Environmental Science and Pollution Research

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-018-2972-4

REVIEW ARTICLE

Concise review on ethanol production from food

waste: development and sustainability
Mashair Anwar Saeed 1,2 & Hongzhi Ma 1,2 & Siyuan Yue 1,2 & Qunhui Wang 1,2 & Maobing Tu 3

Received: 16 May 2018 / Accepted: 14 August 2018

# Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Abstract
The development of sustainable bioethanol fuel production from food waste has increasingly become an attractive topic. Food
waste is recognized as the most available and costless feedstock. Therefore, ethanol production has been adopted as cost-efficient
and an ecological way for FW disposal. This paper reviewed the microorganisms utilized for ethanol fermentation, the effect of
enzymatic hydrolysis on ethanol concentration, optimization of accurate process parameters, and recycling of huge volumes of
stillage for ethanol production towards reducing any incurred environmental burdens and minimizing the cost. The statistical
tools which may enhance the process efficiency had been presented. Also, the perspective and the future development were
introduced. All these aimed to fully utilize the food waste and also reduce the cost for side-product in this process; proper
operation conditions and the control methods for stillage recycling were considered as the methods to improve ethanol fermen-
tation from food waste.

Keywords Food waste . Ethanol fermentation . Microorganisms . Fermentation optimization parameters . Stillage recycling
technology . Metabolic regulation

Introduction energy density than methane, H2 and energy equivalent was

68% lower than that of fossil fuel (Vohra et al. 2014); its
Studies on ethanol production from waste have been acceler- liquidity and superior production rate makes it attractive as a
ating recently due to both environmental and economical as- transport fuel. For instance, it was observed that the generation
pects (Man et al. 2010). Ethanol has been recognized as the and combustion of ethanol decreases GHG emanations by
cleaner biofuel because their net emission for CO2 during 12% as compared with gasoline (Hill et al. 2006). Therefore,
combustion was zero (Vohra et al. 2014). Thus, it was found it has been used in the concentration range of 10–85% (v/v) for
to have huge environmental benefits when utilized as a part of the gasoline mixture (Vohra et al. 2014). Ethanol manufactured
fuel mixture to diminish the emission of hazard gases in vehi- by fermentation occupied by over 90% in the ethanol industry
cles (Kim and Dale 2004). Although ethanol fuel has lower (Zi et al. 2010). However, great amount of ethanol production
has been carried out from food-base materials, including sugar-
cane and corn, which makes bioethanol fuel more costly than
fossil fuels (Karmee 2016).
Responsible editor: Philippe Garrigues
Food waste is considered as the largest part of the munic-
ipal solid waste, which contributes by around 9.6% of global
* Hongzhi Ma
mahongzhi@ustb.edu.cn CO2 emissions (Kiran et al. 2014a). Food waste is a part of
organic matter that increases due to population and industrial-
1
ization growth, and is expected to expand in the next 25 years
Department of Environmental Engineering, University of Science
and Technology Beijing, Beijing 100083, China
particularly in Asian countries (Chen et al. 2017). Population
2
census may increase to 8.5 billion by 2030 (Seo and Jin 2016).
Beijing Key Laboratory of Resource-oriented Treatment of Industrial
Pollutants, Beijing 100083, China
Food waste is a complex biomass containing starchy, fatty,
3
and cellulose materials. However, household garbage and res-
Department of Biomedical, Chemical and Environmental
Engineering, University of Cincinnati, 2901 Woodside Drive,
taurant food waste contain high moisture, organic pollutants,
Cincinnati, OH 45221, USA and salinity (Meng et al. 2015). This would cause catastrophic
 Environ Sci Pollut Res

effects on environmental and human health. Hence, adequate dioxides, and (3) ethanol separation and purification by distil-
food waste management system takes place to ensure its eco- lation. Commonly, ethanol fermentation could be accom-
logical and sustainable disposal (Shen et al. 2013). Literature plished either by yeast or Zymomonas mobilis bacteria (Ma
depicts several conventional methods of food waste treatment, et al. 2008).
including biological and thermal systems, which may cause
surface and ground water pollution, greenhouse gas emission, The utilization of yeast
and insect breeding (Goud and Mohan 2011). For example,
the greenhouse gas produced in the landfill may reach 1576 kg Yeast is a fungal cells used for fermentation purposes. Yeast
CO2e/wet t food waste (Ebner et al. 2014). In contrast, anaer- has been adopted for food waste fermentation process.
obic digestion and fermentation has been considered to be the Suwannarat and Ritchie (2015) mentioned that the anaerobic
most effective methods to achieve renewable energy from digestion of food waste using yeast could remove 30–50% of
food waste as well as the treatment (Pham et al. 2015). its COD and BOD respectively. Yeast is capable to utilize
Hence, ethanol fermentation from food waste is a plausible sugars, Saccharomyces cerevisiae is efficient in converting
alternative for management and disposal of this waste. glucose to ethanol (Chen 2011); it can also eliminate 50%
Although food waste has attractive characteristics, such as proteins and lipids. Therefore, S. cerevisiae is utilized for sta-
being easily converted to fermentable sugars in an environ- ble ethanol fermentation. However, it is imperative that yeasts
mental friendly way with a low pH, there are some challenges, do not have the full scope of amylolytic enzymes (α-amylase,
such as its heterogeneous composition and elevated moisture β-amylase, and glucoamylase) required to completely break
content, which may vary depending on the resources (Pham down starches to glucose. Yeast has just two genes for amy-
et al. 2015). Accordingly, the enzyme type and dosage and the lases, YIL099W (SGA1) and YIR019C (FLO11, MUC1, and
fermentable sugar concentration may vary (Halimatun et al. STA4). Both of them are α-glucoamylases. Accordingly,
2015). Furthermore, the adopted optimal fermentation condi- starch was mobilized after very long incubation periods (>
tion for microorganism to ferment the recovery sugars can 20 days), without use of accessory enzymes. Starchy-based
contribute to an impediment of the development of an efficient substrate, such as food waste has low competence conversion.
ethanol produced particularly when simultaneous saccharifi- Therefore, starch conversion can be improved using enzymat-
cation and fermentation (SSF) was applied (Vohra et al. 2014). ic hydrolysis, in which enzyme is used to accelerate the starch
Consequently, advanced models for optimization ethanol pro- hydrolysis for glucose production (Zhang et al. 2016). Ethanol
cess conditions via cost-effective approach should be devel- production by S. cerevisiae can be achieved in either simulta-
oped. In addition, the effluent and solid residue during ethanol neous saccharification and fermentation (SSF) or separated
fermentation process needs further treatment before disposed hydrolysis and fermentation (SHF) process. In SSF, both sac-
to the environment. Very valuable approach for solving prob- charification and fermentation can be carried out in one reac-
lems related to liquid and solid residual is through the appli- tor, which is more cost-efficient than SHF. Despite that, the
cation of integrated systems on ethanol production. optimum factors affecting saccharification and fermentation
In order to overcome the drawbacks associated with etha- are varied (Vohra et al. 2014). Ethanol fermentation process
nol production from food waste, some studies have been car- by yeast seems to be redox reaction (biochemical process in
ried out, including optimization of ethanol fermentation pro- cells), in which oxidation-reduction potential (ORP) control is
cess parameters and the utilization of pollutants during the needed in a proper range (Ma et al. 2016a).
fermentation. This study reviews recent literature data for eth-
anol production from food waste (including optimum factors The utilization of bacteria
influencing ethanol fermentation and stillage recycling
technology). There are some techniques used for bacterial contamination
prohibit during ethanol production from food waste, including
sterilization, acidic, anaerobic condition, and the inoculation
Microorganism utilized for ethanol of lactic acid bacteria (LAB) (Zhang et al. 2012). The incuba-
fermentation from food waste tion of LAB converts food waste to lactic acid, which can be
oxidized to pyruvate; consequently, ethanol fermentation can
The potential converting of food waste to bioethanol has been be implemented (Ma et al. 2014). Open fermentation process
studied over the years. A certain part, such as microorganisms with acid as a method to acting as bacteria inhibition was
used for ethanol fermentation and the need of enzymatic hy- adopted. In order to accustom to the acid condition, the acid-
drolysis has been discussed here. In fact, ethanol production tolerant Z. mobilis can be employed for ethanol production
from food waste could be performed in three steps: (1) hydro- from food waste. Z. mobilis has a number of desired features
lysis (saccharification) converts the raw material to glucose, for its special Entner-Doudoroff pathway, which makes it suit-
(2) fermentations to convert glucose to ethanol and carbone able for metabolic engineering (He et al. 2014). Although
Environ Sci Pollut Res

some published studies concerning ethanol production from bacteria strains (B. subtilis (F2), Paenibacillus (F5), Bacillus
kitchen garbage by Z. mobilis uses SSF process, Z. mobilis cereus (F6), and Pseudomonas (F7)), which clearly represent-
was pointed out to only convert a simple sugar such as glu- ed that the co-culture system encouraged food waste degrad-
cose. Therefore, there is significant need of adding enzymes ability (Li et al. 2014).
when using food waste as feedstock for ethanol production. Considering the various possibilities of resource recovery,
According to the study by Ma et al. (2016) on the use of an fermenting of mixture of sugars into bioethanol is one of the
acid-tolerant mutant of Z. mobilis (ZMA7-2) in ethanol fer- key areas to be addressed. Since there is no native microbe
mentation process under non-sterilized condition (open fer- capable to convert all sugars present in hydrolysate broth into
mentation), such process could achieve a higher ethanol pro- high concentration ethanol (Lin and Tanaka 2006), thus, co-
duction (99.78 g/L) with shorter time (44 h), which was ben- culture systems can be used for efficient digestion of all sugars
eficial for an industrial-scale application. Other microorgan- in hydrolyzed broth, increasing the volumetric ethanol pro-
isms could be used for ethanol production from food waste. duction, shortening the fermentation time, and minimizing
Considering the performance of ethanol fermentation using production cost (Chen 2011). For example, co-culture of
some kinds of microorganism, efficiency enhancement has S. cerevisiae and Enterobacter aerogenes has increased the
been done via culturing and co-culturing of these ethanol yield from stillage to about 1.76 g Eth/g sugar
microorganisms. (Choonut et al. 2015). Since glucose and xylose are the dom-
inant sugars composition found in the hydrolyzed broth, there
Application of flocculation yeast are some microbes capable to ferment glucose and unable to
metabolize xylose, such as S. cerevisiae, which is so far used
In efficient process, the fermented broth should contain 8– for ethanol production. And others can ferment xylose, such
14% (v/v) of ethanol. Greater than this concentration may as Pichia stipitis. Therefore, application of the co-culture sys-
cause yeast inhibition and reduce their activity. Therefore, to tem consists of a respiratory-deficient mutant S. cerevisiae
improve yeast activity and enhance fermentation productivity, and P. stipitis to elevate the fermentation performance of hy-
the innovation techniques should be applied (Vohra et al. drolyzed medium containing both sugars have shown prom-
2014). Hence, the selection of new yeast strains, which has ising results (Kordowska-Wiater and Targon’ski 2001). Vast
further adapted to stress conditions of ethanol fermentation researches showed the application of co-culture system for
has been investigated. Flocculation of yeast is an effective ethanol production (including co-culture of, immobilized
technology, which provides cell recycles by isolating yeast Z. mobilis with free cells of P. stipitis; ethanologenic E. coli
cells from the culture broth after in situ settling of cells in strain KO11 with S. cerevisiae; S. cerevisiae with Pachysolen
the bioreactor (Ge and Bai 2006; Ma et al. 2009). The appli- tannophilis; and Z. mobilis with Candida tropicalis, etc.).
cation of flocculation yeast may reduce the by-products accu- Nevertheless, the best finding obtained for fermenting glucose
mulation during stillage recycling in ethanol fermentation (Zi and xylose is via using co-culture of immobilized Z. mobilis
et al. 2013). In this regard, the flocculating yeast S. cerevisiae and P. stipitis for ethanol production from different biomass
strain KF-7 was applied for continuous ethanol fermentation, materials including FW (Chen 2011). Co-culture also utilized
and maximum ethanol produced was 24 g/l/h at a high dilution for pentose and hexose fermentation from lignocellulosic bio-
rate of 0.8/h (Tang et al. 2008). Another study conducted by mass. The success of co-culture system depends mainly on the
Ma et al. (2009), on flocculent S. cerevisiae strain KRM-1 and rate of growth of various microorganisms on the different
its application on kitchen waste ethanol fermentation, revealed hydrolyzed medium and the compatibility to the fermentation
that the mutant flocculent yeast was efficient in food waste condition, including temperature and pH (Cardona and
utilization to bioethanol particularly when batches were re- Sánchez 2007).
peated. Their findings showed that the mean value of ethanol
productivity 8.25 g/l/h was obtained over ten batches of fer-
mentation and as maximum as 10.08 g/l/h in the last batch. Enzymatic hydrolysis update

Co-culture of microorganism Enzymatic hydrolysis is the first stride in majority of

bioprocesses for food waste valorization. It is recognized as
Co-culture of microorganism, also known as mixed culture, is a perfect pre-treatment approach in ethanol production from
the cultured of two or more microorganism together and con- food waste (Kiran and Liu 2015). Hydrolysis process yields
currently exist in the same medium. It has extensively ex- sugars, including glucose, fructose, xylose, ribose, and galac-
plored to enhanced digestibility of food waste. For example, tose. The various kinds of food waste have varied sugars com-
food waste decomposition in using co-culture of the two bac- position, and sugars yield depend mainly on the food waste
terial strains (Bacillus subtilis (F2) and Paenibacillus nature and composition (Halimatun et al. 2015). The ethanol
polymyxa (F8)), was relatively lower than that with four productivity and concentration may vary with respect to
 Environ Sci Pollut Res

sugars concentration in the hydrolysate broth. However, the (Hong and Yoon 2011). Another study showed that 127 g/l
selection of perfect enzyme with respect to FW composition glucose was recovery at 24 h from mixed food waste pre-
can promote the hydrolysis process. Considering several types treated by fungal mash, elevating ethanol concentration to
of food waste utilized in the production of different enzymes, 58 g/l. In summary, the dominant enzyme used in food waste
including amylase, protease, cellulase, lipase, and pectinase, hydrolysis for ethanol production is glucoamylase, also
which so far have been used for food waste hydrolysis (Kiran known as amyloglucosidase. The reason is that food waste is
et al. 2014b). Enzyme is too costly to be economically viable. rich in carbohydrates and starches, and this enzyme is respon-
Recently, in situ-produced fungal mash from food waste, sible of breaking off long-chain carbohydrates and starches
which is wealthy in different hydrolytic enzymes, has been into sugar that will afterwards convert to ethanol by yeast.
applied on the ultra-fast hydrolysis of FW (Ma et al. 2017).
Several studies in Table 1 have shown that the use of en-
zyme in ethanol production from FW could improve its pro- Influencing factors on ethanol fermentation
ductivity by elevated glucose recovery. Moon et al. (2010) has
used a mixture of carbohydrases and amyloglucosidases to There are many factors that affect ethanol fermentation from
produce ethanol from food waste; those two enzymes are food waste, such as physical and chemical characteristics of
mainly hydrolyzed, the starch and cellulose in food waste. organic components and the fermentation environment, in-
Maximum glucose and ethanol yield were in this order cluding pH, temperature, and culture time. Furthermore, the
0.46 g/g of dry FW and 29.1 g/L. Furthermore, Uncu and parameter related to food waste composition, such as moisture
Cekmecelioglu (2011) have generated (32.2 g/L) ethanol in contents (S/L ratio). The inoculum size has been detected to
a study of food waste pre-treated with amylases. Also, have significant effect on ethanol production. Moreover, the
amyloglucosidase, α-amylase, and protease were together ethanol productivity was depending mainly on glucose recov-
mixed and applied for ethanol production from food waste ery, which depends on the type and optimal dosage of enzyme

Table 1 Various kinds of enzyme applied for food waste hydrolyzed

Enzyme Dosage Benefits Resource Reference

Amyloglucosidases 2.0 AGU/g Hydrolysis of starch, elevated G. C. Novozymes Korea, Moon et al. (2010)
to 52 g/l and R. S to 61 g/l Seoul, Korea
Carbohydrases 20.0 FBGU/g Cell-wall degrading enzyme, elevated Novozymes Korea, Moon et al. (2010)
G. C. to 44 g/l and R. S to 63 g/l Seoul, Korea
α-Amylases 120 U/g Starch liquefaction SIGMA–Aldrich Uncu and
(A6211-1MU) Cekmecelioglu
(2011)
Fungal mash 16 g/l Rich in various hydrolytic enzyme In situ produced from FW Ma et al. 2017
Nagase N-40 170 mg Glucose recovery increased to 85.5%, elevated Nagase ChemteX Corporation, Tang et al. 2008
glucoamylase protein/kg ethanol to 24 g/l/h Osaka, Japan
WW
Glucoamylase 100 U/g Elevated R.S. to 75 g/l and ethanol Beijing Dong Hua Qiang Sheng Ma et al. 2008
conc. To 53.40 g/l biochemical technology
company
Glucoamylase 180 mg R.S. is 200 g/l and ethanol Glucoteme, 20,000 U/g; Nagase Ma et al. 2016
protein/kgWW conc. 99.78 g/l sangyo, Osaka, Japan
Protease 100 U/g Elevated R.S. to 75 g/l and ethanol Beijing Dong Hua Qiang Sheng Ma et al. 2008
conc. to 53.40 g/l biochemical technology
company
Mixture of cellulase and 83 FPU/ml Increase the microorganism mixing rate and Novozymes A/S Matsakas et al
β-glycosidase (ratio 5:1 (v/v) increase ethanol production and (Bagsværd, Denmark) 2014
productivity
Mixture of carbohydrases 20.0 FBGU/g Elevated G. C. to 58 g/l and R. S to 71 g/l Novozymes Korea Moon et al. (2010)
and amyloglucosidases & 2.0 AGU/g
SAN super 240 L 240 AGU/ml Glucose yield of 600 g/kg Novozymes, Denmark Hong and Yoon
(mixture of protease, (0.5 ml/100 g 2011
α-amylase, and FW)
amyloglucosidase).

WW wet waste, G.C glucose concentration, R. S reducing sugar

Environ Sci Pollut Res

used for food waste hydrolyzed (Ma et al. 2016). It should be to 85.5%, when the saccharification temperature increased
mentioned that pH and temperature were the most important from 50 to 60 °C. In contrast with Glucochimu #20000, in
factors affecting ethanol production, as indicated by the vast which glucose yield decreased from 72.0 to 25.4% when tem-
amount of research published concerning their adaptation and perature increased from 50–60 °C, demonstrating that the
optimization. Nagase N-40 glucoamylase was preferable at saccharification
and ethanol yield than Glucochimu #20000 at 60 °C (Tang
Effect of pH on ethanol fermentation et al. 2008). While, the fermentation process takes place at
temperature between 25 and 30 °C depending on the feed-
PH affects the shape of proteins. In the case of fermentation, a stock characteristics and composition (Vohra et al. 2014), fer-
collection of enzymes is responsible for the metabolic pro- mentation temperature for food waste to ethanol is in the range
cesses that occur. If the pH is increased, it affects the shape of 30–37 °C, which is because the microorganism becomes
of proteins by disrupting the bonds in the protein. With regard more active when warm and dies at high temperature.
to the effect of pH on ethanol fermentation from food waste,
initial pH value of FW at a range of 4–5. The effect of different Effect of inoculum size on ethanol fermentation
pH on ethanol fermentation process kinetics’ was studied at a
range of 3.5–6; fermentation efficiency, cell density (OD600), Another contributing factor on ethanol production is the inoc-
and ethanol concentration were increased when pH rose from ulum size. However, the inoculum size has direct effect on cell
(3.5–4) in this order (97.16%, 3.9, and 99.6 g/l), then gradu- density as well as ethanol fermentation. Low inoculum size
ally decreased with pH increased from 5–6 to reach 74.6%, causes less growth of cell and low ethanol production, when
3.52, and 76.5 g/l) respectively (Ma et al. 2016). Another high inoculum size causes over growth of cells, which may
study showed the effect of pH on ethanol fermentation using lead to their contest on substrate (Ma et al. 2008; Ma et al.
saccharified broth with pH of 3.5, 4, and 4.5. Maximum eth- 2016).
anol concentration of about 30 g/l has been obtained at pH 4–
4.5(Tang et al. 2008). Effect of moisture content on ethanol fermentation

Effect of temperature on ethanol fermentation The moisture content of food waste has a significant effect on
microorganism growth and activities. The superior solid-
Temperature changes have deep effects upon microorganism’s liquid ratio would yield high ethanol concentration, which
activities by influencing a enzyme-catalyzed reaction. would affect microorganism activities (Ma et al. 2008).
Throughout the past years, the studies of decrease overall cost When the (S/L) ratio was low, it would not negatively affect
of ethanol production has been carried out by reducing the microorganism, but high energy is needed for distillation pro-
energy (temperature) consumed, which is considered as the cess, which would enhance the ethanol production cost. The
second top cost in ethanol production (Zi et al. 2013). high proportion meant a high concentration of the substrate,
Traditionally, the conversion of carbohydrates to oligosaccha- which might generate high osmotic pressure that is favored
rides and glucose was achieved by a thermophilic α-amylase by-product synthesis, such as sucrosebitol and levan (Oursson
under high temperature (95–105 °C) in the saccharification and Rohmer 1992).
process and at pH 6.0–6.5. This requires intensive energy that
leads to an increment in production cost (Xu et al. 2016). Effect of the incubation time on ethanol fermentation
Then, oligosaccharides converted to glucose through addition
of glucoamylase from a fungus for further hydrolysis under The incubation time has great effect on ethanol fermentation
low temperature (60–65 °C) at pH 4.0–4.5. The reduction of efficiency due to a cumulative of other factors. Prolong of
temperature demand during hydrolysis process can be fermentation time may increase ethanol production cost by
achieved if the starch hydrolysis is accomplished within tem- increasing the energy consumption. Optimal time can enhance
perature below its gelatinization temperature (Robertson et al. ethanol productivity by mitigation of side-product accumula-
2006). However, food waste has a variety of components, tion, such as organic acids and glycerol, which may inhibit
such as proteins and cellulose, which need other kind of en- yeast activity (Ma et al. 2016a).
zymes besides amylase to hydrolysis it. In addition, the sac-
charification temperature influences growth of energetic bac-
teria existing in the non-sterilized saccharified broth. Optimization of significant factors in ethanol
Therefore, the use of two genes of glucoamylase production
(Glucochimu#20000 and Nagase N-40) for glucose recovery
have been investigated under various temperatures (50–60 °C) Optimization of various process factors affecting ethanol pro-
pointing out that glucose yield efficiency increased from 75.8 duction is a complex process with a number of interactive
 Environ Sci Pollut Res

controlling parameters. At industrial level, even a small im- optimized, including optimal enzyme for hydrolysis, glucose
provement in the process gives a better yield, which may be concentration, inoculum size, solid to liquid ratio, and fermen-
beneficial commercially, making the process of optimization a tation time. The most significant factor which may affect eth-
key area of research in the field of industrial biotechnology. anol productivity is an optimal enzyme used for saccharifica-
The master challenges for marketing the food waste to tion process. Therefore, evolutionary engineering approaches
bioethanol production technology are energy efficiency and have been used to select the proper enzyme for ethanol pro-
cost benefits (Sen et al. 2016). An increased accumulation of duction. Accordingly, glucoamylase and protease were re-
non-degradable metabolic intermediates provides an indica- vealed to have significant effect on ethanol fermentation.
tion of possible process imbalances. The best way to eliminate And the optimal dosage for both enzymes was 100 U/g (Ma
the cost of ethanol production is through the proper choice of et al. 2008). Another large issue which may inhibit ethanol
substrate to be followed by optimization of process parameters production by slowing down the hydrolysis and yielding low
(Ma et al. 2008). For a particular process variable, the opti- level of usable hydrolysis product is the excess glucose pres-
mum value is determined considering the remaining process ent in the system. However, a glucose concentration higher
parameters are fixed at optimum condition. However, the se- than 200 g/l may slow cell growth and greatly affect cell
lection of the process operating parameters depends on the viability, which will have negative influence on ethanol fer-
type and composition of the substrate. mentation performance (Ma et al. 2016). Initial inoculum size
of around10% (v/v) was the optimal for most FW types. While
Optimization of parameters and the chemical nutrient the optimal inoculum size for sweet sorghum juice was in the
for ethanol fermentation range of 5–7.5%, the lowest inoculum size was 3% for sugar
cane molasses. Optimal ratio of S/L which showed relatively
Food waste contains sufficient amount of chemical nutrients, elevated ethanol yield from FW was 1:0.5(Ma et al. 2008).
which is required for microorganism to produce ethanol. Optimal culture time for ethanol production from food waste
Hence, chemical additive to the fermentation system, includ- is 40 h, which is more viable for an economical aspect (Ma
ing (NH4)2SO4 and KH2PO4 have showed less impact on et al. 2008), in comparison to the high optimal incubation time
ethanol production and concentration (Ma et al. 2008; Tang obtained for ethanol fermentation from fresh jackfruit seeds,
et al. 2008; Thongdumyu et al. 2014). Nevertheless, calcium which was 124.5 h (Chongkhong et al. 2012).
ions can increase flocculation rate of S. cerevisiae KRM-1 by Based on Table 2, keeping in consideration the different
more than 85% in kitchen waste ethanol fermentation (Ma feedstock used for ethanol production, the studied showed
et al. 2009). different ethanol concentrations under optimal conditions.
As presented in Table 2, optimal pH for most substrates For instance, sweet potato showed about 176 g/l; most food
with a range of 4–6 indicated that the activities of microorgan- waste showed more than 30 g/l, sugar cane around 60 g/l,
ism to digest organic matter have a limited acidity range con- when the lowest was wheat straw 16.4 g/l. The elevated con-
dition. It should be mentioned that, when the pH of fermenta- centration from sweet potato was due to the application of co-
tion media is higher than the optimal, yeast produces acid culture technology. The disadvantage of sweet potato was the
instead of ethanol (Tahir et al. 2010). Investigations explored longer fermentation time (72 h) as compared with that of food
that most types of food waste have pH around 4–5, which was waste (around 40–48 h).
viable for ethanol fermentation (Ma et al. 2008; Tang et al.
2008; Man et al. 2010; Ma et al. 2016). Majority of the opti- Common statistical models used
mal saccharification temperature for various substrates was in
the range 50–60 °C, which demonstrated that the suitable Statistical models can be used to enhance the production of
temperature for enzyme to convert substrate contents to glu- special substrate by optimization of operation factors. Hence,
cose takes place within this range. For example, the optimal the use of statistical instruments can help researchers to im-
temperature for saccharification using SAN 240 L enzymes prove products and enhance the process efficiency. The most
was 50 °C (Hong and Yoon 2011). While the optimal temper- common statistical method, which has been used by various
ature using glucoamylase enzymes was 60 °C (Tang et al. researchers in the biotechnology field is the response surface
2008), the optimal temperature for fermentation process using methodology (RSM) (Walia et al. 2014). RSM is defined as a
FW was found as 30–35 °C (Tang et al. 2008; Ma et al. 2008; set of mathematical and statistical method-based experiential
Ma et al. 2016). Sweet sorghum juice fermentation tempera- (Wang et al. 2011). The main function of RSM is to estimate
ture was 27.7 °C, while maximum ethanol yields from Korean the effect of various factors responsible for the ethanol pro-
food waste leachate was obtained under optimum temperature duction, and then optimize them (Dash et al. 2017). Therefore,
of 38 °C (Man et al. 2010). most ethanol fermentation parameters have been optimized
In an effort to enhance the process of ethanol conversion using RSM associated with a sequential statistical model.
from food waste, there are other factors which need to be Recently, the ethanol fermentation parameters (including pH,
Environ Sci Pollut Res

Table 2 Optimum parameters required for maximum ethanol production from different waste types in comparison to food waste

Waste type Condition Microorganism Optimum parameters G.C E.C E.Y Reference
g/l g/l %
pH S. F. F. t I. size S/L
T °C T °C hours %

Food waste NR S. cerevisiae 4.5 60 30 48 8.9 NR NR 32.2 NR Uncu and Cekmecelioglu

(2011)
Kitchen garbage Sterilized Z. mobilis 10225 5 60 35 40 10 01:00.5 NR 53.4 NR Ma et al. (2008)
Kitchen garbage LAB Yeast strain KF-7 4 60 30 42 NR NR 74 29.9 NR Tang et al. (2008)
Food waste Non-sterilized ZMA7-2 4 50 30 44 10 NR 200 99.78 NR Ma et al. (2016)
Korean food waste NR S. cerevisiae 5.45 NR 38 NR NR NR NR 24.17 NR Man et al. (2010)
leachate
Sweet sorghum NR SCS NRRL 5.4 NR 27.7 NR 5 NR NR NR 9.3 Wang et al. (2011)
juice Y-2034
Sweet sorghum NR SCS NRRL 5.4 NR 30 NR 7.5 NR NR NR 8.83 Phutela and Kaur (2014)
juice Y-2034
Coffee pulp waste Sterilized Pichia anomala 4.5 NR 30 NR NR NR NR NR 4.07 Hamadi et al. (2014)
M4
Ziziphus NR S. cerevisiae 6 NR 30 NR NR NR NR 63 NR Togarepi (2012)
mauritiana NA33
Corn NR S. cerevisiae 5.8 NR 31 NR NR NR NR 74.6 NR Walia et al. (2014)
MTCC4043
Sago starch NR Z. mobilis ZM4 5.02 NR 36.74 17 NR NR NR 70.68 97.08 Bvv et al. (2003)
Sweet potato NR SC and Pichia 5 NR 30 72 10 NR NR 127 NR Dash et al. (2017)
sp.
Sugar cane NR Z. mobilis 5.13 NR 31 44 NR NR NR 58.4 NR Maiti et al. (2011)
molasses
Sugar cane NR S. cerevisiae 4.5 NR 30 NR 3 NR NR 76.8 NR Tahir et al. (2010)
molasses BIO-07
Fresh jackfruit NR Loog-pang Kao 5.2 NR 32.2 124.5 NR NR NR NR 11.5 Chongkhong et al. (2012)
seeds Mhark
Wheat straw Microwave S. cerevisiae 5.5 NR 30 NR 3.3 NR NR 16.4 NR Singh and Bishnoi (2013)
alkali

Pichia anomala M4 is yeast strain

SC Saccharomyces cerevisiae, LAB lactic acid bacteria, ZMA7-2 acid-tolerant mutant of Zymomonas mobilis, S. T Saccharification temperature, F. T
fermentation temperature, F.t fermentation time, G. C glucose concentration, E. C ethanol concentration, SCS Saccharomyces cerevisiae strain

incubation temperature, inoculum size, and fermentation time) ethanol fermentation under these optimum conditions were
have been optimized using one variable at a time (OVAT) 117 and 57.6 g/l respectively (Jungkon et al. 2008). Most
methodology followed by Box-Behnken design of RSM to popular statistical methods used in optimization of ethanol
detect the most significant variable for the maximum ethanol fermentation parameters from various substrates are reflected
fermentation and the interaction among them (Dash et al. in Table 3.
2017). Also, Plackett-Burman design (PBD) can be used to
screen out the factors affecting ethanol production (Ma et al. More values from stillage of ethanol fermentation
2008; Singh and Bishnoi 2013). In addition, the central com-
posite design (CCD) can be used to study the optimum factor Ethanol fermentation involves many challenges, owing to the
levels in ethanol production (Chongkhong et al. 2012). For necessity of feedstock selection as well as pollution monitor-
example, RSM based on the 23 factorial CCD was used for ing (Ma et al. 2016a). However, the major pollutant during
optimization of the parameters affecting food waste enzymatic ethanol fermentation of food waste was the dispose of huge
saccharification and ethanol fermentation. It showed that the amounts of wastewater, which has special characteristics of
optimal factors of saccharification pH, enzyme hydrolysis saline and oil contents. There are concrete steps used to pro-
temperature, enzyme concentration, fermentation pH, fermen- duce stillage (the liquid part of broth) by distilling out the
tation temperature, and fermentation time were in this order: ethanol after fermentation. Then, the broth was centrifuged
5.20, 46.3 °C, 0.16% (v/v), 6.85, 35.3 °C, 14 h. The model to get liquid part and solid part, liquid part was named stillage
expected that maximum reducing sugar concentration and or vinasse (Fuess and Garcia 2015). Stillage eluted from
 Environ Sci Pollut Res

Table 3 Most common statistical methods using for ethanol production optimization

Substrate Factors optimized Statistical methods Reference

Food waste PH, T,S/L, IS, It RSM Uncu and Cekmecelioglu (2011)
Kitchen garbage PH, T,S/L, IS, It, and 7 enzyme PBD and single factor Ma et al. (2008)
Stalk juice of sweet sorghum (NH4)2SO4, and PSR BBD-based RSM Mei et al. (2009)
Sweet sorghum juice T, PH, IS BBD-based RSM Wang et al. (2011)
Corn T, pH, and sub. concentration CCD-based RSM Walia et al. (2014)
Korean food waste leachate T, PH, RSC CCD-based RSM Man et al. (2010)
Wheat straw T, PH, IS, TRS PBD and BBD Singh and Bishnoi (2013)
Sweet potato root flour T, PH, It OVAT and RSM Dash et al. (2017)
Fresh jackfruit seeds T, PH, It CCD of RSM Chongkhong et al. (2012)

PSR particles stuffing rate, RSC reducing sugar concentration, TRS total reducing sugar

ethanol production is acidic with pH 3.8 to 4.7, COD 90 g/L, Stillage recycles fermentation in food waste (pros
suspended solids (20–30 g/L), and total nitrogen of 6 g/l and cons)
(Choonut et al. 2015). The discharge of this wastewater with-
out appropriate treatment would cause serious eutrophication Stillage treatment represents high issue especially when ap-
of water bodies. Therefore, it is a critical issue to find an plying the multi-evaporation method; this consumed energy
environmentally and economically sound way to treat such then increased the production cost (Zi et al. 2013). Recent
kind of wastewater during the application of ethanol research affirmed that advanced oxidation technology and
fermentation of food waste. It has been claimed by Ma et al. other biochemical treatment methods were used to treat such
(2008) that 1 ton of ethanol fermented from food waste could kind of wastewater (Blonskaja et al. 2003; Chaudhari et al.
produce about 10 tons of wastewater. Considering the partial 2005). The main drawback to these methods was the high
utilization of organic contents in food waste, there are more cost. Another important point is that organic contents of
values which can gain from stillage. wastewater eluted from ethanol fermentation make it useful
to recycle for ethanol production (Ma et al. 2008). As a result,
stillage was used instead of tap water for ethanol production.
Stillage as feedstock Ethanol yield was 50 g/l, which is higher than those produced
with tap water (Ma et al. 2008). However, the challenge asso-
Stillage can be used as potential feedstock for bio- ciated with stillage recycling was by-product accumulation,
resources recovery; this can lead to an integrated approach which may reduce ethanol productivity. A study carried out
addressing sustainability. Stillage is a broth rich in reduc- by Ma et al. (2016a) revealed that the recycling of stillage
ing sugar (such as fructose and glucose), in addition to increased ethanol concentration from 25 g/l in the first batch
volatile fatty acids (Choonut et al. 2015). In this regard, to 35 g/l in the fifth batch, and then it reduced in the subse-
stillage eluted of ethanol fermentation from different kinds quent batches. On the other hand, it increased fermentation
of food waste was reused either as substrate or as process time, which may lead to by-product accumulation, such as salt
water for ethanol production. The mixture of saccharified and organic acids. Therefore, the growth and metabolism of
residue and stillage from FW ethanol fermentation was yeast demonstrated inhibitory effects due to viscosity incre-
used as substrate for methane production, gaining 65.1 l ment, resulting in reduced ethanol productivity. Nevertheless,
biogas with 50% methane (Tang et al. 2008). Pineapple- flocculating yeast could perform continuous ethanol fermen-
ethanol stillage can play as raw material for ethanol pro- tation using stillage recycling technology with a little by-
duction with the maximum yield of 1.76 g ethanol/g sugar product accumulation (Zi et al. 2013).
after 72 h fermentation using co-culture of E. aerogenes
and S. cerevisiae (Choonut et al. 2015). In addition,
stillage from family garbage has been utilized as substrate Inhibition during stillage recirculation
for methane production; a total of 85% of the energy was
obtained from garbage as ethanol and methane (Koike One of attractive technology for treatment and utilization of
et al. 2009). Reutilization of the stillage technology gen- food waste and wastewater produced in large quantities during
erates revenue of the biofuel besides wastewater treatment. ethanol fermentation process is the stillage recycling
Environ Sci Pollut Res

fermentation system. It is recognized as the key for fully uti- 2010). The increase of stillage reflux time has caused accu-
lize substrate resources and enhance ethanol yield with zero mulation of sodium chloride, which might extend the fermen-
wastewater discharge and low energy consumption. In addi- tation time from 16 to 32 h. Evidence from Ma et al. 2016a
tion, it reduces cost of tap water consumed in large quantities showed that Na+ might produce toxicity to microorganism and
for ethanol production (Tao et al. 2005). However, the accu- negatively influence ethanol fermentation. The author claimed
mulation of the by-product has set drawbacks for the technol- that lactic acid has more influence on stillage reflux ethanol
ogy, and by increasing recycling time, it would inhibit ethanol fermentation than sodium chloride.
yield (Ma et al. 2016a). Ohashi et al. (1998) established an
integrated system of ethanol production with zero wastewater, Osmotic stress inhibition
using cell retention and distillation system.
Osmotic stress happens when the concentration of side-
Organic acids accumulation inhibition product is elevated within the ethanol fermentation system,
which leads to significant osmotic pressure between the inner
There are various organic acids accumulated during ethanol of the yeast cell and the fermented broth. Consequently, the
fermentation, such as lactic, acetic, propionic, butyrate, and cell should exert large amounts of energy to conserve a ho-
pentanoic acids, etc. (Zi et al. 2013; Castro and Gil 2015; Ma meostatic balance. Osmotic inhibition is well demonstrated by
et al. 2016a). Although the boiling point of all these organic glycerol inhibition. Glycerol has inhibited effects on the en-
acids was recorded as high as 100 °C, nonetheless, their flash zymatic hydrolysis, which have been recorded with 2 wt%
point was not high. The study carried out by Zi et al. (2013) glycerol in a sugarcane bagasse hydrolysis broth (Zhang
showed that there is no harm of organic acid on yeast growth et al. 2015). In food waste fermentation case, glycerol accu-
detected during stillage recycling because of their low concen- mulation may be caused by the increased repetitive number of
tration. Ma’s study revealed that the concentration of these stillage recycling. Persistent increment of an osmotic pressure
organic acids except lactic acid was constant. Therefore, fer- is due to glycerol accumulation. Therefore, yeast cells synthe-
mentation time expansion could not cause their accumulation. sized abundance of glycerol to resist osmotic stress (Ma et al.
The boiling point of lactic acid is 125 °C, which retards its 2016a). In the first batches of ethanol fermentation, glycerol
evaporation during distillation. This evidence is supported that contributed in cell growth and by increasing recycling in sup-
lactic acid would contribute stillage in the following batch of plying cell with osmotic stress to protect cells. Inhibition oc-
ethanol fermentation. Thus, lactic acid concentration would curs when cell production reduced with an increase in ethanol
increase with stillage recycling times, which may reach productivity. This phenomenon may occur at high osmotic
120 g/l during fifth time stillage recycling for ethanol fermen- stress concentration (Moawad 2012).
tation (Ma et al. 2016a). Further increase in recycling time
would have negative effect on ethanol fermentation.
Evidence indicated that accumulation of lactic acid prolonged Mitigation of inhibition factors during stillage
fermentation time from 16 to 40 h, which cause toxicity on recycling
microorganism that result in ethanol fermentation inhibition.
Furthermore, the recycling fermentation system has been ap- Most of by-products accumulated within the fermentation sys-
plied on a pilot-plant scale. The results showed that the signif- tem during stillage recirculation is due to feedstock nature,
icant inhibitor of ethanol production was accumulation of yeast metabolism, and chemical reactions (Zi et al. 2013).
acetic acid and solids, particularly when recycle continuous The hazardous side-products produced during recycling may
(Castro and Gil 2015). Graves et al. (2006) and Liu et al. prevent the growth and metabolism of yeast (Wei et al. 2015).
(2015) claimed that the massive increase of fermentation time The application of flocculating yeast strain may mitigate the
in the sixth and seventh times may also express a particular by-product accumulated in the stillage, where yeast thermal
relationship with lactic acid accumulation. Another study lysis has been prevented and many side reactions would thus
showed significant harm affecting yeast growth was due to be eradicated making potential stillage recycling many times
propionic acid concentration, which produced during sterili- (Zi et al. 2013).
zation hydrolyzed and distillation (Zi et al. 2013). It should be mentioned that lactic acid (LA) has been re-
ported to be the main inhibitor for ethanol production from
Sodium chloride accumulation inhibition food waste, particularly when stillage recycling many times.
The special characteristics of LA, such as its highly boiling
With regard to sodium chloride, salt is naturally present in point could make it piled up within the fermentation system
food waste. However, NaCl content more than 4% w/v can (Ma et al. 2016a). There are other by-products due to stillage
inhibit sugar fermentation by S. cerevisiae and cell growth. recycling, such as salt and glycerol, which have fewer hazards.
Therefore, ethanol productivity decreased (Moon et al. In this context, progress has been made in diagnosis and
 Environ Sci Pollut Res

mitigation of injurious effect of lateral products in ethanol through the control of contaminants related to this process
fermentation with stillage recirculation (Ma et al. 2016b). (including waste water and solid waste utilization).
Accordingly, there were two methods used named as regula- Development that is unsustainable may lead to negative effect
tion technologies. The first one is by-product regulation. In in economic and social trends in addition to environmental
this method, optimum amount of calcium carbonate was repercussions. Considering various technologies used to treat
added to the fermentation system began from the fifth batch. waste water eluted during ethanol distillation, the potential of
Therefore, ethanol concentration enhanced and fermentation ethanol-methane coupling fermentation system on food waste
time was dropped in this order (30.5 g/l and 48 h). valorization with zero effluent and little energy consumption
Subsequently, for the other two batches, ethanol concentration is the best way. This method could offer maximum utilization
was increased to 38 g/l and lactic acid was decreased to 25 g/l. of organic content in stillage and eliminate the pollutants re-
Secondly, the metabolic regulation is concerned with the lease to the environment. Also, it could improve the value of
oxidation-reduction value. The redox regulation function is the product and energy recovery efficiency. The feasibility of
to diminish the stress effect of the environment. In fact, stillage treated via dry methane fermentation has been tested,
S. cerevisiae is the most significant yeast in glycerol produc- and 850 ml of biogas was obtained from 1 g of VTS (Koike
tion. This microorganism glycerol plays an important role in et al. 2009). The concepts of this technology is to use stillage
physiological processes, such as control osmotic stress, man- from ethanol production as substrate for anaerobic digestion
age cytosolic phosphate levels, and to keep the NAD+/NADH process, then the effluent from AD can use for the conse-
redox balance (Scanes and Prior 1998). However, the main quence batch ethanol fermentation. In order to realize a max-
task of glycerol is maintaining oxidation–reduction balance of imum methane production and increase the rate of organic
yeast cells and hyper-osmotic stress response (Michnick et al. matter utilization, fermentation parameters (such as
1997). In this regard, the significant value of ORP influencing substrate/inoculum ratio, PH, temperature) should be opti-
the regulation strategies was detected by adding potassium mized. Also, studying influence of such parameters on micro-
ferricyanide. This began from the fifth batch of ethanol fer- bial community may facilitate AD process smoothly and
mentation; it was found that the optimum ORP value (− successfully. Furthermore, mixture of stillage and AD
150 mV to − 250), which increase the ethanol concentration effluent can use as substrate for the following batch ethanol
to high than 38.5 g/l compared to that before applying the fermentation. Ke et al. (2014) were investigating the utiliza-
optimum value and the percentage was 21%. In addition, the tion of stillage and AD effluent mixture for cassava ethanol
fermentation time would decrease from 60 to 48 h in the fifth fermentation, according their findings about 97% COD was
batch (Ma et al. 2016b). Liu et al. (2015) suggested the same removed, 300 ml/g COD methane was produced, and ethanol
value of ORP in his study on the system of self-flocculating yield was elevated. On the other hand, a solid residue separat-
yeast starch fermentation, which improved fermentation and ed from hydrolysis broth can be used as substrate for methane
increase ethanol concentration. fermentation, supplies energy for fermentation process, there-
However, evidence showed that the metabolic regulation by, contributes to the sustainable development of ethanol in-
has better effect than by-product regulation. While, the accu- dustry from food waste. Furthermore, solid residue can utilize
mulation of glycerol obviously showed that these two as bio-fertilizer with regard to its good quality. Direct utiliza-
methods can mitigate the significant impact (Ma et al. tion of solid residue as bio-fertilizer have been tested and
2016b), there are other methods used to mitigate the by- found that it had good quality in term of heavy metal and
product in the fermentation system, for example, Zhang NPK (Ma et al. 2017; Dahiya et al. 2018).
et al. (2009) applied the bio-flocculation process to treat the The conventional method to separate ethanol is distillation,
stillage, then recycling it in ethanol fermentation. The process which is not efficient economically due to the energy con-
consist of three steps: screening, treatment with polyaspartic sumption. Also, the high temperature may effect on the char-
acid, and filtration, which produced ethanol as the same con- acteristics of stillage and it is reuse. Currently, there are many
centration with that of tap water. technologies, which can use for ethanol separation, such as
adsorption, ozonation, gas striping, nanoporous polymer
membrane, flash evaporation system, molecular sieve
Perspectives dehydration units, and pervaporation. Among them, the
pervaporation using ethanol permeable and water permeable
On the light of the conversion of food waste to ethanol fuel is membrane might be the best due to the lower energy
becoming ecologically creditable and gaining rapid interest. consumption and significant increase in separation
Fuel is the crucial need of mankind all over the world, and performance.
food waste management is a key problem, which needs bio- However, there are various concentrations of ethanol pro-
remediation. Therefore, development of sustainable duced from FW, for example, Uncu and Cekmecelioglu
bioethanol production from food waste should be gained (2011) obtained 32.2 g/l ethanol, when Ma et al. (2016)
Environ Sci Pollut Res

obtained 99.78 g/l under the optimal condition. So, the appli- Castro GA, Gil ID (2015) Development of an ethanol production process
with stillage recycling at pilot plant-scale. Research, National
cation of vacuum fermentation in ethanol industry can lead to
University of Colombia, Bogota, Colombia 14:14–23
diminish the microorganism inhibition, causing the increase of Chaudhari PK, Mishra IM, Chand S (2005) Catalytic thermal treatment
ethanol production. Add to this, that distillates of ethanol at (catalytic thermolysis) of bio-digester effluent of an alcohol distill-
the fermentation temperature can save the high energy used ery plant. Ind Eng Chem Res 44(55):18–25
Chen Y (2011) Development and application of co-culture for ethanol
for distillation. The perception of this technique is to consis-
production by co-fermentation of glucose and xylose: a systematic
tently removal of ethanol from the fermentation reactor via review. J Ind Microbiol Biotechnol 38(5):581–597
coupling fermentation vessel with a vacuum chamber, so that Chen H, Jiang W, Yang Y, Yang Y, Man X (2017) State of the art on food
ethanol distillates at temperature 32 °C. Some techniques used waste research: a bibliometrics study from 1997 to 2014. J Clean
Prod 140:840–846
for ethanol removal had mentioned in one review, including
Chongkhong S, Lolharat B, Chetpattananondh P (2012) Optimization of
vacuum fermentation, gas stripping, and ceramic membranes ethanol production from fresh jackfruit seeds using response surface
(Cinelli et al. 2015). methodology. JSEE 3:97–101
Technology control that merit consideration is the applying Choonut A, Yunu T, Pichid N, Sangkharaka K (2015) Ethanol production
from reused liquid stillage. Energy Procedia 79:808–814
of dynamic oversight on process parameters during ethanol
Cinelli BA, Castilho LR, Freire DMG, Castro AM (2015) A brief review
fermentation (including pH, temperature, and enzyme dosage) on the emerging technology of ethanol production by cold hydroly-
and may maintain the glucose concentration in a desired sis of raw starch. Fuel 150:721–729
range, resulting in increased ethanol production and concen- Dahiya S, Kumar AN, Shanthi SJ, Chatterjee S, Sarkar O, Mohan SV
tration, which depend mainly on glucose recovery in contrary (2018) Food waste biorefinery: sustainable strategy for circular
bioeconomy. Bioresour Technol 248:2–12
with traditional monitoring. In this regard, we should mention Dash PK, Mohaptra S, Swain MR, Thatoi H (2017) Optimization of
that dynamic oversight is based on site measurement with bioethanol production from saccharified sweet potato root flour by
respect to the various kinds of food waste. co-fermentation of Saccharomyces cerevisiae and Pichia sp. using
OVAT and response surface methodologies. Acta Biol Szeged 61:
13–23
Ebner J, Babbitt C, Winer M, Hilton B, Williamson A (2014) Life cycle
greenhouse gas (GHG) impacts of a novel process for converting
Conclusion food waste to ethanol and co-products. Appl Energy 130(5):86–93
Fuess LT, Garcia ML (2015) Bioenergy from stillage anaerobic digestion
The usage of biotechnological approaches in ethanol produc- to enhance the energy balance ratio of ethanol production. J Environ
Manag 162:102–114
tion from food waste has been increasing recently due to en-
Ge XM, Bai LZW (2006) Impacts of temperature, pH, divalent cations,
vironmental and economical aspects. Researchers got con- sugars and ethanol on the flocculating of SPSC01. Enzym Microb
cerned with optimization of process parameters (including Technol 39(4):783–787
physical-chemical factors and other parameters) in order to Goud RK, Mohan SV (2011) Pre-fermentation of waste as a strategy to
enhance the performance of single chambered microbial fuel cell
yield maximum ethanol with minimum production cost.
(MFC). Int J Hydrog Energy 36:13753–13762
Furthermore, stillage recycling technology has benefits of full Graves T, Narendranath NV, Dawson K, Power R (2006) Effect of ph and
utilization of organic content sources in food waste and keep- lactic or acetic acid on ethanol productivity by Saccharomyces
ing cost of water used for ethanol fermentation reasonable. cerevisiae in corn mash. J Ind Microbiol Biotechnol 33(6):469–474
Halimatun SH, Nor'Aini AR, Umi KMS, Azhari SB (2015) Enhanced
Moreover, further investigation should be carried out to re-
fermentable sugar production from kitchen waste using various pre-
solve the by-product accumulation problem. treatments. J Environ Manag 156:290–298
Hamadi S, Muruke MH, Hosea KMM (2014) Optimization of fermenta-
Funding information The work was supported by the International tion parameters for production of ethanol from coffee pulp waste
Science & Technology Cooperation Program of China (2013DFG92600) using Pichia anomala M4 yeast isolated from coffee environment in
and the National Scientific Funding of China (51008020, 51378003), the Tanzania. Int J Environ Sci 4:255–262
Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities. He MX, Bo W, Han Q, Zhiyong R, Tan FR, Wang JL et al (2014)
Zymomonas mobilis: a novel platform for future bio-refineries.
Biotechnol Biofuels 7(1):101
Hill J, Nelson E, Tilman D, Polasky S, Tiffany D (2006) Environmental,
economic, and energetic costs and benefits of biodiesel and ethanol
References biofuels. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 103(30):11206–11210
Hong YS, Yoon HH (2011) Ethanol production from food residues.
Blonskaja V, Menert A, Vilu R (2003) Use of two-stage anaerobic treat- Biomass Bioenergy 35(7):3271–3275
ment for distillery waste. Adv Environ Res 7(3):671–678 Jungkon K, Baekrock O, Hyunjae S, Chiyong E, Siwouk K (2008)
Bvv R, Rao MN, Rao MD, Rao SS, Ayyanna C (2003) Optimization of Statistical optimization of enzymatic saccharification and ethanol
fermentation conditions for the production of ethanol from sago fermentation using food waste. Process Biochem 43(11):1308–1312
starch using response surface methodology. World J Microbiol Karmee SK (2016) Liquid biofuels from food waste: current trends, pros-
Biotechnol 19(5):523–526 pect and limitation. Renew Sustain Energ Rev 53:945–953
Cardona CA, Sánchez OJ (2007) Fuel ethanol production: process design Ke W, Zhang JH, Pei L, Cao HS, Mao ZG (2014) Reusing a mixture of
trends and integration opportunities. Bioresour Technol 98(12): anaerobic digestion effluent and thin stillage for cassava ethanol
2415–2457 production. J Clean Prod 75(14):57–63
 Environ Sci Pollut Res

Kim S, Dale BE (2004) Global potential bioethanol production from sorghum by immobilized yeast using response surface methodology.
wasted crops and crop residues. Biomass Bioenergy 26:361–375 Energy Fuel 23(1):487–491
Kiran EU, Liu Y (2015) Bioethanol production from mixed food waste by Meng Y, Li S, Yuan H, Zou D, Liu Y, Zhu B et al (2015) Effect of lipase
an effective enzymatic pre-treatment. Fuel 159:463–469 addition on hydrolysis and biomethane production of Chinese food
Kiran EU, Trzcinski AP, Ng WJ, Liu Y (2014a) Bioconversion of food waste. Bioresour Technol 179:452–459
waste to energy: a review. Fuel 134(9):389–399 Michnick S, Roustan J, Remize F, Barre P, Dequin S (1997) Modulation
Kiran EU, Trzcinski AP, Ng WJ, Liu Y (2014b) Enzyme production from of glycerol and ethanol yields during alcoholic fermentation in
food wastes using a biorefinery concept. Waste Biomass Valoriz Saccharomyces cerevisiae strains over expressed or disrupted for
5(6):903–917 GPD1 encoding glycerol 3- phosphate dehydrogenase. Yeast
Koike Y, An MZ, Tang YQ, Syo T, Osaka N, Morimura S et al (2009) 13(9):783–793
Production of fuel ethanol and methane from garbage by high- Moawad EY (2012) Optimizing bioethanol production by regulating
efficiency two-stage fermentation process. J Biosci Bioeng 108(6): yeast growth energy. Syst Synth Biol 6(3–4):61–68
508–512 Moon HC, Song IS, Kim JC, Shirai Y, Dong HL, Kim JK et al (2010)
Kordowska-Wiater M, Targon’ski Z (2001) Ethanol production on the Enzymatic hydrolysis of food waste and ethanol fermentation. Int J
media containing glucose and xylose by co-culture of Pichia stipitis Energy Res 33(2):164–172
CCY39501 and respiratory deficient mutant of Saccharomyces Ohashi R, Kamoshita Y, Kishimoto M, Suzuki T (1998) Continuous
cerevisiae V30. Electron J Pol Agric Univ 4(2):15–28 production and separation of ethanol without effluence of wastewa-
Li T, Liu L, Wei X, Zhang H, Fang P (2014) Comparison of the food ter using a distiller integrated SCM-reactor system. J Ferment
waste degradation rate and microbial community in the matrix be- Bioeng 86(2):220–225
tween two biodegradation agents in a food waste disposer. Waste Oursson G, Rohmer M (1992) Hopanoids. 2. Bio-hopanoids: a novel
Manag 34:2641–2646 class of bacterial lipids. Acc Chem Res 25:403–408
Lin Y, Tanaka S (2006) Ethanol fermentation from biomass resources: Pham TP, Kaushik R, Parshetti GK, Mahmood R, Balasubramanian R
current state and prospects. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 69(6):627– (2015) Food waste-to-energy conversion technologies: current sta-
642 tus and future directions. Waste Manag 38:399–408
Liu CG, Liu LY, Lin YH, Bai FW (2015) Kinetic modelling for redox Phutela UG, Kaur J (2014) Process optimization for ethanol production
potential-controlled repeated batch ethanol fermentation using floc- from sweet sorghum juice using Saccharomyces cerevisiae strain
culating yeast. Process Biochem 50(1):1–7 NRRL Y-2034 by response surface methodology. Sugar Tech
Ma HZ, Wang QH, Zhang WY, Xu WL, Zou DX (2008) Optimization of 16(4):411–421
the medium and process parameters for ethanol production from Robertson GH, Wong DW, Lee C, Wagschal K, Smith MR, Orts WJ
kitchen garbage by Zymomonas mobilis. Int J Green Energy 5(6): (2006) Native or raw starch digestion: a key step in energy efficient
480–490 biorefining of grain. J Agric Food Chem 54(2):353–365
Ma K, Wakisaka M, Sakai K, Shirai Y (2009) Flocculation characteristics Scanes KT, Prior BA (1998) Glycerol production by the yeast
of an isolated mutant flocculent Saccharomyces cerevisiae strain and Saccharomyces cerevisiae and its relevance to wine: a review. S
its application for fuel ethanol production from kitchen refuse. Afr J Enol Vitic 19:17–24
Bioresour Technol 100:2289–2292 Sen B, Aravind J, Kanmani P, Chyihow L (2016) State of the art and
Ma HZ, Xing Y, Yu M, Wang Q (2014) Feasibility of converting lactic future concept of food waste fermentation to bioenergy. Renew
acid to ethanol in food waste fermentation by immobilized lactate Sustain Energy Rev 53:547–557
oxidase. Appl Energy 129:89–93 Seo JH, Jin YS (2016) Editorial overview: food biotechnology: critical
Ma KD, Zhiyong R, Shui ZX, Wang YW, Hu GQ, He MX (2016) Open gap filler in the nexus of food, energy, and waste for a prosperous
fermentative production of fuel ethanol from food waste by an acid- future. Curr Opin Biotechnol 21:1–4
tolerant mutant strain of Zymomonas mobilis. Bioresour Technol Shen F, Yuan HR, Pang YZ, Chen SL, Zhu BN, Zou DX et al (2013)
203(7):295–302 Performances of anaerobic co-digestion of fruit & vegetable waste
Ma H, Jian Y, Yan J, Wang Q, Tashiro Y, Sonomoto K (2016a) Stillage (FVW) and food waste (FW): single-phase vs. two-phase. Bioresour
reflux in food waste ethanol fermentation and its by-product accu- Technol 144:80–85
mulation. Bioresour Technol 209:254–258 Singh A, Bishnoi NR (2013) Ethanol production from pre-treated wheat
Ma H, Yang J, Jia Y, Wang Q, Ma X, Sonomoto K (2016b) Alleviation of straw hydrolyzate by Saccharomyces cerevisiae via sequential sta-
harmful effect in stillage reflux in food waste ethanol fermentation tistical optimization. Ind Crop Prod 41(41):221–226
based on metabolic and side-product accumulation regulation. Suwannarat J, Ritchie RJ (2015) Anaerobic digestion of food waste using
Bioresour Technol 218:463–468 yeast. Waste Manag 42:61–66
Ma Y, Yin Y, Liu Y (2017) A holistic approach for food waste manage- Tahir A, Aftab M, Farasat T (2010) Effect of cultural conditions on eth-
ment towards zero-solid disposal and energy/resource recovery. anol production by locally isolated Saccharomyces cerevisiae BIO-
Bioresour Technol 228(1):56–61 7. J Appl Pharmacol 3(2):72–78
Maiti B, Rathore A, Srivastava S, Shekhawat M, Srivastava P (2011) Tang YQ, Koike Y, Liu K, An MZ, Morimura S, Wu XL et al (2008)
Optimization of process parameters for ethanol production from Ethanol production from kitchen waste using the flocculating yeast
sugar cane molasses by Zymomonas mobilis using response surface Saccharomyces cerevisiae strain kf-7. Biomass Bioenergy 32(11):
methodology and genetic algorithm. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 1037–1045
90(1):385–395 Tao F, Miao JY, Shi GY, Zhang KC (2005) Ethanol fermentation by an
Man HL, Behera SK, Park HS (2010) Optimization of operational param- acid-tolerant Zymomonas mobilis, under non-sterilized condition.
eters for ethanol production from Korean food waste leachate. Int J Process Biochem 40(1):183–187
Environ Sci Technol 7(1):157–164 Thongdumyu P, Intrasungkha N, Othong S (2014) Optimization of etha-
Matsakas L, Kekos D, Loizidou M, Christakopoulos P (2014) Utilization nol production from food waste hydrolysate by co-culture of
of household food waste for the production of ethanol at high dry Zymomonas mobilis and Candida shehatae under non-sterile condi-
material content. Biotechnol Biofuels 7(1):4–4 tion. Afr J Biotechnol 13(7):866–873
Mei X, Liu R, Shen F, Wu H (2009) Optimization of fermentation con- Togarepi E (2012) Optimization of fermentation parameters for ethanol
ditions for the production of ethanol from stalk juice of sweet production from Ziziphus mauritiana fruit pulp using
Environ Sci Pollut Res

Saccharomyces cerevisiae (NA33). Int J Biochem Res Rev 2(2):60– Zhang W, Xiong R, Wei G (2009) Biological flocculation treatment on
69 distillery waste water and recirculation of waste water. J Hazard
Uncu ON, Cekmecelioglu D (2011) Cost-effective approach to ethanol Mater 172(2):1252–1257
production and optimization by response surface methodology. Zhang W, Ma HZ, Wang Q, Xia J (2012) Research on the adoption of
Waste Manag 31(4):636–643 lactic acid bacteria in food waste storage and ethanol production. Int
Vohra M, Manwar J, Manmode R, Padgilwar S, Patil S (2014) Bioethanol J Green Energy 9(5):456–466
production: feedstock and current technologies. J Environ Chem Zhang ZY, Wong HH, Albertson PL, Harrison MD, Doherty WOS,
Eng 2(1):573–584 O'Hara IM (2015) Effects of glycerol on enzymatic hydrolysis and
Walia NK, Sekhon KK, Chaudhary DP, Cameotra SS, Srivastava P et al ethanol production using sugarcane bagasse pre-treated by acidified
(2014) Optimization of fermentation parameters for bioconversion glycerol solution. Bioresour Technol 192:367–373
of corn to ethanol using response surface methodology. J Pet Zhang Z, O’Hara IM, Mundree S, Gao B, Ball AS, Zhu N et al (2016)
Environ Biotechnol 5(3):178 Biofuels from food processing wastes. Curr Opin Biotechnol 38:97–
Wang M, Wang J, Tan JX, Mou JF (2011) Optimization of ethanol fer- 105
mentation from sweet sorghum juice using response surface meth- Zi L, Zhang C, Ren J et al (2010) Impact of distillage recycling on the
odology. Energy Sources 33(12):1139–1146 glycolysis key enzymes, stress response metabolites and intracellu-
Wei S, Miao Y, Ma HZ, Ming G, Wang QH (2015) Research on the lar components of the self-flocculating yeast. Chin J Biotechnol
recycling of distillation waste in ethanol fermentation from food 26(7):1019–1024
waste and its influence. Int J Green Energy 12(7):737–742
Zi LH, Liu CG, Xin CB, Bai FW (2013) Stillage back set and its impact
Xu QS, Yan YS, Feng JX (2016) Efficient hydrolysis of raw starch and
on ethanol fermentation by the flocculating yeast. Process Biochem
ethanol fermentation: a novel raw starch-digesting glucoamylase
48:753–758
from Penicillium oxalicum. Biotechnol Biofuels 9(1):216