







































Global Sustainability Research                                 ISSN: 2833-986X                                                 
https://doi.org/10.56556/gssr.v2i4.621 
                                                                  

 

Global Scientific Research   77 
 

REVIEW ARTICLE  

Renewable Carbohydrates: Advancements in Sustainable Glucose 

Production and Optimization 

Thlama Mainta Mperiju1, Kiman Silas1*, Mohammed Modu Aji1, Abdulhalim Musa 

Abubakar1, 2, Agus Budianto3, Indianraj N4, Rezkallah Chafika5 

1Department of Chemical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, University of Maiduguri, PMB 1069, Bama Road, 

Maiduguri, Borno State, Nigeria 
2Department of Chemical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Modibbo Adama University, PMB 2076, Yola, 

Adamawa State, Nigeria 
3Department of Chemical Engineering, Industrial Technology Faculty, Institute Teknologi Adhitama Surabaya, 

Indonesia 
4Department of Agronomy, Adhiyamaan College of Agriculture and Research, Hosur TamilNadu, India 
5Departement of Biology, Faculty of Science Exacte and Natural Live, University of Tebessa, Algeria 

Corresponding Author: Kiman Silas: silaskiman@unimaid.edu.ng 

Received: 24 August, 2023, Accepted: 28 November, 2023, Published: 05 December, 2023 

 

Abstract 

This study explores and optimizes glucose production through various biochemical processes and assesses the 

potential of diverse feedstock sources to meet the growing demand for renewable carbohydrates. It focuses on 

glucose production's significance in biological systems and industrial applications, analyzing pathways like 

enzymatic hydrolysis of polysaccharides and acid hydrolysis of biomass. The kinetics of glucose production are 

examined, encompassing kinetic models for enzymatic hydrolysis, acid hydrolysis, and fermentation processes. 

Factors influencing reaction kinetics are explored, and experimental techniques for kinetic parameter estimation 

are discussed. To address sustainability and resource utilization challenges, the study investigates locally 

sourced materials like agricultural residues, forest biomass, algal biomass, and food waste as renewable 

feedstock sources. Optimization strategies for glucose production are presented, using statistical design of 

experiments and response surface methodology. Techno-economic analysis and life cycle assessments provide a 

holistic evaluation of environmental and economic aspects associated with glucose production processes. The 

study's comprehensive approach to glucose production, encompassing both technological advancements and 

sustainability considerations, offers insights into enzymatic, acid hydrolysis, and fermentation processes, as well 

as comparing diverse feedstock sources. This knowledge can foster further advancements in the field, benefit 

industries, and encourage policymakers to promote the integration of renewable carbohydrates in the broader 

bioeconomy. The research contributes to the global shift towards a greener and more sustainable future, where 

glucose production plays a key role in building a resilient and eco-conscious society. 

Keywords: Glucose production; Enzymatic hydrolysis; Biofuel; Fermentation processes; Bioproduct industries

 

https://www.jescae.com/index.php/gssr/gssr


Global Sustainability Research 

Global Scientific Research   78 
 

Introduction 

Glucose, a fundamental biomolecule and major source of energy in living organisms, is essential in a variety of 

biological processes and industrial uses. Because of the growing demand for clean and renewable energy 

sources, its production and consumption have received substantial attention. Glucose production is critical not 

just for the food and biofuel industries (Zahonyi et al., 2022), but also for the synthesis of a wide range of 

bioproducts. Over the years, significant work has been expended on understanding and optimizing the processes 

involved in glucose synthesis. Previous studies have explored enzymatic hydrolysis of polysaccharides, acid 

hydrolysis of biomass, and fermentation of sugars as the main pathways for glucose synthesis (Ciolkosz et al., 

2022). Various feedstock sources, including agricultural residues, forest biomass, algal biomass, and food waste, 

have been investigated for their potential in glucose production (Chen et al., 2022; Premjet et al., 2022). 

However, despite the progress made in this field, several challenges persist. The kinetics of glucose production, 

influenced by microorganism strains and environmental factors, remain complex and require further 

exploration. Optimization of the glucose production process to achieve maximum yield and economic efficiency 

continues to be a pressing concern (Pereira et al., 2021). Additionally, the sustainable and eco-friendly aspects 

of glucose production demand meticulous evaluation through life cycle assessments and techno-economic 

analyses. 

The primary aim of this comprehensive study is to provide an in-depth exploration of glucose production, 

considering various biochemical processes, feedstock sources, and optimization strategies. By comparing 

different enzymatic, acid hydrolysis, and fermentation techniques, this study aims to identify the most efficient 

and sustainable pathways for glucose synthesis. Furthermore, by examining locally sourced materials and 

agricultural residues as potential feedstock, the study intends to offer practical insights into utilizing renewable 

resources for glucose production. Objectives of the study are to investigate the enzymatic hydrolysis of 

polysaccharides and its kinetics for efficient glucose production, examine the acid hydrolysis of biomass to 

explore alternative pathways for glucose synthesis, assess the potential of fermentation processes for converting 

sugars into glucose, compare and evaluate various feedstock sources, including agricultural residues, forest 

biomass, algal biomass, and food waste, for their suitability in glucose production, optimize glucose production 

processes using statistical design of experiments and response surface methodology, and analyze the techno-

economic aspects and conduct life cycle assessments for a comprehensive evaluation of the sustainability of 

glucose production methods. This study holds paramount significance for academia, industries, and 

policymakers alike. By providing a comprehensive overview of glucose production, the research seeks to 

contribute to the scientific understanding of fundamental biochemical pathways. The optimization strategies and 

insights into feedstock utilization can pave the way for more sustainable and economically viable glucose 

production processes. Furthermore, this study's focus on environmentally friendly and renewable carbohydrates 

aligns with global efforts to transition towards green and eco-conscious solutions. Ultimately, the outcomes of 

this research aim to drive innovation and advancements in glucose production, fostering a sustainable future for 

various industries and human well-being. 

Literature Review 

Background on Glucose Production 

 

Glucose, a simple sugar, holds significant importance as a versatile platform chemical with wide-ranging 

applications in various industries, including food, pharmaceuticals, biofuels, and bioplastics (Johns, 2021). To 

meet the growing demand for glucose sustainably, the utilization of renewable feedstocks has become a major 

https://www.jescae.com/index.php/gssr/gssr


Global Sustainability Research 

Global Scientific Research   79 
 

focus of research. Among potential feedstocks, lignocellulosic biomass such as sawdust, rice husk, and 

sugarcane bagasse have drawn attention due to their abundance and potential for valorization. The enzymatic 

hydrolysis of these feedstocks can liberate glucose, which can then be further optimized using statistical 

techniques like Response Surface Methodology (RSM) and the Michaelis-Menten model for kinetic analysis 

(Ude et al., 2020). 

Aspergillus niger, a filamentous fungus, is a widely studied microorganism with notable enzymatic capabilities, 

including cellulase and hemicellulase production. Its potential for converting lignocellulosic biomass into 

glucose makes it an attractive candidate for glucose production. By harnessing the enzymatic prowess of 

Aspergillus niger, the hydrolysis of cellulose and hemicellulose in sawdust, rice husk, and sugarcane bagasse 

can be efficiently achieved, leading to enhanced glucose yields. RSM is a powerful statistical tool that allows 

for the optimization of multiple variables simultaneously. In the context of glucose production from different 

feedstocks, RSM can explore the effects of parameters such as enzyme concentration, temperature, pH, and 

reaction time on glucose yield (Jones et al., 2018). The technique provides insights into the interactions between 

variables and helps identify the optimal process conditions that maximize glucose production. With the aid of 

RSM, researchers can streamline the experimental design and significantly reduce the number of trials required, 

making the optimization process more efficient and cost-effective. 

Furthermore, understanding the kinetics of the glucose production process is crucial for process design and 

control. The Michaelis-Menten model, a well-established enzyme kinetics model, can be applied to describe the 

enzymatic hydrolysis of cellulose and hemicellulose by Aspergillus niger. By determining the kinetic 

parameters, such as the maximum reaction rate and the Michaelis constant, researchers can gain valuable 

insights into the enzymatic efficiency and the overall process dynamics (Efrinalia et al., 2022). Comprehensive 

characterization of the feedstock is essential to comprehend the complex interactions between the 

microorganism and the substrate during glucose production. Proximate and ultimate analyses provide 

information on the biomass composition, including moisture content, ash content, and elemental composition. 

Energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDX) offers insights into the elemental distribution within the biomass. 

Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR) can reveal functional groups present in the biomass, aiding in 

understanding the structural changes during hydrolysis. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) enables 

researchers to visualize the morphology and surface features of the feedstock, providing valuable information 

on structural changes and enzyme accessibility. 

The utilization of lignocellulosic biomass, such as sawdust, rice husk, and sugarcane bagasse, for glucose 

production using Aspergillus niger holds immense promise as a sustainable approach to meet the demand for 

glucose (Edor et al., 2018). The application of RSM and the Michaelis-Menten model will enhance process 

optimization and kinetic analysis, leading to improved glucose yields and process efficiency. Additionally, a 

comprehensive characterization of the feedstock using techniques like EDX, FTIR, and SEM will deepen the 

understanding of the enzymatic hydrolysis process and aid in optimizing the glucose production from these 

abundant biomass sources. 

 

Overview of Glucose as a Biomolecule 

 

Glucose, a monosaccharide with the chemical formula C6H12O6, is a fundamental biomolecule that plays a 

crucial role in various biological processes (Mondal, 2018; Rationalized, 2023). It serves as a primary source of 

energy for living organisms and serves as a building block for the synthesis of complex carbohydrates, lipids, 

and proteins. Glucose is found in almost all living organisms, ranging from bacteria and plants to animals, 

including humans. It is a central player in cellular metabolism. Through the process of glycolysis, glucose is 

https://www.jescae.com/index.php/gssr/gssr


Global Sustainability Research 

Global Scientific Research   80 
 

broken down into pyruvate, generating ATP (adenosine triphosphate) molecules that provide energy for cellular 

functions (Dienel, 2019; Remesar & Alemany, 2020). Pyruvate can further undergo various metabolic pathways, 

such as the Krebs cycle and oxidative phosphorylation, to produce additional ATP through cellular respiration. 

Glucose metabolism is essential for energy production, maintaining cellular homeostasis, and supporting vital 

cellular processes, such as signal transduction and membrane transport (Parker, 2020). Glucose serves as the 

primary energy source for most organisms. It is readily metabolized and efficiently converted into ATP through 

glycolysis and subsequent respiratory pathways (Dienel, 2019). The energy derived from glucose is utilized to 

perform mechanical work, maintain body temperature, support growth and development, and enable the 

functioning of vital organs and tissues (Remesar & Alemany, 2020). 

Glucose serves as the building block for the synthesis of complex carbohydrates, including starch, glycogen, 

and cellulose (Adams, 2022). Through the process of polymerization, glucose molecules link together to form 

chains or branched structures, resulting in the formation of these carbohydrates. Starch and glycogen serve as 

energy storage molecules in plants and animals, respectively, while cellulose provides structural support in plant 

cell walls. Glucose is a precursor for the synthesis of various biomolecules (Johns, 2021). It can be converted 

into other monosaccharides, such as fructose and galactose, through specific enzymatic reactions (Riaukaite et 

al., 2019). Glucose also serves as the starting point for the synthesis of lipids, amino acids, and nucleotides, 

which are essential components of cell membranes, proteins, and DNA, respectively (Rationalized, 2023). 

Glucose concentration in the bloodstream is tightly regulated to maintain optimal physiological function (Flores 

et al., 2018). In humans, the hormone insulin (Ramos et al., 2021), produced by the pancreas, facilitates glucose 

uptake by cells, thereby reducing blood glucose levels. The hormone glucagon, also produced by the pancreas, 

acts in the opposite manner, promoting the release of stored glucose from glycogen, thereby increasing blood 

glucose levels. This intricate hormonal regulation ensures that cells have a constant supply of glucose for energy 

production (Shirin et al., 2019). 

 

Enzymatic Hydrolysis of Polysaccharides 

 

Enzymatic hydrolysis is a biochemical process that involves the breakdown of complex polysaccharides into 

simpler sugars, primarily glucose, through the action of specific enzymes (Weiss et al., 2019). This process 

plays a crucial role in the production of glucose from biomass, such as cellulose and starch, as it enables the 

efficient release of glucose units for various industrial applications. The choice of enzymes for enzymatic 

hydrolysis depends on the type of polysaccharide being targeted (Amandio et al., 2023). Cellulose, for example, 

requires cellulases, which are enzymes capable of breaking down the β-1,4-glycosidic bonds present in the 

cellulose chain (ILO, 2020). On the other hand, amylases are used to hydrolyze starch, targeting the α-1,4-

glycosidic bonds (Hu et al., 2021). Enzymes can be derived from various sources, including microorganisms 

(such as fungi and bacteria) or produced through recombinant DNA technology. The selection of the appropriate 

enzyme(s) depends on factors such as substrate specificity, enzyme stability, cost, and availability (Bhandari et 

al., 2021). 

The structure and composition of the polysaccharide substrate significantly influence the efficiency of 

enzymatic hydrolysis (Amandio et al., 2023). Factors such as the degree of polymerization, crystallinity, 

accessibility of the enzyme to the substrate, and the presence of inhibitors or lignin can affect the hydrolysis 

process. Pretreatment methods, such as physical, chemical, or biological treatments, are often employed to 

enhance the accessibility of enzymes to the polysaccharide substrate, improving the overall hydrolysis 

efficiency (Ansanay et al., 2021). Enzymatic hydrolysis follows a complex kinetic process involving several 

steps, including enzyme-substrate adsorption, enzymatic reaction, and product desorption. The kinetics of 

https://www.jescae.com/index.php/gssr/gssr


Global Sustainability Research 

Global Scientific Research   81 
 

enzymatic hydrolysis can be described by various models, such as the Michaelis-Menten model or the 

Langmuir-Hinshelwood model. These models help in understanding the enzyme-substrate interactions, 

determining reaction rates, and estimating kinetic parameters such as the maximum reaction rate (Vmax) and 

Michaelis-Menten constant (Km) (Efrinalia et al., 2022). Kinetic studies provide valuable insights into the 

efficiency of the hydrolysis process and assist in process optimization. Several factors influence the efficiency 

of enzymatic hydrolysis (Turini et al., 2021): 

a) Enzyme Concentration: The amount of enzyme used affects the rate and extent of hydrolysis. Higher 

enzyme concentrations generally lead to faster hydrolysis; however, there is an optimal enzyme dosage 

beyond which further enzyme addition may not yield significant improvements. 

b) Substrate Concentration: The concentration of the polysaccharide substrate affects the rate of hydrolysis. 

Initially, as substrate concentration increases, the rate of hydrolysis also increases. However, at high 

substrate concentrations, the enzyme may become saturated, and the rate of hydrolysis may plateau. 

c) Temperature and pH (Jones et al., 2018): Enzymatic activity is highly dependent on temperature and pH. 

Different enzymes have specific temperature and pH optima for maximum activity. Maintaining optimal 

temperature and pH conditions is crucial for achieving high enzymatic efficiency during hydrolysis. 

d) Enzyme Inhibitors (Ascione et al., 2020): Inhibitors, such as lignin, hemicelluloses, or degradation 

products, can negatively impact enzymatic hydrolysis. These inhibitors can interfere with enzyme-

substrate interactions, reduce enzyme activity, or inhibit enzyme stability. Strategies to minimize or 

mitigate the effects of inhibitors include enzymatic detoxification, inhibitor removal. 

Acid Hydrolysis of Biomass 

 

Acid hydrolysis is a chemical process that utilizes acid catalysts to break down complex carbohydrates in 

biomass into simpler sugars, including glucose (ILO, 2020). This process is an alternative to enzymatic 

hydrolysis and is particularly suitable for biomass with high cellulose or hemicellulose content. Acid hydrolysis 

offers several advantages, such as faster reaction rates and the ability to handle a wide range of feedstocks. 

Various acid catalysts can be used for biomass hydrolysis, with sulfuric acid (H2SO4) and hydrochloric acid 

(HCl) being the most commonly employed. These strong acids dissociate in water, providing hydrogen ions 

(H+) that catalyze the hydrolysis of glycosidic bonds. The choice of acid catalyst depends on factors such as 

reaction efficiency, cost, safety, and the downstream processing of the hydrolysate (Swiatek et al., 2020). 

Optimizing reaction conditions is crucial for achieving efficient acid hydrolysis (Zhang & 

Sutheerawattananonda, 2020). Factors such as temperature, acid concentration, reaction time, and solid-to-

liquid ratio need to be carefully controlled. Elevated temperatures generally increase reaction rates, but 

excessively high temperatures can lead to sugar degradation (Astuti et al., 2018). Acid concentration influences 

the rate of hydrolysis, with higher concentrations promoting faster reaction rates. However, high acid 

concentrations may also result in the formation of inhibitory compounds and increase the risk of corrosion. 

Reaction time is determined based on the kinetics of hydrolysis, and the solid-to-liquid ratio affects the 

accessibility of acids to the biomass substrate. During acid hydrolysis, the acid catalysts protonate the 

glycosidic bonds, leading to their cleavage (Nguyen et al., 2018). The hydrolysis of cellulose and hemicellulose 

follows different reaction pathways. Cellulose hydrolysis involves the cleavage of β-1,4-glycosidic bonds, 

resulting in the formation of glucose monomers (Nguyen et al., 2018; Remesar & Alemany, 2020). 

Hemicellulose, composed of various sugar monomers, undergoes acid-catalyzed hydrolysis to produce a 

mixture of different sugars. However, acid hydrolysis is more challenging for lignin, a complex and highly 

resistant polymer, which typically undergoes minimal degradation during acid hydrolysis (Zhang et al., 2023). 

https://www.jescae.com/index.php/gssr/gssr


Global Sustainability Research 

Global Scientific Research   82 
 

Despite its advantages, acid hydrolysis also presents certain challenges (Damayanti et al., 2021; Swiatek et al., 

2020): 

i. Corrosion and Safety: Strong acids like sulfuric acid can be corrosive and require proper handling and 

safety precautions. The selection of appropriate equipment and materials is essential to withstand the 

corrosive nature of acids. 

ii. Sugar Degradation: The hydrolysis process, especially at high temperatures and acid concentrations, 

can lead to the degradation of sugars into unwanted byproducts, such as furans and organic acids. This 

degradation reduces the overall yield of desired glucose and can interfere with downstream processes. 

iii. Inhibitor Formation: Acid hydrolysis can generate inhibitory compounds, including furfural, 5-

hydroxymethylfurfural (HMF), and organic acids, which can affect subsequent enzymatic or microbial 

conversion processes (Katarzyna et al., 2020; Muhammad et al., 2022; Sant et al., 2021; Swiatek et al., 

2020). Detoxification methods, such as neutralization, washing, or adsorption, may be required to 

minimize the impact of inhibitors. 

iv. Acid Recovery and Neutralization: After hydrolysis, the acid needs to be separated from the 

hydrolysate for reuse or neutralization. Acid recovery and neutralization methods are important for 

cost-effectiveness, environmental considerations, and the overall sustainability of the process. 

Despite the challenges, acid hydrolysis remains an important method for biomass conversion due to its 

versatility and ability to handle a wide range of feedstocks. It offers advantages such as faster reaction rates, 

scalability, and the potential to utilize various biomass sources. Researchers continue to explore process 

optimization strategies to improve acid hydrolysis efficiency, minimize sugar degradation, and reduce the 

formation of inhibitory compounds. To address some of the challenges associated with acid hydrolysis, several 

advancements have been made. For instance, the use of milder acids or catalysts, such as organic acids or solid 

acid catalysts, has been explored to mitigate corrosion and improve the selectivity of hydrolysis. Additionally, 

the integration of acid hydrolysis with other pretreatment techniques, such as steam explosion or liquid hot 

water treatment, has shown promise in enhancing hydrolysis efficiency and reducing inhibitor formation (Fu et 

al., 2018; Li et al., 2019). 

 

Fermentation of Sugars for Glucose Production 

 

Fermentation is a biological process in which microorganisms, such as yeasts or bacteria, convert sugars into 

various products, including ethanol, organic acids, and gases. The fermentation of sugars plays a significant role 

in glucose production, as it provides an alternative route for converting sugars derived from biomass or other 

feedstocks into glucose (Damayanti et al., 2021). Various microorganisms are employed in fermentation 

processes to convert sugars to glucose. Yeasts, such as Saccharomyces cerevisiae, are commonly used for 

ethanol production (Halka et al., 2018). They possess the ability to metabolize glucose through the glycolysis 

pathway, producing ethanol as the primary end product. Other microorganisms, such as lactic acid bacteria or 

certain species of Escherichia coli, can ferment sugars to produce organic acids like lactic acid or acetic acid 

(Gunkova et al., 2021). The selection of microorganisms depends on the desired end product and the specific 

requirements of the fermentation process (Behera et al., 2019). The fermentation of sugars involves several 

stages, including sugar preparation, inoculum development, fermentation, and product recovery (Damayanti et 

al., 2021). The sugar source, such as glucose, fructose, or sucrose, is prepared by hydrolysis of biomass or 

through other pretreatment methods (Kiš et al., 2019). The microorganisms are then introduced into the 

fermentation medium, which provides the necessary nutrients and environmental conditions for their growth 

and metabolism. The fermentation process is carried out under controlled conditions of temperature, pH, and 

https://www.jescae.com/index.php/gssr/gssr


Global Sustainability Research 

Global Scientific Research   83 
 

aeration (Jones et al., 2018). As the microorganisms metabolize the sugars, they produce glucose as an 

intermediate or end product, depending on the specific fermentation pathway (Teleky et al., 2020). 

Several factors influence the efficiency of fermentation for glucose production (Chang et al., 2018; Jones et al., 

2018; Kanagasabai et al., 2019; Tse et al., 2021): 

a) Sugar Concentration: The concentration of sugars in the fermentation medium affects the rate and 

extent of glucose production. Higher sugar concentrations can lead to faster fermentation rates but may 

also result in inhibitory effects on microbial growth and metabolism. 

b) Microbial Strain and Characteristics: The selection of an appropriate microbial strain is critical for 

efficient glucose production. Different strains may exhibit variations in sugar utilization, fermentation 

rates, and tolerance to inhibitors. Genetic engineering approaches can be employed to enhance the 

metabolic capabilities of microorganisms for glucose production. 

c) Nutrient Availability: Microorganisms require essential nutrients, such as nitrogen, phosphorus, and 

trace elements, for their growth and fermentation activity. Optimizing nutrient availability through 

appropriate medium formulation is crucial for maximizing fermentation efficiency. 

d) Environmental Conditions: Temperature, pH, and oxygen availability are important environmental 

factors that impact microbial growth and fermentation. Each microorganism has an optimal range of 

these parameters, and maintaining the appropriate conditions ensures efficient fermentation and glucose 

production. 

e) Inhibitors and Byproducts: Inhibitory compounds, such as organic acids, furans, or phenolic 

compounds, can be generated during biomass pretreatment or hydrolysis processes. These inhibitors can 

affect microbial growth and fermentation efficiency. Detoxification strategies, including physical, 

chemical, or biological methods, can be implemented to minimize their impact. 

Glucose produced through fermentation has diverse applications in various industries: Glucose fermentation to 

ethanol serves as a key process in biofuel production (Smachetti et al., 2018). Ethanol can be used as a 

transportation fuel or as a blending component in gasoline, reducing reliance on fossil fuels and contributing to 

a more sustainable energy sector (Inyang et al., 2022; Salim, González-García, et al., 2019). Glucose is widely 

used in the food and beverage industry as a sweetener, preservative, or fermentation substrate. It serves as a key 

ingredient in the production of baked goods, confectionery, beverages, and fermented products such as beer, 

wine, and spirits. Glucose is utilized as a carbon source for the production of various pharmaceuticals, including 

antibiotics, vitamins, amino acids, and therapeutic proteins (Simpson et al., 2022). It also serves as a precursor 

for the synthesis of bioactive compounds and pharmaceutical intermediates. Glucose can be further converted 

into a wide range of valuable chemicals, such as organic acids (e.g., lactic acid, citric acid), polyols (e.g., 

sorbitol, mannitol), and other platform chemicals (Nam, 2022). These chemicals find applications in the 

production of polymers, resins, solvents, and other industrial products. Glucose can be used as an energy source 

and nutrient supplement in animal feed formulations. It provides readily available energy for livestock and 

poultry, supporting their growth and production. In agriculture, glucose-based products can be utilized as plant 

growth regulators, biofertilizers, or biostimulants, enhancing crop yield and quality (Blanco et al., 2020; Roslan 

& Salimi, 2019). 

Bioplastics and Biomaterials: Glucose serves as a building block for the production of bioplastics, such as 

polylactic acid (PLA), which offers a renewable and biodegradable alternative to conventional plastics. 

Glucose-based polymers can also be employed in the development of biomaterials for tissue engineering, drug 

delivery systems, and other biomedical applications (Far et al., 2022; Seddiqi et al., 2021; Sood et al., 2021). 

The fermentation of sugars for glucose production offers a versatile and sustainable approach to utilize biomass 

resources and generate valuable products. Advances in microbial engineering, fermentation process 

https://www.jescae.com/index.php/gssr/gssr


Global Sustainability Research 

Global Scientific Research   84 
 

optimization, and downstream processing techniques continue to enhance the efficiency and economic viability 

of glucose production through fermentation. Furthermore, the integration of fermentation with other biorefinery 

processes allows for the utilization of diverse feedstocks and the production of a wide range of valuable 

compounds, contributing to the development of a bio-based economy and a more sustainable future (Salim, et 

al., 2019). 

 

Comparison of Different Biochemical Processes 

Biochemical processes for glucose production encompass various methods, including enzymatic hydrolysis, 

acid hydrolysis, and fermentation. Each of these processes has its advantages, challenges, and suitability for 

different feedstocks and applications. The efficiency of a biochemical process is measured by the yield of 

glucose obtained from the feedstock (Kadhum et al., 2019). Enzymatic hydrolysis, utilizing specific enzymes, 

can achieve high conversion rates of polysaccharides into glucose. However, it may require longer reaction 

times and can be costlier due to the need for enzyme production. Acid hydrolysis, on the other hand, offers 

faster reaction rates but may lead to lower glucose yields due to sugar degradation and formation of inhibitory 

compounds. Fermentation processes can also achieve high conversion efficiencies, particularly when optimized 

for specific microorganisms and conditions (Recek et al., 2018). 

Different biochemical processes have varying compatibilities with different feedstocks. Enzymatic hydrolysis is 

well-suited for a wide range of biomass sources, including lignocellulosic materials, due to its specificity and 

ability to target specific polysaccharides (Weiss et al., 2019). Acid hydrolysis can handle diverse feedstocks as 

well, but certain biomass components, such as lignin, may hinder the process efficiency. Fermentation processes 

generally require sugars or sugar-rich feedstocks and are commonly used for glucose production from 

agricultural crops, sugar cane, or molasses (Nwankwo & Ukpabi, 2018). The environmental impact of a 

biochemical process is a crucial consideration in sustainable production. Enzymatic hydrolysis, being a 

biologically driven process, is considered environmentally friendly. It operates under mild conditions, produces 

fewer byproducts, and has lower energy requirements compared to other processes. Acid hydrolysis, while 

effective, requires the use of strong acids and may generate waste streams containing inhibitory compounds, 

necessitating proper treatment and disposal. Fermentation processes can also be environmentally favorable, 

especially when utilizing renewable feedstocks and optimizing process parameters to minimize waste and 

energy consumption (Salim, et al., 2019). 

The purity of glucose obtained from a biochemical process is important, particularly for applications in the 

food, pharmaceutical, and chemical industries. Enzymatic hydrolysis generally yields high-purity glucose, as 

specific enzymes target the desired polysaccharides without introducing contaminants (Codato-Zumpano et al., 

2023). Acid hydrolysis may result in lower product purity due to the presence of inhibitory compounds or 

degradation products. Fermentation processes can produce glucose along with other metabolites, requiring 

additional purification steps to obtain high-purity glucose (Salim, et al., 2019). The economics of a biochemical 

process depend on factors such as capital and operating costs, feedstock availability and cost, yield, and market 

demand for the products. Enzymatic hydrolysis, although efficient, can be costlier due to the requirement for 

enzymes and longer reaction times (Weiss et al., 2019). Acid hydrolysis offers faster reaction rates but may 

incur additional costs for acid procurement and disposal of waste streams. Fermentation processes, while 

efficient and commercially viable for certain feedstocks, may require downstream processing and purification 

steps, impacting overall process economics (Recek et al., 2018). 

 

 

https://www.jescae.com/index.php/gssr/gssr


Global Sustainability Research 

Global Scientific Research   85 
 

Locally Sourced Materials for Glucose Production 

 

The utilization of locally sourced materials for glucose production offers several advantages, including reduced 

transportation costs, increased sustainability, and support for local economies (Cheng et al., 2019). Locally 

available biomass resources can serve as valuable feedstocks for biochemical processes, contributing to the 

production of glucose in a more efficient, cost-effective, and environmentally friendly manner (Inyang et al., 

2022). 

Agricultural Residues as Feedstock 

Agricultural residues consist of the non-edible parts of crops that remain after harvest or processing (Kim et al., 

2018). They typically contain a combination of cellulose, hemicellulose, lignin, and other minor components. 

The exact composition varies depending on the type of residue and the specific crop. Cellulose and 

hemicellulose are polysaccharides that can be hydrolyzed into glucose, while lignin provides structural support 

to the plant and is more challenging to break down (Jeoh et al., 2017). Agricultural residues are widely available 

due to the large-scale agricultural activities in many regions. The abundance of these residues makes them 

attractive feedstocks for glucose production, as they provide a renewable and sustainable resource that can be 

utilized without competing with food production. The availability of agricultural residues can vary based on 

factors such as crop type, geographic location, and local agricultural practices. 

Preprocessing and Pretreatment: Before agricultural residues can be used as feedstocks for glucose production, 

preprocessing and pretreatment steps may be required. Preprocessing involves activities such as size reduction 

(e.g., grinding, chopping) and drying to enhance the feedstock's processability (Prithviraj et al., 2020). 

Pretreatment methods, such as steam explosion, liquid hot water treatment, or acid pretreatment, can be applied 

to enhance the accessibility of cellulose and hemicellulose for subsequent hydrolysis (Li et al., 2019; Shukla et 

al., 2023). Enzymatic hydrolysis is a commonly employed method for converting agricultural residues into 

glucose. Specific enzymes, such as cellulases and hemicellulases, are used to break down the cellulose and 

hemicellulose components into glucose (Jayasekara & Ratnayake, 2019). Enzymatic hydrolysis offers several 

advantages, including high selectivity, mild operating conditions, and compatibility with a wide range of 

agricultural residues. However, the cost of enzymes and the need for longer reaction times are considerations for 

process economics. 

Acid hydrolysis can also be used to convert agricultural residues into glucose. Strong acids, such as sulfuric 

acid or hydrochloric acid, are typically employed to break down the polysaccharides into their constituent 

sugars (Adeoye et al., 2019). Acid hydrolysis offers faster reaction rates compared to enzymatic hydrolysis. 

However, it may lead to sugar degradation, formation of inhibitory compounds, and corrosion issues, requiring 

proper process optimization and waste management strategies. To maximize glucose production from 

agricultural residues, process optimization and integration strategies can be employed (Kiran & Trzcinski, 

2017). This includes optimizing factors such as temperature, pH, residence time, enzyme loading (in enzymatic 

hydrolysis), acid concentration (in acid hydrolysis), and solid-liquid ratios. Integration with other pretreatment 

techniques or biorefinery concepts, such as combining acid hydrolysis with fermentation or utilizing lignin co-

products, can enhance overall process efficiency and resource utilization. The utilization of agricultural residues 

as feedstocks for glucose production offers several sustainability benefits (Oyola-Rivera et al., 2018). It reduces 

waste generation, maximizes the use of available biomass resources, and contributes to the development of a 

circular economy. Additionally, utilizing agricultural residues for bio-based processes helps reduce greenhouse 

gas emissions by replacing fossil-based feedstocks and minimizing reliance on non-renewable resources. 

 

https://www.jescae.com/index.php/gssr/gssr


Global Sustainability Research 

Global Scientific Research   86 
 

Forest Biomass and Lignocellulosic Materials 

 

Forest biomass and lignocellulosic materials consist mainly of cellulose, hemicellulose, and lignin, along with 

smaller amounts of extractives and ash. Cellulose and hemicellulose are polysaccharides that can be hydrolyzed 

into glucose, while lignin provides structural support to the plant and contributes to the recalcitrance of 

lignocellulosic materials. The exact composition varies depending on factors such as tree species, age, and 

growing conditions (Augusto & Boca, 2022). Forest biomass and lignocellulosic materials are abundant and 

widely available in regions with significant forest resources. They can be sourced from various forestry 

operations, including timber harvesting, sawmills, and forest management activities. The availability of forest 

biomass depends on factors such as forest management practices, land-use policies, and sustainability 

considerations to ensure responsible sourcing. Before forest biomass and lignocellulosic materials can be used 

as feedstocks for glucose production, preprocessing and pretreatment steps are typically necessary (Jones et al., 

2018). Preprocessing involves activities such as chipping or grinding to reduce the size of the biomass and 

enhance its processability. Pretreatment methods, such as steam explosion, acid pretreatment, or organosolv 

processes, are often employed to disrupt the lignocellulosic structure and increase the accessibility of cellulose 

and hemicellulose for subsequent hydrolysis (Ansanay et al., 2021). 

Enzymatic hydrolysis is a widely used method for converting forest biomass and lignocellulosic materials into 

glucose (Zhou et al., 2023). Specific enzymes, such as cellulases and hemicellulases, are employed to break 

down the cellulose and hemicellulose components into glucose. Enzymatic hydrolysis offers high selectivity, 

mild operating conditions, and compatibility with various lignocellulosic materials. However, factors such as 

enzyme cost, enzyme stability, and the presence of inhibitory compounds from pretreatment may impact the 

efficiency and economics of the process (Li et al., 2019). Acid hydrolysis can also be employed for glucose 

production from forest biomass and lignocellulosic materials. Strong acids, such as sulfuric acid or hydrochloric 

acid, are used to hydrolyze the polysaccharides into their constituent sugars. Acid hydrolysis offers faster 

reaction rates compared to enzymatic hydrolysis. However, it may lead to sugar degradation, formation of 

inhibitory compounds, and corrosiveness issues, necessitating careful process optimization and waste 

management strategies (Codato-Zumpano et al., 2023). To maximize glucose production from forest biomass 

and lignocellulosic materials, process optimization and integration strategies can be implemented. This includes 

optimizing factors such as temperature, acid concentration (in acid hydrolysis), residence time, solid-liquid 

ratios, and pretreatment conditions. Integration with other biorefinery processes, such as lignin valorization, 

fermentation, or co-production of other value-added products, can enhance the overall process efficiency, 

resource utilization, and economic viability (Okonkwo et al., 2022). 

 

Algal Biomass as a Potential Source 

 

Algal biomass consists of various components, including proteins, lipids, carbohydrates, pigments, vitamins, 

and minerals. The carbohydrate fraction, which includes glucose and other sugars, can be extracted and utilized 

for glucose production (Ruiz et al., 2020). The exact composition of algal biomass varies depending on the algal 

species, cultivation conditions, and growth phase. Algae are found in diverse aquatic environments, including 

freshwater, marine, and brackish water systems. They can be cultivated in open ponds, closed photobioreactors, 

or other specialized systems. Algal biomass has the potential to be an abundant and renewable feedstock due to 

the high growth rates of certain algal species and their ability to utilize sunlight and carbon dioxide for 

photosynthesis (Yang et al., 2023). Algal biomass can be cultivated using different cultivation systems and 

techniques. Open pond systems involve the cultivation of algae in large, shallow ponds exposed to sunlight. 

https://www.jescae.com/index.php/gssr/gssr


Global Sustainability Research 

Global Scientific Research   87 
 

Closed photobioreactors provide a controlled environment, allowing for precise control of parameters such as 

temperature, light intensity, and nutrient availability. Algal cultivation requires appropriate nutrient supply, 

including carbon dioxide, nitrogen, phosphorus, and micronutrients, to support optimal growth and 

carbohydrate accumulation (de Souza et al., 2019). 

Once the algal biomass has reached the desired growth stage, it needs to be harvested and processed to extract 

the carbohydrates, including glucose (Huo et al., 2022). Harvesting methods may include mechanical methods 

(e.g., centrifugation, filtration) or physicochemical methods (e.g., flocculation, sedimentation) to separate the 

algae from the growth medium. After harvesting, the biomass can undergo further processing steps, such as cell 

disruption, dewatering, and extraction, to obtain the desired carbohydrate fraction (Hamman et al., 2018). 

Glucose production from algal biomass can be achieved through enzymatic hydrolysis or acid hydrolysis 

methods, similar to other biomass feedstocks. Enzymatic hydrolysis involves the use of specific enzymes, such 

as cellulases and hemicellulases, to break down the carbohydrates into glucose (de Souza et al., 2019). Acid 

hydrolysis utilizes strong acids, such as sulfuric acid or hydrochloric acid, to hydrolyze the carbohydrates. The 

choice of hydrolysis method depends on factors such as the algal species, biomass composition, process 

economics, and desired end products. Algal biomass holds significant potential as a sustainable feedstock for 

glucose production. Algae have a high photosynthetic efficiency and can utilize carbon dioxide, thus 

contributing to carbon capture and potentially mitigating greenhouse gas emissions. Algal cultivation can also 

be integrated with wastewater treatment, nutrient recycling, and the production of other value-added products 

such as biofuels, bioplastics, or animal feed (Ruiz et al., 2020). However, certain considerations, such as water 

and nutrient requirements, cultivation system scalability, and potential ecological impacts, should be carefully 

addressed to ensure the sustainability of algal biomass utilization. 

 

Food Waste and Byproducts 

 

Food waste and byproducts comprise organic materials from agricultural, processing, distribution, and 

consumption activities. These include fruit and vegetable peels, trimmings, discarded grains, food processing 

residues, expired products, and other food-related waste. The composition of food waste and byproducts can 

vary greatly, but they often contain significant amounts of carbohydrates, including glucose and other sugars, 

along with proteins, lipids, fibers, and other nutrients (Okonkwo et al., 2022). Food waste and byproducts are 

abundant and readily available throughout the food supply chain. They arise from various sources, including 

households, restaurants, food processing facilities, and retail sectors. The quantity and availability of food waste 

and byproducts depend on factors such as consumption patterns, food handling practices, and waste 

management systems. Efficient utilization of these materials not only reduces waste but also contributes to a 

circular economy and resource conservation (Yu et al., 2022). Prior to glucose production, food waste and 

byproducts may require preprocessing and pretreatment steps. Preprocessing involves sorting, cleaning, and 

potentially size reduction to remove non-biodegradable components and improve processability. Pretreatment 

methods, such as enzymatic or acid hydrolysis, can be employed to break down complex carbohydrates and 

enhance the release of glucose (Zhou et al., 2023). Additionally, degrading enzymes or microbial fermentation 

may be utilized to convert more complex food waste components into glucose or other valuable products. 

Enzymatic hydrolysis is a common method for converting food waste and byproducts into glucose. Specific 

enzymes, such as carbohydrases, can be employed to break down the complex carbohydrates present in these 

materials (Yu et al., 2022). Enzymatic hydrolysis offers high selectivity, mild operating conditions, and 

compatibility with a wide range of food waste and byproduct feedstocks. However, factors such as enzyme cost, 

enzymatic stability, and the presence of inhibitory compounds from the waste stream may affect process 

https://www.jescae.com/index.php/gssr/gssr


Global Sustainability Research 

Global Scientific Research   88 
 

efficiency and economics. Acid hydrolysis can also be utilized for glucose production from food waste and 

byproducts. Strong acids, such as sulfuric acid or hydrochloric acid, are used to break down the carbohydrates 

into their constituent sugars. Acid hydrolysis offers faster reaction rates compared to enzymatic hydrolysis and 

can handle a broader range of feedstocks (Ebikade et al., 2018). However, it requires careful control to prevent 

sugar degradation and the formation of inhibitory compounds, and appropriate waste management strategies are 

essential due to the corrosive nature of the acids. To maximize glucose production from food waste and 

byproducts, process optimization and integration strategies are crucial. This includes optimizing factors such as 

temperature, pH, residence time, acid concentration (in acid hydrolysis), enzyme loading (in enzymatic 

hydrolysis), and solid-liquid ratios. Integration with other processes, such as anaerobic digestion for biogas 

production (Abubakar et al., 2022), can further enhance resource utilization and overall process efficiency, 

reducing waste and generating additional value from food waste and byproducts. 

 

Comparison of Different Feedstock Sources 

 

When considering glucose production, various feedstock sources can be utilized, each with its own 

characteristics and considerations. Agricultural residues, such as crop straw, corn stover, and sugarcane bagasse, 

are abundant and widely available (Schiano et al., 2022). They do not compete with food production, making 

them a sustainable and renewable feedstock option. Agricultural residues often have high cellulose and 

hemicellulose content, which can be efficiently hydrolyzed into glucose. Agricultural residues may require 

preprocessing and pretreatment to enhance their processability and increase sugar accessibility (Jones et al., 

2018). Some residues have high lignin content, which adds to the recalcitrance and complexity of the feedstock 

(Blanco et al., 2020). Proper waste management and logistics are essential to ensure a consistent and reliable 

supply. 

Forest biomass and lignocellulosic materials, including wood chips, sawdust, and logging residues, offer a 

sustainable feedstock source (Blanco et al., 2020). They are abundant, widely available, and can be sourced 

from managed forests. Forest biomass contains significant amounts of cellulose, which can be converted into 

glucose (Selivanov et al., 2023). Additionally, lignocellulosic materials can be integrated with the production of 

other value-added products, such as biofuels or bioplastics. Preprocessing and pretreatment are often required to 

overcome the recalcitrance of lignocellulosic materials (Elalami et al., 2022). Supply chain logistics and 

sustainability considerations, including responsible forest management practices, need to be addressed. The 

presence of lignin may affect the efficiency of glucose production and downstream. 

Algal biomass presents a renewable and highly productive feedstock source for glucose production. Algae can 

be cultivated in various aquatic environments and have the potential to achieve high growth rates and carbon 

dioxide fixation. Some algae species accumulate significant amounts of carbohydrates, including glucose, 

which can be extracted and utilized (Ruiz et al., 2020; Smachetti et al., 2018). Algal cultivation can be 

integrated with wastewater treatment and other biorefinery processes. Algal cultivation requires careful 

management of nutrients, including carbon dioxide, nitrogen, and phosphorus, to achieve optimal growth and 

carbohydrate accumulation. Scalability and cost-effectiveness of large-scale cultivation systems remain 

challenges (Zhang et al., 2020). Harvesting and processing methods for algal biomass can be energy-intensive 

and require further development for cost reduction (Moreira et al., 2019). 

Food waste and byproducts offer a readily available and abundant feedstock source for glucose production 

(Schiano et al., 2022). They can be sourced from various stages of the food supply chain, reducing waste and 

contributing to a circular economy. Food waste often contains significant amounts of carbohydrates, including 

glucose, making it an attractive feedstock option. Food waste and byproducts may require preprocessing, 

https://www.jescae.com/index.php/gssr/gssr


Global Sustainability Research 

Global Scientific Research   89 
 

sorting, and potential pretreatment to remove non-biodegradable components and enhance processability 

(Elalami et al., 2022). The composition of food waste can be diverse and variable, requiring tailored processing 

approaches. Waste collection, handling, and logistics need to be efficiently managed to ensure a reliable and 

uncontaminated feedstock supply. 

 

Sugarcane Bagasse, Rice Husk and Sawdust Application 

 

Producing glucose from sugarcane bagasse involves breaking down the complex carbohydrates present in the 

bagasse into simpler sugars like glucose. Sugarcane bagasse is the fibrous residue left after extracting the juice 

from sugarcane stalks in the sugar extraction process. It is rich in cellulose and hemicellulose, both of which can 

be converted into glucose through different processes. General outline of the process to produce glucose from 

sugarcane bagasse include preparation of Sugarcane Bagasse, pretreatment, enzymatic hydrolysis, fermentation, 

separation and purification and glucose concentration. Previous work done using the feedstock to produce 

glucose are found in Roslan & Salimi (2019), Lv et al. (2022) and Bussamra et al. (2020). Glucose produced 

from rice husk can find applications in various industries, similar to glucose produced from other lignocellulosic 

biomass sources. Some potential applications include bioethanol production, food and beverage industry, 

pharmaceutical and nutraceutical industries, chemical feedstock and bioplastics (Dhar et al., 2019). 

It's essential to consider that the advantages of glucose production from rice husk depend on various factors, 

including local agricultural practices, feedstock availability, infrastructure, and the specific application of the 

glucose produced. Both rice husk and sugarcane bagasse have their unique characteristics, and the choice of 

feedstock would depend on the specific circumstances and objectives of the glucose production process. 

Production of glucose from rice husk will also follow the same process steps listed under sugarcane bagasse 

utilization, beginning with pretreatment (Aredo et al., 2020; Bohn et al., 2021; Cheoh, 2018). The same author 

also adopts a unique model called the Peleg kinetic model to determine the reaction rate constant. More details 

are found in Asim et al. (2021) who analyzed the production of food-grade glucose using wheat residues and 

rice waste. On the other hand, there is limited utilization of sawdust to produce glucose. One among previous 

studies (within 2018-2023) discovered is a study by Hassan et al. (2018). 

 

Microorganism Strain for Hydrolysis 

 

Biodegradation is the application of biological principle for the purpose of converting food stuff into more 

palatable nutritional or staple food; it has the potential to improve the nutritional value of fibrous agricultural 

by-product. Enzymatic hydrolysis of cellulose is carried out by enzyme which is highly specific. Aspergillus 

niger is worldwide in distribution and has been isolated from numerous habitat. Humans are continually 

exposed to Aspergillus niger spores and vegetative forms on foodstuffs and in air. The vast majority of 

Aspergillus niger strains especially those used in industrial fermentation have a history of safe use (Edor et al., 

2018). Some species of the fungal genus Aspergillus produce glucoamylase enzymes that can break down 

starches into glucose. These enzymes are widely used in various industries for starch hydrolysis and glucose 

production. Apart from Aspergillus niger chosen by this study, several other microorganism strains such as 

Escherichia coli may be used (Carreón-Rodríguez et al., 2023). 

Methodology 

Initial literature review was earlier reported in two sections: 2.1 and 2.2. Of concern to bioengineers is the speed 

of these production and product optimization. In view of that, kinetics and optimization strategies were well 

https://www.jescae.com/index.php/gssr/gssr


Global Sustainability Research 

Global Scientific Research   90 
 

discussed using sourced materials, including, book chapters, thesis, journals, book and conference papers. 

Usually, a good kinetics study and optimized production of glucose will translate into experts venturing into its 

manufacture for sustainable growth and benefits that can be driven from it. Thus, the expected results discuss 

techno-economic analysis, cost, life cycle assessment, and case studies for its industrial application. 

Kinetics of Glucose Production 

 

The kinetics of glucose production refers to the study of the rates and mechanisms involved in the conversion of 

different feedstocks into glucose. Understanding the kinetics is essential for optimizing process conditions, 

designing reactors, and predicting glucose yields. Several factors influence the kinetics of glucose production, 

including the type of feedstock, hydrolysis method, enzyme or acid concentration, temperature, pH, and 

reaction time (Ude et al., 2020). These factors affect the reaction rates by influencing the accessibility of 

carbohydrates, the catalytic activity of enzymes or acids, and the solubility and stability of the intermediates and 

products (Sodiqovna, 2020). Optimal process conditions need to be determined to achieve high glucose yields 

and conversion rates. The kinetics of glucose production can involve different reaction mechanisms depending 

on the hydrolysis method used. In enzymatic hydrolysis, specific enzymes, such as cellulases and 

hemicellulases, break down the polysaccharides into glucose molecules through enzymatic cleavage of 

glycosidic bonds (Hu et al., 2021; ILO, 2020). The reaction typically follows a complex mechanism involving 

substrate adsorption, enzymatic reaction, and product desorption. Acid hydrolysis, on the other hand, involves 

the hydrolysis of carbohydrates by strong acids (Andreeva et al., 2021), resulting in the cleavage of glycosidic 

bonds and the release of glucose. 

Mathematical models are widely used to describe and predict the kinetics of glucose production. These models 

can be based on empirical correlations, mechanistic principles, or a combination of both. Empirical models use 

experimental data to develop correlations between process variables and glucose production rates. Mechanistic 

models (Richter et al., 2022; Salazar et al., 2023), on the other hand, are based on the understanding of reaction 

mechanisms and the application of mass balance and rate equations. These models can provide insights into the 

underlying reaction kinetics and aid in process optimization and reactor design. The determination of reaction 

rates is crucial for understanding the kinetics of glucose production. Experimental techniques such as batch 

assays, continuous flow reactors, or spectroscopic methods can be employed to measure the rates of glucose 

release or consumption (Halka et al., 2018). By varying process parameters such as enzyme or acid 

concentration, temperature, or reaction time, the rates can be determined and used to estimate reaction rate 

constants and activation energies. Kinetic modeling involves the development of mathematical equations that 

describe the rates of glucose production as a function of various process variables. Model parameters, such as 

reaction rate constants and activation energies, can be estimated by fitting the model to experimental data using 

optimization techniques. Parameter estimation methods (Murzin et al., 2021; Yu et al., 2021), such as nonlinear 

regression or kinetic modeling software, can be employed to obtain accurate parameter values and validate the 

model's predictive capabilities. The kinetics of glucose production play a crucial role in process optimization. 

By studying the reaction rates and understanding the underlying mechanisms, process conditions can be 

optimized to maximize glucose yields, conversion rates, and process efficiency (Bryan et al., 2018; Toif et al., 

2021). Kinetic studies also provide insights into the effects of different variables, allowing for the identification 

of limiting factors and the determination of optimal operating conditions. Table 1 are literature summary of 

previous work on glucose production. 

 

 

https://www.jescae.com/index.php/gssr/gssr


Global Sustainability Research 

Global Scientific Research   91 
 

Table 1: Literature Review on Glucose Production Methodologies 

Author Microorganism 

and/or Feedstock 

Method Glucose Yield Condition 

(Ude et al., 2020) 0.428 g/50 mL 

enzyme + mixed 

peels (cassava & 

potato) 

Kinetic of hydrolysis: 

Michaelis-Menten 

model; Optimization 

= RSM 

79% 36 ℃ ; pH = 4.55; 

retention time = 5 

days 

(Onyelucheya et al., 

2022) 

Corn cob Kinetics: Seaman & 

Two-Fraction model 

0.038 mg/mL 130 ℃ ; phosphoric 

acid & nitric acid 

(Dussán et al., 2014) Sugarcane bagasse + 

Sc. stipitis 

Analytical method 22.74 g/L Dilute sulfuric acid; 

155℃; time = 10 min 

(El-Zawawy et al., 

2011) 

Rice straw + banana 

plant + corn cob + 

Enzyme 

(Trichoderma reesei) 

Enzyme and acid 

hydrolysis 

0.3-1.1 g/L Sulphuric acid; pH = 

4.5-5.0; 40-50℃ 

(Adeoye et al., 2019) Pineapple + pawpaw 

peels 

Pseudo-First order 

model; Arrhenius 

thermodynamic 

model; FTIR 

29.47-30.8% 1M H2SO4 

hydrolysis; 60-90℃ ; 

hydrolysis time = 0-

140 min; acid conc = 

1-3.5M 

(Roslan & Salimi, 

2019) 

Sugarcane bagasse RSM, Regression 

analysis and Design 

of Experiment (DOE) 

0.783 g/L 34°C, pH = 6.39 and 

enzyme dosage = 

0.15 mL 

 

Kinetic Models for Enzymatic Hydrolysis 

 

Kinetic models for enzymatic hydrolysis are mathematical representations that describe the rates of glucose 

production from the hydrolysis of polysaccharides by enzymes (Shokrkar & Ebrahimi, 2021). These models are 

essential for understanding the underlying mechanisms, optimizing process conditions, and predicting glucose 

yields. The commonly used kinetic models for enzymatic hydrolysis, their assumptions, and their applications 

will be discussed (Efrinalia et al., 2022; Shokrkar & Ebrahimi, 2021). 

(a) Michaelis-Menten Model: The Michaelis-Menten model is one of the most widely used kinetic models for 

enzymatic reactions, including enzymatic hydrolysis. It assumes that the reaction rate is proportional to the 

concentration of the enzyme-substrate complex. The model incorporates two parameters: the maximum 

reaction rate (𝑉𝑚𝑎𝑥) and the Michaelis constant (𝐾𝑚), which represents the substrate concentration at 

which the reaction rate is half of Vmax. The Michaelis-Menten model is based on the assumption of 

steady-state enzyme kinetics and assumes that the enzyme-substrate complex is the rate-determining step. 

(b) Briggs-Haldane Model: The Briggs-Haldane model is an extension of the Michaelis-Menten model and 

considers the reversible formation of the enzyme-substrate complex. It incorporates an additional 

parameter, the dissociation constant (𝐾𝑑), which represents the equilibrium constant between the enzyme-

substrate complex and the free enzyme and substrate. The Briggs-Haldane model provides a more accurate 

representation of the enzymatic hydrolysis process by considering the reversible nature of the enzyme-

substrate interaction. 

https://www.jescae.com/index.php/gssr/gssr


Global Sustainability Research 

Global Scientific Research   92 
 

(c) Hanes-Woolf Model: The Hanes-Woolf model is an alternative representation of the Michaelis-Menten 

equation. It linearizes the relationship between the reaction rate and the substrate concentration by plotting 

the ratio of the substrate concentration to the reaction rate against the substrate concentration. The slope of 

the linear plot represents the Michaelis constant (𝐾𝑚 ), and the intercept on the y-axis represents the 

reciprocal of the maximum reaction rate (1/𝑉𝑚𝑎𝑥). The Hanes-Woolf model is particularly useful when 

experimental data have high variability or at low substrate concentrations. 

(d) Luedeking-Piret Model: The Luedeking-Piret model is a phenomenological model that describes the 

relationship between the production rate of glucose and the consumption rate of the substrate. It assumes 

that both the glucose production and substrate consumption rates are dependent on the concentration of the 

substrate and the enzyme. The model incorporates two parameters: the Luedeking-Piret coefficient (α), 

which represents the extent of glucose production independent of substrate consumption, and the 

Luedeking-Piret coefficient (β), which represents the fraction of substrate consumed in relation to glucose 

production. 

(e) Substrate Inhibition Model: The substrate inhibition model accounts for the inhibition of the enzymatic 

reaction at high substrate concentrations. It assumes that the reaction rate decreases at high substrate 

concentrations due to the inhibitory effect of the excess substrate. The model incorporates an additional 

parameter, the inhibition constant (𝐾𝑖), which represents the substrate concentration at which the reaction 

rate is half of the maximum reaction rate. The substrate inhibition model is particularly relevant when 

working with concentrated substrate solutions. 

(f) Modified Kinetic Models: In addition to the aforementioned models, various modified kinetic models have 

been proposed to account for specific factors and phenomena in enzymatic hydrolysis. These include 

models considering enzyme deactivation, enzyme substrate heterogeneity, multiple enzyme activities, and 

product inhibition. These modified models provide a more comprehensive representation of the enzymatic 

hydrolysis process by considering additional factors that can influence reaction rates and glucose yields. 

Kinetic models for enzymatic hydrolysis provide valuable insights into the reaction mechanisms, reaction rates, 

and optimal process conditions for glucose production. By fitting the models to experimental data using 

parameter estimation techniques (Shokrkar & Ebrahimi, 2021; Yu et al., 2021), the kinetic parameters can be 

determined, enabling the prediction of glucose yields and the optimization of enzymatic hydrolysis processes. 

However, it is important to note that the selection and applicability of a specific kinetic model depend on the 

characteristics of the enzyme-substrate system and the specific objectives of the study (Panda & Datta, 2022). 

 

Kinetic Models for Acid Hydrolysis 

 

Kinetic models for acid hydrolysis are mathematical representations that describe the rates of glucose 

production from the hydrolysis of polysaccharides by strong acids (Yuan et al., 2021). These models are 

valuable tools for understanding the acid hydrolysis process, optimizing reaction conditions, and predicting 

glucose yields. Discussion on some commonly used kinetic models for acid hydrolysis, their assumptions, and 

their applications are found below. 

(i) First-Order Kinetic Model: 

The first-order kinetic model is a simple and widely used model for acid hydrolysis. It assumes that the reaction 

rate is directly proportional to the concentration of the substrate (polysaccharide) or the acid. The model 

Equation 1 is given by Onyelucheya et al. (2022): 

https://www.jescae.com/index.php/gssr/gssr


Global Sustainability Research 

Global Scientific Research   93 
 

 Rate = k[Substrate]    (1) 

where Rate represents the reaction rate, k is the rate constant, and [Substrate] is the concentration of the 

substrate. The first-order kinetic model assumes that the acid hydrolysis reaction follows pseudo-first-order 

kinetics, where the concentration of the acid is maintained at a sufficiently high level. 

(ii) Pseudo-First-Order Kinetic Model 

The pseudo-first-order kinetic model is an extension of the first-order model that accounts for the effect of both 

substrate and acid concentrations on the reaction rate. The model equation is given by Equation 2: 

 Rate = k[Substrate][Acid]    (2) 

where Rate represents the reaction rate, k is the rate constant, [Substrate] is the concentration of the substrate, 

and [Acid] is the concentration of the acid. The pseudo-first-order kinetic model assumes that the reaction rate 

is dependent on both the substrate and acid concentrations. 

(iii) Second-Order Kinetic Model 

The second-order kinetic model considers the simultaneous reaction of two reactants, the substrate and the acid. 

The model equation is given by Equation 3: 

 Rate = k[Substrate][Acid]    (3) 

where Rate represents the reaction rate, k is the rate constant, [Substrate] is the concentration of the substrate, 

and [Acid] is the concentration of the acid. The second-order kinetic model assumes that the reaction rate is 

proportional to the product of the substrate and acid concentrations. 

(iv) Fractional Conversion Kinetic Model 

The fractional conversion kinetic model describes the conversion of the substrate into glucose as a function of 

time. It assumes that the reaction rate is proportional to the remaining concentration of the substrate. The model 

equation is given by Equation 4: 

 𝑋 = 1 − 𝑒−𝑘𝑡      (4) 

where X represents the fractional conversion of the substrate, k is the rate constant, t is the reaction time, and e 

is the base of the natural logarithm. The fractional conversion kinetic model is useful for monitoring the 

progress of acid hydrolysis reactions and estimating the extent of substrate conversion. 

(v) Modified Kinetic Models 

Various modified kinetic models have been proposed to account for specific factors and phenomena in acid 

hydrolysis, such as temperature dependence, catalytic effects of acid, and inhibition effects. These models 

incorporate additional parameters or variables to improve the accuracy of the predictions and provide a more 

comprehensive representation of the acid hydrolysis process. 

Kinetic models for acid hydrolysis provide insights into the reaction rates, reaction mechanisms, and optimal 

process conditions for glucose production (Efrinalia et al., 2022). By fitting these models to experimental data 

using parameter estimation techniques (Salmi et al., 2020; Yu et al., 2021), the kinetic parameters can be 

https://www.jescae.com/index.php/gssr/gssr


Global Sustainability Research 

Global Scientific Research   94 
 

determined, enabling the prediction of glucose yields and the optimization of acid hydrolysis processes. 

However, it is important to consider the limitations of these models and the specific characteristics of the acid 

hydrolysis system being studied when selecting and applying a particular kinetic model (Yuan et al., 2021). 

Kinetic Models for Fermentation Processes 

 

Kinetic models for fermentation processes are mathematical representations that describe the rates of glucose 

consumption and product formation during the conversion of sugars into various products, such as ethanol, 

organic acids, or biofuels, by microorganisms. These models are crucial for understanding the fermentation 

kinetics, optimizing process conditions, and predicting product yields. In this section, we will discuss some 

commonly used kinetic models for fermentation processes, their assumptions, and their applications. 

A) Monod Model 

The Monod model is a widely used kinetic model for microbial fermentation processes. It describes the specific 

growth rate of microorganisms as a function of substrate concentration. The model equation is given by 

González-Figueredo et al. (2017) in Equation 5: 

 𝜇 =
𝜇𝑚𝑎𝑥𝑆

𝐾𝑠+𝑆
      (5) 

where μ represents the specific growth rate, 𝜇𝑚𝑎𝑥 is the maximum specific growth rate, [S] is the substrate 

concentration, and 𝐾𝑠 is the saturation constant. The Monod model assumes that the specific growth rate is 

limited by substrate availability and follows a hyperbolic relationship with the substrate concentration. 

B) Logistic Model 

The logistic model is an extension of the Monod model that takes into account the inhibition effects of high 

substrate concentrations on microbial growth. It incorporates an additional term, 𝜇𝑚𝑎𝑥(1 − [𝑆]/𝐾𝐼) , to 

represent substrate inhibition. The logistic model is useful when dealing with fermentation processes where high 

substrate concentrations can negatively impact microbial growth and product formation. 

C) Contois Model 

The Contois model is a kinetic model that considers the limitation of both substrate and product concentrations 

on microbial growth. It assumes that the specific growth rate is proportional to the substrate consumption rate 

and the square of the product concentration. The model equation is given by Equation 6: 

 𝜇 =
𝜇𝑚𝑎𝑥𝑆

𝐾𝑠+[𝑆]+𝛼[𝑃]
2    (6) 

where 𝜇 represents the specific growth rate, μmax is the maximum specific growth rate, [S] is the substrate 

concentration, [P] is the product concentration, 𝐾𝑠 is the saturation constant for substrate, and α is the inhibition 

constant for product. The Contois model provides a more comprehensive representation of fermentation kinetics 

by considering the inhibitory effects of product accumulation. 

D) Luedeking-Piret Model 

https://www.jescae.com/index.php/gssr/gssr


Global Sustainability Research 

Global Scientific Research   95 
 

The Luedeking-Piret model is a phenomenological model that describes the production rate of a desired product 

during fermentation. It assumes that the production rate is a function of both the growth-associated and non-

growth-associated components. The model equation is given by Equation 7: 

 𝑃 = 𝛼𝜇 + 𝛽[𝑆]     (7) 

where 𝑃 represents the product concentration, μ is the specific growth rate, [S] is the substrate concentration, 

and 𝛼  and 𝛽  are the Luedeking-Piret coefficients. The Luedeking-Piret model is useful for analyzing the 

relationship between microbial growth and product formation during fermentation. 

E) Structured Kinetic Models 

Structured kinetic models consider the intracellular processes and metabolic pathways of microorganisms 

during fermentation. These models describe the dynamic changes in cellular components, such as biomass, 

substrate, and product concentrations, and the corresponding fluxes. Structured models are more complex and 

require additional parameters and data for their calibration, but they provide a more detailed understanding of 

the microbial fermentation process (Ali et al., 2023; Elmer & Gaden, 2000). 

Kinetic models for fermentation processes help elucidate the relationship between substrate consumption, 

product formation, and microbial growth (Kresnowati et al., 2015). By fitting these models to experimental data 

using parameter estimation techniques, the kinetic parameters can be determined, enabling the prediction of 

product yields and the optimization of fermentation processes (Brito & Antunes, 2014; Shatalov et al., 2013). 

However, it is important to consider the limitations of these models, such as the assumption of constant 

parameters and the simplifications made in describing complex biological processes, when applying them to 

specific fermentation systems. 

Factors Affecting Reaction Kinetics 

 

Understanding the factors that affect reaction kinetics is crucial for optimizing reaction conditions, predicting 

reaction rates, and designing efficient chemical processes. Some key factors that influence reaction kinetics are 

the concentration of reactants, temperature, catalysts, surface area, presence of inhibitors or catalyst poisons, 

pressure, solvent, reaction mechanism, activation energy and molecular orientation. The concentration of 

reactants plays a significant role in determining the rate of a chemical reaction. According to the collision 

theory, for a reaction to occur, reactant molecules must collide with sufficient energy and proper orientation. 

Higher concentrations of reactants increase the frequency of collisions, leading to a higher reaction rate. 

Temperature has a profound effect on reaction kinetics. Increasing the temperature generally increases the 

reaction rate. This is because higher temperatures provide reactant molecules with more kinetic energy, resulting 

in more frequent and energetic collisions. Additionally, higher temperatures can overcome activation energy 

barriers, allowing reactions to proceed more readily (Sodiqovna, 2020). Catalysts are substances that increase 

the rate of a chemical reaction without being consumed in the process. They lower the activation energy 

required for the reaction to occur, thereby facilitating the formation of products. Catalysts provide an alternative 

reaction pathway with a lower activation energy, allowing for faster reaction rates. In reactions involving solids 

or heterogeneous systems, the surface area of the reactants plays a vital role. Increasing the surface area by 

breaking solids into smaller particles or using catalysts in finely divided form exposes a larger area for reactant 

molecules to come into contact. This enhances the frequency of collisions and increases the reaction rate 

(Sodiqovna, 2020). 

https://www.jescae.com/index.php/gssr/gssr


Global Sustainability Research 

Global Scientific Research   96 
 

In gas-phase reactions, pressure can affect reaction kinetics. Increasing the pressure increases the number of gas 

molecules per unit volume, which leads to more frequent collisions. Higher pressure can increase the reaction 

rate by increasing the concentration of reactant molecules and their collision frequency. The specific reaction 

mechanism, including the sequence of elementary steps, intermediate species, and rate-determining steps, 

influences the overall reaction rate. Understanding the reaction mechanism is crucial for designing appropriate 

kinetic models and optimizing reaction conditions. The choice of solvent can significantly impact reaction 

kinetics, particularly in liquid-phase reactions. The solvent can affect the stability of reactants, the solubility of 

reactants and products, and the mobility of molecules, all of which influence reaction rates. Inhibitors are 

substances that decrease the rate of a reaction, while catalyst poisons are substances that deactivate catalysts. 

Both inhibitors and catalyst poisons reduce the effectiveness of the reactants or catalysts, leading to a slower 

reaction rate For reactions involving multiple reactant molecules, the molecular orientation during collisions can 

affect reaction kinetics (Abril-González et al., 2023). In some cases, specific molecular orientations are required 

for effective collisions and reaction to occur. Factors that influence molecular orientation include steric 

hindrance, molecular shape, and the presence of functional groups. Activation energy is the minimum energy 

required for a reaction to occur. Reactions with higher activation energies typically have slower reaction rates. 

Lowering the activation energy through factors like temperature, catalysts, or the presence of suitable reactant 

molecules can significantly accelerate the reaction rate. Understanding and manipulating these factors can help 

control and optimize reaction kinetics in various chemical processes. It allows for the design of efficient 

reactions, the development of suitable reaction conditions, and the prediction of reaction rates and yields. 

Experimental Techniques for Kinetic Parameter Estimation 

Experimental techniques for kinetic parameter estimation are essential for obtaining accurate and reliable 

information about the rate constants and parameters that govern chemical reaction kinetics. These techniques 

involve conducting experiments under controlled conditions and analyzing the resulting data to determine the 

kinetic parameters. Some experimental techniques for kinetic parameter estimation are (Shim et al., 2020; Yu et 

al., 2021): 

a) Method of Initial Rates: The method of initial rates is a widely used technique for estimating kinetic 

parameters. It involves conducting multiple reactions with different initial concentrations of reactants and 

measuring the reaction rates at the beginning of each reaction. By analyzing the data, such as plotting the 

initial rate versus the initial concentration, the rate constant or reaction order can be determined. 

b) Integrated Rate Laws: Integrated rate laws involve measuring the concentration of reactants or products at 

different time intervals during a reaction. By integrating the rate laws for different reaction orders or rate 

expressions, it is possible to obtain equations that relate the concentration of reactants or products to time. 

By fitting these equations to experimental data, the rate constant and reaction order can be estimated. 

c) Differential Analysis (Onyelucheya et al., 2022): Differential analysis involves measuring the change in 

concentration of reactants or products over time. By taking the derivative of the concentration-time data, the 

reaction rate can be determined. Differential analysis is particularly useful for reactions with complex 

reaction mechanisms or when the reaction rates are not constant (Abril-González et al., 2023; Salmi et al., 

2020). 

d) Temperature Dependence: The temperature dependence of reaction rates can provide valuable information 

about the activation energy and temperature dependence of rate constants. By conducting reactions at 

different temperatures and analyzing the resulting data, the Arrhenius equation can be used to estimate the 

activation energy and pre-exponential factor (Adeoye et al., 2019; P. Zhang & Sutheerawattananonda, 

2020). 

https://www.jescae.com/index.php/gssr/gssr


Global Sustainability Research 

Global Scientific Research   97 
 

e) In situ Monitoring: In situ monitoring techniques involve measuring the concentration of reactants or 

products during the course of the reaction without the need for sample removal. Techniques such as 

spectroscopy, chromatography, and mass spectrometry can be employed to monitor the reaction progress in 

real-time. In situ monitoring allows for continuous data acquisition and can provide insights into reaction 

kinetics and mechanisms. 

f) Isotope Labeling: Isotope labeling techniques involve introducing isotopically labeled compounds into the 

reaction system. By monitoring the incorporation of isotopes into reaction products or following the 

isotopic exchange between reactants and products, information about reaction pathways, intermediate 

species, and rate constants can be obtained. 

g) Design of Experiments (DOE): DOE techniques involve systematically varying reaction conditions, such as 

temperature, concentration, and catalyst loading, to obtain a comprehensive set of data for kinetic parameter 

estimation. Statistical analysis methods, such as response surface methodology and factorial designs, can be 

used to analyze the data and estimate the kinetic parameters. 

h) Model Fitting and Simulation: Mathematical modeling and simulation techniques can be employed to fit 

experimental data to kinetic models. Software tools and optimization algorithms can assist in finding the 

best-fit parameters by minimizing the difference between the experimental data and model predictions. 

It is important to note that the choice of experimental technique depends on the specific reaction system, 

available resources, and the desired level of accuracy. Often, a combination of different techniques is used to 

obtain a comprehensive understanding of reaction kinetics and estimate the kinetic parameters with greater 

confidence. 

Optimization Strategies for Glucose Production 

 

Optimization strategies for glucose production involve maximizing the yield, conversion efficiency, and 

productivity of glucose production processes. These strategies aim to optimize various aspects of the process, 

such as reaction conditions, process parameters, and feedstock selection, to enhance the overall performance 

and economic viability (Foust et al., 2020; Sant et al., 2021). Table 2 shows some commonly employed 

optimization strategies for glucose production. 

Table 2: Common Optimization Strategy and their Significance (Elalami et al., 2022; Moreira et al., 2019) 

S/No Optimization Strategy Description 

1. Reaction and Process 

Optimization 

Optimizing the reaction conditions is crucial for maximizing glucose production. 

This includes optimizing parameters such as temperature, pH, reaction time, 

enzyme or catalyst concentration, and agitation speed. By systematically varying 

these parameters and analyzing their impact on glucose yield and conversion, the 

optimal reaction conditions can be determined 

2. Feedstock Selection and 

Pretreatment 

The choice of feedstock plays a significant role in glucose production. Different 

feedstocks, such as agricultural residues, forest biomass, or algal biomass 

(Andreeva et al., 2021), have different compositions and properties that affect 

their enzymatic or chemical conversion to glucose. Optimizing feedstock 

selection involves considering factors such as availability, cost, composition, and 

ease of pretreatment to enhance glucose yield and minimize production costs. 

3. Pretreatment Optimization Pretreatment of feedstock is often necessary to enhance the accessibility of 

polysaccharides, such as cellulose or hemicellulose, to enzymatic or acid 

hydrolysis. Optimization of pretreatment conditions, such as temperature, 

https://www.jescae.com/index.php/gssr/gssr


Global Sustainability Research 

Global Scientific Research   98 
 

pressure, residence time, and the use of specific pretreatment agents, can 

significantly improve the efficiency of glucose release from feedstock. 

4. Enzyme and Catalyst 

Optimization 

When enzymatic or acid hydrolysis is employed for glucose production, 

optimizing the choice and concentration of enzymes or catalysts is essential. This 

includes selecting enzymes with high activity and specificity, optimizing their 

dosage, and considering the use of enzyme cocktails or synergistic combinations 

to improve glucose release and minimize enzyme costs. 

5. Process Integration and 

Scale-Up 

Optimizing the integration of different process steps and optimizing the scale-up 

of glucose production processes are critical for commercial viability. Process 

integration involves streamlining the process steps, minimizing energy 

consumption, and optimizing process flows to maximize efficiency. Scale-up 

optimization focuses on translating laboratory-scale processes to larger 

production scales while maintaining consistent and efficient glucose production. 

6. Reaction Kinetics and 

Modeling 

Understanding the reaction kinetics and developing mathematical models can aid 

in the optimization of glucose production processes (Yassien & Jiman-Fatani, 

2023). Kinetic modeling helps in predicting glucose yields, identifying rate-

limiting steps, and optimizing reaction conditions. It allows for the exploration 

of different scenarios and the identification of optimal operating conditions. 

7. Techno-economic Analysis Performing techno-economic analysis is crucial for evaluating the feasibility and 

economic viability of glucose production processes (Sant et al., 2021). This 

analysis involves assessing the capital and operating costs, calculating the 

glucose production costs, and considering factors such as feedstock costs, 

enzyme costs, equipment costs, and market demand. Optimizing the process 

parameters to reduce production costs and improve overall process economics is 

a key aspect of optimization strategies. 

8. Continuous Process 

Development 

Optimizing glucose production often involves transitioning from batch processes 

to continuous processes (Halka et al., 2018). Continuous processes offer 

advantages such as improved productivity, better control over reaction 

conditions, and reduced labor and equipment costs. Optimizing the design and 

operation of continuous processes for glucose production can lead to higher 

yields, improved efficiency, and reduced operational complexities. 

 

Process Optimization Techniques 

 

Process optimization techniques play a crucial role in improving the efficiency, productivity, and overall 

performance of chemical processes. These techniques involve systematically analyzing and improving different 

aspects of the process to achieve desired objectives, such as maximizing yield, minimizing costs, reducing 

waste, and improving product quality. In the context of glucose production, process optimization techniques aim 

to enhance the efficiency of glucose production processes. Here (Table 3) are some commonly used process 

optimization techniques: 

 

 

 

https://www.jescae.com/index.php/gssr/gssr


Global Sustainability Research 

Global Scientific Research   99 
 

Table 3: Optimization Techniques in Common Application (Malakar et al., 2020) 

S/No Optimization Technique Description 

1. Multi-Objective 

Optimization 

In some cases, process optimization requires balancing multiple conflicting 

objectives. Multi-objective optimization techniques aim to find optimal solutions 

that satisfy multiple objectives simultaneously. These techniques involve 

defining the objectives, determining their relative importance, and using 

optimization algorithms to identify the optimal trade-offs and Pareto optimal 

solutions 

2. Process Integration Process integration techniques focus on optimizing the interaction and 

integration of different process steps to maximize efficiency and minimize 

resource consumption. Techniques such as heat integration, mass integration, and 

pinch analysis are used to identify opportunities for energy recovery, minimize 

utility usage, and improve overall process efficiency. 

3. Computational Modeling 

and Simulation 

Computational modeling and simulation tools enable the virtual optimization of 

process parameters, equipment design, and operating conditions. By developing 

mathematical models based on fundamental principles and simulating various 

scenarios, process optimization can be performed in a cost-effective and time-

efficient manner. Modeling and simulation allow for the evaluation of different 

process configurations and the identification of optimal operating conditions 

without extensive experimental testing. 

4. Six Sigma Six Sigma is a data-driven approach aimed at reducing process variability and 

improving process performance. It involves the use of statistical analysis and 

problem-solving methodologies, such as DMAIC (Define, Measure, Analyze, 

Improve, Control), to identify and eliminate defects or variations in the process. 

Six Sigma helps optimize process parameters, minimize process variability, and 

enhance process capability. 

5. Lean Manufacturing Lean manufacturing principles focus on eliminating waste and optimizing 

process flow to improve efficiency and reduce costs. Techniques such as value 

stream mapping, 5S (Sort, Set in Order, Shine, Standardize, Sustain), and Just-In-

Time (JIT) production are used to identify and eliminate non-value-added 

activities, streamline production processes, reduce inventory, and improve 

overall process efficiency. 

6. Response Surface 

Methodology (RSM) 

RSM (Uchegbu et al., 2022) is a statistical technique used to optimize process 

parameters by constructing mathematical models that relate process variables to 

the desired responses. RSM involves conducting experiments based on a 

predefined design matrix and using regression analysis to fit a response surface 

model. The model is then analyzed to identify optimal operating conditions that 

maximize the desired response, such as glucose yield or productivity. 

7. Statistical Process Control 

(SPC) 

SPC involves monitoring and controlling process variables to ensure that the 

process operates within defined limits and remains stable over time. It uses 

statistical tools, such as control charts, to detect and address any process 

variations or deviations. By continuously monitoring the process, SPC helps 

maintain consistent process performance and reduces the likelihood of quality 

issues or production failures. 

8. Design of Experiments 

(DOE) 

DOE is a statistical approach used to systematically vary process parameters and 

evaluate their impact on process performance. By conducting experiments with 

different combinations of variables, DOE helps identify the most influential 

https://www.jescae.com/index.php/gssr/gssr


Global Sustainability Research 

Global Scientific Research   100 
 

factors and their optimal levels. This enables the identification of optimal process 

conditions and provides valuable insights into the process parameter interactions. 

 

By employing these process optimization techniques, glucose production processes can be optimized to achieve 

higher yields, improved efficiency, reduced costs, and enhanced product quality. Each technique offers a unique 

approach to systematically analyze and improve different aspects of the process, leading to more sustainable 

and economically viable glucose production. 

Statistical Design of Experiments 

Statistical Design of Experiments (DOE) is a powerful and systematic approach used to plan, conduct, and 

analyze experiments in order to gain insights into process behavior, optimize process parameters, and improve 

overall process performance. DOE involves the careful selection of experimental factors and levels, the design 

of an appropriate experimental layout, and the statistical analysis of the obtained data. This approach enables 

researchers to efficiently explore and understand the relationship between process variables and responses, 

leading to more informed decision-making and process optimization. Key components and benefits of the 

statistical design of experiments includes resource efficiency, optimization and insights, statistical analysis, 

randomization and replication, response variables, factors and levels and experimental design. 

Factors are variables that can potentially influence the process or affect the response of interest. These may 

include process parameters, input variables, or environmental conditions. Levels represent the specific values or 

settings at which the factors are set during the experiment. By selecting appropriate factors and levels, 

researchers can investigate the effect of each factor on the process and identify optimal operating conditions. 

Experimental design involves planning the layout of the experiment to efficiently and effectively collect data. 

Various designs, such as Full Factorial Design, Fractional Factorial Design, Central Composite Design, and 

Taguchi Design, are available, each with its own advantages and limitations. The choice of design depends on 

factors such as the number of factors, desired resolution, available resources, and the need to estimate 

interaction effects. A well-designed experiment ensures that all relevant factors are systematically varied and 

properly controlled. Response variables are the outputs or outcomes of interest that reflect the process 

performance. These may include glucose yield, conversion efficiency, productivity, or other relevant 

parameters. By carefully selecting appropriate response variables, researchers can gain insights into the impact 

of the experimental factors on process performance and identify opportunities for improvement. 

Randomization involves assigning experimental runs to random order to minimize the influence of unknown or 

uncontrollable factors. Randomization ensures that any systematic effects or biases are evenly distributed 

among the experimental units. Replication, on the other hand, involves repeating experimental runs to obtain 

multiple observations at each combination of factor levels. Replication helps estimate experimental error and 

improve the precision and reliability of the results. Once the data are collected, statistical analysis techniques 

are applied to determine the significance of factors, identify the most influential factors, and quantify their 

effects on the response variables. Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) is commonly used to assess the significance 

of the factors and their interactions (Yassien & Jiman-Fatani, 2023). Regression analysis is also employed to 

develop mathematical models that describe the relationship between factors and responses, allowing for 

prediction and optimization. DOE provides valuable insights into the process behavior and identifies optimal 

process settings. By analyzing the experimental data, researchers can identify significant factors, determine 

optimal factor settings, and understand the interactions between factors. These insights enable process 

optimization, facilitate decision-making, and guide subsequent experiments or process improvements. DOE 

helps optimize the use of available resources by reducing the number of experimental runs needed to obtain 

https://www.jescae.com/index.php/gssr/gssr


Global Sustainability Research 

Global Scientific Research   101 
 

meaningful results. By strategically selecting factor levels and employing efficient experimental designs, 

researchers can achieve a high degree of information with a minimal number of experiments. This results in 

significant time and cost savings compared to a traditional one-factor-at-a-time approach. The statistical design 

of experiments is a powerful tool for understanding and optimizing glucose production processes. By 

systematically varying factors, selecting appropriate designs, and applying statistical analysis, researchers can 

identify optimal process conditions, uncover relationships between variables, and make informed decisions to 

improve glucose production efficiency, yield, and quality. 

Response Surface Methodology 

 

Response Surface Methodology (RSM) is a statistical and mathematical modeling technique used to optimize 

process parameters and understand the relationship between multiple variables and a response of interest. RSM 

provides a systematic approach to analyze and optimize complex processes by constructing a response surface 

model based on experimental data (Riaukaite et al., 2019). This model enables researchers to predict and 

optimize the response within the experimental domain and identify the optimal factor settings for process 

improvement. Some key components and benefits of RSM includes experimental design, response surface 

model, model fitting and analysis, optimization, sensitivity analysis, validation and verification, and robustness 

analysis. 

RSM typically involves a series of carefully planned experiments, often using a design matrix such as a central 

composite design (CCD) or Box-Behnken design (Uchegbu et al., 2022). The experimental design includes a set 

of predetermined factor levels that represent the range of values for each factor. These experiments are 

conducted to obtain response data at different factor combinations to capture the curvature and interaction 

effects. A response surface model is constructed using regression analysis to fit a mathematical equation that 

describes the relationship between the response variable and the factors. The model can be a linear, quadratic, or 

higher-order polynomial equation, depending on the complexity of the process and the observed data (Jamil & 

Wang, 2016; Uchegbu et al., 2022). The model captures the main effects of factors, interaction effects, and 

curvature effects, allowing for response prediction and optimization. Statistical techniques such as regression 

analysis, analysis of variance (ANOVA) (Yassien & Jiman-Fatani, 2023), and model diagnostics are employed 

to fit the response surface model to the experimental data. The model's goodness-of-fit is assessed using 

statistical metrics such as R-squared, lack-of-fit test, and residual analysis. These analyses help evaluate the 

significance of factors, identify important variables, and assess the model's reliability. Once the response surface 

model is developed and validated, optimization techniques are applied to identify the optimal factor settings that 

maximize the desired response. Optimization methods such as response surface optimization, desirability 

function approach, or numerical optimization algorithms are employed to determine the factor levels that yield 

the highest response value (Uchegbu et al., 2022). Optimization enables process improvement by identifying the 

optimal operating conditions. 

RSM facilitates sensitivity analysis to assess the impact of factors on the response variable and identify critical 

process variables. Sensitivity analysis helps researchers understand the relative importance of factors and 

prioritize their optimization efforts (Muhammad et al., 2022). It also assists in understanding the interactions 

between factors and their effects on the response, guiding the selection of factors for further investigation 

(Riaukaite et al., 2019). Once the optimal factor settings are identified, it is essential to validate the response 

surface model and confirm its accuracy. Additional experiments are conducted at the predicted optimal 

conditions to verify the model's predictions. This step helps ensure that the model is reliable and can be used for 

process optimization and decision-making. Robustness analysis assesses the stability and robustness of the 

https://www.jescae.com/index.php/gssr/gssr


Global Sustainability Research 

Global Scientific Research   102 
 

optimized process conditions. It involves evaluating the sensitivity of the response to variations in factors or 

process parameters. Robustness analysis helps identify the range of factors within which the process remains 

optimal, considering practical constraints and potential process variability. 

The benefits of Response Surface Methodology include (Aydar, 2018; Lamidi et al., 2022): 

• Optimization: RSM enables the identification of optimal process conditions that maximize the desired 

response, leading to improved process performance and efficiency. 

• Efficiency: RSM allows researchers to obtain a significant amount of information with a relatively 

small number of experiments, saving time, resources, and costs compared to a full factorial design. 

• Insights: RSM provides valuable insights into the relationships between process variables and the 

response of interest. It helps researchers understand the effects of factors, identify interactions, and gain 

a deeper understanding of the process behavior. 

• Decision-Making: The response surface model provides a quantitative basis for decision-making, 

allowing researchers to compare different scenarios, evaluate trade-offs, and make informed decisions 

to optimize the process. 

• Process Understanding: RSM helps researchers gain a deeper understanding of the process by 

quantifying the relationships between variables and the response. This understanding can guide further 

process improvement and provide a basis for future research. 

Optimization of Glucose Production Using RSM 

 

Optimization of glucose production using RSM is a statistical and mathematical approach that involves 

designing experiments and analyzing the response of the system to different experimental conditions. RSM is 

commonly used to optimize process variables and find the optimal conditions that maximize the production of 

glucose from a given feedstock, such as sugarcane bagasse, rice husk, or sawdust. Below is an outline of how 

RSM can be applied to optimize glucose production (Lai et al., 2016): 

(1) Selection of Factors: The first step is to identify the key factors that influence glucose production from 

the chosen feedstock. These factors could include enzyme dosage, pretreatment conditions 

(temperature, time, pH), fermentation time, and any other relevant process variables. 

(2) Experimental Design: RSM typically uses a DOE approach to plan a set of experiments that cover a 

range of factor levels. The experiments are strategically chosen to explore the factor space efficiently 

and minimize the number of experimental runs required. 

(3) Response Surface Model: The experimental data obtained from the DOE is used to build a response 

surface model. This model relates the glucose production (the response) to the different process 

variables (factors) and their interactions. Commonly used models include polynomial equations, which 

allow for the estimation of glucose yield under various combinations of factor levels. 

(4) Optimization: The response surface model is then used to find the optimal combination of factor levels 

that maximizes glucose production. Optimization techniques such as gradient-based methods or 

numerical optimization algorithms can be employed to determine the optimal settings for the factors. 

(5) Validation: After obtaining the predicted optimal conditions, validation experiments are performed to 

confirm the predicted glucose yield under the optimized conditions. This ensures that the response 

surface model accurately represents the actual system and provides reliable predictions. 

https://www.jescae.com/index.php/gssr/gssr


Global Sustainability Research 

Global Scientific Research   103 
 

(6) Sensitivity Analysis: Sensitivity analysis can be performed to identify the factors that have the most 

significant impact on glucose production. This analysis helps in understanding which factors should be 

given priority in process improvement efforts. 

(7) Process Scale-up: If the optimized conditions from the RSM are successful at the laboratory scale, 

further studies may be conducted to scale up the process to a pilot or industrial level. Scale-up 

considerations may involve factors like reactor design, process integration, and economic viability. 

Multi-objective Optimization Approaches 

 

Multi-objective optimization approaches are optimization techniques designed to handle problems with multiple 

conflicting objectives (Abushaker et al., 2022). Unlike traditional single-objective optimization, which aims to 

find a single optimal solution, multi-objective optimization seeks to find a set of Pareto-optimal solutions that 

represent trade-offs between different objectives. These approaches are particularly useful in decision-making 

scenarios where multiple criteria need to be considered simultaneously. Pareto optimality is a central concept in 

multi-objective optimization. A solution is considered Pareto optimal if no other solution can improve one 

objective without deteriorating at least one other objective. The set of all Pareto-optimal solutions is known as 

the Pareto front or Pareto set. Each solution on the Pareto front represents a different trade-off between the 

conflicting objectives, providing decision-makers with a range of options to choose from (Kumar et al., 2022). 

Several algorithms have been developed to solve multi-objective optimization problems (Patane et al., 2019). 

These algorithms can be broadly categorized into evolutionary algorithms (e.g., Genetic Algorithms, Particle 

Swarm Optimization), swarm intelligence algorithms, mathematical programming-based approaches (e.g., 

linear programming, nonlinear programming), and decomposition-based methods (e.g., weighted sum, ε-

constraint). These algorithms differ in their search strategies, exploration-exploitation balance, and handling of 

constraints, but they all aim to identify diverse and high-quality solutions on the Pareto front (Briones-Baez et 

al., 2022; El Moutaouakil et al., 2023). 

 

Results and Discussion 

Techno-Economic Analysis of Glucose Production 

 

Techno-economic analysis (TEA) is a comprehensive evaluation method used to assess the feasibility and 

economic viability of a particular process or technology (Das et al., 2022). In the context of glucose production, 

TEA plays a crucial role in analyzing the costs, profitability, and overall economic performance of different 

production methods. It provides insights into the financial aspects of glucose production and helps decision-

makers evaluate the economic feasibility of implementing specific production processes. TEA involves a 

detailed cost analysis that examines the various cost components associated with glucose production. These 

costs can include raw materials, equipment and infrastructure, labor, energy consumption, utilities, maintenance, 

waste treatment, and other operational expenses (Jarunglumlert & Prommuak, 2021). By quantifying and 

analyzing these costs, TEA helps identify the major cost drivers and evaluate the overall cost structure of the 

production process. In addition to cost analysis, TEA also considers revenue generation potential. It examines 

the market demand for glucose and estimates the potential sales volume and pricing (Muhammad et al., 2022). 

Market factors, such as supply and demand dynamics, competition, and pricing trends, are taken into account. 

By estimating the revenue generated from glucose sales, TEA provides insights into the profitability and 

financial viability of the production process. 

https://www.jescae.com/index.php/gssr/gssr


Global Sustainability Research 

Global Scientific Research   104 
 

TEA includes sensitivity analysis to assess the impact of uncertain parameters and variables on the economic 

performance of glucose production. This analysis explores how changes in factors such as raw material prices, 

energy costs, labor rates, and market conditions affect the profitability and overall economic feasibility of the 

process (Barba et al., 2022). Sensitivity analysis helps identify critical factors and assess the robustness of the 

project's financial performance under different scenarios. Cash flow analysis is a fundamental part of TEA, 

focusing on the inflows and outflows of cash associated with glucose production. It considers the timing of 

costs and revenues over the project's lifespan to determine the project's cash flow profile (Kuo & Yu, 2020). 

Cash flow analysis allows for the evaluation of the project's financial viability, profitability, and return on 

investment. It helps assess the project's ability to generate positive cash flow and recover the initial investment 

in a reasonable timeframe. TEA provides an evaluation of the required capital investment for establishing 

glucose production facilities. It assesses the capital expenditure (CAPEX) involved in purchasing equipment, 

constructing infrastructure, and setting up the necessary production processes. This analysis helps determine the 

investment requirements, payback period, and return on investment (ROI) of the project (Brandt et al., 2018). 

TEA incorporates risk assessment and mitigation strategies to evaluate the potential risks and uncertainties 

associated with glucose production. It considers factors such as market volatility, regulatory changes, 

technological risks, and project-specific risks. By identifying and assessing these risks, TEA assists in 

developing risk management strategies and evaluating the project's resilience against potential challenges 

(Barba et al., 2022; Muhammad et al., 2022). The primary goal of TEA is to provide decision-makers with 

comprehensive information and insights to support informed decision-making (Brandt et al., 2018). By 

quantifying the costs, revenues, and financial performance of glucose production, TEA enables decision-makers 

to assess the economic feasibility of different production methods, compare alternative technologies, and 

identify areas for process optimization and cost reduction. In summary, techno-economic analysis of glucose 

production plays a vital role in evaluating the financial viability, profitability, and economic feasibility of 

different production processes. It helps assess the costs, revenues, cash flow, and investment requirements, 

providing decision-makers with the necessary information to make informed choices and optimize the economic 

performance of glucose production (Ou et al., 2020; Sant et al., 2021). 

 

Cost Analysis of Feedstock Acquisition 

 

Cost analysis of feedstock acquisition is a crucial aspect of assessing the economic feasibility of glucose 

production (Kuo & Yu, 2020). Feedstock, which refers to the raw materials used in the production process, 

typically represents a significant portion of the overall production costs. Analyzing the costs associated with 

acquiring feedstock provides valuable insights into the financial implications of different sourcing strategies and 

helps decision-makers optimize the cost-effectiveness of glucose production. The cost analysis begins by 

examining the pricing of various feedstock options. Different feedstock sources, such as agricultural residues, 

forest biomass, algal biomass, or food waste, may have varying cost structures (Codato-Zumpano et al., 2023). 

Factors influencing feedstock pricing include availability, seasonal variations, demand-supply dynamics, 

transportation costs, quality considerations, and market competition. By assessing the prices of potential 

feedstock sources, the cost analysis enables the comparison of different options and their impact on overall 

production costs. Apart from pricing, the quantity and quality of feedstock significantly influence the overall 

cost of acquisition. Analyzing the required feedstock quantities and their availability helps estimate the scale of 

feedstock acquisition operations. This analysis considers factors such as feedstock yield, moisture content, 

impurities, and variability in feedstock characteristics (Foust et al., 2020). Understanding these factors enables 

decision-makers to assess the cost implications associated with sourcing, handling, and processing feedstock. 

https://www.jescae.com/index.php/gssr/gssr


Global Sustainability Research 

Global Scientific Research   105 
 

The cost analysis also involves evaluating different sourcing strategies for feedstock acquisition. This includes 

assessing the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of sourcing feedstock locally or from external suppliers. Local 

sourcing may offer advantages such as reduced transportation costs, access to abundant resources, and potential 

synergies with other industries (Brandt et al., 2018). On the other hand, external sourcing may provide access to 

specialized feedstock varieties, larger quantities, or cost advantages due to economies of scale. Evaluating the 

associated costs and benefits of different sourcing strategies helps determine the optimal approach for feedstock 

acquisition. 

Feedstock acquisition involves various costs throughout the supply chain, from harvesting or collection to 

transportation and storage. The cost analysis considers factors such as collection methods, equipment 

requirements, logistics, transportation distances, storage facilities, and associated operational expenses. 

Quantifying and analyzing these costs enables decision-makers to identify cost-saving opportunities, optimize 

supply chain efficiency, and minimize overall feedstock acquisition expenses (Cheng et al., 2019). Cost analysis 

of feedstock acquisition includes assessing and mitigating potential risks that may affect the availability and 

cost of feedstock. Risks can include crop failures, weather-related events, market volatility, regulatory changes, 

or geopolitical factors. Evaluating these risks helps decision-makers develop contingency plans, diversify 

feedstock sources, and ensure a stable supply of feedstock at reasonable costs. In addition to cost analysis, it is 

essential to consider sustainability aspects related to feedstock acquisition (Muhammad et al., 2022). This 

involves evaluating the environmental impact of different feedstock sources, assessing their renewable or non-

renewable nature, and considering their alignment with sustainable development goals (Cheng et al., 2019). 

While cost optimization is crucial, sustainability considerations can guide decision-making towards more 

environmentally friendly and socially responsible feedstock acquisition practices. The cost analysis of feedstock 

acquisition provides decision-makers with valuable information and insights to support informed decision-

making. It helps assess the financial implications of different feedstock options, evaluate the cost-effectiveness 

of sourcing strategies, and optimize the overall feedstock acquisition process (Zhang et al., 2020). The analysis 

assists in identifying opportunities for cost reduction, enhancing supply chain efficiency, and ensuring a reliable 

and cost-efficient feedstock supply (Cheng et al., 2019). 

 

Life Cycle Assessment of Glucose Production 

 

Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is a systematic methodology used to evaluate the environmental impacts 

associated with the entire life cycle of a product or process, including raw material extraction, production, use, 

and disposal (Kiš et al., 2019; Osman et al., 2021). Applying LCA to glucose production allows for a 

comprehensive analysis of the environmental footprint and sustainability performance of different production 

methods. The LCA of glucose production considers the entire life cycle, encompassing various stages such as 

feedstock acquisition, preprocessing, enzymatic or acid hydrolysis, fermentation, downstream processing, and 

final product distribution (Ng et al., 2022). It also includes the energy consumption, emissions, and waste 

generated at each stage. By considering the full life cycle, LCA provides a holistic perspective on the 

environmental impacts associated with glucose production. LCA evaluates a range of environmental impact 

categories, including climate change, resource depletion, acidification, eutrophication, ozone depletion, and 

human toxicity (Ryan & Yaseneva, 2021). These impact categories capture different aspects of environmental 

sustainability and allow for a comprehensive assessment of the potential environmental burdens associated with 

glucose production. Assessing multiple impact categories provides a more robust and balanced understanding of 

the environmental performance of different production methods. LCA requires gathering data on various inputs 

and outputs throughout the life cycle stages of glucose production (Osman et al., 2021). This includes 

https://www.jescae.com/index.php/gssr/gssr


Global Sustainability Research 

Global Scientific Research   106 
 

information on energy consumption, raw material extraction, water usage, emissions to air, water, and soil, 

waste generation, and transportation (Jarunglumlert & Prommuak, 2021). Data can be obtained from literature, 

industry databases, process simulations, and direct measurements. Accurate and reliable data collection is 

crucial for ensuring the accuracy and reliability of the LCA results (Kiš et al., 2019). 

Defining the system boundaries is an important aspect of LCA. It involves determining which processes and 

activities are included in the analysis and which are excluded. For glucose production, system boundaries can be 

set to include the entire production chain, from feedstock acquisition to the production of glucose, or focus on 

specific stages of the process (Ryan & Yaseneva, 2021). Clearly defining the system boundaries ensures 

consistency and comparability among different LCA studies and facilitates meaningful interpretation of the 

results (Ng et al., 2022). During the impact assessment phase of LCA, the collected data on inputs and outputs 

are translated into environmental impact indicators. This involves the use of impact assessment methods and 

characterization models to quantify the potential impacts on the selected impact categories. Different impact 

assessment methods, such as ReCiPe, Eco-indicator, or CML, can be employed to assess the environmental 

impacts associated with glucose production. The choice of impact assessment method should align with the 

specific goals and context of the study. The results of the LCA are interpreted to identify hotspots, areas of high 

environmental impact, and improvement opportunities. Decision-makers can use the LCA results to guide 

sustainability-oriented decision-making, such as selecting production methods with lower environmental 

impacts, optimizing processes to reduce resource consumption and emissions, or identifying opportunities for 

recycling and waste reduction (Astuti et al., 2018). LCA results can also inform product labeling, eco-design, 

and eco-innovation strategies to promote more sustainable glucose production. LCA promotes transparency and 

communication of the environmental performance of glucose production. The results of the LCA can be 

communicated through environmental product declarations (EPDs), sustainability reports, or labeling schemes. 

Transparently communicating the environmental impacts helps stakeholders, including consumers, 

policymakers, and industry professionals, make informed choices and encourages continuous improvement in 

sustainability performance (Blanco et al., 2020). 

 

Sustainability Considerations 

 

Sustainability considerations play a critical role in the assessment and improvement of glucose production 

processes (Ebikade et al., 2018). As the world increasingly focuses on environmental conservation, resource 

efficiency, and social responsibility, it is essential to evaluate the sustainability aspects associated with glucose 

production. Few of the key sustainability considerations in glucose production includes, resource efficiency, 

renewable feedstock, environmental impact mitigation, climate change mitigation, water management, social 

and economic impacts and LCA. Efficient use of resources is a fundamental aspect of sustainable glucose 

production (Salim, González-García, et al., 2019). This involves minimizing resource consumption, such as 

water, energy, and raw materials, throughout the production process. Implementing technologies and practices 

that optimize resource efficiency can reduce environmental impacts, conserve natural resources, and lower 

production costs. Strategies like process integration, waste heat recovery, and recycling can contribute to 

improved resource efficiency. The choice of feedstock for glucose production has significant implications for 

sustainability. Utilizing renewable feedstock sources, such as agricultural residues, forest biomass, or algal 

biomass, helps reduce dependence on finite resources and minimizes the environmental footprint of the 

production process (Codato-Zumpano et al., 2023; Selivanov et al., 2023). Renewable feedstock sources also 

offer opportunities for circular economy practices by valorizing waste and byproducts from other industries. 

Glucose production should aim to minimize its environmental impacts, such as greenhouse gas emissions, water 

https://www.jescae.com/index.php/gssr/gssr


Global Sustainability Research 

Global Scientific Research   107 
 

pollution, and land use change. Adopting cleaner production technologies, implementing pollution control 

measures, and optimizing waste management practices can reduce the ecological footprint of the production 

process (Akmalina, 2019; Salim, González-García, et al., 2019). Additionally, monitoring and mitigating 

potential environmental risks associated with feedstock acquisition, such as deforestation or habitat destruction, 

is essential for ensuring the sustainability of glucose production. 

Glucose production contributes to climate change through the release of greenhouse gases, particularly during 

the energy-intensive stages of the process. Implementing energy-efficient technologies, utilizing renewable 

energy sources, and adopting carbon capture and storage techniques can help mitigate the carbon footprint of 

glucose production (Blanco et al., 2020). By reducing greenhouse gas emissions, the industry can contribute to 

global efforts to combat climate change and achieve sustainability targets. Water is a valuable resource, and its 

sustainable management is crucial in glucose production. Adopting water-efficient practices, such as recycling 

and reusing water within the production process, can help minimize water consumption. Implementing 

wastewater treatment and management systems ensures the responsible discharge of treated water to minimize 

water pollution. Additionally, considering water availability and prioritizing water-stressed regions for glucose 

production can help mitigate the potential strain on local water resources. Sustainability considerations 

encompass not only environmental aspects but also social and economic dimensions (Lips, 2021). It is essential 

to assess the social and economic impacts of glucose production on local communities, including employment 

opportunities, livelihoods, and community well-being. Engaging with stakeholders, ensuring fair labor 

practices, and supporting local development initiatives contribute to the overall sustainability of glucose 

production and foster positive social outcomes. As discussed previously, conducting an LCA provides a 

comprehensive evaluation of the environmental impacts associated with glucose production. LCA allows for the 

quantification and analysis of energy consumption, emissions, waste generation, and resource depletion 

throughout the entire life cycle of glucose production (Blanco et al., 2020). The results of LCA can guide 

decision-making, identify improvement opportunities, and support the adoption of more sustainable practices. 

By integrating sustainability considerations into glucose production processes, stakeholders can work towards 

achieving a balance between environmental protection, social responsibility, and economic viability. Through 

continuous improvement, innovation, and collaboration, the industry can contribute to a more sustainable 

future. 

Case Studies and Industrial Applications 

 

Case studies and industrial applications provide valuable insights into the practical implementation of glucose 

production processes, highlighting their technical feasibility, economic viability, and sustainability performance. 

By examining real-world examples, researchers, industry professionals, and policymakers can gain a better 

understanding of the challenges, successes, and best practices associated with glucose production. Case studies 

and industrial applications showcase the application of new technologies and innovations in glucose production. 

They provide examples of how advancements in enzymatic hydrolysis, acid hydrolysis, fermentation, and 

downstream processing have improved process efficiency, yield, and product quality. By studying these 

technological advancements, researchers and industry professionals can identify opportunities for process 

optimization, cost reduction, and environmental impact mitigation (Yassien & Jiman-Fatani, 2023). Case studies 

offer valuable insights into the optimization of glucose production processes. They demonstrate how various 

parameters, such as feedstock composition, enzyme dosage, reaction conditions, and fermentation strategies, 

can be adjusted to maximize glucose yield, minimize energy consumption, and reduce production costs (Singh 

et al., 2021; Yassien & Jiman-Fatani, 2023). Analyzing successful process optimization strategies can guide 

https://www.jescae.com/index.php/gssr/gssr


Global Sustainability Research 

Global Scientific Research   108 
 

researchers and industry professionals in developing more efficient and sustainable glucose production methods. 

Industrial applications of glucose production provide examples of scaling up laboratory-scale processes to 

commercial production (Singh et al., 2021). Case studies highlight the challenges faced during scale-up, such as 

process robustness, equipment selection, and integration of different process stages. They also shed light on the 

economic considerations, market demand, and regulatory requirements associated with commercializing 

glucose production. Understanding these aspects is crucial for effectively transitioning from research to large-

scale implementation. 

Case studies and industrial applications explore different feedstock sources and their suitability for glucose 

production (Kuo & Yu, 2020). They examine the selection criteria, availability, cost-effectiveness, and 

sustainability implications of using various feedstock options, such as agricultural residues, forest biomass, 

algal biomass, or food waste (Andreeva et al., 2021; C. Zhang et al., 2020). These studies provide insights into 

the challenges and opportunities associated with feedstock acquisition, preprocessing, and handling, enabling 

decision-makers to make informed choices regarding feedstock sourcing. Glucose production is often integrated 

into biorefinery concepts, where multiple value-added products are derived from the same feedstock. Case 

studies and industrial applications demonstrate the integration of glucose production with other biorefinery 

processes, such as bioethanol production, bioplastics manufacturing, or biochemical production (Foust et al., 

2020). These examples highlight the synergies, waste valorization, and economic benefits of adopting a holistic 

approach to biomass utilization. Case studies provide insights into the sustainability performance of glucose 

production processes. They showcase the application of sustainability assessment tools, such as LCA, carbon 

footprint analysis, or water footprint analysis, to evaluate the environmental impacts and resource efficiency of 

glucose production. By studying these assessments, researchers and industry professionals can identify 

opportunities for improving the sustainability profile of glucose production and aligning it with sustainability 

goals. Case studies and industrial applications serve as a platform for knowledge sharing, collaboration, and 

cross-learning among researchers, industry professionals, and policymakers. They facilitate the exchange of 

experiences, challenges, and best practices, fostering innovation and continuous improvement in glucose 

production. Through collaboration and shared learning, the industry can collectively address technological, 

economic, and sustainability challenges, accelerating the development and adoption of more efficient and 

sustainable glucose production processes. 

 

Glucose Production from Corn Starch 

 

Glucose production from corn starch is a widely utilized process in the food and beverage industry (Dusabe et 

al., 2023), as well as in various industrial applications. Corn starch, derived from the endosperm of corn kernels, 

is a rich source of starch, which can be hydrolyzed to produce glucose. Production steps includes corn starch 

extraction, starch slurry preparation, enzymatic hydrolysis, enzyme inactivation and filtration, purification and 

concentration, crystallization and final utilization (Awulachew, 2020). The first step in glucose production from 

corn starch involves extracting starch from corn kernels. The corn kernels are typically ground and separated 

into various components, including germ, bran, and endosperm. The endosperm contains the highest 

concentration of starch. The extracted endosperm is then washed to remove impurities and processed to obtain a 

purified corn starch. To initiate the enzymatic hydrolysis process, the corn starch is mixed with water to form a 

starch slurry. The slurry is typically adjusted to a specific pH and temperature, which are optimal for the 

subsequent enzymatic hydrolysis reaction. Enzymatic hydrolysis is the key step in converting corn starch into 

glucose (Zhu & Pan, 2022). Specific enzymes, such as amylases, are added to the starch slurry. These enzymes 

break down the starch molecules into smaller fragments, including glucose molecules. The enzymatic 

https://www.jescae.com/index.php/gssr/gssr


Global Sustainability Research 

Global Scientific Research   109 
 

hydrolysis reaction is typically conducted at controlled temperature and pH conditions, along with appropriate 

reaction time, to ensure optimal enzyme activity and starch conversion (Zhang et al., 2020). Once the desired 

level of hydrolysis is achieved, the enzymatic activity is typically deactivated by adjusting the pH or 

temperature of the reaction mixture. The resulting mixture is then subjected to filtration or centrifugation to 

separate the glucose-rich solution from the undigested residues, such as insoluble fibers or protein impurities. 

The obtained glucose solution may undergo further purification steps to remove impurities, such as residual 

enzymes, colorants, or organic compounds. Common purification techniques include filtration, ion exchange, 

activated carbon treatment, and membrane processes. The purified glucose solution is then concentrated through 

evaporation or membrane processes to increase the glucose concentration (Flores et al., 2018). In some cases, 

glucose may be further processed through a crystallization step to produce glucose crystals or glucose syrup. 

Crystallization involves controlled cooling and seeding of the concentrated glucose solution to induce the 

formation of glucose crystals. The resulting crystals can be separated, washed, and dried to obtain pure glucose. 

The produced glucose can be used as a sweetener in the food and beverage industry, replacing sucrose or high-

fructose corn syrup (Kiš et al., 2019; Riaukaite et al., 2019). It serves as an essential ingredient in various 

products, including confectionery, baked goods, beverages, and processed foods. Additionally, glucose finds 

applications in pharmaceuticals, fermentation processes, and as a precursor for the production of other 

chemicals. 

Glucose production from corn starch offers several advantages, including the abundance and availability of corn 

as a feedstock, scalability of the process, and versatile utilization of the glucose product. However, it is 

important to consider the sustainability aspects associated with corn cultivation, such as land use, water 

consumption, and environmental impacts (Awulachew, 2020). Efforts are being made to explore alternative 

feedstocks and sustainable production methods to ensure the long-term viability and environmental friendliness 

of glucose production. 

 

Glucose Production from Cellulosic Biomass 

 

Glucose production from cellulosic biomass offers a promising avenue for sustainable biofuel and biochemical 

production (Osman et al., 2021). Cellulosic biomass, which includes sources such as agricultural residues, forest 

biomass, and dedicated energy crops, contains cellulose, hemicellulose, and lignin (Selivanov et al., 2023). The 

process of converting cellulosic biomass into glucose involves several steps, as outlined below: 

(i) Pretreatment (Zhou et al., 2023): Pretreatment is a crucial step in cellulosic biomass conversion. It aims 

to remove or modify the lignin and hemicellulose components, making the cellulose more accessible to 

enzymatic hydrolysis. Various pretreatment methods, including physical, chemical, and biological 

processes, can be employed. Common techniques include steam explosion, acid or alkaline hydrolysis, 

organosolv, and ammonia fiber expansion (AFEX) (Jarunglumlert & Prommuak, 2021). Pretreatment 

conditions and severity are optimized to maximize cellulose accessibility while minimizing sugar 

degradation and inhibitor formation (Malakar et al., 2020). 

(ii) Enzymatic Hydrolysis: Enzymatic hydrolysis is the core step in converting cellulose to glucose. After 

pretreatment, the cellulose-rich material is treated with cellulase enzymes. Cellulase enzymes break 

down cellulose into glucose by cleaving the cellulose chains into smaller sugar units. The enzymatic 

hydrolysis reaction is typically carried out at controlled temperature, pH, and enzyme dosage to 

optimize glucose yield. Enzyme cocktails containing different types of cellulases are often used to 

improve hydrolysis efficiency (Zhu & Pan, 2022). 

https://www.jescae.com/index.php/gssr/gssr


Global Sustainability Research 

Global Scientific Research   110 
 

(iii) Enzyme Recycling and Inhibitor Management: During enzymatic hydrolysis, the enzymes can be 

partially deactivated or inhibited by the released sugars and by-products (Turini et al., 2021). To 

enhance the efficiency and economics of the process, strategies such as enzyme recycling and the use of 

enzyme inhibitors can be implemented. Enzyme recycling involves separating the enzymes from the 

hydrolysate and reusing them in subsequent hydrolysis batches. Inhibitor management techniques, such 

as detoxification or conditioning of the hydrolysate, can minimize the negative impact of inhibitors on 

enzyme activity and glucose yield. 

(iv) Fermentation (Yassien & Jiman-Fatani, 2023): After enzymatic hydrolysis, the resulting glucose-rich 

hydrolysate can be subjected to fermentation to produce various biofuels and biochemicals. Glucose can 

be fermented by microorganisms, such as yeast or bacteria, into ethanol, butanol, organic acids, or other 

valuable products. The fermentation process may require additional steps, such as microbial strain 

selection, optimization of fermentation conditions (temperature, pH, nutrient supplementation), and 

downstream processing for product recovery. 

(v) Downstream Processing: Downstream processing involves the separation, purification, and recovery of 

the desired product from the fermentation broth. Techniques such as filtration, centrifugation, 

distillation, chromatography, and membrane processes are employed to isolate and purify the target 

compound, such as glucose or the desired fermentation product. The purity and concentration of the 

final product depend on the intended application. 

Glucose production from cellulosic biomass offers several advantages, including the utilization of abundant and 

renewable feedstock sources, reducing dependence on fossil fuels, and mitigating greenhouse gas emissions 

(Shokrkar & Ebrahimi, 2021). However, challenges remain in terms of improving the efficiency and cost-

effectiveness of the process, addressing inhibitory compounds generated during pretreatment, and developing 

robust and efficient enzyme systems. Ongoing research and technological advancements are focused on 

optimizing the individual steps, exploring novel pretreatment methods, developing superior enzyme cocktails, 

and enhancing the overall process integration to make cellulosic glucose production economically viable and 

environmentally sustainable (Jones et al., 2018). 

 

Glucose Production from Food Processing Waste 

 

Glucose production from food processing waste offers a valuable opportunity for sustainable utilization of 

organic byproducts generated in the food industry. Food processing waste, such as fruit and vegetable peels, 

pomace, spent grains, and other residues, often contains significant amounts of carbohydrates, including 

starches and sugars, which can be converted into glucose (Andreeva et al., 2021; Lee et al., 2023). The process 

of glucose production from food processing waste typically involves the following steps: 

[1]. Waste Collection and Preparation: Food processing waste is collected from various sources, such as 

fruit and vegetable processing facilities, breweries, or grain mills. The waste is typically sorted, cleaned, 

and prepared by removing any non-organic contaminants or inedible parts. The waste may also undergo 

size reduction or grinding to increase the surface area and improve subsequent processing efficiency. 

[2]. Enzymatic Hydrolysis or Acid Hydrolysis: Enzymatic hydrolysis or acid hydrolysis is employed to 

convert the complex carbohydrates present in the food processing waste into glucose. Enzymatic 

hydrolysis involves the use of specific enzymes, such as amylases or cellulases, to break down starches 

or cellulose into glucose (Uchegbu et al., 2022). Acid hydrolysis utilizes dilute acid solutions, such as 

sulfuric acid or hydrochloric acid, to hydrolyze the carbohydrates into simpler sugars (Adeoye et al., 

https://www.jescae.com/index.php/gssr/gssr


Global Sustainability Research 

Global Scientific Research   111 
 

2019). The choice of hydrolysis method depends on the composition of the waste and the specific 

carbohydrates targeted for conversion. 

[3]. Hydrolysate Treatment: After hydrolysis, the resulting hydrolysate contains a mixture of glucose, other 

sugars, and impurities. The hydrolysate is often subjected to purification steps to separate the glucose 

from unwanted components, such as residual enzymes, solids, or organic acids. Common purification 

techniques include filtration, sedimentation, and adsorption processes. 

[4]. Glucose Concentration (Flores et al., 2018): To increase the glucose concentration in the hydrolysate, 

concentration techniques such as evaporation, membrane processes (such as reverse osmosis), or 

crystallization can be employed. These methods remove water from the hydrolysate, resulting in a more 

concentrated glucose solution. 

[5]. Purification and Refinement: Further purification and refinement steps may be required to obtain a 

high-purity glucose product. These steps can involve techniques such as chromatography, ion exchange, 

or activated carbon treatment to remove remaining impurities, colorants, or off-flavors. 

Glucose production from food processing waste offers several benefits, including waste valorization, reduction 

of waste disposal and environmental impact, and the potential for cost savings (Lee et al., 2023). By converting 

waste into a valuable product, the process contributes to a circular economy and sustainable resource 

management. However, it is essential to ensure the quality and safety of the glucose produced, adhering to 

relevant regulations and quality standards. Additionally, the development of efficient and cost-effective 

processing technologies, as well as waste collection and logistics systems, is crucial for the widespread adoption 

of glucose production from food processing waste (Dusabe et al., 2023). 

 

Glucose Production in Biofuel and Bioproduct Industries 

 

Glucose production plays a crucial role in the biofuel and bioproduct industries, serving as a key intermediate 

for the production of a wide range of biofuels and bioproducts (Mendoza-Meneses et al., 2021). Glucose can be 

derived from various biomass sources, including agricultural residues, energy crops, food processing waste, and 

cellulosic biomass. Glucose is a primary substrate for bioethanol production. Through the process of 

fermentation, glucose is converted by yeast or other microorganisms into ethanol, which is a renewable and 

sustainable alternative to fossil fuel-based gasoline (Ali et al., 2023). Glucose can be derived from various 

feedstocks, such as corn, sugarcane, wheat, and cellulosic biomass, and used as the main carbohydrate source 

for ethanol fermentation. Bioethanol has gained significant attention as a renewable fuel, contributing to 

reduced greenhouse gas emissions and energy security. Glucose can also serve as a precursor for the production 

of biobutanol, an advanced biofuel with potential as a gasoline substitute (Tsai et al., 2020). Biobutanol is 

produced through a process called acetone-butanol-ethanol (ABE) fermentation, where glucose is converted 

into butanol, acetone, and ethanol by solvent-producing bacteria (Ibrahim et al., 2018; Yang et al., 2023). 

Glucose can also be used as a feedstock for the production of other biochemicals, such as organic acids, amino 

acids, biopolymers, and specialty chemicals, through microbial fermentation or chemical synthesis routes 

(Osman et al., 2021). 

Although glucose itself is not directly used for biodiesel production, it can contribute indirectly by serving as a 

substrate for microbial oil production. Microorganisms such as algae or oleaginous yeasts can utilize glucose as 

a carbon source to accumulate lipids or oils (Yang et al., 2023). These lipids can be extracted and converted into 

biodiesel through a process called transesterification. Glucose, therefore, plays a critical role in providing the 

necessary carbon and energy source for microbial oil production. Glucose is a valuable platform chemical for 

the synthesis of various chemicals and materials. It can be converted into a range of platform chemicals, 

https://www.jescae.com/index.php/gssr/gssr


Global Sustainability Research 

Global Scientific Research   112 
 

including lactic acid, succinic acid, glycerol, and 2,3-butanediol (Yu et al., 2022). These platform chemicals 

serve as building blocks for the production of bioplastics, biopolymers, solvents, resins, and other high-value 

chemical products (Inyang et al., 2022). Glucose-based platform chemicals offer a sustainable and renewable 

alternative to their petrochemical counterparts. Glucose can be chemically modified or transformed into various 

derivatives, expanding its utility in different industries. Glucose derivatives, such as glucose esters, glucose 

ethers, and glucose fatty acid esters, find applications in food, pharmaceuticals, cosmetics, and other sectors 

(Lee et al., 2023). These derivatives possess specific functionalities and properties that enhance their suitability 

for specific applications. The production of glucose in the biofuel and bioproduct industries involves various 

processes, including biomass feedstock preparation, enzymatic or acid hydrolysis, fermentation, and 

downstream processing (Weiss et al., 2019). The optimization of these processes, along with advancements in 

biotechnology, enzymology, and process engineering, continues to improve the efficiency, cost-effectiveness, 

and sustainability of glucose production (Bauer et al., 2022; Singh et al., 2021). The utilization of glucose as a 

feedstock for biofuels and bioproducts not only reduces reliance on fossil fuels but also contributes to the 

development of a bio-based economy and a more sustainable future (Osman et al., 2021). 

 

Technological Challenges in Glucose Production 

 

Glucose production is a complex process that involves several technological challenges (Das et al., 2022). 

Overcoming these challenges is crucial for improving the efficiency, scalability, and cost-effectiveness of 

glucose production.  One of the challenges lies in the diverse nature of feedstock sources for glucose production 

(Bisht et al., 2019). Different biomass sources, such as agricultural residues, energy crops, food processing 

waste, and cellulosic biomass, have varying compositions and properties. Preprocessing the feedstock to remove 

impurities, optimize particle size, and enhance accessibility of the carbohydrates is a critical step. However, 

developing efficient and scalable preprocessing technologies that can handle different feedstocks remains a 

challenge (Osman et al., 2021). Pretreatment is essential to break down the complex structure of biomass and 

make carbohydrates more accessible for enzymatic or acid hydrolysis. Achieving an optimal balance between 

efficient pretreatment and minimal formation of inhibitors or degradation products is a technological challenge 

(Ansanay et al., 2021). Similarly, enhancing the efficiency of enzymatic hydrolysis or acid hydrolysis to achieve 

high glucose yields while minimizing enzyme requirements or acid usage is a continual focus of research and 

development (Ebikade et al., 2018). Enzymes play a vital role in the hydrolysis of carbohydrates to glucose. 

However, the cost of enzymes can be a significant barrier to large-scale glucose production. Developing robust 

and efficient enzyme systems that can work under a wide range of conditions, improving enzyme stability and 

longevity, and reducing enzyme costs through advances in enzyme engineering and bioprocessing are ongoing 

challenges (Rocha et al., 2022). 

In the case of fermentation-based glucose production, selecting suitable microbial strains that can efficiently 

convert glucose into desired products, such as bioethanol or biochemicals, is crucial. Improving fermentation 

efficiency, including higher product yields, faster fermentation rates, and better tolerance to inhibitors, remains 

a challenge (Yassien & Jiman-Fatani, 2023). Genetic engineering and strain optimization techniques are being 

explored to enhance microbial performance and address these challenges. Integrating different process steps, 

optimizing their interaction, and achieving efficient process integration are essential for glucose production. 

Scaling up the glucose production process from lab-scale to commercial scale poses additional challenges, such 

as maintaining consistent performance, ensuring cost-effectiveness, and addressing engineering and logistical 

considerations. Glucose production generates various byproducts and waste streams that require proper 

management. Treating and utilizing these waste streams in an environmentally sustainable manner is a 

https://www.jescae.com/index.php/gssr/gssr


Global Sustainability Research 

Global Scientific Research   113 
 

challenge (Zhu & Pan, 2022). Developing efficient strategies for waste treatment, including recycling, 

valorization, or conversion into value-added products, is essential to minimize the environmental footprint of 

glucose production. 

Accurate monitoring and control of various process parameters, such as temperature, pH, enzyme dosage, and 

fermentation conditions, are crucial for optimizing glucose production (Tagougui et al., 2018). Implementing 

advanced process monitoring techniques, real-time control systems, and automation technologies to ensure 

consistent and efficient production is a technological challenge (Bisht et al., 2019; Didyuk et al., 2021). Glucose 

production must be economically viable to compete with traditional production methods (Zhu & Pan, 2022). 

Techno-economic analysis, including factors such as capital and operational costs, feedstock availability, 

product yields, and market demand, must be considered. Balancing the costs and benefits of different process 

parameters and optimizing the overall process economics remains a challenge. Addressing these technological 

challenges requires interdisciplinary research and collaboration among scientists, engineers, and industry 

stakeholders. Continued advancements in biotechnology, enzymology, process engineering, and automation are 

essential for overcoming these challenges and driving the development of efficient, sustainable, and 

economically viable glucose production technologies (Bauer et al., 2022; Tagougui et al., 2018). 

 

Conclusion 

Investigation and optimization of glucose production via multiple biochemical processes and sustainable 

feedstock sources has yielded substantial insights and possible opportunities. As a critical biomolecule and 

renewable energy source, glucose holds great promise for meeting the growing demands of a sustainable and 

environmentally conscious world. The research looked on the kinetics and efficiency of enzymatic hydrolysis, 

acid hydrolysis, and fermentation routes. Researchers can create novel techniques to improve glucose synthesis 

and utilization by better understanding these mechanisms. The evaluation of various feedstock sources, such as 

agricultural residues, forest biomass, algal biomass, and food waste, has offered significant information for the 

selection of sustainable feedstock. Industries can lessen their environmental impact and contribute to a circular 

bioeconomy by utilizing locally sourced materials. Optimization tactics were critical in this study, providing 

useful insights into optimizing glucose production systems. Statistical design of experiments and response 

surface approach have paved the way for more efficient and cost-effective manufacturing procedures. 

Furthermore, the techno-economic analysis and life cycle assessments have highlighted the need of taking both 

environmental and economic factors into account when evaluating glucose production technologies. 

Sustainability considerations are critical in the quest for a greener, more resilient future. This study's 

multidisciplinary approach, which combined biochemical insights with sustainability considerations, provided a 

comprehensive understanding of glucose production. It has bridged the gap between scientific breakthroughs 

and real-world applications, making the research relevant to both industries and politicians. As we progress 

toward a more sustainable bioeconomy, glucose production plays an important role in a variety of sectors, 

including food, energy, and bioproducts. The study's findings provide useful direction for researchers, industry, 

and governments in driving the adoption of more environmentally friendly and efficient glucose manufacturing 

processes. To summarize, the study not only increased our understanding of glucose production, but it also 

underlined the need of sustainable practices and optimization tactics in designing a more sustainable and 

prosperous future for humanity. We can usher in an era of sustainable glucose production by embracing 

renewable carbohydrates and innovative technology, paving the road for a greener and more peaceful 

coexistence with our planet. 

https://www.jescae.com/index.php/gssr/gssr


Global Sustainability Research 

Global Scientific Research   114 
 

Declaration  

Acknowledgment: None 

 

Funding: No funding source to declare. 

Competing interests: There is no competing interest. 

Authors’ Contributions: Conceptualization: Engr. Dr. Kiman Silas, Formal analysis: Mr. Thlama Mainta 

Mperiju, Methodology: Indianraj N and Rezkallah Chafika, Writing –original draft: Engr. Dr. Mohammed 

Modu Aji and Abdulhalim Musa Abubakar, Writing –review & editing: Agus Budianto, Engr. Dr. Kiman Silas 

and Engr. Dr. Mohammed Modu Aji 

Data availability: From the authors 

 

References 

Abril-González, M., Vele-Salto, A., & Pinos-Vélez, V. (2023). Kinetic study of acid hydrolysis of the glucose 

obtained from banana plant. ChemEngineering, 7(39), 1–13. 

https://doi.org/10.3390/chemengineering7020039 

Abubakar, A. M., Silas, K., & Aji, M. M. (2022). An elaborate breakdown of the essentials of biogas 

production. Journal of Engineering Research and Sciences (JENRS), 1(4), 93–118. 

https://doi.org/10.55708/js0104013 

Abushaker, R., Sardahi, Y., & Alshorman, A. (2022). Multi-objective optimal regulation of glucose 

concentration in Type I diabetes mellitus. Journal of Engineering, 6(1), 1–12. 

https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4056176 

Adams, M. C. (2022). Understanding carbohydrate metabolism and how it affects the health of living beings. 

Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Journal, 8(59), 10–11. https://doi.org/10.36648/2471-8084-22.8.59 

Adeoye, M. D., Abdulsalami, I. O., Tijani, K. O., Adeniji, M. R., & Adeyemo, J. A. (2019). Kinetics and 

thermodynamics properties of glucose production from pineapple and pawpaw peels by acid hydrolysis. 

Journal of Chemical Society of Nigeria, 44(3), 479–488. 

https://journals.chemsociety.org.ng/index.php/jcsn/article/view/300 

Akmalina, R. (2019). Environmental impacts evaluation of sorbitol production from glucose. Eksergi, 16(1), 1–

7. https://doi.org/10.31315/e.v0i0.2695 

Ali, M. K., Kaki, A. A., & Chaouche, N. K. (2023). Simulation of yeast fermentation process using kinetic 

unstructured models. Research Advances in Microbiology and Biotechnology, 2, 1–12. 

https://doi.org/10.9734/bpi/ramb/v2/3682B 

Amandio, M. S. T., Rocha, J. M. S., & Xavier, A. M. R. B. (2023). Enzymatic hydrolysis strategies for 

cellulosic sugars production to obtain bioethanol from Eucalyptus globulus bark. Fermentation, 9(241), 1–

19. https://doi.org/10.3390/fermentation9030241 

Andreeva, A., Budenkova, E., Babich, O., Sukhikh, S., Dolganyuk, V., Michaud, P., & Ivanova, S. (2021). 

Influence of carbohydrate additives on the growth rate of microalgae biomass with an increased 

carbohydrate content. Marine Drugs, 19(7). https://doi.org/10.3390/md19070381 

Ansanay, Y., Kolar, P., Sharma-Shivappa, R., Cheng, J., & Arellano, C. (2021). Pretreatment of switchgrass for 

production of glucose via sulfonic acid-impregnated activated carbon. Processes, 9(3). 

https://www.jescae.com/index.php/gssr/gssr


Global Sustainability Research 

Global Scientific Research   115 
 

https://doi.org/10.3390/pr9030504 

Aredo, F., Rojas, M. L., Pagador, S., Lescano, L., Sanchez-Gonzalez, J., & Linares, G. (2020). Pre-treatments 

applied to rice husk enzymatic hydrolysis: effect on structure, lignocellulosic components, and glucose 

production kinetics. 18 Th LACCEI International Multi-Conference for Engineering, Education, and 

Technology: “Engineering, Integration, and Alliances for a Sustainable Development” “Hemispheric 

Cooperation for Competitiveness and Prosperity on a Knowledge-Based Economy”, 27-3, 1–5. 

https://doi.org/10.18687/LACCEI2020.1.1.42 

Ascione, B., Apicella, R., & Romano, V. (2020). Mathematical modeling of sucrose hydrolysis with product 

and substrate inhibition. Engineering, 12, 280–289. https://doi.org/10.4236/eng.2020.124023 

Asim, A. M., Uroos, M., Muhammad, N., & Hallett, J. P. (2021). Production of food-grade glucose from rice 

and wheat residues using a biocompatible ionic liquid. ACS Sustainable Chem. Eng, 9(24), 8080–8089. 

https://doi.org/10.1021/acssuschemeng.1c00022 

Astuti, A. D., Astuti, R. S. D., & Hadiyanto, H. (2018). Application of life cycle assessment (LCA) in sugar 

industries. E3S Web of Conferences [ICENIS 2017], 31(04011), 1–5. 

https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/20183104011 

Augusto, L., & Boca, A. (2022). Tree functional traits, forest biomass, and tree species diversity interact with 

site properties to drive forest soil carbon. Nature Communications, 13(1097), 1–12. 

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-28748-0 

Awulachew, M. T. (2020). Techno economic feasibility and engineering application study to establishment of 

corn processing (glucose) plant in Ethiopia. International Journal for Research in Agricultural and Food 

Science, 6(1), 15–31. https://gnpublication.org/index.php/afs/article/view/1173 

Aydar, A. Y. (2018). Utilization of response surface methodology in optimization of extraction of plant 

materials. In V. Silva (Ed.), Statistical Approaches with Emphasis on Design of Experiments Applied to 

Chemical Processes. IntechOpen. https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.73690 

Barba, F. C., Grasham, O., Puri, D. J., & Blacker, A. J. (2022). A simple techno-economic assessment for 

scaling-up the enzymatic hydrolysis of MSW pulp. Frontiers in Energy Research, 10, 1–13. 

https://doi.org/10.3389/fenrg.2022.788534 

Bauer, J. A., Zámocká, M., Majtán, J., & Bauerová-Hlinková, V. (2022). Glucose oxidase, an enzyme “Ferrari 

”: Its structure, function, production and properties in the light of various industrial and biotechnological 

applications. Biomolecules, 12(472), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.3390/biom12030472 

Behera, S. S., Ray, R. C., Das, U., Panda, S. K., & Saranraj, P. (2019). Microorganisms in fermentation. 

Essentials in Fermentation Technology, 1–39. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-16230-6_1 

Bhandari, S., Poudel, D. K., Marahatha, R., Dawadi, S., Khadayat, K., Phuyal, S., Shrestha, S., Gaire, S., 

Rasnetm, K., Khadka, U., & Parajuli, N. (2021). Microbial enzymes used in bioremediation. Journal of 

Chemistry, 2021(8849512), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/8849512 

Bisht, D., Yadav, V., Rajsi, Saha, P., & Kumar, N. (2019). Glucose monitoring technologies and challenges: An 

update. The International Journal of Biotechnology, 8(1), 1–11. 

https://doi.org/10.18488/journal.57.2019.81.1.11 

Blanco, J., Iglesias, J., Morales, G., Melero, J. A., & Moreno, J. (2020). Comparative life cycle assessment of 

glucose production from maize starch and woody biomass residues as a feedstock. Applied Sciences, 

10(2946), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.3390/app10082946 

Bohn, P. D., Anchieta, C. G., Kuhn, K. R., Muller, E. I., Mayer, F., & Kuhn, R. C. (2021). Conversion of rice 

husk biomass into reducing sugars: Influence of pretreatment with water and [C16MIM][Br-] ionic liquid. 

Research Square, 1–26. https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-346055/v1 

https://www.jescae.com/index.php/gssr/gssr


Global Sustainability Research 

Global Scientific Research   116 
 

Brandt, K. L., Gao, J., Wang, J., Wooley, R. J., & Wolcott, M. (2018). Techno-economic analysis of forest 

residue conversion to sugar using three-stage milling as pretreatment. Frontiers in Energy Research, 

6(77), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenrg.2018.00077 

Briones-Baez, M. F., Aguilera-Vazquez, L., Rangel-Valdez, N., Martinez-Salazar, A. L., & Zuniga, C. (2022). 

Multi-objective optimization of microalgae metabolism: An evolutive algorithm based on FBA. 

Metabolites, 12(7). https://doi.org/10.3390/metabo12070603 

Brito, P. M., & Antunes, F. (2014). Estimation of kinetic parameters related to biochemical interactions between 

hydrogen peroxide and signal transduction proteins. Frontiers in Chemistry, 2(82), 1–13. 

https://doi.org/10.3389/fchem.2014.00082 

Bryan, A., Hart, C., Howell, A., Wise, M., & Roberts, B. (2018). Glucose concentrations effect on rate of 

fermentation in yeast. Journal of Undergraduate Biology Laboratory Investigations (JUBLI), 00(00), 1–4. 

https://undergradsciencejournals.okstate.edu/index.php/JUBLI/article/view/8738 

Bussamra, B. C., Meerman, P., Viswanathan, V., Mussatto, S. I., da Costa, A. C., van der Wielen, L., & Ottens, 

M. (2020). Enzymatic hydrolysis of sugarcane bagasse in aqueous two-phase systems (ATPS): 

Exploration and conceptual process design. Frontiers in Chemistry, 8. 

https://doi.org/10.3389/fchem.2020.00587 

Carreón-Rodríguez, O. E., Gosset, G., Escalante, A., & Bolívar, F. (2023). Glucose transport in Escherichia 

coli: From basics to transport engineering. Microorganisms, 11(6). 

https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms11061588 

Chang, Y.-H., Chang, K.-S., Chen, C.-Y., Hsu, C.-L., Chang, T.-C., & Jang, H.-D. (2018). Enhancement of the 

efficiency of bioethanol production by Saccharomyces cerevisiae via gradually batch-wise and fed-batch 

increasing the glucose concentration. Fermentation, 4(2), 1–12. 

https://doi.org/10.3390/fermentation4020045 

Chen, W.-H., Lo, H.-J., Aniza, R., Lin, B.-J., Park, Y.-K., Kwon, E. E., Sheen, H.-K., & Grafilo, L. A. D. R. 

(2022). Forecast of glucose production from biomass wet torrefaction using statistical approach along with 

multivariate adaptive regression splines, neural network and decision tree. Applied Energy, 324(119775). 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2022.119775 

Cheng, M. H., Huang, H., Dien, B. S., & Singh, V. (2019). The costs of sugar production from different 

feedstocks and processing technologies. Biofuels, Bioproducts and Biorefining, 13(3), 723–739. 

https://doi.org/10.1002/bbb.1976 

Cheoh, A. (2018). Effect of pretreatments on the production of fermentable sugars from rice husk [Tunku Abdul 

Rahman University of Management and Technology (TARUMT)]. 

https://eprints.tarc.edu.my/id/eprint/1527 

Ciolkosz, D., Memis, B., & Richard, T. L. (2022). Impact of torrefaction and alkali pretreatment on glucose 

production from wheat straw. ASABE, 65(6), 1201–1209. https://doi.org/10.13031/ja.15170 

Codato-Zumpano, C. B., Girio, F., Carvalheiro, F., Marques, S., Caccato-Antonini, S. R., & Bastos, R. G. 

(2023). Kinetics of the release of sugars from the enzymatic and physico-chemical pre-treated sugarcane 

bagasse and residual forest biomass. Waste and Biomass Valorization, 14, 1069–1077. 

https://doi.org/10.1007/s12649-022-01920-9 

Damayanti, D., Supriyadi, D., Amelia, D., Saputri, D. R., Devi, Y. L. L., Auriyani, W. A., & Wu, H. S. (2021). 

Conversion of lignocellulose for bioethanol production, applied in bio-polyethylene terephthalate. 

Polymers, 13(2886), 1–31. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym13172886 

Das, S. K., Nayak, K. K., Krishnaswamy, P. R., Kumar, V., & Bhat, N. (2022). Review—Electrochemistry and 

other emerging technologies for continuous glucose monitoring devices. ECS Sensors Plus, 1(031601), 1–

https://www.jescae.com/index.php/gssr/gssr


Global Sustainability Research 

Global Scientific Research   117 
 

19. https://doi.org/10.1149/2754-2726/ac7abb 

de Souza, M. P., Sanchez-Barrios, A., Rizzetti, T. M., Benitez, L. B., Hoeltz, M., Schneider, R. de C. de S., & 

Neves, F. de F. (2019). Concepts and trends for extraction and application of microalgae carbohydrates. In 

M. Vitova (Ed.), Microalgae. IntechOpen. https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.89323 

Dhar, A., Chakraborty, P., Chanda, S., & Paul, A. (2019). A review on extraction of glucose from rice. The 

Pharma Innovation Journal, 8(11), 207–211. www.ThePharmaJournal.com 

Didyuk, O., Econom, N., Guardia, A., Livingston, K., & Klueh, U. (2021). Continuous glucose monitoring 

devices: Past, present, and future focus on the history and evolution of technological innovation. Journal 

of Diabetes Science and Technology, 15(3), 676–683. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932296819899394 

Dienel, G. A. (2019). Brain glucose metabolism: Integration of energetics with function. Physiological Reviews, 

99, 949–1045. https://doi.org/10.1152/physrev.00062.2017 

Dusabe, S., Juliastuti, R., & Darmawan, R. (2023). Production of reducing sugar from food waste using 

hydrolytic microorganisms. AIP Conference Proceedings, 2772(060001). 

https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0115414 

Dussán, K. J., Silva, D. D. V, Moraes, E. J. C., Priscila, V. A., & Felipe, M. G. A. (2014). Dilute-acid 

hydrolysis of cellulose to glucose from sugarcane bagasse. Chemical Engineering Transactions (CEt), 38, 

433–438. https://doi.org/10.3303/CET1438073 

Ebikade, E., Lym, J., Wittreich, G., Saha, B., & Vlachos, D. G. (2018). Kinetic studies of acid hydrolysis of 

food waste-derived saccharides. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry (I&EC) Research, 57(51), 17365–

17374. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.iecr.8b04671 

Edor, S. P., Edogbanya, O. P., & Kutshik, J. R. (2018). Cellulase activity of Aspergillus niger in the 

biodegradation of rice husk. MOJ Biology and Medicine, 3(3), 49–51. 

https://dspace.unijos.edu.ng/jspui/bitstream/123456789/2278/1/MOJBM-03-00075.pdf 

Efrinalia, W., Novia, N., & Melwita, E. (2022). Kinetic model for enzymatic hydrolysis of cellulose from pre-

treated rice husks. Fermentation, 8(417), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.3390/fermentation8090417 

El-Zawawy, W. K., Ibrahim, M. M., Abdel-Fattah, Y. R., Soliman, N. A., & Mahmoud, M. M. (2011). Acid and 

enzyme hydrolysis to convert pretreated lignocellulosic materials into glucose for ethanol production. 

Carbohydrate Polymers, 84, 865–871. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2010.12.022 

El Moutaouakil, K., El Ouissari, A., Palade, V., Charroud, A., Olaru, A., Baizri, H., Chellak, S., & Cheggour, 

M. (2023). Multi-objective optimization for controlling the dynamics of the diabetic population. 

Mathematics, 11(13). https://doi.org/10.3390/math11132957 

Elalami, D., Fertahi, S., Aouine, M., Benali, W., Ibnyasser, A., Lyamlouli, K., & Barakat, A. (2022). 

Comparison of pretreatment effects on sugar release, energy efficiency and the reuse of effluents. 

Industrial Crops and Products, 189(115759). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2022.115769 

Elmer, L., & Gaden, J. (2000). Fermentation process kinetics. Journal of Biochemical and Microbiological 

Technology and Engineering, 1(4), 413–429. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbmte.390010407 

Far, B. F., Naimi-Jamal, M. R., Safaei, M., Zarei, K., Moradi, M., & Nezhad, H. Y. (2022). A review on 

biomedical application of polysaccharide-based hydrogels with a focus on drug delivery systems. 

Polymers, 14(5432), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym14245432 

Flores, K., Neal, S., Nguyen, J. J., Capper, K., & Felder, M. (2018). Sugar rush: How fermentation rate 

increases with glucose concentration. Journal of Undergraduate Biology Laboratory Investigations 

(JUBLI), 1(1), 1–4. 

https://undergradsciencejournals.okstate.edu/index.php/JUBLI/article/download/8787/1883 

Foust, T. D., Aden, A., Dutta, A., & Phillips, S. (2020). An economic and environmental comparison of a 

https://www.jescae.com/index.php/gssr/gssr


Global Sustainability Research 

Global Scientific Research   118 
 

biochemical and a thermochemical lignocellulosic ethanol conversion processes. Cellulose, 16, 547–565. 

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10570-009-9317-x 

Fu, Y., Gu, B.-J., Wang, J., Gao, J., Ganjyal, G. M., & Wolcott, M. P. (2018). Novel micronized woody biomass 

process for production of cost-effective clean fermentable sugars (pp. 1–39). Elsevier. 

http://www.elsevier.com/open-access/userlicense/1.0/ 

González-Figueredo, C., Flores-Estrella, R. A., & Rojas-Rejón, O. A. (2017). Fermentation: Metabolism, 

kinetic models, and bioprocessing. In Current Topics in Biochemical Engineering (pp. 1–17). IntechOPen. 

https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.82195 

Gunkova, P. I., Buchilina, A. S., Maksimiuk, N. N., Bazarnova, Y. G., & Girel, K. S. (2021). Carbohydrate 

fermentation test of lactic acid starter cultures. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science 

[ITAFCCEM 2021], 852(012035), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/852/1/012035 

Halka, L. M., Nowacki, C., Kleinschmidt, A., Koenen, K., & Wichmann, R. (2018). Glucose limited feed 

strategy leads to increased production of fusicocca-2,10(14)-diene by Saccharomyces cerevisiae. AMB 

Express, 8(132), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13568-018-0662-8 

Hamman, W., Seames, W., & Ross, A. (2018). Carbohydrate extraction from the Chlorella vulgaris microalgae. 

In Essential Studies UNDergraduate Showcase. University of North Dakota (UND)-Essentail Studies 

Program. https://commons.und.edu/es-showcase/11 

Hassan, S. A. M., Ahmad, M. S., Samat, A. F., Zakaria, N. Z. I., Sohaimi, K. S. A., & Nordin, N. (2018). 

Comparison of glucose yield from rubberwood sawdust (RSD), growth medium (GM), and mushroom 

spent medium (MSM) under different sodium hydroxide pretreatment techniques. MATEC Web of 

Conferences [MUTEC 2017], 150(06023), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1051/matecconf/201815006023 

Hu, H., Teng, X., Zhang, S., Liu, T., Li, X., & Wang, D. (2021). Structural characteristics, rheological 

properties, and antioxidant activity of novel polysaccharides from “deer tripe mushroom.” Journal of Food 

Quality, 2021(6593293), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/6593293 

Huo, S., Wang, H., Chen, J., Hu, X., Zan, X., Zhang, C., Qian, J., Zhu, F., Ma, H., & Elshobary, M. (2022). A 

preliminary study on polysaccharide extraction, purification, and antioxidant properties of sugar-rich 

filamentous microalgae Tribonema minus. 7th Congress of the International Society for Applied 

Phycology (ISAP 2020-2021), 34, 2755–2767. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10811-021-02630-w 

Ibrahim, M. F., Kim, S. W., & Abd-Aziz, S. (2018). Advanced bioprocessing for biobutanol production from 

biomass. Biofermentation, 1–43. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364032118302545 

ILO. (2020). Carbohydrates of biological importance (pp. 9–26). Cairo University. 

https://medicine.cu.edu.eg/images/stories/docs/deparments/biochem/002Carbohydrate_chemistry.pdf 

Inyang, V., Laseinde, O. T., & Kanakana, G. M. (2022). Techniques and applications of lignocellulose biomass 

sources as transport fuels and other bioproducts. International Journal of Low-Carbon Technologies, 17, 

900–909. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijlct/ctac068 

Jamil, N. M., & Wang, Q. (2016). Numerical prediction of kinetic model for enzymatic hydrolysis of cellulose 

using DAE- QMOM approach. IOP Conference SeriesL Earth and Environmental Science-International 

Conference on Chemical Engineering and Bioprocess Engineering, 36(012035), 1–6. 

https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/36/1/012035 

Jarunglumlert, T., & Prommuak, C. (2021). Net energy analysis and techno-economic assessment of co-

production of bioethanol and biogas from cellulosic biomass. Fermentation, 7(229), 1–22. 

https://doi.org/10.3390/fermentation7040229 

Jayasekara, S., & Ratnayake, R. (2019). Microbial cellulases: An overview and applications. In A. R. Pascual & 

M. E. E. Martin (Eds.), Cellulose. IntechOpen. https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.84531 

https://www.jescae.com/index.php/gssr/gssr


Global Sustainability Research 

Global Scientific Research   119 
 

Jeoh, T., Cardona, M. J., Karuna, N., Mudinoor, A. R., & Nill, J. (2017). Mechanistic kinetic models of 

enzymatic cellulose hydrolysis-A review. Biotechnology Bioengineering, 114(7), 1369–1385. 

https://doi.org/10.1002/bit.26277 

Johns, S. (2021). Biomolecules of organic dehydration synthesis process and its composition. Macromolecules: 

An Indian Journal, 14(1), 1–2. www.tsijournals.com 

Jones, J. A. D., Kerr, R. G., Haltli, B. A., & Tinto, W. F. (2018). Temperature and pH effect on glucose 

production from pretreated bagasse by a novel species of Citrobacter and other bacteria. Heliyon, 4(6). 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2018.e00657 

Kadhum, H. J., Mahapatra, D. M., & Murthy, G. S. (2019). A comparative account of glucose yields and 

bioethanol production from separate and simultaneous saccharification and fermentation processes at high 

solids loading with variable PEG concentration. Bioresource Technology, 283, 67–75. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2019.03.060 

Kanagasabai, M., Maruthai, K., & Thangavelu, V. (2019). Simultaneous saccharification and fermentation and 

factors influencing ethanol production in SSF process. In Y. Yun (Ed.), Alcohol Fuels-Current 

Technologies anf Future Prospects. IntechOpen. https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.86480 

Katarzyna, Ś., Gaag, S., Klier, A., Kruse, A., Sauer, J., & Steinbach, D. (2020). Acid hydrolysis of 

lignocellulosic biomass: Sugars and furfurals formation. Catalysts, 10(437), 1–18. 

https://doi.org/10.3390/catal10040437 

Kim, Y. H. B., Ma, D., Setyabrata, D., Farouk, M. M., Lonergan, S. M., Huff-lonergan, E., & Hunt, M. C. 

(2018). Understanding postmortem biochemical processes and post-harvest aging factors to develop novel 

smart-aging strategies (pp. 1–61). Department of Animal Sciences, Purdue University. 

http://www.elsevier.com/open-access/userlicense/1.0/ 

Kiran, E. U., & Trzcinski, A. P. (2017). Optimizing the conversion of food waste to sugars using fungal 

enzymes. EC Microbiology, 8(3), 98–112. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320215895 

Kiš, F., Maravić, N., Kertész, S., & Šereš, Z. (2019). Life cycle assessment of liquid inverted sugar and high-

fructose corn syrup. Analecta Technica Szegedinensia, 13(1), 28–39. 

https://doi.org/10.14232/analecta.2019.1.28-39 

Kresnowati, M. T. A. P., Gunawan, A. Y., & Muliyadini, W. (2015). Kinetics model development of cocoa 

bean fermentation. AIP Conference Proceedings-International Conference of Chemical and Material 

Engineering (ICCME 2015): Green Technology for Sustainable Chemical Products and Processes, 

1699(030004). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4938289 

Kumar, D., Gangwar, N., Rathore, A. S., & Ramteke, M. (2022). Multi-objective optimization of monoclonal 

antibody production in bioreactor. Chemical Engineering and Processing-Process Intensification, 

180(108720). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cep.2021.108720 

Kuo, P.-C., & Yu, J. (2020). Process simulation and techno-economic analysis for production of industrial 

sugars from lignocellulosic biomass (pp. 1–41). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2020.112783 

Lai, J., Yahya, S. S. M., Nor, N. M., & Sulong, M. R. (2016). Enzymatic saccharification on ammonia pre-

treated oil palm trunk biomass for glucose production: An optimization using response surface 

methodology. Malaysian Journal of Analytical Science, 20(1), 21–30. https://doi.org/10.17576/mjas-2016-

2001-03 

Lamidi, S., Olaleye, N., Bankole, Y., Obalola, A., Aribike, E., & Adigun, I. (2022). Application of response 

surface methodology (RSM) in product design, development, and process optimization. In P. 

Kayarogannam (Ed.), Response Surface Methodology. IntechOpen. 

https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.106763 

https://www.jescae.com/index.php/gssr/gssr


Global Sustainability Research 

Global Scientific Research   120 
 

Lee, S. H., Lee, S., Lee, S.-M., Cha, J., Lee, H. S., & Kang, S. G. (2023). Biohydrogen production from food 

waste using glucose-Adapted hyperthermophilic archaeon. Waste and Biomass Valorization, 1–8. 

https://doi.org/10.1007/s12649-023-02049-z 

Li, X., Mettu, S., Martin, G. J. O., Ashokkumar, M., & Lin, C. S. K. (2019). Ultrasonic pretreatment of food 

waste to accelerate enzymatic hydrolysis for glucose production. Ultrasonics Sonochemistry, 53, 77–82. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ultsonch.2018.12.035 

Lips, D. (2021). Fuelling the future of sustainable sugar fermentation across generations. Engineering Biology, 

6(1), 3–16. https://doi.org/10.1049/enb2.12017 

Lv, Y., Chen, Z., Wang, H., Xiao, Y., Ling, R., Gong, M., & Wei, W. (2022). Enhancement of glucose 

production from sugarcane bagasse through an HCl-catalyzed ethylene glycol pretreatment and Tween 80. 

Renewable Energy, 194, 495–503. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2022.05.108 

Malakar, B., Das, D., & Mohanty, K. (2020). Optimization of glucose yield from potato and sweet lime peel 

waste through different pre-treatment techniques along with enzyme assisted hydrolysis towards liquid 

biofuel. Renewable Energy, 145, 2723–2732. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2019.08.037 

Mendoza-Meneses, C. J., Feregrino-Perez, A. A., & Gutierrez-Antonio, C. (2021). Potential use of industrial 

cocoa waste in biofuel production. Journal of Chemistry, 2021(33880671). 

https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/3388067 

Mondal, S. (2018). Biomolecules Definition. In Lecture Notes: Biochemistry-II (BP 203T) (pp. 1–18). GITAM, 

Deemed to be University. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.20736.74241 

Moreira, A., Moraes, L. A. C., de Aquino, G. S., & Heinrichs, R. (2019). Biofuel production from sugarcane: 

Various routes of harvesting energy from the crop. In M. T. Khan & I. A. Khan (Eds.), Sugarcane 

biofuels: Status, potential, and Prospects of the sweet crop to fuel the world (pp. 21–38). Springer Nature 

Switzerland AG. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-18597-8 

Muhammad, M. Z. R., Ng, Z. W., Putranto, A., Kong, Z. Y., Sunarso, J., Aziz, M., Zein, S. H., Giwangkara, J., 

& Butar, I. (2022). Process design, simulation, and techno-economic analysis of integrated production of 

furfural and glucose derived from empty fruit bunches. Research Square, 1–25. 

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-1443862/v1 

Murzin, D. Y., Wärnå, J., Haario, H., & Salmi, T. (2021). Parameter estimation in kinetic models of complex 

heterogeneous catalytic reactions using Bayesian statistics. Reaction Kinetics, Mechanisms and Catalysis, 

1–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11144-021-01974-1 

Nam, K. H. (2022). Glucose isomerase: Functions, structures, and applications. Applied Sciences, 12(428), 1–

12. https://doi.org/10.3390/appl2010428 

Ng, Z. W., Gan, H. X., Putranto, A., Rhamdhani, M. A., Zein, S. H., George, O. A., Giwangkara, J., & Butar, I. 

(2022). Process design and life cycle assessment of furfural and glucose co‑production derived from palm 

oil empty fruit bunches. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 1–22. 

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-022-02633-8 

Nguyen, H. S. H., Heinonen, J., & Sainio, T. (2018). Acid hydrolysis of glycosidic bonds in oat β-glucan and 

development of a structured kinetic model. AIChE Journal, 64(7), 2570–2580. 

https://doi.org/10.1002/aic.16147 

Nwankwo, P. O., & Ukpabi, J. U. (2018). Biochemical composition and glucose syrup production potential of 

elite yam varieties from Benue state, Nigeria. International Journal of Biochemistry & Physiology, 3(5), 

1–6. https://doi.org/10.23880/ijbp-16000142 

Okonkwo, C. C., Duduyemi, A., Ujor, V. C., Atiyeh, H. K., Illoba, I., Qureshi, N., & Ezeji, T. C. (2022). From 

agricultural wastes to fermentation nutrients: A case study of 2, 3-butanediol production. Fermentation, 

https://www.jescae.com/index.php/gssr/gssr


Global Sustainability Research 

Global Scientific Research   121 
 

9(1). https://doi.org/10.3390/fermentation9010036 

Onyelucheya, O. E., Uzoh, B. N., Obijiaku, J. C., & Martin, R. E. (2022). Acid hydrolysis of corn cob to 

glucose: A kinetic study. International Journal of Engineering Applied Sciences and Technology 

(IJEAST), 7(4), 31–44. http://www.ijeast.com 

Osman, A. I., Mehta, N., Elgarahy, A. M., Al-Hinai, A., Al-Muhtaseb, A. H., & Rooney, D. W. (2021). 

Conversion of biomass to biofuels and life cycle assessment: A review. Environmental Chemistry Letters, 

1–45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10311-021-01273-0 

Ou, L., Dou, C., Yu, J.-H., Kim, H., Park, Y.-C., Park, S., Kelley, S., & Lee, E. Y. (2020). Techno-economic 

analysis of sugar production from lignocellulosic biomass with utilization of hemicellulose and lignin for 

high-value co-products. Biofuels, Bioproducts and Biorefining, 15(2), 404–415. 

https://doi.org/10.1002/bbb.2170 

Oyola-Rivera, O., Gonzalez-Rosario, A. M., & Cardona-Martinez, N. (2018). Catalytic production of sugars 

and lignin from agricultural residues using dilute sulfuric acid in Y-valerolactone. Biomass and Bioenergy, 

119, 284–292. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2018.09.031 

Panda, A., & Datta, S. (2022). Integrated rate expression for the production of glucose equivalent in C4 green 

plant and the effect of temperature. Journal of Chemistry and Science, 119(5), 449–456. 

https://www.ias.ac.in/articke/fulltext/jcsc/119/05/0449-0456 

Parker, J. (2020). Glucose metabolism, energy production and regulation of cellular and whole-body 

metabolism. Journal of Australian College of Nutritional and Environmental Medicine, 39(1), 29–33. 

10.1128/jb.115.3.937-942.1973 

Patane, A., Jansen, G., Conca, P., Carapezza, G., Costanza, J., & Nicosia, G. (2019). Multi-objective 

optimization of genome-scale metabolic models: The case of ethanol production. Annals of Operation 

Research, 276, 211–227. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-018-2865-4 

Pereira, L. M. S., Milan, T. M., & Tapia-Blacido, D. R. (2021). Using response surface methodology (RSM) to 

optimize 2G bioethanol production: A review. Biomass and Bioenergy, 151(106166), 1–56. 

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0961953421002026 

Premjet, D., Wongleang, S., & Premjet, S. (2022). Enhancing glucose recovery from Hibiscus cannabinus L. 

through phosphoric acid pretreatment. In M. F. Ibrahim, S. Abd-Aziz, & J. Idris (Eds.), Energies (Vol. 15, 

Issue 7573, pp. 1–15). Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (MDPI). 

https://doi.org/10.3390/en15207573 

Prithviraj, S. R., Nitesh, K. I., Niranjan, C., Praveen, R., & Ahmed, M. R. (2020). Technological advances in 

agriculture from pre-processing of land management to post-harvest management: A critical review. 

International Journal of Advance Science and Technology, 29(10S), 3055–3067. 

Ramos, P. A., Lytle, K. A., Delivanis, D., Nielsen, S., LeBrasseur, N. K., & Jensen, M. D. (2021). Insulin-

stimulated muscle glucose uptake and insulin signaling in lean and obese humans. The Journal of Clinical 

Endocrinology & Metabolism (JCEM), 106(4), 1631–1646. https://doi.org/10.1210/clinem/dgaa919 

Rationalized. (2023). Biomolecules. In Chemistry (pp. 280–302). NCERT. 

Recek, N., Zhou, R., Zhou, R., Te’o, V. S. J., Speight, R. E., Mozetic, M., Vesel, A., Cvelbar, U., Bazaka, K., & 

Ostrikov, K. K. (2018). Improved fermentation efficiency of S. cerevisiae by changing glycolytic 

metabolic pathways with plasma agitation. Science Reports, 8(8252), 1–13. 

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-26227-5 

Remesar, X., & Alemany, M. (2020). Dietary energy partition: The central role of glucose. International 

Journal of Molecular Sciences, 21(7729), 1–38. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms21207729 

Riaukaite, J., Basinskiene, L., & Syrpas, M. (2019). Bioconversion of waste bread to glucose fructose syrup as a 

https://www.jescae.com/index.php/gssr/gssr


Global Sustainability Research 

Global Scientific Research   122 
 

value-added product. FOODBALT, 120–124. https://doi.org/10.22616/FoodBalt.2019.015 

Richter, L. R., Albert, B. I., Zhang, L., Ostropolets, A., Zitsman, J. L., Fennoy, I., Albers, D. J., & Hripcsak, G. 

(2022). Data assimilation on mechanistic models of glucose metabolism predicts glycemic states in 

adolescents following bariatric surgery. In C. D. Behn, J. R. Ryder, R. Ding, & S. Singh (Eds.), Frontiers 

in Biology (pp. 1–20). https://doi.org/10.4489/fphys.2022.923704 

Rocha, R. A., Speight, R. E., & Scott, C. (2022). Engineering enzyme properties for improved biocatalytic 

processes in batch and continuous flow. Organic Process Research and Development, 26(7), 1914–1924. 

https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.oprd.1c00424 

Roslan, N. S. H. C., & Salimi, M. N. (2019). Glucose production from sugarcane bagasse by two stages 

chemical pretreatment & hydrolysis. 1st International Conference Functional and Engineering Materials 

[FEM 2019], 743(012037), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/743/1/012037 

Ruiz, C. A. S., Baca, S. Z., vab den Broek, L. A. M., van den Berg, C., Wijffels, R. H., & Eppink, M. H. M. 

(2020). Selective fractionation of free glucose and starch from microalgae using aqueous two-phase 

systems. Algal Research, 46(101801), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.algal.2020.101801 

Ryan, N., & Yaseneva, P. (2021). A critical review of life cycle assessment studies of woody biomass 

conversion to sugars. Philosophical Transactions A, 379(20200335), 1–17. 

https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2020.0335 

Salazar, Y., Valle, P. A., Rodriguez, E., Soto-Cruz, N., Peaez-Lerma, J. B., & Reyes-Sanchez, F. J. (2023). 

Mechanistic modelling of biomass growth, glucose consumption and ethanol production by 

Kluyveromyces marxianus in batch fermentation. Entropy, 25(497), 1–36. 

https://doi.org/10.3390/e25030497 

Salim, I., Gonzalez-Garcia, S., Feijoo, G., & Moreira, M. T. (2019). Assessing the environmental sustainability 

of glucose from wheat as a fermentation feedstock. Journal of Environmental Management, 247, 323–332. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.06.46 

Salim, I., González-García, S., Feijoo, G., & Moreira, M. T. (2019). Assessing the environmental sustainability 

of glucose from wheat as a fermentation feedstock. Journal of Environmental Management, 6(16), 1–20. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.06.016 

Salmi, T., Tirronen, E., Mikkola, J.-P., Murzin, D., & Eta, V. (2020). A robust method for the estimation of 

kinetic parameters for systems including slow and rapid reactions—From differential-algebraic model to 

differential model. Processes, 8(1552), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr8121552 

Sant, B., Qu, E., Federal, U., Rolfs, P. H., Universit, C., Doutorado, R., Qu, E., Federal, U., Rolfs, P. H., & 

Universit, C. (2021). Optimization and technical-economic analysis of the production of 5- 

hydroxymethylfurfural from glucose. Brazilian Journal of Development (BJD), 7(12), 120240–120262. 

https://doi.org/10.34117/bjdv7n12-677 

Schiano, E., Maisto, M., Piccolo, V., Novellino, E., Annunziata, G., Ciampaglia, R., Montesano, C., Croce, M., 

Caruso, G., Iannuzzo, F., Summa, V., & Tenore, G. C. (2022). Beneficial contribution to glucose 

homeostasis by an agro-food waste product rich in abscisic acid: Results from a randomized controlled 

trial. Foods, 11(17). https://doi.org/10.3390/foods11172637 

Seddiqi, H., Oliaei, E., Honarkar, H., Jin, J., Geonzon, L. C., Bacabac, R. G., & Klein-Nulend, J. (2021). 

Cellulose and its derivatives: Towards biomedical applications. Cellulose, 28, 1893–1931. 

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10570-020-03674-w 

Selivanov, E., Cudlin, P., & Horacek, P. (2023). Carbon neutrality of forest biomass for bioenergy: A scoping 

review. IForest-Biogeosciences and Forestry, 16(2), 70–77. https://doi.org/10.3832/ifor4160-015 

Shatalov, M. Y., Fedotov, S. I., & Shatalov, Y. M. (2013). New methods of determination of kinetic parameters 

https://www.jescae.com/index.php/gssr/gssr


Global Sustainability Research 

Global Scientific Research   123 
 

of theoretical models from experimental data. Theoretical Foundation, 47(3). 

https://doi.org/10.1134/S0040579513020097 

Shim, H. J., Kim, D., Yamanaka, M., & Pyeon, C. H. (2020). Estimation of kinetics parameters by Monte Carlo 

fixed-source calculations for point kinetic analysis of accelerator-driven system. Journal of Nuclear 

Science and Technology, 57(2), 177–186. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223131.2019.1699188 

Shirin, A., Rossa, F. Della, Klickstein, I., Russell, J., & Sorrentino, F. (2019). Optimal regulation of blood 

glucose level in Type I diabetes using insulin and glucagon. PLoS ONE, 14(3), 1–23. 

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0213665 

Shokrkar, H., & Ebrahimi, S. (2021). Kinetic modeling of enzymatic hydrolysis of cellulosic material. Research 

Square, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-413976/v1 

Shukla, A., Kumar, D., Girdhar, M., Kumar, A., Goyal, A., Malik, T., & Mohan, A. (2023). Strategies of 

pretreatment of feedstocks for optimized bioethanol production: Distinct and integrated approaches. 

Biotechnology for Biofuels and Bioproducts, 16(44). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13068-023-02295-2 

Simpson, I. K., Owusu, F. W. A., Boakye-Gyasi, M. E., Entsie, P., Bayor, M. T., & Ofori-Kwakye, K. (2022). 

Pharmaceutical applications of glucose syrup from high quality cassava flour in oral liquid formulations. 

International Journal of Food Science, 2022(6869122), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/6869122 

Singh, S., Sithole, B., Lekha, P., Permaul, K., & Govinden, R. (2021). Optimization of cultivation medium and 

cyclic fed ‑ batch fermentation strategy for enhanced polyhydroxyalkanoate production by Bacillus 

thuringiensis using a glucose ‑ rich hydrolyzate. Bioresources and Bioprocessing, 8(11), 1–17. 

https://doi.org/10.1186/s40643-021-00361-x 

Smachetti, M. E. S., Rizza, L. S., Coronel, C. D., Nascimento, M. Do, & Curatti, L. (2018). Microalgal biomass 

as an alternative source of sugars for the production of bioethanol. Scrivener Publishing LLC. 

https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119460381.ch16 

Sodiqovna, O. M. (2020). The rate of a chemical reaction and factors affecting it. EPRA International Journal 

of Research and Development (IJRD), 5(8), 261–263. https://doi.org/10.36713/epra2016 

Sood, A., Gupta, A., & Agrawal, G. (2021). Recent advances in polysaccharides based biomaterials for drug 

delivery and tissue engineering applications. Carbohydrate Polymer Technologies and Applications, 

2(100067). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carpta.2021.100067 

Swiatek, K., Gaag, S., Klier, A., Kruse, A., Sauer, J., & Steinbach, D. (2020). Acid hydrolysis of lignocellulosic 

biomass: Sugars and furfurals formation. Catalysts, 10(437), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.3390/catal10040437 

Tagougui, S., Taleb, N., & Rabasa-Lhoret, R. (2018). The benefits and limits of technological advances in 

glucose management around physical activity in patients Type 1 diabetes. Frontiers in Endocrinology, 

9(818). https://doi.org/10.3389/fendo.2018.00818 

Teleky, B.-E., Martau, G. A., & Vodnar, D. C. (2020). Physicochemical effects of Lactobacillus plantarum and 

Lactobacillus casei cocultures on soy-wheat flour dough fermentation. Foods, 9(1894), 1–13. 

https://doi.org/10.3390/foods9121894 

Toif, M., Hidayat, M., Rochmadi, R., & Budiman, A. (2021). Reaction kinetics of levulinic acid synthesis from 

glucose using bromsted acid catalyst. Bulletin of Chemical Reaction Engineering & Catalysis, 16(4), 904–

915. https://doi.org/10.9767/bcrec.16.4.12197.904-915 

Tsai, T.-Y., Lo, Y.-C., Dong, C.-D., Nagarajan, D., Chang, J.-S., & Lee, D.-J. (2020). Biobutanol production 

from lignocellulosic biomass using immobilized Clostridium acetobutylicum. Applied Energy, 

277(115531). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2020.115531 

Tse, T. J., Wiens, D. J., & Reaney, M. J. T. (2021). Production of bioethanol-A review of factors affecting 

ethanol yield. Fermentation, 7(268), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.3390/fermentation7040268 

https://www.jescae.com/index.php/gssr/gssr


Global Sustainability Research 

Global Scientific Research   124 
 

Turini, C. da S., Nogueira, R. M., Pires, E. M., & Agostini, J. da S. (2021). Enzymatic hydrolysis of 

carbohydrates in by-products of processed rice. Ciência Rural, Santa Maria, 51(11), 1–9. 

https://doi.org/10.1590/0103-8478cr20200522 

Uchegbu, N. N., Ude, C. N., Okoyeuzu, C. F., Nwadi, O. M. M., Rasaq, W. A., Ogbonna, C. U., Hossaini, S. 

M., & Okpala, C. O. R. (2022). Optimisation of enzymatic fermented glucose production of wild cocoyam 

starch using response surface methodology. Global NEST Journal, 24(3), 351–361. 

https://doi.org/10.30955/gnj.003927 

Ude, M. U., Oluka, I., & Eze, P. C. (2020). Optimization and kinetics of glucose production via enzymatic 

hydrolysis of mixed peels. Journal of Bioresources and Bioproducts, 5, 283–290. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobab.2020.10.007 

Weiss, N. D., Felby, C., & Thygesen, L. G. (2019). Enzymatic hydrolysis is limited by biomass – water 

interactions at high‑solids: Improved performance through substrate modifications. Biotechnology for 

Biofuels, 12(3), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13068-018-1339-x 

Yang, J., Cai, D., Liu, X., Zhu, L., Zhang, C., Peng, Q., Han, Y., Liu, G., & Yang, M. (2023). Glucose 

conversion for biobutanol production from fresh Chlorella sorokiniana via direct enzymatic Hydrolysis. 

Fermentation, 9(284), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.3390/fermentation9030284 

Yassien, M. A. M., & Jiman-Fatani, A. A. M. (2023). Optimization of glucose isomerase production by 

Streptomyces albaduncus. African Journal of Microbiology Research, 6(12), 2976–2984. 

https://doi.org/10.5897/AJMR12.016 

Yu, D., Johan, M., Heikki, W., & Tapio, H. (2021). Parameter estimation in kinetic models of complex 

heterogeneous catalytic reactions using Bayesian statistics. Reaction Kinetics, Mechanisms and Catalysis, 

133(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11144-021-01974-1 

Yu, D., O’Hair, J., Poe, N., Jin, Q., Pinton, S., He, Y., & Huang, H. (2022). Conversion of food waste into 2,3-

butanediol via thermophilic fermentation: Effects of carbohydrate content and nutrient supplementation. 

Foods, 11(2). https://doi.org/10.2290/foods11020169 

Yuan, Q., Liu, S., Ma, M.-G., Ji, X.-X., Choi, S.-E., & Si, C. (2021). The kinetics studies on hydrolysis of 

hemicellulose. Frontiers in Chemistry, 9(781291), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fchem.2021.781291 

Zahonyi, P., Szabo, E., Domokos, A., Haraszti, A., Gyurkes, M., Moharos, E., & Nagy, Z. K. (2022). Continuous 

integrated production of glucose granules with enhanced flowability and tabletability. International Journal of 

Pharmaceutics, 626(122197), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpharm.2022.122197 

Zhang, C., Kang, X., Wang, F., Tian, Y., Liu, T., Su, Y., Qian, T., & Zhang, Y. (2020). Valorization of food waste for cost-

effective reducing sugar recovery in a two-stage enzymatic hydrolysis platform. Energy, 208(118379). 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2020.118379 

Zhang, P., & Sutheerawattananonda, M. (2020). Kinetic models for glucosamine production by acid hydrolysis of chitin in 

five mushrooms. International Journal of Chemical Engineering, 2020(5084036), 1–8. 

https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/5084036 

Zhang, W., Diao, C., & Wang, L. (2023). Degradation of lignin in different lignocellulosic biomass by steam explosion 

combined with microbial consortium treatment. Biotechnology for Biofuels and Bioproducts, 16(55), 1–15. 

https://doi.org/10.1186/s13068-023-02306-2 

Zhou, S., Zhang, M., Zhu, L., Zhao, X., Chen, J., Chen, W., & Chang, C. (2023). Hydrolysis of lignocellulose to succinic 

acid: A review of treatment methods and succinic acid applications. Biotechnology for Biofuels and Bioproducts, 

16(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13068-022-02244-5 

Zhu, J. Y., & Pan, X. (2022). Efficient sugar production from plant biomass: Current status, challenges, and future 

directions. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 164(112583), 1–23. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2022.112583 

 

https://www.jescae.com/index.php/gssr/gssr

