See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/316798759

Microbial processing of fruit and vegetable wastes into potential

biocommodities: a review

Article · April 2017

DOI: 10.1080/07388551.2017.1311295.1080/07388551.2017.1311295

CITATIONS READS

4 3,491

4 authors:

Sandeep Kumar Panda Ramesh C. Ray

KIIT University Centre for Food Biology & Environment Studies
51 PUBLICATIONS 914 CITATIONS 238 PUBLICATIONS 6,542 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Swati Sakambari Mishra Eugenie Kayitesi

Central University of Orissa University of Pretoria
25 PUBLICATIONS 720 CITATIONS 81 PUBLICATIONS 1,787 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Ramesh C. Ray on 08 December 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Critical Reviews in Biotechnology

ISSN: 0738-8551 (Print) 1549-7801 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ibty20

Microbial processing of fruit and vegetable wastes

into potential biocommodities: a review

Sandeep K. Panda, Ramesh C. Ray, Swati S. Mishra & Eugenie Kayitesi

To cite this article: Sandeep K. Panda, Ramesh C. Ray, Swati S. Mishra & Eugenie Kayitesi
(2017): Microbial processing of fruit and vegetable wastes into potential biocommodities: a review,
Critical Reviews in Biotechnology, DOI: 10.1080/07388551.2017.1311295

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07388551.2017.1311295

Published online: 02 May 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 24

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ibty20

Download by: [50.178.46.90] Date: 09 May 2017, At: 14:02

CRITICAL REVIEWS IN BIOTECHNOLOGY, 2017
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07388551.2017.1311295

REVIEW ARTICLE

Microbial processing of fruit and vegetable wastes into potential

biocommodities: a review
Sandeep K. Pandaa
, Ramesh C. Rayb
, Swati S. Mishrac
and Eugenie Kayitesia

a
Department of Biotechnology and Food Technology, Faculty of Science, University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg, South Africa;
b
Microbiology Research Laboratory, ICAR- Regional Centre of Central Tuber Crops Research Institute, Bhubaneswar, India; cDepartment
of Biodiversity and Conservation of Natural Resources, Central University of Orissa, Koraput, India

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

The review focuses on some of the high value-end biocommodities, such as fermented bever- Received 24 September 2015
ages, single-cell proteins, single-cell oils, biocolors, flavors, fragrances, polysaccharides, biopesti- Revised 12 December 2016
cides, plant growth regulators, bioethanol, biogas and biohydrogen, developed from the Accepted 22 December 2016
microbial processing of fruit and vegetable wastes. Microbial detoxification of fruit and vegetable
processing effluents is briefly described. The advances in genetic engineering of microorganisms KEYWORDS
for enhanced yield of the above-mentioned biocommodities are elucidated with selected exam- Microbial processing;
ples. The bottleneck in commercialization, integrated approach for improved production, techno- biocommodities; biofuel;
economical feasibility and real-life uses of some of these biocommodities, as well as research research gap; techno-
gaps and future directions are discussed. economical feasibility

Introduction oils (SCO), biocolors, flavors, fragrances, polysaccharides,

In view of the enhanced production of fruit and vege-
table wastes (FVWs) in different parts of the globe,
worldwide research is in progress to minimize the nega-
tive effects of the pollutant on the environment in
conjunction with the development of novel and value-
added biocommodities. The market demands of bio-
commodities are increasing at an accelerated rate. It
has been projected that global demand of bioproducts
will increase in double-digit CAGR (compound annual
growth rates) and reach USD 700.7 billion in 2018 [1].
FVWs can be microbially processed into several essen-
tial value-added products. Although various biocom-
modities are in the development stage and some are in
the market, we have only focused on selected bioprod-
ucts keeping in view their demand and importance. The
major contributors to the industrial biotechnology mar-
ket in terms of market share are alcohols, beverages,
organic and amino acids, biopolymers, enzymes, bio-
pesticides, etc. The microbial processing of FVWs for the
production of vital enzymes and organic acids has been
recently reviewed by this group [2]. The current review
focuses on the development of some other biocom-
modities with potential market demand such as fer-
mented beverages, single-cell proteins (SCP), single-cell
biopesticides, plant growth regulators, bioethanol, bio-
gas and biohydrogen through microbial processing. The
bottleneck in commercialization, integrated approach
for improved production, techno-economical feasibility,
real-life uses of some of these biocommodities and
future directives are emphasized.
Fermented beverages
Microbial processing has been considered as a novel
procedure for value addition (Figure 1) of rejected fruits
and vegetables. Examples of biovalorization of FVWs
with potential advantages are described in Table 1.
For example, cashew apple is a thick receptacle that
holds cashew nuts and is known as a false fruit. Unlike
cashew nuts, the cashew apple does not have commer-
cial significance because the fruit has a very short shelf
life (1–2 day). Hence, the fruit, although bearing nutri-
tional components, is regarded as a waste of cashew-
processing industries. Mohanty et al. [3] described the
preparation of wine from cashew apple employing
Saccharomyces cerevisiae (wine yeast) that showed satis-
factory acceptance among the prospective consumers.
Cashew apple juice is fermented and the broth is

CONTACT Ramesh C. Ray rc_ray@rediffmail.com Microbiology Research Laboratory, ICAR – Regional Centre of Central Tuber Crops Research
Institute, Bhubaneswar 751019, India

These authors contributed equally to this work.
ß 2017 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 S. K. PANDA ET AL.
Fruit and vegetable wastes
Fermentation
Bio-ethanol SCP & Enzymes
SCO
Bio-ethanol Organic
acids
Figure 1. Bioprocessing of fruit and vegetable wastes into potential biocommodities.
distilled to produce a spirit called “fenny” in the state of
Goa, in India [3]. Likewise, mango wine was prepared by
using a yeast-mango peel biocatalyst system by
repeated batch fermentation [4]. Fruits like sapota and
bael are wasted/unutilized in tropical Asian countries;
hence, wine production technology has been devel-
oped for effective utilization of these fruits [5,6]. The
cost of wine production from these fruits is half that of
grape wine. Similarly, anthocyanin rich wine and beer
have been developed from sweet potato, which is a less
expensive and nonconventional substrate [7–9]. Sweet
potato has also been employed for the production of
lacto-juices, rich in b-carotene and anthocyanin [10].
Production of vinegar from fruit waste, such as cull
apple peels and core, has also been reported [11]. Roda
et al. [12] demonstrated various pretreatment proce-
dures for the saccharification step during vinegar pro-
duction from pineapple waste. The study revealed that
cooking at high pressure with an autoclave followed by
enzyme hydrolysis produced 70.2 g/kg fw of sugar as
compared to other pretreatments (microwave heating,
boiling, cooking at high pressure with pressure cooker).
The saccharification resulted with only glucose and fruc-
tose and no compounds for nonenzymatic browning
reactions. Thus, many rejected/unutilized fruits can be
bioprocessed into value-added products with commer-
cial potential.
SCP and SCO
SCP is defined as the protein extracted from the culti-
vated microorganisms [13]. It consists of dried cells or
biomass of microorganisms such as mold, algae, yeast,
Bioprocessing
Pre-treatment without pre-
treatment
Saccharification
Bio-pesticides
Bio-flavor
Hexoses and pentoses
SCP
Fermentation Bio-colors
Growth regulators
Bio-hydrogen Polysaccharide
fungi or bacteria [14]. SCPs are rich in protein (60–82%
of dry cell weight) and they also contain carbohydrates,
fats, vitamins and nucleic acids. SCP is advantageous, as
it contains amino acids such as lysine and methionine,
which are limited in conventional foods and feeds
prepared from plant and animal sources. Yeast and
yeast-like microbes are mostly considered for SCP fer-
mentation on less expensive substrates like potato, cas-
sava bagasse and FVWs [15]. Sweet potato bagasse is
one of the most studied substrates for the production
of SCP. It is enriched with protein by fermenting with
amylolytic yeasts such as Saccharomyces sp., Candida
utilis, Endomycopsis fibuligera and Pichia burtonii [16,17].
Wastes from a sweet potato distillery were supple-
mented with yeast protein and further applied as feed
for red carp (Cyprinus carpiol) [18]. SCP production from
all types of solid starchy bagasse proceeds through two
steps: (i) liquefaction (breakdown of starch into dextrins)
and (ii) saccharification (collapsing of dextrins to fer-
mentable sugars) for the production of sugars. The sug-
ars are then taken up by selected microorganisms for
the production of biomass [19]. Apart from starchy sour-
ces such as sweet potato, several other FVWs may be
potentially used for the production of SCP. Its cultiva-
tion was carried out with different fruit wastes (banana
skin, mango waste, sweet orange peel, rind of
pomegranate and apple waste) as a substrate and
S. cerevisiae as the microorganism for protein enhance-
ment. The study revealed that banana skin generated
the highest amount of crude protein (58.62%) followed
by pomegranate rind (54.28%), apple waste (50.86%),
mango waste (39.98%) and sweet orange peel (26.26%)
[20]. Dhanasekaran et al. [21] demonstrated the efficacy
 CRITICAL REVIEWS IN BIOTECHNOLOGY 3

Table 1. Examples of value-added products from microbial processing of fruit and vegetable wastes.
Value-added products Substrate
Fermented foods Cashew apple, culled pears
Wine Vinegar
Single-cell protein Cassava and sweet potato
bagasse, banana skin,
mango waste, sweet
orange peel, pomegranate
rind, pineapple peel
Single-cell oil Beet pulp and potato-process-
ing waste
Biocolors Apple pomace
Torulene
Microorganism
Saccharomyces cerevisiae,
Acetic acid bacteria
Saccharomyces sp.,
Endomycopsis fibuligera,
Pichia burtonii, Rhizopus sp.
Phanerochaete chrysospo-
rium, Panus tigrinus
Trichosporon cutaneum,
T. fermentans, Aspergillus
flavus, Mucor rouxii
Rhodotorula glutinis, R. glutinis
þ Debaromyces castellii
Advantages/market status References
Produced in commercial scale and [3,11]
marketed
Industrially adopted by leading [15–18,20,21]
companies such as British
Petroleum, Imperial Chemical
Industry and Rank Hovis
McDougalls.
Used in the replacement of [26,29,30]
expensive cocoa butter in com-
mercial scale
Beneficial to human health (bio- [34,35]
active) and protective against
cancer and cardiac diseases

Lycopene Tomato waste Candida utilis [36]

Flavors Orange peel Ceratocystis fimbriata, and Widely accepted in dairy indus- [40]
a-Terpineol Penicillium digitatum tries for cheese ripening and
degradation of milk proteins to
peptides and amino acids

Esters and alcohol Tomato and pepper pomace
Vanillin Coffee husk
Agriculture-oriented products Cassava bagasse
Biopesticide
Indole-3-acetic acid Cassava fibrous residue
Biofuels
Bioethanol Coffee wastes, cassava plant
residue, sweet potato
Biomethane Pineapple waste, orange
waste, pumpkin waste,
vegetable wastes
Biohydrogen Effluents of dairy, winery and
brewery
Polysaccharides
Medium-chain length Pomaces of grapes, apricot
polyhydroxyalkanoates and cherries
Kluyveromyces marxianus,
Debaryomyces hansenii
Aspergillus niger, Pycnoporus
cinnabarinus
Beauveria bassiana,
Bacillus subtilis
Saccharomyces cerevisiae,
Zymomonas mobilis
Sporotrichum sp., Methanothrix
soehengeni, Methanococcus
voltae, Fusarium sp.
Clostridium butyricum,
Enterobacter aerogenes
Pseudomonas resinovorans
[41]
[59]
Environmental friendly, adopted [46,47]
by farmers in household levels
and commercially produced in
Cuba.
Traditionally used by farmers for [52,53]
enhancing growth and control-
ling fungal diseases of yam
tubers (Dioscorea spp.).
Lesser emission of green house
gases, replaces the use of fossil
fuel to an extent in China,
Brazil, Thailand and the USA.
[61,63,64,68]
Uses urban organic wastes, suc- [75,76,107]
cessfully used in community
level for cooking, pilot plant
successfully operated in Pune
(Gultekadi market complex),
India
Clean and efficient fuel [78,80]
Algal polysaccharide market rising
throughout the globe with 3.9
billion USD during 2012.
[57]

of pineapple waste in different concentrations (1–5%
pineapple hydrolysate) as the only sugar source for the
production of SCP on which S. cerevisiae and Candida
tropicalis were grown. It was observed that the dry
mass concentration increased with the amount of car-
bon source available. S. cerevisiae produced the highest
dry biomass (571 mg/100 ml) followed by C. tropicalis
(492 mg/100 ml). In another study, Aspergillus niger and
Chaetomium sp., isolated from municipal waste, were
allowed for fermentation with orange waste.
The maximum protein content obtained was 39.64% for
Chaetomium sp. at an inoculum load of 108 spores/ml
and 31.7% with an inoculum load of 106 spores/ml [22].
A. niger and S. cerevisiae were used to produce SCP by
growing on extracts produced from potato peel, beet
root, carrot, watermelon and banana with and without
basal media. The highest amount of SCP was produced
when A. niger was grown on banana peels supple-
mented media. Stabnikova et al. [23] observed that
incorporation of selenium to the FVW could enhance
the biomass production of S. cerevisiae.
Apart from SCP production, several studies have
also been conducted to produce edible oils, that is, sin-
gle-cell oils (SCO) by microbial processing with oleagin-
ous microorganisms. These microorganisms include
bacteria, yeasts, molds and microalgae that have the
4 S. K. PANDA ET AL.
potential to accumulate more than 20% of lipid of their
dry weight [24]. The mechanisms of lipid accumulation
in yeasts and fungi is well understood. In the process of
fatty acid synthesis, lipid accumulation is accelerated
within the cells in the presence of nitrogen along with
glucose in the culture media. The amount of lipid accu-
mulation is controlled by maleic enzyme activity that
acts as the only source of NADPH for the activity of fatty
acid synthase [25]. SCOs have replaced expensive cocoa
butter in large-scale operations using oleaginous micro-
organisms [26]. Additionally, researchers are interested in
the production of polyunsaturated fatty acids, mainly n-6
and n-3 series; for example omega-3/6 fatty acids, c-lino-
lenic acid, arachidonic acid, docosahexaenoic acid and
eicosapentaenoic acid by bacteria, fungi or algae rather
than simple lipids [27]. These compounds are known to
be beneficial to human health. c-Linolenic acid possess
anti-cancer properties and has been successfully accumu-
lated by Cunninghamella echinulata on xylose containing
media [28]. Arachidonic acid, docosahexaenoic acid and
eicosapentaenoic acid have gained attention for their
role in the development of the infant brain, human eyes
and has a beneficial effect on the cardiovascular system.
Microorganisms, such as Candida guilliermondii and
Achlya sp., have been reported to produce significant
quantities of eicosapentaenoic acid and docosahexaenoic
acid. Wang et al. [29] illustrated the utilization of beet
pulp having roughly equal amounts of galacturonate,
arabinose and glucose for lipid production. Three micro-
organisms, that is, Trichosporon cutaneum, Trichosporon
fermentans and Cryptococcus curvatus were applied for
lipid production from pectin rich beet pulp hydrolysates.
It was observed that T. cutaneum produced highest cell
mass and lipid followed by T. fermentans and C. curvatus,
respectively. In another experiment, the efficiency of
strains belonging to two fungal species, namely
Aspergillus flavus and Mucor rouxii, was studied for the
production of SCO from potato-processing wastewater. It
was observed that A. flavus and M. rouxii accumulated
2.6 and 3.6 g/L lipids, respectively [30]. Some studies
have demonstrated the enhanced lipid accumulation in
microbes by overexpression and deletion of genes
encoding for key enzymes related to lipid synthesis. For
example, Wang et al. [31] reported that the removal of
presumed acyl-CoA synthase YAL1 gene in Yarrowia
lipolytica by copper-resistant CRF1 gene through hom-
ologous recombination resulted in higher fatty acid accu-
mulation. The mutant strain could produce 1.47-fold
higher amounts of lipids as compared to the wild type.
Although SCPs and SCOs are becoming familiar and
acceptable among the consumers, safety issues require
specific attention. Some microbes produce toxic com-
pounds, some microbial proteins may cause allergic
reactions and the nucleic acids in SCP can lead to
gastrointestinal problems [13,14]. Furthermore, high
concentrations of nucleic acids (6–10%) found mostly in
yeasts and fungi are known to elevate the serum uric
acid in human blood . In addition, SCP derived from
microalgae is rich in chlorophyl and thus not suitable
for human consumption. There are few studies showing
any serious toxicity or allergenicity of SCO. However,
a few bacteria (e.g. Mycobacterium, Corynebacterium
and Rhodococcus) are known to produce high amounts
of oils, that is, 30–40% of lipids are associated with toxic
allergic factors [32]. The majority of the SCP plants in
the United States rely on fruit bagasse, sulfite waste
liquor, molasses, animal manure, whey, starchy sources,
sewage, etc., while only 15% depend on hydrocarbon
as a source of carbon and energy. In the present food
and feed market context, more studies should be car-
ried out to establish the safe use of SCP and SCO from
FVWs for food and feed, and steps have to be taken to
familiarize SCP and SCO along with other conventional
diets.
Food colorants
Color imparts an important sensorial property to foods
and beverages. Food technologists are interested in
natural colorants as they can address the major draw
back of synthetic foods (i.e. hyperactivity in children
and risk of cancer and allergic reactions).
Microorganisms are one of the potential natural sources
of biocolors. Furthermore, microbial pigments possess
antioxidative and anti-cancer properties. Carotenoids,
precursors of vitamin A and potential food colorants are
beneficial for human health and they are among the
bioactive compounds that reduce risks for degenerative
diseases such as cancer, cardiac diseases, macular
degeneration and cataract [33].
Apple pomace was used as a fermentation medium
for the production of carotenoid using Rhodotorula sp.
[34]. Further, it has been reported that coculturing of
Rhodotorula glutinis and Debaromyces castellii could
enhance biomass and carotenoids production [35]. In
another study, yellow pigment production by Monascus
purpureus on banana peel was standardized as follows:
temperature, 30  C; moisture content, 60% and pH, 5.5.
The pigment was extracted with ethanol as the solvent.
Miura et al. [36] demonstrated the incorporation of six
genes crtE, crtB, crtI, crtY from Erwinia uredovora and
crtZ and crtW from Agrobacterium aurantiacum into the
food grade yeast Candida utilis. crt is the gene cluster
known to be responsible for the biosynthesis of carote-
noids. The desired genes were designed based on the
codon often used in the GAP (glycerol dehyde-3-
 CRITICAL REVIEWS IN BIOTECHNOLOGY 5

phosphate dehydrogenase) gene. The transgenic yeast substrate fermentation (SSF) by bacteria and fungi that
accumulated higher amounts of lycopene (1.1 mg), synthesize biopesticides (bioinsecticides, bioherbicides,
b-carotene (0.4 mg) and astaxanthin (0.4 mg) per g dry biofungicides) growth regulators and other useful
cell weight. chemicals for agriculture.

Biopesticides
Microbial flavor and fragrance
Several groups of organisms, that is, parasitoides, preda-
Volatile and nonvolatile chemical compounds are
tors and microorganisms (bacteria, fungi, nematodes
accountable for flavor and aroma in foods. The global
and viruses) are employed as weapons against insects
sale of flavor and fragrance industry is estimated to be
and pests. The application of entomopathogenic and
$24,100 during 2015 and $23,908 during 2013. In 2013,
mycoparasitic fungi especially Beauveria bassiana,
sales in Africa, Asia, North America, South America and
Metarhizium anisopliae and Paecilomyces fumosoroseus
Europe are $775.03, $7020.82, $5068, $1763 and $4252,
have received special notice for biological control of
respectively [37]. In diary industries, lactic acid bacteria
insects and pests in agriculture [43,44]. The global bio-
(LAB) generate several flavoring compounds derived
pesticide market was around $2.1 billion in 2012 and it
from amino acids, particularly methionine. As milk does
is expected to surpass $3.7 billion in 2017, at a CAGR
not contain free amino acids, in significant levels, the
of 12% [45].
LAB depend on proteolytic pathways for degradation of
SSF is a useful system to produce entomopathogenic
milk protein (casein) to peptides and further to amino
fungi on the commercial scale. In Cuba, the naturally
acids. Several genes that regulate the “attractive” flavor
occurring local strains of B. bassiana are isolated and
production from amino acids have been identified. The
mass produced using dry cassava bagasse as the sub-
bcaT (branched chain amino-transferase) gene is known
strate. This technology is simple, it has a low cost and
to regulate lactococcal flavor forming enzymes at the
has been adapted by many farmers and their families.
transcriptional level [38]. A transgenic microbial strain
The fungus has also been shown to be harmless to
was developed by incorporating glutamate dehydro-
human beings and wildlife [46]. Desgranges et al. [47]
genase gene (GDH) from Peptostreptococcus asaccharo-
applied the SSF process for the production of B. bassi-
lyticus into Lactobacillus lactis and the GDH-transformed
ana employing agro-industrial wastes. The death of the
strain produced higher proportion of volatile carboxylic
pests and insects are caused by a series of events.
acids (useful in cheese ripening) [39].
The fungal infection starts as the conidia attach to the
Orange peel oil is mainly composed of D-limonene,
insect’s cuticle. B. bassiana conidia germinate on the
which constitutes 96.1% of the total content. Penicillium
host surface and form an appressorium (establishes
digitatum was applied for the biotransformation of D-lim-
pathogenic interaction with the host). Further, the fun-
onene to a-terpineol. It was further observed that a-ter-
gus penetrates the cuticle to enter into the insect/pest
pineol had a floral liliac odor [40]. Guneser et al. [41]
body by secreting a cocktail of enzymes – chitinase,
investigated the production of bioflavor from tomato
esterase, protease and lipase. After entering into the
and red pepper pomaces by Kluyveromyces marxianus
pest’s body, the fungus moves into the hemolymph.
and Debaryomyces hansenii. Both yeasts produced esters
It overcomes the insect’s immune system.
and alcohols such as phenyl ethyl alcohol, iso-amyl alco-
Entomopathogenic fungi produce toxins that are
hol, iso-amyl acetate, phenyl ethyl acetate and iso-valeric
involved in killing the insects. B. bassiana is known to
acid. “Tarhana” and “rose” were descriptive flavor terms
produce significant amount of toxins like beauvericin,
for tomato and pepper pomaces, respectively fermented
bassianolide and beauverolides in the host body [48].
by K. marxianus. Another yeast species, Yarrowia lipolytica
The conidiation of B. bassiana is a very complex process
is known to convert ricinoleic acid into c-decalactone, for
and several genes are known to be involved in it. A43
producing fruity aroma. Genetic engineering was applied
gene plays a major role in conidiation of the fungus
to remove the lactone degrading activity of this yeast; by
[49]. The formation of a dense network of green spores
possessing the Aox2 (acyl CoA oxidase) activity, the
on the cuticle of greasy gut worm larvae by M. aniso-
microbe could produce 10 times more lactone as com-
pliae has been revealed by using scanning electron
pared to the wild strain [42].
microscopy (SEM) [49]. Gene ODC1, which encodes for
ornithine decarboxylase enzyme in case of M. anisopliae,
Agriculture-oriented products
participates in the fungal differentiation event [50].
FVWs are usually rich in sugars, starch and other Soccol et al. [51] demonstrated a SSF-based process
nutrients providing a suitable medium for solid employing various agro-industrial substrates (potato,
6 S. K. PANDA ET AL.
cassava and coffee pulp waste) to produce spores from
B. bassiana for use in the biological control of pests of
banana, sugarcane, soybean and coffee.
Plant growth regulators
Plant growth regulators promote seed germination,
sprouting, shoot elongation, root development and
flowering. Gibberellins, kinetin, indole-3-acetic acid and
indole-2-butyric acid are known plant growth regula-
tors. Swain and Ray [52] demonstrated the production
of indole-3-acetic acid by a strain of Bacillus subtilis
using cassava bagasse as substrate. The same B. subtilis
suspension (8  109) when applied on the surface of
yam (Dioscora rotundata L.) minisetts was found to
enhance the number of sprouts, roots and shoots
length and weight over the noninoculated plants [53].
Production of gibberellic acid was demonstrated in SSF
of maize cob particles using Gibberella fugikuroi as
inoculum [54].
Polysaccharides
Microbial polysaccharides are positioned in the cell wall
bound to the cell-forming capsules or secreted to the
extracellular environment in the form of exopolysac-
charide. The global hydrocolloid market is presently
dominated by algal and plant polysaccharides (starch,
galactomannans, glucomannans, carrageenan and
alginate) having a market value of 3.9 billion US dollars
during 2012. FVWs are considered as an important ubi-
quitous substrate for the production of microbial poly-
saccharides. The bacteria mostly used for industrial
production of polysaccharides belong to the
Xanthomonas, Leuconostoc, Sphingomonas and
Alcaligenes genera. Saccharified waste potato starch
was used as a carbon source for the production of poly
(R)-3-hydroxybutyrate, a common poly-hydroxyalka-
noate produced by Ralstonia eutropha NCIMB 11599
under phosphate-limited conditions [55]. Fernandez
et al. [56] demonstrated the production of poly-hydrox-
yalkanoates from oily wastes such as residual waste
cooking oil and other lipid wastes using Pseudomonas
aeruginosa 42A2. This microorganism was found to
accumulate 54.6% of poly-hydroxyalkanoates. Selected
fruit wastes (pomaces of grapes, apricot and cherries)
were applied for microbial processing using
Pseudomonas resinovorans for the production of polyhy-
droxyalkanoates [57]. Olive mill wastewater contains
alpechin, an unsafe phenolic compound. A transformed
Pseudomonas putida KT2442 showed its potential of
growing in alpechin for the production of poly-hydrox-
yalkanoates. P. putida KT2442 was metabolically
transformed with the plasmid pSK2665. The latter, har-
bors the 5.2-kb SmaI-EcoRI sub-fragment SE52 and all
three genes (phbA (for 3-ketothiolase), phbB (NADPH-
dependent acetoacetyl-CoA reductase) and phbC (PHB
synthase) are needed for the synthesis of poly b-hydrox-
ybutyric acid (PHB) from acetyl CoA [58].
Biofuels
Among most of the nonconventional renewable sources
of energy, biogas and bioethanol production are con-
sidered as the most favored and trouble-free methods
of energy production from wastes, by-products of agri-
culture, as well as agro-industrial and food-processing
wastes [59].
Bioethanol
Ethanol production from microbial processing of FVWs
has been extensively studied. Bioethanol holds 75% of
the share in the biofuel market. It is blended with petrol
and has been adopted in countries like China, Brazil
and the USA. Gross value of US ethanol industry output
is $30 000 million [60]. A blend of 10% of ethanol to
petrol does not affect engine and performance of the
vehicle [61]. The mechanism of breakdown of FVW
components (cellulose, hemicelluloses, lignin and other
carbohydrates) into sugars and subsequent bioconver-
sion into bioethanol is not within the scope of this
review.
Huang et al. [62] investigated bioethanol production
from FVWs at high solids content (35%, w/w) using a
novel vacuum fermentation technique. The ethanol
conversion efficiency for the vacuum fermentation sys-
tem was recorded to be 93.6%, significantly higher than
the 85.4% for the conventional fermentation. Likewise,
coffee wastes were utilized for the production of bioe-
thanol by using S. cerevisiae and the yield was reported
to be 77.29% of the theoretical yield. The cost of bioe-
thanol developed from coffee waste was estimated at
USD 0.48/L [63]. Bioethanol from cassava wastes (stems,
peels and leaves) has been studied by several research-
ers owing to the bulk amount of the waste generated
during processing [64]. The waste mainly comprises
starch, cellulose and hemicelluloses. Hence, prior to fer-
mentation for bioethanol production from cassava
bagasse, it is important to convert the complex carbo-
hydrates to fermentable sugars. Pooja and Padmaja [64]
demonstrated different pretreatment methods followed
by the application of a cellulolytic enzyme complex
(AcceleraseTM 1000) for efficient breakdown of the com-
plex carbohydrate molecules of cassava bagasse and
leaves (starch, 2.43%; cellulose, 17.3%) into reducing

sugars. Among the three different pretreatment meth-
ods (hydrothermal treatment, microwave exposure and
dilute acid treatment), hydrothermal treatment for
30 min was the most efficient process followed by
microwaving assisted with dilute acid treatment for
20 min. The alcohol dehydrogenase gene (ADH) mainly
operates during the conversion of acetaldehyde to
ethanol in S. cerevisiae. Six genes, that is, ADH1, ADH2,
ADH3, ADH4, ADH5 and SFA1, are ADH isozyme genes
detected in S. cerevisiae. Deletion of all the six NADPH-
dependent ADH isozyme genes stably disrupted etha-
nol production [65].
Ethanol tolerance and production of S. cerevisiae was
enhanced by random UV-C mutagenesis. Out of the sev-
eral mutants produced, one strain displayed ethanol
concentration of 10.3%(v/v) from a molasses medium,
with a productivity of 1.7 g/L/h and a theoretical yield
of 98.7%. Corresponding values for the wild strain were
8.6% (v/v), 1.4 g/L/h and 83.3%, respectively [66]. In
another study, a recombinant yeast strain (S. cerevisiae)
was developed by the incorporation of genes encoding
endoglucanase E of Clostridium thermocellum and b-glu-
cosidase of Saccharomycopsis fibuligera into its genome.
The resultant yeast strain expressing both endogluca-
nase and b-glucosidase exhibited ethanol production
from substrates containing b-glucan, carboxy methyl
cellulose and swollen cellulose [67]. Zhang et al. [68]
demonstrated an energy-saving procedure to produce
ethanol from uncooked fresh sweet potato. A mutant
strain of A. niger, isolated from mildewed sweet potato,
was utilized to produce starch saccharification enzymes.
Subsequently, fermentation of the enzyme-treated
sweet potato with Zymomonas mobilis yielded 14.4 g of
ethanol/100 g fresh roots. Complete genome sequenc-
ing of the ethanologenic Z. mobilis subsp. mobilis
centrotype ATCC 29191 revealed that the genome com-
prises one chromosome and three plasmids [69]. The
irrE gene is known to encode stress tolerance in
Deinococcus radiodurans. The same gene, when inserted
and expressed in Z. mobilis, significantly improved cell
viability, enzymatic activities of pyruvate decarboxylase
and alcohol dehydrogenase and production of ethanol
under ethanol and acid stress [70].
Biogas
Biogas refers to a mixture of gases, mainly methane,
carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, hydrogen sulfides,
etc. These gases can be produced from agricultural
wastes, plant debris, municipal waste or food waste.
Gases like methane, carbon monoxide and hydrogen
sulfide are oxidized to release energy, which can be
used as a fuel [59]. Methanogens, belonging to the
CRITICAL REVIEWS IN BIOTECHNOLOGY 7
domain Archaea and the phylum Euryarchaeota, are
known to produce methane [71].
Ensiling and pretreatment of fruit and
vegetable processing wastes
Ensiling is traditionally used to store animal feed and
various other agricultural commodities [72]. This process
has been proved beneficial with some modifications for
the storage of mango, orange, lemon and lime peels,
pineapple- and tomato-processing wastes for efficient
production of biogas. It helps hydrolyze polymeric
constituents such as cellulose, hemicellulose and
pectin, improving the biogas yield and its methane con-
tent [59].
The majority of FVWs are recalcitrant to biodegrad-
ation and bioconversion due to presence of compo-
nents having a complex nature of polymeric
constituents such as cellulose, hemicellulose, pectin,
fats, proteins and lignin [58]. The molecular structure of
the substrate is hardly accessible to the microorganisms
and their enzymatic system. Further, they create phys-
ico-chemical problems like floating and foaming in bio-
gas production plants. Therefore, certain pretreatment
processes, such as thermal, chemical, ultrasonic, bio-
logical and combined treatment, are recommended
depending upon the type of substrate used for biogas
production [73]. Biological pretreatment includes the
application of microorganisms to the substrate; for
example, the feedstocks of fruit and vegetable are
treated aerobically by microconsortia or some selected
strains of fungi for improvement in the utilization of
feedstock that is expected for biogas production.
Wastes, generated from orange processing, were
treated with Sporotrichum sp., Aspergillus sp. Penicillium
sp. and Fusarium sp. yielded 0.5–0.6 m3/kg volatile sol-
ids added with a methane content of 55% [59]. Thermal
pretreatment is heating the substrate (125–190  C)
along with pressure for a specific time, chemical pre-
treatment includes alkali, acid and oxidative pretreat-
ment. Ultrasonication in pretreatment is most effective
when high-power ultrasound (200 W) is performed at
low frequencies and is advantageous due to higher sub-
strate disintegration, improved biodegradability and
higher methane content in biogas [74].
Application of FVWs for biogas production
FVWs have been known to be a potential substrate for
the production of biogas. In one such study, pineapple
waste exhibited highest biogas production, that is,
965 cm3 followed by wastes from orange (612 cm3),
pumpkin (373 cm3) and spinach (269 cm3) [75]. Victor
8 S. K. PANDA ET AL.
et al. [76] demonstrated the enhancement of biogas
production by the application of facultative anaerobic
bacterial strains. It showed that the vegetable wastes
when subjected to inoculation with Lactobacillus sp.
along with methanogens showed higher production of
biogas, which was much higher than the control sam-
ple. Further, it was recommended to add FVWs to the
first stage of the anaerobic digester to enhance the
methane generation [73]. All methanogens possess
coenzyme F420, a cofactor that is necessary for enzymes
such as hydrogenase and formate dehydrogenase.
Furthermore, coenzyme M (2-mercaptoethanesulfonic
acid) is a characteristic feature of methanogens which is
methylated to produce methane [71]. Prakash and
Singh [77] revealed that for vegetable waste, cow dung
should be added in the same proportion (1:1), whereas
in the case of fruit waste, the ratio should be 1:2 for
optimum production.
Biohydrogen
Biohydrogen is a clean fuel produced by microbial proc-
essing of organic wastes. Effluents generated from food
industries, such as the dairy industry, olive mill, baker’s
yeast, brewery, winery and distillery, are rich in carbohy-
drates. Such effluents possess tremendous potential to
be bioprocessed for the production of biohydrogen
[78]. Delignification is an important pretreatment pro-
cedure in which lignin from waste is removed and as a
result it facilitates microbial growth. Two-stage fermen-
tation processes (anaerobic dark fermentation and
photo fermentation) are used for the generation of bio-
hydrogen. Dark fermentation occurs under anaerobic
conditions and compounds other than O2 serve as elec-
tron acceptor. Carbohydrates, mainly glucose and fruc-
tose, are the carbon sources for the process that
produces H2 with acetic acid and butyric acid. Photo fer-
mentation takes place in the presence of light energy,
nitrogenase enzyme and organic acids by photo-hetero-
trophic bacteria for the production of H2 using organic
waste in batch or continuous cultures [79]. Several spe-
cies belonging to genus Clostridium are known to pro-
duce hydrogen during growth phase. Hydrogen
production was carried out by using dried sweet potato
bagasse. Mixed culture of Clostridium butyricum and
Enterobacter aerogenes were used in long-term repeated
batch operation and the H2 yield was 2.4 mol/mol glu-
cose obtained from hydrolysis of 2% bagasse [80].
Genetically and metabolically engineered bacteria are
used to enhance the production of biohydrogen from
organic waste matters. Franchi et al. [81] developed
three different strains, two single PHA (poly-hydroxyal-
kanoate) and Hup (hydrogen uptake) mutants and one
double PHA/Hup mutant of purple nonsulfur photo-
synthetic bacterium Rhodobacter sphaeroides RV. The
phenotypes were intended for inactivating PHA, a com-
petitor of H2 by inactivating PHA synthase activity. It
also supports the H2 recycling by abolishing the uptake
of the hydrogenase enzyme. The Hup mutant showed
a higher H2 production rate than the double mutant
(PHA/Hup), when grown on food waste (includes
FVWs) derived medium. Chlamydomonas reinhardtii, a
unicellular green algae possesses the ability to produce
biohydrogen in oxygen- and sulfur-deprived condition.
Molecular oxygen inhibits the activity of hydrogenase
and is thus regarded as a major barrier for hydrogen
production in autotrophic organisms.
Bioremediation of effluents
Bioremediation is defined as “treatment that uses natur-
ally occurring organisms to breakdown hazardous sub-
stances into less toxic or nontoxic substances” [59,82].
Several studies have been conducted for bioremedi-
ation of effluents released from FVWs generating
industries.
Palm oil mill effluent (POME) is generated in all
palm-producing nations in large quantities and is
regarded as a strong pollutant. Biovalorization of POME
was studied with yeast isolates under scalable condi-
tions to produce value-added yeast biomass. The raw
effluent supported accumulation of 4.42 g/L dry yeast
with amino acid content comparable to FAO/WHO
standard for feed and COD reduction (83%) was
achieved with highest biomass accumulation in 96 h
using Saccharomyces sp. [83].
The bioremediation potential of three allochthonous
microorganisms, Lactobacillus delbrueckii subsp. bulgari-
cus, Saccharomyces cerevisiae and Dekkera bruxellensis
was evaluated with whey effluent, orange effluent and
chocolate effluent. Highest biodegradable efficiency of
COD, biological oxygen demand (BOD) and total
organic nitrogen (TON) of the effluents were observed
when treatment was carried out using both allochthon-
ous and autocthonous microorganisms. S. cerevisiae
reduced the BOD, COD and TON of whey effluents by
12.35%, 20% and 68.42%, respectively. Dekkera bruxel-
lensis proved to be the best utilizer of orange effluent
and reduced the BOD, COD and TON by 18%, 20% and
53.38%, respectively [59].
Integrated approach for improved production
of biocommodities
An integrated approach for higher rates of
biocommodities production refers to: (i) the application

of genetically modified strains, (ii) novel bioprocessing
technology and (iii) cheaper substrates for economic
feasibility.
Genetically modified microorganisms
Presently, knowledge of genetic engineering has suc-
cessfully produced highly efficient strains with several
folds of biocommodities producing capacity compared
to the wild-type strains. Mutation, transduction, proto-
plast fusion and recombinant DNA technology are the
most common methodologies of genetic engineering
for the improvement of strains [2]. A few recent exam-
ples are cited here to elucidate the efficacy of genetic-
ally modified microbial strains in enhancing
bioproduction capacity. Biopesticides have been suc-
cessfully developed for higher insecticidal activity.
Sirichotpakorn et al. [84] demonstrated the cloning of
the chitinase gene for coexpression with the regulatory
gene p19 and the toxin gene cry11Aa1 in Bacillus thurin-
giensis (Bt) strains. The result suggested that the coap-
plication of crude chitinase from the cloned gene in the
genetically engineered strain with cell suspensions of Bt
and its transformants could improve the larvicidal activ-
ity by 3- to 50-fold. Lecadet et al. [85] deciphered the
transfer of ICP (insecticidal crystal proteins) gene trans-
fer via transduction. Vector, harboring cry1Aa was trans-
ferred to several Bt strains through CP-54Ber-mediated
transduction (frequency ranging from 5  108 to
2  106 transductants per CFU). The transduction
resulted in the formation of large bipyramidal crystals,
significantly active against the insect Plutella xylostella.
Similarly, a genetically engineered Z. mobilis strain was
developed for fermenting varieties of sugars that were
generated through saccharification of lignocelluloses.
Incorporation of E. coli manA (phosphomannose isomer-
ase) into Z. mobilis chromosomal DNA resulted in the
ability to ferment both mannose and glucose, produc-
ing 91% of the theoretical yield of bioethanol within
36 h. In the same way, recombinant plasmid harboring
the genes encoding xylose catabolic enzymes in E. coli
[xylA (xylose isomerase), xylB (xylulokinase), tal (transal-
dolase) and tktA (transketolase)] were introduced into Z.
mobilis. The recombinant strain was found to be cap-
able of fermenting a mixture of glucose, mannose and
xylose which are regarded as major constituents of
wood hydrolysate within 72 h. The ethanol production
was 89.8% of the theoretical yield [86].
Lignin is regarded as the prime hindrance for the
degradation of lignocellulosic wastes such as FVWs. An
attempt was made to conduct protoplast fusion
between strains of two fungal species; Phanerochaete
chrysosporium, a potential lignin degrader and
CRITICAL REVIEWS IN BIOTECHNOLOGY 9
Geotrichum candidum (used for SCP production). One of
the fusants was found to decrease lignin from 109
to 54 g/kg and increased protein from 48 to 67 g/kg
when grown in corn stover [87]. Several genetic engin-
eering studies have been carried out to enhance the
production of biohydrogen. Fan et al. [88] demon-
strated the improvement of specific hydrogen yield
from glucose through the modification of transcrip-
tional regulators and metabolic enzymes involved in
the dissimilation of pyruvate and formate. The genetic-
ally modified E. coli strain ZF1 (DfocA; disrupted in a for-
mate transporter gene) was observed to produce 14.9
mmols of hydrogen/mg of dry cell weight compared to
9.8 mmols of hydrogen/mg of dry cell weight generated
by wild-type E. coli strain W3110. Similarly, the yield of
hydrogen in another genetically engineered E. coli
strain ZF3 (DnarL; disrupted in a global transcriptional
regulator gene) was 14.4 mmols of hydrogen/mg of dry
cell weight.
Novel microbial processing technology
The other popular microbial approaches for improved
bioproduct processing are coculture, extremophilic
fermentation and the use of surfactants. SCP production
was carried out using a co-culture of Kluyveromyces
lactis and S. cerevisiae on whey. The biomass yield was
22.38 g/l and BOD was reduced from the initial
30,000–3450 mg/l with the mixed culture, whereas
K. lactis could only yield 11.79 g/l when cultured alone
on the same substrate [89]. In another experiment,
both co-culture and thermophilic fermentation was
applied for the improvement of H2 yield [90].
Cellulolytic Clostridium thermocellum and a noncellulo-
lytic, hydrogen-producing C. thermopalmarium were
co-cultured by using cellulose as the sole substrate at
55  C.
Thermophilic microorganisms have been proved
beneficial in the overproduction of biofuels such as bio-
ethanol and biohydrogen. Hyperthermophiles such as
Pyrococcus furiosus and Caldicellulosiruptor bescii having
optimum growth temperature of 50–80  C are known
to be efficient producers of biohydrogen [91].
Microorganisms of bacterial and the archaeal domain
are known to produce biohydrogen through hydrolysis
of polysaccharide-containing substrates, such as
FVWs and subsequent production of biohydrogen.
Species belonging to Clostridium, Caldicellulosiruptor,
Thermoanaerobacter, Thermotoga, and Thermococcus
genera are the popular biohydrogen-producing thermo-
philes [92]. Demonstration of novel microbial biotech-
nology for the enhanced production of biocommodities
is shown in Table 2.
10 S. K. PANDA ET AL.
Table 2. Demonstration of novel microbial biotechnology for enhanced production of biocommodities.
Microorganisms and
Novel technology process adopted
Coculture Kluveromyces lactis þ Saccharomyces
cerevisiae
Coculture þ thermophilic Clostridium thermocellum þ
C. thermopalmarium
Recombinant DNA technology Chitinase gene coexpressed with
the regulatory gene P19 and toxin
gene cry11Aa1 in Bacillus thurin-
giensis strains
Genes encoding xylose catabolic
enzymes in E. coli (xylA, xylB, tal,
and tktA) were introduced into
Zymomonas mobilis
Transduction Vector harboring cry1Aa transferred
to Bacillus thuringiensis strains
through CP-54Ber mediated
transduction
Protoplast fusion Fusion of Phanerochaete chrysospo-
rium and Geotrichum candidum
Research gaps in commercialization of
biocommodities
Despite several findings derived from biovalorization of
FVWs, many constraints are observed when the technol-
ogies are translated from laboratory or pilot scale to
industrial production. The major bottlenecks are: lack of
consistency in the composition of FVWs, nonuniformity
in the environmental conditions, instability of the per-
formance of the microorganisms and above all, con-
straints in designing the appropriate bioreactors.
For example, SCP production is very expensive for
upscaling as it requires a very sterile ambience for its
culture along with its other drawbacks such as the high
nucleic acid content of eukaryotic cells and indigestion
issues and allergic reactions caused by the cell wall
[13,14]. Likewise, technological limitation in designing
bioreactors for the production of microbial colorants has
turn out to be an obstacle for successful commercializa-
tion of the product [93]. Terpenoids, widely used for fla-
vor, fragrance and nutraceutical are known to be
produced by microbial processing. However, the accumu-
lation of monoterpenoids in the fermentation medium
during biotransformation affects microbial growth and
concomitantly the production of terpenoids [94].
FVWs are lignocellulosic in nature and the production
of bioethanol from lignocelluloses is in the top focus of
researchers to substitute food grains as the substrates.
The main components of the lignocelluloses are cellu-
lose, hemicelluloses and lignin. Several successful tech-
nologies have been developed for the bioconversion of
lignocellulosic biomass into ethanol. However, the disad-
vantages are: the need for rigorous pretreatment for
generation of fermentable sugars, the higher cost of cat-
alysts/biocatalysts, heterogeneity and recalcitrance of the
FVWs to conversion and high capital costs involved in
Bioproducts Merits References
SCP Higher biomass yield [89]
Biohydrogen Improved production [90]
Biopesticide 3- to 50-fold enhancement in [84]
larvacidal activity
Bioethanol Bioethanol production from [86]
multiple sugar sources (glu-
cose, xylose and mannose)
Biopesticide Formation of bipyramidal crys- [85]
tals active against Plutella
xylostella
SCP SCP from lignocellulosic [87]
wastes
designing a bioethanol plant [95,96]. Pretreatment is an
expensive step that contributes to 30% of the total pro-
duction cost [97]. It is an essential step prior to hydrolysis
and fermentation for dismantling the lignin/cellulose
complex and exposing cellulose for further action [98].
General pretreatment steps are alkaline or acid hydroly-
sis, milling and grinding, gas treatment using O3 and
SO2, steam explosion and ammonia fiber explosion. The
use of acid hydrolysis and steam explosion results in
accumulation of toxic byproducts such as furfural and
hydroxyl methyl furfural, which affects the fermentation
process and requires an additional separation step like
ion exchange and addition of activated charcoal which
increases the total processing cost. Furthermore, ligno-
celluloses are very complex in nature and very few
microorganisms are known to possess complete lignocel-
lulolytic machinery [99]. In the production of microbial
biohydrogen, extreme oxygen sensitivity of hydroge-
nases is the major disadvantage. Apart from it, the
requirement of an external light source, need for custom-
ized photobioreactors and a lower H2 yield, caused by
hydrogenases and extremely low light conversion effi-
ciency, are known to be the hindrances in the industrial
production of biohydrogen. Besides, storage of biohydro-
gen is a tedious task as huge compressed tanks are
required for storage, which is costly and hazardous
[91,99]. In case of biopolymers the gaps in research, that
is, durability, processing techniques, end of life, costing
issues etc should be addressed [100]. Technological limi-
tations are involved in the manufacturing of beverages
from FVW and other less expensive substrates because
the process of fermentation should be designed accord-
ing the specific substrate rather than the conventional
type. For example, the process of vinegar production
from pineapple waste is separate from the standardized
method of vinegar production. Most importantly,

intensive laboratory-scale research work for physico-
chemical and molecular characterization of different FVW
should be the center of attention. Such characterization
can be useful as a reference guide for microbial process-
ing of each type of FVW toward the development of a
desired biocommodity.
Technoeconomical feasibility
Most of the biocommodities are not yet commercialized
due to the lack of technoeconomical feasibility. Few
successful commercialization pertaining to SCP, fer-
mented beverages, ethanol, biogas and biohydrogen
are cited here. SCP production has been successfully
adopted by different companies and is sold in their
own brand names such as “mycoprotein” of Rank Hovis
McDougall’s, “toprina” of British Petroleum’s (BP),
“pruteen” of Imperial Chemical Industry’s (ICI). Similarly,
“quorn mycoprotein” of Marlow Foods has become
popular in the Western Europe. The establishment of
these companies for SCP production implicates the
technoeconomical feasibility and commercial viability of
the biocommodities [19,101]. In Brazil, cassava bagasse
that are produced in huge quantities as a by-product of
the farihna (cassava flour) industry are enriched
with baker’s/brewer’s yeast and the SCP is used as
an animal feed [102].
Zhao et al. [103] has studied the technoeconomical
aspects to estimate the current competitiveness of the
lignocellulosic bioethanol and recognized the important
factors that affect the plant-gate price (PGP). Two differ-
ent models [Bioethanol PGP Assessment Model (BPAM)
and the Feedstock Cost Estimation Model (FCEM)] were
used to study the technoeconomical feasibility, consid-
ering the Chinese scenario. This conversion rate of cellu-
lose to glucose, the ratio of five-carbon sugars
converted to ethanol, feedstock cost and enzyme load-
ing are the prime components which contribute the
most to bioethanol PGP. The findings revealed that the
PGP of the bioethanol ranged from $4.68–$6.05/gal.
Furthermore, the authors suggested the exemption of
consumption tax, and a refund of value added tax could
facilitate the popularization and feasibility of lignocellu-
losic bioethanol production technology. Zhang et al.
[104] demonstrated a comparative technoeconomical
feasibility for the production of biohydrogen that was
evaluated between two biooil processing pathways:
biooil gasification and biooil reforming. The two path-
ways were modeled for a 2000 tonnes/day facility.
Monte Carlo analysis illustrated that biooil reforming is
more economically attractive and feasible than that of
biooil gasification for biohydrogen production. The effi-
ciency of biomass-to-biofuel energy is higher in case of
CRITICAL REVIEWS IN BIOTECHNOLOGY 11
the biooil-reforming pathway (84%) when compared to
biooil gasification pathway (47%). Furthermore, the
total capital investment and internal rates of return for
biooil-reforming pathway are $333 million and 18.6%,
whereas in the case of biooil gasification pathway, they
are $435 million and 8.4%, respectively. Biohydrogen
price, biohydrogen yield, fixed capital investment, biooil
yield and biomass cost have been reported as the key
factors affecting internal rates of return.
Real-life application of biocommodities
Despite in several cases negative technoeconomical
feasibility, few biocommodities have found their way to
overcome the economic consideration and are adopted
by the stake holders. However, although many such
cases are not reported, a few reported cases are
described below.
In Southern American countries such as Brazil, Cuba,
Columbia, Mexico, etc., different organizations such as:
research centers, mid-scaled producers and nongovern-
ment organizations (NGOs) are involved in the manufac-
ture of myco-insecticides based on Metarhizium
anisopliae and Beauveria bassiana [105]. Cultivation of
local strains of entomopathogenic fungi, B. bassiana on
cassava bagasse or dried fruit peels by farmers in Cuba
in controlling caterpillars, sweet potato weevil and
other insect is one such example [106]. Likewise, cas-
sava bagasse and sugarcane molasses are regularly
used as a substrate for growing Trichoderma harzianum
for the control of several soil borne diseases of vegeta-
bles and orchard crops at farmers’ level (R.C. Ray,
unpublished reports). Farmers are supplied with either
semidried or liquid formulation of the fungus and are
encouraged to multiply the formulations on their own
and retain the mother culture of T. harzianum for regu-
lar use. In India, farmers apply cow dung (containing
IAA and subtilin-producing B. subtilis strains) [52] mixed
with various dusted plant sources, including fruit and
vegetable bagasse/mulches, for enhancing growth (bio-
fertilizer) and controlling fungal diseases (biocontrol) of
yam tubers (Dioscorea spp.) [53].
There are several examples where FVWs are used for
biogas production in community level. At the Gultekadi
market complex near Pune, India, vegetable waste is
being used to generate biogas. Developed by a volun-
tary organization, the pilot plant was supplying biogas
to four restaurants, thus providing a viable solution to
the problem of disposing large quantities of market
waste [107].
Cashew apple based on the distilled beverage fenny,
a popular drink, is traditionally produced in households
as well as in cottages and small scale industries in Goa,
12 S. K. PANDA ET AL.
an Indian State [108]. Winemaking from locally available
underutilized/discarded fruits like jamun and bael offers
realistic scope for commercialization in rural and cot-
tage industries in Asian countries [5,6].
Future research direction
Keeping in mind the above constraints, genome mining
of benevolent microorganisms can be an important
step toward biovalorization of FVWs. Tracing of novel
genes from various environmental zones such as hot
springs, benthic layer of the ocean and polar regions
and cloning of these genes into host organism will
result in qualitative and quantitative improvement of
bioproducts production [109]. For example, genetic
engineering can combine two or more essential proper-
ties such as cellulolytic, saccharolytic and fermenting
attributes into one microorganism in order to reduce
the time and steps required for the production of bioe-
thanol. Besides bioethanol production, the develop-
ment of genetically engineered microorganisms will be
needed to acquire reducing growth factors, increasing
inhibitor tolerance and utmost utilizing biomass for
improving production of value-added biocommodities.
Further, improvement of automation and sensors in bio-
reactor devices can provide the required environmental
conditions for the optimum production of the biocom-
modities. Likewise, downstream processing should be
improved for maximum recovery of the bioproducts
that can add positive impact on the economics and
technoeconomical feasibility [110]. Also, the complete
characterization of the FVWs is required, which could
be useful for the production of new microbial valorized
products. Further, prior to production of value-added
biocommodities on the large scale, considerable efforts
should be conducted on the improvement of techni-
ques such as hydrolysis of lignocellulosic FVW biomass,
optimized biological fermentation process parameters
and designing suitable bioreactor systems that might
result in higher yields/productivity of desired
biocommodities.
Critical comments and future perspective
This review addresses the important microbial transfor-
mations of FVWs into novel biocommodities of com-
mercial significance. The article also attempts to
decipher developments with several novel biocommod-
ities and biofuels. Some of the biocommodities, such as
microbial flavors, biopesticides and bioethanol, have
been commercialized in some parts of the world.
Application of an integrated approach can be useful to
produce biocommodities of uniform characteristics
throughout the globe that can be comparable to
respective synthetic products. However, lack of tech-
noeconomical feasibility is the most important impedi-
ment for which other biocommodities are still awaiting
to arrive on the market. For example, biohydrogen pro-
duction is more expensive as compared to hydrogen
production through pyrolysis. Although there is consid-
erable market scope for microbial polysaccharides (3.9
billion USD), the high price of the fermentation
medium, retains the cost of the finished product far
above the ground. Furthermore, an international law
should be implemented for proportionate use of bioe-
thanol and biogas developed from organic wastes like
FVWs along with fossil fuel in all countries. In that way,
a reduction of the dependence on fossil fuel may be
achieved along with enhancing a greener environment.
Acknowledgements
The authors are thankful to Dr. Spiros Paramithiotis,
Department of Food Science and Human Nutrition,
Agricultural University of Athens, for improving the English
language of this review article.
Disclosure statement
The authors have mutual consent for possible publication of
the article and no financial support has been received for
the work.
References
[1] BBC research. Biorefinary products: global markets.
2015 [cited 2015 Jun 15]. Available from: http://www.
bbcresearch.com/market-research/energy-and-resources/
biorefinery-products-market-egy117a.html.
[2] Panda SK, Mishra SS, Kayitesi E, et al. Microbial-proc-
essing of fruit and vegetable wastes for production
of vital enzymes and organic acids: biotechnology
and scopes. Env Res. 2016;146:161–172.
[3] Mohanty S, Ray P, Swain MR, et al. Fermentation of
cashew (Anacardium occidentale L.) apple to wine.
J Food Process Preserv. 2006;30:314–322.
[4] Varakumar S, Kumar YS, Reddy OVS. Carotenoid com-
position of mango (Mangifera indica L.) wine and its
antioxidant activity. J Food Biochem. 2011;35:
1538–1547.
[5] Panda SK, Sahu UC, Behera SK, et al. Bio-processing
of bael [Aegle marmelos L.] fruits into wine with anti-
oxidants. Food Biosci. 2014;5:34–41.
[6] Panda SK, Sahu UC, Behera SK, et al. Fermentation of
sapota (Achras sapota Linn.) fruits to functional wine.
Nutrafoods. 2014;13:179–186.
[7] Ray RC, Panda SK, Swain MR, et al. Proximate com-
position and sensory evaluation of anthocyanin rich
purple sweet potato (Ipomoea batatas L.) wine. Int J
Food Sci Technol. 2012;47:452–458.

[8] Panda SK, Swain MR, Singh S, et al. Proximate com-
positions of a herbal purple sweet potato (Ipomoea
batatas L.) wine. J Food Process Preserv. 2012;37:
596–604.
[9] Panda SK, Panda SH, Swain MR, et al. Anthocyanin
rich sweet potato (Ipomoea batatas L.) beer: technol-
ogy, biochemical and sensory evaluation. J Food
Process Preserv. 2015;39:3040–3049.
[10] Panda SK, Ray RC. Fermented foods and beverages
from roots and tubers. In: Sharma HK, Njintang, NY,
Singhal, RS, Kaushal, P, editors. Tropical roots and
tubers: production, processing and technology. Ist
ed. West Sussex, UK: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.; 2016.
p. 225–252.
[11] Rose AH. Economic microbiology: primary
products of metabolism. New York: Academic press;
1978.
[12] Roda A, De Faveri DM, Giacosa S, et al. Effect of pre-
treatments on the saccharification of pineapple
waste as a potential source for vinegar production.
J Clean Prod. 2016;112:4477–4484.
[13] Anupama RP. Studies on production of single cell
protein by Aspergillus niger in solid state fermenta-
tion of rice bran. Braz Arc Biol Tech. 2001;44:79–88.
[14] Nasseri AT, Rasoul-Amini A, Morowvat MH, et al.
Single cell protein: production and process. Am J
Food Technol. 2011;6:103–116.
[15] Oliveira MA, Reis EM. Biological treatment of waste-
water from the cassava meal industry. Environ Res.
2001;85:177–183.
[16] Yang SS. Protein enrichment of sweet potato residue
with amylolytic yeasts by solid-state fermentation.
Biotechnol Bioeng. 1988;32:886–890.
[17] Yang SS, Jang HD, Liew CM, et al. Protein enrichment
of sweet potato residues by solid-state cultivation
with mono-and co-cultures of amylolytic fungi. World
J Microbiol Biotechnol. 1993;9:258–264.
[18] Mokolensang JF, Yamasaki S, Onone Y. Utilization of
sweet potato distillery by products as feedstuff for
red carp Cyprinus carpiol. J World Aquaculture Soc.
2003;34:512–517.
[19] Ward OP, Singh A, Ray RC. Single-cell protein from
horticultural and food processing wastes. In: Ray RC,
Ward OP, editors. Microbial biotechnology in horti-
culture, Volume 3. New Hampshire, USA: Science
Publishers; 2008. p. 273–298.
[20] Khan M, Khan SS, Ahmed Z, et al. Production of sin-
gle cell protein from Saccharomyces cerevisiae by uti-
lizing fruit wastes. Nanobiotechnica Universale.
2010;1:127–132.
[21] Dhanasekaran D, Lawanya S, Saha S, et al. Production
of single cell protein from pineapple waste using
yeast. Innov Rom Food Biotechnol. 2011;8:26–32.
[22] Yalemtesfa B, Alemu A, Santhanam A. Solid substrate
fermentation and conversion of orange waste in to
fungal biomass using Aspergillus niger KA-06 and
Chaetomium Spp KC-06. Afr J Microbiol Res.
2010;4:1275–1281.
[23] Stabonika O, Wang J, Ding HB, et al.
Biotransformation of vegetable and fruit processing
wastes into yeast biomass enriched with selenium.
Bioresour Technol. 2005;96:747–751.
CRITICAL REVIEWS IN BIOTECHNOLOGY 13
[24] Ratledge C. Microorganisms for lipids. Acta
Biotechnol. 1991;11:429–438.
[25] Ratledge C. Regulation of lipid accumulation in ole-
aginous micro-organisms. Biochem Soc Trans.
2002;30:1047–1050.
[26] Papanikolaou S, Aggelis G. Lipids of oleaginous
yeasts. Part 1: biochemistry of single cell oil produc-
tion. Eur J Lipid Sci Technol. 2011;113:1052–1073.
[27] Ratledge C. Single cell oils-have they a biotechno-
logical future? Trends Biotechnol. 1993;11:278–284.
[28] Fakas S, Galiotou-Panayotou M, Papanikolaou S, et al.
Compositional shifts in lipid fractions during lipid
turnover in Cunninghamella echinulata. Enz. Microbiol
Technol. 2007;40:1321–1327.
[29] Wang Y, Gong Z, Yang X, et al. Microbial lipid pro-
duction from pectin-derived carbohydrates by ole-
aginous yeasts. Process Biochem. 2015;50:1097–1102.
[30] Muniraj IK, Xiao L, Liu H, et al. Utilisation of potato
processing wastewater for microbial lipids and c-lino-
lenic acid production by oleaginous fungi. J Sci Food
Agric. 2015;95:3084–3090.
[31] Wang J, Zhang B, Chen S. Oleaginous yeast Yarrowia
lipolytica mutants with a disrupted fatty acyl-CoA
synthetase gene accumulate saturated fatty acid.
Process Biochem. 2011;46:1436–1441.
[32] Biotechnology Forums. 2016 [cited 2016 Nov 25].
Available from: www.biotechnologyforums.com.
[33] Ray RC, Shetty K, Ward OP. Solid-state fermentation
and value-added utilization of horticultural process-
ing wastes. In: Ray RC, Ward OP, editors. Microbial
biotechnology in horticulture, Volume 3, New
Hampshire, USA: Science Publishers; 2008.
p. 231–272.
[34] Joshi VK, Attri D, Bala A, et al. Microbial pigments.
Indian J Biotechnol. 2003;3:362–369.
[35] Buzzini P. Batch and fed-batch carotenoid production
by Rhodotorula glutinis-Debaryomyces castellii co-cul-
tures in corn syrup. J Appl Microbiol.
2001;90:843–847.
[36] Miura Y, Kondo K, Saito T, et al. Production of the
carotenoids lycopene, beta-carotene, and astaxanthin
in the food yeast Candida utilis. Appl Environ
Microbiol. 1998;64:1226–1229.
[37] IAL consultants. London; 2016 [cited 2016 Nov 25].
Available from: www.ialconsultants.com
[38] Kranenburg R, Kleerebezem M, Vlieg JH, et al.
Flavour formation from amino acids by lactic acid
bacteria: predictions from genome sequence analysis.
Int Diary J. 2002;12:111–121.
[39] Rijnen L, Courtin P, Gripon JC, et al. Expression of a
heterologous glutamate dehydrogenase gene in
Lactococcus lactis highly improves the conversion of
amino acids to aroma compounds. Appl Environ
Microbiol. 2000;66:1354–1359.
[40] Badee AZM, Helmy SA, Morsy NFS. Utilisation of
orange peel in the production of a-terpineol by
Penicillium digitatum (NRRL 1202). Food Chem.
2011;126:849–854.
[41] Guneser O, Demirkol A, Yuceer YK, et al. Bioflavour
production from tomato and pepper pomaces by
Kluyveromyces marxianus and Debaryomyces hansenii.
Bioprocess Biosyst Eng. 2015;38:1143–1155.
14 S. K. PANDA ET AL.
[42] Schwab W. Genetic engineering of plant and micro-
bial cells for flavour production. In: Berger RD. editor.
Flavours and fragrances, chemistry, bioprocessing
and sustainability. Heidelberg, Germany: Springer-
Verlag; 2007. p. 615–628.
[43] Castellon M, Alcazar J, Morales A, Lagnaoui A. The
potential use of Metarrhizium anisopliae for sweet
potato weevils Cylas formicarius control in Cuba.
Proceedings of. International Symposium on sweet
potato: food and health for the future. International
Potato Center (CIP), 2001 Nov 23–29; Lima, Peru;
2001.
[44] Deshpande MV. Mycopesticide production by fer-
mentation: potential and challenges. Crit Rev
Microbiol. 1999;25:229–243.
[45] BBC research. Global Markets for Biopesticides. 2012
[cited 2015 Nov 25]. Available from: http://www.
bccresearch.com/pressroom/chm/global-market-pesti-
cides-reach-$65.3-billion-2017
[46] Maza N, Morales A, Ortiz O, et al. Economic impact
of IPM on the sweet potato weevil (Cylas formicarius
Fab.) in Cuba. Lima, Peru: International Potato
Center; 2000. p. 52.
[47] Desgranges C, Vergoignan C, Lereec A, et al. Use of
solid state fermentation to produce Beauveria bassi-
ana for the biological control of European corn
borer. Biotechnol Adv. 1993;11:577–587.
[48] Sandhu SS, Sharma AK, Beniwal V, et al. Myco-bio-
control of insect pests: factors involved, mechanism,
and regulation. J Pathog. 2012;2012:126819.
[49] Wu J, Ridgway HJ, Carpenter MA, et al. Identification
of novel genes association with conidiation in
Beauveria bassiana with suppression subtractive
hybridization. Mycologia. 2008;100:20–30.
[50] Pulido JM, Guerrero IP, Martinez IJM, et al. Isolation,
characterization and expression analysis of the orni-
thine decarboxylase gene (ODC1) of the entomopa-
thogenic fungus, Metarhizium anisopliae. Microbiol
Res. 2011;166:494–507.
[51] Soccol CR, Ayala LA, Soccol VT, et al. Spore produc-
tion by entomopathogenic fungus, Beauveria bassi-
ana from de-classified potatoes by solid state
fermentation. Rev Microbiol. 1997;28:34–42.
[52] Swain MR, Ray RC. Optimization of cultural condi-
tions and their statistical interpretations for produc-
tion of indol-3-acetic acid by Bacillus subtilis CM5
using cassava fibrous residue. J Sci Ind Res India.
2008;67:622–628.
[53] Swain MR, Naskar SK, Ray RC. Indole-3-acetic acid
production and effect on sprouting of yam
(Dioscorea rotundata L.) minisetts by Bacillus subtilis
isolated from culturable cowdung microflora. Pol J
Microbiol. 2007;56:103–110.
[54] Pastrana LM, Gonzalez MP, Pintado J, et al.
Interactions affecting gibberellic acid production in
solid-state culture: a factorial study. Enz Microb
Technol. 1995;17:784–790.
[55] Haas R, Jin B, Zepf FT. Production of poly(3-hydroxy-
butyrate) from waste potato starch. Biosci Biotechnol
Biochem. 2008;72:253–256.
[56] Fernandez D, Rodriguez E, Bassas M, et al. Agro-
industrial oily wastes as substrates for PHA
production by the new strain Pseudomonas aerugi-
nosa NCIB 40045: effect of culture conditions.
Biochem Eng J. 2005;26:159–167.
[57] Follonier S, Miriam GS, Silvestri A, et al. Fruit pomace
and waste frying oil as sustainable resources for the
bioproduction of medium-chain-length polyhydrox-
yalkanoates. Int J Biol Macromol. 2014;71:42–51.
[58] Ribera RG, Monteoliva-Sanchez M. Ramos-
Cormenzana Production of polyhidroxyalkanoates by
Pseudomonas putida KT2442 harboring pSK2665 in
wastewater from olive oil mills (alpechin). Elect J
Biotechnol. 2001;4:116–119.
[59] Panda SK, Ray RC. Microbial processing for valoriza-
tion of horticultural wastes. In: Sukla LB, Pradhan N,
Panda S, et al., editors. Environmental microbial bio-
technology. Switzerland: Springer; 2015. p. 203–221.
[60] Renewable Fuels Association. USA; 2016 [cited 2016
Nov 25]. Available from: www.ethanolrfa.org/wp
[61] Chin KL, H’ng PS. A real story of bioethanol from bio-
mass: Malaysia perspective. In: Matovic MT, editor.
Biomass now-sustainable growth and use Croatia:
Intech publishers; 2013. p. 329–346.
[62] Huang H, Qureshi N, Chen M, et al. Ethanol produc-
tion from food waste at high solids content with vac-
uum recovery technology. J Agric Food Chem.
2015;63:2760–2766.
[63] Harsono SS, Salahuddin Fauzi M, et al. Second gener-
ation bioethanol from Arabica coffee waste process-
ing at smallholder plantation in Ijen Plateau region
of East Java. Procedia Chem. 2015;14:408–413.
[64] Pooja NS, Padmaja G. Enhancing the enzymatic sac-
charification of agricultural and processing wastes of
cassava through pretreatment techniques. Waste
Biomass Valor. 2015;6:303–315.
[65] Ida Y, Furusawa C, Hirasawa T, et al. Stable disruption
of ethanol production by deletion of the genes
encoding alcohol dehydrogenase isozymes in
Saccharomyces cerevisiae. J Biosci Bioeng. 2012;113:
192–195.
[66] Thammasittirong SN, Thirasaktana T,
Thammasittirong A, et al. Improvement of ethanol
production by ethanol-tolerant Saccharomyces cerevi-
siae UVNR56. SpringerPlus. 2013;2:1–5.
[67] Jeon E, Hyeon J, Suh DJ, et al. Production of cellu-
losic ethanol in Saccharomyces cerevisiae heterol-
ogous expressing Clostridium thermocellum
endoglucanase and Saccharomycopsis fibuligera beta-
glucosidase genes. Mol Cells. 2009;28:369–373.
[68] Zhang P, Chen C, Shen Y, et al. Starch saccharifica-
tion and fermentation of uncooked sweet potato
roots for fuel ethanol production. Bioresour Technol.
2013;128:835–838.
[69] Desiniotis A, Kouvelis VN, Davenport K, et al.
Complete genome sequence of the ethanol-produc-
ing Zymomonas mobilis subsp. mobilis Centrotype
ATCC 29191. J Bacteriol. 2012;194:5966–5967.
[70] Ying Z, Ma R, Zhao Z, et al. irrE, an Exogenous gene
from Deinococcus radiodurans, improves the growth
of and ethanol production by a Zymomonas mobilis
strain under ethanol and acid stresses. J Microbiol
Biotechnol. 2010;20:1156–1162.

[71] Hook SE, Wright AG, McBride BW. Methanogens:
methane producers of the rumen and mitigation
strategies. Archaea. 2010;2010:945785.
[72] Kreuger E, Nges IA, Bjornsson L. Ensiling of crops for
biogas production: effects on methane yield and
total solids determination. Biotechnol Biofuels.
2011;4:44.
[73] Ward OP, Singh A, Ray RC. Production of renewable
energy from agricultural and horticultural substrates
and wastes. In: Ray RC, Ward, OP, editors. Microbial
biotechnology in horticulture, Volume 1, New
Hampshire, USA: Science Publishers; 2006.
p. 517–558.
[74] Hanjie Z. Sludge treatment to increase biogas pro-
duction. Trita-LWR degree Project. Stockholm,
Sweden: Department of Land and Water Resources
Engineering Royal Institute of Technology (KTH);
2010.
[75] Sagagi BS, Garba B, Usman NS. Studies on biogas
production from fruits and vegetable waste. Bayero J
Appl Sci. 2009;2:115–118.
[76] Victor R, Shajin S, Roshni RM, et al. Augmentative
invention of biogas from the agronomic wastes using
facultative anaerobic bacterial strain. Int J Curr
Microbiol App Sci. 2014;3:556–564.
[77] Prakash EV, Singh LP. Biomethanation of vegetable
and fruit waste in co-digestion process. Int J Emerg
Technol Adv Eng. 2013;3:493–496.
[78] Kapadan IK, Kargi F. Biohydrogen production from
waste material. Enz. Microb Technol. 2006;38:
569–582.
[79] Das D, Khanna N, Veziroglu TN. Recent developments
in biological hydrogen production processes. CI&CEQ.
2008;14:57–67.
[80] Yokoi H, Saitsu AS, Uchida H, et al. Microbial hydro-
gen production from sweet potato starch residue.
J Biosci Bioeng. 2001;91:58–63.
[81] Franchi E, Tosi C, Scolla G, et al. Metabolically engi-
neered Rhodobacter sphaeroides RV strains for
improved biohydrogen photoproduction combined
with disposal of food wastes. Mar Biotechnol.
2004;6:552–565.
[82] Zheng M, Zheng M, Wu Y, et al. Effect of pH
on types of acidogenic fermentation of fruit and
vegetable wastes. Biotechnol Bioproc E. 2015;20:
298–303.
[83] Iwuagwu JO, Ugwuanyi JO. Treatment and valoriza-
tion of palm oil mill effluent through production of
food grade yeast biomass. J Waste Manag.
2014;2014:1–9.
[84] Sirichotpakorn N, Rongnoparut P, Choosang K, et al.
Coexpression of chitinase and the cry11Aa1 toxin
genes in Bacillus thuringiensis serovar israelensis.
J Invertebr Pathol. 2001;78:160–169.
[85] Lecadet MM, Chaufaux J, Ribier J, et al. Construction
of novel Bacillus thuringiensis strains with different
insecticidal activities by transduction and transform-
ation. Appl Environ Microbiol. 1992;58:840–849.
[86] Yanase H, Miyawaki H, Sakurai M, et al. Ethanol pro-
duction from wood hydrolysate using genetically
engineered Zymomonas mobilis. Appl Microbiol
Biotechnol. 2012;94:1667–1678.
CRITICAL REVIEWS IN BIOTECHNOLOGY 15
[87] Zhang Y, Lin SM, Zhu YJ, et al. Protoplast fusion
between Geotrichum candidium and Phanerochaete
chrysosporium to produce fusants for corn stover fer-
mentation. Biotechnol Lett. 2006;28:1351–1359.
[88] Fan Z, Yuan L, Chatterjee R. Increased hydrogen pro-
duction by genetic engineering of Escherichia coli.
PLoS One. 2009;4:e4432.
[89] Moeini H, Nahvi I, Tavassoli M. Improvement of SCP
production and BOD removal of whey with mixed
yeast culture. Electronic J Biotechnol. 2004;7:06–07.
[90] Geng A, He Y, Qian C, et al. Effect of key factors on
hydrogen production from cellulose in a coculture of
Clostridium thermocellum and Clostridium thermopal-
marium. Bioresource Technol. 2010;101:4029–4033.
[91] Chandrasekhar K, Lee YJ, Lee DW. Biohydrogen pro-
duction: Strategies to improve process efficiency
through microbial routes. Int J Mol Sci. 2015;16:
8266–8293.
[92] Gupta N, Pal M, Sachdeva M, et al. Thermophilic bio-
hydrogen production for commercial application: the
whole picture. Int J Energy Res. 2016;40:127–145.
[93] Parmar M, Phutela UG. Biocolors: the new generation
additives. Int J Curr Microbiol App Sci. 2015;4:
688–694.
[94] Mi J, Becher D, Lubuta P, et al. De novo production
of the monoterpenoid geranic acid by metabolically
engineered Pseudomonas putida. Microb Cell Fact.
2014;13:170.
[95] Chen H, Fu X. Industrial technologies for bioethanol
production from lignocellulosic biomass. Renew Sust
Energ Rev. 2016;57:468–478.
[96] Behera SS, Ray RC. Solid state fermentation for pro-
duction of microbial cellulases: recent advances and
improvement strategies. Int J Biol Macromol. 2016;86:
656–669.
[97] ElMekawy A, Diels L, De Wever H, et al. Valorization
of cereal based biorefinery byproducts: reality and
expectations. Environ Sci Technol. 2013;47:
9014–9027.
[98] Boussaid AL, Esteghlalian AR, Gregg DJ, et al. Steam
pretreatment of Douglas-Fir wood chips. ABAB.
2000;84–86:693–706.
[99] Elshahed MS. Microbiological aspects of biofuel pro-
duction: current status and future directions. J Adv
Res. 2010;1:103–111.
[100] JEC Group. 2016 [cited 2016 Nov 25]. Available from:
www.jeccomposites.com.
[101] Gaur S, Mathur N, Singh A, et al. Single cell protein
production: a review. Int J Curr Microbial Appl Sci.
2015;4:251–262.
[102] Pandey AK, Mishra BK, Arora A, et al.
Bioaugmentation and biovalorization of agro-food
and beverage industry effluents. In: Singh A, Parmar
N, Kuhad RC, editors. Bioaugmentation, biostimula-
tion and biocontrol, Part 1, Heidelberg, Germany:
Springer; 2011. p. 85–126.
[103] Zhao L, Zhang X, Xu J, et al. Techno-economic ana-
lysis of bioethanol production from lignocellulosic
biomass in China: dilute-acid pretreatment and
enzymatic hydrolysis of corn stover. Energies.
2015;8:4096–4117.
 16 S. K. PANDA ET AL.
[104] Zhang Y, Brown TR, Hu G, et al. Comparative techno-
economic analysis of biohydrogen production via
bio-oil gasification and bio-oil reforming. Biomass
Bioenerg. 2013;51:99–108.
[105] Alves SB, Pereira RM, Lopes RB, Tamai MA. Use
of entomopathogenic fungi in Latin America.
In: Updhayay RK, editor. Advances in microbial con-
trol of insect pests, New York, Springer; 2002.
p. 193–211.
[106] Alvarez J. Transformations in Cuban agriculture after
1959. Gainesville, Florida: University of Florida IFAS
Extension. 2004 [cited 2016 Mar 15]. Available from:
http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/fe481.
View publication stats
[107] Biogas from vegetable waste. 2016 [cited 2016 Mar
15]. Available from: https://www.youtube.com/
watch?v¼Hhhe4Uc2mME
[108] Global Spirits, Inc. 2016 [cited 2016 Mar 15].
Available from: www.goafeni.com/aboutdrink.htm
[109] Ferrer M, Martinez-Martinez M, Bargiela R, et al.
Estimating the success of enzyme bioprospecting
through metagenomics: current status and future
trends. Microbial Biotechnol. 2016;9:22–34.
[110] Carta G, Jungbauer A. Downstream processing of
biotechnology products. Protein chromatography:
Process development and scale-up. Germany: Wiley-
VCH Verlag GmbH & Co; 2010.