Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Power benefitted bioremediation of hexavalent chromium ions in biochar blended soil microbial fuel cell

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Biomass Conversion and Biorefinery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Anthropogenic activity discharges large quantities of chromium into our environment which in turn causes lethal effects. Biological remediations of chromium are progressed by soil microbial fuel cell (SMFC) whose fuel performance is made remarkable in presence of carbonaceous biochar material. In the present study, various SMFCs were constructed individually using soil admixed with prepared biochars such as Echinochloa frumentacea (EFB), Zea mays (ZMB) and Solanum melongena (SMB) as fuel. The stainless steel electrodes of 3 × 3 × 0.2 cm geometric dimensions were employed as electrodes. Various desired concentrations such as 0.1 N, 0.125 N, 0.150 N, 0.175 N and 0.2 N of synthetically prepared Cr(VI) ions from potassium dichromate stock solutions were used as catholyte. The obtained potentials were measured using multimeter and the results were compared with control SMFC incorporated with distilled water as catholyte. The addition of three prepared biochars multiplied bacterial population to a tune of 5.2 × 106 CFU/mL in EFB, 3.8 × 106 CFU/mL in ZMB and 2.7 × 106 CFU/mL in SMB which was found to be 10 times more on comparison with bare soil population (0.3 × 105 CFU/mL). EFB added to SMFC (EFS), ZMB added to SMFC (ZMS) and SMB added to SMFC (SMS) operated well in the anodic pH window of 7.04 to 8.21 and complimented bacterial population with buffering capacity under toxic Cr(VI) environment (in the order of 106). The enhanced bacterial count favoured biofilm formation at the anode biotically for electrical power production. The lower Cr(VI) concentration cathode-loaded SMFCs such as 0.125 EFS, 0.125 ZMS and 0.1 SMS delivered a static maximum potential of 774 mV for 11 days, 755 mV for 16 days and 625 mV for 11 days respectively. 0.1 EFS delivered a static potential of 748 mV for 25 long days whose pH window varied in between 8.11 and 7.54 with stable bacterial count of 106 CFU/mL. The higher Cr(VI) concentration cathode-loaded SMFCs suppressed bacterial population to an order of 104 CFU/mL and decreased the anodic pH with electrical power. The anodic electrochemical assistance of biofilm with varying Cr(VI) concentration at the cathode was accessed using parameters such as charge transfer resistance and double layer capacitance as determined by Nyquist plot of AC impedance spectroscopy. The study concluded that lower values of anodic charge transfer resistance facilitated electron transport process. Increase in charge transfer resistance values was noticed with increase of chromium concentration and biofilm thickness which retards the electrical power generation. The morphologies of biofilm were investigated using SEM with EDS tool and the study evidenced the textural structure of biofilm with involvement of chromium ions in biofilm formation. In situ studies using CV and conventional methodologies showed the reduction of chromium at the cathode. The removal efficacy was found to be 16.49%. Thus, the study concluded biochar amended soil’s ability to reduce Cr(VI) ions with simultaneous power generation.

Graphical abstract

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Scheme 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

Not applicable.

Abbreviations

Cr(VI):

Chromium metal ion in + 6 oxidation state

SMFC:

Soil microbial fuel cell

CFU:

Colony-forming units

EFB:

Biochar prepared from the stalks of Echinochloa frumentacea

ZMB:

Biochar prepared from the stalks of Zea mays

SMB:

Biochar prepared from the stalks of Solanum melongena

EFS:

SMFC in which Echinochloa frumentacea biochar is added to soil

ZMS:

SMFC in which Zea mays biochar is added to soil

SMS:

SMFC in which Solanum melongena biochar is added to soil

0.1EFS:

Echinochloa frumentacea Biochar added SMFC exposed to 0.1N K2Cr2O7 catholyte solution

0.125EFS:

Echinochloa frumentacea Biochar added SMFC exposed to 0.125N K2Cr2O7 catholyte solution

0.150EFS:

Echinochloa frumentacea Biochar added SMFC exposed to 0.150N K2Cr2O7 catholyte solution

0.175EFS:

Echinochloa frumentacea Biochar added SMFC exposed to 0.175N K2Cr2O7 catholyte solution

0.2EFS:

Echinochloa frumentacea Biochar added SMFC exposed to 0.2N K2Cr2O7 catholyte solution

0.1ZMS:

Zea mays Biochar added SMFC exposed to 0.1N K2Cr2O7 catholyte solution

0.125ZMS:

Zea mays Biochar added SMFC exposed to 0.125N K2Cr2O7 catholyte solution

0.150 MS:

Zea mays biochar added SMFC exposed to 0.150 N K2Cr2O7 catholyte solution

0.175ZMS:

Zea mays Biochar added SMFC exposed to 0.175N K2Cr2O7 catholyte solution

0.2ZMS:

Zea mays Biochar added SMFC exposed to 0.2N K2Cr2O7 catholyte solution

0.1SMS:

Solanum melongena  Biochar added SMFC exposed to 0.1N K2Cr2O7 catholyte solution

0.125SMS:

Solanum melongena Biochar added SMFC exposed to 0.125N K2Cr2O7 catholyte solution

0.150SMS:

Solanum melongena Biochar added SMFC exposed to 0.150N K2Cr2O7 catholyte solution

0.175SMS:

Solanum melongena Biochar added SMFC exposed to 0.175N K2Cr2O7 catholyte solution

0.2SMS:

Solanum melongena Biochar added SMFC exposed to 0.2N K2Cr2O7 catholyte solution

R1 :

Anodic charge transfer resistance

R2 :

Solution resistance

R3 :

Cathodic charge transfer resistance

C1 :

Anodic double layer capacitance

C2 :

Cathodic double layer capacitance

References

  1. Kotaś J, Stasicka Z (2000) Chromium occurrence in the environment and methods of its speciation. Environ Pollut 107:263–283

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Laxmi V, Kaushik G, (2020). Toxicity of hexavalent chromium in environment, health threats, and its bioremediation and detoxification from tannery wastewater for environmental safety. In: Saxena, G., Bharagava, R. (Eds.), Bioremediat. Of Ind. Waste for Environ. Saf. Springer, Singapore, pp. 223–243.

  3. Losi ME, Amrhein C, Frankenberger WT (1994) Factors affecting chemical and biological reduction of hexavalent chromium in soil. Environ Toxicol Chem 13:1727–1735

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Bu Q, Li Q, Zhang H, Cao H, Gong W, Zhang X, Ling K, Cao Y (2020) Concentrations, spatial distributions, and sources of heavy metals in surface soils of the Coal Mining City Wuhai, China. J Chem:1–10. https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/4705954

  5. Abdul-Wahab S, Marikar F (2012) The environmental impact of gold mines: pollution by heavy metals. Open Eng 2:304–313

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Ranieri E, Fratino U, Petrella A et al (2016) Ailanthus altissima and Phragmites australis for chromium removal from a contaminated soil. Environ Sci Pollut Res 23:15983–15989

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Kinuthia GK, Ngure V, Beti D et al (2020) Levels of heavy metals in wastewater and soil samples from open drainage channels in Nairobi, Kenya: community health implication. Sci Rep 10:8434

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Bhunia A, Lahiri D, Nag M et al (2022) Bacterial biofilm mediated bioremediation of hexavalent chromium: a review. Biocatal Agric Biotechnol 43:102397

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Pohl, H. R., Llados, F., Ingerman, L., Cunningham, P., Raymer, J. H., Wall, C., ... & De Rosa, C. T. (2000). ATSDR evaluation of health effects of chemicals. VII: Chlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins. Toxicol Ind Health, 16(3–5), 85.

  10. Shankar, A.K., Venkateswarlu, B., 2011. Chromium: environmental pollution, health effects, and mode of action A2. Encyclopedia of Environmental Health. Elsevier, Burlington, pp. 650–659

  11. El-Mehalmey WA, Ibrahim AH, Abugable AA et al (2018) Metal–organic framework@ silica as a stationary phase sorbent for rapid and cost-effective removal of hexavalent chromium. J Mater Chem A 6:2742–2751

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Kahu SS, Shekhawat A, Saravanan D, Jugade RM (2016) Two fold modified chitosan for enhanced adsorption of hexavalent chromium from simulated wastewater and industrial effluents. Carbohydr Polym 146:264–273

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Shi S-H, Liang Y, Jiao N (2020) Electrochemical oxidation induced selective C-C bond cleavage. Chem Rev 121:485–505

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Chen Z, Pan K (2021) Enhanced removal of Cr (VI) via in-situ synergistic reduction and fixation by polypyrrole/sugarcane bagasse composites. Chemosphere 272:129606

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Li Z, Chen C, Xie H et al (2022) Sustainable high-strength macrofibres extracted from natural bamboo. Nat Sustain 5:235–244

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Mohammed B, Mohammed T, M’hammed E, Tarik A (2021) Physiological and physico-chemical study of the effect of chromium VI on the nutritional quality of maize (Zea mays. L). Procedia Comput Sci 191:463–468

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Tripathi SM, Chaurasia S (2020) Detection of chromium in surface and groundwater and its bio-absorption using bio-wastes and vermiculite. Eng Sci Technol Int J 23:1153–1161

    Google Scholar 

  18. Xu Z, Xu X, Yu Y et al (2021) Evolution of redox activity of biochar during interaction with soil minerals: effect on the electron donating and mediating capacities for Cr (VI) reduction. J Hazard Mater 414:125483

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Butter B, Santander P, del Pizarro G C et al (2021) Electrochemical reduction of Cr (VI) in the presence of sodium alginate and its application in water purification. J Environ Sci 101:304–312

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Wang Q, Wen J, Hu X et al (2021) Immobilization of Cr (VI) contaminated soil using green-tea impregnated attapulgite. J Clean Prod 278:123967

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Whitaker AH, Peña J, Amor M, Duckworth OW (2018) Cr (VI) uptake and reduction by biogenic iron (oxyhydr) oxides. Environ Sci Process Impacts 20:1056–1068

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Yang X, Liu P, Yao M et al (2021) Mechanism and enhancement of Cr (VI) contaminated groundwater remediation by molasses. Sci Total Environ 780:146580

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Bashir MS, Safdar A, Ibrahim A, Ahmed IA, Shah SSA, Unar A, Almukhlifi HA, Saeedi AM, Fuzhou W (2023) Facile one-pot strategy to fabricate polyurea-based palladium for flow-through catalytic reduction of harmful hexavalent chromium from water. Inorg Chem Commun 158:111462

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Bashir MS (2021) Benign fabrication process of hierarchal porous polyurea microspheres with tunable pores and porosity: their Pd immobilization and use for hexavalent chromium reduction. Chem Eng Res Des 175:102–114

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Bashir MS, Ramzan N, Najam T, Abbas G, Gu X, Arif M, Qasim M, Bashir H, Shah SSA, Sillanpää M (2022) Metallic nanoparticles for catalytic reduction of toxic hexavalent chromium from aqueous medium: a state-of-the-art review. Sci Total Environ 829:154475

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Bashir MS, Zhou C, Wang C, Sillanpää M, Wang F (2023) Facile strategy to fabricate palladium-based nanoarchitectonics as efficient catalytic converters for water treatment. Sep Purif Technol 304:122307

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Khan, M. A., Javed, M. S., Xu, C., Shah, S. S. A., Nazir, M. A., Imran, M., ... &Hussain, S. (2021). Facile synthesis of ceria-based composite oxide materials by combustion for high-performance solid oxide fuel cells. Ceram Int, 47(15), 22035–22041.

  28. Shah SSA, Najam T, Javed MS, Bashir MS, Nazir MA, Khan NA, Rehman AU, Subhan MA, Rahman MM (2022) Recent advances in synthesis and applications of single-atom catalysts for rechargeable batteries. Chem Rec 22(7):202100280

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Zhu Y, He X, Xu J et al (2021) Insight into efficient removal of Cr (VI) by magnetite immobilized with Lysinibacillus sp. JLT12: mechanism and performance. Chemosphere 262:127901

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Su Y-Q, Yuan S, Guo Y-C et al (2021) Highly efficient and sustainable removal of Cr (VI) in aqueous solutions by photosynthetic bacteria supplemented with phosphor salts. Chemosphere 283:131031

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Roestorff MM, Chirwa EMN (2019) Cr (VI) mediated hydrolysis of algae cell walls to release TOC for enhanced biotransformation of Cr (VI) by a culture of Cr (VI) reducing bacteria. J Appl Phycol 31:3637–3649

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Monga A, Fulke AB, Dasgupta D (2022) Recent developments in essentiality of trivalent chromium and toxicity of hexavalent chromium: implications on human health and remediation strategies. J Hazard Mater Adv 7:100113

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Tabinda AB, Irfan R, Yasar A, Iqbal A, Mahmood A (2018) Phytoremediation potential of Pistia stratiotes and Eichhornia crassipes to remove chromium and copper. Environ Technol:1514–1519. https://doi.org/10.1080/09593330.2018.1540662

  34. Wang H, Liu J, Gui C et al (2022) Synergistic remediation of Cr (VI) contaminated soil by iron-loaded activated carbon in two-chamber microbial fuel cells. Environ Res 208:112707

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Krishna Veni D, Kannan P, Jebakumar Immanuel Edison TN, Senthilkumar AN (2017) Biochar from green waste for phosphate removal with subsequent disposal. Waste Manage 68:752–759

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Dhanuskodi K, Pandian K, Annamalai S, Subramanian P (2023) Chromium-sorbed maize stalk biochar and its power benefited disposal: an effective power generation method for removal of chromium. Water Air Soil Pollut 234(4):222

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Krishnaveni D, Kannan P, Senthilkumar AN, Raja K (2022) Safe disposal of phosphate for eutrophication control by redgram stalk biochar with subsequent power generation. Environ Technol Innov 27:102389

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Shajahan SR, Veni DK, Rethinam AJ, Vignesh RB, Edison TJ, Senthilkumar AN (2023) Corn husk biochar and chromium(VI) ions blended soil as fuel in soil microbial fuel cell. Biomass Conversion and Biorefinery: 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13399-023-04272-z

  39. Singh KP, Mishra HN, Saha S (2010) Moisture-dependent properties of barnyard millet grain and kernel. J Food Eng 96:598–606. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2009.09.007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Saleh A, Zhang Q, Chen J, Shen Q (2013) Millet grains: nutritional quality, processing, and potential health benefits. Compr Rev Food Sci Food Saf 12:281–295. https://doi.org/10.1111/1541-4337.12012

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Chandel G, Meena R, Dubey M, Kumar M (2014) Nutritional properties of minor millets: neglected cereals with potentials to combat malnutrition. Curr Sci 107:1109–1111

    Google Scholar 

  42. Renganathan, V. G., Vanniarajan, C., and Ramalingam, J. (2019). “Genetic analysis and identification of molecular markers linked to the anthocyanin pigmentation in barnyard millet [EchinochloafrumentaceaRoxb (Link)],” in Proceedings of the Neglected and Underutilized crop species for Food, Nutrition, Energy and Environment, (New Delhi: NIPGR), 43.

  43. Hu QL, Deng ZH (2011) Protective effects of flavonoids from corn silk on oxidative stress induced by exhaustive exercise in mice. Afr J Biotech 10(16):3163–3167

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Piperno DR, Flannery KV (2001) The earliest archaeological maize (Zea mays L.) from highland Mexico: new accelerator mass spectrometry dates and their implications. Proc Natl Acad Sci 98(4):2101–2103

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Wei Q, Wang J, Wang W, Hu T, Hu H, Bao C (2020) A high-quality chromosome-level genome assembly reveals genetics for important traits in eggplant. Hortic Res 7:153

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Saito, M., &Marumoto, T. (2002). Inoculation with arbuscularmycorrhizal fungi: the status quo in Japan and the future prospects. In Diversity and Integration in Mycorrhizas: Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Mycorrhizas (ICOM3) Adelaide, Australia, 8–13 July 2001 (pp. 273–279). Springer Netherlands.

  47. Warnock DD, Lehmann J, Kuyper TW, Rillig MC (2007) Mycorrhizal responses to biochar in soil-concepts and mechanisms. Plant Soil 300:9–20

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Jha P, Biswas AK, Lakaria BL, Rao AS (2010) Biochar in agriculture – prospects and related implications. Curr Sci 99:1218–1225

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Yuan J-H, Xu R-K, Zhang H (2011) The forms of alkalis in the biochar produced from crop residues at different temperatures. Biores Technol 102:3488–3497

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. Varela Milla O, Rivera EB, Huang W-J, Chien C-C, Wang Y-M (2013) Agronomic properties and characterization of rice husk and wood biochars and their effect on the growth of water spinach in a field test. J Soil Sci Plant Nutr 13:251–266

    Google Scholar 

  51. Ishii S, Hotta Y, Watanabe K (2008) Methanogenesis versus electrogenesis: morphological and phylogenetic comparisons of microbial communities. Biosci Biotechnol Biochem 72(2):286–294

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Lange M, Ahring BK (2001) A comprehensive study into the molecular methodology and molecular biology of methanogenicArchaea. FEMS Microbiol Rev 25:553–571

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Xu RK, Zhao AZ, Yuan JH, Jiang J (2012) pH buffering capacity of acid soils from tropical and subtropical regions of China as influenced by incorporation of crop straw biochars. J Soils Sediments 12(4):494–502

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  54. Flemming HC, Wuertz S (2019) Bacteria and archaea on Earth and their abundance in biofilms. Nat Rev Microbiol 17:247–260

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Greenman J, Gajda I, You J, Mendis BA, Obata O, Pasternak G, Ieropoulos I (2021) Microbial fuel cells and their electrified biofilms. Biofilm 3:100057

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Qiu M, Liu L, Ling Q, Cai Y, Yu S, Wang S, Fu D, Hu B, Wang X (2022) Biochar for the removal of contaminants from soil and water: a review. Biochar 4(1):19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42773-022-00146-1

  57. Sindhuja M, Sudha V, Harinipriya S, Chhabra M (2019) Biofilm capacitance and mixed culture bacteria influence on performance of microbial fuel cells-electrochemical impedance studies. Mater Today: Proc 8:11–21

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  58. Liang P, Wu W, Wei J, Yuan L, Xia X, Huang X (2011) Alternate charging and discharging of capacitor to enhance the electron production of bioelectrochemical systems. Environ Sci Technol 45:6647–6653

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. You S, Zhao Q, Zhang J, Liu H, Jiang J, Zhao S (2008) Increased sustainable electricity generation in up-flow air-cathode microbial fuel cells. Biosens Bioelectron 23:1157–1160

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Borole AP, Aaron D, Hamilton CY, Tsouris C (2010) Understanding long-term changes in microbial fuel cell performance using electrochemical impedance spectroscopy. Environ Sci Technol 44:2740–2745

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Petrova OE, Sauer K (2012) Sticky situations: key components that control bacterial surface attachment. J Bacteriol 194:2413–2425

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Sutherland IW (2001) Biofilm exopolysaccharides: a strong and sticky framework. Microbiology 147:3–9

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Ramasamy RP, Ren Z, Mench MM, Regan JM (2008) Impact of initial biofilm growth on the anode impedance of microbial fuel cells. Biotechnol Bioeng 101:101–108

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Manohar AK, Bretschger O, Nealson KH, Mansfeld F (2008) The use of electrochemical impedance spectroscopy (EIS) in the evaluation of the electrochemical properties of a microbial fuel cell. Bioelectrochemistry 72:149–154

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Ren Z, Ramasamy RP, Cloud-Owen SR, Yan H, Mench MM, Regan JM (2011) Time-course correlation of biofilm properties and electrochemical performance in single-chamber microbial fuel cells. Biores Technol 102:416–421

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  66. Kim T, Kang J, Lee J-H, Yoon J (2011) Influence of attached bacteria and biofilm on double-layer capacitance during biofilm monitoring by electrochemical impedance spectroscopy. Water Res 45:4615–4622

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Peng X, Yu H, Yu H, Wang X (2013) Lack of anodic capacitance causes power overshoot in microbial fuel cells. Biores Technol 138:353–358

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  68. Soni A, Oey I, Silcock P, Bremer P (2016) Bacillus spores in the food industry: a review on resistance and response to novel inactivation technologies. Comp Rev Food Sci Food Safe 15:1139–1148

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Lopez D, Vlamakis H, Kolter R (2008) Generation of multiple cell types in Bacillus subtilis. FEMS Microbiol Rev 33:152–163

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Zinkevich V, Bogdarina I, Kang H, Hill MAW, Tapper R, Beech IB (1996) Characterisation of exopolymers produced by different isolates of marine sulphate-reducing bacteria. Int Biodeterior Biodegradation 37:163–172

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  71. Marsili E, Baron DB, Shikhare ID, Coursolle D, Gralnick JA, Bond DR (2008) Shewanellasecretes flavins that mediate extracellular electron transfer. Proc Natl Acad Sci 105:3968–3973

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Kozuh N, Stupar J, Gorenc B (2000) Reduction and oxidation processes of chromium in soils. Environ Sci Technol 34:112–119

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

K.D.C and A.N.S greatly acknowledge the authorities and officials of Alagappa Government Arts College for providing the research facilities and encouragement.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. PG & Research Department of Chemistry, Alagappa Government Arts College, Affiliated to Alagappa University, Tamil Nadu, Karaikudi, 630 003, India

    Kulandaisamy Dinesh Christy & Annamalai Senthilkumar

  2. Faculty of Science, Directorate of Distance Education, Alagappa University, Tamil Nadu, Karaikudi, 630 003, India

    Nallathambi Sengottuvelan

  3. Actinomycetes Bioprospecting Lab, Centre for Research in Infectious Diseases, School of Chemical and Biotechnology, Sastra University, Thirumalaisamudram, 613401, Tamil Nadu, India

    Jananishree Sathiyamootthy

  4. School of Chemical Engineering, Yeungnam University, Gyeongsan, 38541, Republic of Korea

    Thomas Nesakumar Jebakumar Immanuel Edison

  5. Department of Chemistry, Sethu Institute of Technology, Tamil Nadu, Virudhunagar District, Kariapatti, 626 115, India

    Thomas Nesakumar Jebakumar Immanuel Edison

Authors
  1. Kulandaisamy Dinesh Christy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Nallathambi Sengottuvelan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jananishree Sathiyamootthy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Thomas Nesakumar Jebakumar Immanuel Edison
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Annamalai Senthilkumar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

K.D.C and N.S initiated and designed the project and original draft preparation and T.J.I.E validated the results. A.N.S. contributed to editing and supervision of project.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Thomas Nesakumar Jebakumar Immanuel Edison or Annamalai Senthilkumar.

Ethics declarations

Ethical approval

Not applicable.

Consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent to publish

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Christy, K.D., Sengottuvelan, N., Sathiyamootthy, J. et al. Power benefitted bioremediation of hexavalent chromium ions in biochar blended soil microbial fuel cell. Biomass Conv. Bioref. (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13399-024-05507-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13399-024-05507-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation