Table 4 Comparison of substrates, products, and microbial communities between previous literature studies and this study
Authors | Type of substrates | Target product | Operation mode | Fermentation condition | Highest product yield | Major microorganism | Relative studies (Y to yes, N to no) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Substrates composition and microbial community | Microbial community and metabolic pathway | |||||||
Jia et al. [10] | WAS, perennial ryegrass | VFAs | Batch | 35 ± 1 °C, without pH control | 368.71 ± 17.53 gCOD/kg TS | Clostridia, Spirochaetes, and Bacteroidetes | Y | N |
Rughoonundun et al. [25] | WAS, bagasse | VFAs | Batch | 55 °C, pH 7.0 | 360 mg/g VS | – | N | N |
Huang et al. [11] | WAS, henna plant biomass | VFAs | Batch | 35 ± 1 °C, initial pH 8.0, without pH control | 7891 ± 411 mg COD/L | – | N | N |
Guo et al. [30] | WAS, agricultural residues | VFAs | Semi-continuous | pH 10.0 ± 0.5 | 486.6 mgCOD/g VSS | Proteobacteria, Firmicutes, and Actinobacteria | Y | N |
Huang et al. [31] | WAS, bio-surfactants | VFAs | Batch | pH 9.0, 10.0, and 11.0 | 425.2Â mg COD/g VSS | Firmicutes, Proteobacteria, Bacteroidetes, Actinobacteria, and Chloroflexi | Y | N |
Maspolim et al. [32] | WAS | VFAs | Semi-continuous | 35 °C, pH 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11 | – | Tissierella, Petrimonas, Proteiniphilum, Levilinea, Proteiniborus, and Sedimentibacter | Y | N |
Sivagurunathan et al. [33] | Galactose | H2 | Batch and continuous | 35 ± 1 °C, pH over 5.5 | 1.05 mol H2/mol galactose | Clostridium sp. and Sporolactobacillus sp. | Y | Y |
Kumar et al. [34] | Microalgae | H2 | Batch | The seed inoculum included BESA addition (1 g/L), pH 5.5 | 29.5 mL/g VSadded | – | N | N |
Ho et al. [35] | Microalgal C. vulgaris FSP-E | Ethanol | Batch | 30 °C, pH 5.0-6.0 | 11.66 g/L | Pure culture of Z. mobilis ATCC 29191 | N | N |
This study | WAS, potato waste, food waste | VFAs | Batch | 35 ± 1 °C, pH 10.0 | 343.54 ± 14.63 mg COD/g VS | Firmicutes, Chloroflexi, and Proteobacteria | Y | Y |