molecules

Article
Effect of an Electromagnetic Field on Anaerobic Digestion:
Comparing an Electromagnetic System (ES), a Microbial
Electrolysis System (MEC), and a Control with No
External Force
Nhlanganiso Ivan Madondo 1, * , Emmanuel Kweinor Tetteh 1 , Sudesh Rathilal 1 and Babatunde Femi Bakare 2

1 Green Engineering Research Group, Department of Chemical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and The
Built Environment, Steve Biko Campus, Durban University of Technology, S4 Level 1,
Durban 4000, South Africa; [email protected] (E.K.T.); [email protected] (S.R.)
2 Department of Chemical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering,
Mangosuthu University of Technology, P.O. Box 12363, Durban 4026, South Africa; [email protected]
* Correspondence: [email protected]

Abstract: This study examined the application of an electromagnetic field to anaerobic digestion
by using an electromagnetic system (ES), a microbial electrolysis cell (MEC), and a control with
no external force. The experimental work was performed by carrying out biochemical methane
potential (BMP) tests using 1 L biodigesters. The bioelectrochemical digesters were supplied with
0.4 V for 30 days at 40 ◦ C. The electromagnetic field of the ES was generated by coiling copper wire
to form a solenoid in the BMP system, whereas the MEC consisted of zinc and copper electrodes
inside the BMP system. The best performing system was the MEC, with a yield of 292.6 mL CH4 /g
chemical oxygen demand removed (CODremoved ), methane content of 86%, a maximum current
Citation: Madondo, N.I.; Kweinor
Tetteh, E.; Rathilal, S.; Bakare, B.F.
density of 23.3 mA/m2 , a coulombic efficiency of 110.4%, and an electrical conductivity of 180 µS/cm.
Effect of an Electromagnetic Field on Above 75% removal of total suspended solids (TSS), total organic carbon (TOC), phosphate, and
Anaerobic Digestion: Comparing an ammonia nitrogen (NH3 -N) was also recorded. However, a longer exposure (>8 days) to higher
Electromagnetic System (ES), a magnetic intensity (6.24 mT) on the ES reduced its overall performance. In terms of energy, the MEC
Microbial Electrolysis System (MEC), produced the greatest annual energy profit (327.0 ZAR/kWh or 23.36 USD/kWh). The application of
and a Control with No External Force. an electromagnetic field in anaerobic digestion, especially a MEC, has the potential to maximize the
Molecules 2022, 27, 3372. https:// methane production and the degradability of the wastewater organic content.
doi.org/10.3390/molecules27113372

Academic Editors: Mehrab Mehrvar, Keywords: electromagnetic field; electromagnetic system (ES); microbial electrolysis cell (MEC);
Marta Gmurek and Dukjoon Kim anaerobic digestion; methane

Received: 24 February 2022

Accepted: 20 May 2022
Published: 24 May 2022
1. Introduction
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
Globally, the over-reliance on fossil fuels, the formation of excessive amounts of
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
gas emissions, and the rise in fossil fuel prices have encouraged researchers to look for
published maps and institutional affil-
alternative sources of energy that are ecofriendly [1–4]. In Africa, South Africa is the
iations.
fifth-most populated country, with a population of almost 59.6 million [5]. The country’s
population has grown by almost 16.3 million since 1994. The rapidly growing population
and the rapid economic growth and urbanization have led to the production of an enormous
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.
amount of wastewater with high solid contents, which is discharged into landfills, surface
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. water, or seawater and, as a result, poses a great threat to the environment and human
This article is an open access article health and ecological risks [6–9]. The high population rate and urbanization have also
distributed under the terms and increased the electricity demand. South Africa’s number one electricity producer, in the
conditions of the Creative Commons past few years, has failed to produce enough electricity for the country. With the population
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// constantly increasing, the electricity provider is likely to experience more problems. The
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ electricity provider also faces another issue: approximately 90% of its electricity is generated
4.0/). using coal, which, after being burned, forms greenhouse gas emissions that contaminate

Molecules 2022, 27, 3372. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules27113372 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/molecules

Molecules 2022, 27, 3372 2 of 17

the environment and result in environmental temperature changes [10]. Even though South
Africa faces these issues, the anaerobic process is the key to decreasing the amounts of
organic solids in the ever-increasing effluents produced in South Africa while offering
an alternate electricity source that is renewable and ecofriendly. This migration will help
address the current challenges faced by the water and energy sector.
The anaerobic process has been used in polluted domestic and industrial wastewater
for over a century with the main aim of reducing the amount of biochemical material in
the wastewater [11,12]. Anaerobic digestion is a process that involves microbiological,
chemical, and physical reactions, where the product of each stage is used as feed in the sub-
sequent stage. The four phases found in anaerobic digestion are hydrolysis, acidogenesis,
acetogenesis, and methanogenesis [13]. Hydrolysis is the rate-limiting stage, where organic
substrates, such as carbohydrates, lipids, and proteins, are first suspended in wastew-
ater and then broken down by hydrolysis microorganisms into saccharides, long-chain
fatty acids, and amino acids, respectively [14,15]. The hydrolysis products are further
deteriorated in the acidogenesis stage by microorganisms to generate volatile fatty acids,
acetate, hydrogen, alcohols, ammonia, and aldehydes. The acetogenesis stage converts
carbon dioxide and organic acids into acetate. The last stage of anaerobic digestion is the
methanogenesis stage, in which methanogenesis microorganisms convert intermediate
products (such as acetate and volatile fatty acids) into biogas [16]. Biogas usually consists
of methane (60%) and carbon dioxide (40%) and may be used to produce energy [17,18].
Currently, researchers are trying to improve the performance of the traditional anaer-
obic digestion process, mainly because the process has low contaminant removal levels,
low microbial activity, and low methane production. The use of an electromagnetic field
together with the anaerobic digestion process has been shown to have a great deal of
potential due to the greater enhancement of bacterial activity and the higher methane
production [19,20]. Interestingly, current studies have shown a more positive effect for the
use of a bioelectrochemical system in anaerobic digestion; the use of a bioelectrochemical
system enhances the biological activity as well as the electrochemical efficiencies. Even so,
the effect of a bioelectrochemical system on the metabolism of microorganisms still requires
thorough research, especially since the electrochemical behavior of the ions/protons (i.e.,
the electrochemical efficiency) in the system is not fully understood. With high electro-
chemical efficiencies (e.g., coulombic efficiency and current density) possibly resulting in
high methane production, very few studies have investigated the path the methane takes
in the bioelectrochemical system, i.e., the autotrophic path or the heterotrophic path.
Bioelectrochemical systems (the MFC and the MEC) and electromagnetic systems
are the most-used electromagnetic field systems in anaerobic digestion [21,22]. Madondo
et al. [23] reported that the most promising bioelectrochemical system is the MEC with 79.1%
CH4 removal and 91.6% COD removal from sewage sludge. The MEC was also better in
terms of electrochemical measurements, with a maximum current density of 23.3 mA/m2 ,
an electrochemical methane yield of 153.44%, and a heterotrophic methane yield of 123.48%,
and electrical conductivity of 269.7 µS/cm. This was operated at 40 ◦ C for 25 days. On the
other hand, electromagnetic systems (ESs) involve the use of a conductor, such as a wire,
and current passes along the conductor to generate a magnetic field. An example of an ES
is a solenoid [24]. However, there are few studies on electromagnetism in the anaerobic
digestion process. No study has been conducted on the use of an electromagnetic device,
such as a solenoid, in the anaerobic digestion of complex matter, e.g., sewage sludge.
More recently, it has been shown that the magnetic field affects several fluid properties,
namely viscosity, surface tension, electric charge, and polarization. In the investigations
performed to date, electromagnetic fields have mostly been employed for the separation of
solids from wastewater, such as waste-activated sludge [25,26]. The impact of electromag-
netic fields on electrode kinetics is regarded as the most debatable at present [27]. Since
magnetic fields can be achieved in magneto-impedance experiments, Chopart et al. [28]
suggested that the magnetic field does not have a substantial influence on kinetics. How-
ever, some studies have found that higher magnetic fields result in a blockage of the current
Molecules 2022, 27, 3372 3 of 17

density [29]. Factors such as the type of magnetic field, the intensity, the exposure time,
and the cell wall can either improve or reduce the performance of the anaerobic digestion
process [19]. The magnetic field affects the cell structure transport mechanism of Gram-
negative and Gram-positive microorganisms in different ways [30]. Nonetheless, the impact
of electromagnetic fields on biochemical processes has been inadequately investigated [31].
In this study, the application of an electromagnetic field in the anaerobic digestion
process of sewage sludge was examined by comparing an ES, an MEC, and a control
digester with no electromagnetic fields employed in it. The study focused on cumulative
biogas generation, the methane composition, electrochemical efficiencies and properties,
the stability indicator, and decontamination of the wastewater.

2. Results and Discussion

2.1. Cumulative Biogas Production and Methane Composition
The cumulative biogas production is significant in anaerobic digestion since it repre-
sents the growth rate of microorganisms. Figure 1 shows the cumulative biogas production
of the MEC, the ES, and the control for the entire period of the anaerobic process. It was
evident that the cumulative biogas production was slow at the beginning of the period for
the MEC (< day 2), ES (< day 2), and control (< day 3) digesters. After day 3, there was a
high rate of biogas accumulation. However, after day 4, the methanogen growth rate in
the ES digester suddenly decreased, and the biogas production of the MEC surpassed that
of the ES after day 8. After the sudden increase, biogas production decreased. In the end,
Molecules 2022, 27, x FOR PEER REVIEW
the digesters stabilized as they reached the asymptotic phase; the MEC and the4 control
of 19
stabilized more quickly than the ES.

500.0

450.0

400.0
Cummulative biogas production (mL/gVS)

350.0

300.0

250.0 MEC

ES
200.0
Control

150.0

100.0

50.0

0.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Time (day)

Figure 1. Cumulative biogas production for MEC, ES and control.

Figure 1. Cumulative biogas production for MEC, ES and control.
The phases of the growth rate are more evident in the daily biogas production graph
The phases of the growth rate are more evident in the daily biogas production graph
that is shown in Figure 2. Generally, the rate of biogas generation in anaerobic digestion
that is shown in Figure 2. Generally, the rate of biogas generation in anaerobic digestion
is directly proportional to the methanogen growth rate [32]. A significant lag phase of
microbial growth was evident for all digesters during the initial stage; in a lag phase, ad-
aptation takes place and microorganisms increase in size but not in quantity, which is
indicated by low biogas production [33,34]. After passing through the lag phase (day 3),
the digesters reached the exponential phase, and the biogas production increased substan-
Molecules 2022, 27, 3372 4 of 17

is directly proportional to the methanogen growth rate [32]. A significant lag phase of
microbial growth was evident for all digesters during the initial stage; in a lag phase,
adaptation takes place and microorganisms increase in size but not in quantity, which is
indicated by low biogas production [33,34]. After passing through the lag phase (day 3), the
digesters reached the exponential phase, and the biogas production increased substantially
as a result of the exponential growth of methanogenic microorganisms, with the ES showing
the highest maximum growth rate [34]. All digesters except the ES reached the stabilized
stage after passing through the exponential phase. The digesters then reached the
Molecules 2022, 27, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of dead
19
phase, which is characterized by an exponential decrease in biogas production.

70.0

60.0

50.0
Biogas production (mL/gVS-d)

40.0

MEC

30.0 ES

Control

20.0

10.0

0.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Time (day)

Figure 2. Daily biogas production over a hydraulic retention time of 30 days.

Figure 2. Daily biogas production over a hydraulic retention time of 30 days.

Table11shows
Table shows the
the content
contentof ofmethane
methaneinin
thethe
biogas as well
biogas as the
as well as yield of methane
the yield at
of methane
a hydraulic retention time of 30 days. The MEC had the highest content
at a hydraulic retention time of 30 days. The MEC had the highest content of methane of methane
(86.0%), which was 47.9% higher than the content of methane in the control (38.1%). The
(86.0%), which was 47.9% higher than the content of methane in the control (38.1%). The
biogas yield was also higher for the MEC, with a yield of 404.4 mL/g volatile solids fed
biogas yield was also higher for the MEC, with a yield of 404.4 mL/g volatile solids fed
(VSfed). The yield of methane computed as CH4 accumulation per gram of COD removed
(VSfed ). The yield of methane computed as CH4 accumulation per gram of COD removed
was 199.3 mL CH4/g CODremoved for the ES, whereas the yield was 292.6 mL CH4/g
was 199.3 mL CH4 /g CODremoved for the ES, whereas the yield was 292.6 mL CH4 /g
CODremoved for the MEC. The yield for the MEC was more than 3.07 times that for the con-
CODremoved for the MEC. The yield for the MEC was more than 3.07 times that for the
trol (95.3 CH4/g CODremoved). In bioelectrochemical systems, the yield of methane relies on
control (95.3 CH4 /g CODremoved ). In bioelectrochemical systems, the yield of methane relies
the electrochemically active bacteria and planktonic anaerobic bacteria that contributed to
on the electrochemically active bacteria and planktonic anaerobic bacteria that contributed
the total CH4 generation [35]. Therefore, the high methane content in the MEC was due to
tothe
thehigher
total numbers
CH4 generation [35]. Therefore,
of electrochemically activethe high and
bacteria methane content
planktonic in the bacteria
anaerobic MEC was
due to the
in the higher
system. numbers ofa electrochemically
Nonetheless, comprehensive study active
has bacteria and planktonic
to be carried anaerobic
out on the electro-
bacteria in the system. Nonetheless,
chemical efficiencies to verify this. a comprehensive study has to be carried out on the
electrochemical efficiencies to verify this.
Table 1. Methane content and methane yield.

Digester Type Content of CH4 (%) Yield (mL CH4/g CODremoved) Yield (mL/g VSfed)
ES 79.0 199.3 330.9
MEC 86.0 292.6 404.4
Control 38.1 95.3 169.1

2.2. Kinetic Study

Molecules 2022, 27, 3372 5 of 17

Table 1. Methane content and methane yield.

Yield (mL CH4 /g

Digester Type Content of CH4 (%) Yield (mL/g VSfed )
CODremoved )
ES 79.0 199.3 330.9
MEC 86.0 292.6 404.4
Control 38.1 95.3 169.1

2.2. Kinetic Study

The modified Gompertz model was used to determine the influence of inhibition of
Molecules 2022, 27, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 19
bacterial activities. The cumulative biogas yields of the MEC, ES, and control were fitted to
the modified Gompertz models as depicted in Figure 3. As is evident from the figure, all
kinetic models were able to fit the cumulative biogas yield by expressing all three phases
ofall kinetic namely
growth, models the
were
lagable to fit
phase, thethe cumulativegrowth
exponential biogas phase,
yield byandexpressing all three
the stabilized phase.
phases of growth, namely the lag phase,
2 the exponential growth phase,2
The correlation of determination (R ) was reasonably high; the R for the MEC, the ES,and the stabilized
phase.
and The correlation
the control of determination
was 0.995, 0.963, and 0.987,(R2)respectively.
was reasonablyThehigh; thethe
use of R2 MEC
for the(i.e.,
MEC, theand
zinc
ES, and the control was 0.995, 0.963, and 0.987, respectively. The use 2 of the MEC
copper electrodes) best fitted the model as it showed the highest R value. The model with (i.e., zinc
and copper electrodes) best fitted the model as it showed the highest R2 value. The model
the lowest R2 value was the ES, which suggests that this digester had the most uneven
with the lowest R value was the ES, which suggests that this digester had the most uneven
2
biogas yields and, as a result, the modified Gompertz model did not fit the data well. Using
biogas yields and, as a result, the modified Gompertz model did not fit the data well.
the obtained models, the lag phases (λ) were 2.3, 2.2, and 3.1/day, respectively, for the
Using the obtained models, the lag phases (λ) were 2.3, 2.2, and 3.1/day, respectively, for
MEC, the ES, and the control. These values correspond to the values obtained using the
the MEC, the ES, and the control. These values correspond to the values obtained using
actual observational data points. The rate constants (k) were 0.35, 0.30, and 0.026/day,
the actual observational data points. The rate constants (k) were 0.35, 0.30, and 0.026/day,
respectively. The results suggest that biogas generation and a faster rate of degradation
respectively. The results suggest that biogas generation and a faster rate of degradation
were accomplished at higher rate constant values.
were accomplished at higher rate constant values.

450

400
Cummulative biogas production (mL/gVS)

350

300

Gompertz MEC
250
Gompertz ES

Gompertz Control
200
Actual MEC

150 Actual ES

Actual Control
100

50

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Time (day)

Figure 3. The modified Gompertz models versus actual cumulative biogas production for all di-
Figure 3. The modified Gompertz models versus actual cumulative biogas production for
gesters.
all digesters.
2.3. Electrochemical Efficiencies
The electrochemical properties and efficiencies, such as the magnetic field, the elec-
tric current, the current density, the power density, the heterotrophic methane yield, the
electrochemical methane yield, the coulomb efficiency, and the electrical conductivity, are
very important tools in electrochemical systems since they help us understand the way
Molecules 2022, 27, 3372 6 of 17

2.3. Electrochemical Efficiencies

The electrochemical properties and efficiencies, such as the magnetic field, the elec-
tric current, the current density, the power density, the heterotrophic methane yield, the
electrochemical methane yield, the coulomb efficiency, and the electrical conductivity, are
very important tools in electrochemical systems since they help us understand the way
ions behave in the anaerobic system. The magnetic field strength and methane content in
the biogas concerning digester type are depicted in Table 2. The ES had the highest mag-
netic field strength (6.24 mT). It was observed that the higher intensity of the ES (6.24 mT)
reduced the methane content in the biogas. An electromagnetic system (ES), such as a
solenoid, generates both an electric field and a magnetic field, which contribute to the
Lorentz/electromagnetic force as described in Equation (1) [36]:

F = q( E + v × B) (1)

where F is the Lorentz force, q represents the electric charge, E represents the electric field
due to external flow, v represents the velocity, and B indicates the magnetic field. Therefore,
the combination of the magnetic and electric fields resulted in a high Lorentz force, which,
as a result, reduced the performance of the ES. On the other hand, the low magnetic field
intensity of the MEC (4.10 mT) had a positive effect on the anaerobic digestion process as
it generated a higher methane percentage (86.0%). The absence of a magnetic field in the
control made the digester generate the lowest methane content in the biogas (38.1%).

Table 2. Magnetic field and methane content in the biogas.

Digester Type Magnetic Field (mT) CH4 (%)

MEC 4.10 86.0
ES 6.24 79.0
Control 0.01 38.1

Perhaps one of the most significant electrochemical parameters in electromagnetic

field design is current density [37]. Figure 4 shows the current density for the entire
digestion period. The magnetic field of the ES performed better before day 8, with higher
current density values than that of the MEC. This is because the use of a magnetic field
can enhance the way the system performs physically to solid–liquid separation due to
the clustering of colloidal particles. Additionally, the use of magnetic fields can affect the
biological properties due to the enhancement of the bacterial activity, which increased the
current density of the ES [19,38]. However, the higher intensity and the longer exposure
duration after day 8 reduced the current density of the ES, which consequently reduced
the biogas accumulation (Figure 1). This study affirms the report by Zielinski et al. [24]
stating that a longer retention time in electromagnetic field areas can drastically reduce the
efficiency of anaerobic digestion. Consequently, magnetic fields can significantly influence
methanogenic activities and their microbial community shift. Here, in a low magnetic
field (4.10 mT), the MEC stabilized (Figure 3) much more quickly after day 11 at a higher
maximum current density (23.3 mA/m2 ) in comparison with the ES, which stabilized
after day 14 at a lower maximum current density (17.5 mA/m2 ). This suggests that the
adaptability and attachment of the electroactive bacteria in the MEC system were much
faster than those of the solenoid in the ES system. Nevertheless, the current densities of
both bioelectrochemical systems decreased after 18 days and then stabilized after 22 days,
indicating a gradual decline in methane production.
Molecules 2022,
Molecules 27,27,
2022, 3372
x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of7 19
of 17

25

20
Current density (mA/m2)

15

MEC

ES
10
Control

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Time (day)

Figure 4. Current density for MEC, ES and control over a period of 30 days.
Figure 4. Current density for MEC, ES and control over a period of 30 days.
Although it is obvious from this investigation that the use of an electromagnetic field
Although it is obvious from this investigation that the use of an electromagnetic field
has an effect on the current density and hence methane generation, little is known about
has an effect on the current density and hence methane generation, little is known about
the path that the methane takes, i.e., the autotrophic path or the heterotrophic path. The
the path that the methane takes, i.e., the autotrophic path or the heterotrophic path. The
autotrophic (hydrogenotrophic) path involves the formation of complex compounds from
autotrophic (hydrogenotrophic) path involves the formation of complex compounds from
simpler substances (2), whereas the heterotrophic (acetoclastic) path involves the breaking
simpler substances (2), whereas the heterotrophic (acetoclastic) path involves the breaking
down of complex compounds to simpler substances (3) [39].
down of complex compounds to simpler substances (3) [39].
4H2 + CO2 → CH4 + 2H2 O ∆G = −135 kJ/mol (2)
CH3 COOH → CH4 + CO2 ∆G = −33 kJ/mol
4H2 + CO2 → CH4 + 2H2 O ∆G = (3) −135 kJ/mol (2)

The electrochemical COOH →

CH3methane CHand
yield 4 + CO 2 ∆G = −33
heterotrophic kJ/molyield are significant(3)
methane
electrochemical efficiencies
The electrochemical as theyyield
methane help and
us determine whether
heterotrophic the generated
methane yield are methane
significant
took the autotrophic path or the heterotrophic path (Figure 5).
electrochemical efficiencies as they help us determine whether the generatedA system in which both
methane
heterotrophic and electrochemical methanogenesis occurs gives rise to
took the autotrophic path or the heterotrophic path (Figure 5). A system in which botha higher rate of
conversion of COD to methane, and this occurs at an electrochemical methane
heterotrophic and electrochemical methanogenesis occurs gives rise to a higher rate of yield above
100% [40]. Both
conversion of CODbioelectrochemical
to methane, and digesters (the MEC
this occurs and
at an the ES) generated
electrochemical high elec-
methane yield
trochemical methane yields; however, the MEC had the highest electrochemical
above 100% [40]. Both bioelectrochemical digesters (the MEC and the ES) generated methane
yield value (391.6%), implying that a larger percentage of methane was generated through
high electrochemical methane yields; however, the MEC had the highest electrochemical
heterotrophic methanogens [40]. The heterotrophic methane yield of the MEC was re-
methane yield value (391.6%), implying that a larger percentage of methane was generated
vealed to be 432.5% of the COD reacted, further indicating a higher rate of carbon dioxide
through heterotrophic methanogens [40]. The heterotrophic methane yield of the MEC was
conversion to methane.
revealed to be 432.5% of the COD reacted, further indicating a higher rate of carbon dioxide
conversion to methane.
Molecules 2022,
Molecules 27,27,
2022, 3372
x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of8 19
of 17

500.0

450.0
Electrochemical/heterotrophic methane yield (%)

400.0

350.0

300.0

250.0 MEC

ES
200.0
Control

150.0

100.0

50.0

0.0
Electrochemical methane yield Heterotrophic methane yield
Parameter

Figure 5. Electrochemical methane yield and heterotrophic methane yield with respect to digester
Figure 5. Electrochemical methane yield and heterotrophic methane yield with respect to digester
type after the hydraulic retention period of 30 days.
type after the hydraulic retention period of 30 days.
Figure 6 depicts the daily electrochemical methane yield and current generation with
Figure 6 depicts the daily electrochemical methane yield and current generation with
respect to digester type. It was observed that before day 8, an increase in the current was
respect to digester type. It was observed that before day 8, an increase in the current was
followed by an increase in the electrochemical methane yield. This suggests that the high-
followed by an increase in the electrochemical methane yield. This suggests that the highest
est COD to methane conversion rate (i.e., the highest methane generation) occurred dur-
COD to methane conversion rate (i.e., the highest methane generation) occurred during
ing this period. From day 8 to day 19, there was an indirect relationship between the cur-
this period. From day 8 to day 19, there was an indirect relationship between the current
rent and the electrochemical methane yield, suggesting that there was a decline in me-
and
thanethegeneration.
electrochemical methane
After day yield,
19, both the suggesting
current andthat there was a decline
the electrochemical in methane
methane yield
generation. After day 19, both the current and the electrochemical
stabilized, indicating that the methane generation had ceased. methane yield stabilized,
indicating that the methane generation had ceased.
Another useful electrochemical indicator that correlates electrochemical methane yield
to heterotrophic methane yield is coulombic efficiency, which is used to measure the total
electron recovery. This indicator measures the degree to which the electrons generated
are transformed into the required product [21]. The higher the coulombic efficiency, the
more efficient the bioelectrochemical system [41]. Figure 7 shows the coulombic efficiencies
for the MEC and the ES. The MEC digester had a higher coulombic efficiency (110.4%)
than the ES digester (105.7%) and this was mostly due to the high methane production
(86.0%) [42,43]. Furthermore, the coulombic efficiency depends on the system’s resistance
(or impedance), and higher resistance in the system leads to a decrease in the coulombic
efficiency since it is not easy to retrieve electrons from a system with higher resistance [44].
Therefore, the higher coulombic efficiency of the MEC implies a lower resistance (ohmic
losses) and hence a more efficient system. This shows that more electrons were transformed
into heterotrophic methane in the MEC as compared with the ES.
Molecules 2022, 27, 3372 9 of 17
Molecules 2022, 27, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 19

0.035 MEC - Current 900

ES - Current
800
0.03
Control - Current
700
MEC - Electrochemical

Electrochemical methane yield (%)

0.025
methane yield
600
ES - Electrochemical methane
yield
0.02
Current (A)

Control - Electrochemical 500

methane yield

400
0.015

300
0.01

200

0.005
100

0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Time (day)

Figure 6. Daily current generation and electrochemical methane yield for the ES and the MEC.
Molecules 2022, 27, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 19
Figure 6. Daily current generation and electrochemical methane yield for the ES and the MEC.
Another useful electrochemical indicator that correlates electrochemical methane
yield to heterotrophic methane yield is coulombic efficiency, which is used to measure the
total electron recovery. This indicator measures the degree to which the electrons gener-
200.0 ated are transformed into the required product [21]. The higher the coulombic efficiency,
the more efficient the bioelectrochemical system [41]. Figure 7 shows the coulombic effi-
ciencies for the MEC and the ES. The MEC digester had a higher coulombic efficiency
(110.4%) than the ES digester (105.7%) and this was mostly due to the high methane pro-
duction (86.0%) [42,43]. Furthermore, the coulombic efficiency depends on the system’s
150.0 resistance (or impedance), and higher resistance in the system leads to a decrease in the
coulombic efficiency since it is not easy to retrieve electrons from a system with higher
resistance [44]. Therefore, the higher coulombic efficiency of the MEC implies a lower re-
sistance (ohmic losses) and hence a more efficient system. This shows that more electrons
Value (%)

were transformed into heterotrophic methane in the MEC as compared with the ES.
Coulombic Efficiency
100.0
Conductivity

Maximum current density

50.0

0.0
MEC ES Control
Digester type

Figure 7. Coulombic efficiency, electrical conductivity, and maximum current density with respect
Figure 7. Coulombic
to digester type. efficiency, electrical conductivity, and maximum current density with respect to
digester type.
Electrical conductivity is another effective electrochemical property that can be used
to identify the electrical flow inside the reactor and not outside the reactor or external
circuit. The maximum current density and electrical conductivity with respect to digester
type are depicted in Figure 7. The results show that a decrease in the current density led
to a decrease in electrical conductivity. The same conclusion was drawn by the authors of
[45], who did a study on the influence of magnetic fields on gas bubbles and found that
Molecules 2022, 27, 3372 10 of 17

Electrical conductivity is another effective electrochemical property that can be used to

identify the electrical flow inside the reactor and not outside the reactor or external circuit.
The maximum current density and electrical conductivity with respect to digester type
are depicted in Figure 7. The results show that a decrease in the current density led to a
decrease in electrical conductivity. The same conclusion was drawn by the authors of [45],
who did a study on the influence of magnetic fields on gas bubbles and found that current
density was proportional to electrical conductivity. Increasing such MEC characteristics as
the current density and coulombic efficiency not only increases the electrical conductivity
of the solution but also lowers the impedance between the anode and the cathode [22,46].
The MEC generated the highest electrical conductivity (180 µS/cm), which was greater
than the ES value of 151.3 µS/cm. Therefore, the high current density in the MEC digester
certainly enhanced the performance of the MEC by decreasing the impedance that hinders
the flow of electrons and ions and, as a result, increased the electrical conductivity for
enhanced methane generation.

2.4. Process Stability Indicator

Despite the fact that the results on the electrochemical efficiencies reveal that the mag-
netic field, current density, power density, electrochemical methane yield, heterotrophic
methane yield, coulomb efficiency, and electrical conductivity had an impact on the
methane production, it is essential to find out whether protons and ions influenced the
pH of the ES and MEC. The microbial activity depends on the pH; microorganisms are
highly sensitive to the pH of the system, and variations in the pH could result in variations
in the respiration of microorganisms and, as a result, extracellular electron transfer [22].
Furthermore, parameters such as electrical conductivity, coulombic efficiency, ion transfer,
and oxidation of a substrate are indirectly or directly linked to pH [22]. It is evident from
Table 3 that an increase in coulombic efficiency resulted in a decrease in pH, with the
MEC having the lowest pH (7.1, i.e., a neutral value). The high coulombic efficiency of the
MEC (110.4%) lowered the pH of the system. According to [47], low pH values (especially
neutral values) improve the performance of the bioelectrochemical system by lowering
cathode overpotentials and the solvent resistance, which is why the MEC performed better.
Moreover, the combination of a neutral pH and high coulombic efficiency in the MEC is an
indication of both electrochemical and heterotrophic methane generation [40].

Table 3. Coulombic efficiency and pH with respect to digester type.

Digester Type Coulombic Efficiency (%) pH

Control 7.5 7.6
ES 95.3 7.5
MEC 110.4 7.1

2.5. Influence of the Electromagnetic Field on Decontamination

The water quality parameters that were measured for decontamination are shown
in Figure 8 and include COD, total suspended solids (TSS), total organic carbon (TOC),
color, phosphate, and ammonia nitrogen (NH3 -N). It was found that the MEC had the
highest removal values for COD (98.6%), TOC (95.9%), TSS (88.4%), phosphate (76.3%), and
NH3 -N (43.7%). This can be attributed to the higher electron recovery efficiencies of the
MEC system, namely the maximum current density (23.3 mA/m2 ), coulombic efficiency
(110.4%), and electrical conductivity (180 µS/cm) [22,23,48,49]. Conversely, exposure to
electromagnetism (the ES) resulted in better removal of color (97.9%). Other researchers
have also found that exposure to a higher magnetic field strongly enhances the efficiency of
the removal of color from water [50,51].
Molecules 2022,27,
Molecules2022, 27,3372
x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 11
of of1917

100.0

80.0
Percentage removed (%)

60.0

ES

MEC
40.0
Control

20.0

0.0
COD (mg/L) TOC (mg/L) TSS (mg/L) Colour (Pt.Co) Phosphate NH3-N
NH3-N(mg/L)
(mg/L)
(mg/L)
Type of contaminant

Figure 8. Effect of digester type on decontamination.

Figure 8. Effect of digester type on decontamination.

2.6. Economic
2.6. Economic and and Energetic Viability of the Processes
Processes
In order
In order toto determine
determine the
the efficiency
efficiency and
and economic
economicviability
viabilityof
ofthe
thebioelectrochemical
bioelectrochemical
systems (the
systems (the MEC
MEC and the ES), a techno-economic
techno-economic analysis
analysiswas
wasperformed.
performed.All Allenergy-
energy-
related calculations
related calculations were
were based
based on
on methane
methane yield.
yield. Biogas
Biogasusually
usuallyconsists
consistsofofapproxi-
approxi-
mately 60%
mately 60% methane
methane and 40%40% carbon
carbon dioxide,
dioxide, and
andititwas
wasassumed
assumedthat that80%
80%ofofthe
theenergy
energy
generated is transformed into electrical power [17,18]. The energy cost was basedthe
generated is transformed into electrical power [17,18]. The energy cost was based on on
biogas
the biogasgenerated by the
generated bydigesters (MEC(MEC
the digesters = 404.4=mL/day, ES = 330.9
404.4 mL/day, ESmL/day,
= 330.9 and controland
mL/day, =
169.1 mL/day). The cost estimation for the digesters is shown in Table
control = 169.1 mL/day). The cost estimation for the digesters is shown in Table 4. 4.

Table4.4.Economic
Table Economicand
and energetic
energetic viability
viability of
of the
the processes.
processes.

Type Unit MEC ES Control

Type Unit MEC ES Control
Energy content of CH4 m3/h 0.00362 0.00296 0.00017
Energy content of CH 3 0.00362 0.00296
4
Energy generated (EmG)/h kWh 0.00289 0.00237 0.00017
0.00035
Energy generated (EG ) kWh 0.00289 0.00237 0.00035
Energy utilized by the waterkWh
Energy utilized by the water bath (EB )
bath (EB) 0.00053
kWh 0.00053
0.00059
0.00059 0.00014
0.00014
Energy
Energy usedused bysystem
by the the system with an external power supply (E E)
with an kW/h 0.00001 0.00008 0.00000
kW/h 0.00001 0.00008 0.00000
external power supply (ETotal
E) energy (ET) kWh 0.00235 0.00177 0.00021
Total Net
energy (ET ) profit per day (3.22kWh
energy ZAR/kWh) 0.00235 ZAR/kWh 0.00177
0.00757 0.00570 0.00021
0.00068
Net energy profit per dayprofit
Net energy (3.22 per day (0.23 USD/kWh) USD/kWh 0.00054 0.00041 0.00068
0.00005
ZAR/kWh 0.00757 0.00570
ZAR/kWh)
Net energy
Net energy profit per day (0.23 profit per year ZAR/kWh 327.0 246.3 29.20
USD/kWh 0.00054 0.00041 17.72 0.00005
USD/kWh)Net energy profit per year USD/kWh 23.36 2.102
Net energy profit per year ZAR/kWh 327.0 246.3 29.20
Net energy profit per year USD/kWh
Equation (4) below can be used23.36 17.72generated per day
to determine the energy 2.102
(E G):
Molecules 2022, 27, 3372 12 of 17

Equation (4) below can be used to determine the energy generated per day (EG ):
.
EG = QCH4 × LHVCH4 (4)
.
where QCH4 is the rate of CH4 generated in m3 CH4 /day, and LHVCH4 is the lower heating
value, which is 35.8 kJ/m3 CH4 .
The energy needed by the water bath (EB ) can be estimated by Equation (5):
. .
EB = m × Cp × ∆T = Q × ρ × Cp × (T1 − T0 ) (5)
. . .
where m (= Q × ρ) is the mass flowrate in kg/day, Q represents the substrate volumetric
flowrate in m3 /day, Cp is the specific heat capacity in kJ/kg·◦ C, ρ is the density in kg/m3 , T1
is the digester temperature in ◦ C, and T0 represents the temperature of the substrate in ◦ C.
The energy used by the system with an external power supply (EE ) can be obtained by
Equation (6):
EE = I × V (6)
where I is the current in A and V is the voltage in V.
The total energy generated was computed as the difference between the generated
energy and the consumed energy (Equation (7)):

ET = EG − EB − EE (7)

In terms of the techno-economic analysis, the systems with an external power supply
of 0.4 V (i.e., both the MEC and the ES) were more economical than the control. The most
economical digester was the MEC. The MEC had a net energy profit of 327.0 ZAR/kWh
(23.36 USD/kWh), which was approximately 11.2 times that of the control (29.20 ZAR/kWh
or 2.102 USD/kWh).

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Equipment and Operation
The biochemical methane potential (BMP) experiments were performed via three
types of biodigesters, namely (1) a microbial electrolysis cell (MEC), (2) an electromagnetic
system (ES), and (3) a control with no external force (Figure 9). Each biodigester was a
1 L Duran Schott bottle (Laboratory Supplies Co., Durban, South Africa) and included a
working volume of 80% (v/v) and a headspace of 20% (v/v). The biodigesters were fed with
sewage sludge (0.3 L) and waste activated sludge (0.5 L), which were both acquired from
a wastewater treatment company located in Durban, South Africa. The BMP tests were
conducted at 40 ◦ C for a duration of 30 days and the organic loading rate was 1.13 g VS/L-d.
The MEC digester comprised a zinc electrode (anode) and a copper electrode (cathode),
and the electrodes had a length of 12 cm and a width of 1 cm. The MEC was powered with
0.4 V [35,52] using a Matrix MPS-3005S DC power supply. On the other hand, the ES was
an electromagnetic digester with a solenoid inside it that was made out of copper (diameter,
0.1 cm; coil length, 150 cm). The electromagnetic field was produced by the solenoid’s DC
power supply (0.4 V) and by coiling the copper to form a coil with 58 turns (immersed
length, 9 cm; immersed diameter, 0.7 cm). These dimensions were selected to ensure that
the immersed area (viz. the surface area per volume) of the ES was similar to that of the
MEC digester.
Molecules 2022, 27, 3372
x FOR PEER REVIEW 1513of
of 19
17

Figure
Figure 9.
9. Schematic
Schematic diagram
diagram of
of (a)
(a) the
the microbial
microbial electrolysis
electrolysis cell
cell (MEC)
(MEC) with
with zinc
zinc and
and copper
copper elec-
elec-
trodes; (b) the electromagnetic system (ES) with a solenoid; and (c) the control with no power
trodes; (b) the electromagnetic system (ES) with a solenoid; and (c) the control with no power supply.sup-
ply.
3.2. Analytical Parameters and Calculations
3.2. Analytical
The dailyParameters
biogas volumeand Calculations
was obtained using the water displacement method. A
Geotech
The GA
daily5000 Portable
biogas volume Biogas Analyzerusing
was obtained was used to analyze
the water the composition
displacement method. A of Ge-
the
biogas.
otech GAThe contaminants
5000 Portable Biogasthat were measured
Analyzer (in the
was used to feed andthe
analyze after digestion) were
composition of theCOD,
bio-
TSS, The
gas. NH3contaminants
-N, color, and TOC, whichmeasured
that were were obtained
(in theusing
feeda and
Hachafter
DR 3900 calorimeter
digestion) were (Hach,
COD,
Loveland,
TSS, NH3-N,Colorado,
color, and USA).
TOC, The percentage
which of contaminant
were obtained using aremoved
Hach DR(CR) 3900 was obtained
calorimeter
by (8): Loveland, Colorado, USA). The percentage of contaminant removed (CR) was ob-
(Hach,
tained by (8):
influent contaminant − contaminant after digestion
% CR = influent contaminant − contaminant after digestion × 100% (8)
% CR = influent contaminant × 100% (8)
influent contaminant
where the influent contaminant represents the type of contaminant in the feed, i.e., COD,
where the influent
TSS, color, TOC, NH contaminant represents the type of contaminant in the feed, i.e., COD,
3 -N, and phosphate.
TSS, color, TOC, NH 3-N, and phosphate.
The pH of the biodigesters was measured before digestion and after the digestion
Theusing
process pH ofa Hanna
the biodigesters was measured
H198129 conductivity before
meter. The digestion and after
electrochemical the digestion
efficiencies that
process using a Hanna H198129 conductivity meter. The electrochemical efficiencies
were measured were the electric current, electric potential, magnetic field, current density, that
were
powermeasured were the electricmethane
density, electrochemical current, yield,
electricheterotrophic
potential, magnetic
methane field, current
yield, density,
and coulomb
power density,
efficiency. A FLUKEelectrochemical methane yield,
177 RMS multimeter heterotrophic
was used to measuremethane
both the yield,
electric and coulomb
current and
efficiency. A FLUKE 177 RMS multimeter was used to measure both the
the electric voltage across the MEC and ES terminals. The magnetic field in the biodigesters electric current
and
was the electric
obtained voltage
using acrossTelsameter.
a digital the MEC and ES terminals. The magnetic field in the biodi-
gesters was obtained using a digital Telsameter.
The current density (j) of the bioelectrochemical system was determined by (9) [53]:
The current density (j) of the bioelectrochemical system was determined by (9) [53]:
I
j= I (9)
j =A (9)
A
where II represent 2 ).2
where representthe thecurrent
current(Amps)
(Amps)and andAAis is
the anode
the anode cross-section
cross-section (m(m ).
The electrochemical methane yield and heterotrophic methane yield were deter-
mined by (10) and (11), respectively [40].
Molecules 2022, 27, 3372 14 of 17

The electrochemical methane yield and heterotrophic methane yield were determined
by (10) and (11), respectively [40].
j k
VM
22.450
Electrochemical methane yield =  nE  × 100% (10)
8×F
j k
VM
22.450
Heterotrophic methane yield =   × 100% (11)
(CODfeed −CODdigestate )×VF
64

where VM denotes the methane accumulation in mL, nE denotes the amount of e− , Rwhich
is determined as the region underneath the graph of current against time (i.e., n E = I.dt),
F is Faraday’s constant, which is 96.485 C/mol e− , and VF denotes the treated (feed)
wastewater volume (mL). The coulombic efficiency (CE) can be obtained by (12) [54]:

Heterotrophic methane yield 8 × nE

Coulombic efficiency = × 100% =   × 100% (12)
Electrochemical methane yield F × VF × CODfeed − CODdigestate

The cumulative biogas yield of the MEC, the ES, and the control was modeled using
the modified Gompertz model equation (Equation (13)). The modified Gompertz model
can be used to represent the three phases of growth.
n hµ e io
Y = Aexp − exp m (λ − t) + 1 = A(1 − exp(−kt)) (13)
A
where Y is the cumulative specific yield in mL/g VS; µm represents the maximum specific
growth rate in mL/g VS.d., i.e., the tangent at the inflection point; A denotes the highest
value obtained on the y-axis in mL/g VS; λ denotes the phase-in days; t is the time in days;
e represents 2.71828; and k (= µAm e ) is the rate constant in methane produced per day.
The physicochemical properties of the sewage sludge and the waste-activated sludge
are shown in Table 5.

Table 5. Physico-chemical properties of the sewage sludge and waste activated sludge.

Waste-Activated
Parameters Unit Sewage
Sludge
pH - 7.0 ± 0.96 6.8 ± 0.55
Density kg/m3 1094 ± 25.02 1022 ± 20.21
NH3 -N mg/L 41.02 ± 1.89 30.01 ± 2.01
TOC mg/L 3637.45 ± 46.98 1774.23 ± 39.87
Phosphate mg/L 11.97 ± 0.12 8.63 ± 0.15
VS mg/L 45.53 ± 1.31 30.55 ± 1.71
TS mg/L 52.33 ± 5.04 39.47 ± 4.10
COD mg/L 4501.54 ± 220 1020 ± 78.1
Color Pt.Co 435.02 ± 4.23 122.01 ± 2.43

3.3. Statistical Test

Statistical analysis was conducted on the observational data points shown in Figure 1,
Figure 2, Figure 4, Figure 6, and Figure 8 with error bars. The error bars represent potential
error amounts that are graphically relative to each observational point or data marker
in a data series. In all graphs, the error bars denote the standard error of the mean and
were added to each graph using the ‘Add Chart Element’ tool in Microsoft Excel. The data
presented were based on duplicated experimental setups and samples analyzed in triplicate.
Molecules 2022, 27, 3372 15 of 17

4. Conclusions
In this investigation, the influence of an electromagnetic field on anaerobic digestion
was examined using an ES and a MEC. Under the experimental conditions employed, the
application of an electromagnetic field exerted a significant influence on the anaerobic
digestion process. The performance of the MEC in terms of decontamination was better
than that of the ES, with higher COD (98.6%), TOC (95.9%), TSS (88.4%), phosphate (76.3%),
and NH3 -N (43.7%) removal values. The MEC also showed higher electron activity as
it produced higher electrochemical efficiencies, including electrochemical methane yield
(391.6%), heterotrophic methane yield (432.5%), and coulombic efficiency (110.4%), and
electrical conductivity (180 µS/cm). As a result of the high electrochemical efficiencies, the
methane content in the biogas was improved by 47.9% (>38.1% of the control), and the
highest methane yield (292.6 mL CH4 /g CODremoved ) and biogas yield (404.4 mL/g VS)
were generated by the MEC. It also took a shorter period for the MEC to stabilize (11 days)
as compared with the ES, which stabilized after 14 days and at a lower current density (17.5
mA/m2 ). In contrast, the longer period of exposure to the magnetic intensity of 6.24 mT
on the ES reduced its overall anaerobic digestion performance. The biogas yields of the
digesters were fitted to the modified Gompertz model. The best-fitted digester was the
MEC, with a coefficient of determination (R2 ) of 0.995. The use of an external power supply
revealed a net energy profit of more than 217.1 ZAR/kWh (15.6 USD/kWh) compared with
the control, with the MEC producing the highest net energy profit. Because of the present
prospects of electromagnetic fields, this investigation affirms the application of the MEC as
being promising for the treatment of wastewater and economical as well as green energy
generation. The microbial activity and other related operating parameters warrant future
research attention as they were not considered in this study.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, N.I.M., E.K.T. and S.R.; methodology, N.I.M. and E.K.T.;
validation, N.I.M.; investigation, N.I.M.; data curation, N.I.M.; writing—original draft preparation,
N.I.M.; writing—review and editing S.R., B.F.B. and E.K.T.; project administrator, E.K.T.; supervision,
S.R. and B.F.B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was supported by the National Research Foundation (NRF) (ID number
129076) through the Ph.D. program in progress in the Department of Chemical Engineering at the
Durban University of Technology.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Data is contained within the article.
Acknowledgments: The authors acknowledge the Durban University of Technology and the Green
Engineering and Sustainability Research Group.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Sample Availability: Samples of the compounds are not available from the authors.

References
1. Nandi, R.; Saha, C.K.; Sarker, S.; Huda, S.; Alam, M. Optimization of Reactor Temperature for Continuous Anaerobic Digestion of
Cow Manure: Bangladesh Perspective. Sustainability 2020, 12, 1–19.
2. Gielen, D.; Boshell, F.; Saygin, D.; Bazilian, M.D.; Wagner, N.; Gorini, R. The role of renewable energy in the global energy
transformation. Energy Strategy Rev. 2019, 25, 38–50. [CrossRef]
3. Jiang, J.; Li, L.; Cui, M.; Zhang, F.; Liu, Y.; Liu, Y.; Long, J.; Guo, Y. Anaerobic digestion of kitchen waste: The effects of source,
concentration, and temperature. Biochem. Eng. J. 2018, 135, 91–97. [CrossRef]
4. Caposciutti, G.; Baccioli, A.; Ferrari, L.; Desideri, U. Biogas from Anaerobic Digestion: Power Generation or Biomethane
Production? Energies 2020, 13, 743. [CrossRef]
5. Statistics of South Africa. Mid-Year Population Estimates. Available online: http://www.statssa.gov.za/?p=13453 (accessed on 22
December 2021).
Molecules 2022, 27, 3372 16 of 17

6. Bolin, L.; Lee, H.; Lindahl, M. LCA of biogas through anaerobic digestion from the organic fraction of municipal solid waste
(OFMSW) compared to incineration of the waste. In Proceedings of the EcoDesign 2009: 6th International Symposium on
Environmentally Conscious Design and Inverse Manufacturing, Sapporo, Japan, 6–9 December 2009.
7. Saleh, M.; Mahmood, U. Anaerobic digestion technology for industrial wastewater treatment. In Proceedings of the Eighth
International Water Technology Conference, IWTC8 2004, Alexandria, Egypt, 26 March 2004.
8. Metcalf-Wallach, J. Demand-side approaches to water scarcity: South Africa and the national water act. IDEAS J. 2008, 1, 1–5.
9. Ahring, B. Perspectives for Anaerobic Digestion. In Advances in Biochemical Engineering/Biotechnology; Springer: Berlin, Germany,
2003; Volume 81, pp. 1–30.
10. Baker, L. Governing Electricity in South Africa: Wind, Coal and Power Struggles; University of East Anglia: Norwich, UK, 2011; in
progress.
11. Lettinga, G. The Route of Waste (Water) Treatment toward Global Acceptance. Environ. Anaerob. Technol. 2011, 1, 1–15.
12. Murali Krishna, I.V.; Manickam, V. Wastewater Treatment Technologies. In Environmental Management: Science and Engineering for
Industry, 1st ed.; Butterworth-Heinemann: Oxford, UK, 2017.
13. Anukam, A.; Mohammadi, A.; Naqvi, M.; Granstrom, K. A review of the Chemistry of Anaerobic Digestion: Methods of
Accelerating and Optimizing Process Efficiency. Processes 2019, 504, 504. [CrossRef]
14. Van Gaelen, P.; Springael, D.; Smets, I. A high-throughput assay to quantify protein hydrolysis in aerobic and anaerobic
wastewater treatment processes. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2020, 104, 8037–8048. [CrossRef]
15. Morales-Polo, C.; Cledera-Castro, M.; Soria, B. Reviewing the Anaerobic Digestion of Food waste: From Waste Generation and
Anaerobic Process to Its Perspectives. Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 1804. [CrossRef]
16. Sarker, S.; Nordgard, A.S.R.; Lamb, J.J.; Lien, K.M. Chapter five—Biogas and Hydrogen. In Hydrogen, Biomass and Bioenergy:
Integration Pathways for Renewable Energy Applications; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2020; Volume 1, pp. 73–87.
17. Herrero, M.; Laca, A.; Diaz, M. Application of life cycle assessment to food industry wastes. Food Ind. Wastes 2020, 1, 331–353.
18. Kiran, E.U.; Stamatelatou, K.; Antonopoulou, G.; Lyberatos, G. Chapter 10: Production of biogas via anaerobic digestion. In
Handbook of Biofuels Production: Processes and Technologies, 2nd ed.; Luque, R., Lin, C.S.K., Wilson, K., Clark, J., Eds.; Woodhead
Publishing: Sawston, UK, 2016; Volume 1, pp. 259–301.
19. Geng, S.; Fu, W.; Chen, W.; Zheng, S.; Gao, Q.; Wang, J.; Ge, X. Effects of an external magnetic field on microbial functional genes
and metabolism of activated sludge based on metagenomic sequencing. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 1–10. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
20. Cecconet, D.; Callegari, A.; Capodaglio, A.G. Bioelectrochemical Systems for Removal of Selected Metals and Perchlorate from
Groundwater: A Review. Energies 2018, 11, 2643. [CrossRef]
21. Hamelers, H.M.; Heijne, A.; Sleutels, T.J.A.; Jeremiasse, A.; Strik, D.B.T.B.; Buisman, C.N. New applications and performance of
bioelectrochemical systems. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2010, 85, 1673–1685. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
22. Dange, P.; Pandit, S.; Jadhav, D.; Shanmugam, P.; Gupta, P.K.; Kumar, S.; Kumar, M.; Yang, Y.-H.; Bhatia, S.K. Recent Developments
in Microbial Electrolysis Cell-Based Biohydrogen Production Utilizing Wastewater as a Feedstock. Sustainability 2021, 13, 8796.
[CrossRef]
23. Madondo, N.I.; Tetteh, E.K.; Rathilal, S.; Bakare, B.F. Synergistic Effect of Magnetite and Bioelectrochemical Systems on Anaerobic
Digestion. Bioengineering 2021, 8, 198. [CrossRef]
24. Zielinski, M.; Debowski, M.; Kazimierowicz, J. The Effect of Static Magnetic Field on Methanogenesis in the Anaerobic Digestion
of Municipal Sewage Sludge. Energies 2021, 14, 590. [CrossRef]
25. Debowski, M.; Zielinski, M. Technological Effectiveness of Sugar-Industry Effluent Methane Fermentation in a Fluidized Active
Filling Reactor (FAF-R). Energies 2020, 13, 6626. [CrossRef]
26. Zielinski, M.; Debowski, M.; Krzemieniewski, M.; Dudek, M.; Grala, A. Effect of constant magnetic field with various values of
magnetic induction on effectiveness of dairy wastewaters treatment under anaerobic conditions. Pol. J. Environ. Stud. 2014, 23,
255–261.
27. Fontanesi, C.; Kumar, A.; Mondal, P.C. Overview on Induced Chirality in Magnetic Field Controlled Electro-Deposition and
Induced Magnetic Moment Originating from Chiral Electrodes. Magnetochemistry 2018, 4, 36.
28. Chopart, J.P.; Douglade, J.; Fricoteaux, P.; Olivier, A. Electrodeposition and electrodissolution of copper with a magnetic field:
Dynamic and stationary investigations. Electrochim. Acta 1991, 36, 459–463. [CrossRef]
29. Aogaki, R.; Negishi, T.; Yamato, M.; Ito, E.; Mogi, I. Hysteresis effect of magnetic field on electron transfer processes in
electrochemical reaction. Phys. B Condens. Matter 1994, 201, 611–615. [CrossRef]
30. Konopacki, M.; Rakoczy, R. The analysis of rotating magnetic field as a trigger of Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria
growth. Biochem. Eng. J. 2019, 141, 259–267. [CrossRef]
31. Bodewein, L.; Schmiedchen, K.; Dechent, D.; Stunder, D.; Graefrath, D.; Winter, L.; Kraus, T.; Driesssen, S. Systematic review
on the biological effects of electric, magnetic and electromagnetic fields in the intermediate frequency range (300 Hz to 1 MHz).
Environ. Res. 2019, 171, 247–259. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
32. Nopharatana, A.; Pullammanappallil, P.C.; Clarke, W.P. Kinetic and dynamic modelling of batch anaerobic digestion of municipal
solid waste in a stirred reactor. Waste Manag. 2007, 27, 595–603. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
33. Stumpf, S.; Hostnik, G.; Primozic, M.; Leitgeb, M.; Bren, U. Generation Times of E. coli Prolong with Increasing Tannin
Concentration while the Lag Phase Extends Exponentially. Plants 2020, 9, 1680. [CrossRef]
Molecules 2022, 27, 3372 17 of 17

34. Gomes, C.S.; Strangfeld, M.; Meyer, M. Diauxie Studies in Biogas Production from Gelatin and Adaptation of the Modified
Gompertz Model: Two-Phase Gompertz Model. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 1067. [CrossRef]
35. Feng, Q.; Song, Y.S.; Bae, B.U. Influence of applied voltage on the performance of bioelectrochemical anaerobic digestion of
sewage sludge and planktonic microbial communities at ambient temperature. Bioresour. Technol. 2016, 220, 500–508. [CrossRef]
36. Lorentz, H.A. La théorie électromagnétique de Maxwell et son application aux corps mouvants. Arch. Néerl. 1892, 25, 363–552.
37. Dash, B.P.; Chaudhari, S. Electrochemical denitrification of simulated ground water. Water Res. 2005, 39, 4065–4072. [CrossRef]
38. Zaidi, N.S.; Sohaili, J.; Muda, K.; Sillanpaa, M. Magnetic Field Application and its Potential in Water and Wastewater Treatment
Systems. Sep. Purif. Rev. 2014, 43, 206–240. [CrossRef]
39. Nelabhotla, A.B.T.; Bakke, R.; Dinamarca, C. Performance Analysis of Biocathode in Bioelectrochemical CO2 Reduction. Catalysts
2019, 9, 683. [CrossRef]
40. Nelabhotla, A.B.T.; Dinamarca, C. Bioelectrochemical CO2 Reduction to Methane: MES Integration in Biogas Production Processes.
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 1056. [CrossRef]
41. Sleutels, T.H.J.A.; Darus, L.; Hamelers, H.V.M.; Buisman, C.J.N. Effect of operational parameters on Coulombic efficiency in
bioelectrochemical systems. Bioresour. Technol. 2011, 102, 11172–11176. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
42. Villano, M.; Aulenta, F.; Ciucci, C.; Ferri, T.; Giuliano, A.; Majone, M. Bioelectrochemical reduction of CO2 to CH4 via direct
and indirect extracellular electron transfer by a hydrogenophilic methanogenic culture. Bioresour. Technol. 2010, 101, 3085–3090.
[CrossRef]
43. Koomson, D.A.; Huang, J.; Li, G.; Miwornunyuie, N.; EwusiMensah, D.; Darkwah, W.K.; Opoku, P.A. Comparative Studies of
Recirculatory Microbial Desalination Cell–Microbial Electrolysis Cell Coupled Systems. Membranes 2021, 11, 661. [CrossRef]
44. Zhang, X.; He, W.; Ren, L.; Stager, J.; Evans, P.J.; Logan, B.E. COD removal characteristics in air cathode microbial fuel cells.
Bioresour. Technol. 2015, 176, 23–31. [CrossRef]
45. Li, Y.H.; Chen, Y.J. The effect of magnetic field on the dynamics of gas bubbles in water electrolysis. Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 9346.
[CrossRef]
46. Sleutels, T.H.J.A.; Molenaar, S.D.; Heijne, A.T.; Buisman, C.J.N. Low Substrate Loading Limits Methanogenesis and Leads to High
Coulombic Efficiency in Bioelectrochemical Systems. Microorganisms 2016, 4, 7. [CrossRef]
47. Merrill, M.D.; Logan, B.E. Electrolyte Effects on Hydrogen Evolution and Solution Resistance in Microbial Electrolysis Cells. J.
Power Sources 2009, 191, 203–208. [CrossRef]
48. Fan, Y.; Han, S.K.; Liu, H. Improved performance of CEA microbial fuel cells with increased reactor size. Energy Environ. Sci.
2012, 5, 8273–8280. [CrossRef]
49. Moreno, M.C. Anaerobic digestion and bioelectrochemical systems combination for energy and nitrogen recovery optimization; The
Polytechnic University of Catalonia: Barcelona, Spain, 2016.
50. Alabdraba, W.S.; Albayati, M.B.A.; Radeef, A.Y.; Rejab, M.M. Influence of Magnetic Field on The Efficiency of The Coagulation
Process to Remove Turbidity from Water. Int. Rev. Chem. Eng. 2013, 5, 8.
51. Noveriansyah; Haryati, S.; Bustan, M.D. Effect of Acidity and Electromagnetic Field Strengths on Raw Water Treatment (Turbidity
and Color). Int. J. Sci. Technol. Res. 2020, 9, 491–495.
52. Nam, J.-Y.; Tokash, J.C.; Logan, B.E. Comparison of Microbial Electrolysis Cells Operated with Added Voltage or by Setting the
Anode Potential. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2011, 36, 10550–10556. [CrossRef]
53. Wang, M.; Yan, Z.; Huang, B.; Zhao, J.; Liu, R. Electricity Generation by Microbial Fuel Cells Fuelled with Enteromorpha Prolifera
Hydrolysis. Int. J. Electrochem. Sci. 2013, 8, 2104–2111.
54. Halim, A.; Rahman, O.; Ibrahim, M.; Kundu, R. Effect of Anolyte pH on the Performance of a Dual-Chambered Microbial Fuel
Cell Operated with Different Biomass Feed. J. Chem. 2021, 2021, 1–8. [CrossRef]