Table 4 Comparison of ethanol yield using different hydrolysis technique in presence of different substrates

U. fasciata (green)

EH, SHF

Saccharomyces cerevisiae MTCC 180

47 (g/100 g)

[68]

U. fasciata (green)

EH, SHF

Saccharomyces cerevisiae

47 (g/100 g)

[69]

Gracilaria sp. (red)

AH & EH, SHF

Saccharomyces cerevisiae Wu

47 (g/100 g)

[70]

G. amansii (red)

AH, SHF

Brettanomyces custersii

38 (g/100 g)

[71]

L. japonica (brown)

AH & EH, SHF

Escherichia coli KO11

41 (g/100 g)

[72]

K. alvarezii (red)

AH, SSF

Brewer’s yeast

21 (g/100 g)

[73]

Sargassum sagamianum (brown)

TH & EH, SHF

P. stipites CBS7126

44 (g/100 g)

[74]

E. globulus

SSF

Saccharomyces cerevisiae IR2T9

30–38 (g/L)

[75]

NS

CBP

Saccharomyces cerevisiae MT8-1

0.71 (g/L)

[76]

Raw CC

SPS using Ce–Fe₃O₄, EH

Saccharomyces cerevisiae

21.7 g/L

[77]

Recycled paper sludge

Batch/SHF

Saccharomyces cerevisiae PE-2

5.6–6.3 g/L

[78]

E. globulus

SSF

Saccharomyces cerevisiae D5A

5.67 g/L

[79]

Sugarcane bagasse

Phosphoric acid pretreatment

Escherichia coli MM170

0.25–0.27 (g/g raw biomass)

[80]

Lodgepole pine

SPORL pretreatment

NS

0.22 (g/g raw biomass)

[81]

Birch

Alkaline

NS

0.11 (g/g raw biomass)

[82]

Miscanthus

LHW

NS

0.15 (g/g raw biomass)

[83]

Agar

SPS using Fe₃O₄-MNPs

Saccharomyces cerevisiae S288c (ATCC 7754)

0.0181%

This study

Agar

SPS using Fe₃O₄-MNPs

Escherichia coli K12

0.0042%

This study