarsa, I. B. R. (2021). “Setting time of geopolymer binder based on Umeanyar slate stone powder,” in: IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 871. DOI: 10.1088/1755-1315/871/1/012002

Azega, R. K., Haque, M. M., Vyas, A., Tam, P. L., Smith, A. D., Lundgren, P., and Enoksson, P. (2022). “Durable activated carbon electrodes with a green binder,” Physica Status Solidi (B) Basic Research 259(2), article 311. DOI: 10.1002/pssb.202100311

Bai, L., Liu, L., Esquivel, M., Tardy, B. L., Huan, S., Niu, X., Liu, S., Yang, G., Fan, Y., Rojas, O. J. (2022). “Nanochitin: chemistry, structure, assembly, and applications,” Chemical Review 13(122), 11604-11674. DOI: 10.1021/acs.chemrev.2c00125

Bargnesi, L., Gigli, F., Albanelli, N., Toigo, C., and Arbizzani, C. (2022). “Crosslinked chitosan binder for sustainable aqueous batteries,” Nanomaterials 12(2), article 254. DOI: 10.3390/nano12020254

based materials as an alternative source for sustainable electrochemical devices: A

Bhargavi, G., Venu, V., and Renganathan, S. (2018). “Microbial fuel cells: Recent developments in design and materials,” in: IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering 330(1), article 12034. DOI: 10.1088/1757-899X/330/1/012034

Bickerton, I., and Fox, N. A. (2017). “Improving the efficiency of a thermionic energy converter using dual electric fields and electron beaming,” Frontiers in Mechanical Engineering 3(14), article 14. DOI: 10.3389/fmech.2017.00014

Boas, J. V., Oliveira, V. B., Simões, M., and Pinto, A. M. F. R. (2022). “Review on microbial fuel cells applications, developments and costs,” Journal of Environmental Management 307, article 114525. DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.114525

Borja-Maldonado, F., and López Zavala, M. Á. (2022). “Contribution of configurations, electrode and membrane materials, electron transfer mechanisms, and cost of components on the current and future development of microbial fuel cells,” Heliyon 8(7), 1-25. DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e09849

Cai, C., McCormack, P., Nie, Z., and Koenig, G. M. (2023). “Impact of carbon coating processing using sucrose for thick binder-free titanium niobium oxide lithium-ion battery anode,” Journal of Electrochemical Science and Engineering 13(4), 641-658. DOI: 10.5599/jese.1655

Chandrasekhar, K., Kumar, G., Venkata Mohan, S., Pandey, A., Jeon, B. H., Jang, M., and Kim, S. H. (2020). “Microbial electro-remediation (MER) of hazardous waste in aid of sustainable energy generation and resource recovery,” Environmental Technology and Innovation 19, Article 100997. DOI: 10.1016/j.eti.2020.100997

Chen, Z., Man, L., Liu, J., Lu, L., Yang, Z., and Yang, Y. (2021). “Vegetable oil-based waterborne polyurethane as eco-binders for sulfur cathodes in lithium–sulfur batteries,” Macromolecular Rapid Communications 42(19), article 342. DOI: 10.1002/marc.202100342

Cheng, Y., Ren, X., Duan, L., and Gao, G. (2020). “A transparent and adhesive carboxymethyl cellulose/polypyrrole hydrogel electrode for flexible supercapacitors,” Journal of Materials Chemistry C 8(24), 8234-8242. DOI: 10.1039/d0tc01039a

Christwardana, M., Timuda, G. E., Darsono, N., Widodo, H., Kurniawan, K., and Khaerudini, D. S. (2023). “Fabrication of a polyvinyl alcohol-bentonite composite coated on a carbon felt anode for improving yeast microbial fuel cell performance,” Journal of Power Sources 555, article 232366. DOI: 10.1016/j.jpowsour.2022.232366

Cotta, F. C., Correia, D., Amaral, R., Bacellar, F. L., Duci, D., Lopes, L., Cortes, L., Zalar, P., Perkins, R., and Rocha, P. R. F. (2024). “Porous PU/PEDOT:PSS electrodes for probing bioelectricity in Oscillatoria sp. cohorts,” Chemical Engineering Journal 498, article 155480. DOI: 10.1016/j.cej.2024.155480

Dennis, J. O., Shukur, M. F., Aldaghri, O. A., Ibnaouf, K. H., Adam, A. A., Usman, F., Hassan, Y. M., Alsadig, A., Danbature, W. L., and Abdulkadir, B. A. (2023). “A review of current trends on polyvinyl alcohol (PVOH)-based solid polymer electrolytes,” Molecules 28(4), article 1781. DOI: 10.3390/molecules28041781

Desalegn, B., Gebeyehu, D., and Tamirat, B. (2022). “Wind energy conversion technologies and engineering approaches to enhancing wind power generation: A review,” Heliyon 8(11), article ID e11263. DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e11263

Dessie, Y., and Tadesse, S. (2022). “Optimization of polyvinyl alcohol binder on PANI coated pencil graphite electrode in doubled chamber microbial fuel cell for glucose biosensor,” Sensing and Bio-Sensing Research 36, article 484. DOI: 10.1016/j.sbsr.2022.100484

Eliseeva, S. N., Kamenskii, M. A., Tolstopyatova, E. G., and Kondratiev, V. V. (2020). “Effect of combined conductive polymer binder on the electrochemical performance of electrode materials for lithium-ion batteries,” Energies 13(9), article 2163. DOI: 10.3390/en13092163

Feldman, D. (2020). “Poly(vinyl alcohol) recent contributions to engineering and medicine,” Journal of Composites Science 4(4), article 175. DOI: 10.3390/jcs4040175

Fu, J., Pang, Z., Yang, J., Huang, F., Cai, Y., and Wei, Q. (2015). “Fabrication of polyaniline/carboxymethyl cellulose/cellulose nanofibrous mats and their biosensing application,” Applied Surface Science 349, 35-42. DOI: 10.1016/j.apsusc.2015.04.215

Gajda, I., Obata, O., Jose Salar-Garcia, M., Greenman, J., and Ieropoulos, I. A. (2020). “Long-term bio-power of ceramic microbial fuel cells in individual and stacked configurations,” Bioelectrochemistry 133, article 107459. DOI: 10.1016/j.bioelechem.2020.107459

Godain, A., Vogel, T. M., Fongarland, P., and Haddour, N. (2024). “Influence of shear stress on electroactive biofilm characteristics and performance in microbial fuel cells,” Biosensors and Bioelectronic 244, article 115806. DOI: 10.1016/j.bios.2023.115806

Hadiyanto, H., Christwardana, M., and da Costa, C. (2023). “Electrogenic and biomass production capabilities of a microalgae–microbial fuel cell (MMFC) system using tapioca wastewater and Spirulina platensis for COD reduction,” Energy Sources, Part A: Recovery, Utilization and Environmental Effects 45(2), 3409-3420. DOI: 10.1080/15567036.2019.1668085

Han, S ., Noh, E. H., Chae, S., Kwon, K., Lee, J., Woo, J. S., Park, S., Lee, J. W., Kim, P. J., Song, T., et al. (2024a). “Mitigating PTFE decomposition in ultra thick dry-processed anodes for high energy density lithium-ion batteries,” Journal of Energy Storage 96, article 112693. DOI: 10.1016/j.est.2024.112693

Han, Z., Tang, J., Wong, N. H., Sunarso, J., Zhao, Y., Zhou, J., and Zhuo, S. (2024b). “The influence of polyurethane precursor density on the electrochemical performance of supercapacitor composed of activated porous carbon,” Journal of Energy Storage 79, article 110245. DOI: 10.1016/j.est.2023.110245

Hanna Rosli, N. A., Loh, K. S., Wong, W. Y., Mohamad Yunus, R., Khoon Lee, T., Ahmad, A., and Chong, S. T. (2020). “Review of chitosan-based polymers as proton exchange membranes and roles of chitosan- supported ionic liquids,” International Journal of Molecular Sciences 21(2), 1-52. DOI: 10.3390/ijms21020632

Harimawan, A., Devianto, H., Al-Aziz, R. H. R. M. T., Shofinita, D., and Setiadi, T. (2018). “Influence of electrode distance on electrical energy production of microbial fuel cell using tapioca wastewater,” Journal of Engineering and Technological Sciences 50(6), 841-855. DOI: 10.5614/j.eng.technol.sci.2018.50.6.7

Haz-Map. 2025. “Chitin,” (https://haz-map.com/Agents/12895), Accessed 9 Feb 2025.

He, Z., Xia, Z., Hu, J., Ma, L., and Li, Y. (2019). “Thermodynamic properties of polyvinyl alcohol binder of electrically controlled solid propellant,” Journal of Polymer Research 26(219), 1-8. DOI: 10.1007/s10965-019-1894-2/Published

Hernández-Fernández, A., Iniesta-López, E., Garrido, Y., Ieropoulos, I. A., and Hernández-Fernández, F. J. (2023). “Microbial fuel cell using a novel ionic-liquid-type membrane-cathode assembly with heterotrophic anodic denitrification for slurry treatment,” Sustainability 15(20), article 14817. DOI: 10.3390/su152014817

Huang, J., Wu, C. H., Li, F., Wang, X., and Chen, S. C. (2024). “Enhancing the proton exchange membrane in tubular air-cathode microbial fuel cells through a hydrophobic polymer coating on a hydrogel,” Materials 17(6), article 1286. DOI: 10.3390/ma17061286

Huang, S. J., Ubando, A. T., Wang, C. Y., Su, Y. X., Culaba, A. B., Lin, Y. A., and Wang, C. T. (2021). “Modification of carbon based cathode electrode in a batch-type microbial fuel cells,” Biomass and Bioenergy 145, article 105972. DOI: 10.1016/j.biombioe.2021.105972

Imani, L., Setiawan, A. A., and Ridwan, M. K. (2021). “Demand and electricity energy mix in Indonesia 2030 with small modular reactor nuclear power plant and renewable energy scenario,” in: IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science 927(1), article 12025. DOI: 10.1088/1755-1315/927/1/012025

Jadhav, D. A., Park, S. G., Eisa, T., Mungray, A. K., Madenli, E. C., Olabi, A. G., Abdelkareem, M. A., and Chae, K. J. (2022). “Current outlook towards feasibility and sustainability of ceramic membranes for practical scalable applications of microbial fuel cells,” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 167, article 112769. DOI: 10.1016/j.rser.2022.112769

Jeremiah, J. J., Abbey, S. J., Booth, C. A., Kashyap, A. (2021). “Geopolymers as alternative sustainable binders for stabilisation of clays – A review,” Geotechnics 1(2), 439-459. DOI: 10.3390/geotechnics1020021

Kai, M. F., Dai, J. G. (2021). “Understanding geopolymer binder-aggregate interfacial characteristics at molecular level,” Cement and Concrete Research 149, article 106582. DOI: 10.1016/j.cemconres.2021.106582

Khaleel, O. J., Basim Ismail, F., Khalil Ibrahim, T., and bin Abu Hassan, S. H. (2022). “Energy and exergy analysis of the steam power plants: A comprehensive review on the classification, development, improvements, and configurations,” Ain Shams Engineering Journal 13(3), article 101640. DOI: 10.1016/j.asej.2021.11.009

Kundu, C. K., Song, L., and Hu, Y. (2021). “Sucrose derivative as a cross-linking agent in enhancing coating stability and flame retardancy of polyamide 66 textiles,” Progress in Organic Coatings 159, article 106438. DOI: 10.1016/j.porgcoat.2021.106438

Lara-Cruz, G. A., and Jaramillo-Botero, A. (2022). “Molecular level sucrose quantification: A critical review,” Sensors 22(23), article 9511. DOI: 10.3390/s22239511

Lee, H. S., and Rittmann, B. E. (2010). “Characterization of energy losses in an upflow single-chamber microbial electrolysis cell,” International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 35(3), 920-927. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2009.11.040

Li, S., Cheng, C., and Thomas, A. (2017). “Carbon-based microbial-fuel-cell electrodes: From conductive supports to active catalysts,” Advanced Materials 29(8), article 1602547. DOI: 10.1002/adma.201602547

Li, Z., Li, D., Sun, X., Xue, Y., Shi, Y., Fu, Y., Luo, C., Lin, Q., Gui, X., and Xu, K. (2024). “Ion-conductive and mechanically robust chitosan-based network binder for silicon/graphite anode,” Journal of Energy Storage 93, article 112264. DOI: 10.1016/j.est.2024.112264

Liu, J., Chu, Z., Li, P., Lin, J., Yang, Y., and Yang, Z. (2023). “A reactive eco–vegetable oil–based binder for high–performance lithium–sulfur batteries,” Colloids and Surfaces A: Physicochemical and Engineering Aspects 670, article 131526. DOI: 10.1016/j.colsurfa.2023.131526

Liu, X. W., Sun, X. F., Huang, Y. X., Sheng, S. G., Wang, S. G., and Yu, H. Q. (2011). “Carbon nanotube/chitosan nanocomposite as a biocompatible biocathode material to enhance the electricity generation of a microbial fuel cell,” Energy & Environmental Science 4, 1422-1427. DOI: 10.1039/D5EE01202C

Loeffler, N., Kopel, T., Kim, G.-T., and Passerini, S. (2015). “Polyurethane binder for aqueous processing of li-ion battery electrodes,” Journal of The Electrochemical Society 162(14), A2692-A2698. DOI: 10.1149/2.0641514jes

Mahmoud, R. H., Samhan, F. A., Ibrahim, M. K., Ali, G. H., and Hassan, R. Y. A. (2021). “Boosting the cathode function toward the oxygen reduction reaction in microbial fuel cell using nanostructured surface modification,” Electrochemical Science Advances 1(1), 1-7. DOI: 10.1002/elsa.202000002

Mashkour, M., and Rahimnejad, M. (2015). “Effect of various carbon-based cathode electrodes on the performance of microbial fuel cell,” Biofuel Research Journal 2(4), 296-300. DOI: 10.18331/BRJ2015.2.4.3

Ming, H., Zhang, S., Yue, J., Zhao, Z., Guan, Y., Liu, S., Gao, W., Liang, J. (2024). “A preliminary attempt at capacitive deionization with PVA/PSS gel coating as an alternative to ion exchange membrane,” Environmental Technology, 45(26), 5641–5653. DOI: 10.1080/09593330.2024.2304657

Mohamed, H. O., Sayed, E. T., Obaid, M., Choi, Y. J., Park, S. G., Al-Qaradawi, S., and Chae, K. J. (2018). “Transition metal nanoparticles doped carbon paper as a cost-effective anode in a microbial fuel cell powered by pure and mixed biocatalyst cultures,” International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 43(46), 21560-21571. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2018.09.199

Munir, M. A., Heng, L. Y., and Badri, K. H. (2021). “Polyurethane modified screen – Printed electrode for the electrochemical detection of histamine in fish,” in: IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science 880(1), article ID 12032. DOI: 10.1088/1755-1315/880/1/012032

National Center for Biotechnology Information. (2025). “PubChem compound summary for CID 71853, chitosan,” (https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/Chitosan), Accessed 9 Feb 2025.

Ohmukai, M., and Kyokane, J. (2017). “Electrode effects on polyurethane soft actuator,” World Journal of Engineering and Technology 05(03), 520-525. DOI: 10.4236/wjet.2017.53044

Okokpujie, I. P., Monye, S. I., Subair, R. E., Abiodun, C. J., Monye, N. S., and Osueke, C. O. (2024). “Study of the characteristics of polyurethane as a sustainable material used for buildings, polymer composite, biomedical, and electronics application,” in: IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1322(1), article ID 12006. DOI: 10.1088/1755-1315/1322/1/012006

Oli, N., Choudhary, S., Weiner, B. R., Morell, G., and Katiyar, R. S. (2024). “Comparative investigation of water-based CMC and LA133 binders for cuo anodes in high-performance lithium-ion batteries,” Molecules 29(17), article 4114. DOI: 10.3390/molecules29174114

Park, G. G., Park, Y. K., Park, J. K., and Lee, J. W. (2017). “Flexible and wrinkle-free electrode fabricated with polyurethane binder for lithium-ion batteries,” RSC Advances 7(26), 16244-16252. DOI: 10.1039/c7ra00800g

Permana, D., and Djaenudin. (2019). “Performance of single chamber microbial fuel cell (SCMFC) for biological treatment of tofu wastewater,” in: IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science 277, article ID 12008. DOI: 10.1088/1755-1315/277/1/012008

Priyono, S., Sari, T. D., Ramlan, Subhan, A., and Prihandoko, B. (2019). “Effect of polymer binders on the electrochemical performance of Al-doped lithium titanate electrode,” Journal of Physics: Conference Series 1282(1), article 12056. DOI: 10.1088/1742-6596/1282/1/012056

Qiu, L., Shao, Z., Wang, D., Wang, F., Wang, W., and Wang, J. (2014). “Carboxymethyl cellulose lithium (CMC-Li) as a novel binder and its electrochemical performance in lithium-ion batteries,” Cellulose 21(4), 2789-2796. DOI: 10.1007/s10570-014-0274-7

Rahman, M. S., Hasan, M. S., Nitai, A. S., Nam, S., Karmakar, A. K., Ahsan, M. S., Shiddiky, M. J. A., and Ahmed, M. B. (2021). “Recent developments of carboxymethyl cellulose,” Polymers 13(8), article 1345. DOI: 10.3390/polym13081345

Rajeevan, S., John, S., and George, S. C. (2021). “The effect of poly(vinylidene fluoride) binder on the electrochemical performance of graphitic electrodes,” Journal of Energy Storage 39, article 102654. DOI: 10.1016/j.est.2021.102654

Rajeevan, S., John, S., George, S. C. (2021). “The effect of poly(vinylidene fluoride) binder on the electrochemical performance of graphitic electrodes,” Journal of Energy Storage 39, 1-11. article ID 102654. DOI: 10.1016/j.est.2021.102654 review,” RSC Advances 13(9), 5723-5743. DOI: 10.1039/d2ra08244f

Rezaei, A., Karami, Z., Feli, F., and Aber, S. (2023). “Oxygen reduction reaction enhancement in microbial fuel cell cathode using cesium phosphomolybdate electrocatalyst,” Fuel 352, article 129040. DOI: 10.1016/j.fuel.2023.129040

Rikame, S. S., Mungray, A. A., and Mungray, A. K. (2018). “Modification of anode electrode in microbial fuel cell for electrochemical recovery of energy and copper metal,” Electrochimica Acta 275, 8-17. DOI: 10.1016/j.electacta.2018.04.141

Roy, H., Rahman, T. U., Tasnim, N., Arju, J., Rafid, M. M., Islam, M. R., Pervez, M. N., Cai, Y., Naddeo, V., and Islam, M. S. (2023). “Microbial fuel cell construction features and application for sustainable wastewater treatment,” Membranes 13(5), article 430. DOI: 10.3390/membranes13050490

Rusli, S. F. N., Abu Bakar, M. H., Loh, K. S., and Mastar, M. S. (2019). “Review of high-performance biocathode using stainless steel and carbon-based materials in microbial fuel cell for electricity and water treatment,” International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 44(58), 30772-30787. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2018.11.145

Salar-García, M. J., and Ieropoulos, I. (2020). “Optimisation of the internal structure of ceramic membranes for electricity production in urine-fed microbial fuel cells,” Journal of Power Sources 451, article 227741. DOI: 10.1016/j.jpowsour.2020.227741

Salleh, N. A., Kheawhom, S., Ashrina A. H. N., Rahiman, W., and Mohamad, A. A. (2023). “Electrode polymer binders for supercapacitor applications: A review,” Journal of Materials Research and Technology 23, 3470-3491. DOI: 10.1016/j.jmrt.2023.02.013

Satar, I., and Permadi, A. (2022). “Treating the tofu wastewater (TWW) using a green technology of microbial fuel cell (MFC) system,” Indonesian Journal of Environmental Management and Sustainability 6(1), 162-167. DOI: 10.26554/ijems.2022.6.1.162-167

Sato, C., Apollon, W., Luna-Maldonado, A. I., Paucar, N. E., Hibbert, M., and Dudgeon, J. (2023). “Integrating microbial fuel cell and hydroponic technologies using a ceramic membrane separator to develop an energy–water–food supply system,” Membranes 13(9), article 803. DOI: 10.3390/membranes13090803

Sawunyama, L., Oyewo, O. A., Bopape, M. F., and Onwudiwe, D. C. (2024). “Fabrication and characterization of low-cost ceramic membranes from coal fly ash and natural sand,” Sustainable Chemistry for the Environment 8, article 100165. DOI: 10.1016/j.scenv.2024.100165

Schuster, J., Ukrainczyk, N., Koeners, E., and Stocl, M. (2023). “Geopolymer based electrodes as new class of material for electrochemical CO₂ reduction,” ChemElectroChem 1-7. DOI: 10.1002/celc.202300122

Simeon, I. M., Herkendell, K., Pant, D., and Freitag, R. (2022). “Electrochemical evaluation of different polymer binders for the production of carbon-modified stainless-steel electrodes for sustainable power generation using a soil microbial fuel cell,” Chemical Engineering Journal Advances 10, article 100246. DOI: 10.1016/j.ceja.2022.100246

Siwiec, A., Dusilo, K., Asztemborska, M., and Opallo, M. (2024). “Electrocatalysis at vegetable oil water interface,” Electrochemistry Communications 161, article 107694. DOI: 10.1016/j.elecom.2024.107694

Slate, A. J., Whitehead, K. A., Brownson, D. A. C., and Banks, C. E. (2019). “Microbial fuel cells: An overview of current technology,” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 101, 60-81. DOI: 10.1016/j.rser.2018.09.044

Song, X., Huang, H., and Zhong, W. (2019). “Sucrose-assisted synthesis of layered lithium-rich oxide Li[Li0.2Mn0.56Ni0.16Co0.08]O₂ as a cathode of lithium-ion battery,” Crystals 9(9), article 436. DOI: 10.3390/cryst9090436

Srivastava, M., Anil, A. K., and Zaghib, K. (2024). “Binders for li-ion battery technologies and beyond: A comprehensive review,” Batteries 10(8), article 268. DOI: 10.3390/batteries10080268

Taha, M. A., Abdel-Ghafar, H. M., Amin, S. K., Ali, M. E. A., Mohamed, E. A., and Mohamed, F. M. (2024). “Development of low-cost ceramic membranes from industrial ceramic for enhanced wastewater treatment,” International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology 2024, 1-16. DOI: 10.1007/s13762-024-05982-1

Türker, O. C., Baran, T., Yakar, A., Türe, C., and Saz, Ç. (2020). “Novel chitosan based smart cathode electrocatalysts for high power generation in plant based-sediment microbial fuel cells,” Carbohydrate Polymers 239, article 116235. DOI: 10.1016/j.carbpol.2020.116235

Ucar, D., Zhang, Y., and Angelidaki, I. (2017). “An overview of electron acceptors in microbial fuel cells,” Frontiers in Microbiology 8, article 643. DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2017.00643

Vijay, A., Khandelwal, A., Chhabra, M., and Vincent, T. (2020). “Microbial fuel cell for simultaneous removal of uranium (VI) and nitrate,” Chemical Engineering Journal 388, article 124157. DOI: 10.1016/j.cej.2020.124157

Walter, X. A., Greenman, J., and Ieropoulos, I. (2018). “Binder materials for the cathodes applied to self-stratifying membraneless microbial fuel cell,” Bioelectrochemistry 123, 119-124. DOI: 10.1016/j.bioelechem.2018.04.011

Walter, X. A., Madrid, E., Gajda, I., Greenman, J., and Ieropoulos, I. (2022). “Microbial fuel cell scale-up options: Performance evaluation of membrane (c-MFC) and membrane-less (s-MFC) systems under different feeding regimes,” Journal of Power Sources 520, article 230875. DOI: 10.1016/j.jpowsour.2021.230875

Wang, G., Duan, X., Wang, D., Dong, X., and Zhang, X. (2018). “Polyvinylidene fluoride effects on the electrocatalytic properties of air cathodes in microbial fuel cells,” Bioelectrochemistry 120, 138-144. DOI: 10.1016/j.bioelechem.2017.11.015

Wang, X., Chen, S., Zhang, K., Huang, L., Shen, H., Chen, Z., Rong, C., Wang, G., and Jiang, Z. (2023). “A polytetrafluoroethylene-based solvent-free procedure for the manufacturing of lithium-ion batteries,” Materials 16(22), article 7232. DOI: 10.3390/ma16227232

Xu, H., Cui, L., Pan, X., An, Y., and Jin, X. (2022). “Carboxymethylcellulose-polyaniline/carbon nanotube (CMC-PANI/CNT) film as flexible and highly electrochemical active electrode for supercapacitors,” International Journal of Biological Macromolecules 219, 1135-1145. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2022.08.141

Xu, H., Wang, L., Lin, C., Zheng, J., Wen, Q., Chen, Y., Wang, Y., and Qi, L. (2020). “Improved simultaneous decolorization and power generation in a microbial fuel cell with the sponge anode modified by polyaniline and chitosan,” Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol. 192 (2), 698-718. DOI: 10.1007/s12010-020-03346-2

Yalcinkaya, F., Torres-Mendieta, R., Hruza, J., Vávrová, A., Svobodová, L., Pietrelli, A., and Ieropoulos, I. (2024). “Nanofiber applications in microbial fuel cells for enhanced energy generation: A mini review,” RSC Advances 14(13), 9122-9136. DOI: 10.1039/d4ra00674g

Yi, T. Y., Tai, C. W., and Hu, C. C. (2021). ”A comparative study on binders for the expanded mesocarbon microbeads as the positive electrodes of lithium-ion capacitors,” Journal of Power Sources 501, article 230029. DOI: 10.1016/j.jpowsour.2021.230029

You, J., Walter, X. A., Gajda, I., Greenman, J., and Ieropoulos, I. (2024). “Impact of disinfectant on the electrical outputs of urine-fed ceramic and membrane-less microbial fuel cell cascades,” International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 57, 759-763. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2024.01.042

Žabčíková, S., and Červenka, L. (2015). “Modified carbon paste electrode as a tool for the evaluation of oxidative stability of rapeseed oil,” Potravinarstvo 9(1), 347-351. DOI: 10.5219/432

Zamri, M. L. A., Makhtar, S. M. Z., Sobri, M. F. M., and Makhtar, M. M. Z. (2023). “Microbial fuel cell as new renewable energy for simultaneous waste bioremediation and energy recovery,” in: IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1135(1), article ID 12035. DOI: 10.1088/1755-1315/1135/1/012035

Zhang, K., Li, D., Wang, X., Gao, J., Shen, H., Zhang, H., Rong, C., and Chen, Z. (2024). “Dry electrode processing technology and binders,” Materials 17(10), article 2349. DOI: 10.3390/ma17102349

Zhang, K., Wu, X., Luo, H., Li, X., Chen, W., Chen, J., Mo, Y., and Wang, W. (2020). “CH4 control and associated microbial process from constructed wetland (CW) by microbial fuel cells (MFC),” Journal of Environmental Management 260, article 110071. DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.110071

Zhang, L., Chai, L., Qu, Q., Zhang, L., Shen, M., and Zheng, H. (2013). “Chitosan, a new and environmental benign electrode binder for use with graphite anode in lithium-ion batteries,” Electrochimica Acta 105, 378-383. DOI: 10.1016/j.electacta.2013.05.009

Zhang, Y., Huld, F., Lu, S., Jektvik, C., Lou, F., and Yu, Z. (2022). “Revisiting polytetrafluorethylene binder for solvent-free lithium-ion battery anode fabrication,” Batteries 8(6), article 57. DOI: 10.3390/batteries8060057

Zheng, P., Yang, J., Wang, Z., Wu, L., Sun, H., Chen, S., Guo, Y., Xia, H., Phang, S. P., Wang, E. C., et al. (2021). “Detailed loss analysis of 24.8% large-area screen-printed n-type solar cell with polysilicon passivating contact,” Cell Reports Physical Science 2(10), article 100603. DOI: 10.1016/j.xcrp.2021.100603

Article submitted: December 26, 2024; Peer review completed: April 19, 2025; Revised version received: June 5, 2025; Accepted: June 15, 2025; Published: October 13, 2025.

DOI: 10.15376/biores.20.4.Pratama