Electrochemical Batteries and Their Synergy with Plant Photosynthesis: Advances, Challenges, and Unexplored Frontiers

Electrochemical Batteries and Their Synergy with Plant Photosynthesis: Advances, Challenges, and Unexplored Frontiers | Authorea try { document.documentElement.classList.add('js'); } catch (e) { } var _gaq = _gaq || []; _gaq.push(['_setAccount', 'G-8VDV14Y67G']); _gaq.push(['_trackPageview']); (function() { var ga = document.createElement('script'); ga.type = 'text/javascript'; ga.async = true; ga.src = ('https:' == document.location.protocol ? 'https://ssl' : 'http://www') + '.google-analytics.com/ga.js'; var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(ga, s); })(); Skip to main content Preprints Collections Wiley Open Research IET Open Research Ecological Society of Japan All Collections About About Authorea FAQs Contact Us Quick Search anywhere Search for preprint articles, keywords, etc. Search Search ADVANCED SEARCH SCROLL This is a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. 7 October 2025 V1 Latest version Share on Electrochemical Batteries and Their Synergy with Plant Photosynthesis: Advances, Challenges, and Unexplored Frontiers Authors : Muhammad Yahya Tahir 0000-0002-3083-7763 , Aamir Riaz , Sadia Khatoon , Mehtab Muhammad Aslam , Moxian Chen 0000-0003-4538-5533 , and Muhammad Sufyan Javed 0000-0002-2771-0251 [email protected] Authors Info & Affiliations https://doi.org/10.22541/au.175987640.01586829/v1 440 views 240 downloads Contents Abstract Information & Authors Metrics & Citations View Options References Figures Tables Media Share Abstract The rising urgency for sustainable and well-organized energy storage solutions has intensified interest in hybridizing electrochemical batteries with biological systems, particularly plant photosynthesis. This review thoroughly inspects the foundational principles of electrochemical energy storage, the latest advances in battery chemistries, including lithium-ion, sodium-ion, and redox flow systems and their critical limitations in sustainability, scalability, and safety. We discover the unique advantages and mechanistic details of integrating plant photosynthetic processes with electrochemical devices, highlighting the unparalleled self-regeneration, aqueous compatibility, and bio-inspired charge transfer pathways intrinsic to photosynthetic complexes. Current breakthroughs in biohybrid architectures demonstrate auspicious synergies, such as phloem sap functioning as a natural electrolyte and photorespiration byproducts serving as renewable energy substrates. However, significant challenges remain, encircling biological-electrochemical interface stability, nanotoxicity, ecological impacts, and the spatial-temporal mismatch between photosynthetic rhythms and battery operation. This review critically assesses also failed approaches, identifies key knowledge gaps including ecological oversight, benchmarking deficiencies, and scalability constraints and outlines emerging strategies leveraging nanomaterials, genetic engineering, and machine learning to bridge these divides. By defining the frontier of bioelectrochemical research, this review offers a roadmap toward next-generation energy storage technologies that harmonize biological efficiency with electrochemical robustness, setting a foundation for transformative advances in sustainable energy. Electrochemical Batteries and Their Synergy with Plant Photosynthesis: Advances, Challenges, and Unexplored Frontiers Muhammad Yahya Tahir, Aamir Riaz, Sadia Khatoon, Mehtab Muhammad Aslam, Moxian Chen* and Muhammad Sufyan Javed** Dr. M. Y. Tahir, Dr. A. Riaz, Dr. S. Khatoon, Prof. M. Chen State Key Laboratory of Green Pesticide, Key Laboratory of Green Pesticide and Agricultural Bioengineering, Ministry of Education, Center for R&D of Fine Chemicals of Guizhou University, Guiyang, 550025, China E-mail: [email protected] Dr. M. M. Aslam Department of Biology, Texas State University, San Marcos, 78666, USA Dr. M. S. Javed Institute of Carbon Neutrality, Zhejiang Wanli University, Ningbo 315100, China E-mail: [email protected] Keywords: Biohybrid Energy Systems, Photosynthetic Bioelectrochemistry, Sustainable Energy Storage, Plant-Microbe Interfaces, Bio-inspired Electrodes The rising urgency for sustainable and well-organized energy storage solutions has intensified interest in hybridizing electrochemical batteries with biological systems, particularly plant photosynthesis. This review thoroughly inspects the foundational principles of electrochemical energy storage, the latest advances in battery chemistries, including lithium-ion, sodium-ion, and redox flow systems and their critical limitations in sustainability, scalability, and safety. We discover the unique advantages and mechanistic details of integrating plant photosynthetic processes with electrochemical devices, highlighting the unparalleled self-regeneration, aqueous compatibility, and bio-inspired charge transfer pathways intrinsic to photosynthetic complexes. Current breakthroughs in biohybrid architectures demonstrate auspicious synergies, such as phloem sap functioning as a natural electrolyte and photorespiration byproducts serving as renewable energy substrates. However, significant challenges remain, encircling biological-electrochemical interface stability, nanotoxicity, ecological impacts, and the spatial-temporal mismatch between photosynthetic rhythms and battery operation. This review critically assesses also failed approaches, identifies key knowledge gaps including ecological oversight, benchmarking deficiencies, and scalability constraints and outlines emerging strategies leveraging nanomaterials, genetic engineering, and machine learning to bridge these divides. By defining the frontier of bioelectrochemical research, this review offers a roadmap toward next-generation energy storage technologies that harmonize biological efficiency with electrochemical robustness, setting a foundation for transformative advances in sustainable energy. Graphical Abstract: 1. Introduction The global energy landscape faces two experiential demands: the need for sustainable energy storage and carbon-neutral energy conversion. While lithium-ion batteries have revolutionized portable electronics and electric transportation, their reliance on rare metals and incomplete recyclability represent major sustainability challenges. [1] Nature has not yet developed an energy conversion system for photosynthesis - a process that has fueled life on Earth for billions of years using only sunlight, water and carbon dioxide. The sensitivity synergy of these two energy paradigms, i.e., artificial electrochemical storage and natural photosynthetic conversion, is the foundation of a new generation of biohybrid energy systems capable of simultaneously achieving mutual energy storage and environmentally sustainable energy conversion. The development of electrochemical energy storage systems represents one of humankind’s most amazing technological adventures, starting with Volta’s primitive pile in 1800 and through to modern battery architectures. This devolution has been fuelled by three basic demands: increased energy density, improved safety and sustainable operation. Their lithium-ion rebellion started with Goodenough’s discovery of lithium cobalt oxide cathode materials that changed the electric vehicle revolution, and portable electronics forever. However, as Whittingham [2] is known for his historical bent, each battery chemistry development has carried its own new competitions along with benefits. Modern battery technology now includes several parallel development pathways. Solid-state batteries, utilizing ceramic or polymer electrolytes instead of flammable liquids, promise to overcome safety concerns while potentially allowing lithium metal anodes. Scientists like Cui and colleagues have confirmed how nanostructured electrode designs can dramatically improve performance. [3] Meanwhile, redox flow batteries, mainly those using organic electrolytes, offer scalable solutions for grid storage, though their energy densities persist limited. The sustainability catastrophe in battery technology has become progressively urgent. The environmental effect of mining operations for cobalt, nickel, and lithium has created significant ethical and ecological concerns. This has spurred interest in alternative chemistries, as well as sodium-ion systems investigated by Palacín’s group and potassium-ion batteries discovered by Ji’s team. [4] Conceivably most challenging is the developing bio-inspired approaches that mimic natural energy storage mechanisms, such as the quinone-based systems designed by Aziz and collaborators, which draw direct inspiration from biological electron transport chains. Photosynthetic creatures have advanced exquisite machinery for converting solar energy into chemical potential. The light-dependent reactions in photosystems I and II (PSI/PSII) produce a flow of electrons with near-perfect quantum efficacy. Bizarrely, this biological electron transport chain preserves its functionality under ambient conditions, self-repairs damage, and operates continuously for the lifespan of the organism – features that artificial systems struggle to replicate. Recent developments in biophysics have empowered unprecedented access to these natural energy conversion systems, allowing researchers to directly interface photosynthetic components with synthetic electrodes. [5] The conjunction of electrochemical engineering and biological systems has given escalation to four distinct but interconnected approaches to biohybrid energy systems. First, direct extraction methods, pioneered by groups like Bombelli [6] physically wire photosynthetic complexes to electrodes. These systems, while elegant in perception, face challenges in maintaining protein stability outside native membranes, as detailed in recent work by Ciesielski. [5] Second, whole-cell systems exploit intact organisms in microbial fuel cells. The Strik [7] group’s demonstration of living plant-based power generation attained remarkable stability, with systems operating continuously for years. Recent developments by Chen [8] have boosted power densities through genetic engineering of cyanobacterial electron transport pathways. Nevertheless, as Rosenbaum and colleagues noted, [9] scaling these systems requires solving fundamental challenges in charge transfer across biological membranes. Third, biomimetic systems replicate photosynthetic principles in synthetic materials. The Sprick [10] group’s polymeric photocatalysts establish how nature’s light-harvesting strategies can inspire artificial systems. Correspondingly, work by the Nocera [11] lab on artificial leaves shows how biological concepts can guide technological innovation. Fourth, increased biology approaches use synthetic biology tools to redesign natural systems for enhanced electrochemical compatibility. The Sokol [12] team’s rewiring of photosynthetic electron transport represents a landmark achievement in this direction. Recent study by Sakimoto [13] has even demonstrated self-assembling semiconductor-bacteria hybrids that blur the line between living and artificial systems. Contempt promising demonstrations, significant challenges hinder practical implementation. The energy density of biohybrid systems typically lags behind conventional batteries by orders of magnitude. [6] Stability issues arise from the incompatibility between biological components and industrial materials. Perhaps most censoriously, scaling these systems beyond laboratory prototypes requires solving complex systems integration problems while maintaining biological viability. Addressing these contests demands interdisciplinary collaboration across electrochemistry, synthetic biology, and materials science. Numerous emerging frontiers promise to redefine what’s possible at the battery-photosynthesis interface. Synthetic biology tools now allow the redesign of photosynthetic electron pathways for enhanced compatibility with electrochemical systems. Developments in conductive biomaterials allow for more efficient charge extraction from living cells. Perhaps most interestingly, the development of “living batteries” that grow and self-repair represents a paradigm shift in energy storage design. [13] These novelties coincide with growing recognition of the need for circular energy economies, where biological components could provide both energy storage and carbon sequestration benefits. This comprehensive review scrutinizes the rapidly evolving field at the intersection of electrochemical batteries and plant photosynthesis. We examine three key areas: (1) fundamental mechanisms of electron transfer between biological and electrochemical systems, (2) current technological implementations and their performance benchmarks, and (3) emerging opportunities that could transform energy storage paradigms. By censoriously evaluating both biological and engineering aspects, we aim to provide researchers across disciplines with a roadmap for advancing this promising field. Our analysis reveals that the most significant breakthroughs will likely come from hybrid approaches that respect biological constraints while leveraging electrochemical innovations – a synthesis that could finally deliver sustainable energy solutions inspired by nature’s brilliance. 2. Fundamentals of Electrochemical Batteries 2.1. Principles of Energy Storage: The vital thermodynamics of electrochemical energy storage have seen renewed scrutiny with advances in operando characterization techniques. A recent study by Bao [14] using cryo-EM to probe solid-electrolyte interphase (SEI) formation revealed that the actual energy losses during charge/discharge cycles are 23-41% higher than theoretical predictions due to nanoscale inhomogeneities at electrode interfaces. This has reflective implications for biohybrid systems, where biological components introduce additional complexity to interfacial charge transfer. The group of Meng [15] verified that the Marcus-Gerischer theory of electron transfer must be modified for biological-electrochemical interfaces, accounting for proton-coupled electron transfer (PCET) mechanisms that dominate in photosynthetic systems. Their work on cytochrome c-modified electrodes showed reorganization energies 3-5× higher than conventional battery materials, directly impacting power density. Quantitative comparisons disclose stark contrasts: while commercial Li-ion batteries achieve >95% Coulombic efficiency, biohybrid systems typically plateau at 60-75%. Nevertheless, the latter offer unique recompenses in self-regeneration - a single chloroplast can maintain 80% of its electron transport capacity after 10^4 cycles, compared to <10^3 cycles for conventional anodes before significant capacity fade. Emergent work on quantum biological effects suggests photosynthetic complexes may exploit coherent electron transfer, potentially enabling unprecedented charge separation efficiencies >99% under optimal conditions. 2.2. Types of Batteries 2.2.1. Lithium-Ion Batteries: The 2023 Nobel Prize in Chemistry documented the commercialization of LiFePO₄ cathodes, which now achieve 165 mAh/g with >20,000 cycle life in grid storage applications. [16] Nevertheless, the field is rapidly shifting toward lithium metal anodes, with current breakthroughs in anode-free configurations reaching 560 Wh/kg. These progresses are particularly relevant for biohybrid integration, as the 50% weight reduction could compensate for the lower energy density of biological components ( Figure. 1). Figure 1: Lithium-Ion Battery 2.2.2. Sodium-Ion Batteries: The year 2023 marked the first commercial deployment of Na-ion cells by CATL, with 160 Wh/kg energy density and superior low-temperature performance (-40°C operation) compared to Li-ion. Prussian blue analogs have developed as leading cathodes, with manganese-based variants showing 155 mAh/g capacity at 3.2V. Their aqueous compatibility makes them auspicious candidates for integration with plant-based systems ( Figure. 2) . Figure 2: Sodium-Ion Battery 2.2.3. Redox Flow Batteries: A 2023 milestone was the demonstration of a pH-neutral organic flow battery with 89% energy efficiency over 1,000 cycles. A photosynthetic flow battery, where genetically modified algae provide continuous NADPH regeneration, achieving sustained 0.5 mA/cm² current density for 30 days. This signifies the first true merger of biological and electrochemical energy storage at scale ( Figure. 3 ). Figure 3: Redox flow battery 2.3. Limitations of Conventional Batteries Despite their widespread implementation, conventional electrochemical batteries face critical limitations that hinder their sustainability, safety, and scalability. Recent work highlights these challenges with increasing urgency, particularly as global demand for energy storage surges. 2.3.1. Material Scarcity and Supply Chain Risks The lithium-ion battery (LIB) industry profoundly relies on critical metals such as lithium, cobalt, and nickel, which are concentrated in geopolitically sensitive regions. A 2023 study by Sovacool [17] projected that cobalt demand could upsurge 20-fold by 2040, with 85% of reserves located in the Democratic Republic of Congo, raising concerns over ethical mining practices and supply chain volatility. Even lithium, once measured as abundant, faces bottlenecks—global production must increase 500% by 2050 to meet net-zero targets. Recycling, often flaunted as a solution, remains economically challenging; current pyrometallurgical methods recover only 40–60% of battery mass, and recycled materials remain 30% more exclusive than new resources due to energy-intensive processing. 2.3.2. Safety and Thermal Instability Safety remnants a persistent issue, particularly with high-energy-density chemistries. Batteries can undergo thermal runaway at 1,200°C in under 60 seconds, releasing toxic gases such as HF and POF₃. Solid-state batteries, while promising, still face dendrite penetration risks, with recent work showing that ceramic electrolytes can fracture under >4 MPa pressure during cycling. [18] Aqueous batteries, though safer, suffer from hydrogen evolution and low energy density, limiting their feasibility for large-scale applications. 2.3.3. Environmental and Health Impacts The environmental footprint of battery production extends beyond mining. PFAS-based electrolytes, extensively used in Li-ion systems, have been linked to bioaccumulation and long-term toxicity. Moreover, the carbon footprint of manufacturing a single 75 kWh EV battery ranges from 5–15 metric tons of CO₂, negating much of the emissions savings during vehicle operation. Even ”green” alternatives like sodium-ion batteries rely on Prussian blue cathodes, which require cyanide-based synthesis, posing disposal challenges. 2.3.4. Performance Degradation and Lifetime Issues Conventional LIBs typically hold 80% capacity after 1,000–2,000 cycles, but degradation accelerates under high temperatures or fast charging. Recent work found that silicon anodes, despite their high capacity, suffer from 300% volume expansion, leading to rapid mechanical failure. Flow batteries, while durable, face membrane fouling and crossover losses, reducing round-trip efficiency to <75% in long-term storage. [19] These restrictions have spurred interest in biohybrid systems that could alleviate these issues: Self-repair mechanisms : Photosynthetic organisms naturally regenerate damaged components, a feature that synthetic materials nonexistence. Abundant biomaterials : Plant-derived electrodes (e.g., lignin-based anodes) offer 350 mAh/g capacity without metals. Aqueous compatibility : Bioelectrochemical systems work in water, eliminating flammable organic electrolytes. While biohybrid machineries are not yet ready to replace conventional batteries, their exclusive advantages highlight a promising pathway toward sustainable, self-healing energy storage. 3. Photosynthesis as a Natural Energy Conversion System Photosynthesis signifies the pinnacle of natural energy conversion, flawlessly integrating light harvesting, charge separation, and chemical synthesis to sustain life on Earth. Its law of nature have stimulated advancements in renewable energy technologies, primarily in the development of biohybrid electrochemical systems. This section analyse the mechanistic underpinnings of photosynthesis, its energy conversion inefficiency, and the strides made in artificial photosynthesis, while promoting synergies with electrochemical batteries. 3.1. Mechanism of Photosynthesis Photosynthesis is a two-phase procedure encompassing the Calvin cycle and light-dependent activity ( Figure 4 ). The light-dependent reactions occur in the thylakoid membranes of chloroplasts, where pigments such as chlorophyll ‘a’, chlorophyll ‘b’, and carotenoids take in photons. These pigments are systematized into light-harvesting complexes (LHCs), which funnel excitation energy to reaction middles in Photosystem II (PSII) and Photosystem I (PSI). PSII catalyzes the oxidation of water through the oxygen-evolving complex (OEC), a Mn₄CaO₅ cluster that splitting water into protons, electrons, and molecular oxygen. [20] This process is serious for maintaining Earth’s oxygenic atmosphere and provides the reducing equivalents essential for carbon fixation. Figure 4: Mechanism of Photosynthesis The electrons extracted from water are transferred via a sequence of carriers, including plastoquinone, cytochrome b₆f , and plastocyanin, to PSI. Here, they are reactivated by light and used to reduce NADP⁺ to NADPH via ferredoxin-NADP⁺ reductase (FNR). Concomitantly, the proton gradient recognized across the thylakoid membrane drives ATP synthesis through ATP synthase. The Calvin cycle then utilizes ATP and NADPH to fix CO₂ into carbohydrates, retaining the enzyme ribulose-1,5-bisphosphate carboxylase/oxygenase (RuBisCO). [21] Notwithstanding its elegance, photosynthesis faces inherent inefficiencies, such as photorespiration (where RuBisCO reacts with O₂ as an alternative of CO₂) and non-photochemical quenching (NPQ), which dissipates excess energy as heat under high light intensity. Current structural studies, including cryo-EM and X-ray crystallography, have determined the architecture of key complexes like PSII and ATP synthase at near-atomic resolution, offering insights into their catalytic mechanisms. [22] For example, the finding of the OEC’s cubane-like structure has spurred the development of synthetic Mn- and Ca-based catalysts for artificial water splitting. Nevertheless, replicating the self-repair mechanisms of natural photosynthesis—where scratched proteins like D1 in PSII are continuously replaced—remains a significant challenge for artificial systems. 3.2. Energy Output and Efficiency The energy conversion competence of photosynthesis is administered by multiple factors, including photon absorption, charge separation, and biochemical bottlenecks. The theoretical maximum effectiveness of solar-to-biomass conversion is assessed at ~11%, based on the energy content of glucose and the quantum requirements of the light reactions. Although real-world proficiency rarely exceeds 3–6% due to losses from photorespiration, light saturation, and metabolic constraints. [23] For instance, C₃ plants (e.g., wheat, rice) lose up to 25% of fixed carbon to photorespiration, while C₄ plants (e.g., maize, sugarcane) alleviate this via spatial separation of CO₂ fixation and the Calvin cycle, achieving higher efficiencies (~4–6%). Comparative investigations with photovoltaic (PV) systems reveal trade-offs between natural and artificial energy conversion. Silicon solar cells attain 20–30% efficiency in converting sunlight to electricity but lack inherent energy storage. In divergence, photosynthesis stores energy chemically in biomass, albeit at lower efficiency. [24] Emerging biohybrid systems goal to bridge this gap by coupling photosynthetic organisms with electrochemical strategies. For example, bio-photovoltaic cells (BPVs) use cyanobacteria or algae to generate photocurrents, though their power densities (~0.1–1 W/m²) endure orders of magnitude lower than conventional PVs. The energy output of photosynthesis can also be measured in terms of biomass productivity. Microalgae like Chlorella and Scenedesmus yield ~20–30 tons of dry biomass per hectare yearly, equivalent to manipulation and optimized growth conditions (e.g. stable light cycles, recycling of nutrients) have raised these figures to and economic drawbacks). [25,26] In addition, coupling of photosynthetic systems to batteries, e.g., with algal derived carbon anodes in LIBs, provides new opportunities for sustainable energy storage. [27] The Table . 1 compare equally 10 photosynthetic energy systems in three categories of natural, artificial, and hybrid. Entry 1–3: natural systems, C₄ plants show 3–6% solar-to-biomass efficiency, which is twice that of C₃ plants, and cyanobacteria produce H₂ at 0.3–1.2% efficiency. Artificial systems (Entries 4–6) were more efficient (up to 10.5 for perovskites) but had short lifetimes (50–100 h), and 100,000 turnovers were obtained with Ru molecular catalysts. Concept Store Entry 7 (PKC) Terminus Homologous PKC Hydrogenase for 5.1% H₂ Production Hybr-bloc bio PSII and electrode. Commercial photovoltaics (Entry 8) trump the balance with between 20 and 30% inefficiency, but no in-built storage. Bio-photovoltaics (Entry 9) and algae derived battery anodes (Entry 10) demonstrate future potential with a 0.05–0.3% and 500 cycle stability, respectively. Fundamental trade-offs surface for which natural systems favor constancy through self-repair over a long time-scale (>10 years), whereas artifacts forsake persistence for instantaneous peak performance. The data emphasises that it is possible for hybrid systems to shore up the efficiency-durability divide in sustainable energy implementations. [28-38] Table.1. Comparative Energy Conversion Efficiencies in Photosynthetic and Artificial Systems Natural Photosynthesis C₃ Plants (e.g., wheat) Solar (400–700 nm) Years (self-repair) 0.1–2.5 100–400 (OEC) Biomass (glucose) Natural Photosynthesis C₄ Plants (e.g., maize) Solar (400–700 nm) Years (self-repair) 3–6 100–400 (OEC) Biomass (glucose) Natural Photosynthesis Cyanobacteria (e.g., Synechocystis ) Solar (400–700 nm) Months 0.3–1.2 10–50 (nitrogenase) H₂ (nitrogenase) Artificial Photosynthesis BiVO₄/WO₃ photoanode Solar (AM 1.5G) 100 h 8.2 0.1–1 (surface sites) H₂ (water splitting) Artificial Photosynthesis Perovskite (CsPbBr₃) Solar (AM 1.5G) 50 h (50% decay) 10.5 5–10 (surface sites) H₂ (water splitting) Artificial Photosynthesis Ru-bda molecular catalyst Visible light (>450 nm) 1 week 12 (quantum yield) 100,000 (total turnovers) O₂ (water oxidation) Hybrid System PSII-integrated electrode Solar (400–700 nm) 1 week 5.1 200 (PSII turnover) H₂ (biohybrid) Photovoltaics Silicon (Si) Solar (AM 1.5G) 25 years 20–30 N/A Electricity Bio-Photovoltaics Chlorella -based cell Solar (400–700 nm) 1 month 0.05–0.3 N/A Electricity Battery Integration Algae-derived carbon anode Biomass (pyrolysis) 500 cycles N/A N/A Li⁺ storage Artificial Leaf CoPi/α-Fe₂O₃ Solar (AM 1.5G) 200 h 7.5 0.5–2 (surface sites) H₂ + O₂ 3.3. Artificial Photosynthesis Artificial photosynthesis signifies a rapidly advancing field that seeks to replicate and enhance natural photosynthetic methods using synthetic materials and engineered systems. The progress of artificial photosynthesis technologies has been driven by the need for sustainable energy solutions that can overcome the limits of biological systems, such as low energy conversion efficiency and sensitivity to environmental conditions. Photoelectrochemical cells (PECs) have appeared as one of the most promising tactics, with recent advancements in materials design pushing solar-to-hydrogen efficiencies beyond 10%. [39] These systems characteristically combine semiconductor light absorbers like BiVO₄ or perovskites with efficient electrocatalysts such as CoPi or NiFeOx. Tandem configurations, where multiple light-absorbing resources are stacked to capture a broader spectrum of sunlight, have demonstrated particular promise, with some systems approaching the 15% efficiency threshold considered necessary for commercial viability. Nevertheless, weighty challenges remain in improving the durability of these devices, as current state-of-the-art PECs typically experience substantial performance degradation within 100-500 hours of operation due to photocorrosion and interfacial charge recombination. Photoelectrochemical cells signify the most mature artificial photosynthesis skill, utilizing semiconductor light absorbers paired with electrocatalysts. Current innovations in materials design, such as BiVO₄/WO₃ heterojunctions and perovskite-based photocathodes, have pushed solar-to-hydrogen (STH) efficiencies beyond 10%. Tandem systems uniting multiple bandgap materials, like Si/Fe₂O₃ or perovskite/CIGS stacks, now approach the 15% efficiency threshold considered viable for commercialization. Although, durability remains a perilous limitation - even state-of-the-art PECs typically degrade by >50% within 100-500 hours of operation due to photocorrosion, catalyst dissolution, or interfacial charge recombination. [40] Innovative protection strategies, including atomic layer deposition of TiO₂ coatings and the development of self-healing catalysts, are showing potential in extending operational lifetimes. Molecular catalysts suggestion an alternative approach that provides atomic-level control over catalytic active sites, enabling precise mimicry of nature’s oxygen-evolving complex. Artificial Mn₄O₄ cubanes have been shown to operate at remarkably low overpotentials of around 300 mV, while Ru-bda complexes can achieve an impressive 100,000 turnovers for water oxidation. Current expansions in earth-abundant alternatives, such as CoP₃ nanowires, have demonstrated 90% Faradaic efficiency for CO₂ reduction to CO, highlighting the potential for sustainable solar fuel production. Despite these developments, molecular systems still struggle to scale up output while keeping costs low and to achieve the high turnover rates (100–400 s⁻¹) seen in natural photosynthesis. One major issue with the widespread use of many excellent catalysts is their reliance on precious metals like ruthenium. [41] A novel third formulation that combines the advantages of synthetic and biological components is shown by hybrid bioinorganic systems. These systems contribute to the resilience and tunability of manmade materials while also influencing the specificity and self-healing properties of biological catalysts. For instance, PSII-coupled electrodes, which instantly connect the natural photosystem to artificial electrodes, have a 5.1% solar-to-hydrogen effectiveness. Likewise, microbial electrosynthesis platforms have shown 60% energy efficiency in converting CO₂ to acetate, while cyanobacteria-based bio-photovoltaic systems may generate power densities of 0.35 mW/cm². Although these hybrid processes have special opportunities for developing sustainable energy conversion systems, they must overcome obstacles pertaining to the stability of the biocatalyst and effective electron transport between synthetic and biological components. [42] A number of significant obstacles still need to be overcome in the realm of artificial photosynthesis before it can be put into practice. With existing systems needing to be improved from hundreds to thousands of hours of sustained operation, durability is still a major challenge. Another significant issue is cost reduction, since catalyst materials need to get cheaper in order to compete with traditional energy systems. Additional issues arise due to scalability, primarily in sustaining performance when moving from laboratory-scale demonstrations to real-world, large-scale systems. Recent developments in self-healing catalysts and atomic layer deposition for protective coatings hold promise for overcoming some of these constraints. [43] Looking ahead, the integration of artificial photosynthesis with electrochemical energy storage systems, such as lithium-oxygen batteries, may open new opportunities for creating fully renewable energy cycles that efficiently capture, store, and utilize solar energy. 4. Intersection of Batteries and Photosynthesis The convergence of electrochemical energy storage and plant photosynthesis characterizes a groundbreaking archetype in sustainable energy technologies. This interdisciplinary synergy influences the unparalleled efficiency of biological light harvesting and carbon fixation to increase electrochemical energy storage systems, while simultaneously addressing the limitations of conventional batteries in terms of sustainability, environmental impact, and energy density. The addition of these two fields has given rise to biohybrid energy systems, bio-inspired battery designs, and novel approaches to energy conversion that blur the boundaries between biology and electrochemistry. Although this emerging field also faces important challenges, including mismatched timescales, material incompatibilities, and scalability issues, these challenges must be overcome to realize practical applications. In this section, we critically examine the state-of-the-art in biohybrid and bio-inspired systems, examine the fundamental challenges hindering their widespread adoption, and outline unexplored frontiers that could drive future breakthroughs. 4.1. Biohybrid Energy Systems Biohybrid energy systems signify a revolutionary technique, where living photosynthetic organisms (such as algae, cyanobacteria, or isolated chloroplasts) are directly integrated with electrochemical batteries to make synergistic energy conversion and storage platforms. These systems exploit the natural ability of photosynthesis to convert solar energy into chemical energy, which can then be harvested and stored electrochemically. The most prominent examples include bio-photovoltaic (BPV) devices, microbial fuel cells (MFCs), and semi-artificial photosynthetic systems, each of which contributes unique advantages and faces distinct limitations. 4.1.1. Direct Electron Transfer (DET) in Bio-Photovoltaics One of the most talented mechanisms in biohybrid systems is direct electron transfer (DET), where photosynthetic organisms transfer electrons unswervingly to an electrode without the need for soluble mediators. Early work by Rosenbaum [9] demonstrated that certain cyanobacteria and algae can interrelate with anode surfaces, generating photocurrents under illumination. Nevertheless, the efficiency of such systems remains low (typically <1%), chiefly due to poor interfacial electron transfer kinetics and the insulating nature of cellular membranes. Current advances in nanostructured electrodes, such as graphene oxide-modified anodes and 3D porous conductive scaffolds, have enhanced contact between biological components and electrodes, enhancing current densities by up to an order of magnitude. [44] 4.1.2. Mediated Electron Transfer (MET) and Redox Shuttling To skirt the limitations of DET, scholars have explored mediated electron transfer (MET), where synthetic redox molecules (e.g., ferricyanide, quinones, or viologens) shuttle electrons from photosynthetic complexes to electrodes. McCormick [27] confirmed that exogenous mediators could extract electrons from Photosystem II (PSII), meaningfully boosting photocurrent generation. Although, this approach introduces new challenges, counting mediator toxicity to cells, photodegradation of redox species, and mass transport limitations. Current efforts have focused on immobilized redox polymers and redox hydrogel matrices that soothe mediators while maintaining efficient charge transfer. 4.1.3. Biophotoelectrodes and Thylakoid-Integrated Systems Another strategy involves the use of isolated photosynthetic components, such as thylakoid membranes or reconstituted photosystems, interfaced with conductive materials. Calkins [45] demonstrated the development of biophotovoltaic cells where spinach-derived thylakoids were immobilized on carbon nanotube (CNT) networks, achieving durable photocurrent generation for several hours. Consequent work has discovered protein engineering to enhance the stability of photosynthetic proteins under electrochemical conditions, including site-directed mutagenesis of PSI to improve binding to electrodes. Despite these developments, long-term operational stability remains a serious hurdle, as photoinhibition and electrode fouling degrade performance over time. Challenges in Biohybrid Systems Although biohybrid systems hold immense promise, numerous fundamental challenges must be addressed: Energy Conversion Efficiency : Natural photosynthesis works at theoretical maximum (~12%). Participating this with batteries introduces additional losses, limiting overall system efficiency. [46] Scalability : Most demonstrations continue at the lab scale (µW–mW/cm²), with few research addressing large-scale reactor design or continuous operation. [6] System Longevity : Biological components degrade under electrochemical polarization, necessitating self-repair methods or protective coatings. [47] 4.2. Bio-Inspired Battery Designs Beyond direct addition with living systems, photosynthesis has enthused novel battery architectures that mimic natural light-harvesting, charge separation, and proton-coupled electron transfer (PCET) mechanisms. These bio-inspired designs leverage synthetic biology, biomimetic materials, and quantum-inspired engineering to overcome limitations in conventional batteries. 4.2.1. Artificial Chloroplasts and Light-Responsive Electrodes A key novelty is the development of artificial chloroplasts ( Figure 5 ), where synthetic pigments (e.g., porphyrins, phthalocyanines, or chlorophyll analogs) replicate the light-harvesting antennae of vegetation. Zhang [48] pioneered a dye-sensitized photocatalytic battery where a Zn-porphyrin cathode stored solar energy via reversible redox reactions, achieving a photocharging efficiency of 8.2%. Furthermore, refinements have combined quantum dots and plasmonic nanoparticles to extend light absorption into the near-infrared. Figure 5: Chloroplast vs Artificial Chloroplast 4.2.2. Proton-Exchange Membranes (PEMs) Inspired by Thylakoids Additional breakthrough is the use of proton-exchange membranes (PEMs) that mimic the thylakoid proton gradient to improve ion transport. Chen [49] demonstrated a biomimetic PEM using sulfonated graphene oxide, which exhibited proton conductivity comparable to Nafion while being compatible with biological components. Such membranes could allow photocharging flow batteries where light-driven proton pumping directly charges the electrolyte. 4.2.3. Self-Healing Materials for Longevity Enthused by plant wound repair mechanisms, scientists have explored self-healing battery components to mitigate electrode degradation. White [50] designed a redox-active polymer that unconventionally repairs cracks in Lithium-ion battery anodes, extending cycle life by 300%. Analogous strategies could be pragmatic to biohybrid systems to counteract photobleaching and electrode corrosion. Nature’s photosynthetic machinery has enthused revolutionary advances in electrochemical energy storage, leading to battery designs that mimic light-harvesting complexes, proton-coupled electron transfer (PCET) mechanisms, and self-repair systems. These designs influence principles from plant biology to overcome limitations in conventional batteries, chiefly in solar energy conversion and longevity. In the Table . 2 , we examine key approaches, followed by a comparative analysis of prominent bio-inspired systems. [6,15,46,48-58] Table 2: Comparative Analysis of Bio-Inspired Battery Designs Artificial Chloroplast Zn-Porphyrin/Graphene Hybrids PSII Light-Harvesting Complex >500 cycles 120-150 8.2% Proton-Gradient Battery Sulfonated GO/Nafion Membranes Thylakoid Membrane H⁺ Transport >1000 cycles 80-100 N/A (Dark Operation) Quantum Dot Sensitized CdSe/ZnS QD-Decorated TiO₂ Antenna Pigment Arrays 300 cycles 90-110 6.8% Redox Polymer Cathode Poly(viologen)-Ferrocene Copolymers Plastoquinone Pool >2000 cycles 60-75 3.5% Self-Healing Anode Diels-Alder Polymer-CNT Composites Plant Wound Response >5000 cycles 180-200 N/A Oxygen-Evolving Cathode Mn₄CaO₅-Cluster Modified Carbon Kok Cycle of PSII 200 cycles 40-50 5.1% Chlorophyll-Sensitized Chlorin-e6/Conducting Polymer Hybrids Chlorophyll-Protein Complexes 400 cycles 70-85 7.3% Biomimetic PEM Peptide-Nanotube Composite Membranes ATP Synthase Proton Channel >3000 cycles N/A (Ionic Device) N/A Photorechargeable Zn-Air Porphyrin/Co₃O₄ Bifunctional Catalyst Stomatal Gas Exchange 800 cycles 350-400 9.1% Biohybrid Supercap Bacterial Cellulose/MXene Electrodes Electric Organ of Knifefish >10,000 cycles 25-30 N/A DNA-Templated Anode Geobacter-enriched Biofilms DNA Repair Mechanisms 1500 cycles 55-65 N/A Photonic Crystal Cathode TiO₂ Inverse Opal Photonic Crystals Structural Color in Leaves 600 cycles 110-130 10.2% Enzymatic Charge Mediator FNR-Immobilized Graphene Foam Ferredoxin-NADP⁺ Reductase 350 cycles 30-40 4.7% Lipid Bilayer Separator Phospholipid Vesicle-Embedded Separator Thylakoid Membrane Architecture >5 N/A (Safety Focus) The Table. 2 delivers a comprehensive comparison of 14 distinct bio-inspired battery designs that draw stimulation from photosynthetic systems, highlighting key parameters including biological inspiration, matserials, energy density, cycle stability, and light harvesting efficiency. Designs range from non-natural chloroplasts mimicking PSII light-harvesting complexes to proton-gradient batteries inspired by thylakoid membranes, with energy densities fluctuating significantly from 25 Wh/kg in biohybrid supercapacitors to 400 Wh/kg in photorechargeable Zn-air batteries. The data reveals important trade-offs, such as higher light-harvesting efficiencies (up to 10.2% in photonic crystal cathodes), which typically come at the expense of cycle stability. In distinction, biologically templated materials like bacterial cellulose make exceptional cycling performance (>10,000 cycles) but with lower energy density. Notably, proton-gradient systems demonstrate how biological transport principles can enhance cycle life (>3000 cycles), whereas protein-based designs often face stability limitations (<500 cycles). The comparison underlines that while biological inspiration offers innovative solutions for energy storage challenges, practical implementation requires vigilant balancing of nature-derived concepts with engineering constraints, particularly regarding scalability and cost-effectiveness of advanced biomimetic materials like Mn₄CaO₅ clusters or DNA-templated architectures. This table helps as a valuable reference for scientists working at the intersection of photosynthesis and electrochemistry, illustrating both the potential and limitations of bio-inspired approaches in next-generation battery development. 4.3. Challenges in Integration The addition of electrochemical batteries with plant photosynthesis presents a transformative opportunity for sustainable energy systems, yet it faces important scientific and engineering challenges that must be addressed to achieve practical viability. These tests span multiple domains, including biological stability, electrochemical compatibility, system-level effectiveness, and scalability. Below, we censoriously examine these barriers and debate emerging strategies to overcome them. 4.3.1. Biological Stability Under Electrochemical Conditions One of the foremost encounters lies in maintaining the structural and functional integrity of photosynthetic organisms or isolated photosynthetic components (e.g., thylakoid membranes, photosystem I/II) in electrochemical environments. The rapid breakdown of photosynthetic proteins and electron transport chains might result from biological systems’ heightened sensitivity to electrochemical polarisation, pH variations, and reactive oxygen species (ROS). [57] For instance, when interfaced with anodes running at high potentials, Photosystem II’s oxygen-evolving complex (OEC) is more susceptible to oxidative damage. Long-term exposure to an applied bias can also reduce total energy conversion efficiency by disrupting the proton motive force across thylakoid membranes, which uncouples photophosphorylation. Preventive redox polymers and encapsulation matrices, which protect biological components while allowing for cautious charge movement, are examples of emerging solutions. 4.3.2. Electrochemical Compatibility and Interfacial Kinetics The difference in charge transfer kinetics between biological and electrochemical systems is an ordinary important encounter. For light-induced charge separation, natural photosynthesis operates on microsecond to millisecond spans, yet battery charge/discharge processes usually take place over minutes to hours. [6] Significant energy losses occur at the bio-electrode contact as a result of this discrepancy, which causes poor coupling. Furthermore, the limited conductivity of biological redox centres (such as ferredoxin and plastoquinone) and the insulating nature of cellular membranes necessitate the use of high-surface-area electrodes (such as conductive hydrogels and nanostructured carbon) to improve interfacial contact. [53] Current developments in direct electron transfer (DET)-optimized biointerfaces, such as cytochrome-c-functionalized anodes, have shown promise in bridging this kinetic gap. Nevertheless, achieving high current densities (>1 mA/cm²) without compromising biological activity relics an unresolved challenge. 4.3.3. System-Level Efficiency and Energy Losses Even when biological and electrochemical components are positively integrated, the overall energy conversion efficiency of biohybrid systems is often limited by competing loss processes. Natural photosynthesis itself has a maximum theoretical proficiency of to light saturation, photorespiration, and non-radiative recombination. [46] When coupled with batteries, extra losses arise from overpotentials at electrodes, ohmic resistance, and parasitic responses. For instance, in bio-photovoltaic (BPV) devices, the requirement for diffusive redox mediators introduces concentration overpotentials that can reduce voltage efficiency by 30–50% (McCormick et al., 2015). To overcome these losses, scientists are exploring proton-coupled electron transfer (PCET) mimics and multi-photon Z-schemes inspired by natural photosynthesis, which could theoretically double energy storage efficiency. 4.3.4. Scalability and Economic Viability Lastly, the scalability of biohybrid systems remains a serious hurdle. Most laboratory-scale demonstrations yield power outputs in the µW to mW range, far below the kW–MW requirements for practical applications. Scaling up needs addressing mass transport limitations (e.g., CO₂ diffusion to algae cultures), light penetration issues in dense bioreactors, and the high charge of purified photosynthetic proteins. Because isolated Photosystem I (PSI) complexes are excessively expensive (~$500/g) to utilise in biophotoelectrodes, low-cost substitutes such synthetic pigments or crude thylakoid pull out are required. 56 According to economic research, biohybrid systems need to outperform traditional solar-battery hybrids by achieving >5% solar-to-electrical efficiency and Emerging Solutions and Future Directions This field is advancing in the direction of: CRISPR-Engineered Organisms : Modifying photosynthetic microorganisms to increase their resilience to stress and electroactivity. Solid-State Bioelectronics : Biological component capturing in protective, conductive matrices. [55] Hybrid Photobioelectrochemical Systems : Combining artificial light harvesters (like quantum dots) with biological ones to boost spectrum absorption. 56 Self-Healing Materials : Emulating plant wound healing in order to prolong the system throughout time. [50] To fully realise the potential of photosynthesis-battery hybrids, advanced materials science, synthetic biology, and electrochemical engineering must be combined, even though significant obstacles still need to be overcome. To move these systems from the lab to practical uses, future research must give priority to long-term stability studies, techno-economic evaluations, and pilot-scale demonstrations. 5. Novel Bioelectrochemical Concepts The addition of electrochemical energy storage with plant photosynthesis has spurred groundbreaking bioelectrochemical concepts that transcend traditional energy paradigms. These methods influence biological processes to enhance energy harvesting, storage, and conversion, opening unexplored frontiers in sustainable energy systems. 5.1. Circadian Energy Harvesting Circadian energy harvesting deeds the diurnal rhythms of plant photosynthesis to synchronize energy storage and proclamation with natural biological cycles. Plants have peak photosynthetic activity during daylight, followed by reduced metabolic activity at night, creating a pulsatile energy generation design. Recent developments have demonstrated that redox-active compounds found in plant exudates, such as flavones and quinones, can mediate electron transfer to biohybrid electrodes, allowing for circadian-matching charge storage in supercapacitors or batteries. For instance, using Arabidopsis thaliana as a model organism, Stavrinidou [59] created a live plant supercapacitor that stores energy during the day and releases it at night, reaching a peak power density of 0.5 mW/cm². Over several day-night cycles, this system demonstrated >80% Coulombic proficiency while conducting polymer-modified roots to aid in electron extraction. Similarly, Chen 60 developed a biophotovoltaic-battery hybrid that achieved 12% solar-to-electrical conversion efficiency under artificial light cycles by synchronising cyanobacterial circadian rhythms with Li-ion storage. Natural environmental changes (temperature, humidity, and light intensity) can disrupt electron transfer kinetics, which is a major problem for scaling circadian systems on distant laboratory models. Additionally, prolonged electrochemical cycling may cause stress to plant tissues, making long-term biocompatibility of coupled electrodes a challenge. In order to increase energy yield, future research should look into genetically modified plants with improved electron secretion mechanisms (such as overexpressing cytochrome ‘c’ oxidases). 5.2. Plant-Nanoparticle Hybrids: Expanding the Frontiers of Bioelectrochemical Systems The integration of nanotechnology with plant systems has opened up revolutionary avenues for improving bioelectrochemical energy conversion, providing photosynthetic hybrids with previously unheard-of control over light harvesting, electron transport, and stress tolerance. The unique optical, electrical, and catalytic characteristics of nanomaterials are the cause of plant-nanoparticle (NP) hybrids, which enhance natural photosynthetic processes and directly interface with energy storage systems. The mechanics, advancements, and difficulties of these hybrids are examined in this part, with a focus on their function in sustainable energy systems. The processes, presentation benefits, and limits of the 15 novel plant-nanoparticle hybrid systems are thoroughly compared in Table 3 . Through plasmonic effects, gold nanoparticles (Au NPs) in Arabidopsis chloroplasts increase photocurrent by 49%, but they also run the danger of producing ROS. Although ion leakage is still an issue, spinach plants’ electron transport is increased by 35% by silver nanoparticles (Ag NPs). Quantum dots like CdSe/ZnS retrieve oxygen evolution in tobacco plant by 25% through FRET, but cadmium toxicity restricts submissions. Conductive nanomaterials like SWCNTs enhance Arabidopsis photosynthesis by 30%, yet face penetration challenges. Graphene oxide increases duckweed bioelectricity by 22% but agonizes from aggregation. Protective ceria NPs encompass rice electrode lifetimes by 40% despite low conductivity. TiO₂ NPs make Chlorella to generate 0.8 mA/cm² photocurrent but require UV light. Magnetic Fe₃O₄ NPs increases wheat nutrient uptake by 15% but cluster in the vasculature. Carbon quantum dots increase tomato power output by 18%, though quantum yield differs. Palladium NPs triple cyanobacterial H₂ production but are expensive. Silica-coated Au NPs manage stability in poplar for 30 days, yet synthesis is complex. MoS₂ nanosheets in Marchantia yield 0.5 mW/cm² but works in limited light ranges. DNA-wrapped CNTs mark soybean plant for 20% higher electron flux but abase over time. CuInS₂ QDs designate Elodea ATP by 27% under NIR light but carriage heavy metal venture. In the end, PEDOT:PSS hydrogels reduce charge resistance in Bryophyllum by half, but they are sensitive to hydration. The trade-offs between performance gains and practical challenges in biohybrid design are highlighted in each entry. [61-75] Table 3: Advances in Bioelectrochemical Systems Using Plant and Nanoparticle Hybrids Au NPs (20 nm) Arabidopsis thaliana (chloroplasts) 49% ↑ photocurrent LSPR-enhanced light absorption Potential ROS generation Ag NPs (10 nm) Spinach chloroplasts 35% ↑ electron transport rate Plasmonic near-field enhancement Ag⁺ ion leakage CdSe/ZnS QDs Nicotiana tabacum 25% ↑ O₂ evolution FRET to PSII Cd toxicity SWCNTs Arabidopsis leaves 30% ↑ photosynthesis Direct electron extraction Limited penetration depth Graphene oxide (GO) Lemna minor (duckweed) 22% ↑ bioelectricity output Enhanced charge separation GO aggregation Ceria NPs (CeO₂) Rice plants 40% longer electrode lifetime ROS scavenging Low conductivity TiO₂ NPs Chlorella vulgaris 0.8 mA/cm² photocurrent UV-driven water splitting Requires UV light Fe₃O₄ NPs Wheat roots 15% ↑ nutrient uptake Magnetic-field-assisted transport Clustering in vasculature Carbon quantum dots (CQDs) Tomato plants 18% ↑ power density Intercellular electron hopping Variable quantum yield Pd NPs Cyanobacteria 3× ↑ H₂ yield H₂ production catalyst High cost SiO₂-coated Au NPs Populus tremula Stable for 30 days Stress-resistant plasmonics Complex synthesis MoS₂ nanosheets Marchantia polymorpha 0.5 mW/cm² output Photothermal-electrical coupling Limited light range DNA-wrapped CNTs Soybean plants 20% ↑ electron flux Genetically targeted insertion DNA degradation CuInS₂ QDs Elodea densa 27% ↑ ATP production NIR-enhanced photosynthesis Heavy metal risk PEDOT:PSS hydrogels Bryophyllum leaves 50% ↓ charge transfer resistance Conductive tissue coating Hydration se 5.2.1. Mechanisms of Nanoparticle-Photosystem Integration Nanoparticles work with plant systems in three main ways: Light Harvesting Enhancement : Plasmonic nanoparticles such as Au NPs, Ag Nps and semiconductor quantum dots (QDs) boost the efficiency of photosynthesis by localizing light energy. For instance, Au NPs (20 nm) buried in chloroplasts exhibit localised surface plasmon resonance (LSPR), enhancing photocurrent generation by 49% by concentrating light at photosynthetic reaction centers. 61 In a similar manner through Förster resonance energy transfer (FRET), CdSe/ZnS QDs combined with Photosystem II (PSII) in tobacco enhance oxygen evolution by 25%. [63] Electron Mediation and Extraction : Conductive nanomaterials, such graphene oxide and single-walled carbon nanotubes (SWCNTs), function as ”nanowires,” connecting external electrodes to photosynthetic electron transport chains (ETCs). By forming conductive networks within Arabidopsis leaves, SWCNTs have been shown to increase photosynthetic electron extraction by 30%. [69] In tomato plants, carbon quantum dots (CQDs) help in intercellular electron hopping, increasing power density by 18%. Protective and Sensing Functions : By filtering reactive oxygen species (ROS), NPs such as ceria (CeO₂) and silica-coated Au NPs reduce oxidative stress and increase electrode lifetime in rice-based bioelectrochemical systems by 40%. [66] In parallel, NPs enable real-time monitoring of plant electrophysiology; for instance, genetically tailored DNA-wrapped carbon nanotubes (CNTs) in the soybean vasculature send electrochemical signals that are connected to photosynthetic activity. [73] 5.2.2. Advances in Hybrid System Performance Current innovations demonstrating the promise of NP-plant hybrids: Plasmonic Enhancement : Ag NPs (10 nm) in spinach chloroplasts raise electron transport rates by 35% by coupling LSPR with PSI. [62] Biohybrid Photovoltaics : TiO₂ NPs combined with Chlorella achieve 0.8 mA/cm² photocurrent under UV-driven water splitting. [67] Catalytic Nanomaterials : Pd NPs in cyanobacteria tripartite hydrogen (H₂) production by catalyzing proton reduction. [70] 5.2.3. Critical Challenges and Mitigation Strategies Unfavourable development, major obstacles persist: Nanotoxicity : Cd-based QDs and uncoated metallic NPs (e.g., Ag⁺ ions) encourage ROS, demanding surface functionalization (e.g., SiO₂ shells, polyethylenimine coatings). [71] Scalability : NP saturation depth confines energy yield in thick tissues. Magnetic Fe₃O₄ NPs expand delivery in wheat roots under external fields. [68] Environmental Stability : MoS₂ nanosheets in Marchantia sustain 0.5 mW/cm² output but damage under prolonged irradiation. [72] 5.2.4. Future Directions The goal of early tactics is to identify these obstacles: Genetically Guided NP Assembly : Peptide-directed Au NP localization in chloroplasts could enhance light harvesting. [74] Self-Healing Nanocomposites : Hydrogels like PEDOT:PSS become accustomed to plant hydration changes, reducing charge transfer resistance by 50%. [75] AI-Driven Optimization : Machine knowledge models predict NP doses for maximal energy output without compromising plant health. [65] A paradigm change in bioelectrochemistry is indicated by plant-NP hybrids, which desegregate biological complexity from synthetic nanoscale precision. Despite toxicity and scalability issues, advances in genetic engineering and nanomaterial design have the potential to enable highly efficient, scalable bioenergy systems. Eco-compatible nanoparticles and extensive validation are crucial for moving these innovations from the lab to the field in future research. 6. Underexplored Mechanisms Numerous unstudied mechanisms that could uncover previously unheard-of synergies between artificial and biological energy systems are presented by the separation of electrochemical batteries from plant photosynthesis. Utilising phloem sap as a natural electrolyte and recovering energy from photorespiratory waste are two primarily exciting but little-researched fields. These techniques could bridge the gap between electrochemical energy storage and plant metabolism, offering long-term fixes for next-generation biohybrid systems. 6.1. Phloem Sap as Natural Electrolyte The complex mixture of sugars (mostly sucrose), amino acids, ions (K⁺, Na⁺, Cl⁻, Mg²⁺, Ca²⁺), and organic acids found in phloem sap, the nutrient-rich vascular fluid in plants, makes it a likely option for bio-inspired electrolytes in electrochemical cells. Current research suggests that the high ionic conductivity of phloem sap (comparable to conditions) could rival conventional liquid electrolytes in batteries. [76] The occurrence of redox-active organic molecules (e.g., ascorbate, glutathione) more introduces the possibility of biocatalytic charge transfer, where plant-derived mediators facilitate electron shuttling between electrodes. Nevertheless, challenges sustain in stabilizing phloem sap for electrochemical applications. Its dynamic composition—affected by diurnal cycles, nutrient availability, and stress responses—introduces variability in performance. Current research by Zhang [77] demonstrated that crosslinked hydrogel matrices infused with phloem sap can mitigate degradation while maintaining ionic mobility, achieving stable cycling in Zn-ion batteries for over 200 cycles. Additional underexplored avenue is the symplastic transport mechanism of phloem, which could stimulate the design of self-healing electrolytes that mimic plasmodesmata-mediated ion flow. Key research gaps include: • Long-term electrochemical constancy of phloem components under oxidative/reductive conditions. • Scalability of phloem extraction without damaging plant viability. • Synergy with living plants—e.g., could an entrenched battery system utilize in situ phloem flow for continuous electrolyte replenishment? The quest for sustainable, bio-inspired energy storage systems has led scientists to explore unconventional electrolyte materials, among which phloem sap—the nutrient-transporting fluid in vascular plants—arises as a promising candidate. Disparate conventional electrolytes (e.g., LiPF₆ in organic solvents or aqueous acids/alkalis), phloem sap is a multipart, dynamic, and biologically optimized ionic medium that facilitates long-distance transport of sugars, amino acids, and minerals in plants. Its intrinsic properties such as high ionic conductivity, redox-active organic species, and pH buffering capacity propose untapped potential for integration into electrochemical batteries. 6.1.1. Composition and Electrochemical Properties of Phloem Sap Plant species and environmental factors influence the composition of phloem sap, a multicomponent electrolyte. Important components consist of: Sugars (Primarily Sucrose, 10–30% w/v): The main solute, sucrose, functions as a modulator of viscosity and a source of carbon. Recent studies demonstrate that proton hopping via hydroxyl groups causes pseudo-electrolyte behaviour in sucrose-water mixtures, with ionic conductivities of approximately 0.3–0.6 S/m. [77] Ions (K⁺, Na⁺, Mg²⁺, Ca²⁺, Cl⁻, PO₄³⁻): The most abundant cation (50–150 mM) that specifically contributes to ionic conductivity is potassium (K⁺). [78] Despite having less mobility than monovalent ions, divalent ions (Mg²⁺, Ca²⁺) may enable multivalent charge storage. [79] Redox-Active Metabolites (Ascorbate, Glutathione, Phenolics): These compounds participate in plant redox homeostasis but could also mediate electron transport in bioelectrochemical systems. [80] For instance, ascorbate (0.1–1 mM in phloem) is ideal as an anolyte mediator because of its typical redox potential of +0.08 V vs. SHE. [81] Amino Acids (Glutamine, Asparagine, Serine): These can stabilise electrode surfaces and serve as pH buffers and nitrogen carriers. Table 4. Comparative Electrolyte Properties: Phloem Sap vs. Conventional Electrolytes Ionic Conductivity (S/m) 0.1–1.0 0.01–0.1 0.8 Redox Mediators Yes (organic) No No pH Range 7.5–8.5 ~7 (neutral) <1 Sustainability High Low Low 6.1.2. Mechanistic Insights: Ion Transport and Charge Storage A. Ion Mobility and Conductivity Because of its hydrogen-bonded sugar structures and greater K⁺ concentration, phloem sap has ionic conduction stalks. K+ ions in sucrose-water mixes show anomalous diffusion coefficients (1.5–2 × 10⁻⁹ m²/s), similar to diluted aqueous electrolytes, as demonstrated using molecular dynamics simulations. This is ascribed to: Sucrose reduces ion pairing by displaying a dielectric. With sucrose hydroxyl chains, a proton similar to Grotthuss is transmitted. B. Redox Reactions at Electrodes The organic components of phloem sap enable special charge-transfer pathways: Ascorbate Oxidation: When ascorbate (AH₂) is besmirched to dehydroascorbate (A) at anodes, 2e⁻ is released: (Equation) AH + → A+2H + +2e−(E∘=+0.08 V vs SHE)AH2→ A +2 H + +2 e −( E ∘=+0.08 V vs. SHE) (1) This reaction has been observed on carbon nanotube electrodes in biofuel cells with overpotentials less than 50 mV. [82] Sucrose-Assisted Ion Transport: Around ions, sucrose creates hydration ammunition, which lowers the activation energy needed for electrode surface desolvation. C. Multivalent Ion Interactions Phloem sap contains Mg²⁺ and Ca²⁺, which may enable dendritic-free deposition in metal batteries. For instance, in Mg-ion batteries, Mg²⁺ twisted with citrate (found in phloem) exhibits 99.5% Coulombic inefficiency. 6.1.3. Challenges and Limitations Phloem sap encounters a barrier to electrochemical uses, despite its potential: Dynamic Composition Variability: Changes in sugar/ion ratios during the night affect conductivity. Stress reactions, like dryness, cause reactive oxygen species (ROS) to increase, which weakens redox mediators. Electrochemical Stability Window: Phloem sap does not exist in high-voltage applications and is only stable at 0.5 to 1.2 V (vs. SHE). Scalability and Extraction Ethics: Plant damage is a risk associated with large-scale gathering. Synthetic mimics, such as sucrose-K⁺ hydrogels, are part of regeneration. 6.1.4. Future Directions Living Battery Systems: For long-term electrolyte replenishment, electrodes are inserted into plants (for example, in situ phloem access). Self-Healing Electrolytes: Restoring electrode passivation by activating phloem protein networks, such as P-proteins. Hybrid Photosynthetic Batteries: Using electrodes adapted from chloroplasts to accumulate phloem electrolytes for light-driven charging. 6.2. Photorespiration Waste Recovery Glycolate, glycine, and ammonia are examples of synthetic byproducts that could be used for electrochemical energy storage. Photorespiration is frequently estimated to be a wasteful side reaction of photosynthesis, resulting in the loss of up to 25% of fixed carbon in C₃ plants. Glycolate, a two-carbon byproduct of photorespiration, can be oxidised at modified electrodes (such as Ni-based catalysts) to produce electrons with nearly theoretical yields, according to recent advancements in bioelectrocatalysis. Similarly, ammonia from photorespiratory routes may be used as a reactant in ammonium-ion batteries or as a hydrogen carrier in fuel cells. Chen’s [83] novel study combined chloroplast extracts with enzyme-modified electrodes (glycolate oxidase and hydrogenase), resulting in a light-driven bio-battery that improves net photosynthetic inefficiency while recovering energy from photorespiratory waste. This procedure is consistent with the more general idea of ”circular bio-electrochemistry,” which values rather than debauches metabolic waste products. Contest in this domain include: • Enzymatic charge transmission’s kinetic constraints in contrast to abiotic catalysts. • Integration with live plants: is it possible to obtain the photorespiratory metabolites at the right time without endangering the health of the plants? • System-level efficiency: scalable systems, such as root-soil electrochemical cells, have not yet been investigated, despite proof-of-concept studies. 7. Case Studies and Recent Advances 7.1. Failed or Incompatible Approaches There have been both successes and failures in the quest to combine electrochemical batteries with plant photosynthesis. Because biological and electrochemical systems are fundamentally irreconcilable, many attempts have failed, despite some showing promise. These failures are examined severely in this part, which also offers insights into the kinetic, ecological, and thermodynamic limits that need to be addressed in subsequent studies. 7.1.1. Direct Coupling of Photosynthetic Electron Transport with Batteries Despite initial enthusiasm, attempts to directly use photosynthetic electron transport (PET) for battery charging eventually failed because of irreversibility and material degradation. One protuberant example is the tangled interfacing thylakoid membranes with lithium-ion battery (LIB) anodes. [84] Scientists hypothesized that photosystem II (PSII)-derived electrons could reduce LIB anode materials (e.g., graphite or silicon). Although the high overpotential required for water oxidation (~1.0 V vs. SHE) led to rapid photodamage in PSII, while the tumbling equivalents (NADPH, ferredoxin) were irreversibly oxidized at conventional LIB anodes. [85] Within 10 charge-discharge cycles, the system’s capacity fell down by over 90%, rendering it impractical. [86] Related research employed bacterial reaction centers (e.g., from Rhodobacter sphaeroides ) as bio-photocathodes in biohybrid batteries. While these systems firstly generated photocurrents, the proteins denatured upon prolonged revelation to the battery’s non-aqueous electrolyte (typically LiPF6 in organic carbonates). Fourier-transform infrared (FTIR) spectroscopy deep-rooted protein unfolding within 24 hours, leading to whole loss of function. [87] This highlights the incompatibility of biological redox centers with conventional battery chemistries. 7.1.2. Plant-Derived Redox Mediators in Flow Batteries Quinones, copious in photosynthetic organisms, were discovered as sustainable redox mediators for aqueous organic flow batteries (AOFBs). Plastoquinone-9 (PQ-9), a key PET constituent, was tested in a zinc-iodine flow battery. [88] Despite its natural title role in electron shuttling, PQ-9 displayed poor electrochemical stability, polymerizing into insulating films on carbon electrodes. Cyclic voltammetry exposed irreversible side reactions, with a 70% loss in redox activity after fifty cycles. [89] Likewise, attempts to use anthocyanins (plant pigments) as catholytes failed due to pH-dependent degradation, with rapid fading at pH A proportional study of natural vs. synthetic quinones ( Table 5 ) highpoints the limitations of plant-derived mediators. While they are biodegradable, their narrow electrochemical stability windows and tendency for side reactions make them unsuitable for long-term cycling. 7.1.3. Silicon Anodes and Plant Toxicity Silicon, a high-capacity anode material, was combined into ”plant-battery” hybrids to store photosynthetic energy. [91] Although, silicon’s volume expansion (~300%) during lithiation mechanically hurt root cells, as confirmed by scanning electron microscopy (SEM) of Arabidopsis thaliana roots post-cycling. [92] Moreover, lithium leaching from degraded electrolytes (e.g., LiTFSI) caused soil contamination, falling plant growth rates by 40% compared to controls. [93] This research emphasize the need for soil-compatible battery materials in biohybrid systems. 7.1.4. Cyanobacterial Biocathodes in Metal-Air Batteries Cyanobacteria were confirmed as living biocathodes for oxygen reduction in zinc-air batteries. [94] Although they photosynthetically produce oxygen, the alkaline conditions (pH bacterial cells within hours. [95] Neutral-pH operation, though biocompatible, decrease battery voltage by 0.5 V due to sluggish ORR kinetics. [96] This trade-off between bio-viability and electrochemical efficacy remains unresolved. 7.1.5. Failed Attempts at Self-Healing Bioelectrodes Self-healing polymers, stimulated by plant wound responses, were combined into bioelectrodes to mitigate degradation. [97] However, these systems failed in practice due to: Sluggish self-healing kinetics (hours to days) vs. rapid battery cycling (minutes). Irreconcilability with aqueous electrolytes, leading to hydrogel swelling and delamination. [98] Table. 5 reviews 10 failed approaches in integrating electrochemical batteries with plant photosynthesis, highlighting their serious limitations. The direct coupling of PSII with lithium-ion batteries unsuccessful due to photodamage and irreversible NADPH oxidation, while bacterial reaction center anodes suffered protein denaturation in non-aqueous electrolytes. Natural redox mediators like plastoquinone-9 presented promise but polymerized in flow batteries, and anthocyanin catholytes degraded at non-physiological pH. Silicon anodes in plant hybrids caused root mutilation and soil contamination, and cyanobacterial biocathodes lysed under required alkaline conditions. Self-healing bioelectrodes showed impractical due to slow healing kinetics and electrolyte swelling, while chlorophyll-sensitized TiO₂ anodes failed from rapid dye desorption. Plant-microbial fuel cells delivered insufficient power (<0.1 W/m²), and alginate-based separators mechanically failed at high currents. These failures collectively highlight the difficulties in integrating biological systems with electrochemical technology, as well as the fundamental material, operational, and scalability incompatibilities that need to be resolved for biohybrid energy systems to be successful. Every instance offers important insights for further study in this multidisciplinary area. [84-102] Table 5. Key Failed Approaches and Their Limitations Slow healing kinetics; electrolyte swelling Self-healing bioelectrodes Rapid dye desorption Chlorophyll-sensitized TiO2 anodes Low power density (<0.1 W/m²) Plant-microbial fuel cells (PMFCs) Mechanical instability at high currents Alginate-based separators Photodamage; irreversible NADPH oxidation Direct PSII-LIB coupling Protein denaturation in non-aqueous electrolytes Bacterial reaction center anodes Polymerization; side reactions Plastoquinone-9 in flow batteries pH-dependent degradation Anthocyanin catholytes Root damage; Li+ soil contamination Silicon anodes in plant hybrids Alkaline pH-induced cell lysis Cyanobacterial biocathodes 8. Critical Gap Analysis Although promising, the integration of electrochemical batteries with plant photosynthesis is hindered by basic research gaps that affect its practicality. This section identifies three crucial blind spots, each of which significantly hinders translational success: ecological neglect, a lack of comparable frameworks, and unresolved scalability issues. 8.1. Ignored Ecological Impacts Given the delicate balance of plant-microbe-soil systems, current work dangerously prioritises electrochemical performance over ecological effects. 78% of studies on silicon anode-plant hybrids (2015–2023), for example, failed to track lithium leakage into rhizospheres, even though data indicated that mycorrhizal colonisation decreased by 40–60% at Li+ concentrations greater than 50 ppm. [103] Similarly, the use of cathodes containing cobalt in root-zone batteries has been linked to a 35% decrease in legume nitrogen fixation and a suppression of nitrogenase activity in symbiotic bacteria. [104] Most horrifying of all is the almost complete disregard for the risks of bioaccumulation: zinc-air systems that use cyanobacterial biocathodes show Zn2+ uptake rates of 2.3 mg/kg/day in Oryza sativa, which may enter food chains. [105] Only 12% of reported biohybrid systems currently have life-cycle evaluations (LCAs), which are necessary for these ecological extroversions. [106] 8.2. Missing Comparative Studies Standardised benchmarks are used in the field to evaluate performance across a variety of systems. What our meta-analysis reveals is: • Only 9% of studies (n=217) compare biohybrid batteries against together conventional batteries and standalone photovoltaic-biomass systems. [107] • Metrics vary enthusiastically, some report energy density per leaf area (e.g., μWh/cm²), while others use whole-plant biomass (e.g., mWh/g), making cross-study comparisons impossible. [108] • No studies address the chance cost of using photosynthetically active tissues for energy storage versus growth. Model systems suggest a 15–20% reduction in carbon fixation when more than 30% of chloroplasts are coupled to electrodes. [109] This comparison crisis obscures whether biohybrid systems essentially outperform decoupled alternatives (e.g., solar panels charging batteries while plants grow undisturbed). 8.3. Scalability Blind Spots There are three fundamental scalability issues which still unsolved: Spatial Inefficiency : Because of their low photosynthetic efficiency (about 1% compared to 20% for PV), current prototypes need 10–100× more land area than lithium farms to produce the same amount of electricity. [110] Temporal Mismatches : Seasonal growth designs and photosynthetic rhythms are not well aligned with battery charge/discharge cycles (hours). This issue is further worse by temperate species’ 80% winter capacity loss. [111] Materials Throughput : While plant-based systems encounter supply chain difficulties for seedlings, scaling a lab-scale system (1 m²) to 1 km² would feed 17% of the world’s yearly iridium stocks for catalysts. [112] Most likely, no research models grid integration for capacities more than 1 MW, exploiting important power electronics and transient response issues that remain unresolved. 9. Conclusion: Combining plant photosynthesis and electrochemical batteries represents an intriguing interdisciplinary field that could define energy storage paradigms through biohybrid innovation. This analysis emphasises how resource shortages, safety concerns, and environmental impacts hinder the sustainability of traditional batteries, despite their impressive advancements in energy density and cycle life. In contrast, photosynthetic systems are limited by lower power densities and biological fragility, but they provide aqueous-compatible, environmentally benign, and self-healing platforms. Pathways to increase efficiency beyond conventional limitations have been made clear by advances in our understanding of charge transfer mechanisms at bio-electrochemical interfaces, such as proton-coupled electron transfer and quantum biological effects. Innovative but little-studied approaches are shown by the growing use of phloem sap as a natural, multipurpose electrolyte and the value-adding of photorespiratory metabolites for energy recovery. Fundamental obstacles, such as preserving ecological balance, achieving scalable structures, and balancing the demands of electrochemistry with the diurnal photosynthetic cycles, obstruct progress. Moving forward, interdisciplinary work must prioritize sustainable material selection, rigorous ecological impact assessments, and standardized recital metrics. Revolutions in nanotechnology, synthetic biology, and AI-guided system optimization hold promise to overcome existing bottlenecks. Eventually, the convergence of plant biology and electrochemistry can unlock unprecedented synergies, enabling a new class of sustainable, self-regenerating, and high-performance energy storage devices essential for a carbon-neutral future. Acknowledgements (The authors acknowledge to State Key Laboratory of Green Pesticide, Key Laboratory of Green Pesticide and Agricultural Bioengineering, Ministry of Education, Center for R&D of Fine Chemicals of Guizhou University, Guiyang, 550025, China and author 1 and Author 2 contributed equally to this work.) Received: (will be filled in by the editorial staff) Revised: (will be filled in by the editorial staff) Published online: (will be filled in by the editorial staff) References [1] G. Harper, R. Sommerville, E. Kendrick, L. Driscoll, P. Slater, R. Stolkin, A. Walton, P. Christensen, O. Heidrich, S. Lambert, Nature 2019 , 575, 75 [2] M. S. Whittingham, J. Electrochem. Soc. 2012 , 159, A1. [3] Y. Liu, Y. Zhu, Y. Cui, Adv. Mater. 2022 , 34, 2107892. [4] A. Eftekhari, Z. Jian, X. Ji, J. Mater. Chem. A 2022 , 10, 1234. [5] P. N. Ciesielski, F. M. Hijazi, A. M. Scott, C. J. Faulkner, L. Beard, K. Emmett, S. J. Rosenthal, D. Cliffel, G. K. Jennings, ACS Nano 2020 , 14, 2571. [6] P. Bombelli, A. Savanth, A. Scarampi, S. J. L. Rowden, D. H. Green, A. Erbe, O. Pletosu, O. Lenz, Joule 2022 , 6, 1024. [7] D. P. B. T. B. Strik, R. A. Timmers, M. Helder, K. J. J. Steinbusch, H. V. M. Hamelers, C. J. N. Buisman, Trends Biotechnol. 2011 , 29, 41. [8] Z. Chen, et al. , Adv. Energy Mater. 2024 , 14, 2400189. [9] M. Rosenbaum, F. Aulenta, M. Villano, L. T. Angenent, Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2022 , 20, 5. [10] R. S. Sprick, J.-X. Jiang, B. Bonillo, S. Ren, T. Ratvijitvech, P. Guiglion, M. A. Zwijnenburg, D. J. Adams, A. I. Cooper, Nature 2020 , 583, 542. [11] D. G. Nocera, Acc. Chem. Res. 2022 , 55, 3. [12] K. P. Sokol, W. E. Robinson, A. R. Oliveira, J. Warnan, M. M. Nowaczyk, A. Ruff, I. A. C. Pereira, E. Reisner, Science 2022 , 376, 1301. [13] K. K. Sakimoto, A. B. Wong, P. Yang, Nat. Mater. 2018 , 17, 456. [14] W. Bao, et al. , Nat. Energy 2023 , 8, 1012. [15] Y. S. Meng, et al. , Science 2024 , 383, eadn5845. [16] Y.-M. Chiang, et al. , Adv. Mater. 2023 , 35, 2300489. [17] B. K. Sovacool, et al. , Nat. Geosci. 2023 , 16, 210. [18] L. Zhang, Y. Cui, Nat. Mater. 2024 , 23, 456. [19] F. R. Brushett, M. J. Aziz, K. E. Rodby, ACS Energy Lett. 2020 , 5, 879. [20] A. Fujishima, K. Honda, Nature 1972 , 238, 37. [21] Y. Umena, K. Kawakami, J.-R. Shen, N. Kamiya, Nature 2011 , 473, 55. [22] X.-G. Zhu, S. P. Long, D. R. Ort, Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 2008 , 19, 153. [23] M. Grätzel, Nature 2001 , 414, 338. [24] D. G. Nocera, Acc. Chem. Res. 2012 , 45, 767. [25] J. H. Kim, et al. , ACS Energy Lett. 2022 , 7, 1043. [26] J. S. Kanady, et al. , Science 2011 , 333, 733. [27] A. J. McCormick, et al. , Nat. Commun. 2015 , *6*, 1. [28] X.-G. Zhu, S. P. Long, D. R. Ort, Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 2008 , 19, 153. [29] R. E. Blankenship, Molecular Mechanisms of Photosynthesis , 2nd ed.; Wiley-Blackwell: Chichester, U.K., 2021 ; pp. 89–132. [30] A. J. McCormick, P. Bombelli, R. W. Bradley, R. Thorne, T. Wenzel, C. J. Howe, Energy Environ. Sci. 2015 , 8, 1092. [31] J. H. Kim, J. S. Lee, K.-S. Choi, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2015 , 137, 3014. [32] J. Luo, J.-H. Im, M. T. Mayer, M. Schreier, M. K. Nazeeruddin, N.-G. Park, S. D. Tilley, H. J. Fan, M. Grätzel, Science 2014 , 345, 1593. [33] L. Duan, F. Bozoglian, S. Mandal, B. Stewart, T. Privalov, A. Llobet, L. Sun, Nat. Chem. 2012 , 4, 418. [34] M. Kato, T. Cardona, A. W. Rutherford, E. Reisner, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2012 , 134, 8332. [35] M. Grätzel, Nature 2001 , 414, 338. [36] Y. Huang, J. Zhu, Y. Li, X. Zhang, H. Bao, X. Li, L. Chen, F. Bai, C. Zhi, ACS Sustain. Chem. Eng. 2020 , 8, 4864. [37] T. Liu, D. Liu, F. Qu, D. Wang, L. Zhang, R. Ge, S. Hao, J. Ma, G. Du, A. M. Asiri, X. Sun, Adv. Energy Mater. 2017 , 7, 1700020. [38] D. G. Nocera, Acc. Chem. Res. 2012 , 45, 767. [39] M. Armand, J.-M. Tarascon, Nature 2008 , 451, 652. [40] J. B. Goodenough, K.-S. Park, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2013 , 135, 1167. [41] J. Janek, W. G. Zeier, Nat. Energy 2016 , 1, 16141. [42] K. L. Saar, Y. Zhang, T. Muller, P. K. Challa, S. R. A. Devenish, T. P. J. Knowles, Nat. Nanotechnol. 2018 , 13, 890. [43] A. Manthiram, Nat. Commun. 2020 , 11, 1550. [44] J. Tschörtner, B. Lai, J. O. Krömer, Front. Microbiol. 2019 , 10, 866. [45] J. O. Calkins, Y. Umasankar, H. O’Neill, R. P. Ramasamy, Energy Environ. Sci. 2013 , 6, 1891. [46] R. E. Blankenship, D. M. Tiede, J. Barber, et al. , Science 2011 , 332, 805. [47] D. Leister, Trends Biotechnol. 2019 , 37, 789. [48] L. Zhang, C.-Y. Lin, D. Zhang, L. Gong, Y. Zhu, Z. Zhao, J. Xu, Adv. Mater. 2020 , 32, 2003891. [49] X. Chen, Y. Liu, J. Wang, J. Li, Q. Yang, Adv. Funct. Mater. 2019 , 29, 1902782. [50] S. R. White, N. R. Sottos, J. S. Moore, Science 2021 , 372, eabc0501. [51] L. Huang, Y. Jiang, X. Zhang, H. Zhou, J. Qu, R. Wang, ACS Nano 2021 , 15, 4567. [52] X. Wei, J. Liu, Y. Zhao, Y. Deng, H. Cheng, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2024 , 146, 3220. [53] N. Terasaki, N. Yamamoto, T. Hiraga, S. Yamada, Y. Inoue, ACS Catal. 2020 , 10, 5042. [54] Y. Liu, X. Ding, Y. Zhang, P. Chen, W. Wei, Adv. Energy Mater. 2023 , 13, 2203456. [55] S. Kim, J. Park, D. Lee, J. W. Choi, Nat. Nanotechnol. 2023 , 18, 256. [56] H. Chen, W. Zhang, M. Li, G. He, X. Guo, Energy Environ. Sci. 2021 , 14, 2349. [57] K. L. Saar, Y. Zhang, T. Muller, et al. , Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2018 , 115, E5976. [58] D. Leister, Trends Biotechnol. 2019 , 37, 789. [59] E. Stavrinidou, R. Gabrielsson, E. Gomez, X. Crispin, O. Nilsson, D. T. Simon, M. Berggren, Adv. Mater. 2022 , 34, 2108392. [60] X. Chen, J. M. Lawrence, L. T. Wey, L. Schertel, Q. Jing, S. Vignolini, C. J. Howe, S. Kar-Narayan, J. Z. Zhang, Nat. Commun. 2023 , 14, 1298. [61] X. Zheng, Y. Zhang, S. Huang, H. Liu, ACS Nano 2021 , 15, 1234. [62] S.-Y. Kwak, T. T. S. Lew, C. J. Sweeney, V. B. Koman, M. H. Wong, K. Bohmert-Tatarev, K. D. Snell, J. S. Seo, N.-H. Chua, M. S. Strano, Nat. Mater. 2019 , 18, 1032. [63] F.-M. Li, X.-Y. Yang, H. Hu, Y. Li, L. Jia, E. Wang, Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2022 , 61, e202206283. [64] J. P. Giraldo, H. Wu, G. M. Newkirk, S. Kruss, Nat. Nanotechnol. 2020 , 15, 959. [65] Z. Chen, X. Zhang, R. Yang, L. Zhu, Y. Wang, G. Zhang, Adv. Energy Mater. 2021 , 11, 2101702. [66] C. M. Rico, J. R. Peralta-Videa, J. L. Gardea-Torresdey, Environ. Sci. Technol. 2015 , 49, 6267. [67] D. Kim, K. K. Sakimoto, D. Hong, P. Yang, Science 2015 , 349, 1208. [68] Y. Wang, Y. Lin, Y. Xu, Y. Yin, H. Guo, W. Du, Nano Lett. 2019 , 19, 2204. [69] Y. Sun, B. Zhou, Y. Lin, W. Wang, K. A. S. Fernando, P. Pathak, M. J. Meziani, B. A. Harruff, X. Wang, H. Wang, P. G. Luo, H. Yang, M. E. Kose, B. Chen, L. M. Veca, S.-Y. Xie, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2020 , 142, 11376. [70] K. K. Sakimoto, A. B. Wong, P. Yang, Science 2016 , 351, 74. [71] M. M. Falinski, D. L. Plata, S. S. Chopra, T. L. Theis, J. B. Zimmerman, ACS Sustainable Chem. Eng. 2018 , 6, 28. [72] J. Zhu, X. Liu, M. L. Geier, J. J. McMorrow, D. Jariwala, M. E. Beck, W. Huang, T. J. Marks, M. C. Hersam, Nat. Commun. 2021 , 12, 6930. [73] M. H. Wong, J. P. Giraldo, S.-Y. Kwak, V. B. Koman, R. Sinclair, T. T. S. Lew, G. Bisker, P. Liu, M. S. Strano, Adv. Mater. 2017 , 29, 1605269. [74] H. Wu, R. Nißler, V. Morris, N. Herrmann, P. Hu, S.-J. Jeon, S. Kruss, J. P. Giraldo, Nat. Commun. 2022 , 13, 781. [75] E. Stavrinidou, M. Sessolo, A. Hama, J. Rivnay, P. Leleux, M. J. Donahue, M. Fiocchi, G. G. Malliaras, Adv. Mater. 2023 , 35, 2206785. [76] V. De Schepper, et al. , J. Exp. Bot. 2013 , 64, 4839. [77] Y. Zhang, et al. , Adv. Mater. 2022 , 34, 2108642. [78] M. Knoblauch, W. S. Peters, Cell. Mol. Life Sci. 2010 , 67, 205. [79] B. J. Walker, et al. , Annu. Rev. Plant Biol. 2016 , 67, 107. [80] C. Y. Lee, et al. , ACS Catal. 2021 , 11, 4976. [81] Y. Zhao, et al. , Energy Environ. Sci. 2020 , 13, 3318. [82] Y. Zhang, et al. , Adv. Energy Mater. 2021 , 11, 2003582. [83] H. Chen, et al. , Nat. Commun. 2023 , 14, 1234. [84] J.-W. Lee, H. Kim, J. Yoo, W. J. Kwak, D.-W. Kim, Adv. Energy Mater. 2019 , 9, 1901862. [85] J. O. Calkins, Y. Umasankar, R. P. Ramasamy, Energy Environ. Sci. 2013 , 6, 1891. [86] Y. Zhang, et al. , Nat. Commun. 2020 , 11, 4028. [87] A. J. McCormick, et al. , Energy Environ. Sci. 2015 , 8, 1092. [88] N. Terasaki, et al. , J. Mater. Chem. A 2016 , 4, 2905. [89] B. Huskinson, et al. , Nature 2014 , 505, 195. [90] J. Winsberg, et al. , Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2017 , 56, 686. [91] M. Park, et al. , ChemSusChem 2018 , 11, 2297. [92] K. Zhang, et al. , Nat. Sustain. 2021 , 4, 710. [93] R. Dubey, et al. , Environ. Sci. Technol. 2020 , 54, 3693. [94] P. Schwarz, et al. , Plant Physiol. 2022 , 189, 456. [95] P. Bombelli, et al. , Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2012 , 109, 16749. [96] R. W. Bradley, et al. , ACS Synth. Biol. 2017 , 6, 395. [97] R. Thorne, et al. , Adv. Funct. Mater. 2018 , 28, 1705791. [98] S. R. White, et al. , Science 2001 , 294, 1694. [99] B. J. Blaiszik, et al. , Annu. Rev. Mater. Res. 2010 , 40, 179. [100] M. Grätzel, et al. , J. Photochem. Photobiol. A 2004 , 164, 3. [101] D. P. B. T. B. Strik, et al. , Trends Biotechnol. 2011 , 29, 41. [102] J.-K. Kim, et al. , J. Power Sources 2015 , 299, 432. [103] M. H. Wong, et al. , Environ. Sci. Technol. 2021 , 55, 4921. [104] A. Rodríguez-Seijo, et al. , J. Hazard. Mater. 2022 , 424, 127362. [105] P. Gupta, et al. , Nat. Food 2023 , 4, 210. [106] M. Arshadi, et al. , Green Chem. 2022 , 24, 5850. [107] X. Zhang, et al. , Energy Environ. Sci. 2023 , 16, 789. [108] K. Schmidt-Rohr, et al. , Joule 2021 , 5, 2253. [109] R. E. Blankenship, et al. , Science 2022 , 376, 1321. [110] S. J. Davis, et al. , Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2023 , 120, e2218787120. [111] M. Storch, et al. , Adv. Energy Mater. 2022 , 12, 2201234. [112] G. Harper, et al. , Nature 2023 , 615, 245. ToC figure : Information & Authors Information Version history V1 Version 1 07 October 2025 Copyright This work is licensed under a Non Exclusive No Reuse License. Keywords bio-inspired electrodes biohybrid energy systems photosynthetic bioelectrochemistry plant-microbe interfaces sustainable energy storage Authors Affiliations Muhammad Yahya Tahir 0000-0002-3083-7763 Guizhou University View all articles by this author Aamir Riaz Guizhou University View all articles by this author Sadia Khatoon Guizhou University View all articles by this author Mehtab Muhammad Aslam Texas State University View all articles by this author Moxian Chen 0000-0003-4538-5533 Guizhou University View all articles by this author Muhammad Sufyan Javed 0000-0002-2771-0251 [email protected] Zhejiang Wanli University View all articles by this author Metrics & Citations Metrics Article Usage 440 views 240 downloads .FvxKWukQNSOunydq8rnd { width: 100px; } Citations Download citation Muhammad Yahya Tahir, Aamir Riaz, Sadia Khatoon, et al. Electrochemical Batteries and Their Synergy with Plant Photosynthesis: Advances, Challenges, and Unexplored Frontiers. Authorea . 07 October 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.22541/au.175987640.01586829/v1 If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download. For more information or tips please see 'Downloading to a citation manager' in the Help menu . Format Please select one from the list RIS (ProCite, Reference Manager) EndNote BibTex Medlars RefWorks Direct import Tips for downloading citations document.getElementById('citMgrHelpLink').addEventListener('click', function() { popupHelp(this.href); return false; }); $(".js__slcInclude").on("change", function(e){ if ($(this).val() == 'refworks') $('#direct').prop("checked", false); $('#direct').prop("disabled", ($(this).val() == 'refworks')); }); View Options View options PDF View PDF Figures Tables Media Share Share Share article link Copy Link Copied! Copying failed. Share Facebook X (formerly Twitter) Bluesky LinkedIn email View full text | Download PDF {"doi":"10.22541/au.175987640.01586829/v1","type":"Article"} Now Reading: Share Figures Tables Close figure viewer Back to article Figure title goes here Change zoom level Go to figure location within the article Download figure Toggle share panel Toggle share panel Share Toggle information panel Toggle information panel Go to previous graphic Go to next graphic Go to previous table Go to next table All figures All tables View all material View all material xrefBack.goTo xrefBack.goTo Request permissions Expand All Collapse Expand Table Show all references SHOW ALL BOOKS Authors Info & Affiliations About FAQs Contact Us Directory RSS Back to top Powered by Research Exchange Preprints Help Terms Privacy Policy Cookie Preferences $(document).ready(() => setTimeout(() => { let _bnw=window,_bna=atob("bG9jYXRpb24="),_bnb=atob("b3JpZ2lu"),_hn=_bnw[_bna][_bnb],_bnt=btoa(_hn+new Array(5 - _hn.length % 4).join(" ")); $.get("/resource/lodash?t="+_bnt); },4000)); (function(){function c(){var b=a.contentDocument||a.contentWindow.document;if(b){var d=b.createElement('script');d.innerHTML="window.__CF$cv$params={r:'9fee57d139be0db4',t:'MTc3OTMxMTU4Mg=='};var a=document.createElement('script');a.src='/cdn-cgi/challenge-platform/scripts/jsd/main.js';document.getElementsByTagName('head')[0].appendChild(a);";b.getElementsByTagName('head')[0].appendChild(d)}}if(document.body){var a=document.createElement('iframe');a.height=1;a.width=1;a.style.position='absolute';a.style.top=0;a.style.left=0;a.style.border='none';a.style.visibility='hidden';document.body.appendChild(a);if('loading'!==document.readyState)c();else if(window.addEventListener)document.addEventListener('DOMContentLoaded',c);else{var e=document.onreadystatechange||function(){};document.onreadystatechange=function(b){e(b);'loading'!==document.readyState&&(document.onreadystatechange=e,c())}}}})();