Waste Biomass Valor
DOI 10.1007/s12649-016-9665-3
REVIEW
Recent Advances in Sugarcane Industry Solid
By-Products Valorization
Tushar Chandra Sarker1 • Shah Md Golam Gousul Azam2 • Giuliano Bonanomi1
Received: 24 April 2016 / Accepted: 16 August 2016
 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016
Abstract Sugarcane is among the leading agricultural crop
cultivated in tropical regions of the world. Industrial pro-
cessing of sugarcane generates sugar; as well as various
solid wastes (i.e. sugarcane bagasse, pressmud). Improve-
ment of biotechnology in industrial level, offers opportu-
nities for economic utilization of these solid residues. In
the last few decades, sugarcane bagasse and pressmud have
been explored in the theme of lignocellulosic bioconver-
sion. The recalcitrance of biomass is a major drawback
towards successful exploitation of lignocellulosic residues.
Pretreatment by suitable/efficient processes can overcome
this limitation. In this regards; physical, chemical and
biological treatment systems are brought into our per-
spective. Chemical and physicochemical methods are
capital-intensive but not environment-friendly, in contrast,
method like biological treatment is eco-friendly but
extremely slow. There are still major technological and
economic challenges need to be addressed; e.g. bio-
prospecting, established more reliable genetically modified
microorganisms, upgrade gene cloning and sequencing
processes, yield improvement at large scale etc. Produc-
tions of value-added products from these solid wastes are
discussed in such a way that pinpoints the most recent
trends and the future directions. Biofuels, enzymes, organic
acids and bio-sorbents production draw a clear sketch of
the current and future bio-based products. Nano-biotech-
nology and genetic engineering could be future trends to
& Tushar Chandra Sarker
tusharchandra.sarker@unina.it
1
Department of Agriculture, University of Naples Federico II,
Via Università, n100, Portici, 80055 Naples, Italy
2
Department of Botany, University of Rajshahi,
Rajshahi 6205, Bangladesh
improved processes and products. This review serves as a
valuable reference material for a wide range of scientists
and technologists in the relevant fields.
Keywords Sugarcane bagasse
Lignocellulosic by-
products
Recalcitrance
Pretreatments
Value-added
products
Introduction
Rapid evolution in the field of agricultural industries causes
million tons of by-products every year that have the
potential as a low-cost source of energy and materials
[1, 2]. Significant attempts has been made in recent years
towards a more efficient renewable agro-industrial residues
utilization [3]. Sugarcane is one of the prime agricultural
crops cultivated in tropical regions. Annual global sugar-
cane production is *1600 million tons [4]. Industrial
processing of this huge amount sugarcane produces million
tons of by-products every year which are the most potential
lignocellulosic [i.e. sugarcane bagasse (SCB) and press
mud (PM)] feedstock [5]. Since cellulose, hemicellulose
and lignin are the principal chemical components of these
materials, they can be recycled and utilized for a variety of
products production which has a commercial interest [6].
Valorization of sugarcane industry lignocellulosic by-
products with possible applications has been exclusively
studied by various authors [7–9]. Production of biofuels
(e.g. ethanol, biogas, biohydrogen) [10, 11], organic acids
[12], enzymes [13], bio-sorbent [14], compost fertilizer
[15] have been studied from SCB and PM. Alongside,
utilizing these by-products through suitable technologies
has also remove wastes from the environment [16].
123

The recalcitrance of feedstock, is a major drawback
towards efficient utilization of lignocellulosic residues
[17]. Microfibril structure formed by cellulose, hemicellu-
loses, and lignin; which adds structural solidity to the plant
cell [18]. Moreover, the cellulose crystalline structure
provides an additional barrier by itself to hydrolysis [19].
Pretreatment is an ultimate way to overcome the biomass
recalcitrance by improving the accessibility of carbohy-
drate for the successive enzymatic hydrolysis. There are
several robust pretreatment methods available. Effectivity
of delignification or hemicellulose removal, inhibitors
generation, sugar production, time savings, cost and envi-
ronmental pollution issues are taken into consideration for
selection of suitable pretreatment process [17].
A number of pretreatment methods have been tested for
a variety of lignocellulosic materials [16, 20–23]. Pre-
treatment processes; already tested for SCB and PM
includes physical [24–26], chemical [27–29], physico-
chemical [30–32] and biological pretreatment [33]. How-
ever, the present work is dedicated to reviewing literature
about different pretreatment methods for SCB and PM
exploitation and production of various added-value prod-
ucts from these lignocellulosic by-products. Moreover,
virtual biorefinery concept and life-cycle analysis are also
take into account to evaluate the technical, economic,
social, and environmental impacts of different sugarcane
biorefinery alternatives/routes.
Generation of Sugarcane Industry Solid By-
Products
Sugar production is a major agro-based industry worldwide
[34]. In an average, 540 million dry tons of sugarcane is being
processed throughout the world every year [35] that generates
sugar as well as various wastes. By-products of sugarcane can
be grouped into stages; tops and straw originate during har-
vesting stage and those that are generated during the industrial
processing including SCB, PM/filter cake, and molasses. In
this review work, we will focus particularly on lignocellulosic
by-products (SCB and PM), that are generated during the
industrial processing of sugarcane. Generation of sugarcane
industry by-products is shown in Fig. 1.
Bagasse
SCB is one of the largest cellulosic agro-industrial by-
products sources. It is a fibrous residues of cane stalks, left
over after the crushing and extraction of the juice from
sugarcane [36]. SCB composed of diverse efficient com-
ponents in rich quantity, like cellulose, hemicellulose,
lignin, ash and small amounts of extractives [37].
Approximately, 100 million tons of dry SCB are produce
123
Waste Biomass Valor
globally every year [38] and in general, 280 kg bagasse
generates from per ton of sugarcane [35]. Almost 50 % of
total bagasse utilized as a potential energy source in sugar
industries won distillery plants [3] and rests are stockpiled.
Almost 80 sugarcane producing countries has potential to
make better use of the SCB [39]. SCB offers many
advantages due to its relatively low ash content (4.8 %)
compared to other feedstocks such as rice straw (17.5 %),
wheat straw (11.0 %) and paddy straw (16 %) [40]. SCB is
currently used as the main energy source required in sugar
mills and ethanol distilleries and also for generating elec-
tricity to be sold to the grids. However, an important part of
the produced bagasse is still underutilized, and it could be
used in more than forty different applications, such as
production of ethanol, enzymes, organic acids, pulp and
paper, boards, animal feed and furfural [41].
PM or Filter Cake
PM is a by-product of sugarcane juice filtration process.
The filtration process separates juice and mud; clear juice
rises to the top and mud collects at the bottom [42]. In
general, 100 tons of sugarcane crushed generates 3 tons
(3 % of total cane weight) of PM cake [9]. The composi-
tion of PM depends on locality, cane variety, milling pro-
cess and methods of clarification [43]. Sugarcane industries
from all over the world are producing large amounts of PM
every year and the disposal of this by-product is a vital
concern [44]. Usually, PM is being dumped as garbage in
open fields or sold/given to farmers to use as fertilizer. This
disposal method pauses some environmental challenges
such as air pollution due to odor, surface and ground water
pollution and overall pollutes the environment [45].
Recently, much attention has been focused on better use of
PM. Ansari and Gaikar [46] reported, PM could be a
potential source of hydrocarbons and valuable chemicals
on thermochemical conversion. Several intermediate
products such as enzymes [47], biogas/methane [48],
compost [49], wax and protein [50] have been produced
from sugarcane PM. The chemical compositions of SCB
and PM are presented in Table 1.
Advantages of Sugarcane Industry By-Products
Utilization
Currently, the establishment of sugarcane by-products
based industries has provided numerous opportunities.
• Employing convenient technologies, these waste mate-
rials can be converted into added-value products.
• Combustion of SCB offers opportunities to meet sugar
industries won energy demand. As a consequence, low
Waste Biomass Valor

Cane stalk crushing

Cane mills

Bagasse generation
(280-300 kg t-1)
1,600 million t y-1 Lime
sugarcane produced Centrifugation
globally. Among these, Evaporator Crystallizer
Vacuum pan
540 million t y-1
sugarcane goes for
processing Clarifier
Juice scale

Pressmud generation Sugar production

(30 kg t-1 ) (200 kg t-1)

Fig. 1 Schematic representation of SCB and PM generation in the sugar industry

Table 1 Chemical compositions of SCB and PM Pretreatment Methods

Components (%) SCBa PM
[185] [43] During the last few decades, numerous pretreatment
methods have been suggested; they can be divided into
Cellulose 42.19 11.4 categories: physical (milling, irradiation), chemical (alkali,
Hemicelluloses 27.60 10 dilute acid, oxidizing agents and organic solvents), physic-
Lignin 21.56 9.3 chemical (steam explosion, wet oxidation) and biological,
Ash 2.84 9 or combinations of these. Different pretreatments methods
Extractives 5.63 – and their advantages and disadvantages are summarized in
PM pressmud, SCB sugarcane bagasse Table 2 and examples of pretreatment types and their
a
An average value of sixty SCB samples specific experimental conditions are presented in Table 3.
Direct correlation between the removal of lignin and
hemicelluloses and the digestibility of cellulose was found
fuel cost, increased viability of sugar mills, energy in recent investigations [21, 51]. However, pretreatment
security, fuel diversity, reduced transmission and must meet the following requirements: (1) improve sugar
distribution losses and reduced CO2 emission. formation (2) avoid carbohydrate losses (3) avoid the for-
• Increasing fossil fuel prices is a global concern, convert mation of inhibitory products to the subsequent hydrolysis
these by-products into biofuel can meet the growing and fermentation processes, and (4) be economical.
demand for fossil fuel.
• Offers employment opportunity for rural people and Physical Pretreatment
successively boost up economic status of regarding
peoples. Physical pretreatments can increase the accessible surface
• Exploitation of these solid by-products in different area and pore size by decreasing the cellulose crystallinity
purpose can minimize the environment pollution and the degrees of polymerization. Mechanical comminu-
problem. tions (ball milling, two-roll milling, hammer milling,

123
 Waste Biomass Valor

Table 2 Summary of advantages and disadvantages of different pretreatment methods

Pretreatment method Advantages Disadvantages

Physical pretreatment
Milling Weakens cellulose crystallinity Consumes vey high power and energy
Irradiation Disrupts lignocelluloses structure Enhances the cost
Chemical pretreatment
Concentrated acid Yields high glucose High acid cost and recycled is needed
Ambient temperatures Reactor corrosion problem
Inhibitors formation
Diluted acids Less corrosion problem than concentrated acid Generation of degradation products
Less formation of inhibitor Low sugar concentration in exit stream
Alkali pretreatment Increase saccharification rate Cost extensive
Organosolv Efficient lignin and hemicelluloses hydrolysis Solvent need to be drained and recycle
Physico-chemical pretreatment
Steam explosion Lignin and hemicelluloses solubilization Generation of toxic compounds
Cost intensive Partial hemicelluloses degradation
Wet oxidation Efficient lignin removal High solvent cost
Fewer inhibitors formation
Low energy demand (exothermic)
Ammonia fiber expansion Expand accessible surface area Less efficient for high lignin content material
LHW pretreatment No use of chemicals More effective for corn fibers and herbaceous crops
Biological
Degrade lignin and hemicelluloses Hydrolysis rate low
Less energy required

colloid milling and vibratory milling) and irradiation (by
gamma rays, electron beam or microwaves) can be used as
physical process to improve the enzymatic hydrolysis or
biodegradability of lignocellulosic waste materials [52].
Mechanical Comminution
Mechanical comminutions rattles cellulose crystallinity,
minimize polymerization rate and maximize surface area of
cellulosic feedstocks by splitting into shorter fragments.
This process makes the substrate more biddable to suc-
cessive enzymatic hydrolysis [52]. Based on the final par-
ticle size, this can be crunch by mixing of chipping,
grinding and milling [53]. Milling is a well-investigated
process; and among different milling techniques, ball
milling is mostly used process. In this process, biomass
passed through a cycle machine where biomass contact
with balls inside the machine and decrease fragment size
[25]. For SCB pretreatment, it needs many cycles and
passes through the miller and each cycle usually takes a
long time to operate [54]. Sambusiti et al. [55] mentioned
that among milling processes vibratory milling is the most
effective in the reduction of particle size and cellulose
crystallinity. da Silve et al. [25], Bauban et al. [25]
obtained high ethanol yields from SCB employing
mechanical ball milling and wet disk milling pretreatment.
However, there is no need of chemicals uses in this process
thus; it can be considered as eco-friendly method [25]. But
the power requirement is relatively high; taking into
account the high energy requirements of milling, it is not
cost effective.
Irradiation Pretreatment
Irradiation is one of the most useful physical methods to
handle lignocellulosic wastes (LCW), that can cause re-
markable disruption of the lignocelluloses structure [16].
Irradiation can be preformed by gamma rays, electron
beam, ultrasound, and microwaves. Microwave irradiation
at a power of up to 700 W and various exposure times
caused weight loss of biomass by cellulose, hemicellulose
and lignin fraction degradation [56]. de Souza Moretti et al.
[57] pre-treated SCB with microwave at 2450 MHz for
5 min associated to glycerol. After treatment, they found
degradation of lignin and xylem fraction 5.4 and 11.3 %
(w/w) respectively. In another study, Ramadoss and
Muthukumar [24] found maximum delignification rate
58.14 %. By far, this method is too expensive and also

123
Waste Biomass Valor

Table 3 Implemented pretreatment methods for SCB and PM exploitation describe in literatures
Pretreatment Agent Condition Functions References

Physical pretreatment
Ball milling Planetary ball mill At 400 rpm, time of 30–120 min at room temperature. A Enzymatic hydrolysis [25]
pulverisette-7 cyclic mode of 10 min milling followed by a 10 min by decreasing the
pause crystallinity
Planetary ball At 250 rpm, performed in intervals of 10 min with 10 min Disrupts cellulose [26]
milling TI-300 pauses in between for a total of 1, 2 and 4 h at room structure
system temperature
Wet disk milling Super mass At 1800 rpm, 20 milling cycles. Cycle duration varied from Defibrillation of [25]
colloider approximately 3–17 min biomass
MKZA10f
Ultrasound Maleic anhydride Maleic anhydride conc. 1:0.3 to 1:1.1(w/v). Operating at Chemical modification [186]
irradiation using pyridine as 30 C for 0, 10, 15, 25, 35 min in a 10 L ultrasonic of biomass
solvent cleaning bath provided with the sonic power of 300 W
Ultrasound Sonicator and Ammonia conc. (5, 10 and 15 %, v/v), LSR (10:1, 15:1 and Delignification [24]
assisted ammonia 20:1 mL/g), particle size (0.274, 0.460 and 0.925 mm),
ammonia sonication time (15, 30 and 45 min) and temperature (40,
pretreatment 60 and 80 C)
Microwave H2O, H3PO4 Irradiated at 2450 MHz for 5 min Increases enzymatic [57]
irradiation hydrolysis
Chemical pretreatment
Alkaline H2O and NaOH Base conc. 3 %, solid to liquid ratio of 1:25 (g/mL). Fractionation of [187]
pretreatment Operation at 50 C for 3 h hemicelluloses
H2O and NaOH Reacted with 0.1 N NaOH for 1 h at 120 C Enzymatic hydrolysis [59]
H2O and NaOH At different NaOH conc. (0, 1.5, 3 and 6 g NaOH/100 g Increases digestability [28]
FCFM) at 45 C for 30 min of substratea
Glycerol Glycerol Solid to liquid ration 1:10, 200–240 C, stirring at 200 rpm – [27]
pretreatment for 1 h
Acid catalyzed HCL and H2O Acid conc. 1.2 %, operation at 130 C for 30 min at Increases glucan [188]
process 500 rpm digestibility
Dilute acid HCL Acid conc. (1.2 % v/v) mL of acid solution/g of SCB by Increases the reducing [29]
weight: 15:1. Operation at 121 C and 1.1 kg/cm2 for 4 h sugar concentration
HCL Acid conc. (2.5 % v/v), solid to liquid ratio of 1:10, Hydrolysis of SCB [189]
operation at 140 C for 30 min hemicelluloses
H2SO4 Acid conc. (0.5 % v/v), operation at 121 C, 1.5 kg/cm2, Hydrolysis of [190]
during 60 min hemicelluloses
H2SO4 Acid conc. (1.25 %, w/w), operation at 121 C during 2 h. Increases the reducing [191]
The biomass at a solid loading of 10 % (w/w) sugar concentration
H2SO4 Acid conc. (1 % w/w), operation at 160 C with 10:1 (w/v) Increases enzymatic [192]
liquid to solid ratio for 30 min in a 5 L autoclave, and the digestibility
heating-up time was 1.5 h. Mechanical stirring with
300 rpm
H2SO4 Acid conc. 1 % (v/v), solid:liquid ratio 1:2 at 121 C for Disrupts the [64]
40-min lignocellulosic matrix
HNO3 Acid conc. 6 %, operation at 122 C for 9.3 min Hydrolysis of SCB [193]
H3PO4 Acid conc. 4 %, operation at 122 C during 300 min. Hydrolysis of SCB [194]
Water/solid ratio of 8 (g water/g SCB on dry basis)
H2SO4 Performed in autoclave, acid conc. 1 % (w/v), operation at Enhance enzymatic [106]
121 C for 30, 90 or 150 min and solids loadings of 20, hydrolysis
30 or 40 % (w/v)
Organosolv Supercritical CO2 At 7 MPa and 190 C. 60 % of butanol in the solvent Hydrolysis of [195]
and 1-butanol– mixture, reaction time 105 min polysaccharide
water mixture fraction

123
 Waste Biomass Valor

Table 3 continued
Pretreatment Agent Condition Functions References

Supercritical CO2 At 16.0 MPa and 190 C. Ethanol–water (1:1/v:v), reaction Delignification [196]
and ethanol– times in the range: 30–150 min
water mixture
Alkali-peracitic NaOH and peracitic 10 % NaOH (based on raw material) at 90 C for 1.5 h with Delignification [69]
acid acid 3:1 liquor ratio (L/kg). Further treated by an oxidative
pretreatment delignification stage with PAA loading of 15 % (based on
raw material) at 75 C for 3 h
Physico-chemical pretreatment
Thermo-alkaline Water and Ca(OH)2 At 30 C in a Ca(OH)2 solution for 15 min at 150 rpm Improves anaerobic [197]
biodegradability of
PMa
LHW H2O and heat Liquid to solid ratio of 5.5 and heated at varying Biomass solubilisationa [31]
temperatures (140–210 C) under constant stirring
(350 rpm) for different reaction times (2–23 min)
H2O and heat Water/dry SCB ratio: 14/1, maximum temperatures: 160, – [198]
170 and 180 C, maximum time at temperature: 4 h
H2O and heat At 5 % (w/v) in water and heated to the reaction Enhances sugar [77, 78, 100]
temperature (180–200 C) with the magnetic agitator recovery
operating at 500 rpm for 60 min
Autohydrolysis H2O Three different conditions were studied: 180 C for 20 min, Improves accessibility [199]
180 C for 40 min, and 190 C for 10 min of enzymes
Wet oxidation H2O and oxygen At 195 C during 15 min, alkaline pH. Oxygen pressure: Enhances the [19]
12 bar enzymatic
convertibility
H2O and O2 At 195 C during 15 min, alkaline pH, oxygen pressure: Fractionation of [32]
12 bar biomass
H2O and Na2CO3 At 195 C during 10 min, oxygen pressure under either 3 or Fractionation of the [61]
12 bar biomass materials
Steam explosion H2O and H3PO4 Acid conc. with 1 % (w/w), rapidly heated (160, 170, 180 Increases enzymatic [83]
and 190 C) and 10 min total cycle time hydrolysis
Water and dilute Acid conc. 13.4 g/L, at 180 C for 10 min with 50 wt% Enzymatic hydrolysis [30]
H3PO4 moisture content
H2O, SO2 and SO2 conc. 2 % by weight of water in the SCB. Acid conc. Increases enzymatic [200]
H2SO4 0.25 g H2SO4/100 g dry matter. At 180 C during 5 min hydrolysis
Saturated steam Saturated steam (25 kg/cm2) with automatic injection Expansions of surface [201]
(1 min ramp), reactor operates at 16 kg/cm2 for about
7 min
Saturated steam In a steam explosion reactor steam was injected until a Delignification of [84, 85]
pressure of approximately 1.3 MPa at 190 C for 15 min substrate
Ammonia fiber Anhydrous Conditions were 150 % (dwb) moisture content of biomass, Accessibility of [90]
expansion ammonia (2:1, w/w) ammonia to biomass loading, 140 C and cellulose and
30 min treatment time hemicelluloses to
enzymes
Dilute ammonia H2O and NH4OH Ammonium hydroxide (28 % v/v solution), and water at a Enzymatic digestibility [91]
pretreatment ratio of 1:0.5:8 at 160 C for 1 h under 0.9–1.1 MPa
Biological pretreatment
White rot fungus Inoculated with a mycelial disc, 1 cm in radius and Increases enzymatic [33]
Pleurotus maintained at 25 ± 1.5 C and in the dark for 45 days digestibility
sajorcaju PS
2001
PAA peracitic acid pretreatment
a
Pressmud as substrate

123
Waste Biomass Valor
doubtful that it can be used combinedly with technologies
supposed to be eco-friendly.
Chemical Pretreatments
A number of chemical processes have been tested during
the past few years for efficient biomass pretreatment. Few
methods have shown more than 90 % of the theoretical
sugar yield from lignocelluloses [58]. Chemical process
involves the usage of different chemicals like alkali, dilute
acid, ammonia, organic solvent or other. These methods are
easy to operate and have good conversion yields in a short
span of time.
Alkali Pretreatment
It is a delignification process, in which a fair amount of
hemicelluloses are solubilized. Diverse bases, including
sodium hydroxide, calcium hydroxide, potassium
hydroxide, ammonia hydroxide, and sodium hydroxide
incombination with hydrogen peroxide or others are uti-
lized. Alkali pretreatment can be performed at low tem-
perature and pressure; however, pretreatment time
ranging from hours to days [52]. Alkali hydrolyses of
SCB [59], spruce wood waste [60], cassava and peanuts
waste [61], corn cob [62] has been investigated. The alkali
treatment sharply boosts up saccharification rate and
cellulose digestibility. This processes causes less sugar
degradation compared to acid based pretreatment pro-
cesses, and many of the caustic salts can be recovered
and/or regenerated [21]. Alkaline pretreatment causes
swelling, leading to an increase in internal surface area,
decrease in the degree of polymerization and crystallinity,
separation of structural linkages between lignin and car-
bohydrates, and disruption of the lignin structure of lig-
nocellulosic materials [21]. Kumari and Das [63]
pretreated SCB using 0.25 N NaOH at 50 C for 30 min.
They reported maximum lignin removal of 60 % (w/w).
Janke et al. [28] treated sugarcane PM with NaOH at
different concentration; they mentioned higher concen-
trations of NaOH during pretreatment accelerated the
digestion process and increased methane production.
However, the use of expensive salts in high concentra-
tions is a major drawback that raises environmental con-
cerns and residual handling costs [51].
Acid Pretreatment
Acid treatment can be performed by concentrated or dilu-
ted acids. Use of dilute acids is more encouraging, as less
chances of inhibiting compounds formation [64]. Solubi-
lization of hemicellulose portion and make cellulose more
permeable to enzymes are the main target of acid
pretreatments. Diluted H2SO4 is the most studied acid,
which offers high hydrolysis yields of lignocellulosic bio-
mass. Moreover, HCL, H3PO4, and HNO3 has also been
well examined [65]. de Moraes Rocha et al. [66] studied
dilute mixed-acid treatment of SCB, a mixture of H2SO4
and CH3COOH at two different solid-to-liquid ratios
(1.5:10 and 1:10) were used. Both conditions efficiently
hydrolysed the hemicelluloses, giving removals above
90 % and cellulose is activated towards enzymatic
hydrolysis. The extractive components were also effec-
tively solubilised, and lignin was only slightly affected.
Cellulose degradation was below 15 %, which corre-
sponded to the low crystallinity fraction. Major short-
comings of concentrated acid treatments are equipment
corrosion and recovery of acid. Furthermore, this process is
not suitable at commercial scale due to very high opera-
tional and maintenance costs [67]. Nevertheless, there
seems to be a renewable interest in these processes.
Organosolv Pretreatment
Diverse organic or aqueous solvent mixtures including
acetone, ethanol, ethylene glycol, methanol, and tetrahy-
drofurfuryl alcohol can be applied to solubilize lignin and
appropriate enzymatic hydrolysis in organosolv method.
The prime interest of organosolv process is the recupera-
tion of relatively pure lignin (as a by-product) comparing to
other chemical processes [20]. Zhao et al. [68] studied
enzymatic digestibility of SCB by alkali–peracetic acid
(PAA), they found expanded digestibility by PAA treat-
ment under mild condition. Digestibility by PAA treatment
accomplished mostly by delignification, expansion of sur-
face area and discloser of cellulose fibers [60]. Zhao et al.
[69] conducted a comparative study of delignification of
SCB with alkali and PAA to produce of pulp, ethanol and
lignin products. They observed that PAA treatment had a
better effect on pulp, ethanol and lignin production. They
also stated this process is eco-friendly as no sulfur and
chlorine were introduced. However, high solvent price is
the main obstacle to this process for industrial level
applications. To be cost effective, low-molecular weight
alcohols with lower boiling points (ethanol, methanol) are
suggested.
Physicochemical Pretreatments
Combined physical and chemical treatments are important
to disrupt hemicellulose and lignin structure, enhanced
approachability of hydrolytic enzymes to cellulose [70].
The most fruitful physicochemical treatments include
steam explosion, liquid hot water, ammonia fiber explosion
(AFEX), wet oxidation etc. Lignocellulosic biomass is
treated at high pressure with saturated stream, liquid
123

ammonia or carbon dioxide, thereafter, swiftly reduced
pressure in this process.
Liquid Hot Water (LHW)/Hydrothermal Pretreatment
LHW pretreatment is the most successful physicochemical
treatments in the processing of LCW. LHW is a innovative
way to get digestibility of biomass, in which pressure is
maintain to keep water in a liquid state at elevated tem-
peratures (160–240 C) [71, 72]. LHW treatment has pro-
ven to be effective for hemicelluloses removal and removal
capacity is reported more than 80 % in some cases [73].
Process parameters such as temperature, time and liquid-to-
solid ratio and hydrolysis agents like high pressure carbon
dioxide (HP-CO2), carbonic acid can significantly affets
effectiveness of LHW pretreatment [74–76]. Gurgel et al.
[74] investigated LHW pretreatment of SCB associated
with HP-CO2 as a potential eco-friendly technology for
extraction of hemicelluloses from depithed SCB to produce
fermentable sugars. Authors found maximum xylan and
xylose concentrations by treating depithed bagasse at
100 C for 30 min and 115 C for 60 min, respectively.
Moreover, they also tasted enzymatic digestability of
LHW-HP-CO2 pretreated bagasse and found glucose yield
of 30.43 g/L and a cellulose conversion of 41.17 %. Fur-
thermore, Yu et al. [77, 78] proposed a combined
(LHW ? aqueous ammonia) treatment method with an
aim of low energy input and high sugar recovery from
SCB.
Moreover, Van Walsum and Shi [79] perform a com-
parative study of corn stover hydrolysis bye carbonic acid
and liquid hot water pretreatments. Experiment was carried
out at various temperatures (ranged from 180 to 220 C),
reaction times (2 and 32 min) and prereaction carbon
dioxide pressure. They observed presence of carbonic acid
significantly enhance the concentrations of xylose and
furan compounds in corn stover hydrolysate as compared to
water-only pretreatment. These results consistent with
previous work of beech wood derived xylan hydrolysis by
Van Walsum [79]. They shown that carbonic acid consid-
erably increases hydrolysis activity compare to water
alone. In contrary to these results, McWilliams and van
Walsum [75] found that there was no effect of carbonic
acid presence on aspen wood hydrolysis activity. This
method is described as eco-friendly and can be utilized for
any size of the raw material [52]. However, this process is
more effective for corn fibers and herbaceous crops [80].
Steam Explosion
Steam explosion method can be described as a thermo-
chemical practice. In this process, lignocellulosic biomass
exploited by hot steam [17]. The range of temperatures
123
Waste Biomass Valor
160–240 C and pressure 0.7–4.8 MPa are suggested for a
fruitful treatment [81]. Steam explosion treatment caused
very high hemicellulose solubilization but low in lignin
[65]. It is a well investigated process for SCB exploitation
[29, 82, 83]. Steam explosion followed by enzymatic sac-
charification is an auspicious move to raise fer-
mentable sugars yield [84, 85]. Minimum or in few cases,
no chemicals utilization makes this process environment
friendly [17].
Wet Oxidation
Wet oxidation (WO) is an oxidative treatment method that
exploits O2 or air as a catalyst. In this method, reaction
performs at comparatively low temperatures and shortened
reaction times [86]. Presence of alkali or sodium bicar-
bonate in WO process can increase solubilization and
enzymatic convertibility of LCW for value-added products
[87]. Martin et al. [32] performed a comparative study of
wet oxidation and steam explosion treatments for SCB
exploitation. They stated that WO is an outstanding treat-
ment method considering capability of biomass fractiona-
tion, by-products formation and enzymatic convertibility of
the pretreated material. On the other hand, in the case of
rice hulls, peanut shells, and cassava stalks; WO method is
not efficient enough as it was for enzymatic convertibility
SCB [61]. This method is considered expensive too.
Ammonia Fiber Expansion (AFEX)
In AFEX process, biomass treated at 60–100 C tempera-
ture and high pressure for a variable time period in pres-
ence of liquid anhydrous ammonia. This method has been
described to decreased cellulose crystallinity, rattles link-
age of lignin–carbohydrates [88] and somewhat promotes
saccharification rate [89]. In favorable condition, this pro-
cess can convert almost 90 % of cellulose and hemicellu-
lose to fermentable sugars from a wide range of
lignocellulosic biomass [23]. Aita et al. [90, 91], Krishnan
et al. [88] studied AFEX treatment method on high fiber
SCB as feedstock for the production of bio-ethanol. They
observed lignin, hemicellulose and cellulose removal 55,
30 and 9 % respectively by this process. However, AFEX
method is biomass selective, which is more competent on
agricultural and herbaceous crop residues compare to
woody and high lignin content biomass [92]. Moreover, to
be economical and save the environment; ammonia should
be recycled after the treatment [93].
Biological Pretreatment
This is an alternative of chemical treatment to transform
the organization of lignocellulosic biomass. In the
Waste Biomass Valor

Table 4 Comparative compositional changes of untreated and pretreated SCB and SCT (dry basis)
Pretreatment Principle components (%) Source
Cellulose Hemicelluloses Total lignin Ash Extractives

Raw SCB 38.59 ± 3.45 27.89 ± 2.68 17.79 ± 0.62 8.80 ± 0.02 1.61 ± 0.16 [202]
Combined acid and alkaline 65.03 ± 2.34 10.95 ± 0.19 8.12 ± 0.31 4.60 ± 0.76 0.98 ± 0.61
Combined hydrothermal and alkaline 62.14 ± 4.12 11.52 ± 0.73 7.87 ± 1.88 8.10 ± 0.06 0.77 ± 0.09
Alkaline 47.21 ± 3.23 29.29 ± 2.32 4.31 ± 1.78 6.05 ± 1.22 1.22 ± 0.47
Peroxide 53.85 ± 2.76 22.02 ± 3.27 7.99 ± 3.84 4.22 ± 1.27 0.78 ± 1.33
Raw SCB 35.2 ± 0.9 24.5 ± 0.6 22.2 ± 0.1 20.9 ± 4.3 – [37]
Acid treatment (H2SO4 1 %) 51.2 ± 0.2 7.8 ± 0.7 29.5 ± 0.6 12.2 ± 1.5 –
Alkaline treatment (NaOH 1 %) 81.6 ± 0.6 3.1 ± 0.1 11.0 ± 0.9 1.9 ± 0.3 –
Raw SCB 34a 27b 18 4 – [203]
a
Microwave alkali 850/2 (w/t) 46.7 26.4b 7.8 – –
Microwave alkali 100/17 (w/t) 49.3a 10.9b 7.4 – –
f
Natura SCB 45.5 ± 1.1 27.0 ± 0.8 21.1 ± 0.9f – 4.6 ± 0.3 [66]
Dilute mixed-acid pretreatment 58.06 ± 0.61 3.79 ± 0.02 32.38 ± 0.31f – ND
at 1.5:10 solid-to-liquid ratio
Dilute mixed-acid pretreatment 61.65 ± 0.50 2.79 ± 0.03 32.96 ± 0.25f – ND
at 1:10 solid-to-liquid ratio
Raw SCB – 20.82 ± 0.10e 24.81 ± 0.14 1.44 ± 0.01 1.49 ± 0.04 [204]
Water treated – 21.85 ± 0.18e 25.25 ± 0.01 1.10 ± 0.01 1.44 ± 0.14
Ionic liquid pretreatment – 21.10 ± 0.33e 19.85 ± 1.45 1.39 ± 0.01 1.52 ± 0.09
Raw SCB 44.98 76.76c 20.25 – – [205]
H2SO4 treated SCB 57.43 64.17c 24.93 – –
NaOH treated SCB 76.10 87.05c 15.28 – –
PAA treated SCB 70.34 59.58c 5.60 – –
Untreated SCB 31.0 23.3 21.8 – 25.8 [206]d
5(M) HCl (1 h)-treated SCB 61.8 4.4 19.9 – 14.0
3 % HF treated (1 h) SCB 40.4 16.2 23.3 – 14.6
a b
Native SCT 29.85 18.85 25.69 – – [207]
Alkali pretreated SCT 28.49a 10.22b 2.62 – –
(after considering material loss)
SCB sugarcane bagasse, SCT sugarcane tops, ND not dectected
a
Based on total glucan
b
Based on total xylan and other C5 sugars
c
Hemicellulose content was determined by difference of holocellulose and cellulose
d
TAPPY methods: T-9, 11, 13, 17 and 201 m
e
Xylan
f
Sum of Klason lignin and acid-soluble lignin

biological method, lignocellulosic biomass is treated by
different wood degrading bacteria, and brown rot, white rot
and soft rot fungi [94, 95]. This method affords lignin and
hemicelluloses degradation by creating biomass much
responsive to enzymetic digestion. White rot fungi are the
most efficient microbial agent for biological treatment of
lignocellulosic biomass [96]. In this case, the lignin
degrading peroxidases and laccase enzyme play the vital
role [51]. Cellulose portion primarily strikes by brown rot
fungi, while both cellulose and lignin onslaught by white
and soft rot fungi [53].
This method has been described to be cost effective as
well as rendered the easy accessibility of sugars for enzy-
matic hydrolysis [97]. This process demand low energy and
can operate in mild environmental conditions, thus con-
sidered as an eco-friendly method [98]. Low competence,
carbohydrates loss, long residence time, needs controlled
growth conditions are the major drawback of this process
[94]. Combined use of biological treatments with other
treatments can avoid these limitations [98]. However,
effects of various pretreatment methods on comparative

123

changes of composition of untreated and treated sugarcane
biomass are presented in Table 4.
Value-Added Products from Sugarcane Industry
Solid By-Products
Bio-Fuels Production
Fossil fuels prices are rising along with demands. Concern
over increased fuel price, sustainable fuel supply, and
pessimistic impact on environment; precisely greenhouse
gas emissions is flourishing worldwide [99]. Lignocellu-
losic biomass, convert to biofuels offers capital intensive
and conflict-free substitute [18]. A significant approach has
been made towards better convert of sugarcane industry
solid by-products into bioethanol [100], biodiesel [101],
biohydrogen [63], biogas/methane etc. [27].
Bioethanol Production
Productions of bio-ethanol from traditional agricultural
crops are incapable to fulfill the global need due to their
main appraisal of food and feed. Hence, agricultural lig-
nocellulosic residues are considered as a potential feed-
stock for bioethanol production [102]. Sugarcane industry
by-products (i.e. SCB, PM) are major lignocellulosic
materials found in great quantities in the sugar production
process, especially in tropical countries [19]. It could be a
feasible raw material for the second generation (2G)
ethanol production due its relatively low content of lignin
and high sugars production [103, 104].
123
Waste Biomass Valor
To produce ethanol from lignocellulosic materials,
several processes are required; such as pretreatment,
enzymatic hydrolysis, fermentation, and product separa-
tion/distillation. Biomass transport, handling, and selection
of suitable pre-treatment process are major limitations to
successful operation [102]. Shen et al. [105] described an
efficient pretreatment can minimize the downstream pres-
sure by accomplishing cellulose more amenable to the
enzymes and curtail inhibitors construction for the growth
of fermentative microorganisms. Pretreatment like dilute
acids [106, 107], alkali [11, 108], and steam pretreatment
[109] has proven feasible for fuel ethanol production from
sugar industry by-products.
Three types of ferment processes have been proven
effective for lignocellulosic hydrolysate fermentation. The
first one is called separate hydrolysis and fermentation
(SHF); biomass hydrolysis and ethanol fermentation per-
formed independently in this process. The second one is
known as simultaneous saccharification and fermentation
and the third one called simultaneous saccharification and
cofermentation (SSCF). Enzymatic hydrolysis and fer-
mentation of released sugars into ethanol is done syn-
chronously in both 2nd and 3rd processes [110, 111].
Ethanol yield differs upon process used, fermentation
operation condition, as well as used microbial strain(s) [3].
Table 5 summarizes fermentative ethanol production from
SCB using different microorganisms. Saccharomyces
cerevisiae is the ultimate choice for ethanol fermentation
[112]. More recently, Scheffersomyces shehatae (Syn.
Candida shehatae) has been considered a promising
microorganism which provides high ethanol productivities
[113].
Waste Biomass Valor

Table 5 Ethanol production from SCB using different microorganisms under various fermentation conditions
Technology Cultivation condition Microorganisms Ethanol yield References
(g/L or g/g)

Simultaneous At 50 C, agitation at 200 rpm for 0 to 36 h Saccharomyces cerevisiae Y-2034 68.047 g/L [11]
saccharification and
fermentation
Separate hydrolysis and At 30 C, agitation at 150 rpm for 24 h Saccharomyces cerevisiae 100.9–135.4a [106]
fermentation
Separate hydrolysis and At 30 C, agitation 150 rpm for 48 h with a pH Pichia stipitis CBS6054 4.12 g/L [100]
fermentation 5
Simultaneous At 30 C for 36 h with a pH 5, agitation Zymomonas mobilis 60 g/L [208]
saccharification and 150 rpm
fermentation
Separate hydrolysis and 24 h old seed culture, maintained at 30 C Saccharomyces cerevisiae 0.184 g/g [24]
fermentation
Separate hydrolysis and At 30 C for 14 h with a pH of 5. Air flow 0.1 Pachysolen tannophilus DW06 19 g/L [191]
fermentation vvm., agitation: 150 rpm
Separate hydrolysis and At 30 C, pH: 5, 48 h Non-recombinant strain of 12. 5 g/L for [29]
fermentation Saccharomyces cerevisiae depithed
SCB
12.9 g/L for
pith SCB
Separate hydrolysis and At 30 C, pH: 5.5, time 24 h, 150 rpm Candida shehatae—NCIM 3501 8.67 g/L [189]
fermentation
Simultaneous At 30 C, pH 5.5, for 72 h Pichia stipitis BCC15191 8.0 g/L [26]
saccharification and
fermentation
Simultaneous At 37 C, pH: 6.5, 240 h, 200 rpm Escherichia coli strain MM160 0.21 g/g [83]
saccharification and
co-fermentation
Simultaneous At 37 C and agitated at 100 rpm on an orbital Trichoderma ressei 0.90 g/g [73]
saccharification and shaker, pH: 4.5 (±0.1), 24–48 h of incubation
fermentation
Simultaneous At 50 C and 130 rpm for 24 h in an air-bath Saccharomices cerevisiae CICC 13 g/L [69]
saccharification and shaker 31014
fermentation
Simultaneous At 37–38 C and 130 rpm in an air-bath shaker. Saccharomices cerevisiae CICC DAPB— [192]
saccharification and pH value was not controlled during 31014 16.7 g/L
fermentation fermentation PAA—
45.3 g/L
Separate hydrolysis and At 30 C and 200 rpm for 72 h Scheffersomyces shehatae UFMG- 0.38 g/g [113]
fermentation HM 52.2
Separate hydrolysis and At 30 C, pH: 5.5, agitated at 100 rpm for 12 h Saccharomyces cerevisiae, strain IR- BM—0.89 [25]
fermentation 2, and recombinant strain MA-R4 g/g
WDM—
0.91 g/g
Separate hydrolysis and At 30 C, pH: 5.5, 24 h 200 rpm Recombinant Saccharomyces 0.18 g/g [209]
fermentation cerevisiae strain TMB 3001 and 0.13 g/g
ATCC 96581
Separate hydrolysis and Cell concentration of approx. 0.2 g/L (DW), Recombinant Saccharomyces 0.38 g/g [210]
fermentation (SHF) pH 5.5, at 30 C for 48 h cerevisiae
Separate hydrolysis and At 30 C, pH: 4.8, 200 rpm, 48 h Saccharomyces cerevisiae strain 0.23 g/g [91]
fermentation D5A

123
 Waste Biomass Valor

Table 5 continued
Technology Cultivation condition Microorganisms Ethanol yield References
(g/L or g/g)

Simultaneous At 30 C, 150 rpm, 120 h Saccharomyces cerevisiae strain 34–36 g/L [90]
saccharification and 424A LNH-ST
co-fermentation
BM ball milling pretreated, WDM wet disk milling pretreated, DAPB dilute acid pretreated bagasse, PAA alkali/peracetic acid pretreatment, SCB
sugarcane bagasse
a
kg ethanol/ton raw bagasse

Biogas/Methane Production
Biogas generation from a wide range of lignocellulosic
biomass is increasing globally. Considering economic and
environmental issues this is an ideal movement [114].
Biogas generation technique is very precise and compli-
cated since diverse microbial species are engaged. Anaer-
obic digestion is considered as an innovative process,
which offers the opportunity to utilize wastes as an energy
source and meet the demand for a feasible alternative to
biofuels production [115]. This is the most prominent
technique for biogas production which completes through
the following steps; hydrolysis, fermentation, acetogenesis,
and methanogenesis [116].
Biogas production from sugarcane industry solid waste
by anaerobic digestion method (Table 6); coupled with
pre-treatment process [117] and mixing with other raw
materials [43] has huge potential for energy generation.
Several pretreatments methods such as irradiation,
explosion, alkali and acid pretreatment, steam explosion
have been well studied for biogas production
[110, 118–120]. Gonzàlez et al. [31] pretreated sugarcane
PM by LHW at varies temperature (140–210 C) and
times (5–20 min). Increased methane yield (up to 63 %)
was found by the authors compared to the untreated PM.
Nyonje et al. [45], Rouf et al. [121] mentioned solid
concentration, pH, temperature and C/N ratio of the
substrate are crucial factor biogas production. They sta-
ted that, the ideal conditions for biogas generation from
PM are; solid concentration 6 %, C/N ratio 18, pH
7.0–7.5 and temperature 35–40 C. At present, an inter-
dependent approach to boost the yield of biogas from
by-products of ethanol and biodiesel production has been
developed [114, 122, 123].

Table 6 Production of biogas by anaerobic digestion method from SCB and PM

Substrate type Reactor type Gas yield References
(mL/g-VSadded)

Raw PM Batch reactor 0.241a [43]

a
Raw PM 150 cft plant reactor 0.18 [211]
Raw PM Batch reactor 0.24a [121]
LHW treated PM Schott bottles (500 mL) with four port lids were used as reactors. 369b [48]
Raw SCB Batch wise using double jacketed reactor 122.3 [63]
Alkali treated SCB Batch wise using double jacketed reactor 173.3 [63]
Alkali treated SCB Sealed batch flasks 306.974 [108]
Steam treated SCB Triplicate reactors 237 [109]
Thermal treated SCB – 0.82c [10]
Mono-digestion of filter Semi-continuous stirred-tank reactors at mesophilic conditions 480 [212]
cake (38 ± 1 C)
Co-digestion with SCB Semi-continuous stirred-tank reactors at mesophilic conditions 320 [212]
(38 ± 1 C)
Treated SCB Batch mode assays under mesophilic conditions in borosilicate glass 0.81c [213]
bottles
SCB sugarcane bagasse, PM pressmud, LHW Liquid hot water
a
L/g
b
mL/g CODfed
c
L/g VS removed

123
Waste Biomass Valor

Table 7 Biological hydrogen production from pretreated SCB and PM by dark fermentation
Substrate Agent for Microbial inoculam Reactor type H2 yield (mol H2/mol References
type pretreatment total sugar)

SCB H2SO4 Enterobacter aerogenes Packed bed reactor (packed 1000a [132]
hydrolyzed with resin)
SCB NaOH Clostridium thermocellum Batch/serum bottles 50.05a [38]
hydrolyzed Thermoanaerobacterium aotearoense
SCB H2SO4 Thermoanaerobacterium aotearoense Batch 1.86 [125]
hydrolyzed
SCB H2SO4 or Elephant dung Batch/serum bottles 0.84 [214]
hydrolyzed NaOH
SCB H2SO4 Clostridium butyricum Batch/serum bottles 1.73 [190]
hydrolysate
Treated Water Sewage sludge Continuous fed UASB 2240b [133, 134]
pressmud bioreactor 7960b
Raw SCB – Cow dung (dominated by Clostridium sp.) Batch wise using double 55c [63]
jacketed reactor
Alkali NaOH Cow dung (dominated by Clostridium sp.) Batch wise using double 72.2c [63]
treated jacketed reactor
SCB
SCB sugarcane bagasse, PM pressmud
a
mol/L
b
mL/day pressmud:sewage (1:10)
c
L/kg-VS

More recently, Baêta et al. [124] investigate biomethane
production from SCB hemicellulose hydrolysates (HH) by
two-stage anaerobic digestion process. HH were generated
by autohydrolysis of SCB and anaerobic digestion was
performed in a two-stage (acidogenic–methanogenic) batch
system. They reported that in this two stage digestion
system methanogenic stage started at the end of the aci-
dogenic stage. Acidogenic stage worked to hydrolyze and
biodetoxify the HH and consequently increased the
methane production in the methanogenic stage.The highest
production of methane was 1.56 ± 0.11 Nm3 kg/TOC at
178.6 C, 43.6 min and solid-to-liquid ratio = 0.24 which
led to lower sugar content (0.57 g) in comparison with the
other conditions. However; being cost effective there is
significant potential to develop the method of biogas pro-
duction from biomass [122].
Biohydrogen Production
Hydrogen is considered as an engaging forthcoming energy
source [125]. The global demand for hydrogen is increas-
ing significantly; however, to meet the current demand is a
major challenging issue. One of the technological barrier is
the pretreatment; particularly for those residues that are
more recalcitrant to enzymatic breakdowns, such as lig-
nocellulosic biomass [126]. Several technologies for bio-
hydrogen production have been proposed during the last
decades [127]; among them, biological/fermentative
hydrogen production is believed an auspicious way for
producing hydrogen [128]. Precisely, biohydrogen pro-
duction from agri-residues is considered beneficial because
agri-residues are available, economical, renewable and
extremely biodegradable [126]. In recent years, biological
hydrogen production via dark fermentation (DF) has picked
up great attention due to its high yield rate, mechanical
clarity, and the capability to exploit different kinds of
substrates [129, 130]. Factors, influenced biological
hydrogen production includes inoculum, substrate pre-
treatment methods, reactor types, temperature and pH
[131].
Bio-hydrogen production from sugarcane industry by-
products has been extensively studied; from SCB
[38, 125, 132] and PM [133, 134]. Lai et al. [125], Cheng
and Zhu [38] mentioned that pretreatment of substrate by
acids, alkali methods shows commendable performance in
hydrogen production. Recently, Baêta et al. [124] investi-
gate bio-hydrogen production from SCB hemicellulose
hydrolysates (HH) by two-stage anaerobic digestion (aci-
dogenic methanogenic) batch system. HH were generated
by autohydrolysis of SCB and in this two stage digestion
process bio-hydrogen produces in acidogenic stage. No
methane production was detected in acidogenic stage
because no methanogenic bacteris can grow in this stage
They found the highest bio-hydrogen production (BHP)
(0.293 Nm3 H2 kg/TOC) at SB pretreatment condi-
tion 178.6 C, 43.6 min and 0.238 g SBdry weight mL/H2-

123
 Waste Biomass Valor

Table 8 Production of industrial enzymes from SCB and PM using different fermentation method and microorganisms
Enzymes Substrate Fermentation type Microorganisms References

Xylanases SCB as carbon source Submerged fermentation Bacillus circulans D1 [215]

SCB as carbon source Solid-state fermentation Thermoascus aurantiacus ATCC [216]
204492
SCB Solid-state fermentation Myceliophthora thermophila JCP-4 [141]
SCB Submerged fermentation Penicillium echinulatum [33]
SCB use as sole carbon source Submerged fermentation Aspergillus niger PPI [217]
SCB Submerged fermentation Penicillium janthinellum CRC 87M- [218]
115
SCB as carbon source Submerged cultivation Penicillium echinulatum strain 9A02S1 [201]
Cellulase SCB Solid-state fermentation Penicillium funiculosum (ATCC 11797) [140]
SCB Submerged fermentation Penicillium echinulatum [33]
SCB Submerged fermentation Trichoderma reesei NRRL 11460 [138]
SCB as carbon source Submerged fermentation Trichoderma reesei QM9414 [219]
SCB Batch fermentation Aspergillus flavus Linn Isolate NSPR [220]
101
SCB Solid-state fermentation Aspergillus niger [139]
Pectinase SCB Solid-state fermentation Moniliella SB9 and [221]
Penicillium sp. EGC5
SCB Solid-state fermentation Thermoascus aurantiacus 179-5 [209]
SCB Solid-state fermentation Penicillium viridicatum strain Rfc3 [222]
Pectate SCB as the carbon source Solid-State and Submerged Penicillium viridicatum RFC3 [223]
lyase fermentation
Laccase SCB Solid-state fermentation Aspergillus heteromorphus [224]
Invertase PM Solid-state fermentation Spent yeast (Sachharomyces [17]
cereviceae)
SCB Solid-state fermentation Aspergillus niger GH1 [13]
Inulinase SCB as support and carbon Solid-state fermentation Kluyveromyces marxianus NRRL [225]
source Y-7571
Tannase SCB Repeated batch fermentation Bacillus licheniformis KBR6 [226]
a-Amylase SBH as a support Submerged fermentation Bacillus subtilisstrain KCC103 [227]
Protease SCB Submerged fermentation Penicillium janthinellum CRC 87M- [218]
115
Lipase SCB as inert support Solid-state fermentation Rhizopus homothallicus [228]
SCB sugarcane bagasse, PM pressmud, SBH sugarcane bagasse hydrolysate

O. This BHP value is very consistent with Lazaro et al.
[135], who found a BHP of 0.133 Nm3 H2 kg/TOC using
sugarcane vinasse as a substrate. However, DF technology
has an excellent future potential for biohydrogen produc-
tion (Table 7), as renewable biomass can be used as
feedstock, higher H2 yield, and economic feasibility. The
economic considerations and production at industrial scale,
deeper research on fermentative hydrogen production in
continuous mode is needed [131, 136].
Enzymes Production
Solid-state fermentation is an ultimate choice for biomass
based enzyme production. Compared to submerged fer-
mentation, solid-state fermentation presents greater yield,
less operating costs, minimum space demand, simpler
machinery, and easier downstream processing [3]. In the
past few decades, enormous effort has been made towards
better application of the solid-state fermentation process to
produce several enzymes [137]. SCB has been studied for
xylanase, cellulase, amylase and laccase enzyme produc-
tion by the specific microorganism (bacteria, fungi)
exploiting solid-state fermentation or submerged fermen-
tation (SmF) method [4]. Production of industrial enzymes
from SCB is given in Table 8. Singhania et al. [138] per-
formed a comparative study of cellulase enzyme produc-
tion from SCB with other lignocellulosic residues like
wheat bran, cassava bagasse, and rice straw under solid
state fermentation by Trichoderma reesei NRRL 11 460.
The maximum cellulase yield (154.58 U gds-1) was found

123
Waste Biomass Valor

Table 9 Production of organic acids from SCB by microbial fermentation

Organic acids Substrate Ferment process Microorganisms References

Lactic acid SCB hydrolysate
SCB as basal medium
SCB as inert solid support
Citric acid SCB as a carrier
SCB as nitrogen source
SCB hydrolysate
Succinic acid SCB hydrolysate
SCB hydrolysate
SCB hydrolysate used as the
carbon and nitrogen
sources
SCB hydrolysate used as the
carbon sources
Gluconic acid SCB as an inert support
Butyric acid SCB hydrolysate
Propionic acid SCB as immobilizing
material
SCB sugarcane bagasse
Batch fermentation Penicillium janthinellum mutant EU1 [145]
Lactobacillus delbrueckii mutant
Uc-3
Batch fermentation Lactobacillus lactis IO-1 [229]
Solid-state fermentation Lactobacillus delbrueckii [230]
Solid-state fermentation Aspergillus niger DS 1 [231]
Solid-state fermentation Aspergillus niger mold [144]
Solid-state fermentation Aspergillus niger ATCC 9142 [232]
Batch fermentation Actinobacillus succinogenes strain [64]
CIP 106512
Fed-batch fermentation Escherichia coli strain BA305 [233]
Batch fermentation was conducted in a Actinobacillus succinogenes [234]
3-L fermentor
Batch fermentation Actinobacillus succinogenes [235]
Simultaneous saccharification and Aspergillus niger mutant strain ORS- [236]
fermentation and a semi-solid state 4.410
fermentation
Fed-batch fermentation Clostridium tyrobutyricum [12]
constant fed-batch fermentation Propionibacterium freudenreichii [38]
CCTCC M207015

from SCB; the sequence was SCB [ wheat bran [ cassava
bagasse [ rice straw. Rodrı́guez-Zúñiga et al. [139] men-
tion, an effective pretreatment can bypass harsh conditions,
increase the physical properties of the substrate and helps
microbial access to cellulose for enzyme yield. Pretreat-
ment of SCB by LHW, microwave irradiation, acid, and
alkali are proved useful to produce enzymes commercially
[139–141].
Nowadays, attempts has been made to enhance the
enzyme yield through strains development by mutagenesis
or recombinant DNA technology. Moreover, enzymes yield
processes would be more profitable by regarding gene
cloning and sequencing [142].
Production of Organic Acids
conditions and microorganisms [4]. Production of organic
acids from SCB is presented in Table 9. Yadegary et al.
[144] mentioned that for organic acids production, SCB is
an appropriate substrate from the cost point of view. In the
history of organic acid fermentation, various strains of
genera fungi, yeast and bacteria were reported benefi-
cial such as Penicillium sp., Aspergillus sp., Lacto-
bacillus sp., Mucor piriformis, Arthrobacter paraffineus,
Corynebacterium sp. [145, 146]. Liang et al. [147] studied
repetitive succinic acid production from SCB hydrolysates;
fermentation was done by engineered Escherichia coli.
The high acid yield was found 0.87 g g-1 (total sugar)
with the succinic acid concentration of 83 g L-1 in 36 h of
three repeated fermentations. They also stated succinic acid
yield retained constant during the repeated fermentations.

Organic acids production by cellulose fermentation is an Bio-Adsorbent

innovative method. The expense of fermentative acid
production depends on several factors, among them raw
material cost is dominant. It has proven very costly when
sugars (e.g. glucose, sucrose, starch etc.) are employed as
the feedstock for organic acids production [143]. Sugar-
cane industry by-products have been investigated for
diverse organic acids (citric acid, lactic acid, gluconic acid
etc.) production, employing different cultivation methods,
Biosorption is a unique technique to remove hazardous
materials such as heavy metals (Cd, Zn, Cu, Pb, Ni), dyes
(Rhodamine B, methylene blue, Foron Blue E-BL etc.) and
petroleum (Gasoline, n-heptane) from aqueous solutions
[148, 149]. The idea of biosorption assign to the static
sorption of pollutant ions by solid biomass [150]. This
process has proven superior for their convenience, simple

123
 Waste Biomass Valor

Table 10 Summary of SCB as adsorbents for the removal of hazardous materials from aqueous solution
Absorbents types Modifying agent (s) Adsorbate Maximum removal References
(mg/g)

Raw SCB N/A Cd(II) 96a [14]

N/A Ni (II) 2 [152]
N/A Gasoline 99a [148]
N/A n-heptane 90a
Cruid oil 7000b [237]
Raw SCB pith N/A Cd (II) 6.75 [238, 239]
Ni(II) 26.3
Milled SCB Ball milling Rhodamine B 65.5 [240]
(RhB)
Methylene blue 30.7
Immobilized SCB CaCl2 Cr(III) 41.5a [241]
Cr(VI) 80.6a
Modified SCB Graft copolymerization Cd(II) 14.28 [242]
Magnetic modified SCB (Pyromellitic dianhydride ? N,N- Pb(II) 98.4 [243]
dimethylacetamide ? NaOH) and Cd(II) 52.8
(FeCl3 ? FeSO4 ? EDTA)
Chemically modified and Succinic anhydride (C4H4O3), NaOH Cu(II) 153.9 [244]
mercerized SCB Cd(II) 250
Pb(II) 500
EDTAD, NaOH Cu(II) 38.8–92.6 [245]
Cd(II) 87.7–149.0
Pb(II) 192.0–333.0
EDTAD, NaOH Ca(II) 15.6–54.1 [157]
Mg(II) 13.5–42.6
Chemically modified SCB EDTAD Methylene Blue 115.3 [246]
(MB)
C4H4O3 Cu(II) 139 [247]
Cd(II) 313
Pb(II) 313
H2SO4, NaOH Sulphate ions 38 [248]
400
HCL Mn(II) 99a [155]
Conc. H2SO4 Cu(II) 94.4a [249]
HNO3 Pb(II) 99.12a [154]
Conc. H2SO4 Cd (II) 93.6 [250]
Pb(II) 129.56
Ni (II) 70.56
Zn (II) 72
Cu (II) 84.39
C4H4O3 Methylene blue 478.5 [251]
Gentian violet 1273.2
NaOH, HCl Hg 35.71 [252]
3?
Hydrous ferric oxide (Fe(NO3) NaOH) As(V) 22.1 [253]
H2SO4, HCL, HNO3 Foron Blue E-BL 54.24 [254]
(FB)

123
Waste Biomass Valor
Table 10 continued
Absorbents types Modifying agent (s)
SCB activated carbon Chemically impregnated with Conc. H2SO4,
followed by carbonized
Chemically impregnated with ZnCl2, followed by
carbonized
SCB pith activated carbon Chemical activation with H3PO4 and ZnCl2 followed
by pyrolysis
N/A not applicable, SCB sugarcane bagasse
a
Unit as %
b
Unit as mg oil/g
operation, ability to treat concentrated wastes, and sim-
plicity of design and universal in use [151], and employ
low-cost bio-sorbent materials. At present, exploitation of
agro-residues as bio adsorbent is gaining significant con-
sideration as long as agro-residues are abundant and cost
effective. Moreover, these residues have comparatively
high fixed carbon content as well as porous structure. In
this regard, SCB and PM considered as a vital aspirant
among different agro-wastes [152]. Several compounds
(cellulose, hemicellulose, lignin, and silica) with unique
binding sites (such as carboxylic, carbonyl, amine and
hydroxyl groups) are proficient in catching up hazardous
materials, refers to the use of SCB as economic natural bio-
sorbent [14, 152, 153]. The removal efficiency depends
on adsorbent dosages, appropriate treatment/modifying
agent(s), contact time, pH and initial concentration haz-
ardous ions [154, 155]. Mohamad et al. [156] proved that
PM has an excellent capability to use as an admixture for
reducing heavy metals concentration.
Moubarik and Grimi [14] reported maximum Cd2?
removal capacity was 96 % from aqueous solution by SCB
with an initial Cd2? concentration of 10 ppm and a pH of
7. Karnitz et al. [157] mentioned that chemically modified
SCB shows satisfactory adsorption capability for Cu2?,
Cd2?, and Pb2? ions with maximal adsorption capacity.
Removal of different pollutants from aqueous solution by
SCB is presented in Table 10. In a study of Mn(II) removal
by HCL treated SCB, Esfandiar et al. [155] found
decreased removal efficiency (%) by increasing the initial
concentration of Mn(II) ions, and removal efficiency (%)
increased along with increased adsorbent dosage. They also
reported that HCl treatment of SCB can increase removal
capability (99 %) of Mn(II).
Compost and Vermicompost
Compost is a nutrient-rich organic manure and soil
strengthener; organic matters converted to compost by
humification process. Again, vermicomposting is the bio-
Adsorbate Maximum removal References
(mg/g)
Pb(II) 227.7 [255]
Phenol 24.68 [256]
Reactive dye 3.92 [257]
stabilization of organic substance and end products known
as vermicompost. Both processes assist by a variety of
microorganisms like bacteria, fungi, earthworms etc. [158].
In these processes lignocellulolytic fungal inocula (e.g.
Trichurus sp., Trichoderma sp.) act as pretreatment to
minimize the recalcitrance of biodegradable substrate
[159], while bacterial inoculants (e.g. Bacillus sp., Strep-
tomyces sp., Klebsiella sp., Cellulose sp.) are employed to
promote the composting process [160].
Sugarcane industry by-products especially PM is con-
sidered as a good source of fertilizer as long as it consists
of numerous nutrient elements at rich percentage; such as
nitrogen 1.9 %, phosphorous 1.8 %, potassium 0.9 %,
calcium 4.3 %, magnesium 0.7 %, manganese 0.034 %,
zinc 0.008 %, copper 0.053 % [161]. Such a rich quantity
of different nutrient elements makes PM a suitable sub-
strate for nutrient rich compost and vermicompost pro-
duction [162–164]. Sarker et al. [165] studied
bioconversion of sugarcane PM using bacterial suspension
in vitro condition; they observed combined bacterial con-
sortia was the best decomposer of PM, resulting the
reduction of organic carbon content (26.75 %) and C:N
ratio (12.44 %). Cifuentes et al. [44] studied windrow
composting of waste sugarcane and PM mixtures. Enrich-
ment of SCB and PM by vermicomposting employing
earthworm species has been studied [15, 166] by mixing
with other wastes like cow dung [167, 168], and spent wash
[169].
Miscellaneous
Apart from above mentioned products, SCB and PM have
been exploited for many other products (e.g. antibiotics,
animal feed, alkaloids, pigments, and reducing sugars) of
commercial interest [3]. Dominguez et al. [170] applied an
advanced solid-state fermentation system for penicillin
antibiotic production by Penicillium chrysogenum P2-4
from SCB. Single-cell protein from SCB with Candida
langeronii RLJY-019 under SmF cultivation has also been
123

studied [171]. Simultaneous production of xylooligosac-
charides and antioxidant compounds [172], synthesis of
furfural [173], chemicals [174] has also been studied from
SCB. Sugarcane PM has been investigated as a source of
some important pharmaceutical steroid hormone such as
androstenedione (AD), androstadiene dione (ADD) [175].
Furthermore; extraction of residual sugar, wax, and protein
[50], octacosanol [176], feed ingredients for poultry and
layers [177] from sugarcane PM has also been studied.
Virtual Biorefinery Concept and Life-Cycle
Analysis
The Virtual Sugarcane Biorefinery (VSB) is a simulation
and evaluation tool that has been constructed to appraise
the establishment of new technologies and innovations for
biomass production and processing. It is a novel framework
that integrates computational simulation process to evalu-
ate the technical, economic, social, and environmental
impacts of different sugarcane biorefinery alternatives/
routes. It considers all phases of the sugarcane production
process, from agricultural production of feedstock and
product transport, industrial conversion, and use and dis-
posal of the products [178, 179]. Again, Life Cycle Anal-
ysis (LCA) is a method for determining the environmental
impact of a product (good or service) during its entire life
cycle [180]. In a study of second generation (2G) ethanol
production from SCB and trash, Dias et al. [181] compared
stand-alone and integrated [with first generation (1G)
ethanol production from sugarcane juice] plants. Authors
mention that the integrated 1G and 2G ethanol production
process from sugarcane leads to better economic results
when compared with the stand-alone plant, especially when
different advanced hydrolysis technologies and pentoses
fermentation are included. Moreover, others researcher like
Moraes et al. [182] investigated anaerobic digestion of
vinasse in biorefineries, in terms of energy, environmental,
and economic considerations. Authors stated this process
could offer significant energy facilities that could even
stimulate 2G ethanol production and reduce environmental
impacts due to the decrease of global warming potential
impacts and pollutant loads. From the global economic
point of view, sugarcane base plants could also have higher
profits with vinasse biodigestion and biogas use than with
traditional fertirrigation. Overall, adoption of such tech-
nology in biorefineries could potentially leads to profits
from energy, environmental, and economic perspectives.
Furthermore, Pereira et al. [183] conducted a study of
1G and 2G butanol production by sugarchemistry route
using acetone-butanol-ethanol fermentation with wild and
genetically modified microorganisms. Evaluation approach
took into account the entire production chain and LCA was
123
Waste Biomass Valor
also assessed. Authors mention that LCA of butanol pro-
duction from bagasse and straw pentoses using engineered
microorganism exhibit the best environmental performance
among the investigated technological scenarios. Production
technique and utilization of bio-based butanol as liquid fuel
for vehicles provide evidence of environmental advantages
in terms of abiotic depletion, global warming and ozone
layer depletion potentials. Additionally, the introduction of
butanol and the by-product acetone to the product portfolio
of biorefineries led to increased revenues. These results
consistent with earlier results found by the same authors
Pereira et al. [184], they mention production of 2G bio-
butanol could be a potential substitute for the fundamental
use of lignocellulosic biomass to add value to the sugar-
cane production chain. They also mention in case of 1G
productivity (per ton of sugarcane), the efficiency of the
ABE fermentation process needs to be improved so bio-
butanol could turn into an economic viable alternative.
Future Perspectives and Conclusion
Agro-industrial processing of sugarcane generates various
solid by-products (SCB and PM). These solid wastes are
rich sources of lignocelluloses and carbohydrates; can be
utilized to achieve beneficial commodities. Bio-industrial
utilization of these LCW emerges viable, commercial,
environmental and strategic advantages, with improvement
in micro-biotechnology. SCB has already tested for suc-
cessful conversion into a number of value-added products
as well as PM. However, this review work has aimed to
take an extensive analysis of most of the research per-
formed in the past one and half decades throughout the
world respecting the huge diversification of added-value
products from pretreated SCB and PM. Noteworthy
advancements in pretreatment processes, microbial
biotechnology, and down-stream handling have made it
happen to tackle the sugarcane industry solid by-products
for the production of diverse products of economic
importance at large scale. Various convenience has been
reported for most of the pretreatment methods while
methods such as dilute acid, LHW, lime are cost effective,
some other methods like biological treatment, are extre-
mely slow.
Though pretreatment processes and the associated
release of bio-products from sugarcane solid by-products
have been remarkably upgraded by modern technologies,
there are still challenges that need to be addressed. Chal-
lenges include established more competent pretreatment
methods and production technologies, bioprospecting and
established more reliable genetically modified microor-
ganisms, upgrade gene cloning and sequencing processes,
yield improvement at large scale and economic
Waste Biomass Valor
conversions of LCW into added-value products. This
review work will help to find out ways to solve above
mentioned problems and assist as an important reference
material for a wide range of experts and technologists in
the related areas.
Acknowledgments We are really thankful to Dr. Ahmed abd-El
Gawad for extensively editing the manuscript.
References
1. Chandel, A.K., Singh, O.V.: Weedy lignocellulosic feedstock
and microbial metabolic engineering: advancing the generation
of ‘‘Biofuel’’. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 89(5), 1289–1303
(2011)
2. Somerville, C., Youngs, H., Taylor, C., Davis, S.C., Long, S.P.:
Feedstocks for lignocellulosic biofuels. Science 329(5993),
790–792 (2010)
3. Pandey, A., Soccol, C.R., Nigam, P., Soccol, V.T.: Biotechno-
logical potential of agro-industrial residues. I: sugarcane
bagasse. Bioresour. Technol. 74(1), 69–80 (2000)
4. Chandel, A.K., da Silva, S.S., Carvalho, W., Singh, O.V.:
Sugarcane bagasse and leaves: foreseeable biomass of biofuel
and bio-products. J. Chem. Technol. Biotechnol. 87(1), 11–20
(2012)
5. Martı́n, C., Galbe, M., Nilvebrant, N.-O., Jönsson, L.J.: Com-
parison of the fermentability of enzymatic hydrolyzates of
sugarcane bagasse pretreated by steam explosion using different
impregnating agents. Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol. 98(1–9),
699–716 (2002)
6. Maitan-Alfenas, G.P., Visser, E.M., Guimarães, V.M.: Enzy-
matic hydrolysis of lignocellulosic biomass: converting food
waste in valuable products. Curr. Opin. Food Sci. 1, 44–49
(2015)
7. Bhatnagar, A., Kesari, K.K., Shurpali, N.: Multidisciplinary
approaches to handling wastes in sugar industries. Water Air
Soil Pollut. 227(1), 1–30 (2016)
8. Balakrishnan, M., Batra, V.S.: Valorization of solid waste in
sugar factories with possible applications in India: a review.
J. Environ. Manage. 92(11), 2886–2891 (2011)
9. Solomon, S.: Sugarcane by-products based industries in India.
Sugar Tech 13(4), 408–416 (2011)
10. Nava-Valente, N., Alvarado-Lassman, A., Nativitas-Sandoval,
L.S., Mendez-Contreras, J.M.: Improved anaerobic digestion of
a thermally pretreated mixture of physicochemical sludge;
broiler excreta and sugar cane wastes (SCW): effect on organic
matter solubilization, biodegradability and bioenergy produc-
tion. J. Environ. Sci. Health A Tox. Hazard. Subst. Environ.
Eng. 51(5), 446–453 (2016)
11. Liu, Y., Zhang, Y., Xu, J., Sun, Y., Yuan, Z., Xie, J.: Consoli-
dated bioprocess for bioethanol production with alkali-pre-
treated sugarcane bagasse. Appl. Energy 157, 517–522 (2015)
12. Wei, D., Liu, X., Yang, S.-T.: Butyric acid production from
sugarcane bagasse hydrolysate by Clostridium tyrobutyricum
immobilized in a fibrous-bed bioreactor. Bioresour. Technol.
129, 553–560 (2013)
13. Veana, F., Martı́nez-Hernández, J.L., Aguilar, C.N., Rodrı́guez-
Herrera, R., Michelena, G.: Utilization of molasses and sugar
cane bagasse for production of fungal invertase in solid state
fermentation using Aspergillus niger GH1. Braz. J. Microbiol.
45(2), 373–377 (2014)
14. Moubarik, A., Grimi, N.: Valorization of olive stone and sugar
cane bagasse by-products as biosorbents for the removal of
cadmium from aqueous solution. Food Res. Int. 73, 169–175
(2015)
15. Bhat, S.A., Singh, J., Vig, A.P.: Potential utilization of bagasse
as feed material for earthworm Eisenia fetida and production of
vermicompost. Springerplus 4(1), 11 (2015)
16. Mtui, G.Y.S.: Recent advances in pretreatment of lignocellulosic
wastes and production of value added products. Afr.
J. Biotechnol. 8(8), 1398–1415 (2009)
17. Canilha, L., Chandel, A.K., Suzane dos Santos Milessi, T.,
Antunes, F.A.F., Luiz da Costa Freitas, W., das Graças Almeida
Felipe, M., da Silva, S.S.: Bioconversion of sugarcane biomass
into ethanol: an overview about composition, pretreatment
methods, detoxification of hydrolysates, enzymatic saccharifi-
cation, and ethanol fermentation. BioMed Res. Int. 2012, 1–15
(2012)
18. Rubin, E.M.: Genomics of cellulosic biofuels. Nature
454(7206), 841–845 (2008)
19. Martin, C., Klinke, H.B., Thomsen, A.B.: Wet oxidation as a
pretreatment method for enhancing the enzymatic convertibility
of sugarcane bagasse. Enzyme Microb. Technol. 40(3), 426–432
(2007)
20. Zhao, X., Cheng, K., Liu, D.: Organosolv pretreatment of lig-
nocellulosic biomass for enzymatic hydrolysis. Appl. Microbiol.
Biotechnol. 82(5), 815–827 (2009)
21. Carvalheiro, F., Duarte, L.C., Gı́rio, F.M.: Hemicellulose
biorefineries: a review on biomass pretreatments. J. Sci. Ind.
Res. 67(11), 849–864 (2008)
22. Yang, B., Wyman, C.E.: Pretreatment: the key to unlocking low-
cost cellulosic ethanol. Biofuels, Bioprod. Biorefin. 2(1), 26–40
(2008)
23. Galbe, M., Zacchi, G.: Pretreatment of lignocellulosic materials
for efficient bioethanol production. Biofuels, pp. 41–65.
Springer, Berlin (2007)
24. Ramadoss, G., Muthukumar, K.: Ultrasound assisted ammonia
pretreatment of sugarcane bagasse for fermentable sugar pro-
duction. Biochem. Eng. J. 83, 33–41 (2014)
25. da Silva, A.S.A., Inoue, H., Endo, T., Yano, S., Bon, E.P.S.:
Milling pretreatment of sugarcane bagasse and straw for enzy-
matic hydrolysis and ethanol fermentation. Bioresour. Technol.
101(19), 7402–7409 (2010)
26. Buaban, B., Inoue, H., Yano, S., Tanapongpipat, S., Ruanglek,
V., Champreda, V., Pichyangkura, R., Rengpipat, S., Eurwilai-
chitr, L.: Bioethanol production from ball milled bagasse using
an on-site produced fungal enzyme cocktail and xylose-fer-
menting Pichia stipitis. J. Biosci. Bioeng. 110(1), 18–25 (2010)
27. Jiang, L., Zheng, A., Zhao, Z., He, F., Li, H.: Comprehensive
utilization of glycerol from sugarcane bagasse pretreatment to
fermentation. Bioresour. Technol. 196, 194–199 (2015)
28. Janke, L., Leite, A., Batista, K., Weinrich, S., Sträuber, H.,
Nikolausz, M., Nelles, M., Stinner, W.: Optimization of
hydrolysis and volatile fatty acids production from sugarcane
filter cake: Effects of urea supplementation and sodium
hydroxide pretreatment. Bioresour. Technol. 199, 235–244
(2016)
29. Hernández-Salas, J.M., Villa-Ramı́rez, M.S., Veloz-Rendón,
J.S., Rivera-Hernández, K.N., González-César, R.A., Plascen-
cia-Espinosa, M.A., Trejo-Estrada, S.R.: Comparative hydroly-
sis and fermentation of sugarcane and agave bagasse. Bioresour.
Technol. 100(3), 1238–1245 (2009)
30. Ramos, L.P., da Silva, L., Ballem, A.C., Pitarelo, A.P.,
Chiarello, L.M., Silveira, M.H.L.: Enzymatic hydrolysis of
steam-exploded sugarcane bagasse using high total solids and
low enzyme loadings. Bioresour. Technol. 175, 195–202
(2015)
31. González, L.M.L., Reyes, I.P., Dewulf, J., Budde, J., Heier-
mann, M., Vervaeren, H.: Effect of liquid hot water pre-
123

treatment on sugarcane press mud methane yield. Bioresour.
Technol. 169, 284–290 (2014)
32. Martin, C., Marcet, M., Thomsen, A.B.: Comparison between
wet oxidation and steam explosion as pretreatment methods for
enzymatic hydrolysis of sugarcane bagasse. BioResources 3(3),
670–683 (2008)
33. Camassola, M., Dillon, A.J.P.: Biological pretreatment of sugar
cane bagasse for the production of cellulases and xylanases by
Penicillium echinulatum. Ind. Crops Prod. 29(2), 642–647
(2009)
34. Contreras, A.M., Rosa, E., Perez, M., Van Langenhove, H.,
Dewulf, J.: Comparative life cycle assessment of four alterna-
tives for using by-products of cane sugar production. J. Clean.
Prod. 17(8), 772–779 (2009)
35. Cerqueira, D.A., Rodrigues Filho, G., da Silva Meireles, C.:
Optimization of sugarcane bagasse cellulose acetylation. Car-
bohydr. Polym. 69(3), 579–582 (2007)
36. Paixão, S.M., Ladeira, S.A., Arez, B.F., Martins, M.L.L.,
Roseiro, J.C., Alves, L.M.: KOH for enhanced sugarcane
bagasse delignification and further production of sugar-rich
hydrolyzates by enzymes application. In: RRB’10—10th Inter-
national Conference on Renewable Resources and Biorefineries,
Valladolid, Spain, pp. 71–72 (2014)
37. Rezende, C.A., de Lima, M.A., Maziero, P., Ribeirode Azevedo,
E., Garcia, W., Polikarpov, I.: Chemical and morphological
characterization of sugarcane bagasse submitted to a delignifi-
cation process for enhanced enzymatic digestibility. Biotechnol.
Biofuels 4(1), 1 (2011)
38. Cheng, J., Zhu, M.: A novel anaerobic co-culture system for bio-
hydrogen production from sugarcane bagasse. Bioresour.
Technol. 144, 623–631 (2013)
39. Botha, T., Von Blottnitz, H.: A comparison of the environmental
benefits of bagasse-derived electricity and fuel ethanol on a life-
cycle basis. Energy Policy 34(17), 2654–2661 (2006)
40. Goh, C.S., Tan, K.T., Lee, K.T., Bhatia, S.: Bio-ethanol from
lignocellulose: status, perspectives and challenges in Malaysia.
Bioresour. Technol. 101(13), 4834–4841 (2010)
41. Mussatto, S.I., Dragone, G., Rocha, G.J.M., Roberto, I.S.C.:
Optimum operating conditions for brewer’s spent grain soda
pulping. Carbohydr. Polym. 64(1), 22–28 (2006)
42. Petit, A.: Application of vacuum belt press filters for cane mud
filtration and performance comparison with rotary filters. Sugar
Ind. Zuckerind. 139(5), 298–301 (2014)
43. Agrawal, K.M., Barve, B.R., Khan, S.S.: Biogas from press
mud. J. Mech. Civil Eng. 37–41 (2010)
44. Cifuentes, R., de León, R., Porres, C., Rolz, C.: Windrow
composting of waste sugar cane and press mud mixtures. Sugar
Tech 15(4), 406–411 (2013)
45. Nyonje, E.O., Njogu, P., Kinyua, R.: Assessment of the potential
for utilization of sugarcane derived press mud for biogas gen-
eration in South Nyanza sugarcane zones, Kenya. In: Proceed-
ings of Sustainable Research and Innovation Conference,
pp. 48–51 (2014)
46. Ansari, K.B., Gaikar, V.G.: Pressmud as an alternate resource
for hydrocarbons and chemicals by thermal pyrolysis. Ind. Eng.
Chem. Res. 53(5), 1878–1889 (2014)
47. Kumar, R., Kesavapillai, B.: Stimulation of extracellular
invertase production from spent yeast when sugarcane pressmud
used as substrate through solid state fermentation. Springerplus
1(1), 1–6 (2012)
48. López González, L.M., Reyes, I.P., Romero Romero, O., Budde,
J.R., Heiermann, M., Vervaeren, H.: Antagonistic effects on the
methane yield of liquid hot-water pretreated press mud fractions
co-digested with vinasse. Energy Fuels 29(11), 7284–7289
(2015)
123
Waste Biomass Valor
49. Sarker, T.C., Mannan, M.A., Sayeed, M.A., Alam, M.F.: Bio-
conversion of sugar cane industry by-product using bacterial
strains. J. Chem. Phys. Biol. Sci. Sect. D 5(4), 4707–4717
(2015)
50. Partha, N., Sivasubramanian, V.: Recovery of chemicals from
pressmud—a sugar industry waste. Indian Chem. Eng. 48(3),
160–163 (2006)
51. Kumar, P., Barrett, D.M., Delwiche, M.J., Stroeve, P.: Methods
for pretreatment of lignocellulosic biomass for efficient
hydrolysis and biofuel production. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 48(8),
3713–3729 (2009)
52. Taherzadeh, M.J., Karimi, K.: Pretreatment of lignocellulosic
wastes to improve ethanol and biogas production: a review. Int.
J. Mol. Sci. 9(9), 1621–1651 (2008)
53. Sun, Y., Cheng, J.: Hydrolysis of lignocellulosic materials for
ethanol production: a review. Bioresour. Technol. 83(1), 1–11
(2002)
54. Hideno, A., Inoue, H., Tsukahara, K., Fujimoto, S., Minowa, T.,
Inoue, S., Endo, T., Sawayama, S.: Wet disk milling pretreat-
ment without sulfuric acid for enzymatic hydrolysis of rice
straw. Bioresour. Technol. 100(10), 2706–2711 (2009)
55. Sambusiti, C., Licari, A., Solhy, A., Aboulkas, A., Cacciaguerra,
T., Barakat, A.: One-pot dry chemo-mechanical deconstruction
for bioethanol production from sugarcane bagasse. Bioresour.
Technol. 181, 200–206 (2015)
56. Zhu, S., Wu, Y., Yu, Z., Zhang, X., Li, H., Gao, M.: The effect
of microwave irradiation on enzymatic hydrolysis of rice straw.
Bioresour. Technol. 97(15), 1964–1968 (2006)
57. de Souza Moretti, M.M., Bocchini-Martins, D.A., Nunes,
C.D.C.C., Villena, M.A., Perrone, O.M., da Silva, R., Boscolo,
M., Gomes, E.: Pretreatment of sugarcane bagasse with micro-
waves irradiation and its effects on the structure and on enzy-
matic hydrolysis. Appl. Energy 122, 189–195 (2014)
58. Behera, S., Arora, R., Nandhagopal, N., Kumar, S.: Importance
of chemical pretreatment for bioconversion of lignocellulosic
biomass. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 36, 91–106 (2014)
59. Sukumaran, R.K., Singhania, R.R., Mathew, G.M., Pandey, A.:
Cellulase production using biomass feed stock and its applica-
tion in lignocellulose saccharification for bio-ethanol produc-
tion. Renew. Energy 34(2), 421–424 (2009)
60. Zhao, Y., Wang, Y., Zhu, J.Y., Ragauskas, A., Deng, Y.:
Enhanced enzymatic hydrolysis of spruce by alkaline pretreat-
ment at low temperature. Biotechnol. Bioeng. 99(6), 1320–1328
(2008)
61. Martı́n, C., Thomsen, A.B.: Wet oxidation pretreatment of lig-
nocellulosic residues of sugarcane, rice, cassava and peanuts for
ethanol production. J. Chem. Technol. Biotechnol. 82(2),
174–181 (2007)
62. Torre, P., Aliakbarian, B., Rivas, B., DomÃnguez, J.M., Con-
verti, A.: Release of ferulic acid from corn cobs by alkaline
hydrolysis. Biochem. Eng. J. 40(3), 500–506 (2008)
63. Kumari, S., Das, D.: Improvement of gaseous energy recovery
from sugarcane bagasse by dark fermentation followed by
biomethanation process. Bioresour. Technol. 194, 354–363
(2015)
64. Borges, E.R., Pereira Jr., N.: Succinic acid production from
sugarcane bagasse hemicellulose hydrolysate by Actinobacillus
succinogenes. J. Ind. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 38(8), 1001–1011
(2011)
65. Mosier, N., Wyman, C., Dale, B., Elander, R., Lee, Y.Y.,
Holtzapple, M., Ladisch, M.: Features of promising technologies
for pretreatment of lignocellulosic biomass. Bioresour. Technol.
96(6), 673–686 (2005)
66. de Moraes Rocha, G.J., Martin, C., Soares, I.B., Maior, A.M.S.,
Baudel, H.M., De Abreu, C.A.M.: Dilute mixed-acid
Waste Biomass Valor
pretreatment of sugarcane bagasse for ethanol production. Bio-
mass Bioenergy 35(1), 663–670 (2011)
67. Alvira, P., Tomás-Pejó, E., Ballesteros, M., Negro, M.J.: Pre-
treatment technologies for an efficient bioethanol production
process based on enzymatic hydrolysis: a review. Bioresour.
Technol. 101(13), 4851–4861 (2010)
68. Zhao, X., Peng, F., Cheng, K., Liu, D.: Enhancement of the
enzymatic digestibility of sugarcane bagasse by alkali—per-
acetic acid pretreatment. Enzyme Microb. Technol. 44(1),
17–23 (2009)
69. Zhao, X., Wu, R., Liu, D.: Production of pulp, ethanol and lignin
from sugarcane bagasse by alkali-peracetic acid delignification.
Biomass Bioenergy 35(7), 2874–2882 (2011)
70. Hendriks, A., Zeeman, G.: Pretreatments to enhance the
digestibility of lignocellulosic biomass. Bioresour. Technol.
100(1), 10–18 (2009)
71. Da Cruz, S.H., Dien, B.S., Nichols, N.N., Saha, B.C., Cotta,
M.A.: Hydrothermal pretreatment of sugarcane bagasse using
response surface methodology improves digestibility and etha-
nol production by SSF. J. Ind. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 39(3),
439–447 (2012)
72. Yu, Q., Zhuang, X., Wang, Q., Qi, W., Tan, X., Yuan, Z.:
Hydrolysis of sweet sorghum bagasse and eucalyptus wood
chips with liquid hot water. Bioresour. Technol. 116, 220–225
(2012)
73. Laser, M., Schulman, D., Allen, S.G., Lichwa, J., Antal, M.J.,
Lynd, L.R.: A comparison of liquid hot water and steam pre-
treatments of sugar cane bagasse for bioconversion to ethanol.
Bioresour. Technol. 81(1), 33–44 (2002)
74. Gurgel, L.V.A., Pimenta, M.T.B., da Silva Curvelo, A.A.:
Enhancing liquid hot water (LHW) pretreatment of sugarcane
bagasse by high pressure carbon dioxide (HP-CO 2). Ind. Crops
Prod. 57, 141–149 (2014)
75. McWilliams, R.C., Van Walsum, G.P.: Comparison of aspen
wood hydrolysates produced by pretreatment with liquid hot
water and carbonic acid. Biotechnology for fuels and chemicals,
pp. 109–121. Springer, Berlin (2002)
76. Van Walsum, G. P. Severity function describing the hydrolysis
of xylan using carbonic acid. In: Twenty-Second Symposium on
Biotechnology for Fuels and Chemicals, Springer, pp. 317–329,
(2001)
77. Yu, Q., Zhuang, X., Lv, S., He, M., Zhang, Y., Yuan, Z., Qi, W.,
Wang, Q., Wang, W., Tan, X.: Liquid hot water pretreatment of
sugarcane bagasse and its comparison with chemical pretreat-
ment methods for the sugar recovery and structural changes.
Bioresour. Technol. 129, 592–598 (2013)
78. Yu, Q., Zhuang, X., Yuan, Z., Qi, W., Wang, W., Wang, Q.,
Tan, X.: Pretreatment of sugarcane bagasse with liquid hot water
and aqueous ammonia. Bioresour. Technol. 144, 210–215
(2013)
79. van Walsum, G.P., Shi, H.: Carbonic acid enhancement of
hydrolysis in aqueous pretreatment of corn stover. Bioresour.
Technol. 93(3), 217–226 (2004)
80. Mosier, N., Hendrickson, R., Dreschel, R., Dien, B., Bothast, R.,
Welch, G., Ladisch, M: Principles and economics of pretreating
cellulose in water for ethanol production. In: Proceedings of the
225th American Chemical Society Meeting, BIOT Division
(2003)
81. Agbor, V.B., Cicek, N., Sparling, R., Berlin, A., Levin, D.B.:
Biomass pretreatment: fundamentals toward application.
Biotechnol. Adv. 29(6), 675–685 (2011)
82. Oliveira, F.M.V., Pinheiro, I.O., Souto-Maior, A.M., Martin,
C., Gonçalves, A.R., Rocha, G.J.M.: Industrial-scale steam
explosion pretreatment of sugarcane straw for enzymatic
hydrolysis of cellulose for production of second generation
ethanol and value-added products. Bioresour. Technol. 130,
168–173 (2013)
83. Geddes, C.C., Mullinnix, M.T., Nieves, I.U., Peterson, J.J.,
Hoffman, R.W., York, S.W., Yomano, L.P., Miller, E.N.,
Shanmugam, K.T., Ingram, L.O.: Simplified process for ethanol
production from sugarcane bagasse using hydrolysate-resistant
Escherichia coli strain MM160. Bioresour. Technol. 102(3),
2702–2711 (2011)
84. Rocha, G.J.M., Gonçalves, A.R., Oliveira, B.R., Olivares, E.G.,
Rossell, C.E.V.: Steam explosion pretreatment reproduction and
alkaline delignification reactions performed on a pilot scale with
sugarcane bagasse for bioethanol production. Ind. Crops Prod.
35(1), 274–279 (2012)
85. Rocha, G.J.M., Martı́n, C., da Silva, V.F.N., Gómez, E.O.,
Gonçalves, A.R.: Mass balance of pilot-scale pretreatment of
sugarcane bagasse by steam explosion followed by alkaline
delignification. Bioresour. Technol. 111, 447–452 (2012)
86. Palonen, H., Thomsen, A.B., Tenkanen, M., Schmidt, A.S.,
Viikari, L.: Evaluation of wet oxidation pretreatment for enzy-
matic hydrolysis of softwood. Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol.
117(1), 1–17 (2004)
87. Fox, M., Noike, T.: Wet oxidation pretreatment for the increase
in anaerobic biodegradability of newspaper waste. Bioresour.
Technol. 91(3), 273–281 (2004)
88. Laureano-Perez, L., Teymouri, F., Alizadeh, H., Dale, B.E.:
Understanding factors that limit enzymatic hydrolysis of bio-
mass. Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol. 124(1–3), 1081–1099 (2005)
89. Chundawat, S.P.S., Venkatesh, B., Dale, B.E.: Effect of particle
size based separation of milled corn stover on AFEX pretreat-
ment and enzymatic digestibility. Biotechnol. Bioeng. 96(2),
219–231 (2007)
90. Krishnan, C., Sousa, L.D.C., Jin, M., Chang, L., Dale, B.E.,
Balan, V.: Alkali-based AFEX pretreatment for the conversion
of sugarcane bagasse and cane leaf residues to ethanol.
Biotechnol. Bioeng. 107(3), 441–450 (2010)
91. Aita, G.A., Salvi, D.A., Walker, M.S.: Enzyme hydrolysis and
ethanol fermentation of dilute ammonia pretreated energy cane.
Bioresour. Technol. 102(6), 4444–4448 (2011)
92. Wyman, C.E., Dale, B.E., Elander, R.T., Holtzapple, M.,
Ladisch, M.R., Lee, Y.Y.: Comparative sugar recovery data
from laboratory scale application of leading pretreatment tech-
nologies to corn stover. Bioresour. Technol. 96(18), 2026–2032
(2005)
93. Eggeman, T., Elander, R.T.: Process and economic analysis of
pretreatment technologies. Bioresour. Technol. 96(18),
2019–2025 (2005)
94. Zheng, Y., Pan, Z., Zhang, R.: Overview of biomass pretreat-
ment for cellulosic ethanol production. Int. J. Agric. Biol. Eng.
2(3), 51–68 (2009)
95. Sánchez, C.: Lignocellulosic residues: biodegradation and bio-
conversion by fungi. Biotechnol. Adv. 27(2), 185–194 (2009)
96. Sarkar, N., Ghosh, S.K., Bannerjee, S., Aikat, K.: Bioethanol
production from agricultural wastes: an overview. Renew.
Energy 37(1), 19–27 (2012)
97. Singh, P., Suman, A., Tiwari, P., Arya, N., Gaur, A., Shrivas-
tava, A.K.: Biological pretreatment of sugarcane trash for its
conversion to fermentable sugars. World J. Microbiol.
Biotechnol. 24(5), 667–673 (2008)
98. Hamelinck, C.N., Van Hooijdonk, G., Faaij, A.P.C.: Ethanol
from lignocellulosic biomass: techno-economic performance in
short-, middle-and long-term. Biomass Bioenergy 28(4),
384–410 (2005)
99. Hahn-Hägerdal, B., Galbe, M., Gorwa-Grauslund, M.-F., Lidén,
G., Zacchi, G.: Bio-ethanol–the fuel of tomorrow from the
residues of today. Trends Biotechnol. 24(12), 549–556 (2006)
123

100. Yu, Q., Xu, C., Zhuang, X., Yuan, Z., He, M., Zhou, G.: Xylo-
oligosaccharides and ethanol production from liquid hot water
hydrolysate of sugarcane bagasse. BioResources 10(1), 30–40
(2015)
101. Rattanapoltee, P., Kaewkannetra, P.: Utilization of agricultural
residues of pineapple peels and sugarcane bagasse as cost-saving
raw materials in Scenedesmus acutus for lipid accumulation and
biodiesel production. Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol. 173(6),
1495–1510 (2014)
102. Gupta, A., Verma, J.P.: Sustainable bio-ethanol production from
agro-residues: a review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 41,
550–567 (2015)
103. Khatiwada, D., Leduc, S., Silveira, S., McCallum, I.: Optimizing
ethanol and bioelectricity production in sugarcane biorefineries
in Brazil. Renew. Energy 85, 371–386 (2016)
104. Cardona, C.A., Quintero, J.A., Paz, I.C.: Production of bioe-
thanol from sugarcane bagasse: status and perspectives. Biore-
sour. Technol. 101(13), 4754–4766 (2010)
105. Shen, F., Hu, J., Zhong, Y., Liu, M.L.Y., Saddler, J.N., Liu, R.:
Ethanol production from steam-pretreated sweet sorghum
bagasse with high substrate consistency enzymatic hydrolysis.
Biomass Bioenergy 41, 157–164 (2012)
106. da Silva Martins, L.H., Rabelo, S.C., da Costa, A.C.: Effects of
the pretreatment method on high solids enzymatic hydrolysis
and ethanol fermentation of the cellulosic fraction of sugarcane
bagasse. Bioresour. Technol. 191, 312–321 (2015)
107. Huang, Y., Qin, X., Luo, X.-M., Nong, Q., Yang, Q., Zhang,
Z., Gao, Y., Lv, F., Chen, Y., Yu, Z.: Efficient enzymatic
hydrolysis and simultaneous saccharification and fermentation
of sugarcane bagasse pulp for ethanol production by cellulase
from Penicillium oxalicum EU2106 and thermotolerant Sac-
charomyces cerevisiae ZM1-5. Biomass Bioenergy 77, 53–63
(2015)
108. Liu, Y., Xu, J., Zhang, Y., Yuan, Z., He, M., Liang, C., Zhuang,
X., Xie, J.: Sequential bioethanol and biogas production from
sugarcane bagasse based on high solids fed-batch SSF. Energy
90, 1199–1205 (2015)
109. Capecchi, L., Galbe, M., Barbanti, L., Wallberg, O.: Combined
ethanol and methane production using steam pretreated sugar-
cane bagasse. Ind. Crops Prod. 74, 255–262 (2015)
110. Taherzadeh, M.J., Karimi, K.: Enzymatic-based hydrolysis
processes for ethanol from lignocellulosic materials: a review.
BioResources 2(4), 707–738 (2007)
111. Giese, E.C., Chandel, A.K., Oliveira, I.S., Silva, S.S., Gonza-
lves, J.F., Correa, K.D.: Prospects for the bioethanol production
from sugarcane feedstock: focus on Brazil. Nova Science Pub-
lishers, New York, NY, USA (2011)
112. Lin, Y., Tanaka, S.: Ethanol fermentation from biomass
resources: current state and prospects. Appl. Microbiol.
Biotechnol. 69(6), 627–642 (2006)
113. Antunes, F.A.F., Chandel, A.K., Milessi, T.S.S., Santos, J.C.,
Rosa, C.A., da Silva, S.S.: Bioethanol production from sugar-
cane bagasse by a novel Brazilian pentose fermenting yeast
Scheffersomyces shehatae UFMG-HM 52.2: evaluation of fer-
mentation medium. Int. J. Chem. Eng. 2014 (Article ID 180681),
8 (2014)
114. Chandra, R., Takeuchi, H., Hasegawa, T.: Methane production
from lignocellulosic agricultural crop wastes: a review in con-
text to second generation of biofuel production. Renew. Sustain.
Energy Rev. 16(3), 1462–1476 (2012)
115. Moraes, B.S., Zaiat, M., Bonomi, A.: Anaerobic digestion of
vinasse from sugarcane ethanol production in Brazil: challenges
and perspectives. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 44, 888–903
(2015)
116. Karellas, S., Boukis, I., Kontopoulos, G.: Development of an
investment decision tool for biogas production from
123
Waste Biomass Valor
agricultural waste. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 14(4),
1273–1282 (2010)
117. Janke, L., Leite, A., Nikolausz, M., Schmidt, T., Liebetrau, J.,
Nelles, M., Stinner, W.: Biogas production from sugarcane
waste: assessment on kinetic challenges for process designing.
Int. J. Mol. Sci. 16(9), 20685–20703 (2015)
118. Taherzadeh, M.J., Karimi, K.: Acid-based hydrolysis processes
for ethanol from lignocellulosic materials: a review. BioRe-
sources 2(3), 472–499 (2007)
119. Kurakake, M., Ide, N., Komaki, T.: Biological pretreatment with
two bacterial strains for enzymatic hydrolysis of office paper.
Curr. Microbiol. 54(6), 424–428 (2007)
120. De Paoli, F., Bauer, A., Leonhartsberger, C., Amon, B., Amon,
T.: Utilization of by-products from ethanol production as sub-
strate for biogas production. Bioresour. Technol. 102(11),
6621–6624 (2011)
121. Rouf, M.A., Bajpai, P.K., Jotshi, C.K.: Optimization of biogas
generation from press mud in batch reactor. Bangladesh J. Sci.
Ind. Res. 45(4), 371–376 (2010)
122. Börjesson, P., Mattiasson, B.: Biogas as a resource-efficient
vehicle fuel. Trends Biotechnol. 26(1), 7–13 (2008)
123. Rabelo, S.C., Carrere, H., MacielFilho, R., Costa, A.C.: Pro-
duction of bioethanol, methane and heat from sugarcane bagasse
in a biorefinery concept. Bioresour. Technol. 102(17),
7887–7895 (2011)
124. Baêta, B.E.L., Lima, D.R.S., Balena Filho, J.G., Adarme,
O.F.H., Gurgel, L.V.A., de Aquino, S.F.: Evaluation of hydro-
gen and methane production from sugarcane bagasse hemicel-
lulose hydrolysates by two-stage anaerobic digestion process.
Bioresour. Technol. 218, 436–446 (2016)
125. Lai, Z., Zhu, M., Yang, X., Wang, J., Li, S.: Optimization of key
factors affecting hydrogen production from sugarcane bagasse
by a thermophilic anaerobic pure culture. Biotechnol. Biofuels
7(1), 1 (2014)
126. Urbaniec, K., Bakker, R.R.: Biomass residues as raw material
for dark hydrogen fermentation—a review. Int. J. Hydrogen
Energy 40(9), 3648–3658 (2015)
127. Hallenbeck, P.C., Abo-Hashesh, M., Ghosh, D.: Strategies for
improving biological hydrogen production. Bioresour. Technol.
110, 1–9 (2012)
128. Hawkes, F.R., Hussy, I., Kyazze, G., Dinsdale, R., Hawkes,
D.L.: Continuous dark fermentative hydrogen production by
mesophilic microflora: principles and progress. Int. J. Hydrogen
Energy 32(2), 172–184 (2007)
129. Kim, D.-H., Kim, S.-H., Shin, H.-S.: Sodium inhibition of fer-
mentative hydrogen production. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 34(8),
3295–3304 (2009)
130. Fan, Y.-T., Xing, Y., Ma, H.-C., Pan, C.-M., Hou, H.-W.:
Enhanced cellulose-hydrogen production from corn stalk by
lesser panda manure. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 33(21),
6058–6065 (2008)
131. Wang, J., Wan, W.: Factors influencing fermentative hydrogen
production: a review. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 34(2), 799–811
(2009)
132. Rai, P.K., Singh, S.P., Asthana, R.K., Singh, S.: Biohydrogen
production from sugarcane bagasse by integrating dark-and
photo-fermentation. Bioresour. Technol. 152, 140–146 (2014)
133. Radjaram, B., Saravanane, R.: Start up study of UASB reactor
treating press mud for biohydrogen production. Biomass
Bioenergy 35(7), 2721–2728 (2011)
134. Radjaram, B., Saravanane, R.: Assessment of optimum dilution
ratio for biohydrogen production by anaerobic co-digestion of
press mud with sewage and water. Bioresour. Technol. 102(3),
2773–2780 (2011)
135. Lazaro, C.Z., Perna, V., Etchebehere, C., Varesche, M.B.A.:
Sugarcane vinasse as substrate for fermentative hydrogen
Waste Biomass Valor
production: the effects of temperature and substrate concentra-
tion. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 39(12), 6407–6418 (2014)
136. Ghimire, A., Frunzo, L., Pirozzi, F., Trably, E., Escudie, R.,
Lens, P.N.L., Esposito, G.: A review on dark fermentative
biohydrogen production from organic biomass: process param-
eters and use of by-products. Appl. Energy 144, 73–95 (2015)
137. Couto, S.R., Sanromán, M.A.: Application of solid-state fer-
mentation to ligninolytic enzyme production. Biochem. Eng. J.
22(3), 211–219 (2005)
138. Singhania, R.R., Sukumaran, R.K., Pillai, A., Prema, P., Sza-
kacs, G., Pandey, A.: Solid-state fermentation of lignocellulosic
substrates for cellulase production by Trichoderma reesei NRRL
11460. Indian J. Biotechnol. 5(3), 332–336 (2006)
139. Rodrı́guez-Zúñiga, U.F., Neto, V.B., Couri, S., Crestana, S.,
Farinas, C.S.: Use of spectroscopic and imaging techniques to
evaluate pretreated sugarcane bagasse as a substrate for cellulase
production under solid-state fermentation. Appl. Biochem.
Biotechnol. 172(5), 2348–2362 (2014)
140. de Castro, A.M., de Carvalho, M.L.D.A., Leite, S.G.F., Pereira
Jr., N.: Cellulases from Penicillium funiculosum: production,
properties and application to cellulose hydrolysis. J. Ind.
Microbiol. Biotechnol. 37(2), 151–158 (2010)
141. Cassia Pereira, J., Paganini Marques, N., Rodrigues, A., Brito de
Oliveira, T., Boscolo, M., Silva, R.D., Gomes, E., Bocchini
Martins, D.A.: Thermophilic fungi as new sources for produc-
tion of cellulases and xylanases with potential use in sugarcane
bagasse saccharification. J. Appl. Microbiol. 118(4), 928–939
(2015)
142. Kumar, R., Singh, S., Singh, O.V.: Bioconversion of lignocel-
lulosic biomass: biochemical and molecular perspectives. J. Ind.
Microbiol. Biotechnol. 35(5), 377–391 (2008)
143. Abdel-Rahman, M.A., Tashiro, Y., Sonomoto, K.: Lactic acid
production from lignocellulose-derived sugars using lactic acid
bacteria: overview and limits. J. Biotechnol. 156(4), 286–301
(2011)
144. Yadegary, M., Hamidi, A., Alavi, S.A., Khodaverdi, E., Yaha-
ghi, H., Sattari, S., Bagherpour, G., Yahaghi, E.: Citric acid
production from sugarcane bagasse through solid state fermen-
tation method using Aspergillus niger mold and optimization of
citric acid production by Taguchi method. Jundishapur J.
Microbiol. 6(9), 1–6 (2013)
145. Adsul, M.G., Varma, A.J., Gokhale, D.V.: Lactic acid produc-
tion from waste sugarcane bagasse derived cellulose. Green
Chem. 9(1), 58–62 (2007)
146. Dumbrepatil, A., Adsul, M., Chaudhari, S., Khire, J., Gokhale,
D.: Utilization of molasses sugar for lactic acid production by
Lactobacillus delbrueckii subsp. delbrueckii mutant Uc-3 in
batch fermentation. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 74(1), 333–335
(2008)
147. Liang, L., Liu, R., Li, F., Wu, M., Chen, K., Ma, J., Jiang, M.,
Wei, P., Ouyang, P.: Repetitive succinic acid production from
lignocellulose hydrolysates by enhancement of ATP supply in
metabolically engineered Escherichia coli. Bioresour. Technol.
143, 405–412 (2013)
148. Brandão, P.C., Souza, T.C., Ferreira, C.A., Hori, C.E., Roma-
nielo, L.L.: Removal of petroleum hydrocarbons from aqueous
solution using sugarcane bagasse as adsorbent. J. Hazard. Mater.
175(1), 1106–1112 (2010)
149. Miretzky, P., Cirelli, A.F.: Cr (VI) and Cr(III) removal from
aqueous solution by raw and modified lignocellulosic materials:
a review. J. Hazard. Mater. 180(1), 1–19 (2010)
150. Mack, C., Wilhelmi, B., Duncan, J.R., Burgess, J.E.: Biosorption
of precious metals. Biotechnol. Adv. 25(3), 264–271 (2007)
151. Kaur, S., Rani, S., Mahajan, R.K.: Adsorptive removal of dye
crystal violet onto low-cost carbon produced from Eichhornia
plant: kinetic, equilibrium, and thermodynamic studies. Desali-
nation Water Treat. 53(2), 543–556 (2015)
152. Alomá, I., Martı́n-Lara, M.A., Rodrı́guez, I.L., Blázquez, G.,
Calero, M.: Removal of nickel (II) ions from aqueous solutions
by biosorption on sugarcane bagasse. J. Taiwan Inst. Chem.
Eng. 43(2), 275–281 (2012)
153. Wang, J., Chen, C.: Biosorbents for heavy metals removal and
their future. Biotechnol. Adv. 27(2), 195–226 (2009)
154. Tao, H.-C., Zhang, H.-R., Li, J.-B., Ding, W.-Y.: Biomass based
activated carbon obtained from sludge and sugarcane bagasse
for removing lead ion from wastewater. Bioresour. Technol.
192, 611–617 (2015)
155. Esfandiar, N., Nasernejad, B., Ebadi, T.: Removal of Mn(II)
from groundwater by sugarcane bagasse and activated carbon (a
comparative study): application of response surface methodol-
ogy (RSM). J. Ind. Eng. Chem. 20(5), 3726–3736 (2014)
156. Mohamad, M., Ahmad, H., Ismail, N., Morad, N., Samuding, K.:
Enhancement of natural local soil in minimizing the migration
of heavy metals using pressmud. Int. J. Adv. Agric. Environ.
Eng. 1(1), 89–93 (2014)
157. Karnitz, O., Gurgel, L.V.A., Gil, L.F.: Removal of Ca(II) and
Mg(II) from aqueous single metal solutions by mercerized cel-
lulose and mercerized sugarcane bagasse grafted with EDTA
dianhydride (EDTAD). Carbohydr. Polym. 79(1), 184–191
(2010)
158. Eyheraguibel, B., Silvestre, J.R.M., Morard, P.: Effects of humic
substances derived from organic waste enhancement on the
growth and mineral nutrition of maize. Bioresour. Technol.
99(10), 4206–4212 (2008)
159. Rahman, A., Begum, M.F., Rahman, M., Bari, M.A., Illias,
G.N.M., Alam, M.F.: Isolation and identification of Trichoderma
species from different habitats and their use for bioconversion of
solid waste. Turk. J. Biol. 35(2), 183–194 (2011)
160. Vargas-Garcı, M.C., Suárez-Estrella, F., López, M.J., Moreno,
J.: Effect of inoculation in composting processes: modifications
in lignocellulosic fraction. Waste Manage. 27(9), 1099–1107
(2007)
161. Gupta, N., Tripathi, S., Balomajumder, C.: Characterization
of pressmud: a sugar industry waste. Fuel 90(1), 389–394
(2011)
162. Mahamuni, S.V., Patil, A.S.: Microbial consortium treatment to
distillery spent wash and press mud cake through pit and
windrow system of composting. J. Chem. Biol. Phys. Sci. 2(2),
847–855 (2012)
163. Joshi, N., Sharma, S., Kangri, G.: Physico-chemical characteri-
zation of sulphidation press mud composted press mud and
vermicomposted pressmud. Rep. Opin. 2(3), 79–82 (2010)
164. Kalaivanan, D., Hattab, K.O.: Influence of enriched pressmud
compost on soil chemical properties and yield of rice. Res.
J. Microbiol. 3(4), 254–261 (2008)
165. Sarker, T.C., Mannan, M.A., Mondol, P.C., Kabir, A.H., Parvez,
S.M., Alam, M.F.: Physico-chemical profile and microbial
diversity during bioconversion of sugarcane press mud using
bacterial suspension. Not. Sci. Biol. 5(3), 346–353 (2013)
166. Khwairakpam, M., Bhargava, R.: Bioconversion of filter mud
using vermicomposting employing two exotic and one local
earthworm species. Bioresour. Technol. 100(23), 5846–5852
(2009)
167. Sangwan, P., Kaushik, C.P., Garg, V.K.: Vermicomposting of
sugar industry waste (press mud) mixed with cow dung
employing an epigeic earthworm Eisenia fetida. Waste Manage.
Res. 28(1), 71–75 (2010)
168. Prakash, M., Karmegam, N.: Vermistabilization of pressmud
using Perionyx ceylanensis Mich. Bioresour. Technol. 101(21),
8464–8468 (2010)
123

169. Kumar, R., Verma, D., Singh, B.L., Kumar, U.: Composting of
sugar-cane waste by-products through treatment with microor-
ganisms and subsequent vermicomposting. Bioresour. Technol.
101(17), 6707–6711 (2010)
170. Dominguez, M., Mejia, A., Revah, S., Barrios-González, J.:
Optimization of bagasse, nutrients and initial moisture ratios on
the yield of penicillin in solid-state fermentation. World J.
Microbiol. Biotechnol. 17(7), 751–756 (2001)
171. Nigam, J.N.: Cultivation of Candida langeronii in sugar cane
bagasse hemicellulosic hydrolyzate for the production of single
cell protein. World J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 16(4), 367–372
(2000)
172. Mandelli, F., Brenelli, L.B., Almeida, R.F., Goldbeck, R., Wolf,
L.D., Hoffmam, Z.B., Ruller, R., Rocha, G.J.M., Mercadante,
A.Z., Squina, F.M.: Simultaneous production of xylooligosac-
charides and antioxidant compounds from sugarcane bagasse via
enzymatic hydrolysis. Ind. Crops Prod. 52, 770–775 (2014)
173. Gebre, H., Fisha, K., Kindeya, T., Gebremichal, T.: Synthesis of
furfural from bagasse. Int. Lett. Chem. Phys. Astron. 57, 72–84
(2015)
174. Baudel, H.M., Zaror, C., de Abreu, C.S.A.M.: Improving the
value of sugarcane bagasse wastes via integrated chemical
production systems: an environmentally friendly approach. Ind.
Crops Prod. 21(3), 309–315 (2005)
175. Abd-Alla, A.: Microbial conversion of sugar cane phytosterol by
Fusarium solani. Int. J. Anal. Pharm. Biomed. Sci. 2(4), 14–21 (2013)
176. Ou, S., Zhao, J., Wang, Y., Tian, Y., Wang, J.: Preparation of
octacosanol from filter mud produced after sugarcane juice
clarification. LWT Food Sci. Technol. 45(2), 295–298 (2012)
177. Suma, N., Reddy, B.S.V., Gloridoss, R.G., Prabhu, T.M.,
Kumar, C.B., Suresh, B.N., Shilpa, V.T.: Egg shell and yolk
quality characteristics of layers fed with sugarcane press residue
in soya and fish based diets. Vet. World 8(2), 232–238 (2015)
178. Bonomi, A., Cavalett, O., da Cunha, M.P., Lima, M.A.P.: The
virtual sugarcane biorefinery concept. Virtual biorefinery,
pp. 5–11. Springer, Berlin (2016)
179. Junqueira, T.L., Cavalett, O., Bonomi, A.: The virtual sugarcane
biorefinery—a simulation tool to support public policies for-
mulation in bioenergy. Ind. Biotechnol. 12(1), 62–67 (2016)
180. ISO: ISO Norm 14040:2006. Life Cycle Assessment: Principles
and Framework. Environmental Management. International
Organisation for Standardisation, Geneva (2006)
181. Dias, M.O.S., Junqueira, T.L., Cavalett, O., Cunha, M.P., Jesus,
C.D.F., Rossell, C.E.V., Maciel Filho, R., Bonomi, A.: Inte-
grated versus stand-alone second generation ethanol production
from sugarcane bagasse and trash. Bioresour. Technol. 103(1),
152–161 (2012)
182. Moraes, B.S., Junqueira, T.L., Pavanello, L.G., Cavalett, O.,
Mantelatto, P.E., Bonomi, A., Zaiat, M.: Anaerobic digestion of
vinasse from sugarcane biorefineries in Brazil from energy,
environmental, and economic perspectives: profit or expense?
Appl. Energy 113, 825–835 (2014)
183. Pereira, L.G., Chagas, M.F., Dias, M.O.S., Cavalett, O.,
Bonomi, A.: Life cycle assessment of butanol production in
sugarcane biorefineries in Brazil. J. Clean. Prod. 96, 557–568
(2015)
184. Pereira, L.G., Chagas, M.F., Dias, M.O.S., Cavalett, O.,
Bonomi, A.: Life cycle assessment of biobutanol production
integrated to sugarcane biorefineries in Brazil. In: ‘‘Inte-
grating cleaner production into sustainability strategies’’ 4th
International Workshop, São Paulo, Brazil, 22–24 May,
2013
185. de Moraes Rocha, G.J., Nascimento, V.M., Goncalves, A.R.,
Silva, V.F.N., Martı́n, C.: Influence of mixed sugarcane bagasse
samples evaluated by elemental and physical–chemical com-
position. Ind. Crops Prod. 64, 52–58 (2015)
123
Waste Biomass Valor
186. Liu, C.-F., Sun, R.-C., Qin, M.-H., Zhang, A.-P., Ren, J.-L., Xu,
F., Ye, J., Wu, S.-B.: Chemical modification of ultrasound-
pretreated sugarcane bagasse with maleic anhydride. Ind. Crops
Prod. 26(2), 212–219 (2007)
187. Peng, F., Ren, J.-L., Xu, F., Bian, J., Peng, P., Sun, R.-C.:
Comparative study of hemicelluloses obtained by graded ethanol
precipitation from sugarcane bagasse. J. Agric. Food Chem.
57(14), 6305–6317 (2009)
188. Zhang, Z., O’Hara, I.M., Doherty, W.O.S.: Pretreatment of
sugarcane bagasse by acid-catalysed process in aqueous ionic
liquid solutions. Bioresour. Technol. 120, 149–156 (2012)
189. Chandel, A.K., Kapoor, R.K., Singh, A., Kuhad, R.C.: Detoxi-
fication of sugarcane bagasse hydrolysate improves ethanol
production by Candida shehatae NCIM 3501. Bioresour.
Technol. 98(10), 1947–1950 (2007)
190. Pattra, S., Sangyoka, S., Boonmee, M., Reungsang, A.: Bio-
hydrogen production from the fermentation of sugarcane
bagasse hydrolysate by Clostridium butyricum. Int. J. Hydrogen
Energy 33(19), 5256–5265 (2008)
191. Cheng, K.-K., Cai, B.-Y., Zhang, J.-A., Ling, H.-Z., Zhou, Y.-J.,
Ge, J.-P., Xu, J.-M.: Sugarcane bagasse hemicellulose hydro-
lysate for ethanol production by acid recovery process. Bio-
chem. Eng. J. 38(1), 105–109 (2008)
192. Zhao, X., Song, Y., Liu, D.: Enzymatic hydrolysis and simul-
taneous saccharification and fermentation of alkali/peracetic
acid-pretreated sugarcane bagasse for ethanol and 2,3-butane-
diol production. Enzyme Microb. Technol. 49(4), 413–419
(2011)
193. Rodrı́guez-Chong, A., Ramı́rez, J.A., Garrote, G., Vázquez, M.:
Hydrolysis of sugar cane bagasse using nitric acid: a kinetic
assessment. J. Food Eng. 61(2), 143–152 (2004)
194. Gámez, S., González-Cabriales, J.J., Ramı́rez, J.A., Garrote, G.,
Vázquez, M.: Study of the hydrolysis of sugar cane bagasse
using phosphoric acid. J. Food Eng. 74(1), 78–88 (2006)
195. Pasquini, D., Pimenta, M.T.B., Ferreira, L.H., Curvelo, A.A.S.:
Sugar cane bagasse pulping using supercritical CO 2 associated
with co-solvent 1-butanol/water. J. Supercrit. Fluids 34(2),
125–131 (2005)
196. Pasquini, D., Pimenta, M.T.B., Ferreira, L.H., da Silva Curvelo,
A.A.: Extraction of lignin from sugar cane bagasse and Pinus
taeda wood chips using ethanol—water mixtures and carbon
dioxide at high pressures. J. Supercrit. Fluids 36(1), 31–39
(2005)
197. González, L.M.L., Vervaeren, H., Reyes, I.P., Dumoulin, A.,
Romero, O.R., Dewulf, J.: Thermo-chemical pre-treatment to
solubilize and improve anaerobic biodegradability of press mud.
Bioresour. Technol. 131, 250–257 (2013)
198. Vallejos, M.E., Felissia, F.E., Kruyeniski, J., Area, M.C.:
Kinetic study of the extraction of hemicellulosic carbohydrates
from sugarcane bagasse by hot water treatment. Ind. Crops Prod.
67, 1–6 (2015)
199. Batalha, L.A.R., Han, Q., Jameel, H., Chang, H.-M., Colodette,
J.L., Gomes, F.J.B.: Production of fermentable sugars from
sugarcane bagasse by enzymatic hydrolysis after autohydrolysis
and mechanical refining. Bioresour. Technol. 180, 97–105
(2015)
200. Sendelius, J.: Steam pretreatment optimization for sugarcane
bagasse in bioethanol production. Master of Science Thesis.
Department of Chemical Engineering, Lund University, Sweden
(2005)
201. Schneider, W.D.H., dos Reis, L., Camassola, M., Dillon, A.J.P.:
Morphogenesis and production of enzymes by Penicillium
echinulatum in response to different carbon sources. BioMed
Res. Int. 2014, 1–10 (2014)
202. Guilherme, A.A., Dantas, P.V.F., Santos, E.S., Fernandes,
F.A.N., Macedo, G.R.: Evaluation of composition,
Waste Biomass Valor
characterization and enzymatic hydrolysis of pretreated sugar
cane bagasse. Braz. J. Chem. Eng. 32(1), 23–33 (2015)
203. Binod, P., Satyanagalakshmi, K., Sindhu, R., Janu, K.U.,
Sukumaran, R.K., Pandey, A.: Short duration microwave assis-
ted pretreatment enhances the enzymatic saccharification and
fermentable sugar yield from sugarcane bagasse. Renew. Energy
37(1), 109–116 (2012)
204. Qiu, Z., Aita, G.M., Walker, M.S.: Effect of ionic liquid pre-
treatment on the chemical composition, structure and enzymatic
hydrolysis of energy cane bagasse. Bioresour. Technol. 117,
251–256 (2012)
205. Zhao, X.B., Wang, L., Liu, D.H.: Effect of several factors on
peracetic acid pretreatment of sugarcane bagasse for enzymatic
hydrolysis. J. Chem. Technol. Biotechnol. 82(12), 1115–1121
(2007)
206. Das, P., Ganesh, A., Wangikar, P.: Influence of pretreatment for
deashing of sugarcane bagasse on pyrolysis products. Biomass
Bioenergy 27(5), 445–457 (2004)
207. Sindhu, R., Kuttiraja, M., Binod, P., Sukumaran, R.K., Pandey,
A.: Physicochemical characterization of alkali pretreated sug-
arcane tops and optimization of enzymatic saccharification using
response surface methodology. Renew. Energy 62, 362–368
(2014)
208. Dos Santos, D.D.S., Camelo, A.C., Rodrigues, K.C.P., Carlos,
L.C., Pereira Jr., N.: Ethanol production from sugarcane bagasse
by Zymomonas mobilis using simultaneous saccharification and
fermentation (SSF) process. Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol.
161(1–8), 93–105 (2010)
209. twMartins, E.S., Silva, D., Da Silva, R., Gomes, E.: Solid state
production of thermostable pectinases from thermophilic
Thermoascus aurantiacus. Process Biochem. 37(9), 949–954
(2002)
210. Martı́n, C., Marcet, M., Almazán, O., Jönsson, L.J.: Adaptation of
a recombinant xylose-utilizing Saccharomyces cerevisiae strain
to a sugarcane bagasse hydrolysate with high content of fermen-
tation inhibitors. Bioresour. Technol. 98(9), 1767–1773 (2007)
211. Rouf, M.A., Islam, M.S., Bajpai, P.K., Jotshic, C.K.: Techno-
economic assessment of biogas production from press mud in
Bangladesh. Bangladesh J. Sci. Ind. Res. 48(1), 51–58 (2013)
212. Janke, L., Leite, A.F., Nikolausz, M., Radetski, C.M., Nelles,
M., Stinner, W.: Comparison of start-up strategies and process
performance during semi-continuous anaerobic digestion of
sugarcane filter cake co-digested with bagasse. Waste Manage.
48, 199–208 (2016)
213. Bolado-Rodrı́guez, S., Toquero, C., Martı́n-Juárez, J., Travaini,
R., Garcı́a-Encina, P.A.: Effect of thermal, acid, alkaline and
alkaline-peroxide pretreatments on the biochemical methane
potential and kinetics of the anaerobic digestion of wheat straw
and sugarcane bagasse. Bioresour. Technol. 201, 182–190
(2016)
214. Fangkum, A., Reungsang, A.: Biohydrogen production from
sugarcane bagasse hydrolysate by elephant dung: effects of
initial pH and substrate concentration. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy
36(14), 8687–8696 (2011)
215. Bocchini, D.A., Oliveira, O., Gomes, E., Da Silva, R.: Use of
sugarcane bagasse and grass hydrolysates as carbon sources for
xylanase production by Bacillus circulans D1 in submerged
fermentation. Process Biochem. 40(12), 3653–3659 (2005)
216. Milagres, A.M.F., Santos, E., Piovan, T., Roberto, I.C.: Pro-
duction of xylanase by Thermoascus aurantiacus from sugar
cane bagasse in an aerated growth fermentor. Process Biochem.
39(11), 1387–1391 (2004)
217. Pandey, P., Pandey, A.K.: Production of cellulase-free ther-
mostable xylanases by an isolated strain of Aspergillus niger
PPI, utilizing various lignocellulosic wastes. World J. Microbiol.
Biotechnol. 18(3), 281–283 (2002)
218. Oliveira, L.A., Porto, A.L.F., Tambourgi, E.B.: Production of
xylanase and protease by Penicillium janthinellum CRC 87M-
115 from different agricultural wastes. Bioresour. Technol.
97(6), 862–867 (2006)
219. Muthuvelayudham, R., Viruthagiri, T.: Fermentative production
and kinetics of cellulase protein on Trichoderma reesei using
sugarcane bagasse and rice straw. Afr. J. Biotechnol. 5(20),
1873–1881 (2006)
220. Ojumu, T.V., Solomon, B.O., Betiku, E., Layokun, S.K., Ami-
gun, B.: Cellulase production by Aspergillus flavus Linn Isolate
NSPR 101 fermented in sawdust, bagasse and corncob. Afr.
J. Biotechnol. 2(6), 150–152 (2003)
221. Martin, N., Souza, S.R.D., Silva, R.D., Gomes, E.: Pectinase
production by fungal strains in solid-state fermentation using
agro-industrial bioproduct. Braz. Arch. Biol. Technol. 47(5),
813–819 (2004)
222. Silva, D., Martins, E.D.S., Silva, R.D., Gomes, E.: Pectinase
production by Penicillium viridicatum RFC3 by solid state fer-
mentation using agricultural wastes and agro-industrial by-
products. Braz. J. Microbiol. 33(4), 318–324 (2002)
223. Ferreira, V., Da Silva, R., Silva, D., Gomes, E.: Production of
pectate lyase by Penicillium viridicatum RFC3 in solid-state and
submerged fermentation. Int. J. Microbiol. 2010, 1–8 (2010)
224. Singh, A., Bajar, S., Bishnoi, N.R., Singh, N.: Laccase pro-
duction by Aspergillus heteromorphus using distillery spent
wash and lignocellulosic biomass. J. Hazard. Mater. 176(1),
1079–1082 (2010)
225. Mazutti, M.A., Zabot, G., Boni, G., Skovronski, A., de Oliveira,
D., Di Luccio, M., Rodrigues, M.I., Treichel, H., Maugeri, F.:
Optimization of inulinase production by solid-state fermentation
in a packed-bed bioreactor. J. Chem. Technol. Biotechnol.
85(1), 109–114 (2010)
226. Mohapatra, P.K.D., Mondal, K.C., Pati, B.R.: Production of
tannase by the immobilized cells of Bacillus licheniformis
KBR6 in Ca-alginate beads. J. Appl. Microbiol. 102(6),
1462–1467 (2007)
227. Rajagopalan, G., Krishnan, C.: a-Amylase production from
catabolite derepressed Bacillus subtilis KCC103 utilizing sug-
arcane bagasse hydrolysate. Bioresour. Technol. 99(8),
3044–3050 (2008)
228. Rodriguez, J.A., Mateos, J.C., Nungaray, J., Gonzále, V.,
Bhagnagar, T., Roussos, S., Cordova, J., Baratti, J.: Improving
lipase production by nutrient source modification using Rhizo-
pus homothallicus cultured in solid state fermentation. Process
Biochem. 41(11), 2264–2269 (2006)
229. Laopaiboon, P., Thani, A., Leelavatcharamas, V., Laopaiboon,
L.: Acid hydrolysis of sugarcane bagasse for lactic acid pro-
duction. Bioresour. Technol. 101(3), 1036–1043 (2010)
230. John, R.P., Nampoothiri, K.M., Pandey, A.: Solid-state fer-
mentation for L-lactic acid production from agro wastes using
Lactobacillus delbrueckii. Process Biochem. 41(4), 759–763
(2006)
231. Kumar, D., Jain, V.K., Shanker, G., Srivastava, A.: Citric acid
production by solid state fermentation using sugarcane bagasse.
Process Biochem. 38(12), 1731–1738 (2003)
232. Khosravi-Darani, K., Zoghi, A.: Comparison of pretreatment
strategies of sugarcane baggase: experimental design for citric
acid production. Bioresour. Technol. 99(15), 6986–6993 (2008)
233. Liu, R., Liang, L., Li, F., Wu, M., Chen, K., Ma, J., Jiang, M.,
Wei, P., Ouyang, P.: Efficient succinic acid production from
lignocellulosic biomass by simultaneous utilization of glucose
and xylose in engineered Escherichia coli. Bioresour. Technol.
149, 84–91 (2013)
234. Xi, Y.-L., Dai, W.-Y., Xu, R., Zhang, J.-H., Chen, K.-Q., Jiang,
M., Wei, P., Ouyang, P.-K.: Ultrasonic pretreatment and acid
hydrolysis of sugarcane bagasse for succinic acid production
123

using Actinobacillus succinogenes. Bioprocess Biosyst. Eng.
36(11), 1779–1785 (2013)
235. Jiang, M., Xu, R., Xi, Y.-L., Zhang, J.-H., Dai, W.-Y., Wan, Y.-
J., Chen, K.-Q., Wei, P.: Succinic acid production from cel-
lobiose by Actinobacillus succinogenes. Bioresour. Technol.
135, 469–474 (2013)
236. Singh, O.V., Jain, R.K., Singh, R.P.: Gluconic acid production
under varying fermentation conditions by Aspergillus niger.
J. Chem. Technol. Biotechnol. 78(2–3), 208–212 (2003)
237. Behnood, R., Anvaripour, B., Jaafarzade Haghighi Fard, N.,
Farasati, M.: Petroleum hydrocarbons adsorption from aqueous
solution by raw sugarcane bagasse. Int. J. Emerg. Sci. Eng. 1(6),
96–99 (2013)
238. Garg, U.K., Kaur, M.P., Garg, V.K., Sud, D.: Removal of nickel
(II) from aqueous solution by adsorption on agricultural waste
biomass using a response surface methodological approach.
Bioresour. Technol. 99(5), 1325–1331 (2008)
239. Garg, U., Kaur, M.P., Jawa, G.K., Sud, D., Garg, V.K.: Removal of
cadmium (II) from aqueous solutions by adsorption on agricultural
waste biomass. J. Hazard. Mater. 154(1), 1149–1157 (2008)
240. Zhang, Z., O’Hara, I.M., Kent, G.A., Doherty, W.O.S.: Com-
parative study on adsorption of two cationic dyes by milled
sugarcane bagasse. Ind. Crops Prod. 42, 41–49 (2013)
241. Ullah, I., Nadeem, R., Iqbal, M., Manzoor, Q.: Biosorption of
chromium onto native and immobilized sugarcane bagasse waste
biomass. Ecol. Eng. 60, 99–107 (2013)
242. Niu, X., Zheng, L., Zhou, J., Dang, Z., Li, Z.: Synthesis of an
adsorbent from sugarcane bagass by graft copolymerization and
its utilization to remove Cd (II) ions from aqueous solution.
J. Taiwan Inst. Chem. Eng. 45(5), 2557–2564 (2014)
243. Yu, J.-X., Wang, L.-Y., Chi, R.-A., Zhang, Y.-F., Xu, Z.-G.,
Guo, J.: Competitive adsorption of Pb2? and Cd2? on magnetic
modified sugarcane bagasse prepared by two simple steps. Appl.
Surf. Sci. 268, 163–170 (2013)
244. Gurgel, L.V.A., de Freitas, R.P., Gil, L.F.: Adsorption of Cu (II),
Cd (II), and Pb(II) from aqueous single metal solutions by
sugarcane bagasse and mercerized sugarcane bagasse chemi-
cally modified with succinic anhydride. Carbohydr. Polym.
74(4), 922–929 (2008)
245. Júnior, O.K., Gurgel, L.V.A., de Freitas, R.P., Gil, L.F.:
Adsorption of Cu(II), Cd(II), and Pb(II) from aqueous single
metal solutions by mercerized cellulose and mercerized sugar-
cane bagasse chemically modified with EDTA dianhydride
(EDTAD). Carbohydr. Polym. 77(3), 643–650 (2009)
246. Xing, Y., Liu, D., Zhang, L.-P.: Enhanced adsorption of
methylene blue by EDTAD-modified sugarcane bagasse and
123
Waste Biomass Valor
photocatalytic regeneration of the adsorbent. Desalination
259(1), 187–191 (2010)
247. Karnitz, O., Gurgel, L.V.A., De Melo, J.C.P., Botaro, V.R.,
Melo, T.N.M.R.S., de Freitas Gil, R.P., Gil, L.F.: Adsorption of
heavy metal ion from aqueous single metal solution by chemi-
cally modified sugarcane bagasse. Bioresour. Technol. 98(6),
1291–1297 (2007)
248. Mulinari, D.R., da Silva, M.L.C.C.P.: Adsorption of sulphate
ions by modification of sugarcane bagasse cellulose. Carbohydr.
Polym. 74(3), 617–620 (2008)
249. Rana, K., Shah, M., Limbachiya, N.: Adsorption of copper Cu2?
metal ion from waste water using sulphuric acid treated sugar-
cane bagasse as adsorbent. Int. J. Adv. Eng. Res. Sci. 1(1),
55–59 (2014)
250. Homagai, P.L., Ghimire, K.N., Inoue, K.: Adsorption behavior
of heavy metals onto chemically modified sugarcane bagasse.
Bioresour. Technol. 101(6), 2067–2069 (2010)
251. Gusmão, K.A.G., Gurgel, L.V.A., Melo, T.M.S., Gil, L.F.:
Application of succinylated sugarcane bagasse as adsorbent to
remove methylene blue and gentian violet from aqueous solu-
tions—kinetic and equilibrium studies. Dyes Pigments 92(3),
967–974 (2012)
252. Khoramzadeh, E., Nasernejad, B., Halladj, R.: Mercury
biosorption from aqueous solutions by sugarcane bagasse.
J. Taiwan Inst. Chem. Eng. 44(2), 266–269 (2013)
253. Pehlivan, E., Tran, H.T., Ouédraogo, W.K.I., Schmidt, C.,
Zachmann, D., Bahadir, M.: Sugarcane bagasse treated with
hydrous ferric oxide as a potential adsorbent for the removal of
As(V) from aqueous solutions. Food Chem. 138(1), 133–138
(2013)
254. Zaheer, S., Bhatti, H.N., Sdaf, S., Safa, Y., Zia-ur-Ruhman, M.:
Biosorptioncharateristics of sugarcane bagasse for the removal
of foron blue E-BL bye from aqueous solutions. J. Anim. Plants
Sci. 24(1), 272–279 (2014)
255. Ayyappan, R., Sophia, A.C., Swaminathan, K., Sandhya, S.:
Removal of Pb(II) from aqueous solution using carbon derived
from agricultural wastes. Process Biochem. 40(3), 1293–1299
(2005)
256. Kalderis, D., Koutoulakis, D., Paraskeva, P., Diamadopoulos, E.,
Otal, E., del Valle, J.O., Fernández-Pereira, C.: Adsorption of
polluting substances on activated carbons prepared from rice
husk and sugarcane bagasse. Chem. Eng. J. 144(1), 42–50
(2008)
257. Amin, N.K.: Removal of reactive dye from aqueous solutions by
adsorption onto activated carbons prepared from sugarcane
bagasse pith. Desalination 223(1), 152–161 (2008)