Skip to main content

A short review on SSF – an interesting process option for ethanol production from lignocellulosic feedstocks


Simultaneous saccharification and fermentation (SSF) is one process option for production of ethanol from lignocellulose. The principal benefits of performing the enzymatic hydrolysis together with the fermentation, instead of in a separate step after the hydrolysis, are the reduced end-product inhibition of the enzymatic hydrolysis, and the reduced investment costs. The principal drawbacks, on the other hand, are the need to find favorable conditions (e.g. temperature and pH) for both the enzymatic hydrolysis and the fermentation and the difficulty to recycle the fermenting organism and the enzymes. To satisfy the first requirement, the temperature is normally kept below 37°C, whereas the difficulty to recycle the yeast makes it beneficial to operate with a low yeast concentration and at a high solid loading. In this review, we make a brief overview of recent experimental work and development of SSF using lignocellulosic feedstocks. Significant progress has been made with respect to increasing the substrate loading, decreasing the yeast concentration and co-fermentation of both hexoses and pentoses during SSF. Presently, an SSF process for e.g. wheat straw hydrolyzate can be expected to give final ethanol concentrations close to 40 g L-1 with a yield based on total hexoses and pentoses higher than 70%.


Bioethanol produced by fermentation of lignocellulosic biomass (second generation bioethanol), from agricultural by-products, forest residues or energy crops, shows many potential advantages in comparison to sugar or starch-derived bioethanol (first generation bioethanol), from both energetic and environmental points of view. One significant environmental factor is that the reduction in greenhouse gas emission will be larger with lignocellulosic ethanol than for starch-derived ethanol, due to the lower overall oil input required in the process [1]. Most process concepts for bioethanol from lignocellulose start with a thermo-chemical hydrolysis of the hemicellulose part (pretreatment), followed by an enzymatic hydrolysis of the cellulose part and a yeast-based fermentation of the resulting sugars. Lignin, the main by-product in the process, can be directly used as solid fuel, or as a source for higher added-value biorefinery products. Highly encouraging progress has been made with respect to decreasing the cost of enzymes, optimizing the method of pretreatment, and developing novel yeast strains, primarily Saccharomyces cerevisiae strains capable of fermenting pentoses.

One option is to perform the enzymatic hydrolysis together with the fermentation, instead of subsequent to the enzymatic hydrolysis. This is called SSF – after Simultaneous Saccharification and Fermentation. SSF is today important in the dry-milling process in the corn-based ethanol industry in the U.S. [2]. In the current review, we look at recent developments on SSF applied to lignocellulosic feedstocks.

The Process – step-by-step

The SSF concept

The idea of performing the enzymatic hydrolysis and fermentation simultaneously was put forward by Gauss et al. in a patent from 1976 [3]. The authors stated that the glucose yield in a traditional separate enzymatic hydrolysis (using enzymes produced by the fungus Trichoderma reesei) was low, probably due to end-product inhibition of the hydrolysis by glucose and cellobiose. The authors could, however, show that they obtained a higher overall ethanol yield when using SSF, which they attributed to the removal of glucose and cellobiose by the fermentation, and the consequent release of end-product inhibition. The term SSF (the abbreviation SSF is often used also for solid state fermentation) was not used by the authors at the time, but became the common notation for this process within just a few years from the original invention. The avoidance of end-product inhibition is still probably the most important reason for using SSF, but there are several additional potential advantages. Gauss and co-workers, mentioned for instance the advantage that glucose does not need to be separated from the lignin fraction following a separate enzymatic hydrolysis step, thereby avoiding a potential loss of sugar. Furthermore, the combination of hydrolysis and fermentation decreases the number of vessels needed and thereby investment costs. The decrease in capital investment has been estimated to be larger than 20%. This is quite important, since the capital costs can be expected to be comparable to the raw material costs in ethanol production from lignocellulose [4]. Other advantages, relating to co-consumption of pentose and hexose sugars, and detoxification have become apparent more recently, as will be discussed later in this review.

Inevitably, there are also disadvantages of SSF in comparison to the separate hydrolysis and fermentation (SHF) process. The optimum temperature for enzymatic hydrolysis is typically higher than that of fermentation – at least when using yeast as the fermenting organism. In an SHF process, the temperature for the enzymatic hydrolysis can be optimized independently from the fermentation temperature, whereas a compromise must be found in an SSF process. Furthermore, the yeast cannot be reused in an SSF process due to the problems of separating the yeast from the lignin after fermentation. Therefore, the yeast will necessarily represent a yield loss in an SSF process, if the yeast is produced from carbohydrates within the process (see Figure 1) or a running cost if it is externally supplied. The enzymes are equally difficult to reuse, also in an SHF process. The enzymes are either produced within the process (see Figure 1) – thereby representing a loss of substrate – or are externally supplied and thereby add to the chemical costs. Recirculation of enzymes is equally difficult since the enzymes bind to the substrate, although a partial desorption can be obtained after addition of surfactants [5].

Figure 1
figure 1

Schematic representation of an SSF process.

The availability of lignocellulosic feedstocks varies depending on geographic location (see e.g. Kim and Dale [6]), and the lignocellulosic feedstocks are rather heterogeneous in terms of both structure and chemical composition (see Table 1). This heterogeneity has a strong impact on the process design, affecting virtually all process steps, i.e. the mechanical handling of the material, pretreatment conditions, choice of enzymes and yeast strains, as well as separation and properties of the remaining lignin. This will become apparent in the discussion below.

Table 1 Composition of some lignocellulosic raw materials (% of dry matter)


The purpose of the pretreatment is to alter the lignocellulosic structure and increase the rate of enzymatic hydrolysis of primarily the cellulose. This should be done with a minimum formation of compounds, which inhibit the fermenting microorganisms [7]. The accessible surface area is regarded as one of the most important factors affecting the effectiveness of enzymatic cellulose degradation [812]. In native wood only a small fraction of the cell wall capillaries are accessible to the enzymes [13]. Pretreatment, however, increases the available area in several ways [12, 1416]; i) fragments and cracks are formed yielding increased area [14], ii) the hemicellulose fraction is hydrolysed which diminishes shielding effects [17, 18], iii) the lignin also undergoes structural changes [10, 14, 19, 20] and the wood is delignified to various degrees, depending on the pretreatment technology [21]. Thus, the shielding of microfibrils and occluding of pores, caused by lignin, can be removed. Other factors, believed to influence the digestibility in SSF, are the substrate crystallinity [11, 22, 23] and the degree of polymerization (DP) [24].

The pretreatment methods can be divided into physical and chemical methods, and combinations of these two are commonly used (see e.g. the review written by Mosier et al. [21]). The type of feedstock strongly affects the choice of pretreatment method. The hemicellulose is, for instance, acetylated to a high degree in xylan-rich materials. Since acetate is liberated during hydrolysis, the pretreatment of these materials is to some extent autocatalytic and require less added acid and milder process conditions. However, the liberated acetate adds to the toxicity of the hemicellulose hydrolyzates.

Ammonia fiber/freeze explosion (AFEX) pretreatment is regarded as an attractive method for pretreatment of agricultural residues, yielding highly digestible cellulose [25, 26]. AFEX depolymerizes the lignin, removes the hemicellulose and decrystallizes the cellulose [27, 28]. The moderate temperature and pH also minimize formation of sugar degradation products. However, the method suffers from high costs of ammonia and ammonia recovery [25]. In this context the lime method, based on calcium (or sodium) hydroxide [2931] should also be mentioned. Alkali pretreatments are run at lower temperatures for long residence times, and as for the AFEX method, a delignification of the biomass is obtained.

Steam explosion is an intensively studied pretreatment method [21]. The effects of uncatalyzed steam explosion – and liquid hot water pretreatments – on the biomass are primarily attributed to the removal of hemicelluloses. By adding an acid catalyst, the hydrolysis can be further improved [19, 32]. Dilute acid pretreatments using H2SO4 [3336] or SO2 [3741] are the most investigated pretreatment methods because of their effectiveness and inexpensiveness. These methods have been applied in pilot plants and, hence, are close to commercialization [42, 43]. Acid catalyzed treatment improves the hemicellulose removal [19, 32], gives a partial hydrolysis of cellulose [34, 37, 38] and alters the lignin structure [10, 14, 19, 20]. The main drawbacks are related to the process equipment requirements [21, 44] and inhibitor formation [45]. So far, successful pretreatments with alkali, AFEX and liquid hot water have been limited to agricultural residues and herbaceous crops [25, 4648], whereas acid catalysed steam pretreatments have generated high sugar yields from these materials as well as from softwood feedstocks [3341].

A simple quantification of the harshness of a steam pretreatment process is the so called Severity Factor, log(R0). This factor combines the time and the temperature of a process into a single entity, R 0 = t e T r 100 14.75 MathType@MTEF@5@5@+=feaafiart1ev1aaatCvAUfKttLearuWrP9MDH5MBPbIqV92AaeXatLxBI9gBaebbnrfifHhDYfgasaacPC6xNi=xH8viVGI8Gi=hEeeu0xXdbba9frFj0xb9qqpG0dXdb9aspeI8k8fiI+fsY=rqGqVepae9pg0db9vqaiVgFr0xfr=xfr=xc9adbaqaaeGaciGaaiaabeqaaeqabiWaaaGcbaGaemOuai1aaSbaaSqaaiabicdaWaqabaGccqGH9aqpcqWG0baDcqGHflY1cqWGLbqzdaahaaWcbeqcfayaamaalaaabaGaemivaq1aaSbaaeaacqWGYbGCaeqaaiabgkHiTiabigdaXiabicdaWiabicdaWaqaaiabigdaXiabisda0iabc6caUiabiEda3iabiwda1aaaaaaaaa@403B@ [49]. For acid catalyzed pretreatments the Combined Severity Factor, log(CS), is sometime used. This takes also the pH into account, log(CS) = log(R0) - pH[50], and typical values for acid catalyzed steam explosion pretreatment of softwood are in the range 2 to 4 [35, 41].

Optimal pretreatment conditions in an SSF process do not necessarily differ much from those of an SHF processes utilizing lignocellulosic biomass. However, several compounds present in pretreatment hydrolyzates, which inhibit enzymatic hydrolysis are converted by the fermenting organisms. This is a probable explanation behind the higher reported ethanol yields in SSF compared to SHF [51, 52]. Inhibitor formation from the pretreatment may therefore be tolerated to a higher extent in an SSF process. Inhibitory compounds can be put into three major groups; furaldehydes, weak acids, and phenolics. The two most common furaldehydes, HMF (5-hydroxymethyl-2-furaldehyde) and furfural (2-furaldehyde), are formed at severe conditions from hexoses and pentoses, respectively [45, 53, 54]. Weak acids from lignocellulosic materials, such as acetic, formic and levulinic acid, are mainly formed by de-acetylation of hemicellulose or HMF breakdown [53, 54]. Phenolic compounds are formed chiefly during lignin breakdown, and are to be found in numerous variants, depending on the type of lignin [55]. For a more in-depth discussion on inhibition see e.g. the review by Almeida et al [7].

Enzymatic hydrolysis

A successful pretreatment has to a large extent removed the hemicellulose, leaving the cellulose available for hydrolysis. Since the most commonly used microorganisms for ethanol production solely utilize sugar monomers, the cellulose needs to be hydrolyzed, which in an SSF occurs concomitantly with the fermentation. Historically, industrial cellulose digestion has been made with acid hydrolysis [56] and optimization of acid hydrolysis of various lignocellulosic materials have been carried out for ethanol producing purposes [5759]. Acid hydrolysis, however, produces hydrolyzates that are relatively toxic to the fermenting microorganisms, and the maximum glucose yield is limited to approximately 60% in a batch process for kinetic reasons [60]. Enzymatic degradation of the cellulose fraction, on the other hand, has the potential of yielding relatively non-toxic hydrolyzates with higher sugar yields.

Enzymes specialized in breaking up the β-1-4-glycosidic bonds of glucan are collectively called cellulases. In 1950, Reese et al [61] presented a model of enzymatic cellulose hydrolysis based on multiple enzymes (C1 and CX). The C1 enzyme was assumed to produce shorter polyanhydro-glucose chains, while the solubilization was attributed to the CX enzyme. Basically the same picture applies today, but there has been a huge progress in knowledge about all the different specific enzyme components involved. The cellulases are divided into three sub-categories, representing three types of activity: endoglucanases, exoglucanases (cellobiohydrolases) and β-glucosidases. Endoglucanases significantly reduce the degree of polymerization of the substrate by randomly attacking the interior parts, mainly in the amorphous regions of cellulose. Exoglucanases (or cellobiohydrolases), on the other hand, incrementally shorten the glucan molecules by binding to the glucan ends and releasing mainly cellobiose units. Finally, β-glucosidases split the disaccharide cellobiose into two units of glucose.

Several types of microorganisms can produce cellulase systems including aerobic filamentous fungi, aerobic actinomycetes, anaerobic hyperthermophilic bacteria and anaerobic fungi (see e.g. review by Lynd et al. [62]). Intensive research on the aerobic filamentous fungi T. reesei during the past decades has resulted in an efficient cellulase producing organism, which is currently dominating the industrial cellulase production [62, 63].

As already mentioned, an important advantage with SSF compared to SHF is the reduction of end-product inhibition by sugars formed in the hydrolysis. The fermentation product ethanol also inhibits hydrolysis, but to a lesser extent than cellobiose or glucose [64]. Another advantage is that inhibitors from the pretreatment can be metabolized by the microorganisms [51]. However, also the SSF process may suffer from incomplete hydrolysis of the solid lignocellulosic fraction. Except for inhibition by end-products or other components [51, 65], this can be due to enzyme deactivation, unproductive enzyme adsorption [66], decreasing availability of chain ends [24], and increasing crystallinity with conversion of pretreated cellulose [67].

In an industrial SSF, enzyme and cell concentrations should be appropriately balanced in order to minimize costs for yeast and enzyme production. Synergies between the enzymes, e.g. endo-exo synergism [68, 69], exo-exo synergism [70], and synergism between endo- or exoglucanases and β-glucosidases [71], should also be optimized by tuning the composition of the enzyme mixtures. The optimal composition will most certainly depend on the lignocellulosic raw material.

Fermenting microorganisms

The general requirements on an organism to be used in ethanol production is that it should give a high ethanol yield, a high productivity and be able to withstand high ethanol concentrations in order to keep distillation costs low [72]. In addition to these general requirements, inhibitor tolerance, temperature tolerance and the ability to utilize multiple sugars are essential for SSF applications. Tolerance towards low pH-values will minimize the risk of contamination. The work-horse in starch or sucrose-based ethanol production is the common Bakers' yeast, Saccharomyces cerevisiae. This organism produces ethanol at a high yield (higher than 0.45 g g-1 at optimal conditions) and a high specific rate (up to 1.3 g g-1 cell mass h-1 [73]). It also has a very high ethanol tolerance, over 100 g L-1 has been reported for some strains and media [74]. In addition, the organism has proven to be robust to other inhibitors, and hence it is suitable for fermentation of lignocellulosic materials [75, 76].

Hemicellulose from hardwood and agricultural residues are typically rich in xylans (cf. Table 1) – hardwood containing primarily O-acetyl-4-O-methyl-glucuronoxylan, whereas grasses contain arabinoxylan [77]. Softwood hemicellulose, on the other hand, contains more mannans – primarily in the form on galactoglucomannan – and less xylan. Mannose fermentation is normally efficient in S. cerevisiae, whereas the ability to ferment galactose is strain dependent [78], and the genes for galactose utilization are furthermore repressed by glucose [79, 80], leading to a typical sequential utilization of the sugars. Clearly, xylose fermentation is a more significant issue for agricultural residues and hardwood than for softwood. Xylose is not metabolized by wild-type S. cerevisiae, apart from a minor reduction to xylitol. This, and for some parts the temperature tolerance, have been the main reason behind the interest to test also other microorganisms for lignocellulose conversion in SSF.

Naturally xylose-fermenting yeasts, such as Pichia stipitis and Candida shehatae [8183], could potentially be advantageous to use in SSF of materials with high xylan contents. However, their tolerance to inhibitory compounds in undetoxified lignocellulose hydrolyzates is rather low [84, 85], and in addition, a very low and well-controlled supply of oxygen is required for efficient xylose fermentation [8688]. The main "competitors" to the yeast have been the bacteria Zymomonas mobilis and genetically engineered Escherichia coli. Z. mobilis, an obligately anaerobic bacterium, which lacks a functional system for oxidative phosphorylation, produces ethanol and carbon dioxide as principal fermentation products. Interestingly, Z. mobilis utilizes the Entner-Duodoroff pathway which gives a lower ATP production per catabolized glucose [89, 90]. This in turn gives a lower biomass yield and a higher ethanol yield on glucose compared to S. cerevisiae [91]. However, wild-type Z. mobilis lacks the ability to ferment pentose sugars, and a major drawback is furthermore that it is not a very robust organism. In general, bacteria appear to be less tolerant to lignocellulose-derived inhibitors [92], and a detoxification step may be needed prior to the fermentation. In contrast to Bakers' yeast and Z. mobilis, E. coli is capable of metabolizing a wide variety of substrates (including hexoses, pentoses and lactose), but the wild-type organism has a mixed fermentative pathway, and is thus a poor ethanol producer. In a landmark contribution, awarded U.S. patent number 5000000 [93], a strain of E. coli was genetically engineered into an ethanol producer by overexpression of PDC (encoding pyruvate decarboxylase) and adhB (encoding alcohol dehydrogenase) from Z. mobilis [94]. Excellent results have been achieved with recombinant E. coli, e.g. the KO11 strain, which have shown ethanol yields from 86 to close to 100% of the theoretical, and final ethanol concentrations up to 40 g L-1 on hemicellulose hydrolyzates of bagasse, corn stover and corn hulls [95]. However, only the liquid fraction was used in reported studies, and the hydrolyzates were furthermore detoxified prior to use by overliming to pH 9 with calcium hydroxide and then adjusted to pH 6.0–6.5 with HCl. Furthermore, since the optimal pH is 6.5, E. coli is less suitable for SSF processes with T. reesei cellulases, which generally is considered to have a pH optimum around 4.8 [96].

Pentose fermentation by engineered S. cerevisiae

Due to the very attractive properties of S. cerevisiae in industrial fermentations, there have been significant efforts made in the past decades to design recombinant xylose and arabinose fermenting strains of this yeast. Xylose fermenting strains of S. cerevisiae can in principal be constructed either by introducing genes encoding xylose isomerase (XI) from bacteria and fungi [9799], or genes encoding xylose reductase (XR) and xylitol dehydrogenase (XDH) from fungi [100, 101]. Also the endogenous XKS1 gene encoding xylulokinase (XK) has to be overexpressed to obtain significant xylose fermentation [101]. Transport proteins are needed for uptake of xylose, as well as of other sugars in yeast. In S. cerevisiae, xylose has been found to be transported by the hexose transporters, [102, 103], but the affinity for xylose is approximately 200-fold lower than for glucose [104]. Consequently, xylose uptake is competitively inhibited by glucose.

There are 20 different genes encoding sugar transport related proteins, 18 individual systems (Hxt1-17 and Gal2) and two related signal proteins (Snf3p and Rgt2p). The transporters exhibit different affinities for sugars, and the expression of their corresponding genes is regulated by the sugar concentrations, i.e. the availability of the carbon source [105]. It has previously been suggested that xylose is taken up by both high- and low-affinity systems of glucose transporters (Figure 2), but the uptake is increased in the presence of low glucose concentrations [106]. Studies have indicated that the high- and intermediate-affinity hexose transporters; Hxt4, Hxt5 Hxt7 and Gal2 are in fact the most important transporters for xylose [107]. Furthermore, it has been shown that a low (but non-zero) glucose concentration is needed in the medium for efficient xylose uptake [108]. This has been explained by a need for glucose for expression of glycolytic enzymes and intermediates [109], as well as generation of intermediary metabolites for the initial steps of the xylose metabolism and the pentose phosphate pathway [108]. Another possible explanation, inferred from both experiments and computer modeling, is that the glucose is needed for the expression of hexose transporters with favorable xylose transport properties, e.g. Hxt4 [110, 111]. Consequently, in order to obtain efficient co-fermentation of xylose and glucose in SSF (sometimes denoted SSCF – simultaneous saccharification and co-fermentation) with recombinant S. cerevisiae, it is necessary to keep the glucose concentration low, which has been shown in practice in recent SSF studies [112, 113].

Figure 2
figure 2

Simplified scheme of sugar transport and metabolism in S. cerevisiae. 1. Low- and intermediate-affinity hexose transporters. 2. High-affinity hexose transporters. (Abbreviations: PPP, pentose phosphate pathway; XR, xylose reductase; XDH, xylitol dehydrogenase; XK, xylulokinase; GK, glucokinase; PGI, phosphoglucose isomerase; PFK, phosphofructokinase; AD, aldolase; TPI, triose phosphate isomerase; GDH, glyceraldehyde-3-P dehydrogenase; GPD, glycerol-3-P dehydrogenase; GPP, glycerol-3-phosphatase; PDC, pyruvate decarboxylase; ALD, acetaldehyde dehydrogenase; ADH, alcohol dehydrogenase)

Experimental work on optimizing SSF

Reported experimental work on SSF have focused on improving the process by increasing the substrate loading (i.e. the content of water insoluble solids, WIS), decreasing enzyme and yeast concentration, and varying temperature and pH. Some recent SSF studies on lignocellulosic feedstocks, which have been made with reasonably high contents of water insoluble solids (WIS), and acceptable ethanol yields are shown in Tables 2 and 3. Many studies on pure cellulose (e.g. Sigmacell 50) have also been made, but these are not considered in this review. Table 2 shows studies in which only hexose sugars have been fermented, whereas Table 3 shows studies with co-fermentation of both hexoses and the pentose xylose.

Table 2 Brief summary of SSF experiments carried out on hexose sugars.
Table 3 Brief summary of SSF experiments carried out on both hexose and pentose sugars.

Substrate loading

In order to achieve a high final ethanol concentration, a high substrate loading, and hence a high WIS content, is crucial for the economy of the SSF process. Batch mode is the classical form of SSF. When the WIS content in SSF is increased, the ethanol yield tends to decrease (Figure 3A). In practice, it has been difficult to achieve good ethanol yields above WIS contents of around 10% (cf. Tables 2 and 3).

Figure 3
figure 3

The influence of substrate loading (A), enzyme loading (B), and cell concentration (C) on ethanol yield in SSF of different materials: pretreated barley straw (black circle) [121], pretreated spruce (black diamond) [117, 149], pretreated salix (black square) [120], pretreated willow (black triangle) [122] and pretreated corn stover (×) [150].

Instead of adding all substrate initially, a gradual or stepwise addition, i.e. a fed-batch approach can be used. There are several advantages by running SSF in fed-batch mode. By not adding all the hydrolyzate at once, the levels of inhibitors can be kept lower, giving less inhibition of the fermentation. A suitable feed rate may also allow a continuous conversion of inhibitors, as has been shown in fed-batch fermentation of dilute-acid hydrolyzates [114]. In addition, it has been reported that also the inhibition of the enzymes decreases when some of the toxic compounds are converted [51]. Stirring is a significant problem at high WIS contents due to the high viscosity [115], which results in mass and heat transfer problems. This becomes less pronounced with fed-batch SSF, due to the gradual hydrolysis of added fibers [116, 117]. An additional advantage with fed-batch, is that the glucose level can be kept lower during co-fermentation of xylose and glucose (SSCF), which promotes xylose uptake [112, 113] (as discussed later on). An alternative to fed-batch addition is to make a pre-hydrolysis, i.e. to add enzymes to the bioreactor some time before the fermenting organism is added. This can be made at an elevated temperature and will decrease the initial viscosity at the start of fermentation [118]. A disadvantage may be a less efficient co-fermentation of xylose due to the higher glucose concentration in the medium in the case of SSCF.

Enzyme loading

The enzyme loading is clearly important for the process economy, but the economic sensitivity towards the enzyme loading in SSF is difficult to predict due to the large uncertainties of the cost of enzymes, and lack of sufficient experimental data on the effect of enzyme load. Techno-economical calculations have indicated that a 50% reduction of enzyme loading is beneficial if the yield decreases less than 6–7% and required residence time is not increased by more than 30% [119]. The enzymatic hydrolysis of the solid fraction has a large control over the total rate of ethanol production in SSF [117, 120]. Studies in which the enzyme loading has been varied therefore show a strong positive correlation between enzyme loading and the overall ethanol yield [121, 122] (Figure 3B). Commercial cellulase preparations available today often need to be supplemented with extra β-glucosidase to prevent end-product inhibition by cellobiose. Optimal β-glucosidase additions have been estimated for e.g. saccharification of pretreated aspen [123]. The optimal enzyme cocktail composition is certainly raw-material specific, and supplementation with extra β-glucosidase is – as to be expected – more important in SHF than in SSF [124].

To decrease the amount of added enzymes needed, investigations of SSF with mixtures of S. cerevisiae and the β-glucosidase producing yeast strain Brettanomyces clausenii, have been undertaken, and compared to SSF with only S. cerevisiae. At low enzyme loadings and without β-glucosidase addition, the mixture performed well. However, at higher cellulase loadings, higher ethanol yields were obtained when β-glucosidase was added [125]. Another way of overcoming limiting hydrolysis and simplify the SSF process, is to use cellobiose-fermenting yeasts, such as Brettanomyces clausenii [126], or possibly recombinant Klebsiella oxytoca [127].

Yeast loading

In a large-scale SSF process, the yeast (or other fermenting microorganisms) will most likely be cultivated on the hemicellulose hydrolyzate (see Figure 1). Hence, a higher yeast concentration in the SSF will result in a lower overall ethanol yield if the substrate cost for the production of the yeast is considered. However, lowering the yeast concentration will lower the volumetric productivity, and may also lead to a stuck fermentation. The rate of the enzymatic hydrolysis have in many – probably most – reported SSF experiments been rate determining, and the yeast concentration could therefore be lowered [117, 119, 120]. In agreement with this, there seems not to be a strong positive correlation between cell concentration and measured ethanol yield (not counting the yield cost of the yeast production or sugar losses in the pre-treatment) above 1–2 g L-1 cells (Figure 3C) for typical SSF conditions (~10% WIS and 30 FPU g-1 cellulose). There is no doubt more work to be done on balancing the rates of hydrolysis and fermentation during SSF.

Co-fermentation of pentose and hexose sugars (SSCF)

Progress is rapid in the field of xylose fermentation, but few industrial yeast strains have yet the demonstrated capability of fermenting xylose in lignocellulosic hydrolyzates efficiently. Hahn-Hägerdal et al. [92] recently presented information on the performance of industrial xylose fermenting strains in lignocellulosic hydrolyzates. All strains covered in their summary were XR and XDH expressing strains, which also overexpressed XK. TMB3400 is the only industrial pentose fermenting S. cerevisiae strain for which results on SSF of lignocellulosic materials have so far been reported [112, 113, 128]. Ethanol concentrations reaching 40 g L-1 and yields up to 80% of the theoretical based on xylose and glucose (at a WIS content of 7%) have been achieved (Table 3). By-product formation decreases the ethanol yield from xylose with xylose fermenting strains of S. cerevisiae. However, less xylitol is formed by XR/XDH-carrying strains in fermentation of lignocellulosic hydrolyzates [129, 130] compared to defined medium, probably due to additional electron acceptors present in the media. This was seen also in SSF experiments with the strain TMB3400 for several xylose-rich materials [112, 113, 128]. Both glycerol and xylitol formation lead to a regeneration of NAD+ (cf. Figure 2). Interestingly, more glycerol than xylitol was produced [113].

Other pentose utilizing yeasts than S. cerevisiae TMB3400 have been evaluated in SSCF. Recently, Rudolf et al. [128] used sugar cane bagasse as a substrate in SSF with P. stipitis as a fermenting organism (see Table 3). It was indeed possible to use the organism in untreated bagasse hydrolyzate, but clearly higher yields and ethanol concentrations were achieved with S. cerevisiae TMB3400. Xylose fermenting bacteria have not been much examined in lignocellulosic SSF, but yellow poplar hardwood was used in SSF experiments with recombinant Z. mobilis co-fermenting xylose and glucose [131]. However, a thorough detoxification was required prior to the SSF.

Arabinose fermentation in SSF has not yet been reported, although arabinose fermenting S. cerevisiae strains have recently been constructed [132, 133] as well as strains co-utilizing arabinose and xylose [134]. Also Z. mobilis strains co-utilizing arabinose and xylose have been developed [135]. However, further work is needed before efficient ethanol production in SSF from arabinose can be conducted.


In SSF a compromise between the optimal temperatures for the cellulolytic enzymes and the yeast is needed. Earlier SSF experiments in our labs were often run at a temperature of 37°C. Since the yeast S. cerevisiae has an optimal temperature around 30°C and the cellulolytic enzymes around 55°C, this was regarded as a suitable compromise at the high end of what S. cerevisiae can tolerate [117, 120, 122, 125, 136]. However, recent studies have shown important strain differences with respect to temperature tolerance, and furthermore, the co-fermentation of glucose and xylose is affected by temperature. Rudolf et al. [128] concluded that more xylose was consumed by TMB3400 at 32°C than at 37°C during SSF of sugar cane bagasse, and Olofsson et al. [113] found that a temperature of 34°C was to prefer in SSF of wheat straw. Possibly, a lower rate of hydrolysis, which gives a slower release of glucose, favors xylose uptake in the competition for transporters. Furthermore, inhibition effects may play a role, and tolerance to inhibitors may be higher at temperatures closer to the optimum of the yeast.

Thermotolerance is clearly an important topic for SSF and thermotolerant yeast strains, e.g. Fabospora fragilis, Saccharomyces uvarum, Candida brassicae, C. lusitaniae, and Kluyveromyces marxianus, have been evaluated for future use in SSF [137141], to allow fermentation at temperatures closer to the optimal temperature for the enzymes. However, in all these cases saccharification of pure cellulose (e.g. Sigmacell-50) or washed fibers, in defined fermentation medium, were applied. SSF of cellulose with mixed cultures of different thermotolerant yeast strains have also been carried out [140, 142]. However, there is so far a lack of results from SSF experiments in which untreated lignocellulosic materials have been used together with thermotolerant strains.


The amounts and types of inhibitory compounds vary strongly between different raw materials, and also depend on the pretreatment method. Hence, the needed inhibitor tolerance of a strain in an SSF process may vary depending on raw material. Several alternatives of detoxification (i.e. removal of inhibitory compounds) have been explored, e.g. over-liming, extraction with organic solvents, ion exchange, molecular sieves, and steam stripping [143, 144]. Overliming with Ca(OH)2 is the most commonly used method. A significant drawback of this method is that calcium salts may precipitate in the process and contaminate surfaces of distillation columns, evaporators and heat-exchangers. Hence, detoxification should be avoided if possible, due to additional process cost as well as possible loss of fermentable sugars [145, 146].

More tolerant yeast strains for SSF than those available today, may be achieved through genetic modifications, e.g. overexpressing genes encoding enzymes for resistance against specific inhibitors, and altering co-factor balance in the cell [7]. Another way to improve strains is by evolutionary engineering, through which strain robustness is improved by mutation and selection [147]. Yet another approach to overcome the problem with inhibition is by adapting the SSF process. By applying e.g. a fed-batch mode of substrate addition with proper feed protocol and control variables, the levels of inhibitors can be kept at an acceptable level. Such strategies have proven successful during cultivation and fermentation of liquid hydrolyzates [148, 149], as well as in SSF [117]. A combination of more inhibitor-tolerant strains in combination with efficient feed strategies will likely improve process robustness in SSF processes.


The basic challenges for SSF – as for any other process option – are to obtain as high degree of hydrolysis and as high ethanol yield as possible. There is no doubt that the development of more efficient pentose fermenting yeasts with improved robustness in hydrolyzates, and the development of more efficient enzymes and enzyme cocktails will continue. Process economic evaluations are essential for this development. Useful "iso-cost" curves in the operational space can thereby be constructed to guide further development work [119]. The simplest – and original – SSF is a batch process in which substrate, enzymes and yeast are all present in the reactor initially, and at the intended concentrations. Additional degrees of freedom are available for process improvement by changing some of the initial conditions. In principle, substrate(s), enzymes and even yeast may all be gradually fed during the process. Several of these options can probably be discarded for practical reasons, but it is nevertheless clear that there are many options relatively unexplored for the improvement of SSF. The new variants of SSF that are now tried, can be seen as a move of the "classical" SSF process in the direction of other process options, although not taking it all the way (see Figure 4). The result will be new "hybrid" processes, which will be tuned for the feedstock and the enzymes used.

Figure 4
figure 4

SSF in relation to other process options. The arrows show the approach of SSF to other process options as a result of process changes. (Abbreviations: SSF = simultaneous saccharification and fermentation; SHF = separate hydrolysis and fermentation; CBP = consolidated bioprocessing, i.e. a process in which the enzymes are produced by the fermenting organism; SSCF = simultaneous saccharification and co-fermentation; SoSF = solid state fermentation.)


  1. 1.

    Farrell AE, Plevin RJ, Turner BT, Jones AD, O’Hare M, Kammen DM: Ethanol can contribute to energy and environmental goals. Science 2006,311(1):506-508.

    Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Bothast RJ, Schlicher MA: Biotechnological processes for conversion of corn into ethanol. Appl Microbiol Biotech 2005,67(1):19-25.

    Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Gauss WF, Suzuki S, Takagi M: Manufacture of alcohol from cellulosic materials using plural ferments. Volume 3990944. Edited by: Office USPT. USA , Bio Research Center Company Limited; 1976.

    Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Wingren A, Galbe M, Zacchi G: Techno-economic evaluation of producing ethanol from softwood: Comparison of SSF and SHF and identification of bottlenecks. Biotechnol Prog 2003,19(4):1109-1117.

    Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Xu F, Ding H, Osborn D, Tejirian A, Brown K, Albano W, Sheehy N, Langston J: Partition of enzymes between the solvent and insoluble substrate during the hydrolysis of lignocellulose by cellulases. Journal of Molecular Catalysis B: Enzymatic 2008,51(1-2):42-48.

    Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Kim S, Dale BE: Global potential bioethanol production from wasted crops and crop residues. Biomass Bioenergy 2004,26(4):361-375.

    Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Almeida JRM, Modig T, Petersson A, Hahn-Hagerdal B, Lidén G, Gorwa-Grauslund MF: Increased tolerance and conversion of inhibitors in lignocellulosic hydrolysates by Saccharomyces cerevisiae. J Chem Tech Biotechnol 2007,82(4):340-349.

    Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Gharpuray MM, Lee YH, Fan LT: Structural modification of lignocellulosics by pretreatments to enhance enzymatic hydrolysis. Biotechnol Bioeng 1983,25(1):157-172.

    Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Lin KW, Ladisch MR, Voloch M, Patterson JA, Noller CH: Effect of pretreatments and fermentation on pore size in cellulosic materials. Biotechnol Bioeng 1985,27(10):1427-1433.

    Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Wong KKY, Deverell KF, Mackie KL, Clark TA, Donaldson LA: The relationship between fiber-porosity and cellulose digestibility in steam-exploded Pinus radiata. Biotechnol Bioeng 1988,31(5):447-456.

    Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Thompson DN, Chen HC, Grethlein HE: Comparison of pretreatment methods on the basis of available surface area. Bioresour Technol 1992,39(2):155-163.

    Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Grethlein HE: The effect of pore size distribution on the rate of enzymatic hydrolysis of cellulosic substrates. Nat Biotechnol 1985,3(2):155-160.

    Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Cowling EB: Physical and chemical constraints in the hydrolysis of cellulose and lignocellulosic materials. Biotechnol Bioeng Symp 1975, (5):163-181.

  14. 14.

    Donaldson LA, Wong KKY, Mackie KL: Ultrastructure of steam-exploded wood. Wood Sci Technol 1988,22(2):103-114.

    Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Zeng M, Mosier NS, Huang CP, Sherman DM, Ladisch MR: Microscopic examination of changes of plant cell structure in corn stover due to hot water pretreatment and enzymatic hydrolysis. Biotechnol Bioeng 2007,97(2):265-278.

    Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Puls J, Poutanen K, Körner HU, Viikari L: Biotechnical utilization of wood carbohydrates after steaming pretreatment. Appl Microbiol Biotech 1985,22(6):416-423.

    Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Donaldson LA: Ultrastructure of wood cellulose substrates during enzymatic hydrolysis. Wood Sci Technol 1988,22(1):33-41.

    Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Kerr AJ, Goring DAI: Ultrastructural arrangement of the wood cell wall. Cellul chem technol 1975, 9: 563-573.

    Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Brownell HH, Saddler JN: Steam-explosion pretreatment for enzymatic hydrolysis: United States. ; 1984:Pages: 55-68.

    Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Ramos LP, Mathias AL, Silva FT, Cotrim AR, Ferraz AL, Chen CL: Characterization of residual lignin after SO2-catalyzed steam explosion and enzymatic hydrolysis of eucalyptus viminalis wood chips. J Agric Food Chem 1999,47(6):2295-2302.

    Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Mosier N, Wyman C, Dale B, Elander R, Lee YY, Holtzapple M, Ladisch M: Features of promising technologies for pretreatment of lignocellulosic biomass. Bioresour Technol 2005,96(6):673-686.

    Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Josefsson T, Lennholm H, Gellerstedt G: Changes in cellulose supramolecular structure and molecular weight distribution during steam explosion of aspen wood. Cellulose 2001,8(4):289-296.

    Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Kim TH, Kim JS, Sunwoo C, Lee YY: Pretreatment of corn stover by aqueous ammonia. Bioresour Technol 2003,90(1):39-47.

    Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Zhang YHP, Lynd LR: Toward an aggregated understanding of enzymatic hydrolysis of cellulose: Noncomplexed cellulase systems. Biotechnol Bioeng 2004,88(7):797-824.

    Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Holtzapple MT, Jun JH, Ashok G, Patibandla SL, Dale BE: The ammonia freeze explosion (AFEX) process: a practical lignocellulose pretreatment. Appl Biochem Biotechnol 1991, 28/29: 59–74.

    Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Dale BE, Moreira MJ: Freeze-explosion technique for increasing cellulose hydrolysis: United States. ; 1982:Pages: 31-43.

    Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Iyer P.V. WZW Kim S.B., Lee Y.Y.: Ammonia-recycled percolation process for pretreatment of herbaceous biomass. Appl Biochem Biotechnol 1996, 57/58: 121-132.

    Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Yoon H.H. WZW Lee Y.Y.,: Ammonia-recycled percolation process for pretreatment of biomass feedstock. Appl Biochem Biotechnol 1995, 51/52: 5-19.

    Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    MacDonald DG, Bakhshi NN, Mathews JF, Roychowdhury A, Bajpai P, Murry MY: Alkali treatment of corn stover to improve sugar production by enzymatic hydrolysis. Biotechnol Bioeng 1983,25(8):2067-2076.

    Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Sharma SK, Kalra KL, Grewal HS: Enzymatic saccharification of pretreated sunflower stalks. Biomass Bioenergy 2002,23(3):237-243.

    Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Chang V.S. BB Holtzapple M.T.: Lime pretreatment of switchgrass. Appl Biochem Biotechnol 1997, 63/65: 3-19.

    Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Brownell HH, Yu EKC, Saddler JN: Steam-explosion pretreatment of wood: Effect of chip size, acid, moisture content and pressure drop. Biotechnol Bioeng 1986,28(6):792-801.

    Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Harris EE, Beglinger E, Hajny GJ, Sherrard EC: Hydrolysis of wood - treatment with sulfuric acid in a stationary digester. Ind Eng Chem Res 1945, 37(1): 12-23.

    Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Nguyen QA, Tucker MP, Boynton BL, Keller FA, Schell DJ: Dilute acid pretreatment of softwoods. Appl Biochem Biotechnol 1998, 70/72: 77-87.

    Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Söderström J, Pilcher L, Galbe M, Zacchi G: Two-step steam pretreatment of softwood by dilute H2SO4 impregnation for ethanol production. Biomass Bioenergy 2003,24(6):475-486.

    Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Sassner P, Martensson CG, Galbe M, Zacchi G: Steam pretreatment of H2SO4-impregnated Salix for the production of bioethanol. Bioresour Technol 2008,99(1):137-145.

    Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Clark TA, Mackie KL: Steam explosion of the softwood Pinus radiata with sulphur dioxide addition I: Process optimisation. J Wood Chem Technol 1987,7(3):373 -3403.

    Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Clark TA, Mackie KL, Dare PH, McDonald AG: Steam explosion of the softwood Pinus radiata with sulphur dioxide addition II: Process characterisation. J Wood Chem Technol 1989, 9: 135-166.

    Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Stenberg K, Tengborg C, Galbe M, Zacchi G: Optimisation of steam pretreatment of SO2-impregnated mixed softwoods for ethanol production. J Chem Tech Biotechnol 1998,71(4):299-308.

    Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Öhgren K, Galbe M, Zacchi G: Optimization of steam pretreatment of SO2-impregnated corn stover for fuel ethanol production. Appl Biochem Biotechnol 2005, 121/124: 1055-1067.

    Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Söderström J, Pilcher L, Galbe M, Zacchi G: Two-step steam pretreatment of softwood with SO2-impregnation for ethanol production. Appl Biochem Biotechnol 2002, 98/100: 5-21.

    Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Schell DJ, Duff B: Review of pilot plant programs for bioethanol conversion. In Handbook on Bioethanol: Production and Utilization. Edited by: Wyman CE. Taylor & Francis; 1996:381–394.

    Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Ropars M, Marchal R, Pourquie J, Vandecasteele JP: Large-scale enzymatic hydrolysis of agricultural lignocellulosic biomass. Part 1: Pretreatment procedures. Bioresour Technol 1992,42(3):197-204.

    Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    Galbe M, Zacchi G: A review of the production of ethanol from softwood. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 2002,59(6):618-628.

    Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    Palmqvist E, Hahn-Hagerdal B: Fermentation of lignocellulosic hydrolysates. II: inhibitors and mechanisms of inhibition. Bioresour Technol 2000,74(1):25-33.

    Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    Kim JS, Lee YY, Park SC: Pretreatment of wastepaper and pulp mill sludge by aqueous ammonia and hydrogen peroxide. Appl Biochem Biotechnol 2000, 84/86: 129-139.

    Google Scholar 

  47. 47.

    Varga E, Szengyel Z, Réczey K: Chemical pretreatments of corn stover for enhancing enzymatic digestibility. Appl Biochem Biotechnol 2002, 98/100: 73-87.

    Google Scholar 

  48. 48.

    van Walsum GP, Laser MS, Lynd LR: Conversion of lignocellulosics pretreated with liquid hot water to ethanol. Appl Biochem Biotechnol 1996, 57/58: 157-170.

    Google Scholar 

  49. 49.

    Overend RP, Chornet E: Fractionation of lignocellulosics by steam-aqueous pretreatments. Phil Trans Roy Soc Lond A 1987, 321: 523-536.

    Google Scholar 

  50. 50.

    Chum HL, Johnson DK, Black SK, Overend RP: Pretreatment-catalyst effects and the combined severity parameter. Appl Biochem Biotechnol 1990, 24/25: 1-14.

    Google Scholar 

  51. 51.

    Tengborg C, Galbe M, Zacchi G: Reduced inhibition of enzymatic hydrolysis of steam-pretreated softwood. Enzyme Microb Technol 2001,28(9-10):835-844.

    Google Scholar 

  52. 52.

    Söderström J, Galbe M, Zacchi G: Separate versus simultaneous saccharification and fermentation of two-step pretreated softwood for ethanol production. J Wood Chem Technol 2005, 25: 187-202.

    Google Scholar 

  53. 53.

    Dunlop AP: Furfural formation and behavior. Ind Eng Chem Res 1948, 40: 204-209.

    Google Scholar 

  54. 54.

    Ulbricht RJ, Northup SJ, Thomas JA: A review of 5-hydroxymethylfurfural (HMF) in parenteral solutions. Fundam Appl Toxicol 1984,4(5):843-853.

    Google Scholar 

  55. 55.

    Pérez, Pérez J, Muñoz D, Muñoz-Dorado J, de la R, Rubia T, Martínez, Martínez J: Biodegradation and biological treatments of cellulose, hemicellulose and lignin: an overview. Int Microbiol 2002,5(2):53-63.

    Google Scholar 

  56. 56.

    Keller FA: Integrated bioprocess development. In Handbook on bioBioethanol: Production and utilization. Edited by: C.E W. Washington , Taylor & Francis; 1996:351-380.

    Google Scholar 

  57. 57.

    Nguyen QA, Tucker MP, Keller FA, Beaty DA, Connors KM, Eddy FP: Dilute acid hydrolysis of softwoods. Appl Biochem Biotechnol 1999, 77/79: 133-142.

    Google Scholar 

  58. 58.

    Harris JF, Baker AJ, Conner AH, Jeffries TW, Minor JL, Pettersen RC, Scott RW, Springer EL, Wegner TH, Zerbe JI: Two-stage dilute sulphuric acid hydrolysis of wood: An investigation of fundamentals. Madison , U.S. Department of agriculture, Forest service, Forest products laboratory; 1985:73.

    Google Scholar 

  59. 59.

    Springer EL: Prehydrolysis of hardwoods with dilute sulphuric acid. Ind Eng Chem Res 1985, 24: 614-623.

    Google Scholar 

  60. 60.

    Lee Y, Iyer P, Torget R: Dilute-acid hydrolysis of lignocellulosic biomass. Advances in Biochemical Engineering/Biotechnology. In Recent Progress in Bioconversion of Lignocellulosics. Springer Berlin /Heidelberg; 1999:93-115.

    Google Scholar 

  61. 61.

    Reese ET, Siu RGH, Levinson HS: The biological degradation of soluble cellulose derivatives and its relationship to the mechanism of cellulose hydrolysis. J Bacteriol 1950, 59: 485-497.

    Google Scholar 

  62. 62.

    Lynd LR, Weimer PJ, van Zyl WH, Pretorius IS: Microbial Cellulose Utilization: Fundamentals and Biotechnology. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev 2002,66(3):506-577.

    Google Scholar 

  63. 63.

    Esterbauer H, Steiner W, Labudova I, Hermann A, Hayn M: Production of Trichoderma cellulase in laboratory and pilote scale. Bioresour Technol 1991, 36: 51-65.

    Google Scholar 

  64. 64.

    Holtzapple M, Cognata M, Shu Y, Hendrickson C: Inhibition of Trichoderma reesei cellulase by sugars and solvents. Biotechnol Bioeng 1990,36(3):275-287.

    Google Scholar 

  65. 65.

    Wu Z, Lee YY: Inhibition of the enzymatic hydrolysis of cellulose by ethanol. Biotechnol Letts 1997,19(10):977-979.

    Google Scholar 

  66. 66.

    Ooshima H, Burns DS, Converse AO: Adsorption of cellulase from Trichoderma reesei on cellulose and lignacious residue in wood pretreated by dilute sulfuric acid with explosive decompression. Biotechnol Bioeng 1990,36(5):446-452.

    Google Scholar 

  67. 67.

    Zhang S, Wolfgang DE, Wilson DB: Substrate heterogeneity causes the nonlinear kinetics of insoluble cellulose hydrolysis. Biotechnol Bioeng 1999,66(1):35-41.

    Google Scholar 

  68. 68.

    Wood TM, McCrae SI: Synergism between enzymes involved in the solubilization of native cellulose. Adv Chem Ser 1979, 181: 181–209.

    Google Scholar 

  69. 69.

    Henrissat B, Driguez H, Viet C, Schülein M: Synergism of cellulases from Trichoderma reesei in the degradation of cellulose. Bio/Technol 1985, 3: 722-726.

    Google Scholar 

  70. 70.

    Fägerstam LG, Pettersson LG: The 1,4-β-D-Glucan cellobiohydrolases of Trichoderma reesei QM 9414. A new type of cellulolytic synergism. FEBS Lett 1980, 119: 97-100.

    Google Scholar 

  71. 71.

    Lamed R, Kenig R, Morag E, Calzada JF, de Micheo F, Bayer EA: Efficient cellulose solubilization by a combined cellulosome-β-glucosidase system. Appl Biochem Biotechnol 1991, 27: 173-183.

    Google Scholar 

  72. 72.

    von Sivers M, Zacchi G: Ethanol from lignocellulosics: a review of the economy. Bioresour Technol 1996,56(2-3):131-140.

    Google Scholar 

  73. 73.

    Verduyn C, Postma E, Scheffers WA, van Dijken JP: Physiology of Saccharomyces cerevisiae in anaerobic glucose-limited chemostat cultures. J Gen Microbiol 1990,136(3):395-403.

    Google Scholar 

  74. 74.

    Casey GP, Ingledew WM: Ethanol tolerance in yeasts. Crit Rev Microbiol 1986,13(3):219-280.

    Google Scholar 

  75. 75.

    Olsson L, Hahn-Hägerdal B: Fermentative performance of bacteria and yeasts in lignocellulose hydrolysates. Process Biochem 1993,28(4):249-257.

    Google Scholar 

  76. 76.

    Hahn-Hägerdal B, Jeppsson H, Olsson L, Mohagheghi A: An interlaboratory comparison of the performance of ethanol-producing micro-organisms in a xylose-rich acid hydrolysate. Appl Microbiol Biotech 1994,41(1):62-72.

    Google Scholar 

  77. 77.

    Timell TE: Recent progress in the chemistry of wood hemicelluloses. Wood Sci Technol 1967,1(1):45-70.

    Google Scholar 

  78. 78.

    Lindén T, Peetre J, Hahn-Hägerdal B: Isolation and characterization of acetic acid-tolerant galactose-fermenting strains of Saccharomyces cerevisiae from a spent sulfite liquor fermentation plant. Appl Environ Microbiol 1992,58(5):1661-1669.

    Google Scholar 

  79. 79.

    Johnston M, Carlson M: Regulation of carbon and phosphate utilization. In The molecular and cellular biology of the yeast Saccharomyces: gene expression. Edited by: Jones EW, Pringel JR, Broach J. Cold Spring Harbor, NY , Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press; 1992:193-281.

    Google Scholar 

  80. 80.

    Bhat PJ, Murthy TVS: Transcriptional control of the GAL/MEL regulon of yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae: mechanism of galactose-mediated signal transduction. Mol Microbiol 2001,40(5):1059-1066.

    Google Scholar 

  81. 81.

    Toivola A, Yarrow D, van den Bosch E, van Dijken JP, Scheffers WA: Alcoholic fermentation of D-xylose by yeasts. Appl Environ Microbiol 1984,47(6):1221-1223.

    Google Scholar 

  82. 82.

    du Preez JC, Bosch M, Prior BA: The fermentation of hexose and pentose sugars by Candida shehatae and Pichia stipitis. Appl Microbiol Biotech 1986,23(3):228-233.

    Google Scholar 

  83. 83.

    Prior BA, Kilian SG, du Preez JC: Fermentation of D-xylose by the Yeasts Candida Shehatae and Pichia Stipitis. Process Biochem 1989, 24: 21-32.

    Google Scholar 

  84. 84.

    van Zyl C, Prior BA, du Preez JC: Production of ethanol from sugar cane bagasse hemicellulose hydrolyzate by Pichia stipitis. Appl Biochem Biotechnol 1988, 17: 357-369.

    Google Scholar 

  85. 85.

    Roberto IC, Lacis LS, Barbosa MFS, de Mancilha IM: Utilization of sugar cane bagasse hemicellulosic hydrolysate by pichia stipitis for the production of ethanol. Process Biochem 1991,26(1):15-21.

    Google Scholar 

  86. 86.

    Ligthelm ME, Prior BA, Preez JC: The oxygen requirements of yeasts for the fermentation of d-xylose and d-glucose to ethanol. Appl Microbiol Biotech 1988,28(1):63-68.

    Google Scholar 

  87. 87.

    Grootjen DRJ, van der Lans RGJM, Luyben KCAM: Effects of the aeration rate on the fermentation of glucose and xylose by Pichia stipitis CBS 5773. Enzyme Microb Technol 1990,12(1):20-23.

    Google Scholar 

  88. 88.

    Skoog K, Hahn-Hägerdal B: Effect of oxygenation on xylose fermentation by Pichia stipitis. Appl Environ Microbiol 1990,56(11):3389-3394.

    Google Scholar 

  89. 89.

    Swings J, De Ley J: The Biology of Zymomonas. Bacteriol Rev 1977,41(1):1-46.

    Google Scholar 

  90. 90.

    Gibbs M, DeMoss RD: Anaerobic dissimilation of C14-labeled glucose and fructose by Pseudomonas lindneri. J Biol Chem 1954,207(2):689-694.

    Google Scholar 

  91. 91.

    Rogers PL, Lee KJ, Tribe DE: Kinetics of alcohol production by Zymomonas mobilis at high sugar concentrations. Biotechnol Letts 1979,1(4):165-170.

    Google Scholar 

  92. 92.

    Hahn-Hägerdal B, Karhumaa K, Fonseca C, Spencer-Martins I, Gorwa-Grauslund M: Towards industrial pentose-fermenting yeast strains. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 2007,74(5):937-953.

    Google Scholar 

  93. 93.

    Ingram LO, Conway T, Alterthum F: Ethanol production by Escherichia coli strains co-expressing Zymomonas PDC and ADH genes. Volume 5000000. Edited by: Office USPT. USA , University of Florida (Gainesville, FL) ; 1991 .

    Google Scholar 

  94. 94.

    Ingram LO, Conway T, Clark DP, Sewell GW, Preston JF: Genetic engineering of ethanol production in Escherichia coli. Appl Environ Microbiol 1987,53(10):2420-2425.

    Google Scholar 

  95. 95.

    Asghari A, Bothast RJ, Doran JB, Ingram LO: Ethanol production from hemicellulose hydrolysates of agricultural residues using genetically engineered Escherichia coli strain KO11. J Ind Microbiol Biotechnol 1996,16(1):42-47.

    Google Scholar 

  96. 96.

    Mandels M, Sternberg D: Recent advances in cellulase technology. Ferment Technol 1976, 54: 267-286.

    Google Scholar 

  97. 97.

    Karhumaa K, Hahn-Hägerdal B, Gorwa-Grauslund MF: Investigation of limiting metabolic steps in the utilization of xylose by recombinant Saccharomyces cerevisiae using metabolic engineering. Yeast 2005,22(5):359-368.

    Google Scholar 

  98. 98.

    Kuyper M, Hartog MMP, Toirkens MJ, Almering MJH, Winkler AA, van Dijken JP, Pronk JT: Metabolic engineering of a xylose-isomerase-expressing Saccharomyces cerevisiae strain for rapid anaerobic xylose fermentation. FEMS Yeast Res 2005,5(4-5):399-409.

    Google Scholar 

  99. 99.

    Walfridsson M, Anderlund M, Bao X, Hahn-Hägerdal B: Expression of different levels of enzymes from the Pichia stipitis XYL1 and XYL2 genes in Saccharomyces cerevisiae and its effects on product formation during xylose utilisation. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 1997,48(2):218-224.

    Google Scholar 

  100. 100.

    Kötter P, Amore R, Hollenberg CP, Ciriacy M: Isolation and characterization of the Pichia stipitis xylitol dehydrogenase gene, XYL2, and construction of a xylose-utilizing Saccharomyces cerevisiae transformant. Curr Genet 1990,18(6):493-500.

    Google Scholar 

  101. 101.

    Eliasson A, Christensson C, Wahlbom CF, Hahn-Hägerdal B: Anaerobic xylose fermentation by recombinant Saccharomyces cerevisiae carrying XYL1, XYL2, and XKS1 in mineral medium chemostat cultures. Appl Environ Microbiol 2000,66(8):3381-3386.

    Google Scholar 

  102. 102.

    Kilian SG, Uden N: Transport of xylose and glucose in the xylose-fermenting yeast Pichia stipitis. Appl Microbiol Biotech 1988,27(5):545-548.

    Google Scholar 

  103. 103.

    Meinander NQ, Hahn-Hägerdal B: Influence of cosubstrate concentration on xylose conversion by recombinant, XYL1-expressing Saccharomyces cerevisiae: a comparison of different sugars and ethanol as cosubstrates. Appl Environ Microbiol 1997,63(5):1959-1964.

    Google Scholar 

  104. 104.

    Kötter P, Ciriacy M: Xylose fermentation by Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Appl Microbiol Biotech 1993,38(6):776-783.

    Google Scholar 

  105. 105.

    Boles E, Hollenberg CP: The molecular genetics of hexose transport in yeasts. FEMS Microbiol Rev 1997,21(1):85-111.

    Google Scholar 

  106. 106.

    Lee WJ, Kim MD, Ryu YW, Bisson LF, Seo JH: Kinetic studies on glucose and xylose transport in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 2002,60(1-2):186-191.

    Google Scholar 

  107. 107.

    Hamacher T, Becker J, Gárdonyi M, Hahn-Hägerdal B, Boles E: Characterization of the xylose-transporting properties of yeast hexose transporters and their influence on xylose utilization. Microbiology 2002,148(Pt-9):2783-2788.

    Google Scholar 

  108. 108.

    Meinander NQ, Boels I, Hahn-Hägerdal B: Fermentation of xylose/glucose mixtures by metabolically engineered Saccharomyces cerevisiae strains expressing XYL1 and XYL2 from Pichia stipitis with and without overexpression of TAL1. Bioresour Technol 1999,68(1):79-87.

    Google Scholar 

  109. 109.

    Boles E, ller S, Zimmermann FK: A multi-layered sensory system controls yeast glycolytic gene expression. Mol Microbiol 1996, 19: 641-642.

    Google Scholar 

  110. 110.

    Bertilsson M, Andersson J, Lidén G: Modeling simultaneous glucose and xylose uptake in Saccharomyces cerevisiae from kinetics and gene expression of sugar transporters. Bioprocess and biosystems engineering 2008., doi:10.1007/s00449-007-0169-1:

    Google Scholar 

  111. 111.

    Pitkänen JP, Aristidou A, Salusjärvi L, Ruohonen L, Penttilä M: Metabolic flux analysis of xylose metabolism in recombinant Saccharomyces cerevisiae using continuous culture. Metab Eng 2003,5(1):16-31.

    Google Scholar 

  112. 112.

    Öhgren K, Bengtsson O, Gorwa-Grauslund MF, Galbe M, Hahn-Hägerdal B, Zacchi G: Simultaneous saccharification and co-fermentation of glucose and xylose in steam-pretreated corn stover at high fiber content with Saccharomyces cerevisiae TMB3400. J Biotechnol 2006,126(4):488-498.

    Google Scholar 

  113. 113.

    Olofsson K, Rudolf A, Lidén G: Designing simultaneous saccharification and fermentation for improved xylose conversion by a recombinant strain of Saccharomyces cerevisiae. J Biotechnol 2008, 134: 112-120.

    Google Scholar 

  114. 114.

    Taherzadeh MJ, Niklasson C, Liden G: Conversion of dilute-acid hydrolyzates of spruce and birch to ethanol by fed-batch fermentation. Bioresour Technol 1999,69(1):59-66.

    Google Scholar 

  115. 115.

    Pimenova N, Hanley T: Measurement of rheological properties of corn stover suspensions. Appl Biochem Biotechnol 2003,106(1):383-392.

    Google Scholar 

  116. 116.

    Ballesteros M, Oliva JM, Manzanares P, Negro MJ, Ballesteros I: Ethanol production from paper material using a simultaneous saccharification and fermentation system in a fed-batch basis. World J Microbiol Biotechnol 2002,18(6):559-561.

    Google Scholar 

  117. 117.

    Rudolf A, Alkasrawi M, Zacchi G, Lidén G: A comparison between batch and fed-batch simultaneous saccharification and fermentation of steam pretreated spruce. Enzyme Microb Technol 2005,37(2):195-205.

    Google Scholar 

  118. 118.

    Öhgren K, Vehmaanpera J, Siika-Aho M, Galbe M, Viikari L, Zacchi G: High temperature enzymatic prehydrolysis prior to simultaneous saccharification and fermentation of steam pretreated corn stover for ethanol production. Enzyme Microb Technol 2007,40(4):607-613.

    Google Scholar 

  119. 119.

    Sassner P, Galbe M, Zacchi G: Techno-economic evaluation of bioethanol production from three different lignocellulosic materials. Biomass Bioenergy 2007., doi:10.1016/j.biombioe.2007.10.014:

    Google Scholar 

  120. 120.

    Sassner P, Galbe M, Zacchi G: Bioethanol production based on simultaneous saccharification and fermentation of steam-pretreated Salix at high dry-matter content. Enzyme Microb Technol 2006,39(4):756-762.

    Google Scholar 

  121. 121.

    Linde M, Galbe M, Zacchi G: Simultaneous saccharification and fermentation of steam-pretreated barley straw at low enzyme loadings and low yeast concentration. Enzyme Microb Technol 2007,40(5):1100-1107.

    Google Scholar 

  122. 122.

    Eklund R, Zacchi G: Simultaneous saccharification and fermentation of steam-pretreated willow. Enzyme Microb Technol 1995,17(3):255-259.

    Google Scholar 

  123. 123.

    Stockton BC, Mitchell DJ, Grohmann K, Himmel ME: Optimumβ-D-glucosidase supplementation of cellulase for efficient conversion of cellulose to glucose. Biotechnol Letts 1991,13(1):57-62.

    Google Scholar 

  124. 124.

    Ghosh P, Pamment NB, Martin WRB: Simultaneous saccharification and fermentation of cellulose: Effect of beta-D-glucosidase activity and ethanol inhibition of cellulases. Enzyme Microb Technol 1982, 4: 425-430.

    Google Scholar 

  125. 125.

    Spindler DD, Wyman CE, Grohmann K: The simultaneous saccharification and fermentation of pretreated woody crops to ethanol. Appl Biochem Biotechnol 1991, 28-29: 773-786.

    Google Scholar 

  126. 126.

    Spindler DD, Wyman CE, Grohmann K, Philippidis GP: Evaluation of the cellobiose-fermenting yeast Brettanomyces custersii in the simultaneous saccharification and fermentation of cellulose. Biotechnol Letts 1992,14(5):403-407.

    Google Scholar 

  127. 127.

    Doran JB, Ingram LO: Fermentation of crystalline cellulose to ethanol by Klebsiella oxytoca containing chromosomally integrated Zymomonas mobilis genes. In Biotechnol Prog. Volume 9. United States ; 1993:533-538.

  128. 128.

    Rudolf A, Baudel H, Zacchi G, Hahn-Hägerdal B, Lidén G: Simultaneous saccharification and fermentation of steam-pretreated bagasse using Saccharomyces cerevisiae TMB3400 and Pichia stipitis CBS6054. Biotechnol Bioeng 2008,99(4):783-790.

    Google Scholar 

  129. 129.

    Martín C, Galbe M, Wahlbom CF, Hahn-Hägerdal B, Jönsson LJ: Ethanol production from enzymatic hydrolysates of sugarcane bagasse using recombinant xylose-utilising Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Enzyme Microb Technol 2002,31(3):274-283.

    Google Scholar 

  130. 130.

    Moniruzzaman M, Dien BS, Skory CD, Chen ZD, Hespell RB, Ho NWY, Dale BE, Bothast RJ: Fermentation of corn fibre sugars by an engineered xylose utilizing Saccharomyces yeast strain. World J Microbiol Biotechnol 1997,13(3):341-346.

    Google Scholar 

  131. 131.

    McMillan J, Newman M, Templeton D, Mohagheghi A: Simultaneous saccharification and cofermentation of dilute-acid pretreated yellow poplar hardwood to ethanol using xylose-fermenting Zymomonas mobilis. Appl Biochem Biotechnol 1999,79(1):649-665.

    Google Scholar 

  132. 132.

    Becker J, Boles E: A Modified Saccharomyces cerevisiae Strain That Consumes L-Arabinose and Produces Ethanol. Appl Environ Microbiol 2003,69(7):4144-4150.

    Google Scholar 

  133. 133.

    Richard P, Verho R, Putkonen M, Londesborough J, Penttila M: Production of ethanol from L-arabinose by Saccharomyces cerevisiae containing a fungal L-arabinose pathway. FEMS Yeast Res 2003,3(2):185-189.

    Google Scholar 

  134. 134.

    Karhumaa K, Wiedemann B, Hahn-Hägerdal B, Boles E, Gorwa-Grauslund MF: Co-utilization of L-arabinose and D-xylose by laboratory and industrial Saccharomyces cerevisiae strains. Microb Cell Fact 2006,5(1):18-18.

    Google Scholar 

  135. 135.

    Mohagheghi A, Evans K, Chou YC, Zhang M: Cofermentation of glucose, xylose, and arabinose by genomic DNA-integrated xylose/arabinose fermenting strain of Zymomonas mobilis AX101. Appl Biochem Biotechnol 2002,98-100(1):885-898.

    Google Scholar 

  136. 136.

    Wyman CE, Spindler DD, Grohmann K: Simultaneous saccharification and fermentation of several lignocellulosic feedstocks to fuel ethanol. Biomass Bioenergy 1992,3(5):301-307.

    Google Scholar 

  137. 137.

    Ballesteros I, Ballesteros M, Cabanas A, Carrasco J, Martin C, Negro MJ, Saez F, Saez R: Selection of thermotolerant yeasts for simultaneous saccharification and fermentation (SSF) of cellulose to ethanol. Appl Biochem Biotechnol 1991, 28-29: 307-316.

    Google Scholar 

  138. 138.

    Ballesteros M, Oliva JM, Negro MJ, Manzanares P, Ballesteros I: Ethanol from lignocellulosic materials by a simultaneous saccharification and fermentation process (SFS) with Kluyveromyces marxianus CECT 10875. Process Biochem 2004,39(12):1843-1848.

    Google Scholar 

  139. 139.

    Szczodrak J, Targonski Z: Selection of thermotolerant yeast strains for simultaneous saccharification and fermentation of cellulose. Biotechnol Bioeng 1988,31(4):300-303.

    Google Scholar 

  140. 140.

    Spindler DD, Wyman CE, Grohmann K: Evaluation of thermotolerant yeasts in controlled simultaneous saccharifications and fermentations of cellulose to ethanol. Biotechnol Bioeng 1989,34(2):189-195.

    Google Scholar 

  141. 141.

    Hari Krishna S, Janardhan Reddy T, Chowdary GV: Simultaneous saccharification and fermentation of lignocellulosic wastes to ethanol using a thermotolerant yeast. Bioresour Technol 2001,77(2):193-196.

    Google Scholar 

  142. 142.

    Spindler DD, Wyman CE, Mohagheghi A, Grohmann K: Thermotolerant yeast for simultaneous saccharification and fermentation of cellulose to ethanol. Appl Biochem Biotechnol 1988,17 (1-3):279-294.

    Google Scholar 

  143. 143.

    Olsson L, Hahn-Hägerdal B: Fermentation of lignocellulosic hydrolysates for ethanol production. Enzyme Microb Technol 1996,18(5):312-331.

    Google Scholar 

  144. 144.

    Palmqvist E, Hahn-Hagerdal B: Fermentation of lignocellulosic hydrolysates. I: inhibition and detoxification. Bioresour Technol 2000,74(1):17-24.

    Google Scholar 

  145. 145.

    Nilvebrant NO, Persson P, Reimann A, de Sousa F, Gorton L, Jönsson L: Limits for alkaline detoxification of dilute-acid lignocellulose hydrolysates. Appl Biochem Biotechnol 2003,107(1):615-628.

    Google Scholar 

  146. 146.

    Von Sivers M, Zacchi G, Olsson L, Hahn-Hägerdal B: Cost analysis of ethanol production from willow using recombinant Escherichia coli. Biotechnol Prog 1994,10(5):555-555.

    Google Scholar 

  147. 147.

    Sauer U: Evolutionary engineering of industrially important microbial phenotypes. Adv Biochem Eng Biotechnol 2001, 73: 129-169.

    Google Scholar 

  148. 148.

    Nilsson A, Taherzadeh MJ, Liden G: Use of dynamic step response for control of fed-batch conversion of lignocellulosic hydrolyzates to ethanol. J Biotechnol 2001,89(1):41-53.

    Google Scholar 

  149. 149.

    Alkasrawi M, Rudolf A, Lidén G: Influence of strain and cultivation procedure on the performance of simultaneous saccharification and fermentation of steam pretreated spruce. Enzyme Microb Technol 2006,38(1-2):279-287.

    Google Scholar 

  150. 150.

    Öhgren K, Rudolf A, Galbe M, Zacchi G: Fuel ethanol production from steam-pretreated corn stover using SSF at higher dry matter content. Biomass Bioenergy 2006,30(10):863-869.

    Google Scholar 

  151. 151.

    Wiselogel A, Tyson S, Johnson D: Biomass feedstock resources and composition. Applied energy technology series. In Handbook on bioethanol: Production and utilization. Edited by: Wyman C. Taylor and Francis; 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  152. 152.

    Neureiter M, Danner H, Thomasser C, Saidi B, Braun R: Dilute-acid hydrolysis of sugarcane bagasse at varying conditions. Appl Biochem Biotechnol 2002 , 98: 49-58.

    Google Scholar 

  153. 153.

    Sassner P, Galbe M, Zacchi G: Steam pretreatment of Salix with and without SO2 impregnation for production of bioethanol. Appl Biochem Biotechnol 2005,124(1):1101-1117.

    Google Scholar 

  154. 154.

    Kádár Z, Szengyel Z, Ráczey K: Simultaneous saccharification and fermentation (SSF) of industrial wastes for the production of ethanol. Ind Crop Prod 2004,20(1):103-111.

    Google Scholar 

  155. 155.

    Linde M: Process development of bioethanol production from wheat and barley residues. In Department of Chemical Engineering. Volume PhD. Lund , Lund University; 2007.

    Google Scholar 

Download references


This work was financially supported by the Swedish Energy Agency.

Author information



Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gunnar Lidén.

Additional information

Competing interests

GL has research grants from the Swedish Energy Agency for experimental investigations on SSF processes and also participates in EU financed projects on this topic. GL is co-author of one patent concerning improved inhibitor tolerance of S. cerevisiae.

Authors' contributions

KO and MB contributed equally to the writing. KO wrote the parts concerning fermentation and pentose fermentation, whereas MB wrote the parts concerning pretreatment and enzymatic hydrolysis. GL set the scope and outline of the paper, wrote the introduction and conclusion, and revised the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final version.

Authors’ original submitted files for images

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Olofsson, K., Bertilsson, M. & Lidén, G. A short review on SSF – an interesting process option for ethanol production from lignocellulosic feedstocks. Biotechnol Biofuels 1, 7 (2008).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI:


  • Fermentation
  • Xylose
  • Xylitol
  • Ethanol Yield
  • Xylose Fermentation