Crossref DOIMemberCiteFactoropen accessissn
SJIF Impact Factor 8.659 | ISSN: 2582-3930
IJSREM Logo

International Journal of Scientific Research in Engineering and Management

(Gateway to Global Scholars - An International, Scholarly, Multi-Disciplinary, Open Access Journal)

Peer-Reviewed Journal Designed to Meet UGC's Quality Parameters

HomeCurrent IssuePast IssuesPay OnlineConferencesEditorial BoardAbout UsContact Us
IJSREM

Loading article...

Follow Us

  • Google Scholar
  • ResearchGate
  • Academia.edu
  • Mendeley
  • LinkedIn
  • Facebook
  • Instagram

Journal Policies

  • Peer Review Policy
  • Publication Ethics
  • Copyright Infringement
  • Refund & Cancellation Policy
  • Terms and Conditions
  • Privacy Policy

Journal Identifiers & Licenses

  • ISSN Verified: 2582-3930ISSN Verified: 2582-3930
  • Crossref DOI: 10.55041Crossref DOI: 10.55041
  • SJIF Ranking: 08.659SJIF Ranking: 08.659
  • Licensed under CC BY 4.0Licensed under CC BY 4.0
  • ISO Certification: 9001:2015ISO Certification: 9001:2015
  • Indexed & Cited In: Google ScholarIndexed & Cited In: Google Scholar

Contact Us

International Journal of Scientific Research in Engineering and Management (IJSREM)

#62/1, New No 7, 1st Cross, 2nd Main, Ganganagar, R T Nagar, Bangalore North, Bangalore, Karnataka, India – 560032
[email protected]+91 93911 67991
logos
logos
Working Hours

Mon – Sat: 9:00 AM – 6:00 PM

Sunday: 10:00 AM – 4:00 PM

+91 93911 67991

© 2026 IJSREM – International Journal of Scientific Research in Engineering and Management. This is an open-access journal. Articles are published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

DisclaimerPrivacy PolicyTerms and Conditions
ArticlePeer ReviewedOpen AccessPlagiarism Passed
Paper ID:IJSREM67579

BIOETHANOL FROM PEARL MILLET STALK, MAIZE STALK AND SPIRULINA PLANTESIS: A COMPARATIVE REVIEW OF PRETREATMENT, ENZYMATIC HYDROLYSIS AND FERMENTATION

Stream/Area:

-

Subject:

-

Paper ID:

IJSREM67579

Volume:

10 |

9 |

Sep 2026

Pages:

1-21

Publication Frequency:

Monthly (12 issues per year)

DOI
Digital Object Identifier
10.55041/IJSREM67579

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.

Share this article:

Authors

ASHISH PUSHKAR

ASHISH PUSHKAR

University Department Of Chemistry

Patna University

Download Author Certificate

Mentors

DEVENDRA NATH THAKUR

DEVENDRA NATH THAKUR

UNIVERSITY DEPARTMENT OF CHEMISTRY

PATNA UNIVERSITY

Download Mentor Certificate

Author Services & Downloads

Full ArticlesAcceptance Certificate

Abstract

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

bioethanol; SSF; SHF; Saccharomyces cerevisiae; pearl millet stalk; maize stalk; Spirulina platensis; cost-effective; energy security; India; Global South

Cite This Article

ASHISH PUSHKAR, DEVENDRA NATH THAKUR, "BIOETHANOL FROM PEARL MILLET STALK, MAIZE STALK AND SPIRULINA PLANTESIS: A COMPARATIVE REVIEW OF PRETREATMENT, ENZYMATIC HYDROLYSIS AND FERMENTATION," International Journal of Scientific Research in Engineering and Management, vol. 10, no. 9, pp. 1-21, Sep 2026. https://doi.org/10.55041/IJSREM67579

Full Article/Conclusion

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.

References

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

Editorial & Review Transparency

Publication Date

9/30/2026

Peer Review Type

Double-Blind Peer Review

Review Rounds: 2

Documents

Review Report (Confidential)
Copyright Form (Office)

Article Metrics & Impact

Article Views

0

Total views since publication

PDF Downloads

2

Total downloads since publication

Geographic Reach

5

Indexing, Archiving & Preservation

Google Scholar
Academia
ResearchGate
Crossref
SSRN
Semantic Scholar
Thomson Reuters
WorldCat
Mendeley
OpenAlex
EBSCO
Zenodo

Digital Preservation: This article is permanently archived on Zenodo and complies with all data preservation standards across major indexing platforms.

Ethics, Compliance & Transparency

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.

Similar & Recommended Articles

Similar Articles by Topic

Related research in the same subject area

Loading similar articles...