Table 2 Comparison of lipid conversion efficiency among different oleaginous microorganisms

Candida 107 (Y)

SC

0.052 g/g glucose

[58]

Yarrowia lipolytica (Y)

SC

≤ 0.270 g/g.glucose

[8, 59]

Cryptococcus curvatus (Y)

SC

0.11–0.21 g/g.sugar^b

[60]

Trichosporon cutaneum (Y)

SC

0.12 g/g galacturonate

[26]

Rhodotorula glacialis (Y)

SC

0.16 g/g glucose

[61]

Debaryomyces etchellsii (Y)

SC

≤ 0.031 g/g glucose

[62]

Rhodococcus erythropolis (B)

SC

0.061 g/g glucose

[63]

Bacterium GK12 (B)^a

SC

< 0.098 g/g gluconate

[64]

Rhodococcus opacus (B)

SC

0.041 g/g lignin

[65]

Bacillus subtilis (B)

SC

0.045 g/g reducing sugar

[66]

Escherichia coli (B)

SC

< 0.034 g/g ethanol

[67]

Mortierella isabellina (F)

SC

0.17 g/g glucose

[68]

Cunninghamella echinulata (F)

SC

0.21 g/g tomato waste hydrolysate

[69]

Mucor sp. (F)

SC

0.058 g/g glucose

[70]

Mortierella ramanniana (F)

SC

0.15 g/g glucose

[71]

Chlorellazofi ngiensis (HM)

SC

0.136 g/g glucose

[72]

Chlorella sorokiniana (HM)

SC

0.19 g/g glucose

[73]

Aspergillus oryzae A-4 (F)

SSF

0.0366 g/g dry substrate

[74]

Aspergillus tubingensis TSIP9 (F)

SSF

0.047 g/g dry substrate

[75]

Phanerochaete chrysosporium [F]

SSC

0.277 g/g WCG

This work