The Scientific World Journal

The Scientific World Journal / 2014 / Article

Review Article | Open Access

Volume 2014 |Article ID 957102 |

Hossain Zabed, Golam Faruq, Jaya Narayan Sahu, Mohd Sofian Azirun, Rosli Hashim, Amru Nasrulhaq Boyce, "Bioethanol Production from Fermentable Sugar Juice", The Scientific World Journal, vol. 2014, Article ID 957102, 11 pages, 2014.

Bioethanol Production from Fermentable Sugar Juice

Academic Editor: L. Pochini
Received04 Oct 2013
Accepted31 Dec 2013
Published12 Mar 2014


Bioethanol production from renewable sources to be used in transportation is now an increasing demand worldwide due to continuous depletion of fossil fuels, economic and political crises, and growing concern on environmental safety. Mainly, three types of raw materials, that is, sugar juice, starchy crops, and lignocellulosic materials, are being used for this purpose. This paper will investigate ethanol production from free sugar containing juices obtained from some energy crops such as sugarcane, sugar beet, and sweet sorghum that are the most attractive choice because of their cost-effectiveness and feasibility to use. Three types of fermentation process (batch, fed-batch, and continuous) are employed in ethanol production from these sugar juices. The most common microorganism used in fermentation from its history is the yeast, especially, Saccharomyces cerevisiae, though the bacterial species Zymomonas mobilis is also potentially used nowadays for this purpose. A number of factors related to the fermentation greatly influences the process and their optimization is the key point for efficient ethanol production from these feedstocks.

1. Introduction

Energy crisis is a growing global concern nowadays because of the dependence on petroleum-based fossil fuel which is exhausted very fast to meet the continuously increasing demands. Besides, fossil energy also has the direct impact on the atmosphere [1]. It has been realized that fossil energy causes greenhouse gas emissions that have adverse effects on the environment. Burning of petroleum-based fuels causes the increase of CO2 level in the environment which is directly responsible for global warming [2]. Another important concern of fossil fuel reliance is the political crisis. For example, incidence of oil supply disruption by the Middle East countries in the 1970s caused unrest in this essential sector [3, 4]. Consequently, it is an ongoing interest to find out a renewable and environmentally friendly source of energy for our industrial economies and consumer societies [5]. Bioethanol in this aspect is an attractive option for renewable and sustainable energy source.

Among the advantageous properties of bioethanol as fuel energy, higher octane number (108), evaporation enthalpy, and flame speed and wider range of flammability are worth mentioning. Due to these characteristics, fuel ethanol gives higher compression ratio (CR) with shorter burning time, eventually providing a better theoretical efficiency than that of gasoline in an integrated circuit (IC) engine [6]. Besides, it can be used as transportation fuel in various feasible ways, directly or blend with gasoline called “gasohol.” The most common blended bioethanol used in USA is E-10 containing a concentration of 10% ethanol and 90% gasoline [7]. Brazil, on the other hand, uses pure ethanol or blended ethanol in a combination of 24% ethanol with 76% gasoline [8]. Furthermore, a 5% of bioethanol blended with petrol can be used under the EU quality standard-EN/228 without any modification of engines, whereas, to use higher concentration of this fuel, namely, E-85 (85% ethanol), engine modification is required [9]. Bioethanol, in another aspect, is an environmentally friendly oxygenated fuel containing 35% oxygen which is suitable to keep down the emission of particulate and nitrogen oxides as well as other greenhouse gases during combustion [10, 11]. Moreover, due to having lower ambient photochemical reactivity, it reduces the interference on ozone [12]. This fuel energy is also a safer substitute to methyl tertiary-butyl ether (MTBE), a common additive used in gasoline for clean combustion [13].

However, for sustainability and economic viability, it is important to give concentration in cheaper ethanol production so that this fuel can compete with petroleum [14, 15]. Currently, industrial bioethanol production plants employ mainly two types of primary feedstocks such as starch from cereal crops and juice or molasses from sugar crops [7, 16, 17]. About 60% of the global ethanol is produced from sugar crops, while the remaining 40% is produced from starchy grains [18]. Bioethanol from lignocellulosic biomass has recently been studied extensively but still it is confined to the laboratory or pilot plant. It is easier and cheaper to use free sugar containing juice as feedstock of ethanol than starch or lignocellulosic biomass due to the nonrequirement of costly steps such as pretreatment and/or hydrolysis to get fermentable sugars [1922]. This paper will deal with the investigative works on bioethanol production from sugar juices obtained from several energy crops along with fermentation technology, microorganisms used, and the influencing parameters on the process.

2. Potential Juices Used as Feedstocks

Bioethanol can be produced directly from the free sugar containing juices of some crops, converting sucrose or monosaccharides, especially, glucose, into ethanol via fermentation with microorganisms [23, 24]. Several potential crops yield free sugar containing juices that are employed in bioethanol production either in laboratory or commercial scale (Table 1). Sugarcane, sugar beet, sweet sorghum, and some fruits are the good sources of sugar-rich juices used as feedstocks in ethanol production [25]. Direct fermentable juices obtained from these crops contain free sugars, especially, sucrose, glucose, and fructose [26], that make them more cost-effective feedstocks in fuel ethanol industry than starchy or lignocellulosic materials [21, 25] (Table 2). Sucrose which is the major sugar in fermentable juices is readily broken down into glucose and fructose during earlier stage of fermentation by invertase enzyme, indigenously found in the periplasmic space of yeast used in the process [27]. In a general procedure, juice is obtained from sugar crops, supplemented with ammonium sulfate or other nitrogen sources, sterilized, with pH and sugar concentration being adjusted, and then fermented using microorganisms, especially, yeast, under a suitable condition [28]. The main disadvantages of using juice as feedstocks are the low storability and microbial decomposition. Dodić et al. [27] studied beet juice and reported that thick juice could be concentrated to a high sugar content giving reduced storage volume and ultimately lower microbial inhibition as compared with thin juice. During processing of juices, conventional liming-carbonation method is applied in the industry which is an energy consuming process and responsible for production of waste and CO2. Use of membrane technology to purify sugar juices can efficiently replace this traditional process [29]. In addition, several investigators also reported that membrane filtration of sugar juice could give higher purity, that is, higher sucrose concentration as compared to the conventional liming-carbonation method [3033].

Name of the cropsMajor investigationMajor achievementsReference

Sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum)Juices were studied (i) without adding supplement, (ii) with addition of 0.5% yeast extract, and (iii) with addition of yeast extract, thiamine, and micronutrientsThe highest ethanol concentration (39.4–42.1 g/L) was found in (iii), while the lowest was 11.0 g/L and found in (i)[61]
Enrichment technique was applied to isolate a thermotolerant yeast from cane juice for ethanol production at elevated temperatureIsolation and selection of thermotolerant yeast strain that produced high concentrations of ethanol at both 40 and 45°C from the juice[59]
Juices were supplemented and cells were adapted to galactose mediumHigher (30.0%) ethanol was found with adapted cells than nonadapted cells[26]

Sugar beet (Beta vulgaris)Juices were ultrafiltered and were supplemented with mineral saltEthanol concentration was found to be 85.0–87.0 g/L[30]
Flocculating and nonflocculating yeasts along with Z. mobilis were used through immobilization on loofa spongeThe highest ethanol yield (0.44 g/g) with the lowest productivity (0.08 g/h/L) was found by Z. mobilis [3]

Sweet sorghum (Sorghum bicolor) Five different genetic varieties (Keller, BJ 248, SSV84, Wray, and NSSH 104) were investigated for ethanol productionKeller variety produced the highest ethanol (9.0%, w/v)[118]
Impact of storage on sugar content loss of juice was studiedUp to 20.0% free sugars lost in 3 days at ambient temperature[119]

Watermelon (Citrullus lanatus)Juice was used as diluent, additive, and nitrogen source for processed sugar or molasses fermentationAs much as 25.0% w/v sugar was fermented at pH 3.0 (ethanol yield was 0.41–0.46 g/g) or up to 35.0% w/v sugar at pH 5.0 with an ethanol yield of 0.36–0.41 g/g[120]

Dates (Phoenix dactylifera)Juices were extracted from 3 genetic varieties of dates (Kunta, Bouhatem, and Eguoua) and fermentation was studied at 30°C and natural pHAll varieties produced ethanol with a maximum concentration of 25.0%, v/v[111]

FeedstocksFree sugar (%)Moisture (%)References

Sugarcane juice12–17.668.0–82.4[26, 35, 49, 121]
Sugar beet juice16.582.6[3]
Sweet sorghum juice16–21.878.2[45, 122]
Watermelon juice7.0–10.090.0–93.0[120]

Sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum) is a C4 plant having high capability to convert solar radiation into biomass [34]. It is the most important feedstock grown in tropical and subtropical countries that can be used as juice or molasses (by product of sugar mills) for fuel ethanol production. Total fermentable sugar content in sugarcane juice is about 12–17% in which 90% these sugar is sucrose and the remaining 10% is glucose and fructose [35]. Sugar content in juice varies based on variety, maturity, and harvest time [26]. Sugarcane juice contains adequate amount of organic nutrients and minerals in addition to free sugars making it an ideal raw material for bioethanol production. It is used as the main feedstock for ethanol production in Brazil [16, 36], whereas molasses is the principal feedstock in India [37].

Sugar beet (Beta vulgaris) and its industrial byproduct (beet molasses) are important feedstocks for bioethanol production because of their free sugar contents that can be employed for fermentation without any modification. Raw beet juice contains 15–20% of dry matters with 85–90% of fermentable sugars and 10–15% of nonsugars [38]. Due to these available free sugar contents, beet juice can readily be used in fermentation after adjusting its pH making it more profitable feedstock for fuel ethanol production [27]. Potentiality of ethanol production from different intermediates and by products of sugar beet processing such as raw juice [39], thick juice [40], molasses [41], and beet pulp [42] have been studied.

Sweet sorghum (Sorghum bicolor L.) is a C4 plant, similar to sugarcane, which is a potential energy crop due to its unique characteristics of high carbon assimilation (50 g/m2 per day) and ability to store high levels of extractable sugars in the stalks [21, 43]. Besides, it is marked for high photosynthetic efficiency and can be cultivated in almost all temperate and tropical climate areas in both irrigated and nonirrigated lands [44]. In addition, sweet sorghum has some advantages over other sugar crops as the feedstock for ethanol production such as short growing period (4-5 months), capability of both drought and cold temperature tolerance, and utilizing of both grains and juice for ethanol production [45, 46]. Stalks of sweet sorghum contain soluble free sugars, namely, glucose and sucrose, and insoluble carbohydrates such as cellulose and hemicelluloses [47]. Juice contains approximately 12.5°Bx (degree brix) of sugar at the beginning of the harvest with an increase to approximately 17°Bx during the plant’s maturation giving an average value of 15°Bx [48]. Energy cost of bioethanol manufacturing from sweet sorghum juice might be lower as compared to sugarcane or sugar beet juices because this crop production needs lower fertilizer and nitrogen and not require the prefermentation processing [43]. Therefore, considering the potentiality of sweet sorghum for energy and industry, it is one of the most promising ethanol producing crops [49].

3. Microorganisms

Involvement of microorganisms in fermentation of sugars is a crucial part of bioethanol production. Some microorganisms have the ability to use glucose in the absence of oxygen for their energy, producing ethanol and carbon dioxide [50, 51]. This property makes them potential bioagents in fermentation technology from the beginning of its history. Sugar fermentation using single cell microorganism, that is, yeast, is one of the oldest practices in biotechnology, widely used for the production of drinking alcohol, namely, beer and wine, in the past time, while, nowadays, this practice is industrially used to produce fuel ethanol from renewable energy sources [52]. Major characteristics of ethanologenic microorganisms to be employed in industrial plants are higher ethanol yield (>90.0% theoretical yield), tolerance to ethanol (>40.0 g/L), good ethanol productivity (>1.0 g/L/h), good growth in simple and inexpensive media, capability of growth in undiluted fermentation broth with resistance to inhibitors, and ability to retard contaminants from growth condition, for example, acidic pH or higher temperature [53].

Some microorganisms such as dried yeast or Saccharomyces cerevisiae [5457], S. diastaticus [58], Kluyveromyces marxianus [59, 60], Pichia kudriavzevii [26], Escherichia coli strain KO11 and Klebsiella oxytoca strain P2 [61], and Zymomonas mobilis [6265] have been studied for ethanol production from sugar juices. Among these ethanol producing microorganisms, S. cerevisiae is the most attractive choice in fermentation due to its greater efficiency in sugar conversion to alcohol and capability of producing flocs during growth, making it easier to settle or suspend on need [52], and high tolerance to ethanol [66]. Moreover, fermentation of some crop juices containing sucrose employs this yeast for its ability to hydrolyze sucrose into glucose and fructose with invertase enzyme. But the optimum temperature range of S. cerevisiae used for ethanol production is 30–35°C that leads the researchers to search for thermotolerant microorganisms. Dhaliwal et al. [26] isolated a strain of thermotolerant yeast (P. kudriavzevii) from sugarcane juice and adapted the cells to galactose that produced more ethanol than the nonadapted cells at 40°C.

Z. mobilis, a Gram-negative bacterium, is also extensively studied over the last three decades in fuel ethanol production from grains, raw sugar, sugarcane juice, and syrup due to its ethanol tolerance and higher glucose uptake as well as good ethanol production capability [64, 67, 68]. It can produce ethanol from glucose through Entner-Doudoroff pathway using the enzymes pyruvate decarboxylase and alcohol dehydrogenase [69]. Higher ethanol yield (97.0%) and productivity of Z. mobilis were reported due to the production of less biomass and maintenance of higher rate of glucose metabolism through its ED pathway, while with S. cerevisiae ethanol yield was only 90.0–93.0% [70, 71]. Nevertheless, because of its narrow substrate range, this microorganism cannot immediately replace S. cerevisiae in fuel ethanol production.

Culture maintenance is an essential step for effective fermentation. Microorganisms typically employed in fermentation process are heterotrophs that require a carbon and a nitrogen source to grow and survive in the culture media. Without proper media and suitable growth condition, it is difficult to get a healthy inoculum for incorporating microbial cells in fermentation broth. Based on type and strain of microorganisms, their growth condition also varies as mentioned in Table 3.

Name of microorganisms
Carbon source
Nitrogen source
Growth temperature 
pHShaking rate (rpm)Time (h)Reference

S. cerevisiae CICC 1308Glucose or sucrose (50.0)Peptone (5.0)305.015048[104]
S. diastaticus Y2416 Maltose (3.0) and glucose (20.0)Yeast extract (5.0), peptone (5.0)306.0[123]
K. marxianus DMKU 3-1042Sugar (50.0–80.0)Ammonium sulfate (0.5)354.517072[59]
P. kudriavzevii DMKU 3-ET15Glucose (20.0)Peptone (20.0)406.515048[124]
Z. mobilis Glucose (10.0) and sucrose (30.0)Yeast extract (5.0)306.5Static18[3]
Z. mobilis ATCC 10988 Glucose (20.0)Ammonium sulfate (1.0)306.010024–48[125]
E. coli KO11 and
K. oxytoca P2
Sucrose (20.0)Ammonium sulfate (2.0)3010024[61]

4. Fermentation of Juices

Bioethanol is produced mainly by three types of fermentation, such as batch, fed-batch, or continuous [72] (Table 4). In batch fermentation, feedstock is added to the fermentation vessel along with microorganism, nutrients, and other ingredients at the beginning of fermentation of whole batch followed by recovery of ethanol, while, in fed-batch mode, one or more ingredients are added to the vessel as fermentation is going on [49]. Continuous fermentation involves a constant input of ingredients and removal of output from the fermentation vessel [73]. The selection of most suitable mode of fermentation mainly depends on the kinetics of the microorganisms used and the nature of feedstocks. Batch fermentation is the simple fermentation process due to low cost, less control requirement, easier sterilization, and management of feedstocks as well as employment of unskilled workforce. Besides, most of the ethanol production study from juice feedstocks was carried out by batch fermentation [44, 74]. Fed-batch mode is broadly employed in industrial production due to compiling the benefits from both batch and continuous processes [75]. This mode of fermentation gives some advantages over conventional batch process such as maintenance of maximum viable cell concentration, extended lifespan of cell, higher product accumulation, less inhibitory effect of higher substrate concentration, and control of several critical factors such as pH, temperature, and dissolved oxygen at a specific level through the feedback activities [7679]. Continuous fermentation that can be carried out in mainly two basic types of reactors; for example, plug flow reactor and continuous stirred tank reactor offer some advantages over batch fermentation. This mode of fermentation needs less downtime for vessel cleaning and filling giving increased productivity with lower cost [80].

FeedstockInitial sugar (g/L)Fermentation modeProcessing/techniquesMicroorganismsTemperature (°C)pHAgitation rate (rpm)Time (h)Ethanol concentration (g/L)Productivity (g/L/h)Ethanol yield (%)Reference

Sugarcane juice200BatchJuice was supplemented with sucroseK. marxianus DMKU 3-1042405.030042–9667.91.4260.4[59]
166BatchRecycling of yeastP. kudriavzevii 405.51502471.94.00[26]
173Repeated batchImmobilization of cells on sugarcane piecesS. cerevisiae 303289.732.48[56]
220BatchCoculture of immobilized cells on thin-shell silk cocoonK. marxianus DMKU 3-1042 and S. cerevisiae M3037–405.01507277.3–81.41.07–1.180.23–86.1[126]
180ContinuousImmobilization of cells on chrysotileStrains of Saccharomyces sp.305.011713.3–19.480.4–97.3[127]
200ContinuousRecycling of cells was done in a tower reactorS. cerevisiae IR-23013072901899[128]

Sweet sorghum juice190Fed-batchJuice was supplemented with 0.5% ammonium sulphateS. cerevisiae TISTR 504830Static108116.62–120.281.08–1.1194.12–96.8 [44]
240–320BatchJuice was adjusted with sucrose or molasses for very high gravity fermentationS. cerevisiae NP01304.9Static 40–72120.682.0199.8[96]
BatchImmobilization on Ca-alginateS. cerevisiae CICC 1308 375.02001193.24[104]

Watermelon juice183–409BatchJuice was supplemented with molassesDried yeast323.1–5.010036–16083.2[120]

Sugar beet juice200BatchImmobilization of cells on loofa spongeS. cerevisiae, Candida brassicae, and Z. mobilis 306.52000.08–0.5372.4–86.1[3]

Free cells of suitable microorganism are normally used in fermentation that carry out their metabolic function in the fermentation broth producing ethanol from sugars. However, use of immobilized microbial cells on different carriers instead of free cells in fermentation is extensively studied to improve the process which showed some technical and commercial benefits over free cell system due to changes in growth condition, physiological and morphological properties, and catalytic activity of cells [81]. This technique enhances the productivity and ethanol yield and reduces the inhibitory effect of high substrate concentration and product [8284]. In addition, immobilization prevents cell washout in continuous fermentation that avoids separation or recycle of cells in the process [85]. Several carriers have been reported for cell immobilization including apple pieces [83], k-carrageenan gel, polyacrylamide, g-alumina [86], chrysotile [87], calcium-alginate [88, 89], sugarcane pieces [56], banana leaf sheath [90], and orange peel [91]. Immobilization of S. cerevisiae can easily be carried out by enriched cells from culture media and harvested at the log phase of growth followed by entrapping into the carriers [88]. It was reported that Z. mobilis in an immobilized cell reactor can produce increased ethanol during fermentation with the capability of tolerating high concentration of sugars [92, 93].

Economic evaluation of fuel ethanol production reveals that more energy is consumed in recovery steps conducted by distillation due to low ethanol concentration in fermented broth [15]. Therefore, increasing the ethanol content in the broth can considerably reduce energy consumption in distillation [94]. Very high gravity (VHG) fermentation is a technique of using high concentration of sugars during fermentation with the output of increased concentration of ethanol. This is a technique employed in fermentation of the processed feedstocks containing 270 g/L or more dissolved solids, that is, free sugars [95, 96]. This technology exploits the enhanced and prolonged growth of microorganism in the presence of low level of oxygen [97] and reduces water consumption, labor cost, and distillation cost with more alcohol production [98]. However, ethanol is a toxic metabolite on yeast cells that may lead to cell lysis and death under this VHG environment with a limited ethanol concentration in the broth. Hence, viability loss of cells should be evaluated during fermentation using methylene blue stain technique or colony forming units (CFU) method [94].

5. Impact of Different Factors on Fermentation Ethanol Production

Several factors, especially, temperature, pH, fermentation time, agitation rate, initial sugar concentration, and inoculum size, have an impact on fermentation process as well as ethanol yield.

5.1. Temperature

Temperature is an important factor carefully regulated during fermentation as it has vital impact on the process and ethanol production. It was also reported that ethanol production depends on fermentation temperature and to some extent its concentration increases with the increase in temperature [99]. However, high temperature is considered as a stress factor for microorganisms, which is unfavorable for their growth. They produce heat-shock proteins in response to the high temperature and inactivate their ribosomes. In addition, microbial activity and fermentation process are regulated by different enzymes which are also sensitive to high temperature since it denatures their tertiary structure eventually inactivating them [100, 101]. Moreover, microorganisms used in the fermentation process have optimum temperature range for their better growth. Therefore, it is necessary to predetermine an optimum temperature during fermentation for proper microbial growth as well as higher yield of ethanol. It is generally believed that the ideal fermentation temperature range is between 20 and 35°C and high temperature in almost all fermentation processes creates problem [101, 102]. The optimum fermentation temperature for free cells of S. cerevisiae is near 30°C [101, 103], while for immobilized cells it is slightly higher probably because they can transfer heat from particle surface to inside the cells [104]. In a study with sweet sorghum juice using immobilized yeast cells, it was reported that at 28°C ethanol yield was 75.79% followed by growing up to the maximum yield (89.89%) at 37°C [104]. In another study with the strain S. cerevisiae BY4742 in batch fermentation, Lin et al. [105] reported that the highest specific cell growth rate and specific productivity of ethanol were found at 30–45°C with a significant decrease in cell growth as well as in ethanol yield at 50°C. In case of Z. mobilis, the best ethanol concentration (55.57 g/L) was found at 30°C, while the lowest (4.6 g/L) was found at 40°C [64]. Similarly, harmful effect on ethanol concentration using this microorganism was also observed at above 37°C by several investigators [106, 107].

5.2. pH

Enhanced ethanol production through fermentation can be obtained by controlling pH of the broth as it is one of the key factors for ethanol production having direct influence on organisms as well as on their cellular processes [108, 109]. In general, H+ concentrations in fermentation broth can change the total charge of plasma membrane affecting the permeability of some essential nutrients into the cells. The optimum pH range for S. cerevisiae used in fermentation for ethanol production is 4.0–5.0 [105, 110]. However, very recently, it was reported that this well-known yeast could produce ethanol from date juices even at pH 3.8 [111], though the critical pH for this organism is 2.3 [108]. On the other hand, the highest ethanol yield was obtained using Z. mobilis adjusting the pH range of the broth as 5.0–6.0 [112]. Different optimum pH range was also reported for several feedstocks such as 2.8 to 3.4 for sugarcane juice [113] and 4.0 to 4.5 for sucrose [114].

5.3. Fermentation Time

Shorter time in fermentation causes inadequate growth of microorganisms eventually causing inefficient fermentation. On the other hand, higher fermentation time causes toxic effect on microbial growth especially in batch mode due to the high concentration of ethanol in the fermented broth. Nadir et al. [115] got the highest ethanol concentrations after 64 h accounting for 40.11 g/L followed by dropping to 37.24 g/L after 72 h fermentation while studying with sweet sorghum. In addition, more time is required to complete fermentation at lower temperature though ethanol yield is the lowest. For example, only 44.0% of sugar was consumed in more than 240 h producing the lowest ethanol when fermentation was carried out at 15°C [116].

5.4. Agitation Rate

Agitation plays important role in getting higher yield of ethanol during fermentation by increasing the permeability of nutrients from the fermentation broth to inside the cells and in the same way removing ethanol from the cell interior to the fermentation broth. Agitation also increases the sugar consumption and reduces the inhibition of ethanol on cells. Useful agitation rate is 150–200 rpm for yeast cells in fermentation. Liu and Shen [104] reported the maximum ethanol yield (85.73%) at 200 rpm of agitation. Nevertheless, excess agitation rate is not suitable for smooth ethanol production due to the limited metabolic activities of cells.

5.5. Sugar Concentration

Initial sugar concentration is an important influencing parameter as it has the direct effect on fermentation rate and microbial cells. The actual relationship between initial sugar content and the fermentation rate is rather more complex. Generally, fermentation rate will be increased with the increase in sugar concentration up to a certain level. But excessively high sugar concentration will exceed the uptake capacity of the microbial cells leading to a steady rate of fermentation. In batch fermentation, increased ethanol productivity and yield can be obtained at higher initial sugar concentration, but it takes longer fermentation time and subsequently increases the recovery cost. Considering these facts, the optimum sugar concentration in batch fermentation was determined as 24°Bx (equivalent to 190.0 g/L) [44]. Similarly, the optimal ratio of sugar and microorganism concentration was reported as 200.0 g/L and 30.0 g/L, respectively, in an investigation with date juice fermentation [111].

5.6. Inoculum Size

Inoculum concentration does not have significant influence on final ethanol concentration but significantly affects sugar consumption rate and ethanol productivity [44]. However, it was reported that ethanol production was increased with the increase in the initial cell numbers from 1 × 104 to 1 × 107 cells/mL and no significant difference in ethanol production was found between 107 and 108 cells/mL. Increased cell concentration within a certain range also reduces fermentation time considerably due to the rapid growth of cells in the fermentation media that immediately consumes fed sugars producing ethanol. Breisha [117] reported that reduction in fermentation time from 72 h to 48 h was found by increasing yeast concentration from 3.0% to 6.0%.

6. Conclusion

Although current industrial fermentation for fuel ethanol production employs two types of feedstocks such as free fermentable sugars and starch, free sugars containing juice is more economic than starch feedstocks as the former can directly be used in fermentation without any prior treatment. However, better yield also depends somewhat on the selection of microorganisms and fermentation mode and techniques as well as the influence of several factors. In addition, selection and development of different potential genetic varieties of juice producing crops will also enhance the commercial ethanol production. Several technological advances have already been investigated but most of them are still confined to the laboratory. Therefore, a comprehensive economic and process analysis is required to develop an industrially suitable production strategy that will solve our energy crisis by producing more ethanol in a stable way.

Conflict of Interests

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interests regarding the publication of this paper.


The authors are thankful to the University of Malaya for financial support of this work under the HIR (Project no.: UM.C/HIR/MOHE/ENG/20) and IPPP (Project no.: UM.TNC2/IPPP/UPGP/638/PPP) projects.


  1. S. Prasad, A. Singh, and H. C. Joshi, “Ethanol production from sweet sorghum syrup for utilization as automotive fuel in India,” Energy & Fuels, vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 2415–2420, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  2. S. N. Naik, V. V. Goud, P. K. Rout, and A. K. Dalai, “Production of first and second generation biofuels: a comprehensive review,” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 578–597, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  3. J. C. Ogbonna, H. Mashima, and H. Tanaka, “Scale up of fuel ethanol production from sugar beet juice using loofa sponge immobilized bioreactor,” Bioresource Technology, vol. 76, no. 1, pp. 1–8, 2001. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  4. M. Nagashima, M. Azuma, S. Noguchi, K. Inuzuka, and H. Samejima, “Continuous ethanol fermentation using immobilized yeast cells,” Biotechnology and Bioengineering, vol. 26, no. 8, pp. 992–997, 1984. View at: Google Scholar
  5. W. E. Mabee, D. J. Gregg, and J. N. Saddler, “Assessing the emerging biorefinery sector in Canada,” in Proceeding of the 26th Symposium on Biotechnology for Fuels and Chemicals, pp. 765–778, Springer, 2005. View at: Google Scholar
  6. M. Balat, “Global bio-fuel processing and production trends,” Energy, Exploration & Exploitation, vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 195–218, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  7. M. Balat and H. Balat, “Recent trends in global production and utilization of bio-ethanol fuel,” Applied Energy, vol. 86, no. 11, pp. 2273–2282, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  8. M. E. Dias de Oliveira, B. E. Vaughan, and E. J. Rykiel Jr., “Ethanol as fuel: energy, carbon dioxide balances, and ecological footprint,” BioScience, vol. 55, no. 7, pp. 593–602, 2005. View at: Google Scholar
  9. A. Demirbas, “Biofuels sources, biofuel policy, biofuel economy and global biofuel projections,” Energy Conversion and Management, vol. 49, no. 8, pp. 2106–2116, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  10. J. Malça and F. Freire, “Renewability and life-cycle energy efficiency of bioethanol and bio-ethyl tertiary butyl ether (bioETBE): assessing the implications of allocation,” Energy, vol. 31, no. 15, pp. 3362–3380, 2006. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  11. T. Searchinger, R. Heimlich, R. A. Houghton et al., “Use of U.S. croplands for biofuels increases greenhouse gases through emissions from land-use change,” Science, vol. 319, no. 5867, pp. 1238–1240, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  12. L. R. Lynd, J. H. Cushman, R. J. Nichols, and C. E. Wyman, “Fuel ethanol from cellulosic biomass,” Science, vol. 251, no. 4999, pp. 1318–1323, 1991. View at: Google Scholar
  13. J. E. McCarthy and M. Tiemann, MTBE in gasoline: clean air and drinking water issues, Washington, DC, USA, 2006.
  14. G. R. Cysewski and C. R. Wilke, “Process design and exonomic studies of alternative fermentation methods for the production of ethanol,” Biotechnology and Bioengineering, vol. 20, no. 9, pp. 1421–1444, 1978. View at: Google Scholar
  15. B. L. Maiorella, H. W. Blanch, and C. R. Wilke, “Economic evaluation of alternative ethanol fermentation processes,” Biotechnology and Bioengineering, vol. 26, no. 9, pp. 1003–1025, 1984. View at: Google Scholar
  16. A. C. Wilkie, K. J. Riedesel, and J. M. Owens, “Stillage characterization and anaerobic treatment of ethanol stillage from conventional and cellulosic feedstocks,” Biomass and Bioenergy, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 63–102, 2000. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  17. L. Mojović, S. Nikolić, M. Rakin, and M. Vukasinović, “Production of bioethanol from corn meal hydrolyzates,” Fuel, vol. 85, no. 12-13, pp. 1750–1755, 2006. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  18. M. E. Salassi, “The economic feasibility of ethanol production from sugar crops,” Louisiana Agriculture Magazine, Winter Issue, 2007. View at: Google Scholar
  19. C. Rolz and S. de Cabrera, “Ethanol from sugar cane: flask experiments using the EX-FERM technique,” Applied and Environmental Microbiology, vol. 40, no. 3, pp. 466–471, 1980. View at: Google Scholar
  20. S. Ganesh, A. F. Khan, M. Suresh, and N. Senthil, “Character association for alcohol yield in sweet sorghum,” Madras Agricultural Journal, vol. 82, no. 5, pp. 361–363, 1995. View at: Google Scholar
  21. W. L. Bryan, “Solid-state fermentation of sugars in sweet sorghum,” Enzyme and Microbial Technology, vol. 12, no. 6, pp. 437–442, 1990. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  22. T. Nikolov, N. Bakalova, S. Petrova, R. Benadova, S. Spasov, and D. Kolev, “An effective method for bioconversion of delignified waste-cellulose fibers from the paper industry with a cellulase complex,” Bioresource Technology, vol. 71, no. 1, pp. 1–4, 2000. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  23. C. A. Cardona and Ó. J. Sánchez, “Fuel ethanol production: process design trends and integration opportunities,” Bioresource Technology, vol. 98, no. 12, pp. 2415–2457, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  24. A. B. M. S. Hossain and A. R. Fazliny, “Creation of alternative energy by bio-ethanol production from pineapple waste and the usage of its properties for engine,” African Journal of Microbiology Research, vol. 4, no. 9, pp. 813–819, 2010. View at: Google Scholar
  25. A. V. Ensinas, M. Modesto, S. A. Nebra, and L. Serra, “Reduction of irreversibility generation in sugar and ethanol production from sugarcane,” Energy, vol. 34, no. 5, pp. 680–688, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  26. S. S. Dhaliwal, H. S. Oberoi, S. K. Sandhu, D. Nanda, D. Kumar, and S. K. Uppal, “Enhanced ethanol production from sugarcane juice by galactose adaptation of a newly isolated thermotolerant strain of Pichia kudriavzevii,” Bioresource Technology, vol. 102, no. 10, pp. 5968–5975, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  27. S. Dodić, S. Popov, J. Dodić, J. Ranković, Z. Zavargo, and R. Jevtić Mučibabić, “Bioethanol production from thick juice as intermediate of sugar beet processing,” Biomass and Bioenergy, vol. 33, no. 5, pp. 822–827, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  28. Ó. J. Sánchez and C. A. Cardona, “Trends in biotechnological production of fuel ethanol from different feedstocks,” Bioresource Technology, vol. 99, no. 13, pp. 5270–5295, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  29. F. Lipnizki, M. Carter, and G. Trägårdh, “Applications of membrane processes in the beet and cane sugar production,” Zuckerindustrie, vol. 131, no. 1, pp. 29–38, 2006. View at: Google Scholar
  30. J. Kawa-Rygielska, W. Pietrzak, P. Regiec, and P. Stencel, “Utilization of concentrate after membrane filtration of sugar beet thin juice for ethanol production,” Bioresource Technology, vol. 133, pp. 134–141, 2013. View at: Google Scholar
  31. V. Hakimzadeh, S. M. A. Razavi, M. K. Piroozifard, and M. Shahidi, “The potential of microfiltration and ultrafiltration process in purification of raw sugar beet juice,” Desalination, vol. 200, no. 1, pp. 520–522, 2006. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  32. P. Regiec, “Purification of diffusion juice with ultrafiltration ceramic membrane,” Acta Agrophysica, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 491–500, 2004. View at: Google Scholar
  33. M. Shahidi and S. M. A. Razavi, “Improving thin sugar beet juice quality through ultrafiltration,” Desalination, vol. 200, no. 1, pp. 518–519, 2006. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  34. C. C. Black, T. Chen, and R. Brown, “Biochemical basis for plant competition,” Weed Science, pp. 338–344, 1969. View at: Google Scholar
  35. A. E. Wheals, L. C. Basso, D. M. G. Alves, and H. V. Amorim, “Fuel ethanol after 25 years,” Trends in Biotechnology, vol. 17, no. 12, pp. 482–487, 1999. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  36. J. R. Moreira, “Sugarcane for energy—recent results and progress in Brazil,” Energy for Sustainable Development, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 43–54, 2000. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  37. P. Ghosh and T. K. Ghose, Bioethanol in India: Recent Past and Emerging Future, Springer, Berlin, Germany, 2003.
  38. A. Hinkova and Z. Bubnik, “Sugar beet as a raw material for bioethanol production,” Czech Journal of Food Sciences, vol. 19, no. 6, pp. 224–234, 2001. View at: Google Scholar
  39. D. G. Vučurović, S. N. Dodić, S. D. Popov, J. M. Dodić, and J. A. Grahovac, “Process model and economic analysis of ethanol production from sugar beet raw juice as part of the cleaner production concept,” Bioresource Technology, vol. 104, pp. 367–372, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  40. J. Grahovac, J. Dodić, A. Jokić, S. Dodić, and S. Popov, “Optimization of ethanol production from thick juice: a response surface methodology approach,” Fuel, vol. 93, pp. 221–228, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  41. Y.-Q. Tang, M.-Z. An, Y.-L. Zhong, M. Shigeru, X.-L. Wu, and K. Kida, “Continuous ethanol fermentation from non-sulfuric acid-washed molasses using traditional stirred tank reactors and the flocculating yeast strain KF-7,” Journal of Bioscience and Bioengineering, vol. 109, no. 1, pp. 41–46, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  42. M. Balcerek, K. Pielech-Przybylska, and P. Patelski, “Selection of yeast strains for alcoholic fermentation of sugar beet thick juice and green syrup,” Biomass and Bioenergy, vol. 35, no. 12, pp. 4841–4848, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  43. P. H. Daniel, W. E. Lueschen, B. K. Kanne, and T. R. Hoverstad, “A comparison of sweet sorghum cultivars and maize for ethanol production,” Journal of Production Agriculture, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 377–381, 1991. View at: Google Scholar
  44. L. Laopaiboon, P. Thanonkeo, P. Jaisil, and P. Laopaiboon, “Ethanol production from sweet sorghum juice in batch and fed-batch fermentations by Saccharomyces cerevisiae,” World Journal of Microbiology and Biotechnology, vol. 23, no. 10, pp. 1497–1501, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  45. C. V. Ratnavathi, S. K. Chakravarthy, V. V. Komala, U. D. Chavan, and J. V. Patil, “Sweet sorghum as feedstock for biofuel production: a review,” Sugar Tech, vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 399–407, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  46. A. K. Rajvanshi and N. Nimbkar, “Sweet sorghum R&D at the Nimbkar Agricultural Research Institute (NARI),” 2005, View at: Google Scholar
  47. B. Jasberg, R. Montgomery, and R. Anderson, “Preservation of sweet sorghum biomass,” in Proceedings of the Biotechnoly and Bioenergy Symposium (United States), vol. 13, Northern Regional Research Center, Peoria, Ill, USA, 1983. View at: Google Scholar
  48. K. C. Freeman, D. M. Broadhead, N. Zummo, and F. E. Westbrook, Sweet Sorghum Culture and Syrup Production, U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook, no. 611, pp. 55, 1986.
  49. E. Gnansounou and A. Dauriat, “Ethanol fuel from biomass: a review,” Journal of Scientific and Industrial Research, vol. 64, no. 11, pp. 809–821, 2005. View at: Google Scholar
  50. O. Deesuth, P. Laopaiboon, P. Jaisil, and L. Laopaiboon, “Optimization of nitrogen and metal ions supplementation for very high gravity bioethanol fermentation from sweet sorghum juice using an orthogonal array design,” Energies, vol. 5, no. 9, pp. 3178–3197, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  51. L. Ingram, P. Gomez, X. Lai et al., “Metabolic engineering of bacteria for ethanol production,” Biotechnology and Bioengineering, vol. 58, no. 2-3, pp. 204–214, 1998. View at: Google Scholar
  52. N. Kosaric and J. Velikonja, “Liquid and gaseous fuels from biotechnology: challenge and opportunities,” FEMS Microbiology Reviews, vol. 16, no. 2-3, pp. 111–142, 1995. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  53. B. S. Dien, M. A. Cotta, and T. W. Jeffries, “Bacteria engineered for fuel ethanol production: current status,” Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology, vol. 63, no. 3, pp. 258–266, 2003. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  54. A. Sheoran, B. Yadav, P. Nigam, and D. Singh, “Continuous ethanol production from sugarcane molasses using a column reactor of immobilized Saccharomyces cerevisiae HAU-1,” Journal of Basic Microbiology, vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 123–128, 1998. View at: Google Scholar
  55. J. Yu, X. Zhang, and T. Tan, “Optimization of media conditions for the production of ethanol from sweet sorghum juice by immobilized Saccharomyces cerevisiae,” Biomass and Bioenergy, vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 521–526, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  56. L. Liang, Y.-P. Zhang, L. Zhang, M.-J. Zhu, S.-Z. Liang, and Y.-N. Huang, “Study of sugarcane pieces as yeast supports for ethanol production from sugarcane juice and molasses,” Journal of Industrial Microbiology & Biotechnology, vol. 35, no. 12, pp. 1605–1613, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  57. I. M. de Mancilha, A. M. Pearson, J. Waller, and G. J. Hogaboam, “Increasing alcohol yield by selected yeast fermentation of sweet sorghum. I. Evaluation of yeast strains for ethanol production,” Biotechnology and Bioengineering, vol. 26, no. 6, pp. 632–634, 1984. View at: Google Scholar
  58. K. Maruthai, V. Thangavelu, and M. Kanagasabai, “Statistical screening of medium components on ethanol production from cashew apple juice using Saccharomyces Diasticus,” International Journal of Chemical and Biological Engineering, vol. 6, pp. 108–111, 2012. View at: Google Scholar
  59. S. Limtong, C. Sringiew, and W. Yongmanitchai, “Production of fuel ethanol at high temperature from sugar cane juice by a newly isolated Kluyveromyces marxianus,” Bioresource Technology, vol. 98, no. 17, pp. 3367–3374, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  60. S. Nonklang, B. M. A. Abdel-Banat, K. Cha-aim et al., “High-temperature ethanol fermentation and transformation with linear DNA in the thermotolerant yeast Kluyveromyces marxianus DMKU3-1042,” Applied and Environmental Microbiology, vol. 74, no. 24, pp. 7514–7521, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  61. G. P. da Silva, E. F. de Araújo, D. O. Silva, and W. V. Guimarães, “Ethanolic fermentation of sucrose, sugarcane juice and molasses by Escherichia coli strain KO11 and Klebsiella oxytoca strain P2,” Brazilian Journal of Microbiology, vol. 36, no. 4, pp. 395–404, 2005. View at: Google Scholar
  62. P. Gunasekaran and K. Chandra Raj, “Ethanol fermentation technology—Zymomonas mobilis,” Current Science, vol. 77, no. 1, pp. 56–68, 1999. View at: Google Scholar
  63. P. Rogers, K. Lee, M. Skotnicki, and D. Tribe, “Ethanol production by Zymomonas mobilis,” in Microbial Reactions, pp. 37–84, Springer, 1982. View at: Google Scholar
  64. M. L. Cazetta, M. A. P. C. Celligoi, J. B. Buzato, and I. S. Scarmino, “Fermentation of molasses by Zymomonas mobilis: effects of temperature and sugar concentration on ethanol production,” Bioresource Technology, vol. 98, no. 15, pp. 2824–2828, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  65. E. Rodríguez and D. A. S. Callieri, “High yield conversion of sucrose into ethanol by a flocculent Zymomonas sp isolated from sugarcane juice,” Biotechnology Letters, vol. 8, no. 10, pp. 745–748, 1986. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  66. L. Olsson and B. Hahn-Hägerdal, “Fermentative performance of bacteria and yeasts in lignocellulose hydrolysates,” Process Biochemistry, vol. 28, no. 4, pp. 249–257, 1993. View at: Google Scholar
  67. P. L. Rogers, E. L. Joachimsthal, and K. D. Haggett, “Ethanol from lignocellulosics: potential for a Zymomonas-based process,” Australasian Biotechnology, vol. 7, no. 5, pp. 304–309, 1997. View at: Google Scholar
  68. W.-C. Lee and C.-T. Huang, “Modeling of ethanol fermentation using Zymomonas mobilis ATCC 10988 grown on the media containing glucose and fructose,” Biochemical Engineering Journal, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 217–227, 2000. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  69. T. Conway, “The Entner-Doudoroff pathway: history, physiology and molecular biology,” FEMS Microbiology Reviews, vol. 103, no. 1, pp. 1–27, 1992. View at: Google Scholar
  70. F. W. Bai, W. A. Anderson, and M. Moo-Young, “Ethanol fermentation technologies from sugar and starch feedstocks,” Biotechnology Advances, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 89–105, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  71. G. A. Sprenger, “Carbohydrate metabolism in Zymomonas mobilis: a catabolic highway with some scenic routes,” FEMS Microbiology Letters, vol. 145, no. 3, pp. 301–307, 1996. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  72. M. Vitolo, “Production of ethanol and invertase by S. cerevisiae grown in blackstrap molasses,” in Proceedings of the 7th Biomass for Energy and the Environment, pp. 1477–1481, Pergamon Press, Copenhagen, Denmark, 1996. View at: Google Scholar
  73. C. E. Wyman, “Ethanol fuels,” in Encyclopedia of Energy, pp. 541–555, Elsevier, New York, NY, USA, 2004. View at: Google Scholar
  74. J. M. Bvochora, J. S. Read, and R. Zvauya, “Application of very high gravity technology to the cofermentation of sweet stem sorghum juice and sorghum grain,” Industrial Crops and Products, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 11–17, 2000. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  75. U. Saarela, K. Leiviskä, and E. Juuso, “Modelling of a fed-batch fermentation process,,” Report A 21, Control Engineering Laboratory, Department of Process and Environmental Engineering, University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland, 2003. View at: Google Scholar
  76. A. Frison, K. Memmert, and A. N. Pharma, “Fed-batch process development for monoclonal antibody production with cellferm-pro,” Genetic Engineering & Biotechnology News, vol. 22, pp. 66–67, 2002. View at: Google Scholar
  77. J. C. Gunther, D. E. Seborg, and J. Baclaski, “Fault detection and diagnosis in industrial fed-batch fermentation,” in Proceedings of the American Control Conference, pp. 5511–5516, June 2006. View at: Google Scholar
  78. P. F. Stanbury, A. Whitaker, and S. J. Hall, Principles of Fermentation Technology, Pergamon Press, Oxford, UK, 2nd edition, 1995.
  79. F. S. Wang and C. H. Shyu, “Optimal feed policy for fed-batch fermentation of ethanol production by Zymomous mobilis,” Bioprocess Engineering, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 63–68, 1997. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  80. S. Brethauer and C. E. Wyman, “Review: continuous hydrolysis and fermentation for cellulosic ethanol production,” Bioresource Technology, vol. 101, no. 13, pp. 4862–4874, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  81. B. Prasad and I. M. Mishra, “On the kinetics and effectiveness of immobilized whole-cell batch cultures,” Bioresource Technology, vol. 53, no. 3, pp. 269–275, 1995. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  82. C. M. S. G. Baptista, J. M. A. Cóias, A. C. M. Oliveira et al., “Natural immobilisation of microorganisms for continuous ethanol production,” Enzyme and Microbial Technology, vol. 40, no. 1, pp. 127–131, 2006. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  83. Y. Kourkoutas, M. Komaitis, A. A. Koutinas, and M. Kanellaki, “Wine production using yeast immobilized on apple pieces at low and room temperatures,” Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, vol. 49, no. 3, pp. 1417–1425, 2001. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  84. P. Strehaiano, F. Ramon-Portugal, and P. Taillandier, “Yeasts as biocatalysts,” in Yeasts in Food and Beverages, pp. 243–283, Springer, 2006. View at: Google Scholar
  85. J.-W. Tzeng, L.-S. Fan, Y.-R. Gan, and T.-T. Hu, “Ethanol fermentation using immobilized cells in a multistage fluidized bed bioreactor,” Biotechnology and Bioengineering, vol. 38, no. 10, pp. 1253–1258, 1991. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  86. H. N. Öztop, A. Y. Öztop, E. Karadaǧ, Y. Işikver, and D. Saraydin, “Immobilization of Saccharomyces cerevisiae on to acrylamide-sodium acrylate hydrogels for production of ethyl alcohol,” Enzyme and Microbial Technology, vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 114–119, 2003. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  87. R. Monte Alegre, M. Rigo, and I. Joekes, “Ethanol fermentation of a diluted molasses medium by Saccharomyces cerevisiae immobilized on chrysotile,” Brazilian Archives of Biology and Technology, vol. 46, no. 4, pp. 751–757, 2003. View at: Google Scholar
  88. G. Najafpour, H. Younesi, and K. S. Ku Ismail, “Ethanol fermentation in an immobilized cell reactor using Saccharomyces cerevisiae,” Bioresource Technology, vol. 92, no. 3, pp. 251–260, 2004. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  89. J. N. Nigam, “Continuous ethanol production from pineapple cannery waste using immobilized yeast cells,” Journal of Biotechnology, vol. 80, no. 2, pp. 189–193, 2000. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  90. H. du Le and P. Thanonkeo, “Impact of high temperature on ethanol fermentation by Kluyveromyces marxianus immobilized on banana leaf sheath pieces,” Applied Biochemistry and Biotechnology, vol. 171, pp. 806–816, 2013. View at: Google Scholar
  91. S. Plessas, A. Bekatorou, A. A. Koutinas, M. Soupioni, I. M. Banat, and R. Marchant, “Use of Saccharomyces cerevisiae cells immobilized on orange peel as biocatalyst for alcoholic fermentation,” Bioresource Technology, vol. 98, no. 4, pp. 860–865, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  92. T. Iida, H. Izumida, Y. Akagi, and M. Sakamoto, “Continuous ethanol fermentation in molasses medium using Zymomonas mobilis immobilized in photo-crosslinkable resin gels,” Journal of Fermentation and Bioengineering, vol. 75, no. 1, pp. 32–35, 1993. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  93. T. Yamada, M. A. Fatigati, and M. Zhang, “Performance of immobilized Zymomonas mobilis 31821 (pZB5) on actual hydrolysates produced by Arkenol technology,” in Biotechnology for Fuels and Chemicals, pp. 899–907, Springer, 2002. View at: Google Scholar
  94. F. W. Bai, L. J. Chen, Z. Zhang, W. A. Anderson, and M. Moo-Young, “Continuous ethanol production and evaluation of yeast cell lysis and viability loss under very high gravity medium conditions,” Journal of Biotechnology, vol. 110, no. 3, pp. 287–293, 2004. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  95. D. P. Bayrock and W. Michael Ingledew, “Application of multistage continuous fermentation for production of fuel alcohol by very-high-gravity fermentation technology,” Journal of Industrial Microbiology and Biotechnology, vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 87–93, 2001. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  96. L. Laopaiboon, S. Nuanpeng, P. Srinophakun, P. Klanrit, and P. Laopaiboon, “Ethanol production from sweet sorghum juice using very high gravity technology: effects of carbon and nitrogen supplementations,” Bioresource Technology, vol. 100, no. 18, pp. 4176–4182, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  97. G. P. Casey and W. M. Ingledew, “Ethanol tolerance in yeasts,” Critical Reviews in Microbiology, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 219–280, 1986. View at: Google Scholar
  98. K. C. Thomas, S. H. Hynes, and W. M. Ingledew, “Practical and theoretical considerations in the production of high concentrations of alcohol by fermentation,” Process Biochemistry, vol. 31, no. 4, pp. 321–331, 1996. View at: Google Scholar
  99. A. Mallouchos, M. Komaitis, A. Koutinas, and M. Kanellaki, “Wine fermentations by immobilized and free cells at different temperatures: effect of immobilization and temperature on volatile by-products,” Food Chemistry, vol. 80, no. 1, pp. 109–113, 2003. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  100. T. A. McMeekin, J. Olley, D. A. Ratkowsky, and T. Ross, “Predictive microbiology: towards the interface and beyond,” International Journal of Food Microbiology, vol. 73, no. 2-3, pp. 395–407, 2002. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  101. M. Phisalaphong, N. Srirattana, and W. Tanthapanichakoon, “Mathematical modeling to investigate temperature effect on kinetic parameters of ethanol fermentation,” Biochemical Engineering Journal, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 36–43, 2006. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  102. M. Ballesteros, J. M. Oliva, M. J. Negro, P. Manzanares, and I. Ballesteros, “Ethanol from lignocellulosic materials by a simultaneous saccharification and fermentation process (SFS) with Kluyveromyces marxianus CECT 10875,” Process Biochemistry, vol. 39, no. 12, pp. 1843–1848, 2004. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  103. M. J. Torija, N. Rozès, M. Poblet, J. M. Guillamón, and A. Mas, “Effects of fermentation temperature on the strain population of Saccharomyces cerevisiae,” International Journal of Food Microbiology, vol. 80, no. 1, pp. 47–53, 2003. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  104. R. Liu and F. Shen, “Impacts of main factors on bioethanol fermentation from stalk juice of sweet sorghum by immobilized Saccharomyces cerevisiae (CICC 1308),” Bioresource Technology, vol. 99, no. 4, pp. 847–854, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  105. Y. Lin, W. Zhang, C. Li, K. Sakakibara, S. Tanaka, and H. Kong, “Factors affecting ethanol fermentation using Saccharomyces cerevisiae BY4742,” Biomass and Bioenergy, vol. 47, pp. 395–401, 2012. View at: Google Scholar
  106. K. J. Lee, M. L. Skotnicki, D. E. Tribe, and P. L. Rogers, “The effect of temperature on the kinetics of ethanol production by strains of Zymomonas mobilis,” Biotechnology Letters, vol. 3, no. 6, pp. 291–296, 1981. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  107. E. Lyness and H. W. Doelle, “Fermentation pattern of sucrose to ethanol conversions by Zymomonas mobilis,” Biotechnology and Bioengineering, vol. 23, no. 7, pp. 1449–1460, 1981. View at: Google Scholar
  108. K. Kasemets, I. Nisamedtinov, T.-M. Laht, K. Abner, and T. Paalme, “Growth characteristics of Saccharomyces cerevisiae S288C in changing environmental conditions: auxo-accelerostat study,” Antonie van Leeuwenhoek, vol. 92, no. 1, pp. 109–128, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  109. K. Piršelová, D. Šmogrovičová, and S. Baláž, “Fermentation of starch to ethanol by a co-culture of Saccharomycopsis fibuligera and Saccharomyces cerevisiae,” World Journal of Microbiology & Biotechnology, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 338–341, 1993. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  110. K. C. Zhang, Alcohol and Distilling Wine Craft, China Light Industry Press, Beijing, China, 1995.
  111. B. Louhichi, J. Belgaib, H. Benamor, and N. Hajji, “Production of bio-ethanol from three varieties of dates,” Renewable Energy, vol. 51, pp. 170–174, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  112. T. Onsoy, P. Thanonkeo, S. Thanonkeo, and M. Yamada, “Ethanol production from Jerusalem artichoke by Zymomonas mobilis in batch fermentation,” KMITL Science and Technology Journal, vol. 7, pp. 55–60, 2007. View at: Google Scholar
  113. S. Fukushima and K. Yamade, “A novel process of ethanol production accompanied by extraction of sugar in cane chips,” Journal of Fermentation Technology, vol. 66, no. 4, pp. 423–426, 1988. View at: Google Scholar
  114. Y. Isono and A. Hoshino, “Production of ethanol using granulated yeast cells prepared by a spray dryer,” The Journal of General and Applied Microbiology, vol. 46, no. 4, pp. 231–234, 2000. View at: Google Scholar
  115. N. Nadir, M. Mel, M. I. A. Karim, and R. M. Yunus, “Comparison of sweet sorghum and cassava for ethanol production by using Saccharomyces cerevisiae,” Journal of Applied Sciences, vol. 9, no. 17, pp. 3068–3073, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  116. A. M. Jones, K. C. Thomas, and W. Michael Ingledew, “Ethanolic fermentation of blackstrap molasses and sugarcane juice using very high gravity technology,” Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, vol. 42, no. 5, pp. 1242–1246, 1994. View at: Google Scholar
  117. G. Z. Breisha, “Production of 16% ethanol from 35% sucrose,” Biomass and Bioenergy, vol. 34, no. 8, pp. 1243–1249, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  118. C. V. Ratnavathi, K. Suresh, B. S. V. Kumar, M. Pallavi, V. V. Komala, and N. Seetharama, “Study on genotypic variation for ethanol production from sweet sorghum juice,” Biomass and Bioenergy, vol. 34, no. 7, pp. 947–952, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  119. X. Wu, S. Staggenborg, J. L. Propheter, W. L. Rooney, J. Yu, and D. Wang, “Features of sweet sorghum juice and their performance in ethanol fermentation,” Industrial Crops and Products, vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 164–170, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  120. W. W. Fish, B. D. Bruton, and V. M. Russo, “Watermelon juice: a promising feedstock supplement, diluent, and nitrogen supplement for ethanol biofuel production,” Biotechnology for Biofuels, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 1–9, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  121. J. A. Quintero, M. I. Montoya, O. J. Sánchez, O. H. Giraldo, and C. A. Cardona, “Fuel ethanol production from sugarcane and corn: comparative analysis for a Colombian case,” Energy, vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 385–399, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  122. D. Mamma, P. Christakopoulos, D. Koullas, D. Kekos, B. J. Macris, and E. Koukios, “An alternative approach to the bioconversion of sweet sorghum carbohydrates to ethanol,” Biomass and Bioenergy, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 99–103, 1995. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  123. R. Amutha and P. Gunasekaran, “Production of ethanol from liquefied cassava starch using co-immobilized cells of Zymomonas mobilis and Saccharomyces diastaticus,” Journal of Bioscience and Bioengineering, vol. 92, no. 6, pp. 560–564, 2001. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  124. N. Yuangsaard, W. Yongmanitchai, M. Yamada, and S. Limtong, “Selection and characterization of a newly isolated thermotolerant Pichia kudriavzevii strain for ethanol production at high temperature from cassava starch hydrolysate,” Antonie van Leeuwenhoek, vol. 103, no. 3, pp. 577–588, 2013. View at: Google Scholar
  125. J. Fieschko and E. Humphrey, “Effects of temperature and ethanol concentration on the maintenance and yield coefficient of Zymomonas mobilis,” Biotechnology and Bioengineering, vol. 25, no. 6, pp. 1655–1660, 1983. View at: Google Scholar
  126. A. Eiadpum, S. Limtong, and M. Phisalaphong, “High-temperature ethanol fermentation by immobilized coculture of Kluyveromyces marxianus and Saccharomyces cerevisiae,” Journal of Bioscience and Bioengineering, vol. 114, no. 3, pp. 325–329, 2012. View at: Google Scholar
  127. R. Wendhausen, A. Fregonesi, P. J. S. Moran et al., “Continuous fermentation of sugar cane syrup using immobilized yeast cells,” Journal of Bioscience and Bioengineering, vol. 91, no. 1, pp. 48–52, 2001. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  128. T. C. B. Paiva, S. Sato, A. E. S. Visconti, and L. A. B. Castro, “Continuous alcoholic fermentation process in a tower reactor with recycling of flocculating yeast,” Applied Biochemistry and Biotechnology A, vol. 57-58, pp. 535–541, 1996. View at: Google Scholar

Copyright © 2014 Hossain Zabed et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Related articles

No related content is available yet for this article.
 PDF Download Citation Citation
 Download other formatsMore
 Order printed copiesOrder

Related articles

No related content is available yet for this article.

Article of the Year Award: Outstanding research contributions of 2020, as selected by our Chief Editors. Read the winning articles.