Comparative Overview of Water Splitting and Biological Techniques of Hydrogen Production

Bello Abdullahi; Ndey Fatou Ann; Aurelia Anongyorige Ayamdor; Muritala Kolawole Ibrahim

doi:doi:10.11648/j.ijsge.20261501.15

Review Article |

| Peer-Reviewed

Comparative Overview of Water Splitting and Biological Techniques of Hydrogen Production

Bello Abdullahi^*

, Ndey Fatou Ann

, Aurelia Anongyorige Ayamdor

, Muritala Kolawole Ibrahim

Published in International Journal of Sustainable and Green Energy (Volume 15, Issue 1)

Received: 7 January 2026 Accepted: 19 January 2026 Published: 20 February 2026

Views: Downloads:

Download PDF

Share This Article

Twitter
Linked In
Facebook

Abstract

Hydrogen is widely regarded as a cornerstone of the global transition toward low-carbon and sustainable energy systems. However, the environmental benefits of hydrogen depend strongly on the production pathway employed. This review presents a comparative analysis of water-splitting technologies and biological methods for green hydrogen production, highlighting their operating principles, efficiencies, costs, technological readiness, and prospects. Water splitting approaches include electrolytic methods alkaline water electrolysis (AWE), proton exchange membrane (PEM), anion exchange membrane (AEM), and solid oxide electrolysis (SOEC) as well as photocatalytic and photoelectrochemical (PEC) systems. Among these, AWE and PEM are technologically mature and commercially deployed, offering high hydrogen purity and system reliability, while SOEC demonstrates superior thermodynamic efficiency at elevated temperatures. Photocatalytic and PEC techniques provide direct solar-to-hydrogen conversion but remain limited by low efficiencies, charge recombination, and material instability. Biological hydrogen production routes like biophotolysis, fermentation, gasification, and pyrolysis utilize biomass and organic waste as feedstocks, supporting circular economy principles. Gasification and pyrolysis exhibit relatively high hydrogen yields and industrial potential but require high temperatures and extensive gas cleaning. In contrast, biophotolysis and fermentation operate under mild conditions and are environmentally benign but are constrained by low production rates, oxygen sensitivity, and process instability. A critical comparison indicates that electrolytic water splitting currently offers the most viable pathway for large-scale, high-purity hydrogen production when powered by renewable electricity, whereas biological methods present attractive waste-to-energy solutions with lower technological readiness in some cases. Future development should focus on reducing capital costs, replacing precious metal catalysts, improving membrane durability, enhancing photocatalyst stability, and optimizing bioreactor performance. Integrating these advances with renewable energy systems will be essential for achieving scalable, cost-effective, and truly sustainable hydrogen production.

Published in	International Journal of Sustainable and Green Energy (Volume 15, Issue 1)
DOI	10.11648/j.ijsge.20261501.15
Page(s)	45-65
Creative Commons	This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright	Copyright © The Author(s), 2026. Published by Science Publishing Group

Keywords

Hydrogen, Water Splitting, Electrolysis

References

[1]	K. Abbass, M. Z. Qasim, H. Song, M. Murshed, H. Mahmood, and I. Younis, 'A review of the global climate change impacts, adaptation, and sustainable mitigation measures', Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res., vol. 29, no. 28, pp. 42539-42559, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-19718-6
[2]	S. G. Nnabuife, C. K. Darko, P. C. Obiako, B. Kuang, X. Sun, and K. Jenkins, 'A comparative analysis of different hy-drogen production methods and their environmental impact', Clean Technol., vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 1344-1380, 2023. https://doi.org/10.3390/cleantechnol5040067
[3]	I. Dincer and C. Acar, 'Review and evaluation of hydrogen production methods for better sustainability', Int. J. Hydrog. Energy, vol. 40, no. 34, pp. 11094-11111, 2015. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2014.12.035
[4]	P. K. Pathak, A. K. Yadav, and S. Padmanaban, 'Transition toward emission-free energy systems by 2050: Potential role of hydrogen', Int. J. Hydrog. Energy, vol. 48, no. 26, pp. 9921-9927, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2022.12.058
[5]	I. K. Muritala, D. Guban, M. Roeb, and C. Sattler, 'High temperature production of hydrogen: Assessment of non-renewable resources technologies and emerging trends', Int. J. Hydrog. Energy, vol. 45, no. 49, pp. 26022-26035, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2019.08.154
[6]	S. Imran and M. Hussain, 'Emerging trends in water splitting innovations for solar hydrogen production: analysis, com-parison, and economical insights', Int. J. Hydrog. Energy, vol. 77, pp. 975-996, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2024.06.254
[7]	R. Levie, 'The electrolysis of water', J. Electroanal. Chem., vol. 476, no. 1, pp. 92-93, 1999. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-0728(99)00365-4
[8]	G. Chisholm, T. Zhao, and L. Cronin, 'Hydrogen from water electrolysis', in Storing Energy, Elsevier, 2022, pp. 559-591. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-824510-1.00015-5
[9]	L. Bi, S. Boulfrad, and E. Traversa, 'Steam electrolysis by solid oxide electrolysis cells (SOECs) with proton-conducting oxides', Chem. Soc. Rev., vol. 43, no. 24, pp. 8255-8270, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1039/C4CS00194J
[10]	K. W. Harrison, R. Remick, G. D. Martin, and A. Hoskin, 'Hydrogen production: fundamentals and case study summar-ies', Hydrog Fuel Cells, pp. 207-226, 2010.
[11]	N. Heinemann et al., 'Enabling large-scale hydrogen storage in porous media-the scientific challenges', Energy Envi-ron. Sci., vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 853-864, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1039/D0EE03536J
[12]	O. Schmidt, I. Gambhir, A. Hawkes, J. Nelson, and S. Few, 'Future cost and performance of water electrolysis: An ex-pert elicitation study', Int J Hydrog Energy, vol. 42, pp. 30470-30492, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2017.10.045
[13]	S. Sebbahi et al., 'A comprehensive review of recent advances in alkaline water electrolysis for hydrogen production', Int. J. Hydrog. Energy, vol. 82, pp. 583-599, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2024.07.428
[14]	U. S. D. Energy, 'Hydrogen Shot: Water electrolysis technology assessment'. 2024.
[15]	S. Krishnan et al., 'Present and future cost of alkaline and PEM electrolyser stacks', Int. J. Hydrog. Energy, vol. 48, no. 83, pp. 32313-32330, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2023.05.031
[16]	A. S. Emam, M. O. Hamdan, B. A. Abu-Nabah, and E. Elnajjar, 'A review on recent trends, challenges, and innovations in alkaline water electrolysis', Int. J. Hydrog. Energy, vol. 64, pp. 599-625, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2024.03.238
[17]	C. Haoran, Y. Xia, W. Wei, Z. Yongzhi, Z. Bo, and Z. Leiqi, 'Safety and efficiency problems of hydrogen production from alkaline water electrolyzers driven by renewable energy sources', Int. J. Hydrog. Energy, vol. 54, pp. 700-712, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2023.08.324
[18]	F. P. Lohmann-Richters, S. Renz, W. Lehnert, M. Müller, and M. Carmo, 'Challenges and opportunities for increased current density in alkaline electrolysis by increasing the operating temperature', J. Electrochem. Soc., vol. 168, no. 11, p. 114501, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1149/1945-7111/ac34cc
[19]	F. Allebrod, C. Chatzichristodoulou, and M. B. Mogensen, 'Alkaline electrolysis cell at high temperature and pressure of 250 C and 42 bar', J. Power Sources, vol. 229, pp. 22-31, 2013. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpowsour.2012.11.105
[20]	J. M. Gras and P. Spiteri, 'Corrosion of stainless steels and nickel-based alloys for alkaline water electrolysis', Int. J. Hydrog. Energy, vol. 18, no. 7, pp. 561-566, 1993. https://doi.org/10.1016/0360-3199(93)90175-A
[21]	Z. Zou, K. Dastafkan, Y. Shao, C. Zhao, and Q. Wang, 'Electrocatalysts for alkaline water electrolysis at ampere-level current densities: a review', Int. J. Hydrog. Energy, vol. 51, pp. 667-684, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2023.07.026
[22]	H. Becker, J. Murawski, D. V. Shinde, I. E. Stephens, G. Hinds, and G. Smith, 'Impact of impurities on water electroly-sis: a review', Sustain. Energy Fuels, vol. 7, no. 7, pp. 1565-1603, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1039/D2SE01517J
[23]	C. Xiang, K. M. Papadantonakis, and N. S. Lewis, 'Principles and implementations of electrolysis systems for water splitting', Mater. Horiz., vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 169-173, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1039/C6MH00016A
[24]	J. Brauns and T. Turek, 'Alkaline water electrolysis powered by renewable energy: A review', Processes, vol. 8, no. 2, p. 248, 2020. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr8020248
[25]	A. Wei, A. Siebel, M. Bernt, T. H. Shen, V. Tileli, and H. A. Gasteiger, 'Impact of intermittent operation on lifetime and performance of a PEM water electrolyzer', J Electrochem Soc, vol. 166, pp. 487-497, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1149/2.0421908jes
[26]	Y. Xia, H. Cheng, H. He, and W. Wei, 'Efficiency and consistency enhancement for alkaline electrolyzers driven by renewable energy sources', Commun. Eng., vol. 2, no. 1, p. 22, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44172-023-00070-7
[27]	S. S. Kumar and H. Lim, 'An overview of water electrolysis technologies for green hydrogen production', Energy Rep., vol. 8, pp. 13793-13813, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2022.10.127
[28]	N. Sezer, S. Bayhan, U. Fesli, and A. Sanfilippo, A comprehensive review of the state-of-the-art of proton exchange membrane water electrolysis. Materials Science for Energy Technologies, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mset.2024.07.006
[29]	S. T. Thompson and D. Papageorgopoulos, 'Platinum group metal-free catalysts boost cost competitiveness of fuel cell vehicles', Nat. Catal., vol. 2, no. 7, pp. 558-561, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41929-019-0291-x
[30]	W. Sun, Y. Lv, J. Gao, Q. Feng, B. Jia, and F. Ma, 'Highly conductive and corrosion-resistant NbN coatings on Ti bipo-lar plate for proton exchange membrane water electrolysis', J. Mater. Sci. Technol., vol. 210, pp. 86-96, 2025. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmst.2024.05.038
[31]	K. M. Vetter et al., 'Stability evaluation of earth‐abundant metal‐based polyoxometalate electrocatalysts for oxygen evolution reaction towards industrial PEM electrolysis at high current densities', Electrochem. Sci. Adv., vol. 2, no. 3, p. 202100073, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1002/elsa.202100073
[32]	V. Noto, M. Piga, G. A. Giffin, E. Negro, C. Furlan, and K. Vezzù, 'New Nanocomposite Hybrid Inorganic-Organic Pro-ton‐Conducting Membranes Based on Functionalized Silica and PTFE', ChemSusChem, vol. 5, no. 9, pp. 1758-1766, 2012. https://doi.org/10.1002/cssc.201200118
[33]	H. Geng et al., 'Preparing proton exchange membranes via incorporating silica-based nanoscale ionic materials for the enhanced proton conductivity', Solid State Ion., vol. 349, p. 115294, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssi.2020.115294
[34]	M. Y. Chia, H. San Thiam, L. K. Leong, C. H. Koo, and L. H. Saw, 'Study on improvement of the selectivity of proton exchange membrane via incorporation of silicotungstic acid-doped silica into SPEEK', Int. J. Hydrog. Energy, vol. 45, no. 42, pp. 22315-22323, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2019.11.010
[35]	Y. Wang, Y. Pang, H. Xu, A. Martinez, and K. S. Chen, 'PEM Fuel cell and electrolysis cell technologies and hydrogen infrastructure development-a review', Energy Environ. Sci., vol. 15, no. 6, pp. 2288-2328, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1039/D2EE00790H
[36]	B. U. R. A. K. Yuzer, H. Ü. S. E. Y. İ. N. Selcuk, G. Chehade, M. E. Demir, and I. Dincer, 'Evaluation of hydrogen pro-duction via electrolysis with ion exchange membranes', Energy, vol. 190, p. 116420, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2019.116420
[37]	B. James, 'Final Report: H2 Production Pathways Cost Analysis (2016 - 2021'. Dec. 2021. https://doi.org/10.2172/2280867
[38]	L. J. Titheridge and A. T. Marshall, 'Techno-economic modelling of AEM electrolysis systems to identify ideal current density and aspects requiring further research', Int. J. Hydrog. Energy, vol. 49, pp. 518-532, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2023.08.181
[39]	L. Liu, H. Ma, M. Khan, and B. S. Hsiao, 'Recent Advances and Challenges in Anion Exchange Membranes Develop-ment/Application for Water Electrolysis: A Review', Membranes, vol. 14, no. 4, p. 85, 2024. https://doi.org/10.3390/membranes14040085
[40]	A. Zhegur-Khais, F. Kubannek, U. Krewer, and D. R. Dekel, 'Measuring the true hydroxide conductivity of anion ex-change membranes', J. Membr. Sci., vol. 612, p. 118461, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2020.118461
[41]	A. D. Mohanty and C. Bae, 'Mechanistic analysis of ammonium cation stability for alkaline exchange membrane fuel cells', J. Mater. Chem. A, vol. 2, no. 41, pp. 17314-17320, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1039/C4TA03300K
[42]	R. Abbasi et al., 'A roadmap to low‐cost hydrogen with hydroxide exchange membrane electrolyzers', Adv. Mater., vol. 31, no. 31, p. 1805876, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1002/adma.201805876
[43]	C. Santoro et al., 'What is next in anion‐exchange membrane water electrolyzers? Bottlenecks, benefits, and future', ChemSusChem, vol. 15, no. 8, p. 202200027, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1002/cssc.202200027
[44]	C. Choe, S. Cheon, J. Gu, and H. Lim, 'Critical aspect of renewable syngas production for power-to-fuel via solid oxide electrolysis: Integrative assessment for potential renewable energy source', Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev., vol. 161, p. 112398, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2022.112398
[45]	A. Alamiery, 'Advancements in materials for hydrogen production: A review of cutting-edge technologies', Chem-PhysMater, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 64-73, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chphma.2023.09.002
[46]	V. Vibhu, I. C. Vinke, R. A. Eichel, and L. G. J. Haart, 'Cobalt substituted Pr2Ni1-xCoxO4+ δ (x= 0, 0.1, 0.2) oxygen electrodes: Impact on electrochemical performance and durability of solid oxide electrolysis cells', J. Power Sources, vol. 482, p. 228909, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpowsour.2020.228909
[47]	A. A. Yadav, S. W. Kang, and Y. M. Hunge, 'Photocatalytic degradation of Rhodamine B using graphitic carbon nitride photocatalyst', J. Mater. Sci. Mater. Electron. vol. 32, no. 11, pp. 15577-15585, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10854-021-06106-y
[48]	S. Hamdan, K. Al-Ali, L. F. Vega, M. Muscetta, A. O. Yusuf, and G. Palmisano, 'Zinc Cadmium Sulphide (ZnxCd1-xS)-based photocatalysts for hydrogen production from seawater and wastewater', J. Environ. Chem. Eng., vol. 113937, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jece.2024.113937
[49]	T. D. Malevu, R. O. Ocaya, H. Soonmin, and T. A. Nhlapo, 'Metal halide perovskite photocatalysts: recent progress, challenges, and future directions', Crit. Rev. Solid State Mater. Sci., vol. 49, no. 3, pp. 464-481, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1080/10408436.2023.2225238
[50]	Q. Han, H. Ding, and Z. Wang, 'A Comprehensive Review on Non‐Trivalent Bismuth‐Based Materials: Structure, Synthesis, and Strategies for Improving Photocatalytic Performance', Sol. RRL, vol. 8, no. 4, p. 2300872, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1002/solr.202300872
[51]	X. Chen, S. Shen, L. Guo, and S. S. Mao, 'Semiconductor-based photocatalytic hydrogen generation', Chem. Rev., vol. 110, no. 11, pp. 6503-6570, 2010. https://doi.org/10.1021/cr1001645
[52]	D. Schimon et al., 'A complex study of photocatalytic oxidation pathways of antibiotics with graphitic carbon nitride-The way towards continuous flow conditions', J. Environ. Chem. Eng., vol. 12, no. 6, p. 114801, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jece.2024.114801
[53]	M. Umar et al., 'Unveiling the future of environmental solutions: Sg-C3N4/Te-doped metal oxides (ZnO, Mn3O4 & SnO2) as game-changers in photocatalytic and antibacterial technologies', Mater. Sci. Eng. B, vol. 302, p. 117269, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mseb.2024.117269
[54]	M. Masri et al., 'Metal halide perovskite-based photocatalysts for organic pollutants degradation: advances, challenges, and future directions', Colloids Surf. Physicochem. Eng. Asp. vol. 687, p. 133387, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.colsurfa.2024.133387
[55]	J. Zhou et al., 'Enhanced Photocatalytic Activity of Lead‐Free Cs2TeBr6/g‐C3N4 Heterojunction Photocatalyst and Its Mechanism', Adv. Funct. Mater. vol. 34, no. 3, p. 2308411, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1002/adfm.202308411
[56]	E. N. Musa et al., 'Boosting Photocatalytic Hydrogen Production by MOF‐Derived Metal Oxide Heterojunctions with a 10.0% Apparent Quantum Yield', Angew. Chem. Int. Ed., vol. 63, no. 42, p. 202405681, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1002/anie.202405681
[57]	N. Abas, E. Kalair, A. Kalair, Q. ul Hasan, and N. Khan, 'Nature inspired artificial photosynthesis technologies for hy-drogen production: Barriers and challenges', Int. J. Hydrog. Energy, vol. 45, no. 41, pp. 20787-20799, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2019.12.010
[58]	A. Le and N. Guillomaitre, 'Artificial Photosynthesis: A Review of the Technology, Application, Opportunities, and Challenges', J. Stud. Res., vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 1-11, 2022, https://doi.org/10.47611/jsrhs.v11i1.2432
[59]	G. Squadrito, G. Maggio, and A. Nicita, 'The green hydrogen revolution', Renew. Energy, vol. 216, p. 119041, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2023.119041
[60]	L. Cao et al., 'Biorenewable hydrogen production through biomass gasification: A review and future prospects', Envi-ron. Res., vol. 186, no. February, p. 109547, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2020.109547
[61]	S. Anjum et al., 'Bioreactors and biophoton-driven biohydrogen production strategies', Int. J. Hydrog. Energy, vol. 48, no. 55, pp. 21176-21188, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2023.01.363
[62]	R. Jain, N. L. Panwar, S. K. Jain, T. Gupta, C. Agarwal, and S. S. Meena, 'Bio-hydrogen production through dark fer-mentation: an overview', Biomass Convers. Biorefinery, vol. 14, no. 12, pp. 12699-12724, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13399-022-03282-7
[63]	L. Sillero, W. G. Sganzerla, T. Forster-Carneiro, R. Solera, and M. Perez, 'A bibliometric analysis of the hydrogen pro-duction from dark fermentation', Int. J. Hydrog. Energy, vol. 47, no. 64, pp. 27397-27420, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2022.06.083
[64]	I. R. Garduño, M. Smith, E. Baranova, and C. Kinsley, 'Hydrogen production in dark fermentation of a brewery sludge pre-treated with white-rot fungi in submerged culture', Bioresour. Technol. Rep., vol. 25, p. 101773, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biteb.2024.101773
[65]	S. Gupta, A. Fernandes, A. Lopes, L. Grasa, and J. Salafranca, 'Photo-Fermentative Bacteria Used for Hydrogen Produc-tion', Appl. Sci., vol. 14, no. 3, p. 1191, 2024. https://doi.org/10.3390/app14031191
[66]	X. Qu, H. Zeng, Y. Gao, T. Mo, and Y. Li, 'Bio-hydrogen production by dark anaerobic fermentation of organic wastewater', Front. Chem., vol. 10, p. 978907, 2022. https://doi.org/10.3389/fchem.2022.978907
[67]	J. Chen, Y. Guo, and X. Wu, 'Challenges of hydrogen production from biomass gasification', in Sustainable Develop-ment of Renewable Energy, Academic Press, 2024, pp. 153-203. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-443-13613-9.00005-2
[68]	A. K. Vuppaladadiyam et al., 'Biomass pyrolysis: A review on recent advancements and green hydrogen production', Bioresour. Technol., vol. 364, no. August, p. 128087, 2022, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2022.128087
[69]	K. Kebelmann, A. Hornung, U. Karsten, and G. Griffiths, 'Thermo-chemical behaviour and chemical product formation from Polar seaweeds during intermediate pyrolysis', J. Anal. Appl. Pyrolysis, vol. 104, pp. 131-138, 2013. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaap.2013.08.012
[70]	C. Yang et al., 'Pyrolysis of microalgae: A critical review', Fuel Process. Technol., vol. 186, pp. 53-72, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuproc.2018.12.012
[71]	N. Sánchez-Bastardo, R. Schlögl, and H. Ruland, 'Methane pyrolysis for zero-emission hydrogen production: a potential bridge technology from fossil fuels to a renewable and sustainable hydrogen economy', Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., vol. 60, no. 32, pp. 11855-11881, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.iecr.1c01679
[72]	T. X. Nguyen-Thi et al., 'Recent advances in hydrogen production from biomass waste with a focus on pyrolysis and gasification', Int. J. Hydrog. Energy, vol. 54, pp. 127-160, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2023.05.049

Cite This Article

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Abdullahi, B., Ann, N. F., Ayamdor, A. A., Ibrahim, M. K. (2026). Comparative Overview of Water Splitting and Biological Techniques of Hydrogen Production. International Journal of Sustainable and Green Energy, 15(1), 45-65. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijsge.20261501.15

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Abdullahi, B.; Ann, N. F.; Ayamdor, A. A.; Ibrahim, M. K. Comparative Overview of Water Splitting and Biological Techniques of Hydrogen Production. Int. J. Sustain. Green Energy 2026, 15(1), 45-65. doi: 10.11648/j.ijsge.20261501.15

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Abdullahi B, Ann NF, Ayamdor AA, Ibrahim MK. Comparative Overview of Water Splitting and Biological Techniques of Hydrogen Production. Int J Sustain Green Energy. 2026;15(1):45-65. doi: 10.11648/j.ijsge.20261501.15

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.ijsge.20261501.15,
  author = {Bello Abdullahi and Ndey Fatou Ann and Aurelia Anongyorige Ayamdor and Muritala Kolawole Ibrahim},
  title = {Comparative Overview of Water Splitting and Biological Techniques of Hydrogen Production},
  journal = {International Journal of Sustainable and Green Energy},
  volume = {15},
  number = {1},
  pages = {45-65},
  doi = {10.11648/j.ijsge.20261501.15},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijsge.20261501.15},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ijsge.20261501.15},
  abstract = {Hydrogen is widely regarded as a cornerstone of the global transition toward low-carbon and sustainable energy systems. However, the environmental benefits of hydrogen depend strongly on the production pathway employed. This review presents a comparative analysis of water-splitting technologies and biological methods for green hydrogen production, highlighting their operating principles, efficiencies, costs, technological readiness, and prospects. Water splitting approaches include electrolytic methods alkaline water electrolysis (AWE), proton exchange membrane (PEM), anion exchange membrane (AEM), and solid oxide electrolysis (SOEC) as well as photocatalytic and photoelectrochemical (PEC) systems. Among these, AWE and PEM are technologically mature and commercially deployed, offering high hydrogen purity and system reliability, while SOEC demonstrates superior thermodynamic efficiency at elevated temperatures. Photocatalytic and PEC techniques provide direct solar-to-hydrogen conversion but remain limited by low efficiencies, charge recombination, and material instability. Biological hydrogen production routes like biophotolysis, fermentation, gasification, and pyrolysis utilize biomass and organic waste as feedstocks, supporting circular economy principles. Gasification and pyrolysis exhibit relatively high hydrogen yields and industrial potential but require high temperatures and extensive gas cleaning. In contrast, biophotolysis and fermentation operate under mild conditions and are environmentally benign but are constrained by low production rates, oxygen sensitivity, and process instability. A critical comparison indicates that electrolytic water splitting currently offers the most viable pathway for large-scale, high-purity hydrogen production when powered by renewable electricity, whereas biological methods present attractive waste-to-energy solutions with lower technological readiness in some cases. Future development should focus on reducing capital costs, replacing precious metal catalysts, improving membrane durability, enhancing photocatalyst stability, and optimizing bioreactor performance. Integrating these advances with renewable energy systems will be essential for achieving scalable, cost-effective, and truly sustainable hydrogen production.},
 year = {2026}
}

Copy | Download

TY  - JOUR
T1  - Comparative Overview of Water Splitting and Biological Techniques of Hydrogen Production
AU  - Bello Abdullahi
AU  - Ndey Fatou Ann
AU  - Aurelia Anongyorige Ayamdor
AU  - Muritala Kolawole Ibrahim
Y1  - 2026/02/20
PY  - 2026
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijsge.20261501.15
DO  - 10.11648/j.ijsge.20261501.15
T2  - International Journal of Sustainable and Green Energy
JF  - International Journal of Sustainable and Green Energy
JO  - International Journal of Sustainable and Green Energy
SP  - 45
EP  - 65
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2575-1549
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijsge.20261501.15
AB  - Hydrogen is widely regarded as a cornerstone of the global transition toward low-carbon and sustainable energy systems. However, the environmental benefits of hydrogen depend strongly on the production pathway employed. This review presents a comparative analysis of water-splitting technologies and biological methods for green hydrogen production, highlighting their operating principles, efficiencies, costs, technological readiness, and prospects. Water splitting approaches include electrolytic methods alkaline water electrolysis (AWE), proton exchange membrane (PEM), anion exchange membrane (AEM), and solid oxide electrolysis (SOEC) as well as photocatalytic and photoelectrochemical (PEC) systems. Among these, AWE and PEM are technologically mature and commercially deployed, offering high hydrogen purity and system reliability, while SOEC demonstrates superior thermodynamic efficiency at elevated temperatures. Photocatalytic and PEC techniques provide direct solar-to-hydrogen conversion but remain limited by low efficiencies, charge recombination, and material instability. Biological hydrogen production routes like biophotolysis, fermentation, gasification, and pyrolysis utilize biomass and organic waste as feedstocks, supporting circular economy principles. Gasification and pyrolysis exhibit relatively high hydrogen yields and industrial potential but require high temperatures and extensive gas cleaning. In contrast, biophotolysis and fermentation operate under mild conditions and are environmentally benign but are constrained by low production rates, oxygen sensitivity, and process instability. A critical comparison indicates that electrolytic water splitting currently offers the most viable pathway for large-scale, high-purity hydrogen production when powered by renewable electricity, whereas biological methods present attractive waste-to-energy solutions with lower technological readiness in some cases. Future development should focus on reducing capital costs, replacing precious metal catalysts, improving membrane durability, enhancing photocatalyst stability, and optimizing bioreactor performance. Integrating these advances with renewable energy systems will be essential for achieving scalable, cost-effective, and truly sustainable hydrogen production.
VL  - 15
IS  - 1
ER  -

Copy | Download

Author Information

Bello Abdullahi

West African Science Service Centre on Climate Change and Adapted Land Use, Accra, Ghana

Contact Email

http://orcid.org/0009-0009-1243-4272
Ndey Fatou Ann

West African Science Service Centre on Climate Change and Adapted Land Use, Accra, Ghana

http://orcid.org/0009-0000-6056-4308
Aurelia Anongyorige Ayamdor

West African Science Service Centre on Climate Change and Adapted Land Use, Accra, Ghana

http://orcid.org/0009-0009-1911-954X
Muritala Kolawole Ibrahim

Afridat Research and Innovation GmbH, Duisburg, Germany

Download PDF

Submit an Article

Sections

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Abdullahi, B., Ann, N. F., Ayamdor, A. A., Ibrahim, M. K. (2026). Comparative Overview of Water Splitting and Biological Techniques of Hydrogen Production. International Journal of Sustainable and Green Energy, 15(1), 45-65. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijsge.20261501.15

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Abdullahi, B.; Ann, N. F.; Ayamdor, A. A.; Ibrahim, M. K. Comparative Overview of Water Splitting and Biological Techniques of Hydrogen Production. Int. J. Sustain. Green Energy 2026, 15(1), 45-65. doi: 10.11648/j.ijsge.20261501.15

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Abdullahi B, Ann NF, Ayamdor AA, Ibrahim MK. Comparative Overview of Water Splitting and Biological Techniques of Hydrogen Production. Int J Sustain Green Energy. 2026;15(1):45-65. doi: 10.11648/j.ijsge.20261501.15

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.ijsge.20261501.15,
  author = {Bello Abdullahi and Ndey Fatou Ann and Aurelia Anongyorige Ayamdor and Muritala Kolawole Ibrahim},
  title = {Comparative Overview of Water Splitting and Biological Techniques of Hydrogen Production},
  journal = {International Journal of Sustainable and Green Energy},
  volume = {15},
  number = {1},
  pages = {45-65},
  doi = {10.11648/j.ijsge.20261501.15},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijsge.20261501.15},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ijsge.20261501.15},
  abstract = {Hydrogen is widely regarded as a cornerstone of the global transition toward low-carbon and sustainable energy systems. However, the environmental benefits of hydrogen depend strongly on the production pathway employed. This review presents a comparative analysis of water-splitting technologies and biological methods for green hydrogen production, highlighting their operating principles, efficiencies, costs, technological readiness, and prospects. Water splitting approaches include electrolytic methods alkaline water electrolysis (AWE), proton exchange membrane (PEM), anion exchange membrane (AEM), and solid oxide electrolysis (SOEC) as well as photocatalytic and photoelectrochemical (PEC) systems. Among these, AWE and PEM are technologically mature and commercially deployed, offering high hydrogen purity and system reliability, while SOEC demonstrates superior thermodynamic efficiency at elevated temperatures. Photocatalytic and PEC techniques provide direct solar-to-hydrogen conversion but remain limited by low efficiencies, charge recombination, and material instability. Biological hydrogen production routes like biophotolysis, fermentation, gasification, and pyrolysis utilize biomass and organic waste as feedstocks, supporting circular economy principles. Gasification and pyrolysis exhibit relatively high hydrogen yields and industrial potential but require high temperatures and extensive gas cleaning. In contrast, biophotolysis and fermentation operate under mild conditions and are environmentally benign but are constrained by low production rates, oxygen sensitivity, and process instability. A critical comparison indicates that electrolytic water splitting currently offers the most viable pathway for large-scale, high-purity hydrogen production when powered by renewable electricity, whereas biological methods present attractive waste-to-energy solutions with lower technological readiness in some cases. Future development should focus on reducing capital costs, replacing precious metal catalysts, improving membrane durability, enhancing photocatalyst stability, and optimizing bioreactor performance. Integrating these advances with renewable energy systems will be essential for achieving scalable, cost-effective, and truly sustainable hydrogen production.},
 year = {2026}
}

Copy | Download

TY  - JOUR
T1  - Comparative Overview of Water Splitting and Biological Techniques of Hydrogen Production
AU  - Bello Abdullahi
AU  - Ndey Fatou Ann
AU  - Aurelia Anongyorige Ayamdor
AU  - Muritala Kolawole Ibrahim
Y1  - 2026/02/20
PY  - 2026
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijsge.20261501.15
DO  - 10.11648/j.ijsge.20261501.15
T2  - International Journal of Sustainable and Green Energy
JF  - International Journal of Sustainable and Green Energy
JO  - International Journal of Sustainable and Green Energy
SP  - 45
EP  - 65
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2575-1549
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijsge.20261501.15
AB  - Hydrogen is widely regarded as a cornerstone of the global transition toward low-carbon and sustainable energy systems. However, the environmental benefits of hydrogen depend strongly on the production pathway employed. This review presents a comparative analysis of water-splitting technologies and biological methods for green hydrogen production, highlighting their operating principles, efficiencies, costs, technological readiness, and prospects. Water splitting approaches include electrolytic methods alkaline water electrolysis (AWE), proton exchange membrane (PEM), anion exchange membrane (AEM), and solid oxide electrolysis (SOEC) as well as photocatalytic and photoelectrochemical (PEC) systems. Among these, AWE and PEM are technologically mature and commercially deployed, offering high hydrogen purity and system reliability, while SOEC demonstrates superior thermodynamic efficiency at elevated temperatures. Photocatalytic and PEC techniques provide direct solar-to-hydrogen conversion but remain limited by low efficiencies, charge recombination, and material instability. Biological hydrogen production routes like biophotolysis, fermentation, gasification, and pyrolysis utilize biomass and organic waste as feedstocks, supporting circular economy principles. Gasification and pyrolysis exhibit relatively high hydrogen yields and industrial potential but require high temperatures and extensive gas cleaning. In contrast, biophotolysis and fermentation operate under mild conditions and are environmentally benign but are constrained by low production rates, oxygen sensitivity, and process instability. A critical comparison indicates that electrolytic water splitting currently offers the most viable pathway for large-scale, high-purity hydrogen production when powered by renewable electricity, whereas biological methods present attractive waste-to-energy solutions with lower technological readiness in some cases. Future development should focus on reducing capital costs, replacing precious metal catalysts, improving membrane durability, enhancing photocatalyst stability, and optimizing bioreactor performance. Integrating these advances with renewable energy systems will be essential for achieving scalable, cost-effective, and truly sustainable hydrogen production.
VL  - 15
IS  - 1
ER  -

Copy | Download