The ever-increasing world energy demand drives the need for new and sustainable renewable fuel to mitigate problems associated with greenhouse gas emissions such as climate change. This helps in the development toward decarbonisation. Thus, in recent years, hydrogen has been seen as a promising candidate in global renewable energy agendas, where the production of biohydrogen gains more attention compared with fossil-based hydrogen. In this review, biohydrogen production using organic waste materials through fermentation, biophotolysis, microbial electrolysis cell and gasification are discussed and analysed from a technological perspective. The main focus herein is to summarise and criticise through bibliometric analysis and put forward the guidelines for the potential future routes of biohydrogen production from biomass and especially organic waste materials. This research review claims that substantial efforts currently and, in the future, should focus on biohydrogen production from integrated technology of processes of (i) dark and photofermentation, (ii) microbial electrolysis cell (MEC) and (iii) gasification of combined different biowastes. Furthermore, bibliometric mapping shows that hydrogen production from biomethanol and the modelling process are growing areas in the biohydrogen research that lead to zero-carbon energy soon.
The depletion of fossil-based fuel sources along with their increasing use day by day has created big concerns related to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and global warming. Increasing levels of CO2, which is a patent GHG emission and associated with burning fossil fuel sources, were found to exceed 409 ppm [1,2,3], which is aiding to the global temperature increase [4, 5]. Moreover, growing industrial and economic development of the modern world is also demanding more sources of clean energy for the near future. The increasing gap between the growing energy demand and necessary energy supply due to at the rising human population has sparked a huge interest in new biofuel research as well as production in recent times . Therefore, from the perspective of alternative energy sources, renewable energy sectors like solar, hydro, wind and biofuels like biodiesel, bioethanol and biohydrogen are finding its use in current development agendas across the world. Recently, hydrogen production by water electrolysis has gained global attention as one of the most promising and eco-friendly energy alternatives. H2 is found to have a high energy content of around 122 kJ/g, about 2.75 times higher than other HC fuels [7, 8]. It also possesses wide versatility in its production as well as its applications ranging from fuel-cells to biofertilisers and biofuels. H2 produced from biological sources is known as bio-H2. Hydrogen produces no harmful greenhouse gases upon combustion but only water. Therefore, it is considered one of the energy sources to have the potential to replace part of the conventional fossil-based fuels shortly .
As far the production is concerned, fossil fuel is responsible for the majority of hydrogen production, out of which 60% is produced from dedicated primary hydrogen-producing facilities. It is also reported that around 71.27% of hydrogen is produced from natural gas (NG), 27.27% from coal, 0.7% from petroleum and the remaining 0.7% from water electrolysis [10,11,12]. Notably, the hydrogen production from fossil reformation is neither renewable nor carbon neutral as the production process involves high numbers of GHG footprints . H2 production is also achieved with water gas shift reaction (WGSR), thermal decomposition, catalytic oxidation, steam gasification, pyrolysis and autothermal reforming [13, 14]. The recent popularity of waste-to-energy studies also creates an impact on research related to hydrogen production utilising waste materials effectively. Biohydrogen is produced from different organic wastes, thereby solving the issue of waste disposal and energy generation at the same time. Organic waste can be defined as the waste materials that are biodegradable and originates from plants or animals which can be broken into CO2, methane or simple organic molecules . Organic wastes like industrial waste, municipal sewage sludge, solid waste, agricultural residues and poultry waste, manure, have the potential to be used for bioenergy production .
However, recent publications suggested further investigations are required on the production of H2 using organic waste materials. The concept of using waste materials from different biological sources to produce environment-friendly biohydrogen can be potentially helpful to tackle the ongoing environmental challenges, while for all H2 production processes (NG reforming, biomass and coal gasification, water electrolysis and others), there are requirements for better reliability and operating flexibility, a reduction in the capital costs and a significant enhancement in the plant efficiencies . Herein, we assessed the routes of biohydrogen production derived from different organic waste materials and highlighted the key factors affecting the yield of biohydrogen. Furthermore, through bibliometric mapping, we suggest steps and future guidelines from the gaps in the literature for the optimisation of hydrogen production from organic waste streams. Overall, this critical review is aimed at helping the academics working in the biohydrogen production research area along with the industrial application and roll-out of a zero-carbon economy. It will also focus on themes that face the development and potential transformation of the biohydrogen market and its future.
2 Review methodology
Web of Science (WoS) was utilised herein to obtain the data within the core collection database and then the exported data files; some Boolean operator logic was implemented in the search to find suitable publications and identify evidence gaps in the knowledge and research concerning the biohydrogen topic. A broad timespan of biohydrogen research covering all available year option in the time frame of 1970–2020 is shown in Fig. 1. The bibliometric mapping generated from the WoS core collection is shown in Fig. 1. The overall number of data which was 1539 was exported to the VOSviewer software. Herein, we used the co-occurrence as the type of analysis and all keywords included and the fractional counting method employed. We have direct clusters in Fig. 1 linking specific keywords to general areas such as biohydrogen production. This approach enabled us to visualise the most distinguished keywords in publications in the last 50 years for biohydrogen production. For example, keywords like dark fermentation, water and ethanol production along with lignocellulosic biomass were the most frequently occurring keywords. Other common related keywords to the biohydrogen production are hydrolysis, pyrolysis, gasification, enzymatic hydrolysis, biodiesel production, sludge, microalgae, wastewater, anaerobic digestion, photo-fermentation, glucose, supercritical water and saccharification. Furthermore, the WoS search showed other keywords associated with the production conditions such as pre-treatment, pH, light and temperature. On the other hand, new keywords have been introduced to biohydrogen production recently such as methanol, modelling, storage, fuel-cells, energy recovery, organic waste, bioreactors, light intensity, methanogenesis along with the techno-economic and life cycle assessment (LCA) studies. This implies that areas such as hydrogen production from methanol need further investigations along with modelling, techno-economic analysis and other research areas.
3 Production of biohydrogen from organic waste through biological methods
Although most of the hydrogen production currently is based on fossil fuels, efforts to produce biohydrogen from different bioresiduals such as wastewater or organic wastes are seen to be increasing . Currently, the most popular, widely discussed and developed processes of biohydrogen production using organic waste material are (a) biofermentation (dark fermentation and photofermentation), (b) biophotolysis (direct and indirect), (c) bioelectrochemical system such as microbial electrolysis cells (MEC) and (d) gasification [19, 20]. Table 1 shows the recent status of the different biohydrogen production processes along with their energy conversion efficiencies. Energy conversion efficiency can be defined as the ratio between the useful output of an energy conversion machine/process and energy input . In this section, these processes of biohydrogen production are discussed. Figure 2 shows the different biological processes involved in biohydrogen production. Biohydrogen production with dark fermentation, MEC and biomass gasification possesses high process efficiency, and biomass is the common feedstock in all of the aforementioned processes. Again, photofermenta-tion and biophotolysis can be seen dependant on solar energy for the production of biohydrogen. Different process parameters are associated with all these processes, which have their own importance. Every process has its certain specification and operating conditions along with advantages and disadvantages which are discussed below.
Fermentation can be defined as the process of energy generation involving an endogenous electron acceptor from the oxidation of organic waste materials using a number of different microorganisms. The results of fermentation depend on the applied catalyst (isolated enzyme or microorganism producer) and used organic substrate (mostly carbohydrate or protein), along with the process parameters. The character of the fermentation process can be either aerobic or anaerobic . Fermentation of organic waste materials using microorganisms under anaerobic conditions is a good way to produce H2 along with other organic alcohols/acids as by-products. Depending on the necessity of light for the microorganisms, the biofermentation can be divided into two types: (a) dark fermentation and (b) photo fermentation. Dark fermentation is the process of fermentation carried out in dark anaerobic conditions, where breakdown of cellulosic organic feedstock results in the production of biological hydrogen along with organic acids and alcohols . Unlike dark fermentation, photofermentation uses photosynthetic bacteria that use sunlight to produce CO2 and H2 from organic molecules under anaerobic conditions . For improving the yield of biohydrogen, studies related to the integration of both the two fermentation processes can also be found. Figure 3 shows the two types of biofermentation processes used for H2 production.
3.1.1 Dark fermentation
Dark fermentation has become one of the well-known technologies for biohydrogen production, which enables the microorganisms to produce H2 in a dark anaerobic condition . However, with the formation of many by-products, the low H2 yield on substrates is a major disadvantage. Equations 1 and 2 show the main reactions that are involved in the dark fermentation process of hydrogen production. Equation 1 shows the reaction for H2 production as a result of the proton reduction by generated electrons from C-source degradation. [NiFe]-hydrogenase and [FeFe]-hydrogenase are generally involved in such process of H2 formation . A maximum H2 yield of 4 mol H2/mol glucose can be seen to be achievable in the dark fermentation process practically, though Eq. 2 shows a theoretical yield of 12 mol H2/mol glucose . Higher yields can be achieved in thermophilic fermentations. This low yield in dark fermentation is mainly happening due to the production of other by-products such as acetic acid, propionic acid and butyric acid. Equation 3 shows the acetic acid pathway, where the reaction of glucose and two water molecules produce acetic acid (CH3COOH). Similarly, propionic acid can be found to be produced along with acetic acid from glucose, as shown in Eq. 4. Again, Eq. 5 shows the production of butyric acid from glucose reacting with six water molecules . In all the three pathways, CO2 and H2 are seen to be produced in different quantities.
(Acetic acid pathway)
(Propionic acid pathway)
(Butyric acid pathway)
Several types of waste with different chemical compositions are seen used as a substrate to produce H2 in the dark fermentation process. Among those, the most widely used waste includes agricultural wastes (viz. rice/wheat/corn straw, animal manure), various wastewater types (viz. distillery wastewater, cheese whey effluent, palm oil mill effluent), food waste, municipal sewage waste and sewage sludge . The sugar or carbohydrate-rich waste substrates tend to produce more H2 compared with lipid or protein-rich substrates. A linear correlation between H2 production and the proportion of carbohydrate-rich waste substrate was also found . Waste like sewage sludge and palm oil mill effluent usually have a low H2 yield compared with other waste due to the high presence of protein or lipid .
The pre-treatment is a crucial step in biohydrogen research. Table 2 shows various studies related to pre-treatment methods, like physical (high temperature, ultrasonication and microwave), mechanical (milling and grinding), enzymatic, radiation and hydrothermal pre-treatment for the improvement of H2 yield [49,50,51]. Different types of substrates need different pre-treatment methods, which can enhance the production efficiency of hydrogen. Pre-treatment of dairy manure can be done mainly with three different methods: (a) acid (0.2% w/w HCI solution) treatment, (b) alkali (0.2% w/w NaOH solution) treatment and (c) 2 h infrared oven treatment [33, 35]. In the case of sewage sludge, 15-min boiling at around 100 °C completes the pre-treatment . Pre-treatment of rice straw for hydrogen production was found with boiling at 80–100 °C , and in another case, treatment with alkali solution (1% w/w) was found with cellulose hydrolysis after cutting and grinding (2 mm size) . Distillery wastewater was also found to be pre-treated with pH neutralisation, centrifugation and sterilisation . Food waste was found to be pre-treated in many ways. Sieving and 6 h boiling at around 100 °C of food waste hydrolysate for hydrogen production were reported by Han et al. . Kim et al.  mentioned pre-treatment of food waste and sludge mixture with 30-min heating (at 120 °C), alkalisation (3 M NaOH) and acidification (3 M HCl). Kitchen mill shredding was also applied as a pre-treatment method to food waste combined with 5% glycerol .
The H2 yield of 1130 mmol/g COD was reported for plain palm oil, while an improvement of 2760 and 1880 mmol/g COD was found for surfactant (Tween 80) and enzyme (Optimase BG) pre-treatment, respectively . Efficient H2 production with lignocellulosic materials like sugarcane bagasse rice/corn/wheat straw and corn stalk from agricultural waste needs pre-treatment as mentioned in several different studies [53, 54]. An increase in 47.3% of biohydrogen production was seen for pre-treatment of rice husk with a commercial enzyme (Celluclast 1.5 L) compared with that of rice husk without pre-treatment (321 mL H2/g rice husk) . Similarly, 35% high H2 yield (155 mL H2/g VS) was seen in the case of cornstalk pre-treated with lime compared with that of the untreated stalk (115 mL H2/g VS) . Song et al.  studied biohydrogen production from an aquatic weed, Alternanthera philoxeroides, pre-treated with 1% H2SO4 at 135 °C for 15 min, using Enterobacter aerogenes ZJU1. The optimum H2 production was found to increase by 59.9% to reach production of 62.2 mL/g with pre-treatment compared with 38.9 mL/g VS for the raw material, without pre-treatment. That low hydrogen yield may be due to the utilisation of different feedstocks (115 mL H2/g VS). Shao et al.  used dilute acid (1% H2SO4)-pre-treated duckweed biomass for H2 production using dark fermentation. They found a maximum H2 yield of 169.30 mL/g dry weight under a temperature condition of 35 °C and an initial pH value of 7.0. Acid pre-treatment (0.2% HCl) of dairy manure was also seen improving the H2 yield by 36%; further 6.8 and 4.5% improvement in H2 production from dairy manure was reported for base pre-treatment (0.2% NaOH) solution and infrared oven pre-treatment, respectively . Thus, it can be seen that pre-treatment of substrates is highly recommended for good yield of biohydrogen in dark fermentation.
Another important parameter for the dark fermentation biohydrogen yield is the pH environment value. pH level in the dark fermentation process is found to influence the metabolic pathway and microorganism activity of the microorganisms and thereby affect the substrate degradation and production efficiency. The pH levels at the start of operation and during the process were seen carefully maintained in many dark fermentation studies [58,59,60]. Using dark fermentation of cheese whey wastewater, the highest biohydrogen production was found at pH 5.5 and pH 6.5 for thermophilic and mesophilic conditions, respectively . Xing et al.  studied a wide variation in pH between 4.0 and 12.0 for fermentation of dairy manure. At pH 5.0, they found the highest biohydrogen yield of 31.5 mL/g VS. A pH below 4.0 and above 12.0 showed no biohydrogen production.
Hydrogenotrophic methanogens act as one of the major H2-consuming microorganisms which reduced the H2 yield by consuming H2 to produce methane. Therefore, inhibiting the production of hydrogenotrophic methanogens, which acts as an H2-consuming microorganism, is one of the major steps for dark fermentation. Pre-treatment of inoculum is considered for enriching H2-producing bacteria and suppressing H2-consuming methanogens. Since methanogens are strictly anaerobic microorganisms, aeration around the reactor can inhibit the methanogen production and thereby increase the H2 yield . The impact of pH in the growth of methanogen is another important aspect of biohydrogen yield. It has been reported that methanogens are capable of producing methane by consuming H2 under an optimal pH range of 7–8 and optimal hydraulic retention time (HRT) of 15–20 days . Kumar et al.  attained a hydrogen yield of 29.5 mL/g VS with pH 5.5 and methanogenic inhibitor from mixed microalgae biomass (Scendesmus and Chlorella).
Production of biohydrogen by dark fermentation is accomplished by various microorganisms that are capable of converting a wide range of organic waste substrates. Based on different living temperatures, these microorganisms are classified as thermophiles (45–65 °C), mesophiles (25–45 °C) and psychrophiles (0–25 °C). The commonly used mesophilic cultures for H2 production are Clostridium and Enterobacter (Clostridium beijerinckii, Clostridium butyricum, Enterobacter aerogenes and Enterobacter asburiae); while the most reported thermophilic one is Thermoanaerobium (Thermoanaerobacterium thermosaccharolyticum) . Again, depending on their growth of metabolism in the presence of oxygen, they are divided as facultative (e.g. E. cloacae, Enterobacter aerogenes, Citrobacter intermedius and Escherichia coli) or obligate bacteria (e.g. C. paraputrificum, Ruminococcus albus and Clostridium beijerinckii) [13, 64]. Facultative bacteria are the organisms that make ATP by aerobic respiration (in the presence of oxygen) and are also capable of anaerobic respiration or fermentation (in the absence of oxygen). On the contrary, obligate bacteria are unable to produce ATP (in the absence of oxygen) and cannot live in the presence of oxygen. Enterobacter and Clostridium are two species of gram-positive bacteria for large-scale production of hydrogen for their ability of fast-growing and forming endospores. Lactic bacteria like Klebsiella pneumoniae, Cellulomonas and some thermophilic archaea like Thermotoga neapolitana and Caldicellulosiruptor saccharolyticus were also found showing good results for H2 production through dark fermentation .
HRT (hydraulic retention time) acts as one of the important parameters for proper fermentation of substrate and efficient H2 production. The stability of the reactor and utilisation efficiency of the feedstock depends on HRT. Santiago et al.  found that HRT and solid retention time (SRT) have a great impact on the biohydrogen production and associated sub-products from organic solid waste (OSW) using a dark fermentation process. A 16 h of HRT and 55 h of SRT were found to be the optimum conditions to maximise the biohydrogen production. HRT was found as the main influencing parameter in the whole process. The substrate hydrolysis rate increased with decreasing HRT time. Moreover, substrate hydrolysis-ssolubilisation process time got reduced with an increase in SRT and a decrease in HRT. Fatty acid production was found maximum with long SRT and HRT of 60 h and 48 h, respectively. Lu et al.  studied the effects of HRT and concentration of substrate on the HPR (hydrogen production rate) from glucose in a pilot-scale bioreactor of 3 m3 with three sequential chambers of 1 m3 each. A HRT of 24 h and substrate concentration of 30 g/L with a maximum HPR of 100.2 mol/m3-d were found optimal for the reactor.
The production of biohydrogen using dark fermentation of two different cheese deproteinisation diary waste streams SCW (second cheese whey) and CCWP (concentrated cheese whey permeate) was studied by Colombo et al. . With an increasing OLR (organic loading rate), H2 production was seen increasing to 3.47 NL H2/d and 5.07 NL H2/d for SCW and CCWP, respectively. Similarly, organic acid yield was also found higher with increasing OLR (14.6 g/L/d and 12.6 g/L /d for SCW and CCWP, respectively). Table 2 describes different studies of biohydrogen production from wastes using a dark fermentation pathway. It can be seen that combined fermentation of different substrates leads to an increased biohydrogen yield. Moreover, pre-treatment processes such as acid treatment, base treatment, heat treatment and pH neutralisation have shown a significant impact on the yield of biohydrogen. Most of the studies were found to utilise a mixed culture process for good results.
The production of H2 with photofermentation involves decomposition of organic acids with the aid of light-dependant, sulphur and non-sulphur purple bacteria. A group of bacteria having the ability to do photosynthesis is known as purple sulphur bacteria. Again, purple non-sulphur bacteria (PNSB), commonly known as photobacteria, are a group of photoheterotrophic bacteria capable of degrading several carbon substrates like carbohydrate, organic matter, biowastes and organic acids for the production of H2 . Equations 6 and 7 show the reaction involved with the production of H2 by photofermentive process from glucose and acetic acid, respectively. Oxidation of organic acids, like acetic acid, propionic acid, butyric acid, lactic acid and malic acid, by photofermentive bacteria, produces H2 and CO2. Therefore, to obtain a higher H2 yield, the two-stage dark fermentation process is often followed by a photofermentation process . The energy needed for the growth of microorganisms is gathered from the production of adenosine triphosphate (ATP) using light through photophosphorylation . Batch or continuous photofermentation process can be obtained using an artificial source of light or solar illumination as shown in Fig. 3b.
The photofermentation process offers the possibility of high H2 production from a wide variety of substrates including wastewaters (such as olive mill wastewater, dairy wastewater, brewery wastewater) and wastes rich in organic acids (such as dark fermentation effluent, agricultural waste after hydrolysis) [33, 71]. The best H2-producing microorganism for the photofermentation is PNS (purple non-sulphur bacteria), which include the Rhodobacter species (Rhodobacter capsulatus, Rhodobacter sphaeroides, Rhodovulum palustris and Rhodopseudomonas sulfidophilum) . Some other bacteria used in H2 production using nitrogenase and ATP production are Chlorobium vibrioforme, Allochromatium vinosum, Desulfuromonas acetoxidans, Thiocapsa roseopersicina and Chloroflexus aurantiacus . Hydrogenase and nitrogenase are two different enzymes that help these bacteria to produce H2 from organic acids using solar energy . Nitrogenase are found to be the main enzymes responsible for H2 production in limited-O2 conditions. NH3 is generally produced from N2 by nitrogenase (in large-scale production), but in absence of N2, ATP is used along with redundancy by nitrogenase to generate H2 , as shown in Eq. 8.
Several studies can be found regarding photofermentive H2 production in recent years. Mirza et al.  found a wide range of 148–513 mL H2/L photofermentive biohydrogen production using raw sugarcane bagasse with the help of PNSB (purple non-sulphur bacteria) isolated from the paddy rice field Rhodobacter capsulatus-PK. A maximum yield of 96 mol H2/mol sugar was achieved with initial pH 7.0 ± 0.2 and 10% (v/v) inoculum size, at a temperature of 30 ± 2.0 °C along with a light intensity of 120–150 W/m2. The production of 671 mL/L of H2 from glucose was also found with this process. For cost reduction of temperature control during summer, Rhodobacter capsulatus-PK was found as a good candidate for photofermentive bio-H2production. García-Sánchez et al.  used Rhodopseudomonas pseudopalustris to produce H2 by tequila vinasses (VT) photofermentation. Compared with synthetic medium, they found a double H2 yield with VT. With the replacement of H2 by N2 compared with unchanged headspace, three-time growth was seen in R. pseudopalustris up to 4.5 g/L, and the H2 yield also increased to 860 mL H2/L. Laurinavichene et al.  used PNS bacteria and anaerobic saccharolytic consortium to perform sequential dark photofermentation, which resulted in 17.6 L/L of distillery waste of maximum H2 yield. Machado et al.  investigated the influence of milk whey permeate and glucose on the H2 yield using PNS bacteria Rhodobacter capsulatus and Rhodopseudomonas palustris through co-culture. The maximum H2 yield was found to be 287.39 ± 5.75 mmol of H2/L day. Keskin and Hallenbeck  used beet two major sugar mill waste—black strap and beet molasses for biohydrogen production using photofermentation. The H2 yield found from pure beet sucrose, black strap and beet molasses are 14 H2/mol sucrose, 8 H2/mol sucrose and 10.5 mol H2/mol sucrose, respectively. A comparative study of different parameters involved in photofermetive biohydrogen production process is shown in Table 3. The temperature variation clearly shows that the optimum operating temperature range of photofermentation lies between 28 and 32 °C. Further, the highest H2 yield with photofermentation can be seen with a neutral pH value (around 7) in most of the cases . Moreover, the light intensity and HRT play a very important role in the H2 yield in photofermentation. Because of the slow metabolic activity of PNSB in photofermentation, usually longer HRT can be seen compared with dark fermentation . Moreover, light source plays a very important role in the growth of microorganisms as well as the H2 yield in photofermentation, which can be easily seen in Table 3.
Biophotolysis or water-splitting photosynthesis is the process in which by using oxygenic photosynthetic microorganisms like cyanobacteria and green microalgae, H2 can be produced with only sunlight and water. For this process, FeFe-hydrogenase is needed for the green microalgae application and heterocystous cyanobacteria nitrogenase finds its use . Biophotolysis H2 production can be divided into two ways: (a) direct biophotolysis and (b) indirect biophotolysis.
3.2.1 Direct biophotolysis
In the direct biophotolysis, photosynthetic microorganisms like green algae and cyanobacteria absorb 400–700 nm solar radiation for their cell growth . After accepting solar radiation, the microorganisms can evolve hydrogen through nitrogenase or hydrogenase. In direct biophotolysis, water splitting occurs with a light energy of 680 nm wavelength to produce protons, electrons and oxygen as shown in Eq. 9. The electrons derived from Eq. 9 are transferred through PS II and PS I to a potentially sufficient amount for ferredoxin (Fd) reduction. The reduced Fd then is used for the reduction of hydrogenase enzyme NADP+ to NADPH, which is responsible for the production of H2, as shown in Eq. 10 .
3.2.2 Indirect biophotolysis
Indirect biophotolysis involves a two-step photosynthetic conversion of light energy to carbohydrates as a form of chemical energy. As shown in Eq. 11, in the first step, using light energy O2 and carbohydrate (starch and glycogen in green algae and cyanobacteria, respectively) are produced . By limiting N2 during Eq. 10, an increase in carbohydrate yield and reduction in O2 amount can be achieved, which subsequently is advantageous for high H2 yield. The second step involves the conversion of carbohydrate to CO2 and H2 with light energy under an anaerobic condition with less O2, as shown in Eq. 12 and Eq.13. .
Many recent research studies can be found producing biohydrogen from green algae and cyanobacteria as shown in Table 4. Kossalbayev et al.  studied the biohydrogen yield using four different cyanobacteria strains: (a) Desertifilum sp. IPPAS B-1220, (b) Synechocystis sp. PCC 6803, (c) Phormidium corium B-26 and (d) Synechococcus sp. I12. Within 120 dark hours, Synechocystis sp. PCC 6803 was seen to have a high H2 accumulation of 0.037 μmol H2/mg Chl/h. Again, at 166 h of light incubation, Desertifilum sp. IPPAS B-1220 was seen to produce 0.229 μmol H2/mg Chl/h. Hoshino et al.  investigated the H2 and O2 yield through the implementation of PS I light in Chlamydomonas reinhardtii mutant strains. In a continuous 18 h PS I light supply, H2 production was seen at 220 dm3/kg and 176 dm3/kg for cbn 1–48 (a mutant with a chlorophyll-b deficiency) and VHLR-S4 (a mutant with high light tolerance), respectively. The highest H2 production of 366 dm3/kg was seen in cbn 1–48 under 1.5 h light and dark iteration with PS I-light. Esquível et al.  also studied the H2 yield with biophotolysis by Chlamydomonas reinhardtii wild and mutant strains. Kosourov et al.  found a maximum of 9.4 μmol/mg chlorophyll/h H2 yield with a 7.7 pH by using C. reinhardtii. Huesemann et al.  studied H2 production using Plectonema boryanum (nonheterocystous nitrogen-fixing cyanobacterium) under continuous illumination, where the maximum H2 production rate was found as 0.18 mL/mg day with a 1 mM initial nitrate concentration under 100 μmol/m2 light intensity.
3.3 Bioelectrochemical system
Bioelectrochemical system of H2 production from a wide variety of substrates using microbial electrolysis cells (MEC) is a new technology getting popularity in recent years. MEC technology is also known as biocatalysed electrolysis cells or electrofermentation . As shown in Fig. 4, the MEC system has two electrodes, cathode and anode, which can either be placed in the same single chamber (single-chamber MEC) or be separately placed in two individual chambers (two-chamber MEC). In the two-chamber MEC, to separate the two chambers, commonly a proton exchange membrane is used. Other recently developed membranes include a charge-mosaic membrane, cation/anion exchange membrane and bipolar membrane . In the two-chamber MEC, the anode chamber is filled with the organic wastewater, while the cathode chamber can be filled with different solutions (like moderate acidified water, phosphate-buffered solution, bicarbonate buffers and salt solutions) [103, 104]. The main working process in both the MEC types is the same. Electrons get generated by the oxidation of organic matter in the anode, which are transported to the anode. Then, they are transported to the cathode where upon combining with protons, H2 gets generated .
The initial MEC systems comprised of two chambers avoiding interference of electrodes, which produced high-purity H2 . MEC acts as an anaerobic system sensitive to oxygen. Equations 14–16 show the production of H2 using MEC for acetate. In addition to a potential generated by microorganisms (− 0.300 V), MEC needs a small external potential of more than 0.110 V for the production of H2 . The external power source use of the battery is generally considered, but the use of renewable power generated from solar, wind, MFCs and waste heat can be seen [19, 107].
Many different substrates were found in use for MEC to produce H2. Some common pure chemical substrates used are butyrate, glucose, acetate and glycol. However, different waste streams like poultry farming wastewater [108, 109], domestic wastewater [105, 110, 111], waste activated sludge [112,113,114] and industrial wastewater [115, 116] are used in MEC. Tenca et al.  found a higher H2 yield for methanol-rich industrial wastewater compared with food processing wastewater, but the food processing wastewater was found to have high H2 selectivity of around 86% compared with that of industrial chemical wastewater. Improvement in the H2 yield can be seen in many studies with MEC coupled with anaerobic digestion and/or dark fermentation [114, 115, 117, 118]. Huang et al.  studied the H2 production from food waste from anaerobic digestion coupled with the single-chamber MEC. They found 511.02 mL H2/g VS of the H2 yield from the continuous AD-MEC process which was much higher than the AD H2 yield (49.39 mL H2/g VS). Dhar et al.  studied the H2 yield from sugar beet juice using an integrated MEC dark fermentation process. Overall H2 yield with the integrated process was found to be 25% of initial chemical oxygen demand (COD) (6 mol H2/mol hexoseadded) which is much higher than that of dark fermentation alone (13% of initial COD). Li et al.  also found a maximum H2 yield of 387.1 mL H2/g corn stalk with the integrated dark fermentation MEC process, which was around thrice that from dark fermentation alone with 20 g/L of corn stalk input and 7.0 initial pH value. Lu et al.  also found twice H2 yield with waste activated sludge coupled with MEC (Table 5).
Raw materials, temperature, pH and operating voltage play an important role in determining the H2 yield in MEC. However, with MEC, it has been noticed that operating temperatures from 0 can be used in producing biohydrogen from wastewater without having significant effects on the yield. An H2 yield of 0.015 L/L/d was found with domestic wastewater within an operating temperature range of 13 to 21 °C . Heidrich et al.  found improvement in exoelectrogen activities with temperature while studying MEC with domestic wastewater within 1–22 °C. Patil et al.  also demonstrated operating MEC with wastewater within 0 to 45 °C. Better performance was seen within 10 °C to 20 °C, thereby showing the advantages of MEC over other fermentative biohydrogen production processes. Again, an increasing H2 yield with increasing external applied voltage was reported in the literature [108, 113].
In MEC, certain microorganisms which are capable of transferring electrons from the chamber to anode are used, known as electrogens. Shewanella spp. and Geobacter spp. are two popular electrogenic groups, out of which Shewanella oneidensis and Geobacter sulfurreducens are the most discussed species . Acetobacterium woodii, Ochrobactrum anthropic, Sphingomonas strain DJ, Rhodopseudomonas palustris and Rhodoferax ferrireducens are some other exoelectrogenic species reported in recent studies [33, 122,123,124]. Rago et al.  found a high H2 yield (2.6 L H2/LREACTOR/d) with alkaline MEC, using Alkalibacter sp. as exoelectrogen.
4 Biohydrogen production through gasification
Gasification of biowaste is another way of producing bio-H2. In gasification, syngas (a mixture of CO, CO2, H2 and CH4) and several by-products (tar, char, light HCs) are produced by partial oxidation of organic materials at high temperature and pressure . Even though gasification is not a biological process, it is effective for organic waste conversion to hydrogen. The concentration of H2 produced during gasification can be improved by optimisation of operating parameters. Equations 17–23 show the main reactions involved during gasification.
Gasification of different types of waste materials like sewage sludge, municipal solid waste, agricultural and forest biomass, animal manure and food waste has been seen as a popular technology to produce hydrogen . Prasertcharoensuk et al.  studied the effect of parameters on hydrogen production through lignocellulosic biomass waste gasification. H2 content in the syngas was found increasing up to 67 mol% with pyrolysis temperature higher than 800 °C and 0.5–1 cm3 particle size. Su et al.  studied the effects of temperature (400–450 °C), food additive (NaHCO3, NaCl and NaOH) and reaction time (20–60 min) on the supercritical water gasification of food waste. They found a maximum H2 yield of 12.73 mol/kg with NaOH as a catalytic agent. Zhang et al.  found 28.9% H2 content from food waste with an anaerobic digestion and gasification integrated process. Chang et al.  found a maximum of 29.72 g H2/kg substrate and 19.78 g H2/kg substrate H2 yield with bagasse gasification and waste mushroom gasification, respectively. Shie et al.  studied plasma gasification of lignocellulosic municipal solid waste for H2 production. The effect of different factors like biomass type, reaction temperature, feed size, catalyst type and SB (steam-to-biomass) ratio on the H2 production in a steam gasification process is discussed by Parthasarathy and Narayanan . Nanda et al.  studied supercritical water gasification of different agro-food residues and fruit wastes like a banana peel, Aloe vera rind, lemon peel, coconut shell, sugarcane bagasse, pineapple peel and orange peel. During the production of biodiesel, glycerol is produced in large quantities as a by-product. Recently, Osman et al. used glycerol along with the alumina foil waste using photocatalysis to produce a steady state of 4.2 millimole H2 g/TiO2 hr., which is a promising result of multifunctional cheap photocatalytic materials for the production of green biohydrogen .
5 Challenges with biohydrogen production through biological methods
Several studies have been made so far for enhancing the economic feasibility of the H2 production process via biological methods. Although these processes have different advantages, there are many key challenges also which need to be addressed in future studies [4, 13, 33]. Table 6 describes the different advantages and challenges associated with these processes. As shown in Table 6, the biohydrogen production processes vary from process to process. The maximum yield of H2 production was found to be 14.2 ± 0.2 mL/g VSS, and H2 production rate was 0.13 mL/g VSS h . It was found that for photofermentation, the maximum H2 yield was 642 ± 22 mL, and the maximum H2 production rate 77.78 mL/L/h, with an initial pH of 7 . In another case, the effect of adding corn stalk enzymatic hydrolysate H2 yield was found to increase up to 1287.06 mL H2/g TOC, and the maximum H2 production rate was found to be 10.23 mL/h . Kossalbayev et al.  found a maximum H2 yield of 0.348 μmol H2/mg Chl/h with Desertifilum sp. IPPAS B-1220. Moreover, energy conversion efficiency with biophotolysis was found to be around 2.4–4% . Jayabalan et al.  found a maximum H2 production rate of 4.38 ± 0.11 mmol/L/D from the sugar industry wastewater using MEC. A H2 production rate of 3.48 L/L/d and an H2 yield of 511.02 mL H2 g−1 VS was reported from food waste anaerobic digestion coupled with MEC .
Water electrolysis is another way of producing hydrogen from water using electricity. To produce 1 kg H2, around 9 L of water is needed and 8 kg of O2 occurs as a by-product in this process. The hydrogen produced with water electrolysis has a purity of 99.99 vol% (strongly depending on the type of electrolysis (AEL, PEM, etc.)) . Yuzer et al.  found a maximum hydrogen production rate of 11.4 mmol/h with the use of a bipolar membrane. They found the highest energy efficiency of 82% and an exergy efficiency of 68% with the anion exchange membrane. Chakik et al.  found a maximum efficiency of 99.13% with a production rate of 2.34 mL/min using a Zn95%Cr5% electrode in 20 g/L NaOH solution at 0.45 A, 5 V. Kovač et al.  studied H2 production with a rate of 1.138 g/h from the electrolysis of alkaline water using solar energy.
Bio-H2 production through the biological methods, for instance, dark fermentation, can produce H2 without light along with in photofermentation, and photosynthetic bacteria can use a wide range of spectral energy. However, the energy conversion efficiency, in general, is low with 4.3 and 5.11% for dark and photofermentaion processes, respectively . The major challenges herein are the low bio-H2 production rate and yield and the high cost of the raw feedstocks; thus, using organic waste materials helps to address this issue.
Overall, hydrogen can be produced from various sources, with potential supply from renewable electricity, nuclear power and lignocellulosic biomass. However, it is currently dominated by using fossil-based fuels. From biomass sources, H2 production comes mainly from anaerobic digestion, fermentation or gasification routes. While the former route is mature, it only processes specific feedstocks (food waste, sewage sludge and crops waste). While fermentation can utilise and process the non-edible cellulosic part of lignocellulosic biomass, gasification can process the whole portion of the biomass, but the technology is still not fully mature worldwide. H2 production mostly comes from natural gas and coal, while during its production globally, a greenhouse gas in the form of CO2 is released which is equivalent to the combined generated annual CO2 emissions of the UK and Indonesia with an energy consumption of 275 million tonnes of oil equivalent (2% of total worldwide energy demand) . Thus, carbon capture and storage (CCS) is crucial when producing H2 from fossil-based fuels along with maximising our way of producing H2 from clean electricity. Currently, the International Energy Agency (IEA) reported that the technical potential of producing hydrogen from renewable electricity is expensive. However, it is expected to decrease by 30% by 2030 due to the scaling up of H2 production along with progress in renewables technology that comes with a reduction in the costing. Three major technologies could benefit from that: electrolysers (splitting water using electricity to produce H2), fuel cells and refuelling equipment. With the progress in solar photovoltaic and wind renewable energy technologies along with batteries, renewable electricity could provide both low-carbon electricity and low-carbon H2, as well as using electrolysis, which accounts for only 2% of the global hydrogen production now. Economically, H2 production from natural gas is the cheapest method in most of the countries around the world, such as in the Middle East which costs (1$/kg H2). On the other hand, electrolysis cost is 10–40$/MWh along with full load hours of 3000–6000, so it can compete with natural gas coupled with CCSU (carbon capture storage and utilisation). Interestingly, countries that import natural gas and have available sources of renewables or nuclear power could easily find electrolysis as an attractive option. However, the production of H2-based fuel using hydrogen as a feedstock is not economically feasible at the moment.
Overall, electrolysis is a promising route where the efficiency of the electrolyser ranges from 60 to 80%, while for other green hydrogen routes such as dark fermentation, photofermentation, biophotolysis and microbial electrolysis cells, their energy conversion efficiencies are low which are 4.3, 5.11, 4.0 and 11.3%, respectively [21,22,23]. This is as a result of the complex structure of the biomass that requires complicated processing procedures during the production of green bio-H2. Also, finding the cheap feedstock of biomass is crucial herein. For instance, to meet the theoretical H2 production demand in the USA, which is 60 MtH2, this would require nearly 100% of its biomass resources. However, by employing PV or wind power, only 1% or 6% will be required . The factors that affect the costing of H2 production from electrolysis are the cost for the electricity, capital expenditure requirements, conversion efficiency and annual operating hours.
For the future of the zero-carbon economy, biohydrogen is considered a promising candidate for fossil fuel replacement due to its zero-carbon emission. This review study provides a brief critical technological discussion and analysis of the processes that are used in biohydrogen production from organic biowastes along with the factors responsible for the efficient H2 yield. Herein, raw materials, processing and production techniques and environmental influences of biohydrogen production have been reviewed. Wide varieties of biowaste materials, such as wastewaters, forest and agricultural residues, food wastes and municipal and sewage wastes, have been utilised in biohydrogen production. Regarding the high H2 yield and feedstock availability, dark fermentation, photofermentation and gasification showed clear promising results. The combined fermentation processes also have shown promising results in different studies. Pre-treatment of the substrate, pH, temperature and hydraulic retention time (HRT) are crucial factors in regulating the optimum biohydrogen production route. The MEC method showed promising results with a good yield of biohydrogen using waste feedstock under low-temperature conditions. However, a large-scale production with these processes is still challenging. The need for future studies addressing more variants of microorganisms and waste varieties is highly observed. It is the authors’ thought that the integration of more than one production process along with different biomass waste streams is required along with modelling to allow better processing for biohydrogen production. This would help alleviate issues concerned with fossil-based fuel, while also promoting environmental benefit as in the production of biohydrogen from sustainable waste materials and consequently working toward the zero-carbon economy.
Biological oxygen demand
Concentrated cheese whey permeate
Chemical oxygen demand
Hydraulic retention time
Hydrogen production rate
- H2SO4 :
Life cycle assessment
Microbial electrolysis cell
Organic loading rate
Purple non-sulphur bacteria
Second cheese whey
Solid retention time
- TS :
Volatile suspended solids
Water gas shift reaction
Web of Science
Tausz-Posch S, De Kok LJ (2020) Plant functioning in a changing global atmosphere. Plant Biol 22:3–4
Fawzy S, Osman AI, Doran J, Rooney DW (2020) Strategies for mitigation of climate change: a review. Environ Chem Lett
Zhang Q, Dai W, Wang X, Li J (2020) Elevated CO2 concentration affects the defense of tobacco and melon against lepidopteran larvae through the jasmonic acid signaling pathway. Sci Rep 10:4060
Mishra P, Krishnan S, Rana S, Singh L, Sakinah M, Ab Wahid Z (2019) Outlook of fermentative hydrogen production techniques: an overview of dark, photo and integrated dark-photo fermentative approach to biomass. Energy Strategy Reviews 24:27–37
https://www.co2.earth/monthly-co2, Accessed on: 5th July, 2020
Martins F, Felgueiras C, Smitková M (2018) Fossil fuel energy consumption in European countries. Energy Procedia 153:107–111
Argun H, Kargi F (2010) Bio-hydrogen production from ground wheat starch by continuous combined fermentation using annular-hybrid bioreactor. Int J Hydrog Energy 35:6170–6178
Lubitz W, Tumas W (2007) Hydrogen: an Overview. Chem Rev 107:3900–3903
Christopher K, Dimitrios R (2012) A review on exergy comparison of hydrogen production methods from renewable energy sources. Energy Environ Sci 5:6640–6651
The future of hydrogen, Report prepared by the IEA for the G20, Japan
Schoots K, Ferioli F, Kramer GJ, van der Zwaan BCC (2008) Learning curves for hydrogen production technology: an assessment of observed cost reductions. Int J Hydrog Energy 33:2630–2645
A.I. Osman, Catalytic hydrogen production from methane partial oxidation: mechanism and kinetic study, Chemical Engineering & Technology, n/a
Chandrasekhar K, Lee YJ, Lee DW (2015) Biohydrogen production: strategies to improve process efficiency through microbial routes. Int J Mol Sci 16:8266–8293
Osman AI, Abu-Dahrieh JK, Cherkasov N, Fernandez-Garcia J, Walker D, Walton RI, Rooney DW, Rebrov E (2018) A highly active and synergistic Pt/Mo2C/Al2O3 catalyst for water-gas shift reaction. Molecular Catalysis 455:38–47
Abdul Kadir K, Wahidah N, Jamaludin S (2016) An overview of organic waste in composting. MATEC Web of Conferences 47:05025
Dhanya BS, Mishra A, Chandel AK, Verma ML (2020) Development of sustainable approaches for converting the organic waste to bioenergy. Sci Total Environ 723:138109
Riis T, Hagen EF, Vie PJS, Ulleberg Ø, Hydrogen production R&D - gaps and priorities - IEA HIA, https://webstore.iea.org/download/direct/992, accessed 12-08-2020
Dincer I, Acar C (2015) Review and evaluation of hydrogen production methods for better sustainability. Int J Hydrog Energy 40:11094–11111
Zhang Y, Angelidaki I (2014) Microbial electrolysis cells turning to be versatile technology: recent advances and future challenges. Water Res 56:11–25
Lin C-Y, Nguyen TM-L, Chu C-Y, Leu H-J, Lay C-H (2018) Fermentative biohydrogen production and its byproducts: a mini review of current technology developments. Renew Sust Energ Rev 82:4215–4220
Zhang Z, Li Y, Zhang H, He C, Zhang Q (2017) Potential use and the energy conversion efficiency analysis of fermentation effluents from photo and dark fermentative bio-hydrogen production. Bioresour Technol 245:884–889
Nyberg M, Heidorn T, Lindblad P (2015) Hydrogen production by the engineered cyanobacterial strain Nostoc PCC 7120 ΔhupW examined in a flat panel photobioreactor system. J Biotechnol 215:35–43
Zhang L, Wang Y-Z, Zhao T, Xu T (2019) Hydrogen production from simultaneous saccharification and fermentation of lignocellulosic materials in a dual-chamber microbial electrolysis cell. Int J Hydrog Energy 44:30024–30030
Detchusananard T, Im-orb K, Ponpesh P, Arpornwichanop A (2018) Biomass gasification integrated with CO2 capture processes for high-purity hydrogen production: process performance and energy analysis. Energy Convers Manag 171:1560–1572
Mitsushima S, Gollas B, Hacker V (2018) Chapter 1 - introduction, in: V. Hacker, S. Mitsushima (Eds.) Fuel cells and hydrogen, Elsevier, pp. 1–13
Tomasik P, Horton D (2012) Chapter 2 - enzymatic conversions of starch, in: D. Horton (Ed.) Advances in carbohydrate chemistry and biochemistry, Academic Press, pp. 59–436
Rizwan M, Shah SH, Mujtaba G, Mahmood Q, Rashid N, Shah FA (2019) Chapter 1 - ecofuel feedstocks and their prospect, in: A.K. Azad, M. Rasul (Eds.) Advanced biofuels, Woodhead Publishing, pp. 3–16
Mona S, Kumar SS, Kumar V, Parveen K, Saini N, Deepak B, Pugazhendhi A (2020) Green technology for sustainable biohydrogen production (waste to energy): a review. Sci Total Environ 138481
Ghimire A, Frunzo L, Pirozzi F, Trably E, Escudie R, Lens PNL, Esposito G (2015) A review on dark fermentative biohydrogen production from organic biomass: process parameters and use of by-products. Appl Energy 144:73–95
Hallenbeck PC (2009) Fermentative hydrogen production: principles, progress, and prognosis. Int J Hydrog Energy 34:7379–7389
Sarangi PK, Nanda S (2020) Biohydrogen production through dark fermentation. Chem Eng Technol 43:601–612
Zhou S, Pu Y, Zhang Q, Shi R, Guo X, Wang W, Ji J, Wei T, Ouyang T (2019) Microstructure and dielectric properties of high entropy Ba (Zr0.2Ti0.2Sn0.2Hf0.2Me0.2)O3 perovskite oxides. Ceram Int
Tian H, Li J, Yan M, Tong YW, Wang C-H, Wang X (2019) Organic waste to biohydrogen: a critical review from technological development and environmental impact analysis perspective. Appl Energy 256:113961
Alibardi L, Cossu R (2016) Effects of carbohydrate, protein and lipid content of organic waste on hydrogen production and fermentation products. Waste Manag 47:69–77
Xing Y, Li Z, Fan Y, Hou H (2010) Biohydrogen production from dairy manures with acidification pretreatment by anaerobic fermentation. Environ Sci Pollut Res 17:392–399
Yang G, Wang J (2017) Enhanced hydrogen production from sewage sludge by co-fermentation with forestry wastes. Energy Fuel 31:9633–9641
Alemahdi N, Che Man H, Abd Rahman NA, Nasirian N, Yang Y (2015) Enhanced mesophilic bio-hydrogen production of raw rice straw and activated sewage sludge by co-digestion. Int J Hydrog Energy 40:16033–16044
Silva FMS, Mahler CF, Oliveira LB, Bassin JP (2018) Hydrogen and methane production in a two-stage anaerobic digestion system by co-digestion of food waste, sewage sludge and glycerol. Waste Manag 76:339–349
Laurinavichene T, Tekucheva D, Laurinavichius K, Tsygankov A (2018) Utilization of distillery wastewater for hydrogen production in one-stage and two-stage processes involving photofermentation. Enzym Microb Technol 110:1–7
Intanoo P, Chaimongkol P, Chavadej S (2016) Hydrogen and methane production from cassava wastewater using two-stage upflow anaerobic sludge blanket reactors (UASB) with an emphasis on maximum hydrogen production. Int J Hydrog Energy 41:6107–6114
Srivastava N, Srivastava M, Kushwaha D, Gupta VK, Manikanta A, Ramteke PW, Mishra PK (2017) Efficient dark fermentative hydrogen production from enzyme hydrolyzed rice straw by Clostridium pasteurianum (MTCC116). Bioresour Technol 238:552–558
Han W, Ye M, Zhu AJ, Zhao HT, Li YF (2015) Batch dark fermentation from enzymatic hydrolyzed food waste for hydrogen production. Bioresour Technol 191:24–29
Kim S, Choi K, Kim JO, Chung J (2013) Biological hydrogen production by anaerobic digestion of food waste and sewage sludge treated using various pretreatment technologies. Biodegradation 24:753–764
Silva FMS, Oliveira LB, Mahler CF, Bassin JP (2017) Hydrogen production through anaerobic co-digestion of food waste and crude glycerol at mesophilic conditions. Int J Hydrog Energy 42:22720–22729
Rai PK, Singh SP, Asthana RK, Singh S (2014) Biohydrogen production from sugarcane bagasse by integrating dark- and photo-fermentation. Bioresour Technol 152:140–146
Estevam A, Arantes MK, Andrigheto C, Fiorini A, da Silva EA, Alves HJ (2018) Production of biohydrogen from brewery wastewater using Klebsiella pneumoniae isolated from the environment. Int J Hydrog Energy 43:4276–4283
Okonkwo O, Papirio S, Trably E, Escudie R, Lakaniemi A-M, Esposito G (2020) Enhancing thermophilic dark fermentative hydrogen production at high glucose concentrations via bioaugmentation with Thermotoga neapolitana. Int J Hydrog Energy 45:17241–17249
Soto LR, Byrne E, van Niel EWJ, Sayed M, Villanueva CC, Hatti-Kaul R (2019) Hydrogen and polyhydroxybutyrate production from wheat straw hydrolysate using Caldicellulosiruptor species and Ralstonia eutropha in a coupled process. Bioresour Technol 272:259–266
Łukajtis R, Hołowacz I, Kucharska K, Glinka M, Rybarczyk P, Przyjazny A, Kamiński M (2018) Hydrogen production from biomass using dark fermentation. Renew Sust Energ Rev 91:665–694
Eskicioglu C, Monlau F, Barakat A, Ferrer I, Kaparaju P, Trably E, Carrère H (2017) Assessment of hydrothermal pretreatment of various lignocellulosic biomass with CO2 catalyst for enhanced methane and hydrogen production. Water Res 120:32–42
Yin Y, Wang J (2015) Biohydrogen production using waste activated sludge disintegrated by gamma irradiation. Appl Energy 155:434–439
Leaño EP, Babel S (2012) The influence of enzyme and surfactant on biohydrogen production and electricity generation using palm oil mill effluent. J Clean Prod 31:91–99
Guo P, Mochidzuki K, Cheng W, Zhou M, Gao H, Zheng D, Wang X, Cui Z (2011) Effects of different pretreatment strategies on corn stalk acidogenic fermentation using a microbial consortium. Bioresour Technol 102:7526–7531
Gonzales RR, Kim S-H (2017) Dark fermentative hydrogen production following the sequential dilute acid pretreatment and enzymatic saccharification of rice husk. Int J Hydrog Energy 42:27577–27583
Cao G-L, Guo W-Q, Wang A-J, Zhao L, Xu C-J, Zhao Q-l, Ren N-Q (2012) Enhanced cellulosic hydrogen production from lime-treated cornstalk wastes using thermophilic anaerobic microflora. Int J Hydrog Energy 37:13161–13166
Song W, Ding L, Liu M, Cheng J, Zhou J, Li Y-Y (2020) Improving biohydrogen production through dark fermentation of steam-heated acid pretreated Alternanthera philoxeroides by mutant Enterobacter aerogenes ZJU1. Sci Total Environ 716:134695
Shao W, Wang Q, Rupani PF, Krishnan S, Ahmad F, Rezania S, Rashid MA, Sha C, Md Din MF (2020) Biohydrogen production via thermophilic fermentation: a prospective application of Thermotoga species. Energy 197:117199
Li C, Fang HHP (2007) Fermentative hydrogen production from wastewater and solid wastes by mixed cultures. Crit Rev Environ Sci Technol 37:1–39
Azbar N, Dokgöz FT, Keskin T, Eltem R, Korkmaz KS, Gezgin Y, Akbal Z, Öncel S, Dalay MC, Gönen Ç, Tutuk F (2009) Comparative evaluation of bio-hydrogen production from cheese whey wastewater under thermophilic and mesophilic anaerobic conditions. Int J Green Energy 6:192–200
Guo XM, Trably E, Latrille E, Carrère H, Steyer J-P (2010) Hydrogen production from agricultural waste by dark fermentation: a review. Int J Hydrog Energy 35:10660–10673
Rafieenia R, Lavagnolo MC, Pivato A (2018) Pre-treatment technologies for dark fermentative hydrogen production: current advances and future directions. Waste Manag 71:734–748
Mamimin C, Singkhala A, Kongjan P, Suraraksa B, Prasertsan P, Imai T, O-Thong S (2015) Two-stage thermophilic fermentation and mesophilic methanogen process for biohythane production from palm oil mill effluent. Int J Hydrog Energy 40:6319–6328
Kumar G, Zhen G, Sivagurunathan P, Bakonyi P, Nemestóth N, Bélafi-Bakó K, Kobayashi T, Xu KQ (2016) Biogenic H2 production from mixed microalgae biomass: impact of pH control and methanogenic inhibitor (BESA) addition. Biofuel Res J 11:470–474
Chandrasekhar K, Venkata Mohan S (2014) Bio-electrohydrolysis as a pretreatment strategy to catabolize complex food waste in closed circuitry: function of electron flux to enhance acidogenic biohydrogen production. Int J Hydrog Energy 39:11411–11422
Tsygankov DNTAA (2011) Integration of biological H2 producing processes, State of the art and progress in production of bio hydrogen, Bentham Science Publishers Ltd, USA; Chapter 5:pp. 78–93
Santiago SG, Morgan-Sagastume JM, Monroy O, Moreno-Andrade I (2019) Biohydrogen production from organic solid waste in a sequencing batch reactor: an optimization of the hydraulic and solids retention time. Int J Hydrog Energy
Lu C, Wang Y, Lee D-J, Zhang Q, Zhang H, Tahir N, Jing Y, Liu H, Zhang K (2019) Biohydrogen production in pilot-scale fermenter: effects of hydraulic retention time and substrate concentration. J Clean Prod 229:751–760
Colombo B, Villegas Calvo M, Pepè Sciarria T, Scaglia B, Savio Kizito S, D'Imporzano G, Adani F (2019) Biohydrogen and polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHA) as products of a two-steps bioprocess from deproteinized dairy wastes. Waste Manag 95:22–31
Monroy I, Buitrón G (2020) Production of polyhydroxybutyrate by pure and mixed cultures of purple non-sulfur bacteria: a review. J Biotechnol 317:39–47
Das D (2009) Advances in biohydrogen production processes: an approach towards commercialization. Int J Hydrog Energy 34:7349–7357
Ni M, Leung DYC, Leung MKH, Sumathy K (2006) An overview of hydrogen production from biomass. Fuel Process Technol 87:461–472
Cai J, Zhao Y, Fan J, Li F, Feng C, Guan Y, Wang R, Tang N (2019) Photosynthetic bacteria improved hydrogen yield of combined dark- and photo-fermentation. J Biotechnol 302:18–25
Azwar MY, Hussain MA, Abdul-Wahab AK (2014) Development of biohydrogen production by photobiological, fermentation and electrochemical processes: a review. Renew Sust Energ Rev 31:158–173
Mirza SS, Qazi JI, Liang Y, Chen S (2019) Growth characteristics and photofermentative biohydrogen production potential of purple non sulfur bacteria from sugar cane bagasse. Fuel 255:115805
García-Sánchez R, Ramos-Ibarra R, Guatemala-Morales G, Arriola-Guevara E, Toriz-González G, Corona-González RI (2018) Photofermentation of tequila vinasses by Rhodopseudomonas pseudopalustris to produce hydrogen. Int J Hydrog Energy 43:15857–15869
Machado RG, Moreira FS, Batista FRX, Ferreira JS, Cardoso VL (2018) Repeated batch cycles as an alternative for hydrogen production by co-culture photofermentation. Energy 153:861–869
Keskin T, Hallenbeck PC (2012) Hydrogen production from sugar industry wastes using single-stage photofermentation. Bioresour Technol 112:131–136
Lu C, Zhang Z, Ge X, Wang Y, Zhou X, You X, Liu H, Zhang Q (2016) Bio-hydrogen production from apple waste by photosynthetic bacteria HAU-M1. Int J Hydrog Energy 41:13399–13407
Mishra P, Thakur S, Singh L, Ab Wahid Z, Sakinah M (2016) Enhanced hydrogen production from palm oil mill effluent using two stage sequential dark and photo fermentation. Int J Hydrog Energy 41:18431–18440
Zhang Q, Zhang Z, Wang Y, Lee D-J, Li G, Zhou X, Jiang D, Xu B, Lu C, Li Y, Ge X (2018) Sequential dark and photo fermentation hydrogen production from hydrolyzed corn stover: a pilot test using 11 m3 reactor. Bioresour Technol 253:382–386
Sagir E, Ozgur E, Gunduz U, Eroglu I, Yucel M (2017) Single-stage photofermentative biohydrogen production from sugar beet molasses by different purple non-sulfur bacteria. Bioprocess Biosyst Eng 40:1589–1601
Jiang D, Ge X, Zhang T, Liu H, Zhang Q (2016) Photo-fermentative hydrogen production from enzymatic hydrolysate of corn stalk pith with a photosynthetic consortium. Int J Hydrog Energy 41:16778–16785
Xia A, Cheng J, Ding L, Lin R, Song W, Zhou J, Cen K (2014) Enhancement of energy production efficiency from mixed biomass of Chlorella pyrenoidosa and cassava starch through combined hydrogen fermentation and methanogenesis. Appl Energy 120:23–30
Hitit ZY, Lazaro CZ, Hallenbeck PC (2017) Single stage hydrogen production from cellulose through photo-fermentation by a co-culture of Cellulomonas fimi and Rhodopseudomonas palustris. Int J Hydrog Energy 42:6556–6566
Al-Mohammedawi HH, Znad H, Eroglu E (2019) Improvement of photofermentative biohydrogen production using pre-treated brewery wastewater with banana peels waste. Int J Hydrog Energy 44:2560–2568
Jiang D, Ge X, Lin L, Zhang T, Liu H, Hu J, Zhang Q (2020) Continuous photo-fermentative hydrogen production in a tubular photobioreactor using corn stalk pith hydrolysate with a consortium. Int J Hydrog Energy 45:3776–3784
Mıynat ME, Ören İ, Özkan E, Argun H (2020) Sequential dark and photo-fermentative hydrogen gas production from agar embedded molasses. Int J Hydrog Energy
Zhu S, Zhang Z, Li Y, Tahir N, Liu H, Zhang Q (2018) Analysis of shaking effect on photo-fermentative hydrogen production under different concentrations of corn stover powder. Int J Hydrog Energy 43:20465–20473
Ghosh S, Dairkee UK, Chowdhury R, Bhattacharya P (2017) Hydrogen from food processing wastes via photofermentation using purple non-sulfur bacteria (PNSB) – a review. Energy Convers Manag 141:299–314
Nagakawa H, Takeuchi A, Takekuma Y, Noji T, Kawakami K, Kamiya N, Nango M, Furukawa R, Nagata M (2019) Efficient hydrogen production using photosystem I enhanced by artificial light harvesting dye. Photochem Photobiol Sci 18:309–313
Fakhimi N, Tavakoli O (2019) Improving hydrogen production using co-cultivation of bacteria with Chlamydomonas reinhardtii microalga. Mater Sci Energy Technol 2:1–7
Hoshino T, Johnson DJ, Scholz M, Cuello JL (2013) Effects of implementing PSI-light on hydrogen production via biophotolysis in Chlamydomonas reinhardtii mutant strains. Biomass Bioenergy 59:243–252
Volgusheva A, Kukarskikh G, Krendeleva T, Rubin A, Mamedov F (2015) Hydrogen photoproduction in green algae Chlamydomonas reinhardtii under magnesium deprivation. RSC Adv 5:5633–5637
Batyrova K, Gavrisheva A, Ivanova E, Liu J, Tsygankov A (2015) Sustainable hydrogen photoproduction by phosphorus-deprived marine green microalgae Chlorella sp. Int J Mol Sci 16:2705–2716
Shi X-Y, Yu H-Q (2016) Simultaneous metabolism of benzoate and photobiological hydrogen production by Lyngbya sp. Renew Energy 95:474–477
Oncel S, Kose A (2014) Comparison of tubular and panel type photobioreactors for biohydrogen production utilizing Chlamydomonas reinhardtii considering mixing time and light intensity. Bioresour Technol 151:265–270
Kosourov SN, Ghirardi ML, Seibert M (2011) A truncated antenna mutant of Chlamydomonas reinhardtii can produce more hydrogen than the parental strain. Int J Hydrog Energy 36:2044–2048
Kossalbayev BD, Tomo T, Zayadan BK, Sadvakasova AK, Bolatkhan K, Alwasel S, Allakhverdiev SI (2020) Determination of the potential of cyanobacterial strains for hydrogen production. Int J Hydrog Energy 45:2627–2639
Esquível MG, Amaro HM, Pinto TS, Fevereiro PS, Malcata FX (2011) Efficient H2 production via Chlamydomonas reinhardtii. Trends Biotechnol 29:595–600
Kosourov S, Seibert M, Ghirardi ML (2003) Effects of extracellular pH on the metabolic pathways in sulfur-deprived, H2-producing Chlamydomonas reinhardtii cultures. Plant Cell Physiol 44:146–155
Huesemann MH, Hausmann TS, Carter BM, Gerschler JJ, Benemann JR (2010) Hydrogen generation through indirect biophotolysis in batch cultures of the nonheterocystous nitrogen-fixing cyanobacterium Plectonema boryanum. Appl Biochem Biotechnol 162:208–220
Kadier A, Simayi Y, Abdeshahian P, Azman NF, Chandrasekhar K, Kalil MS (2016) A comprehensive review of microbial electrolysis cells (MEC) reactor designs and configurations for sustainable hydrogen gas production. Alex Eng J 55:427–443
Yossan S, Xiao L, Prasertsan P, He Z (2013) Hydrogen production in microbial electrolysis cells: choice of catholyte. Int J Hydrog Energy 38:9619–9624
Luo S, Jain A, Aguilera A, He Z (2017) Effective control of biohythane composition through operational strategies in an innovative microbial electrolysis cell. Appl Energy 206:879–886
Heidrich ES, Dolfing J, Scott K, Edwards SR, Jones C, Curtis TP (2013) Production of hydrogen from domestic wastewater in a pilot-scale microbial electrolysis cell. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 97:6979–6989
Cheng S, Logan BE (2007) Sustainable and efficient biohydrogen production via electrohydrogenesis. Proc Natl Acad Sci 104:18871–18873
Wang A, Sun D, Cao G, Wang H, Ren N, Wu W-M, Logan BE (2011) Integrated hydrogen production process from cellulose by combining dark fermentation, microbial fuel cells, and a microbial electrolysis cell. Bioresour Technol 102:4137–4143
Shen R, Jiang Y, Ge Z, Lu J, Zhang Y, Liu Z, Ren ZJ (2018) Microbial electrolysis treatment of post-hydrothermal liquefaction wastewater with hydrogen generation. Appl Energy 212:509–515
Wagner RC, Regan JM, Oh S-E, Zuo Y, Logan BE (2009) Hydrogen and methane production from swine wastewater using microbial electrolysis cells. Water Res 43:1480–1488
Escapa A, Gil-Carrera L, García V, Morán A (2012) Performance of a continuous flow microbial electrolysis cell (MEC) fed with domestic wastewater. Bioresour Technol 117:55–62
Cusick RD, Kiely PD, Logan BE (2010) A monetary comparison of energy recovered from microbial fuel cells and microbial electrolysis cells fed winery or domestic wastewaters. Int J Hydrog Energy 35:8855–8861
Liu W, Huang S, Zhou A, Zhou G, Ren N, Wang A, Zhuang G (2012) Hydrogen generation in microbial electrolysis cell feeding with fermentation liquid of waste activated sludge. Int J Hydrog Energy 37:13859–13864
Feng Y, Liu Y, Zhang Y (2015) Enhancement of sludge decomposition and hydrogen production from waste activated sludge in a microbial electrolysis cell with cheap electrodes. Environ Sci Water Res Technol 1:761–768
Lu L, Xing D, Liu B, Ren N (2012) Enhanced hydrogen production from waste activated sludge by cascade utilization of organic matter in microbial electrolysis cells. Water Res 46:1015–1026
Dhar BR, Elbeshbishy E, Hafez H, Lee H-S (2015) Hydrogen production from sugar beet juice using an integrated biohydrogen process of dark fermentation and microbial electrolysis cell. Bioresour Technol 198:223–230
Tenca A, Cusick RD, Schievano A, Oberti R, Logan BE (2013) Evaluation of low cost cathode materials for treatment of industrial and food processing wastewater using microbial electrolysis cells. Int J Hydrog Energy 38:1859–1865
Huang J, Feng H, Huang L, Ying X, Shen D, Chen T, Shen X, Zhou Y, Xu Y (2020) Continuous hydrogen production from food waste by anaerobic digestion (AD) coupled single-chamber microbial electrolysis cell (MEC) under negative pressure. Waste Manag 103:61–66
Li X-H, Liang D-W, Bai Y-X, Fan Y-T, Hou H-W (2014) Enhanced H2 production from corn stalk by integrating dark fermentation and single chamber microbial electrolysis cells with double anode arrangement. Int J Hydrog Energy 39:8977–8982
Shen R, Liu Z, He Y, Zhang Y, Lu J, Zhu Z, Si B, Zhang C, Xing X-H (2016) Microbial electrolysis cell to treat hydrothermal liquefied wastewater from cornstalk and recover hydrogen: degradation of organic compounds and characterization of microbial community. Int J Hydrog Energy 41:4132–4142
Heidrich ES, Edwards SR, Dolfing J, Cotterill SE, Curtis TP (2014) Performance of a pilot scale microbial electrolysis cell fed on domestic wastewater at ambient temperatures for a 12month period. Bioresour Technol 173:87–95
Patil SA, Harnisch F, Kapadnis B, Schröder U (2010) Electroactive mixed culture biofilms in microbial bioelectrochemical systems: the role of temperature for biofilm formation and performance. Biosens Bioelectron 26:803–808
Kumar R, Singh L, Zularisam AW (2016) Exoelectrogens: recent advances in molecular drivers involved in extracellular electron transfer and strategies used to improve it for microbial fuel cell applications. Renew Sust Energ Rev 56:1322–1336
Zhen G, Lu X, Kumar G, Bakonyi P, Xu K, Zhao Y (2017) Microbial electrolysis cell platform for simultaneous waste biorefinery and clean electrofuels generation: current situation, challenges and future perspectives. Prog Energy Combust Sci 63:119–145
Karthikeyan R, Cheng KY, Selvam A, Bose A, Wong JWC (2017) Bioelectrohydrogenesis and inhibition of methanogenic activity in microbial electrolysis cells - a review. Biotechnol Adv 35:758–771
Rago L, Baeza JA, Guisasola A (2016) Increased performance of hydrogen production in microbial electrolysis cells under alkaline conditions. Bioelectrochemistry 109:57–62
Abdoulmoumine N, Adhikari S, Kulkarni A, Chattanathan S (2015) A review on biomass gasification syngas cleanup. Appl Energy 155:294–307
Prasertcharoensuk P, Bull SJ, Phan AN (2019) Gasification of waste biomass for hydrogen production: effects of pyrolysis parameters. Renew Energy 143:112–120
Su W, Cai C, Liu P, Lin W, Liang B, Zhang H, Ma Z, Ma H, Xing Y, Liu W (2020) Supercritical water gasification of food waste: effect of parameters on hydrogen production. Int J Hydrog Energy 45:14744–14755
Zhang J, Hu Q, Qu Y, Dai Y, He Y, Wang C-H, Tong YW (2020) Integrating food waste sorting system with anaerobic digestion and gasification for hydrogen and methane co-production. Appl Energy 257:113988
Chang ACC, Chang H-F, Lin F-J, Lin K-H, Chen C-H (2011) Biomass gasification for hydrogen production. Int J Hydrog Energy 36:14252–14260
Shie J-L, Chen L-X, Lin K-L, Chang C-Y (2014) Plasmatron gasification of biomass lignocellulosic waste materials derived from municipal solid waste. Energy 66:82–89
Parthasarathy P, Narayanan KS (2014) Hydrogen production from steam gasification of biomass: influence of process parameters on hydrogen yield – a review. Renew Energy 66:570–579
Nanda S, Isen J, Dalai AK, Kozinski JA (2016) Gasification of fruit wastes and agro-food residues in supercritical water. Energy Convers Manag 110:296–306
Osman AI, Skillen NC, Robertson PKJ, Rooney DW, Morgan K (2020) Exploring the photocatalytic hydrogen production potential of titania doped with alumina derived from foil waste. Int J Hydrog Energy
Wang Y, Wang D, Chen F, Yang Q, Li Y, Li X, Zeng G (2019) Effect of triclocarban on hydrogen production from dark fermentation of waste activated sludge. Bioresour Technol 279:307–316
Hu B, Li Y, Zhu S, Zhang H, Jing Y, Jiang D, He C, Zhang Z (2020) Evaluation of biohydrogen yield potential and electron balance in the photo-fermentation process with different initial pH from starch agricultural leftover. Bioresour Technol 305:122900
Li Y, Zhang Z, Zhang Q, Tahir N, Jing Y, Xia C, Zhu S, Zhang X (2020) Enhancement of bio-hydrogen yield and pH stability in photo fermentation process using dark fermentation effluent as succedaneum. Bioresour Technol 297:122504
Jayabalan T, Matheswaran M, Preethi V, Naina Mohamed S (2020) Enhancing biohydrogen production from sugar industry wastewater using metal oxide/graphene nanocomposite catalysts in microbial electrolysis cell. Int J Hydrog Energy 45:7647–7655
Ursua A, Gandia LM, Sanchis P (2012) Hydrogen production from water electrolysis: current status and future trends. Proc IEEE 100:410–426
Yuzer B, Selcuk H, Chehade G, Demir ME, Dincer I (2020) Evaluation of hydrogen production via electrolysis with ion exchange membranes. Energy 190:116420
Chakik FE, Kaddami M, Mikou M (2017) Effect of operating parameters on hydrogen production by electrolysis of water. Int J Hydro Energy 42:25550–25557
Kovač A, Marciuš D, Budin L (2019) Solar hydrogen production via alkaline water electrolysis. Int J Hydrog Energy 44:9841–9848
Ruth MF, Jadun P, Pivovar B (2017) “H2@Scale: technical and economic potential of hydrogen as an energy intermediate”, Presentation at the Fuel Cell Seminar and Energy Exposition, Long Beach, CA, 9 November, https://doi.org/10.5065/D6M32STK.
The authors would like to acknowledge the support given by the EPSRC project “Advancing Creative Circular Economies for Plastics via Technological-Social Transitions” (ACCEPT Transitions, EP/S025545/1). The authors also wish to acknowledge the support of The Bryden Centre project (Project ID VA5048) which was awarded by The European Union’s INTERREG VA Programme. The authors would like to thank Charlie Farrell and Patrick McNicholl who assisted in the proofreading of the manuscript.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
About this article
Cite this article
Osman, A.I., Deka, T.J., Baruah, D.C. et al. Critical challenges in biohydrogen production processes from the organic feedstocks. Biomass Conv. Bioref. (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13399-020-00965-x
- Waste to energy
- Microbial electrolysis cell
- Climate change