Next Article in Journal
Large-Area Empirically Based Visual Landscape Quality Assessment for Spatial Planning—A Validation Approach by Method Triangulation
Next Article in Special Issue
Exploitation of Agro-Industrial Residues for the Formulation of a New Active and Cost Effective Biofungicide to Control the Root Rot of Vegetable Crops
Previous Article in Journal
COVID-19 and Higher Education: First-Year Students’ Expectations toward Distance Learning
Previous Article in Special Issue
Sustainable Second-Generation Bioethanol Production from Enzymatically Hydrolyzed Domestic Food Waste Using Pichia anomala as Biocatalyst
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

On the Optimization of Fermentation Conditions for Enhanced Bioethanol Yields from Starchy Biowaste via Yeast Co-Cultures

1
Department of Biology, College of Science, King Khalid University, Abha 61413, Saudi Arabia
2
Botany and Microbiology Department, Faculty of Science, Assiut University, Assiut 71516, Egypt
3
Zografou Campus, School of Chemical Engineering, National Technical University of Athens, GR 15780 Athens, Greece
4
Institute of Chemical Engineering Sciences, Foundation for Research and Technology, GR 26504 Patra, Greece
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2021, 13(4), 1890; https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/su13041890
Submission received: 15 December 2020 / Revised: 24 January 2021 / Accepted: 1 February 2021 / Published: 9 February 2021

Abstract

:
The present study aims to assess the impact of the type of yeast consortium used during bioethanol production from starchy biowastes and to determine the optimal fermentation conditions for enhanced bioethanol production. Three different yeast strains, Saccharomyces cerevisiae, Pichia barkeri, and Candida intermedia were used in mono- and co-cultures with pretreated waste-rice as substrate. The optimization of fermentation conditions i.e., fermentation time, temperature, pH, and inoculum size, was investigated in small-scale batch cultures and subsequently, the optimal conditions were applied for scaling-up and validation of the process in a 7-L fermenter. It was shown that co-culturing of yeasts either in couples or triples significantly enhanced the fermentation efficiency of the process, with ethanol yield reaching 167.80 ± 0.49 g/kg of biowaste during experiments in the fermenter.

1. Introduction

Bioethanol is one of the most important renewable fuels that could alleviate the negative environmental effects generated by the utilization of oil fuels [1] and represents a sustainable energy carrier in the future. Now, there is a great interest in the production of bioethanol as renewable bioenergy by lowering its production cost through the exploitation of low-cost substrates, efficient fermentative organisms, and optimization of the process conditions for obtaining the maximum yield [2]. The most important factor in bioethanol production is the availability and renewability of the biomass. Agricultural and industrial biowastes emerged as an ultimate cost-effective raw material for biofuel production [3,4]. Food waste (FW) is organic waste discharged continuously from restaurants and food processing [5]. Solid and liquid FW are produced daily by the industries of food processing, restaurants, and hotels. These kinds of wastes include foods that are not up to the specified quality control standards, peelings and remnants from crops, fruits, and vegetables and could play a key role in the sustainability of bioethanol production in the near future [6].
To be ready for fermentation, these biowastes should be subjected to hydrolysis of the complex carbohydrates towards simple fermentable sugars. The selection of the most efficient methodology to achieve this could vary significantly for food wastes of different compositions. Generally, more severe pretreatment is required for FW with high lignocellulosic content, whereas direct hydrolysis can be applied to starchy FW, leading to efficient saccharification. The saccharification of starchy wastes can be achieved either enzymatically [7,8,9] or chemically, mainly via dilute acids such as sulfuric [10,11], phosphoric [12], and hydrochloric [13] facilitated by simultaneous thermal treatment. In general, low temperatures lead to solubilization of starch whereas for its further saccharification temperatures above 90 °C are required. Although acid hydrolysis of starchy substrates constitutes a cost-effective and fast method for their saccharification, there are certain drawbacks that must be taken into account during the application of such a process. These include the need for equipment capable of withstanding corrosion and the possible formation of byproducts that are generated during acidic degradation of sugars, such as furfurals, that might have an inhibitory effect on fermentative microorganisms [11]. To avoid the latter the selection of proper conditions and tolerant microorganisms should be made. In this context the co-culturing of different microbial strains could be proven to be beneficial, resulting in higher tolerance to inhibitors [14] and more efficient utilization and bioconversion of carbon sources due to the potential synergistic action of the metabolic pathways of the involved strains [15].
Indeed, the application of yeast co-cultures for ethanol production has been proposed by many researchers. In general, yeast co-culturing is mainly used when targeting the exploitation of feedstocks that contain both C5 and C6 sugars or polymers of them, such as lignocellulosic biomass. Conventional fermentative yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae cannot utilize pentoses and other sugars other than glucose. So, the released sugars cannot be completely exhausted during the fermentation process, and low productivity of ethanol results. To overcome this challenge, different yeast species capable of fermenting pentoses such as Pichia stipitis, Candida shehatae, Pachysolen tannophilus, etc. were selected to be used in co-cultures with S. cerevisiae to maximize the bioconversion efficiency of such waste materials [16,17,18,19]. Moreover, the co-culturing of S. cerevisiae with other yeast strains has been proven to enhance ethanol yields even from other types of sugars, such as sucrose, maltose, and oligosaccharides [20,21].
The goal of the current study was to investigate the production of bioethanol from a starchy biowaste using consortia of yeast strains that were isolated from naturally fermenting waste-rice i.e., they were indigenous of a material similar to the waste that was used as feedstock in the current study. Based on their fermentation efficiency on glucose, three yeast strains were selected, Saccharomyces cerevisiae KX008611, Pichia barkeri KX008612, and Candida intermedia KX008614, and their ethalogenic potency during mono-culturing and co-culturing was investigated using the starchy biowaste, after chemical hydrolysis, as the sole carbon source. The strategy of selecting fermentative microorganisms that are indigenous on substrates similar to the targeted feedstock is considered to be advantageous for the efficiency of the processes to be developed since, as reported by previous studies, they have better performance [22] and tend to be more robust at industrial applications [23] and as such those strains are expected to adapt easily to the new substrate. The effect of key fermentation parameters on ethanol yields was studied and was statistically evaluated and the scaling-up of the process was subsequently evaluated for the monocultures and the different combinations of co-cultures at the optimal conditions. In this context, the novelty and originality of the study lies in (a) proving that the endogenous yeasts of the waste can be quite efficient for its fermentation towards ethanol under optimized conditions, (b) the investigation of the effect of co-culturing versus mono-culturing on the ethanol yields and the fermentation efficiency of the waste, and (c) the confirmation of the results of the proposed methodology during the scaling-up of the process.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Biowaste

The starchy biowaste (SBW) that was used as feedstock in the present study was meal leftovers containing mainly waste-rice (Style Al walimah) and was collected from restaurants as previously described by Hashem et al. [13]. The SBW was ground in a laboratory blender to obtain homogeneous slurry containing particles ≤3 mm and its physicochemical characteristics were assessed as follows: total solids, 0.73 g/g, total starch, 0.54 g/g, reducing sugars, 0.11 g/g, total nitrogen, 58.0 mg/g, and ash content, 49.7 mg/g.

2.2. Hydrolysis

The SBW slurry was subjected to thermo-acid hydrolysis as previously reported by Hashem et al. [12]. Briefly, 20% SBW (w/v) was acidified with 1 M HCl to adjust the pH to 1. The acidified slurry was then treated at 121 °C for 30 min. After cooling, the pH was adjusted to 5 using 1 M NaOH and the complete hydrolysis of starch in the sample was verified using an iodine color test. The concentration of the reducing sugar after this step was estimated as 0.36 g/g of the pretreated SBW.

2.3. Fermentation Experiments

2.3.1. Microorganisms

Fermentation tests were performed using three different yeast strains, S. cerevisiae KX008611, P. barkeri KX008612, and C. intermedia KX008614 that were previously isolated from naturally fermented waste-rice [13]. Yeast strains were identified by sequencing the D1/D2 domain of 26S rDNA regions using the primers NL1 (5′-GCATATCAATAAGCGGAGGAAAAG-3′), and NL4 (5′-GGTCCGTGTTT CAAGACGG-3′) [13] and were submitted to the GenBank as new yeast strains.
The inoculum of each yeast was prepared by growing it in yeast-malt broth medium (YMB) in a rotary shaker (150 rpm) for 48 h at 25 °C.

2.3.2. Optimization of Bioethanol Production in Small-Scale Flask Experiments

The hydrolyzed SBW was used throughout the study as the fermentation medium. Batch experiments were carried out with monocultures and co-cultures of S. cerevisiae KX008611, P. barkeri KX008612, and C. intermedia KX008614. Seven sets of batch experiments were carried out in 250-mL screw-capped bottles with 100 mL of hydrolyzed SBW with an initial sugar concentration of 32 g/L, as follows: 1. S. cerevisiae KX008611, 2. P. barkeri KX008612, 3. C. intermedia KX008614, 4. S. cerevisiae KX008611+ P. barkeri KX0086125, 5. S. cerevisiae KX008611+ C. intermedia KX008614, 6. P. barkeri KX008612+ C. intermedia KX008614, and 7. S. cerevisiae KX008611+ P. barkeri KX008612+ C. intermedia KX008614. Each culture was inoculated with 5% (w/w) of pre-culture with a biomass concentration of ~106 cell/mL. Three replicate cultures were performed for each set of batches in order for the data to be used for statistical analysis. The fermentation conditions were optimized for each different biocatalyst in terms of (a) fermentation time (24 h, 48 h, 72 h, and 96 h), (b) pH (4, 5, 6, and 7), (c) temperature (25 °C, 30 °C, 35 °C, and 40 °C), and (d) inoculum concentration (2.5%, 5%, 7.5%, and 10%). All cultures were performed under microaerophilic conditions and with constant agitation of 150 rpm in a rotary shaker. At the end of each experiment the fermentation broth was centrifuged (6000 rpm, 10 min) and the concentrations of ethanol and remaining sugars were estimated in the supernatant.

2.3.3. Production of Bioethanol in a 7-L Fermenter

Fermentation was carried out in a BioFlo/CelliGen 115 fermenter provided by New Brunswick Co., New Jersy, USA, with all necessary controls. The reactor had a 7-L capacity and the working volume was 3 L. The fermenter was equipped with an agitator, pH, and temperature control system. The fermenter was cleaned and steam-sterilized at 121 °C for 20 min. Three liters of hydrolyzed and diluted SBW (32 g/L of sugar) was transferred to the fermenter and inoculated with S. cerevisiae KX008611, P. barkeri KX008612, and C. intermedia KX008614 (singly or in a consortium) as mentioned in batch culture procedures in a concentration of 5%. The temperature of fermentation was maintained at 30 ± 1 °C and the pH was regulated at 5. The agitator speed remained constant throughout the experiment at 150 rpm. The reactor was maintained under microaerophilic conditions. Samples were collected after 72 h of fermentation for the estimation of sugars and ethanol concentrations.

2.4. Analytical Techniques

The concentration of reducing sugars was estimated by the dinitrosalicylic acid method [24]. Starch was quantified via a total starch assay kit (Megazyme). Ethanol was quantified via gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS) (Agilent 6890 N/5975 B Germany) using a BR-SWax separation column (FS 30 m, 0.25 mm ID, 0.25 μm df). Helium at 2 mL/min was used as the carrier gas. The flow rates of high purity hydrogen and zero air were set at 30 and 300 mL/min, respectively. The temperature of the injection was set at 225, and 285 °C, respectively. The oven temperature was set initially at 45 °C for 2 min and then increased to the final temperature of 240 °C at the rate of 45 °C/min. The injection volume was 1 μL.

2.5. Statistical Analysis

All statistical analyses were performed using the SPSS 22.0 software (SPSS, 2013). The data were initially examined for their normality of distribution and homogeneity of variance. The significance of variations in the data for the effect of incubation time, temperature, pH, and inoculum concentration on ethanol production by yeast either singly or in a consortium in vitro was assessed using a two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA-2). The correlation between each parameter and ethanol productivity was calculated. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to identify statistically significant differences among the means of consumed and unconsumed sugar and ethanol production in scale-up experiments. The least significant difference (LSD) test was used at P < 0.05 to identify the significant differences between the means among the treatments.

3. Results

The results showed that using co-cultures of yeast in either two or three different species increased the productivity of ethanol from the pretreated starchy-waste. The optimum incubation time for ethanol production was 72 h except for Pichia barkeri and Candida intermedia, which achieved their maximum production after 96 h. When the three yeasts were used in a consortium, the highest concentration of ethanol was attained after 72 h at 150.33 g/kg SBW (Table 1). Analysis of variance using the two-way ANOVA to study the effect of incubation time and application of yeast singly or in a consortium on ethanol production showed that means are significantly different at P < 0.001. So, at this level of probability, the null hypothesis was rejected, and the alternative hypothesis was accepted. There was a strong positive correlation between the incubation time and ethanol production from all treatments (r = 0.855) (Figure 1). The titer of produced ethanol was dependent on the incubation time by 73.1% (R2 = 0.731).
The temperature appeared as a main factor affecting the production of ethanol by the three yeasts either singly or in a consortium. The most appropriate temperature was 30–35 °C, at which the maximum concentration of ethanol was achieved. The highest productivity by both Saccharomyces cerevisiae and Candida intermedia was achieved at 35 °C, however, P. barkeri produced the highest concentration at 30 °C (Table 2). When the three yeasts were combined, the maximum productivity of ethanol was detected at 35 °C as 149.55 g/kg SBW. At both temperatures 25 °C and 40 °C, a considerable production of ethanol was detected but lower than the above-mentioned two temperatures (30 and 35 °C). Statistical analysis showed that there was a significant difference among the means of either yeast treatments or temperatures at P < 0.001 to indicate the real effect of the application of yeasts either singly or in a consortium and the incubation temperature on ethanol production. A very strong correlation between the ethanol productivity and the temperature was noted (r = 0.909) (Figure 2) indicating the dependence of ethanol productivity of the applied yeasts on temperature by 82.0% (R2 = 0.82).
The experimental results clearly demonstrated that pH 5 was the most appropriate pH for ethanol production by all yeasts from SBW. At this pH, the highest productivity was noticed when the three yeasts were used in a consortium (147.72 g/kg SBW). Using two-way ANOVA analysis, the alternative hypothesis was supported, and the null hypothesis was rejected at P < 0.001. There was a significant difference among means obtained from pH treatments (Table 3). Regarding the means obtained from yeast application, there was a significant difference among the co-cultures of two strains with those of three strains of yeast compared with the monocultures. There was a high positive correlation between ethanol concentration and the pH of the fermentation medium (r = 0.84) (Figure 3) which indicates the dependence of ethanol concentration on pH by 70% (R2 = 0.701).
The inoculum concentration had a clear effect on the ethanol production of the three yeasts. It was shown that when the yeasts were applied singly, there was not a significant difference between the concentration of 5% or 7.5%. However, when the yeasts were used in a mix, the concentration of 5% was the best one that induced the maximum production of ethanol (Table 4). At P < 0.001, the null hypothesis was rejected, and the alternative hypothesis was accepted to indicate the significant difference among the means of treatments. There was a significant difference among the means of yeasts when they were applied in a mix, even in dual culture. There was a positive correlation between ethanol production by the applied yeasts and the inoculum concentration (r = 0.785) (Figure 4). The ethanol productivity depends on the inoculum concentration by 0.62% (R2 = 0.616).
Data collected from the 7-L fermenter clearly demonstrated the efficiency of the yeast consortium on the sugar consumption (Figure 5a). The maximum consumption of the available sugar was 92.2% when the three yeasts were applied as a mixture inoculum (5%) at 30 °C, pH 5, and 150 rpm after 72 h of incubation. When the yeasts were coupled, the consumption of sugar was 88.7% to 89.3%, however, when they were applied singly the consumption of sugar decreased to 86.5–88.2%. Consequently, the remaining amount of unconsumed sugars was also affected by the number of strains that were used in each culture. (Figure 5b). There was a significant difference between the mean of treatments at P < 0.05.
The production of ethanol in the scale-up experiment was greatly enhanced when the three yeasts were applied together (Figure 5c). The maximum ethanol concentration was 167.8 g/kg SBW in this case. The application of the yeasts in pairs or singly resulted in significantly lower ethanol production than the consortium (P < 0.05). The lowest concentration of ethanol was obtained when C. intermedia was used as the sole biocatalyst, leading to the production of 121.8 g/kg SBW. S. cerevisiae and P. barkeri resulted in the production of similar titers of ethanol when they were used in monocultures, however, when they were used in co-cultures the produced ethanol titers varied. When we compared the real production of ethanol with the theoretically expected production, there was a good indication about the positive effect of the yeast consortium on the yeast efficiency. The yeast mixture gave 96.0% of the theoretically expected production (Figure 5d). This indicator was 87.0–88.6% of the theoretically expected production when the yeasts were used as couples, however, it lowered to 74.3–80.3% when the yeasts were used singly.

4. Discussion

Lately, great attention has been paid to the exploitation of FW that are discharged from households, restaurants, and food processing factories as fermentation substrates due to their abundancy, efficient bioconversion [5], but also because such an exploitation constitutes an eco-friendly process that may contribute greatly to greenhouse gas emissions savings and the concept of a circular economy [25]. Waste-rice comprises a considerable part of resultant waste throughout the globe and as such is worth investigating its potential use as fermentative feedstock [26,27,28]. On the other hand, bioethanol, as a main constituent of the current and future bioenergy, is a very important end product that can be generated from the fermentation of various biowastes [2,5,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16]. In this context, the results of the current study clearly demonstrate the feasibility of the transformation of the pretreated waste-rice into ethanol using either monocultures or co-cultures of fermentative yeasts.
As indicated by the initial flask experiments, co-culturing was the optimal strategy for enhancing ethanol yields. Indeed, 150.33 g ethanol/kg of the SBW was produced when applying the co-culture of S. cerevisiae, P. barkeri, and C. intermedia after 72 h of incubation at 30 °C, pH 5, and 5% of the inoculum concentration. The co-culturing of different yeast strains from various substrates has indeed been proposed as advantageous for the efficiency of the ethanol production process compared to its pure cultures, leading to higher ethanol titers, maximum uptake of carbon sources, and better ethanol yields [14,17,18,29,30,31,32]. When the same fermentation process was carried out in a 7-L fermenter the productivity increased further, reaching 167.80 ± 0.49 g/kg SBW, which corresponds to an approximately 5% increase of yield compared to the yield obtained from the respective flask experiments. As previously reported by other studies [8,33,34] the current results confirmed that the optimization of fermentation conditions, such as fermentation time, temperature, pH, and inoculum size, is quite important for the maximization of ethanol titers, yields, and productivities, i.e., to fermentation outcomes that are crucial for the economic viability and overall sustainability of the process.
More specifically, focusing on the economic point of view, the fermentation time seems quite an important factor since it affects the productivity of the process [13]. Obtaining the maximum production of ethanol after 72 h by the applied yeast consortia makes the process more economically favorable compared to other research findings in which longer fermentation times are reported for the achievement of maximum bioconversion and ethanol production [35,36].
Regarding the pH of the fermentation, the application of a slightly acidic medium (pH 5) was proven to be the most appropriate pH for ethanol production by the selected yeasts either singly or in a consortium. It should be mentioned that all three yeast strains used in the current study are weak acidophilic and can tolerate pH values ranging from 4 to 7. Nevertheless, pH 5 induced the maximum ethanol production, a finding that is in agreement with previous studies. Narendranath and Power [37] found that the optimum pH for yeast growth and ethanol production by S. cerevisiae was pH 4.9, whereas Pramanik [38] reported that the maximum ethanol production by S. cerevisiae was achieved for pH 4.25–5.0. In a study by Pramanik [38], it was argued that the activity of the yeast species at pH 3.75 was decreased and this was attributed to the inability of the activation of the fermentation enzymes at such a low pH. On the other hand, at the higher pH values tested, the low ethanol production and sugar conversion values could be due to the formation of undesired products like glycerol and organic acids [36]. According to other studies, many yeasts perform optimal fermentations at acidic pH, with values 5.0–5.2 being optimal for efficient fermentation, but brewing and distilling strains are capable of good growth at the pH range of approximately 3.5 to 6.0 [39]. As reported in that study, H+ ions are excreted by yeast during any fermentation, resulting in a pH decline in the media. Nevertheless, the maintenance of the optimal pH in the medium is of the utmost importance when higher ethanol production is the target of the fermentation [18].
As it concerns the effect of the temperature on the efficiency of the process, the most appropriate temperature, at which all three yeasts produced the highest ethanol titter was 30–35 °C. This indicates the mesophilic nature of the tested yeasts. Determination of the appropriate temperature of fermentation is the crucial factor that affects the productivity of ethanol [40]. The temperature has a direct effect on the biochemical reactions and metabolism of yeasts because the enzyme activities are suppressed at low temperature and the higher temperature affects the alcohol production because of cell death [41]. Moreover, efficient ethanol production at mesophilic conditions is favorable for the economic viability of the process since it requires less energy for the maintenance of optimal fermentation, this is especially useful in countries with temperate climatic conditions.
With respect to the inoculum size, it was observed that inoculation with 5% induced the maximum ethanol production by all yeasts. However, in some cases, the inoculation with 7.5% seemed to further increase the productivity of ethanol, though without having a statistically significant difference with the inoculum of 5%. So, from an economic point of view, it seems preferable to use an inoculum size of no more than 5%, since such an approach requires a smaller scale of pre-culturing. It can be assumed that the increase in the inoculum concentration induces the rate of consumption of the sugars until a definite concentration of 5%. However, further increase of the inoculum size did not seem to enhance the fermentation process since it led to the exhaustion of the substrate, as has also been reported by previous studies [42,43].
The results obtained from the scale-up experiment were consistent with those obtained from the flask experiments that support the validity of the assumption that mixing more than one biocatalyst in one inoculum could enhance the ethanol productivity from the biowaste. The results of the current study demonstrated that when the three yeasts were applied in a consortium, the ethanol yield increased to 167.80 ± 0.49 g/kg SBW, which is statistically higher than the yield that was achieved during the respective flask experiment. The increase in the ethanol concentration in a 7-L fermenter could be related to various parameters that are affected by the scaling-up of a fermentation process such as the improved agitation and pH control. Indeed, in the 7-L-fermenter agitation was performed via mechanical stirring and not in a rotary shaker as in the flask experiments, resulting in more efficient mixing of the fermentation broth and consequently to better availability of the nutrients to the biocatalysts, leading thus to better productivities and yields [44]. Moreover, better mixing during the fermentation is reported to allow for more effective gas-liquid mass transfer [45] leading thus to better exchange of oxygen and fermentation gases [46] and also for more efficient heat transfer [47], which is expected to ensure optimal distribution of heat throughout the volume of the reactor. All the above are expected to ensure the maintenance of more homogeneous conditions in the fermenter that favor the fermentation performance of the yeasts, resulting in the increase of the ethanol yield. In addition to the most efficient agitation, the controlled operation of the fermenter allows the continuous adjustment of the pH to the optimum value of 5, preventing its possible drop or variations during the fermentation process. Continuous maintenance of pH at the optimum value is expected to have a positive effect on ethanol yield and therefore can correlate to the increased yields that were achieved in the fermenter experiments, compared to the flask experiments.

5. Conclusions

In previous decades, there have been numerous studies that have investigated the optimization of fermentation conditions for the production of bioethanol from many different waste streams and microbial strains. In this context, in the current study, the successful application of a biocatalytic yeast consortium was confirmed to ferment efficiently the SBW leading to increased ethanol production compared to the single-use of each yeast strain. The effect of the main fermentation parameters was investigated and the optimal conditions were determined for small-scale flask experiments. The subsequent scale-up of the process, applying the optimal conditions for all different yeast consortia and monocultures verified the observation of the superiority of the co-culturing of all three strains, leading also to even better performance and achieving a higher ethanol yield. As such, this finding confirms that for the design of truly sustainable processes, an investigation should not be limited to the identification of promising biocatalysts and the determination of optimal conditions but should be also expanded to the thorough study and implementation of the gradual increase of the scale of the process.

Author Contributions

M.H. and S.A.A.; conceptualization, Y.S.M. and T.A.Y.A.; methodology, M.H., S.A.A. and I.N.; data curation, M.H. and Y.S.M.; writing—original draft preparation, I.N. and G.L.; writing—review and editing, M.H. and G.L.; project administration. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the Deputyship for Research & Innovation, Ministry of Education in Saudi Arabia, under project No 327: “CiClic—Enhanced pilot scale bioethanol production from food wastes using novel biocatalysts”.

Acknowledgments

The authors extend their appreciation to the Deputyship for Research & Innovation, Ministry of Education in Saudi Arabia for funding this research work through project number 327.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Waghmare, P.R.; Khandare, R.V.; Jeon, B.-H.; Govindwar, S.P. Enzymatic hydrolysis of biologically pretreated sorghum husk for bioethanol production. Biofuel Res. J. 2018, 5, 846–853. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  2. Prasad, S.; Singh, A.; Jain, N.; Joshi, H. Ethanol production from sweet sorghum syrup for utilization as automotive fuel in India. Energy Fuel 2007, 21, 2415–2420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Demirbas, B. Biomass business and operating. Energy Educ. Sci. Tech. A 2010, 26, 37–47. [Google Scholar]
  4. Loizidou, M.; Alamanou, D.G.; Sotiropoulos, A.; Lytras, C.; Mamma, D.; Malamis, D.; Kekos, D. Pilot scale system of two horizontal rotating bioreactors for bioethanol production from household food waste at high solid concentrations. Waste Biomass Valor. 2017, 8, 1709–1719. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Yan, S.; Wang, P.; Zhai, Z.; Yao, J. Fuel ethanol production from concentrated food waste hydrolysates in immobilized cell reactors by Saccharomyces cerevisiae H058. J. Chem. Technol. Biotechnol. 2011, 86, 731–738. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Ben-Iwo, J.; Manovic, V.; Longhurst, P. Biomass resources and biofuels potential for the production of transportation fuels in Nigeria. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2016, 63, 172–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Kotoka, F.; Tulashie, S.K.; Setsoafia, D.D. Production of bioethanol from liquid waste from cassava dough during gari processing. Biofuels 2019, 10, 493–501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Chohan, N.A.; Aruwajoye, G.S.; Sewsynker-Sukai, Y.; Gueguim Kana, E.B. Valorisation of potato peel wastes for bioethanol production using simultaneous saccharification and fermentation: Process optimization and kinetic assessment. Renew Energy 2020, 146, 1031–1040. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Ntaikou, I.; Antonopoulou, G.; Lyberatos, G. Sustainable second-generation bioethanol production from enzymatically hydrolyzed domestic food waste using Pichia anomala as biocatalyst. Sustainability 2021, 13, 259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Mahmoodi, P.; Karimi, K.; Taherzadeh, M.J. Efficient conversion of municipal solid waste to biofuel by simultaneous dilute-acid hydrolysis of starch and pretreatment of lignocelluloses. Energy Convers. Manag. 2018, 166, 569–578. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Hatami-manesh, M.; Younesi, H.; Bahramifar, N.; Mohammadi, M.; Khakpour, H. Fermentative production of ethanol from acid hydrolyzate of rice water waste using Saccharomyces cerevisiae: Experimental and kinetic studies. Waste Biomass Valor. 2020, 11, 3465–3475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Fontana, J.D.; Mitchell, D.A.; Molina, O.E.; Gaitan, A.; Bonfim, T.M.B.; Adelmann, J.; Grzybowski, A.; Passos, M. Starch depolymerization with diluted phosphoric acid and application of the hydrolysate in astaxanthin fermentation. Food Technol. Biotechnol. 2008, 46, 305–310. [Google Scholar]
  13. Hashem, M.; Asseri, T.Y.A.; Alamri, S.A.; Alrumman, S.A. Feasibility and sustainability of bioethanol production from starchy restaurants’ bio-wastes by new yeast strains. Waste Biomass Valor. 2019, 10, 1617–1626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Sopandi, T.; Wardah, A. Ethanol production and sugar consumption of co-culture Saccharomyces cerevisiae FNCC 3012 with Candida tropicalis FNCC 3033 in media containing inhibitor fermentation. J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. Food Sci. 2017, 7, 160–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  15. Bader, J.; Mast-Gerlach, E.; Popović, M.K.; Bajpai, R.; Stahl, U. Relevance of microbial coculture fermentations in biotechnology. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2010, 109, 371–387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Antonopoulou, G.; Vayenas, D.; Lyberatos, G. Ethanol and hydrogen production from sunflower straw: The effect of pretreatment on the whole slurry fermentation. Biochem. Eng. J. 2016, 116, 65–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Hickert, L.R.; Cruz, M.M.; Dillon, A.J.P.; Fontana, R.C.; Rosa, C.A.; Ayub, M.A.Z. Fermentation kinetics of acid–enzymatic soybean hull hydrolysate in immobilized-cell bioreactors of Saccharomyces cerevisiae, Candida shehatae, Spathaspora arborariae, and their co-cultivations. Biochem. Eng. J. 2014, 88, 61–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Ntaikou, I.; Menis, N.; Alexandropoulou, M.; Antonopoulou, G.; Lyberatos, G. Valorization of kitchen biowaste for ethanol production via simultaneous saccharification and fermentation using co-cultures of the yeasts Saccharomyces cerevisiae and Pichia stipites. Bioresour. Technol. 2018, 263, 75–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Senkevich, S.; Ntaikou, I.; Lyberatos, G. Bioethanol production from thermochemically pre-treated olive mill solid residues using the yeast Pachysolen tannophylus. Global Nest J. 2012, 14, 118–124. [Google Scholar]
  20. Eiadpum, A.; Limtong, S.; Phisalaphong, M. High-temperature ethanol fermentation by immobilized coculture of Kluyveromyces marxianus and Saccharomyces cerevisiae. J. Biosci. Bioeng. 2012, 114, 325–329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Azmi, A.S.; Ngoh, C.G.; Mel, M. Prediction of significant factors in the production of ethanol by ragi Tapai co-culture using Taguchi methodology. Afr. J. Biotechnol. 2011, 10, 18833–18841. [Google Scholar]
  22. Basso, L.C.; De Amorim, H.V.; De Oliveira, A.J.; Lopes, M.L. Yeast selection for fuel ethanol production in Brazil. FEMS Yeast Res. 2008, 8, 1155–1163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Kechkar, M.; Sayed, W.; Cabrol, A.; Aziza, M.; Ahmed Zaid, T.; Amrane, A.; Djelal, H. Isolation and identification of yeast strains from sugarcane molasses, dates and figs for ethanol production under conditions simulating algal hydrolysates. Braz. J. Chem. Eng. 2019, 36, 157–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  24. Miller, G.L. Use of dinitrosalicylic acid reagent for determination of reducing sugar. Anal. Chem. 1959, 31, 426–428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Konti, A.; Kekos, D.; Mamma, D. Life cycle analysis of the bioethanol production from food waste—A review. Energies 2020, 13, 5206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Wang, L.J. Production of bioenergy and bioproducts from food processing wastes: A review. Trans. ASABE 2013, 56, 217–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Odey, E.A.; Abo, B.O.; Li, Z.; Zhou, X. Application of lactic acid derived from food waste on pathogen inactivation in fecal sludge: A review on the alternative use of food waste. Rev. Environ. Health 2018, 33, 423–431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Baig, M.B.; Al-Zahrani, K.H.; Schneider, F.; Straquadine, G.S.; Mourad, M. Food waste posing a serious threat to sustainability in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia—A systematic review. Saudi J. Biol. Sci. 2019, 26, 1743–1752. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Sunwoo, I.Y.; Kwon, J.E.; Nguyen, T.H.; Ra, C.H.; Jeong, G.-T.; Kim, S.-K. Bioethanol production suing waste seaweed obtained from Gwangalli Beach, Busan, Korea by co-culture of yeasts with Adaptive Evolution. Appl. Biochem. Biotech. 2017, 183, 966–979. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Farias, D.; Maugeri Filho, F. Co-culture strategy for improved 2G bioethanol production using a mixture of sugarcane molasses and bagasse hydrolysate as substrate. Biochem. Eng. J. 2019, 147, 29–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Antonopoulou, G.; Alexandropoulou, M.; Ntaikou, I.; Lyberatos, G. From waste to fuel: Energy recovery from household food waste via its bioconversion to energy carriers based on microbiological processes. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 73, 139230. [Google Scholar]
  32. Branco, R.H.R.; Amandio, M.S.T.; Serafim, L.S.; Xavier, A.M.R.B. Ethanol production from hydrolyzed kraft pulp by mono- and co-cultures of yeasts-and challenge of C6 and C5 sugars consumption. Energies 2020, 13, 744. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  33. Jambo, S.A.; Abdulla, R.; Marbawi, H.; Gansau, J.A. Response surface optimization of bioethanol production from third generation feedstock—Eucheuma cottonii. Renew. Energy 2019, 132, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Shaghaghi-Moghaddam, R.; Jafarizadeh-Malmiri, H.; Mehdikhani, P.; Alijanianzadeh, R.; Jalalian, S. Optimization of submerged fermentation conditions to overproduce bioethanol using two industrial and traditional Saccharomyces cerevisiae strains. Green Process Synth. 2019, 8, 157–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Limtong, S.; Sringiew, C.; Yongmanitchai, W. Production of fuel ethanol at high temperature from sugar cane juice by a newly isolated Kluyveromyces marxianus. Bioresour. Technol. 2007, 98, 3367–3374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Zohri, A.-N.A.; Etnan, M.M. Ethanol production from dates in Saudi Arabia on industrial scale. Mycobiology 2000, 28, 76–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Narendranath, N.V.; Power, R. Relationship between pH and medium dissolved solids in terms of growth and metabolism of lactobacilli and Saccharomyces cerevisiae during ethanol production. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2005, 71, 2239–2243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  38. Pramanik, K. Parametric studies on batch alcohol fermentation using Saccharomyces yeast extracted from toddy. J. Chin. Inst. Chem. Eng. 2003, 34, 487–492. [Google Scholar]
  39. Russell, I. Understanding yeast fundamentals. In The Alcohol Textbook, 4th ed.; Jacques, K.A., Lyoans, T.P., Kelsall, D.R., Eds.; Nottingham University Press: Nottingham, UK, 2003; pp. 531–537. [Google Scholar]
  40. Fleet, G.H.; Heard, G.M. Yeasts—growth during fermentation. In Wine Microbiology and Biotechnology; Fleet, G.H., Ed.; Harwood Academic Publishers: Chur, Switzerland, 1993; pp. 27–55. [Google Scholar]
  41. Gao, C.; Fleet, G.H. The effects of temperature and pH on the ethanol tolerance of the wine yeasts, Saccharomyces cerevisiae, Candida stellata and Kloeckera apiculata. J. Appl. Bacteriol. 1988, 65, 405–409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Okuda, N.; Ninomiya, K.; Katakura, Y.; Shioya, S. Strategies for reducing supplemental medium cost in bioethanol production from waste house wood hydrolysate by ethanologenic Escherichia coli: Inoculum size increase and coculture with Saccharomyces cerevisiae. J. Biosci. Bioeng. 2008, 105, 90–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Eskicioglu, C.; Ghorbani, M. Effect of inoculum/substrate ratio on mesophilic anaerobic digestion of bioethanol plant whole stillage in batch mode. Process Biochem. 2011, 46, 1682–1687. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Hashem, M.; Hesham, A.E.-L.; Alrumman, S.A.; Alamri, S.A. Production of bioethanol from spoilage date fruits by new osmotolerant yeasts. Int. J. Agric. Biol. 2017, 19, 825–833. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Petricek, R.; Moucha, T.; Rejl, F.J.; Valenz, L.; Haidl, J.; Cmelikova, T. Volumetric mass transfer coefficient, power input and gas hold-up in viscous liquid in mechanically agitated fermenters. Measurements and scale-up. Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer 2018, 124, 1117–1135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Crater, J.S.; Lievense, J.C. Scale-up of industrial microbial processes. FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 2018, 365, fny138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Ju, L.-K.; Chase, G.G. Improved scale-up strategies of bioreactors. Bioprocess Eng. 1992, 8, 49–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Correlation between incubation time (h) and ethanol production by yeasts (singly and in a consortium) from pretreated SBW in a batch culture at 30 °C, pH 5, and 150 rpm. Black dots represent the experimentally measured ethanol. Red line is the correlation tendle among values.
Figure 1. Correlation between incubation time (h) and ethanol production by yeasts (singly and in a consortium) from pretreated SBW in a batch culture at 30 °C, pH 5, and 150 rpm. Black dots represent the experimentally measured ethanol. Red line is the correlation tendle among values.
Sustainability 13 01890 g001
Figure 2. Correlation between incubation temperature (°C) and ethanol production by yeasts (singly and in a consortium) from pretreated SBW in a batch culture at pH 5 and 150 rpm after 72 h. Black dots represent the experimentally measured ethanol. Red line is the correlation tendle among values.
Figure 2. Correlation between incubation temperature (°C) and ethanol production by yeasts (singly and in a consortium) from pretreated SBW in a batch culture at pH 5 and 150 rpm after 72 h. Black dots represent the experimentally measured ethanol. Red line is the correlation tendle among values.
Sustainability 13 01890 g002
Figure 3. Correlation between initial pH and ethanol production by yeasts (singly and in a consortium) from pretreated SBW in a batch culture at 30 °C and 150 rpm after 72 h. Black dots represent the experimentally measured ethanol. Red line is the correlation tendle among values.
Figure 3. Correlation between initial pH and ethanol production by yeasts (singly and in a consortium) from pretreated SBW in a batch culture at 30 °C and 150 rpm after 72 h. Black dots represent the experimentally measured ethanol. Red line is the correlation tendle among values.
Sustainability 13 01890 g003
Figure 4. Correlation between inoculum concentration and ethanol production by yeasts (singly and in a consortium) from pretreated SBW in a batch culture at 30 °C, pH 5, and 150 rpm after 72 h. Black dots represent the experimentally measured ethanol. Red line is the correlation tendle among values.
Figure 4. Correlation between inoculum concentration and ethanol production by yeasts (singly and in a consortium) from pretreated SBW in a batch culture at 30 °C, pH 5, and 150 rpm after 72 h. Black dots represent the experimentally measured ethanol. Red line is the correlation tendle among values.
Sustainability 13 01890 g004
Figure 5. Consumed sugars (a), unconsumed sugars (b), ethanol titter (c), and fermentation efficiency of ethanol production (expressed as % from the theoretical expected yield) (d), by yeast singly and in consortium during fermentation in a scale-up experiment at 30 °C, pH 5, and 150 rpm after 72 h. Vertical bars represent the standard error (n = 3) and the different letters mean that the means are significantly different at P < 0.05 using one-way ANOVA analysis.
Figure 5. Consumed sugars (a), unconsumed sugars (b), ethanol titter (c), and fermentation efficiency of ethanol production (expressed as % from the theoretical expected yield) (d), by yeast singly and in consortium during fermentation in a scale-up experiment at 30 °C, pH 5, and 150 rpm after 72 h. Vertical bars represent the standard error (n = 3) and the different letters mean that the means are significantly different at P < 0.05 using one-way ANOVA analysis.
Sustainability 13 01890 g005
Table 1. Effect of fermentation time on ethanol yield, YE/SBW, from pretreated starchy biowaste (SBW) during fermentation of hydrolyzed SBW by yeast consortia in batch cultures at 30 °C, pH 5, and 150 rpm.
Table 1. Effect of fermentation time on ethanol yield, YE/SBW, from pretreated starchy biowaste (SBW) during fermentation of hydrolyzed SBW by yeast consortia in batch cultures at 30 °C, pH 5, and 150 rpm.
YE/SBW (g/kg SBW)
YeastFermentation Time Mean (n = 3) ±SE
24 h48 h72 h96 h
Saccharomyces cerevisiae85.79 ± 0.49120.64 ± 1.44131.82 ± 1.17131.00 ± 2.27117.31 ± 5.68 b
Pichia barkeri80.63 ± 0.67116.27 ± 2.60122.21 ± 1.76136.01 ± 3.20113.78 ± 6.24 a
Candida intermedia85.27 ± 1.91112.41 ± 4.73120.12 ± 1.07127.26 ± 1.62111.26 ± 4.93 a
S. cerevisiae + P. barkeri94.69 ± 2.48130.44 ± 1.14135.64 ± 0.89129.73 ± 1.64122.62 ± 4.96 c
S. cerevisiae + C. intermedia99.14 ± 2.35133.28 ± 1.72144.42 ± 2.39143.79 ± 1.13130.16 ± 5.62 d
P. barkeri + C. intermedia107.67 ± 1.75135.22 ± 0.64146.44 ± 1.31143.79 ± 1.13133.28 ± 4.66 d
S. cerevisiae + P. barkeri + C. intermedia109.65 ± 1.74137.84 ± 1.98150.33 ± 1.72149.02 ± 0.64136.71 ± 498 e
Mean (n = 3) ±SE94.69 ± 2.42 a 126.59 ± 2.21 b135.86 ± 2.51 c137.23 ± 1.83 c123.59 ± 2.19
Means followed by the same letter are not significantly different at P < 0.05 using Tukey’s multiple test.
Table 2. Effect of incubation temperature on ethanol yield, YE/SBW, from pretreated SBW during fermentation of hydrolyzed SBW by yeast consortia in a batch culture at pH 5 and 150 rpm after 72 h.
Table 2. Effect of incubation temperature on ethanol yield, YE/SBW, from pretreated SBW during fermentation of hydrolyzed SBW by yeast consortia in a batch culture at pH 5 and 150 rpm after 72 h.
YE/SBW (g/kg SBW)
Yeast Temperature (°C)Mean (n = 3) ±SE
25303540
Saccharomyces cerevisiae113.39 ± 1.67125.47 ± 2.84126.89 ± 0.5865.52 ± 1.12107.82 ± 7.57 a
Pichia barkeri112.41 ± 2.36130.59 ± 2.14125.73 ± 1.2665.63 ± 0.34108.59 ± 7.78 a
Candida intermedia115.14 ± 0.15126.73 ± 0.55130.63 ± 3.9163.53 ± 3.28109.01 ± 8.78 a
S. cerevisiae + P. barkeri125.91 ± 1.10140.95 ± 2.43139.79 ± 1.9174.42 ± 0.99120.27 ± 8.21 b
S. cerevisiae + C. intermedia132.91 ± 0.36142.86 ± 1.35136.87 ± 0.6571.80 ± 3.43121.11 ± 8.69 b
P. barkeri + C. intermedia137.36 ± 0.33143.60 ± 1.65139.86 ± 0.9978.91 ± 4.16124.93 ± 8.09 c
S. cerevisiae + P. barkeri + C. intermedia144.65 ± 0.58149.55 ± 0.75143.86 ± 0.7983.02 ± 1.29130.27 ± 8.26 d
Mean (n = 3) ±SE125.97 ± 2.63 b137.11 ± 2.02 c134.80 ± 1.57 c71.83 ± 1.73 a117.43 ± 3.09
Means followed by the same letter are not significantly different at P < 0.05 using Tukey’s multiple test.
Table 3. Effect of initial pH on ethanol yield, YE/SBW, from pretreated SBW during fermentation of hydrolyzed SBW by yeast consortia in a batch culture at 30 °C and 150 rpm after 72 h.
Table 3. Effect of initial pH on ethanol yield, YE/SBW, from pretreated SBW during fermentation of hydrolyzed SBW by yeast consortia in a batch culture at 30 °C and 150 rpm after 72 h.
YE/SBW (g/kg SBW)
YeastpHMean (n = 3) ±SE
4567
Saccharomyces cerevisiae107.96 ± 1.36117.69 ± 2.6496.71 ± 0.9083.36 ± 2.08101.43 ± 3.94 a
Pichia barkeri101.57 ± 0.41119.89 ± 2.33107.67 ± 3.2486.50 ± 2.04103.91 ± 3.75 ab
Candida intermedia110.02 ± 4.37122.29 ± 0.53105.50 ± 2.8291.59 ± 0.31107.35 ± 3.49 cd
S. cerevisiae + P. barkeri107.22 ± 0.87141.51 ± 0.9795.14 ± 2.1080.14 ± 2.96106.00 ± 6.87 bc
S. cerevisiae + C. intermedia108.45 ± 0.75143.45 ± 1.31108.67 ± 0.7881.15 ± 0.37110.43 ± 6.68 d
P. barkeri + C. intermedia118.55 ± 0.75144.27 ± 0.75112.94 ± 0.9986.76 ± 0.75115.63 ± 6.17 e
S. cerevisiae + P. barkeri + C. intermedia121.17 ± 0.65147.72 ± 0.19125.65 ± 1.9492.00 ± 0.65121.63 ± 6.00 f
Mean (n = 3) ±SE110.70 ± 1.53 c133.83 ± 2.77 d107.47 ± 2.22 b85.93 ± 1.10 a109.48 ± 2.11
Means followed by the same letter are not significantly different at P < 0.05 using Tukey’s multiple test.
Table 4. Effect of inoculum on ethanol yield, YE/SBW, from pretreated SBW during fermentation of hydrolyzed SBW by yeast consortia in a batch culture at 30 °C, pH 5, and 150 rpm after 72 h.
Table 4. Effect of inoculum on ethanol yield, YE/SBW, from pretreated SBW during fermentation of hydrolyzed SBW by yeast consortia in a batch culture at 30 °C, pH 5, and 150 rpm after 72 h.
YE/SBW (g/kg SBW)
YeastConcentration of Inoculum (%)Mean (n = 3) ±SE
2.557.510
Saccharomyces cerevisiae111.44 ± 1.49130.89 ± 1.35130.33 ± 1.15107.25 ± 1.00119.98 ± 3.28 ab
Pichia barkeri109.57 ± 0.99128.83 ± 2.45128.94 ± 3.71106.32 ± 2.79118.42 ± 3.37 b
Candida intermedia110.69 ± 1.98123.97 ± 0.97124.53 ± 1.12108.56 ± 2.63116.94 ± 2.35 a
S. cerevisiae + P. barkeri115.93 ± 0.99138.37 ± 0.99128.72 ± 0.92109.38 ± 1.56123.10 ± 3.42 c
S. cerevisiae + C. intermedia121.92 ± 0.37146.22 ± 0.99139.12 ± 1.12115.56 ± 0.65130.70 ± 3.77 d
P. barkeri + C. intermedia121.54 ± 1.98150.71 ± 1.35145.10 ± 1.63120.04 ± 0.65134.35 ± 4.18 e
S. cerevisiae + P. barkeri + C. intermedia125.28 ± 0.37155.87 ± 0.58146.82 ± 0.78123.78 ± 1.63137.94 ± 4.18 f
Mean (n = 3) ±SE116.62 ± 1.37 b139.27 ± 2.53 c134.79 ± 1.91 b112.99 ± 1.53 a125.92 ± 1.55
Means followed by the same letter are not significantly different at P < 0.05 using Tukey’s multiple test.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Hashem, M.; Alamri, S.A.; Asseri, T.A.Y.; Mostafa, Y.S.; Lyberatos, G.; Ntaikou, I. On the Optimization of Fermentation Conditions for Enhanced Bioethanol Yields from Starchy Biowaste via Yeast Co-Cultures. Sustainability 2021, 13, 1890. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/su13041890

AMA Style

Hashem M, Alamri SA, Asseri TAY, Mostafa YS, Lyberatos G, Ntaikou I. On the Optimization of Fermentation Conditions for Enhanced Bioethanol Yields from Starchy Biowaste via Yeast Co-Cultures. Sustainability. 2021; 13(4):1890. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/su13041890

Chicago/Turabian Style

Hashem, Mohamed, Saad A. Alamri, Tahani A. Y. Asseri, Yasser S. Mostafa, Gerasimos Lyberatos, and Ioanna Ntaikou. 2021. "On the Optimization of Fermentation Conditions for Enhanced Bioethanol Yields from Starchy Biowaste via Yeast Co-Cultures" Sustainability 13, no. 4: 1890. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/su13041890

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop