Loading article...
Loading article...
Stream/Area:
-
Subject:
-
Paper ID:
IJSREM67579
Volume:
10 |
9 |
Sep 2026
Pages:
1-21
Publication Frequency:
Monthly (12 issues per year)
License:International Journal of Scientific Research in Engineering and Management follows the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 (CC BY 4.0) License, allowing free use and distribution with proper attribution.

University Department Of Chemistry
Patna University

UNIVERSITY DEPARTMENT OF CHEMISTRY
PATNA UNIVERSITY
Non-food biomass can supply fermentable sugar for bioethanol without competing with food production, which makes it relevant to the energy security of India and other countries of the Global South. This review compares two agricultural residues, maize (Zea mays) stalk and pearl millet (Pennisetum glaucum) stalk, with the cyanobacterium Spirulina platensis (Arthrospira platensis) across pretreatment, enzymatic hydrolysis and fermentation. The two stalks contain 71.03–75.34% structural carbohydrate but also 17.5–19.35% lignin, so they need acid pretreatment at 121 °C, and much of their sugar is pentose that wild Saccharomyces cerevisiae cannot ferment. Pearl millet stalk gave 44.24 g/L ethanol by simultaneous saccharification and fermentation (SSF) with glucose supplementation, while maize stalk gave up to 25.88 g/L by separate hydrolysis and fermentation (SHF). Spirulina contains 46.34% carbohydrate as a lignin-free α-glucan; after freeze–thaw disruption and amylolytic hydrolysis it released 70.45 g/L of reducing sugar within 10 h, and SHF with S. cerevisiae gave 15.7 g/L ethanol at 83% efficiency without detoxification or added nutrients, while its residues yielded biomethane. Theoretical ethanol potentials calculated from composition are about 432, 407 and 263 g/kg for maize stalk, pearl millet stalk and Spirulina respectively, but 44–47% of the stalk potential lies in pentoses. No feedstock is superior on every criterion. A comparison under a common framework, optimisation of enzyme dose, kinetic modelling and techno-economic analysis are still needed to establish cost-effective bioethanol routes from these feedstocks.
KEYWORDS
Maize stalk, pearl millet stalk and Spirulina offer different routes to non-food bioethanol. • The two stalks are available as crop residues and hold 71–75% carbohydrate. However, they need acid pretreatment at 121 °C, carry 17.5–19.35% lignin, and have much of their sugar in pentose form. The best reported concentrations were 44.24 g/L for pearl millet (with added glucose) and 25.88 g/L for a lignin-reduced maize mutant. • Spirulina holds less carbohydrate (46.34%), but it is a lignin-free α-glucan. It hydrolysed to 70.45 g/L of reducing sugar in 10 h and fermented at 83% efficiency without detoxification or added nutrients, and its residues can be converted to biomethane. The choice between the feedstocks depends on whether carbohydrate quantity or ease and speed of conversion matters more. A controlled comparison under a single framework is the most pressing need.
Alvira, P., Tomás-Pejó, E., Ballesteros, M., & Negro, M.J. (2010). Pretreatment technologies for an efficient bioethanol production process based on enzymatic hydrolysis: A review. Bioresource Technology, 101(13), 4851–4861. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2009.11.093 Greenstein, K.E., Zamyadi, A., & Wert, E.C. (2021). Comparative assessment of physical and chemical cyanobacteria cell lysis methods for total microcystin-LR analysis. Toxins, 13(9), 596. https://doi.org/10.3390/toxins13090596 Hamdy, A., Elhafez, S.E., et al. (2021). The interplay of autoclaving with oxalate as pretreatment technique in the view of bioethanol production based on corn stover. Polymers, 13(21), 3762. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym13213762 Hang, Y.D., Lee, C.Y., & Woodams, E.E. (1981). Production of alcohol from apple pomace. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 42(6), 1128–1129. Hossain, M.N.B., Basu, J.K., & Mamun, M. (2015). The production of ethanol from micro-algae Spirulina. Procedia Engineering, 105, 733–738. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2015.05.064 Lee, O.K., Oh, Y.K., & Lee, E.Y. (2015). Bioethanol production from carbohydrate-enriched residual biomass obtained after lipid extraction of Chlorella sp. KR-1. Bioresource Technology, 196, 22–27. (As cited in Rempel et al., 2019.) Ma’mun, S., Prasetio, M.W., & Anugrah, A.R. (2024). Bioethanol production from Spirulina (Arthrospira platensis) by microwave-assisted acid hydrolysis pretreatment. Jurnal Bahan Alam Terbarukan, 13(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.15294/jbat.v13i1.49344 Monod, J. (1949). The growth of bacterial cultures. Annual Review of Microbiology, 3, 371–394. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.mi.03.100149.002103 Mosier, N., Wyman, C., Dale, B., Elander, R., Lee, Y.Y., Holtzapple, M., & Ladisch, M. (2005). Features of promising technologies for pretreatment of lignocellulosic biomass. Bioresource Technology, 96(6), 673–686. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2004.06.025 NITI Aayog. (2021). Roadmap for ethanol blending in India 2020–25: Report of the expert committee. Government of India, New Delhi. Pancha, I., Chokshi, K., Maurya, R., Bhattacharya, S., Bachani
Publication Date
9/30/2026
Peer Review Type
Double-Blind Peer Review
Review Rounds: 2
Documents
Article Views
0
Total views since publication
PDF Downloads
2
Total downloads since publication
Geographic Reach
5
Digital Preservation: This article is permanently archived on Zenodo and complies with all data preservation standards across major indexing platforms.
Plagiarism Screening
This manuscript has been checked for plagiarism using TurnitinPlagiarismChecker software.
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest related to this research work.
Funding Information
No funding information available for this research.
Related research in the same subject area
Loading similar articles...