Fuel 236 (2019) 544–553

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Fuel
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/fuel

Full Length Article

Bioethanol production from various lignocellulosic feedstocks by a novel T

“fractional hydrolysis” technique with different inorganic acids and co-
culture fermentation
⁎
Archana Mishra, Sanjoy Ghosh
Biochemical Engineering Laboratory, Department of Biotechnology, Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee, Roorkee 247667, Uttarakhand, India

G R A P H I C A L A B S T R A C T

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Second generation (2G) ethanol production is facing major research challenges primarily because of an absence
Bioethanol of suitable technology for the extraction of maximum fermentable sugars from complex lignocellulosic structure
Inorganic acids as well as unavailability of suitable fermentation technique and single microorganism to convert these sugars
Saccharification (pentose and hexose) efficiently into ethanol. Present study is focused on the exploration of various lig-
Fractional hydrolysis
nocellulosic feedstocks using different inorganic acids for the recovery of maximum amount of fermentable
Co-culture fermentation
sugars as separate fractions, direct from the biomass by a novel process called “fractional hydrolysis” with
minimum toxics generation. Different physical and chemical parameters were optimised for the process pre-
viously. Four different inorganic acids (HCl, H3PO4, HNO3, and H2SO4) up to 30% concentration (v/v) were used
in 7- and 8-stage fractional hydrolysis processes to treat dry biomass in a fractional hydrolysis column. Using
kans grass biomass, H2SO4 resulted in maximum extraction of pentose and hexose sugars separately with neg-
ligible toxics. Furthermore, the technique was explored using three different wide and easily available lig-
nocellulosic feedstocks, resulting in saccharification (%): Kans grass 84.88; Sugarcane bagasse 82.55; Wheat
straw: 81.66. Hydrolysate fractions without any detoxification were taken into a co-culture system containing
Zymomonas mobilis (for glucose fermentation) and Candida shehatae (for xylose fermentation) at bioreactor level.
93.28% of the sugar present in xylose-rich fraction (initial total reducing sugar: 59.74 g/L) and 95.44% of
glucose-rich fraction (initial total reducing sugar: 100.25 g/L) were utilised to produce 67.28 g/L ethanol from
the kans grass biomass hydrolysate; thereby achieving 82.45% of the maximum theoretical ethanol production.

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: archiesrm@gmail.com (A. Mishra), sanjoyiitr@gmail.com (S. Ghosh).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2018.09.024
Received 31 March 2018; Received in revised form 16 August 2018; Accepted 6 September 2018
0016-2361/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
A. Mishra, S. Ghosh
1. Introduction
It is widely known that transportation sector is almost entirely de-
pendent on fossil fuels; primarily on petroleum-based fuels (liquefied
petroleum gas, gasoline, compressed natural gas and diesel fuel gas).
Amount of petroleum availability is depleting day by day; therefore
alternatives are required to produce liquid fuels for reducing the future
effects of the shortage in supply of transportation fuels. Biofuels are
considered as a relevant research field because of a. Energy security
reasons b. Environment concerns c. Foreign exchange savings and d.
Various socioeconomic issues, by both developing and industrialised
countries [1–7]. All these advantages of biofuels over conventional
fossil fuels will be resulting in an increase in the share of biofuels in the
automotive fuel market over the next decade [8–11].
Term biofuel refers to solid (biochar), liquid (biodiesel, bioethanol,
and vegetable oil) or gaseous (biohydrogen, biosyngas, and biogas)
fuels that are mainly produced from biomass [12–16]. They are re-
newable; most common is bioethanol (petrol additive or gasoline sub-
stitute). Bioethanol has the potential to reduce both crude oil con-
sumption, and environmental pollution [5,17–26]. Bioethanol can be
produced from plentiful and domestic cellulosic biomass resources
(agricultural and forestry residues, herbaceous and woody plants as
well as municipal and industrial solid waste streams). Currently, world
ethanol production is about 60% from feedstocks of food and sugar
crops, requiring high-quality agricultural land for their growth; thereby
giving rise to food vs. fuel conflict. Bioethanol production overall cost
varies widely by feedstock type, conversion process, production scale,
and region. Feedstock cost (crops) is a significant component in the
ethanol production cost [18–19,27].1
As ethanol demand is expected to increase more than double in the
near future, new technologies must be moved from the laboratories to
commercial reality to meet this requirement [28]. The focus is shifting
towards lignocellulosic biomass for ethanol production; also known as
second generation (2G) ethanol. Lignocellulosic biomasses are mainly
harvested from agricultural wastes materials and forest residues crops.
They are easily available in almost every region and different climatic
condition [29]. Lignocellulosics consist of cellulose (40–60%), hemi-
cellulose (20–40%), and lignin (10–25%) on an average. Typically
cellulose and hemicelluloses part comprise 2/3rd of the total dry bio-
mass. Carbohydrate part (cellulose and hemicellulose) of lignocellulosic
biomasses can be saccharified to obtain soluble sugars and it is further
converted into ethanol by fermentation [30]. Lignocellulosic biomasses
are the most promising alternative for sugar crops because of (a) low
cost (b) high yield (c) wide availability throughout the year and (d)
ability to grow in marginal lands with almost nill water supply re-
quirement.
Major research challenges of 2G ethanol production at commercial
level are 1. Maximum extraction of fermentable sugars (cellulose and
hemicelluloses) from lignocellulosic biomass during saccharification. 2.
Selection of suitable microorganism (more tolerant toward fermenta-
tion inhibitors) and fermentation technique to convert maximum
amount of sugars present in the lignocellulosic biomass hydrolysate into
ethanol for higher productivity. 3. Process integration to minimise the
total number of steps involved in overall production.
Various techniques have been developed during recent years to
overcome these challenges for efficient bioethanol production at the
commercial level. However, most of the current technologies used for
fuel ethanol production are cost ineffective and unable to eliminate
1 pared to S. cerevisiae [37]. Under anaerobic conditions, Z. mobilis can
2G: Second generation MTCC: Microbial Type Culture Collection and Gene
Bank IMTECH: Institute of Microbial Technology NCIM: National Collection of
Industrial Microorganisms NCL: National Chemical LaboratoryNREL: National
Renewable Energy Laboratory LAP: Laboratory Analytical procedure XRF:
Xylose-rich fraction GRF: Glucose-rich fraction TRS: Total reducing sugar DNS:
Dinitrosalicylic acid, SSF: Simultaneous saccharification and fermentation
545
Fuel 236 (2019) 544–553
process steps significantly. In one of the major findings during recent
years, a new popping pretreatment technique has been developed and
performed on rice straw for enhancing cellulose conversion efficiency;
resulting into sugar production of 0.567 g/g straw after 48 h under the
optimum conditions and ethanol yield was 0.172 g/g of straw (80.9% of
the maximum theoretical) after 24 h fermentation [31]. In another
study, extrusion pretreatment method was developed for pine; optimum
conditions included 150 rpm of screw speed, barrel temperature 180 °C
and moisture content 25%. Maximum cellulose, hemicellulose, and
total sugar recoveries were 65.8, 65.6% and 66.1% respectively during
the process [32]. Corn cob acid hydrolysate was used as a substrate for
microbial lipid production, and the remaining solid residue was en-
zymatically hydrolysed where 71.6% conversion efficiency of fermen-
table sugars into valuable products was achieved [33]. Furthermore, a
novel method (treatment with NaOH in a twin-screw extruder for
continuous pretreatment) has been developed for barley straw; max-
imum ethanol concentration of 46 g/L was achieved with 77.4% yield
[34]. Unique enzymatic hydrolysis approach using phosphoric acid
impregnated and steam exploded sugarcane bagasse was tried under
high solid (18–22%) and low enzyme loading that resulted in maximum
sugar concentration of 76.8 g/L under the optimum conditions, while
total glucan conversion was 69.2% [35]. On a pilot scale, bioconversion
of wheat straw was done by dilute acid pretreatment followed by bio-
abatement of fermentation inhibitors, and simultaneous saccharifica-
tion and fermentation (SSF) was performed using Escherichia coli FBR5
with fermentation time 83 h. Maximum ethanol productivity of 0.43 g/
L/h was achieved with maximum ethanol yield 0.29 g/g (86% of
maximum theoretical ethanol yield) [36]. Technological approach im-
provements and optimisation of various factors were prioritised in these
studies. Nevertheless, 2G ethanol production still has some challenges
that need to be properly addressed in the development of a sustainable
bioethanol industry.
Therefore, in the present work, a unique approach with just two
process steps (fractional hydrolysis and fermentation) was adapted for
the conversion of lignocellulosic biomass into fuel ethanol with high
conversion efficiency and thus hoping to bring down overall 2G ethanol
production cost effectively. A novel “fractional hydrolysis” technique
was developed which gives soluble pentose and hexose sugars as se-
parate fractions directly from lignocellulosic biomass. As known, there
is no naturally occurring microorganism fermenting pentose and hexose
sugars simultaneously with the same efficiency; obtaining separate
xylose-rich fraction (XRF) and glucose-rich fraction (GRF) of hydro-
lysate hold a tremendous advantage. Additionally, fractional hydrolysis
process merges two conventional 2G ethanol production steps (pre-
treatment and hydrolysis). Furthermore, toxic compounds in the hy-
drolysate were found negligible; therefore, hydrolysate can be taken
directly for fermentation without any detoxification, thereby reducing
the overall production cost. Development and optimisation of various
parameters for the fractional hydrolysis technique have been discussed
in another communicated manuscript. In this study, four different
strong inorganic acids (HCl, H3PO4, HNO3, and H2SO4) were tested
during 7- and 8-stage fractional hydrolysis processes for the maximum
sugar recovery with minimum toxics. Also, three different lig-
nocellulosic biomass were selected (kans grass, sugarcane bagasse, and
wheat straw) for the study because of their more even geographical
distribution and higher polysaccharide content compared to other
feedstocks.
For glucose fermentation, Saccharomyces cerevisiae and Zymomonas
mobilis are the most commonly used microbes. Z. mobilis gives higher
ethanol yield (5–10%) and is about 2.5 times faster productivity com-
produce almost a theoretical amount of ethanol from glucose via En-
tner-Doudoroff pathway. Among xylose fermenting microorganisms,
Candida shehatae has shown fermenting ethanol faster compared to
other microbes [38]; also specific ethanol production rate has been
found highest [39]. C. shehatae NCIM 3501 (for XRF) and Z. mobilis
A. Mishra, S. Ghosh Fuel 236 (2019) 544–553

Table 1
Some recent significant findings in 2G ethanol production.
Number of Feedstock Major steps involved Main results Reference
major steps

2 Pretreated oil palm
fronds
3 Pretreated wheat straw
3 Sugarcane bagasse
3 Switchgrass
4 Lantana camara
3 Sugarcane bagasse
2 Rice straw
3 Rapeseed straw
2 Kans grass + Wheat
straw + Sugarcane
bagasse
Ultrasonic-assisted Pretreatment + simultaneous - Maximum bioethanol concentration (18.2 g/L) [40]
saccharification and fermentation (SSF) and yield (57.0%)
Pretreatment + enhanced saccharification - Sugar yield increased from 33 to 54% and [41]
process + fermentation enzymatic mixture quantity reduced by 40%
Sono-assisted pretreatment + enzymatic saccharification (it must - 91.28% glucose yield obtained [42]
be followed by fermentation for ethanol production; not shown - 38.4 g/L glucose obtained.
in the study) - Hemicellulose and lignin removed
Pretreatment + enzymatic hydrolysis (fermentation study not - Glucose yields: 70%–90% [43]
shown) - Xylose yields: 70%–100%
- Ethanol yields 72–92% of the theoretical
maximum
Pretreatment + saccharification + fermentation - 87.2% lignin removal [44]
- 80.0% saccharification;
- 17.7 g/L of ethanol with corresponding yields of
0.48 g/g (Saccharomyces cerevisiae)
Steam explosion pretreatment + SSF + dehydration - Highest exergy efficiency (Steam Explosion [45]
Pretreatment + SSF + Dehydration) reaching
79.58%
Aqueous ammonia treatment + SSF using cellulase and Candida - Maximum ethanol concentration was 25.1 g/L [46]
tropicalis - Yp/s 0.4 g/g
Pretreatment + saccharification + fermentation - Yp/s 0.29 g/g [47]
- Ethanol concentration 39.9 g/L
- 57.9% of theoretical ethanol yield
Fractional hydrolysis + co-culture fermentation Kans grass biomass: Present study
- Maximum saccharification 84.88%
- Yp/s 0.44 g/g
- 82.45% of the maximum theoretical ethanol
- Maximum ethanol concentration: 67.28 g/L

MTCC 91 (for GRF) were used simultaneously during the fermentation
study to utilise maximum amount of separated sugar fractions using a
unique co-culture approach that have not been developed earlier using
these two microorganisms at bioreactor level.
Using the combined H2SO4 based 8-stage fractional hydrolysis
technique and co-culture fermentation approach, most of the carbo-
hydrate content in the lignocellulosic biomass can be converted into
fermentable sugars; thereby achieving high ethanol yield (g ethanol/g
of carbohydrate content in biomass). Furthermore, only two major
process steps (fractional hydrolysis and co-fermentation) are involved
besides mechanical operations (size reduction, washing, and drying).
Advancement of this combined approach (fractional hydrolysis + co-
culture fermentation) for 2G ethanol production can be seen from
Table 1.
2. Experimental
2.1. Raw materials and microorganisms
All three Lignocellulosic feedstocks used in the study (kans grass,
sugarcane bagasse, and wheat straw) were collected from the outskirts
of Roorkee, Uttarakhand (India). Biomass was chopped to desired size
(1.18–6.73 mm), washed and air dried for 5–6 days. Zymomonas mobilis
MTCC 91 was procured from Microbial Type Culture Collection and
Gene Bank (MTCC), Institute of Microbial Technology (IMTECH),
Chandigarh, India. Growth media of Z. mobilis consisted (g/L): Glucose
20; Yeast extract 10; MgCl2 1; KH2PO4 1; (NH4)2SO4 1. pH was adjusted
to 5.5 ± 0.2. Candida shehate NCIM 3501 was procured from National
Collection of Industrial Microorganisms (NCIM), National Chemical
Laboratory (NCL), Pune, India. Growth media of C. shehate consisted
(g/L): Glucose 10; Malt extract 3; Glucose 1.0; Yeast extract 3; Peptone
5. pH was adjusted to 6.5 ± 0.2.
2.2. Fermentation media
Synthetic fermentation media of Z. mobilis consisted (g/L): Glucose
60; Yeast extract 10; MgCl2 1; KH2PO4 1; (NH4)2SO4 1. pH was adjusted
to 5.5 ± 0.2. Hydrolysate fermentation media was prepared by repla-
cing synthetic sugar with GRF obtained from kans grass hydrolysate.
Synthetic fermentation media of C. shehate consisted (g/L): Xylose 60;
Yeast extract 10; MgCl2 1; KH2PO4 1; (NH4)2SO4 1. pH was adjusted to
5.5 ± 0.2. Hydrolysate fermentation media was prepared by replacing
synthetic sugar with XRF obtained from kans grass hydrolysate. Sugar
solutions were autoclaved separately in both synthetic and hydrolysate
media.
2.3. Biochemical characterisation, proximate and ultimate analysis
Biochemical characterisation/Compositional analysis, proximate
analysis (ash and moisture content) were done according to the
National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) standard procedures
published under Laboratory Analytical procedure (LAP) for estimation
of total solid content (LAP 001) [48], carbohydrate (Cellulose and
Hemicellulose) and Acid-soluble and Acid-insoluble lignin content (LAP
003) [49–51]. Ultimate analysis (C, H, N, S, O elements) was done using
varioMICRO CHNS analyser. Bulk density, porosity and particle size
distribution were estimated according to the methods given by Zhang
et al. [52].
2.4. Fractional hydrolysis
A novel acid-based “fractional hydrolysis” process was adapted for
the saccharification, to obtain soluble fermentable sugars (glucose and
xylose) separately, direct from the biomass itself. Various inorganic
acids were used in this process with concentration up to 30% (v/v).
Other important physical and chemical parameters of the fractional
hydrolysis experiments were: 45 min preheating time, solid to liquid
ratio (dry biomass weight:diluted acid volume) of 1:10, and 100 °C
temperature. The parameters were optimised earlier for this process
and discussed in another communicated manuscript. An overview of the
fractional hydrolysis technique is shown in Fig. 1.

546
A. Mishra, S. Ghosh Fuel 236 (2019) 544–553

Table 2
Compositional and proximate analysis of lignocellulosic feedstocks used in the
study.
Kans grass Bagasse Wheat straw

Total solids (% w/w) 94.0 91.28 93.57

Cellulose (% w/w) 44.0 37.8 40.57
Hemicellulose (% w/w) 21.5 26.37 25.4
Fig. 1. An overview of the fractional hydrolysis process. Acid-insoluble lignin (% w/w) 26.37 24.08 25.2
Acid-soluble lignin (% w/w) 2.12 3.1 2.4
Ash (% w/w) 3.35 4.3 6.5
2.5. Ethanol tolerance Moisture (% w/w) 6.0 8.72 6.43

Exogenous ethanol concentration was increased gradually to the

fermentation media. Ethanol production, biomass formation, and TRS
consumption were checked at each level to find the tolerance limit of
both the strains used in fermentation.
2.6. Co-culture fermentation
Initially, XRF was fermented with 10% v/v inoculum of C. shehate in
the bioreactor (1L capacity, Applikon Biotech reactor system) with a
working volume of 350 mL; agitation rate was 150 rpm at 30 °C tem-
perature and aeration rate was kept 0.2 vvm. The process was carried
out for 30 h in the case of synthetic media and 48 h for hydrolysate
media. After exhaustion of xylose, the agitator was stopped, and N2 gas
was sparged through the reactor for 3 h. Separately prepared and
sterilised GRF was added to the reactor and Z. mobilis inoculum (10% v/
v) was added into it. Silicone (0.1% v/v) was used as an antifoam agent
in the reactor. 5 mL of sample was drawn at regular interval for the
analysis of biomass growth (g/L), residual sugars (g/L), and ethanol
concentration (g/L).
2.7. Analytical methods
TRS was estimated using the modified Dinitrosalicylic acid (DNS)
reagent method given by Miller [53]. Pentose sugars were estimated by
Phloroglucinol method [54]. Total phenolic content was estimated by
spectrophotometric Folin-Ciocalteu’s method [55]. Furfural estimation
was done according to the method given by Al-showiman [56]. Glucose
and xylose sugar represent the major part of hexose and pentose sugar
respectively in lignocellulosic hydrolysate; therefore glucose sugar
concentration was calculated after substituting xylose from TRS for
further studies. Ethanol estimation was done using Gas chromatography
(DANI, Master GC) technique. Solgel wax capillary column and flame
ionisation detector were used for the purpose. Oven temperature was
kept constant at a 150 °C along with Injector and Detector temperature
at 210 °C. Nitrogen gas was used as a carrier at a flow rate of 1 mL/min
whereas flow rate of Hydrogen gas was 30 mL/min and Zero air was
300 mL/min. Total run time was 5 min for the estimation. All the
samples were filtered using 0.2 µm nylon filter paper and 2 µL of sample
was injected for the estimation. Dry cell mass concentration was mea-
sured turbidimetrically.
3. Results and discussion
little different than some of the previous studies [57,58]; may be due to
the growth phase of the biomasses at the time of harvesting or seasonal
and geographical variation. The holocellulosic content (cellulose and
hemicellulose) was maximum (65.97%) in wheat straw, although it was
comparable in all three feedstocks (63–66%) selected for the present
study (Table 2). Lignin content of the selected feedstocks were com-
parable to the acid-insoluble lignin content of hardwoods (18–25%)
rather than that of herbaceous species and agricultural residues
(10–20%) [59].
Ultimate analysis provided the information about relative abun-
dance of individual elements present in the feedstocks. The Ultimate
analysis or elemental compositional analysis (Table 3) indicates the
degree of cross linking and occurrence of high molecular weight com-
pounds in the feedstocks. From the table, it is also quite evident that C/
N ratio of kans grass biomass was least among all three biomasses. Size
distribution of feedstocks (between 1.18 and 6.73 mm) used in the
present study is shown in Fig. 2. Maximum percentage of particles was
distributed between 1.18 and 2.36 mm in all the three biomasses (kans
grass: 29.24%, sugarcane bagasse: 30.61%, wheat straw: 31.85%).
Porosity was estimated to ensure the biomass digestibility and its ac-
cessibility to hydrolytic agents.
3.2. Fractional hydrolysis using different inorganic acids
Four strong inorganic acids (HCl, H3PO4, HNO3, and H2SO4) were
selected to find out the most suitable reagent for maximum soluble
sugar recovery with minimum toxics. Also, two different approaches (7
stage and 8-stage fractional hydrolysis) were tried using these acids. All
the parameters were kept similar during all the experiments. Results are
summarised in Tables 4 and 5 for the 7- and 8-stage fractional hydro-
lysis processes respectively. Results were calculated per 10 g of dry kans
grass biomass. As hemicelluloses have lower molecular weight com-
pared to celluloses and branches with short lateral chains that can be
easily hydrolysed [60], xylose sugar (monomeric unit of hemi-
celluloses) releases before glucose in few initial fractions when acid
concentrations were less. Few experiments were conducted at tem-
perature > 100 °C and acid concentrations > 30%, where glucose sugar
further converted into 5-Hydroxymethyl furfural and toxic products
generated significantly in the hydrolysates; therefore, 100 °C tempera-
ture and acid concentrations up to 30% were considered as optimum for
fractional hydrolysis process. A patent has been filed for the fractional

3.1. Biochemical characterisation, proximate and ultimate analyses

Table 3
Ultimate analysis of lignocellulosic feedstocks used in the study.
Biochemical compositional analysis is prerequisite to term any lig-
nocellulosic feedstock as a potential bioethanol substrate, in terms of Kans grass Bagasse Wheat straw

total carbohydrate content. The biochemical composition illustrated C-content (%) 40.43 39.91 41.97
that selected feedstocks were rich in celluloses and hemicelluloses, and H-content (%) 5.79 5.34 5.58
thus, suitable candidates for bioethanol production. Kans grass O-content (%) 52.18 54.26 52.02
(Saccharum spontaneum) biomass is known as one of the cultivar of N-content (%) 1.44 0.28 0.31
S-content (%) 0.16 0.22 0.33
switchgrass. Cellulose, the major component of lignocellulosics, was
Density (kg/m3) 280.2 239.9 421.7
found maximum (44% of dry wt.) in the kans grass biomass. Cellulose, Porosity 2.33 4.0 4.66
hemicellulose, and lignin content reported in the present study were

547
A. Mishra, S. Ghosh
Fig. 2. Size distribution of lignocellulosic feedstocks used (a) Kans grass (b) Sugarcane bagasse (c) Wheat straw.
hydrolysis technique (File No. 201611005358 dated 02/26/2016).
3.2.1. 7-stage fractional hydrolysis
5.26 g total reducing sugars (TRS) were recovered using HCl in the
7-stage fractional hydrolysis process. Glucose recovery was calculated
as 80.22% whereas xylose recovery was 80.47%. Toxic compounds
were present in the form of 1.5 × 10−2 g furfural and 4.03 × 10−2 g
total phenolics. Upon treatment with H3PO4, TRS recovery was only
3.19 g with 46.36% glucose and 53.49% xylose recovery. HNO3 re-
sulted in highest sugar recovery with overall 83.52% saccharification
giving 82.95% glucose and 84.65% xylose recovery. H2SO4 was able to
recover total 5.34 g TRS resulting in 81.52% overall saccharification.
Glucose and xylose recovery (80.9 and 82.79% respectively) was
slightly lower compared to HNO3. In case of HNO3, toxics concentration
(2.1 × 10−2 g furfural and 4.3 × 10−2 g total phenolics) were higher
compared to H2SO4 (1.48 × 10−2 g furfural and 4.01 × 10−2 g total
phenolics).
3.2.2. 8-stage fractional hydrolysis
5.33 g TRS was recovered using HCl in the 8-stage fractional hy-
drolysis process. Glucose recovery was calculated as 81.81% whereas
xylose recovery was almost equal to 7-stage with 80.46%. Toxics
compounds were present in the form of 1.15 × 10−2 g furfural and
2.96 g total phenolics. Upon treatment with H3PO4, TRS recovery was
only 3.12 g with 45.45% glucose and 52.09% xylose recovery. Here
also, HNO3 resulted in highest sugar recovery with overall 86.11%
saccharification giving 84.31% glucose and 89.69% xylose recovery.
H2SO4 was able to recover total 5.56 g TRS during 8-stage fractional
hydrolysis resulting in 84.88% overall saccharification. Glucose and
xylose recovery (83.4 and 87.9% respectively) was slightly lower
compared to HNO3. In case of HNO3, toxic concentrations (1.52 × 10−2
g furfural and 4.28 × 10−2 g total phenolics) were higher compared to
H2SO4 (1.27 × 10−2 g furfural and 3.75 × 10−2 g total phenolics).
Comparison of sugar recoveries during 7- and 8-stage fractional hy-
drolysis processes using different inorganic acids is represented in
Fig. 3.
548
Fuel 236 (2019) 544–553
From these results, it can be stated that 8-stage hydrolysis process
resulted in maximum sugar recovery with negligible toxics when
compared to 7-stage hydrolysis. Among all the acids, TRS recovery was
minimum using phosphoric acid, whereas, nitric acid resulted in max-
imum sugar recovery, but high cost of HNO3 makes it economically
non-feasible. Results of both HCl and H2SO4 were comparable, but
comparatively lower price of H2SO4 makes it as the most suitable re-
agent for fractional hydrolysis process, resulting in maximum sugar
recovery with minimum toxics. Based on these results, further studies
were carried out using 8-stage fractional hydrolysis process with H2SO4.
To emphasise the advantages of fractional hydrolysis process, one-
step acid hydrolysis experiments were conducted as a control using
kans grass biomass. At 12% H2SO4, where maximum xylose was re-
covered during 8-stage fractional hydrolysis process; only 54.23% sugar
was recovered after 2.5 h whereas toxics concentration increased gra-
dually upon increasing reaction time. At 23% H2SO4, where maximum
glucose was recovered; only 40.03% glucose was recovered with high
amount of toxics that gradually increased on increasing reaction time.
These results again verify the novelty of fractional hydrolysis technique.
3.3. Fractional hydrolysis using different lignocellulosic feedstocks
As 8-stage fractional hydrolysis process with H2SO4 resulted in
maximum sugar recovery with minimum toxics, to validate fractional
hydrolysis results of kans grass, some other wide and easily available
feedstocks were explored. Results were almost comparable in all the
three biomasses (saccharification %: kans grass 84.88, sugarcane ba-
gasse 82.55, and wheat straw 81.66) which strengthens the statement
that fractional hydrolysis technique is independent of lignocellulosic
biomass variety. Therefore, feedstock type should not be a matter of
worry for implementation of this technique during 2G ethanol pro-
duction at commercial scale. Results of 8-stage fractional hydrolysis
process using three different lignocellulosic feedstocks with H2SO4
treatment is summarised in Table 6.
Bagasse recovered 5.3 g TRS with 2.26 g xylose recovery whereas
wheat straw resulted in 5.39 g TRS with 2.22 g xylose recovery. A
 Table 4
Summary of 7-stage fractional hydrolysis process with different inorganic acids using kans grass biomass.
Serial no. Acid conc. (%) TRS (g/10 g of dry biomass) Xylose (g/10 g of dry biomass) Furfural (g/10 g of dry biomass × 10−2) Phenolics (g/10 g of dry biomass × 10−2)

HCl H3PO4 HNO3 H2SO4 HCl H3PO4 HNO3 H2SO4 HCl H3PO4 HNO3 H2SO4 HCl H3PO4 HNO3 H2SO4
A. Mishra, S. Ghosh

1 1 0.31 0.17 0.36 0.33 0.29 0.15 0.34 0.32 Not detected (n.d.) n.d. n.d. n.d. 0.13 0.07 0.14 0.1
2 2 0.64 0.34 0.75 0.68 0.63 0.33 0.63 0.60 0.18 0.06 0.27 0.16 0.24 0.16 0.27 0.22
3 5 1.51 0.83 1.54 1.21 0.81 0.67 0.85 0.86 0.73 0.23 0.84 0.78 0.30 0.21 0.48 0.31
4 12 0.35 0.18 0.38 0.36 n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d. 0.59 0.39 0.99 0.54 0.62 0.33 0.77 0.63
5 19 0.79 0.56 0.73 0.75 n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d. 0.87 0.45 0.83 0.85
6 26 1.23 0.84 1.1 0.94 n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d. 0.92 0.57 0.89 0.91
7 30 0.43 0.27 0.61 1.07 n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d. 0.95 0.64 0.92 0.97

549
Table 5
Summary of 8-stage fractional hydrolysis with different inorganic acids using kans grass biomass.
Serial no. Acid conc. (%) TRS (g/10 g of dry biomass) Xylose (g/10 g of dry biomass) Furfural (g/10 g of dry biomass × 10−2) Phenolics (g/10 g of dry biomass × 10−2)

HCl H3PO4 HNO3 H2SO4 HCl H3PO4 HNO3 H2SO4 HCl H3PO4 HNO3 H2SO4 HCl H3PO4 HNO3 H2SO4

1 1 0.29 0.18 0.32 0.33 0.27 0.16 0.35 0.32 n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d. 0.08 0.05 0.15 0.13
2 2 0.58 0.37 0.66 0.68 0.54 0.34 0.64 0.63 0.12 n.d. 0.29 0.18 0.17 0.11 0.19 0.21
3 5 1.27 0.79 1.11 1.21 0.73 0.47 0.89 0.85 0.6 0.19 0.78 0.73 0.23 0.14 0.25 0.24
4 10 0.34 0.16 0.28 0.29 0.14 0.12 0.05 0.09 0.3 0.23 0.45 0.36 0.3 0.18 0.39 0.36
5 15 0.46 0.2 0.39 0.35 0.05 0.03 n.d. n.d. 0.13 0.28 n.d. n.d. 0.36 0.22 0.48 0.45
6 20 0.61 0.38 0.73 0.69 n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d. 0.39 0.24 0.56 0.43
7 25 0.84 0.53 1.54 1.45 n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d. 0.42 0.26 0.63 0.55
8 30 0.55 0.35 0.61 0.56 n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d. 0.49 0.30 0.74 0.67
9 35 0.39 (Discarded) 0.16 n.d. (Discarded) 0.1 (Discarded) n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d. 0.52 0.33 0.89 0.71
Fuel 236 (2019) 544–553
A. Mishra, S. Ghosh
Fig. 3. Comparison of sugar recoveries during 7- and 8-stage fractional hydrolysis processes using different inorganic acids (a) Overall saccharification (b) Glucose
recovery (c) Xylose recovery.
comparative representation of sugar recoveries using the three feed-
stocks by 8-stage fractional hydrolysis process with H2SO4 treatment is
shown in Fig. 4.
Fractional hydrolysis is a single stage process and carried out in a
single fractional hydrolysis column. Initially, fractional hydrolysis
column was packed with lignocellulosic biomass; after 45 min pre-
heating, only acid concentrations were changed at 30 min interval
during the entire saccharification. There is no requirement of separate
pretreatment step also for hemicellulosic sugars recovery. Additionally,
as toxics concentrations were very low for the microbial fermentation of
sugars to ethanol, no detoxification is required prior to fermentation.
Therefore, fractional hydrolysis is a replacement for three major steps
involved in ethanol production (pretreatment, hydrolysis, and detox-
ification) from lignocellulosic feedstocks and may help in reducing the
total ethanol production cost.
Entire process is performed in a single column, initially xylose su-
gars were obtained followed by glucose, therefore, no need of many
reactors with many sets of controllers and pumps, mixers etc. 7- and 8-
stage fractional hydrolysis terms are used to denote the total number of
sugar fractions collected at 30 min interval during the entire process.
3.4. Ethanol tolerance of microorganisms used in co-culture fermentation
In the case of Z. mobilis MTCC 91, a gradual decrease in the biomass
growth and glucose consumption was observed upon increasing exo-
genous ethanol, thereby reducing ethanol production. Biomass growth
and ethanol production were significantly inhibited after 10% exo-
genous ethanol, clearly seen from Fig. 5a. In the figure, ethanol con-
centration represents only the ethanol produced during the fermenta-
tion i.e. exogenous ethanol concentration was substituted from the final
550
Fuel 236 (2019) 544–553
ethanol concentration. At 2% initial ethanol and 60 g/L sugar, 26.14 g/
L of ethanol was produced after utilising 96.3% glucose whereas it was
reduced to 23.42 g/L after 10% initial ethanol addition utilising glucose
only up to 82.8%. Ethanol production was reduced significantly
(15.83 g/L) by adding 12% exogenous alcohol. Therefore, it was con-
cluded that Z. mobilis MTCC 91 had shown ethanol tolerance up to 10%.
C. shehatae NCIM 3501 has shown ethanol tolerance only up to 6%.
Here also, biomass growth and xylose consumption were observed de-
creasing gradually upon increasing exogenous ethanol concentration;
hence ethanol production was minimised. Biomass growth and ethanol
production were significantly inhibited at 7% exogenous ethanol which
can be observed clearly from the Fig. 5b. Ethanol concentration was
26.19 g/L after 1% initial ethanol addition utilising TRS up to 91.06%
while it was reduced to 18.16 g/L after 6% initial ethanol addition
utilising 81.11% TRS. Beyond 6% exogenous ethanol, a significant re-
duction in ethanol production was exhibited by the yeast.
Therefore, it is quite evident that glucose fermenting bacterial strain
Z. mobilis MTCC 91 (up to 10%) shows better ethanol tolerance level
compared to xylose-fermenting yeast S. shehatae NCIM 3501 (up to 6%).
3.5. Co-culture fermentation
It is known that microbes preferentially consume glucose over other
sugars in the fermentation medium due to which xylose consumption
occurs at very slow rate and most of the sugars except glucose remain
unutilised, therefore fractional hydrolysis process has the edge over
other techniques in producing separate xylose- and glucose-rich hy-
drolysate fractions. During the co-culture fermentation, the prior ad-
dition of C. shehatae and its ethanol production media were done on the
basis of the fact that it assimilates glucose sugar preferentially over
A. Mishra, S. Ghosh Fuel 236 (2019) 544–553

dry biomass × 10−2)

Phenolics (g/10 g of

0.17
0.26
0.34
0.39
0.45
0.51
0.58
0.69
Furfural (g/10 g of

biomass × 10−2)

0.08
0.37
0.31
n.d.

n.d.
n.d.
n.d.
n.d.
dry
10 g of dry
Xylose (g/

biomass)

0.33
0.69
0.95
0.25
n.d.
n.d.
n.d.
n.d.

Fig. 4. Comparison of sugar recoveries during 8-stage fractional hydrolysis

Wheat straw

process using different lignocellulosic feedstocks.

10 g of dry
biomass)
TRS (g/

0.34
0.71
1.21
0.34
0.29
0.63
1.34
0.53

xylose as C-source. Also, as shown above, it has lower ethanol tolerance

(< 7%, w/v) compared to Z. mobilis (∼10%, w/v). Due to catabolite
Phenolics (g/10 g of

repression at the initial stage, high glucose concentration can suppress

biomass × 10−2)

fermentation of xylose by C. shehatae [61], as xylose bioconversion may

be completely inhibited at 2.3 g/L or higher glucose concentration [62]
which results in poor ethanol yield and fermentation delay [63]. Very
few co-culture works have been done for an efficient bioethanol pro-
0.19
0.27
0.31
0.38
0.42
0.49
0.56
0.64
dry

duction from lignocellulosic biomass earlier in a bioreactor. Therefore,

we have tried to develop this co-culture fermentation approach using
Furfural (g/10 g of

biomass × 10−2)

kans grass hydrolysate media and results were compared with synthetic
media having same initial sugar concentration.

3.5.1. Synthetic media

0.05
0.33
0.35
n.d.

n.d.
n.d.
n.d.
n.d.
dry

The process was initiated with 60 g/L xylose using C. shehatae in-
oculum. After 30 h of fermentation, around 93% of xylose was utilised
10 g of dry
Xylose (g/

biomass)

to produce 26.78 g/L ethanol. Glucose sugar along with other media
0.34

0.93
0.29

supplements was added after 36 h of fermentation. After Z. mobilis ad-

n.d.
n.d.
n.d.
n.d.
0.7

dition, the process can be considered as co-culture. Fermentation profile

10 g of dry

of the process is shown in Fig. 6.

biomass)
TRS (g/
Bagasse

After Z. mobilis addition, the process was converted into strict

0.35
0.73
1.25
0.31
0.27
0.59
1.31
0.49

anaerobic which uses Entner-Doudoroff pathway instead of Entner-

Meyerhof-Parnas pathway for glucose consumption in anaerobic mode.
Summary of 8-stage fractional hydrolysis using different lignocellulosic feedstocks.

Phenolics (g/10 g of

It results in less biomass formation and more carbon utilisation for

biomass × 10−2)

ethanol fermentation [64]. Sugar assimilation rate was slower in case of

C. shehatae. Kinetic parameters of the process are presented in Table 7.
Average ethanol yield coefficient (YP/S, g/g) was observed as 0.46.
0.13
0.21
0.24
0.36
0.45
0.43
0.55
0.67
dry

3.5.2. Hydrolysate media

Xylose and glucose sugars in the synthetic media were replaced with
Furfural (g/10 g of

biomass × 10−2)

XRF and GRF containing 59.74 g/L and 100.25 g/L of TRS respectively.
XRF was assimilated within first 48 h of fermentation whereas GRF was
utilised in 56–80 h to produce ethanol. Longer lag phase was observed
with respect to synthetic media. Fermentation profile of both the or-
0.18
0.73
0.36
n.d.

n.d.
n.d.
n.d.
n.d.
dry

ganisms during the process is shown in Fig. 7.

93.28% sugar of XRF and 95.44% of GRF were utilised to produce
10 g of dry
Xylose (g/

biomass)

67.28 g/L of ethanol. Xylose was assimilated even after GRF addition to
0.32
0.63
0.85
0.09

the fermentation media. 6–7% less ethanol concentration was observed

n.d.
n.d.
n.d.
n.d.

compared to synthetic media. All the kinetic parameters were compared

10 g of dry

to synthetic media and presented in Table 7.

Kans grass

biomass)
TRS (g/

Ethanol production rate was very high in synthetic media (1.26)

0.33
0.68
1.21
0.29
0.35
0.69
1.45
0.56

compared to kans grass hydrolysate media (0.84). Values of most of the

fermentation parameters were lower in hydrolysate media compared to
synthetic media. Average ethanol yield coefficient (YP/S, g/g) was ob-
H2SO4
conc.

served as 0.44.
10
15
20
25
30
1
2
5

Fractional hydrolysis technique resulted in the generation of two

Table 6

S. no.

separate XRF and GRF sugar streams and eliminated the problem of
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

utilising preferable C-source glucose by microbes for ethanol

551
A. Mishra, S. Ghosh Fuel 236 (2019) 544–553

Fig 5. Effect of exogenous ethanol addition on (a) Z. mobilis MTCC 91 (b) C. shehatae NCIM 3501.

Fig. 7. Fermentation profile of Z. mobilis and C. shehate co-culture system for

ethanol production in hydrolysate media with TRS of 100.25 g/L in GRF and
Fig. 6. Fermentation profile of Z. mobilis and C. shehate co-culture system for 59.74 g/L in XRF.
ethanol production in synthetic media with 100 g/L glucose and 60 g/L xylose
concentration. 4. Conclusion

Table 7 Maximum total reducing sugar recovery from lignocellulosic bio-

Kinetic parameters comparison of co-culture fermentation using Z.mobilis and C.
shehatae in synthetic and kans grass hydrolysate media.
Initial TRS (g/L)
Fermentation time (h)
Maximum cell conc. (g/L)
Biomass yield coefficient (g/
g)
Maximum ethanol
production (g/L)
Sugar consumption (%)
Average ethanol yield
coefficient (g/g)
Ethanol productivity (g/L/h)
Residual sugar (g/L)
Sugar consumption rate (g/
L/h)
% of maximum theoretical
ethanol
mass with minimum toxic compounds has been a major research
challenge for 2G ethanol production. A novel “fractional hydrolysis”
Synthetic media Hydrolysate media technique was developed to deal with this issue, by recovering the
maximum amount of soluble pentose and hexose sugars separately;
100 (G) + 60 (X) 100.25 (GRF) + 59.74 direct from lignocellulosic biomass with negligible toxic products gen-
(XRF)
eration. Separate pretreatment, hydrolysis, and detoxification steps can
56 80
6.38 (ZM) + 4.67 5.79 (ZM) + 3.93 (CS)
be avoided using a single fractional hydrolysis process. During the
(CS) study, H2SO4 was found as the most suitable reagent for fractional
0.063 (ZM) + 0.078 0.057 (ZM) + 0.066 (CS) hydrolysis process resulting in maximum sugar recovery with minimum
(CS) toxics. Among the three feedstocks, lowest C/N ratio and highest sac-
70.82 67.28
charification (%) was obtained from kans grass biomass; although the
96.81 (G) + 94.55 (X) 95.44 (GRF) + 93.28 technique was proven independent of lignocellulosic feedstock type.
(XRF) The success of fractional hydrolysis process is clearly visible by re-
0.46 0.44 covering 84.88% of total reducing sugars present in the kans grass
biomass as soluble monomeric sugars with negligible toxics using
1.26 0.84
3.19 (G) + 3.27 (X) 4.57 (GRF) + 4.01 (XRF)
H2SO4. Also, a unique approach of co-culture fermentation (single
4.84 (G) + 1.55 (X) 3.99 (GRF) + 0.99 (XRF) vessel operation) using Z. mobilis and C. shehatae may reduce the overall
bioethanol production cost with high ethanol yield (0.44).
86.78 82.45

fermentation. Furthermore, xylose fermentation inhibition due to rapid
ethanol formation from glucose was also eliminated by using this co-
culture fermentation; thereby achieving efficient utilisation of both
glucose and xylose sugars.
Acknowledgements
The Authors gratefully acknowledge to Department of
Biotechnology, Government of India (Grant number: DBT-824-BIO) and
Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India (Grant
number: 12926002) for their fund & support provided to conduct this
study.

552
A. Mishra, S. Ghosh
References
[1] Balat M. New biofuel production technologies. Energy Educ Sci Technol Part A
2009;22:147–61.
[2] Demirbas C. The global climate challenge: recent trends in CO2 emissions from fuel
combustion. Energy Educ Sci Technol Part A 2009;22:179–93.
[3] Humbad A, Kumar S, Babu BV. Carbon credits for energy self sufficiency in rural
India – a case study. Energy Educ Sci Technol Part A 2009;22:187–97.
[4] Dincer K. Lower emissions from biodiesel combustion. Energy Sources Part A
2008;30:963–8.
[5] Demirbas A, Dincer K. Sustainable green diesel: a futuristic view. Energy Sources
Part A 2008;30:1233–41.
[6] Hacisaligoglu S. Ethanol–gasoline and ethanol–diesel fuel blends. Energy Educ Sci
Technol Part A 2009;22:133–46.
[7] Demirbas B. Biofuels for internal combustion engines. Energy Educ Sci Technol Part
A 2009;22:117–32.
[8] Balat M. An overview of biofuels and policies in the European Union. Energy
Sources Part B 2007;2:167–81.
[9] Demirbas A. Recent progress in biorenewable feedstocks. Energy Educ Sci Technol
2008;22:69–95.
[10] Demirbas A. Economic and environmental impacts of the liquid biofuels. Energy
Educ Sci Technol 2008;22:37–58.
[11] Demirbas T. Overview of ethanol from biorenewable feedstocks: technology, eco-
nomics, policy and impacts. Energy Educ Sci Technol Part A 2009;22:163–77.
[12] Kong L, Li G, Zhang B, He W, Wang H. Hydrogen production from biomass wastes
by hydrothermal gasification. Energy Sources Part A 2008;30:1166–78.
[13] Demirbas A. Biohydrogen generation from organic wastes. Energy Sources Part A
2008;30:475–82.
[14] Balat M. Hydrogen-rich gas production from biomass via pyrolysis and gasification
processes and effects of catalyst on hydrogen yield. Energy Sources Part A
2008;30:552–64.
[15] Demirbas A. Hydrogen production from carbonaceous solid wastes by steam re-
forming. Energy Sources Part A 2008;30:924–31.
[16] Balat M. Possible methods for hydrogen production. Energy Sources Part A
2009;31:39–50.
[17] Demirbas A. Biofuels sources, biofuel policy, biofuel economy and global biofuel
projections. Energy Convers Manage 2008;49:2106–16.
[18] Demirbas A. Present and future transportation fuels. Energy Sources Part A
2008;30:1473–83.
[19] Demirbas A. New liquid biofuels from vegetable oils via catalytic pyrolysis. Energy
Educ Sci Technol 2008;21:1–59.
[20] Demirbas A. Bio-fuels from agricultural residues. Energy Sources, Part A
2008;30:101–9.
[21] Sigar CP, Soni SL, Mathur J, Sharma D. Performance and emission characteristics of
vegetable oil as diesel fuel extender. Energy Sources Part A 2009;31:139–48.
[22] Demirbas A. The sustainability of combustible renewables. Energy Sources Part A
2008;30:1114–9.
[23] Keskin A. Biodiesel production from free fatty acids obtained with neutralization of
the crude glycerin. Energy Sources Part A 2009;31:17–24.
[24] Demirbas A. Alternatives to petroleum diesel fuel. Energy Sources Part B
2007;2:343–51.
[25] Chhetri AB, Islam MR. Towards producing a truly green biodiesel. Energy Sources
Part A 2008;30:754–64.
[26] Demirbas A. Progress and recent trends in biodiesel fuels. Energy Convers Manage
2009;50:14–34.
[27] Demirbas A. Partial hydrogenation effect of moisture contents on combustion heats
of oils via pyrolysis from biomass. Energy Sources Part A 2008;30:508–15.
[28] Bothast RJ. New technologies in biofuel production. Agricultural Outlook Forum
(AOF), February, 24, 2005. < http://www.usda.gov/oce/forum/speeches/Bothast.
pdf > . Accessed last on 18/07/2018.
[29] Pérez J, Muñoz-Dorado J, de la Rubia T, Martinez J. Biodegradation and biological
treatments of cellulose, hemicellulose, and lignin: an overview. Int Microbiol
2002;5:53–63.
[30] Hamelinck CN, Hooijdonk GV, Faaij AP. Ethanol from lignocellulosic biomass:
Techno-economic performance in Short-, middle-and Long-term. Biomass Bioenergy
2005;28:384–410.
[31] Wi SG, Choi IS, Kim KH, Kim HM, Bae HJ. Bioethanol production from rice straw by
popping pretreatment. Biotechnol Biofuels 2013;6:1.
[32] Cai D, Dong Z, Wang Y, Chen C, Li P, Qin P, et al. Biorefinery of corn cob for
microbial lipid and bio-ethanol production: an environmental friendly process.
Bioresour Technol 2016;211:677–84.
[33] Karunanithy C, Muthukumarappan K, Gibbons W. Extrusion pretreatment of pine
wood chip. Appl Biochem Biotechnol 2012;167:81–99.
[34] Han M, Kang KE, Kim Y, Choi GW. High efficiency bioethanol production from
barley straw using a continuous pretreatment reactor. Process Biochem
2013;48:488–95.
[35] Ramos LP, da Silva L, Ballem AC, Pitarelo AP, Chiarello LM, Silveira MHL.
Enzymatic hydrolysis of steam-exploded sugarcane bagasse using high total solids
and low enzyme loadings. Bioresour Technol 2015;175:195–202.
553
Fuel 236 (2019) 544–553
[36] Saha BC, Nichols NN, Qureshi N, Kennedy GJ, Iten LB, Cotta MA. Pilot scale con-
version of wheat straw to ethanol via simultaneous saccharification and fermen-
tation. Bioresour Technol 2015;175:17–22.
[37] Sprenger GA. Carbohydrate metabolism in Zymomonas mobilis: a catabolic
highway with some scenic routes. FEMS Microbiol Lett 1996;145:301–7.
[38] Sreenath SK, Chapman TW, Jeffries TW. Ethanol fermentation from D-Xylose in
batch fermentations with Candida shehatae. Process variables Appl Microbiol
Biotechnol 1986;24:294–9.
[39] Sánchez S, Bravo V, Castro E, Moya AJ, Camacho F. The fermentation of mixtures of
D-glucose and D-xylose by Candida shehatae, Pichia stipitis or pachysolen tannophilus
to produce ethanol. J Chem Technol Biotechnol 2002;77:641–8.
[40] Ofori BC, Lee KT. Ultrasonic-assisted simultaneous saccharification and fermenta-
tion of pretreated oil palm fronds for sustainable bioethanol production. Fuel
2014;119:285–91.
[41] López-Abelairas M, Lu-Chau TA, Lema JM. Enhanced saccharification of biologi-
cally pretreated wheat straw for ethanol production. Appl Biochem Biotechnol
2013;169:1147–59.
[42] Velmurugan R, Muthukumar K. Sono-assisted enzymatic saccharification of su-
garcane bagasse for bioethanol production. Biochem Eng J 2012;63:1–9.
[43] Keshwani DR, Cheng JJ. Switchgrass for bioethanol and other value-added appli-
cations: a review. Bioresour Technol 2009;100:1515–23.
[44] Kuhad RC, Gupta R, Khasa YP, Singh A. Bioethanol production from Lantana ca-
mara (red sage): pretreatment, saccharification and fermentation. Bioresour
Technol 2010;101:8348–54.
[45] Ojeda K, Sánchez E, Kafarov V. Sustainable ethanol production from lignocellulosic
biomass-application of exergy analysis. Energy 2011;36:2119–28.
[46] Phitsuwan P, Permsriburasuk C, Waeonukul R, Pason P, Tachaapaikoon C,
Ratanakhanokchai K. Evaluation of Fuel Ethanol Production from Aqueous
Ammonia-Treated Rice Straw via Simultaneous Saccharification and Fermentation.
Biomass Bioenergy 2016;93:150–7.
[47] Carlos JLL, Romero I, Cara C, Ruiz E, Moya M, Castro E. Bioethanol production from
rapeseed straw at high solids loading with different process configurations. Fuel
2014;122:112–8.
[48] Ehrman T. Method for determination of total solids in biomass. In: Analytical
Procedures No. 001. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO 1994a.
[49] Ehrman T. Method for determination of ash content in biomass. In: Laboratory
Analytical Procedures No. 005. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO
1994b.
[50] Ehrman T. Method for determination of acid-soluble lignin in biomass. In:
Laboratory Analytical Procedures No. 004. National Renewable Energy Laboratory,
Golden, CO 1996.
[51] Templeton D, Ehrman T. Determination of acid-insoluble lignin in biomass. In:
Laboratory Analytical Procedures No. 003, National Renewable Energy Laboratory,
Golden, CO 1994.
[52] Zhang Y, Ghaly AE, Li B. Physical properties of corn residues. Am J Biochem
Biotechnol 2012;8(2):44–53.
[53] Miller GL. Use of dinitrosalicylic acid reagent for determination of reducing sugar.
Anal Chem 1959;31:426–8.
[54] Eberts TJ, Sample RHB, Glick MR, Ellis GH. A simplified, colorimetric method for
xylose in serum or urine with phloroglucinol. Clin Chem 1979;25:1440–3.
[55] Lachman J, Hosnedl V, Pivec V, Orsák M. Polyphenols in cereals and their positive
and negative role in human and animal nutrition. In: Cereals for Human and
Preventive Nutrition, Brno (Czech Republic), 7-11 Jul 1998. Mendelova Zemedelska
a Lesnicka Univerzita.
[56] Al-Showiman SS. Extraction and estimation of furfural from decorative plants. J Sci
Ind Res 1998;57:908.
[57] Chandel AK, Kapoor RK, Narasu ML, Viswadevan V, Kumaran SSG, Ravinder R,
et al. Economic evaluation and environmental benefits of biofuel: an Indian per-
spective. Int J Global Energy Issues. 2007;28:357–81.
[58] Chandel AK, Narasu ML, Chandrasekhar G, Manikyam A, Rao LV. Use of Saccharum
spontaneum (wild sugarcane) as biomaterial for cell immobilization and modulated
ethanol production by thermotolerant Saccharomyces cerevisiae VS3. Bioresour
Technol 2009;100:2404–10.
[59] McMillan JD. Pretreatment of lignocellulosic biomass. In: Himmel ME, Baker JO,
Overend RP, editors. Enzymatic Conversion of Biomass for Fuels Production.
Washington DC: American Chemical Society; 1994. p. 292–324.
[60] Saha BC. Hemicellulose bioconversion. J Ind Microbiol Biotechnol.
2003;30:279–2791.
[61] Singh LK, Majumder CB, Ghosh S. Development of sequential-co-culture system
(Pichia stipitis and Zymomonas mobilis) for bioethanol production from Kans grass
biomass. Biochem Eng J 2014;82:150–7.
[62] Grootjen DRJ, Jansen ML, Van der Lans RGJM, Luyben KCAM. Reactors in series for
the complete conversion of glucose/xylose mixtures by Pichia stipitis and
Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Enzyme Microb Technol 1991;13:828–33.
[63] Govindaswamy S, Vane LM. Kinetics of growth and ethanol production on different
carbon substrates using genetically engineered xylose- fermenting yeast. Bioresour
Technol 2007;98:677–85.
[64] Lin Y, Tanaka S. Ethanol fermentation from biomass resources: current state and
prospects. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 2006;69:627–42.