Figures (6)  Tables (3)

    • Figure 1. 

      PHAs production from sugar based feedstocks.

    • Figure 2. 

      Different types of pre-treatment of lignocellulosic biomass.

    • Figure 3. 

      Primary bottlenecks in PHAs production from sugar rich feedstocks.

    • Figure 4. 

      Advantages of sugar based feedstocks for PHAs production.

    • Figure 5. 

      Circular route of PHAs bioplastic production from sugar based feedstocks and its applications.

    • Figure 6. 

      Sugars based feedstock to smart materials.

    • By-product Concentration of
      raw material      		 Initial treatment of raw material Microbe utilized with
      inoculum concentration      		 PHAs yield (%) Ref.
      Molasses 80 g/L Acidic treatment Cupriavidus necator 11599 75.64 [35]
      Molasses 2−10 Not mentioned Enterobacter sp. SEL2 47.4−92.1 [36]
      Cane molasses + ammonium sulphate 20 g/L Not mentioned Bacillus megaterium BA-019 49.9−55.5 [73]
      Cane molasses + urea 20 g/L Not mentioned Bacillus megaterium BA-019 49.9–55.5 [73]
      Molasses 1% Alkaline/acidic pre-treatment; Hydrothermal pre-treatment Cupriavidus necator (DSM 545 strain); 40 mL 27.20 [75]
      Molasses Not mentioned Not mentioned Bacillus subtilis 62.2 [77]
      Molasses Not mentioned Not mentioned Escherichia coli 58.7 [77]
      Molasses 2%−10%
      (at even intervals)      		 Sulfuric acid treatment and Tricalcium phosphate treatment B. subtilis (2 mL) 21.09−54.1 [77]
      Molasses 2–10 Tricalcium phosphate treatment B. subtilis (2 mL) 21.1−54.1 [77]
      Molasses 2−10 Tricalcium phosphate treatment E. coli 21.1−54.1 [77]
      Molasses 0−8 Acidic treatment Enterobacter cloacae 36.0–51.8 [78]
      Molasses − Acidic treatment Enterobacter cloacae (2–16) 44.2–53.7 [78]
      Molasses 2−10 Not mentioned Bacillus cereus SPV 61.1 [82]
      Molasses + corn steep liquor 2%−5% Not mentioned Bacillus megaterium 18.3−49.12 [87]
      Molasses + corn steep liquor 4 or
      1%−6%, 0%−6%      		 Pretreated with activated
      charcoal (1:1) for 2 h      		 Bacillus megaterium ATCC 6748 35 [93]
      Molasses + corn steep liquor 4% (w/w); 4% (v/v) 43
      Molasses 1% Not mentioned Bacillus thuringiensis IAM12077 23.81 [95]
      Bagasse 1% Bacillus thuringiensis IAM12077 9.68 [95]
      Molasses 10 and 40.0 g/L Acidic treatment Pseudomonases aregunoisa NCIM No. 2948 62.44 [96]
      Molasses − Sulfuric acid treatment Bacillus thurigenisis HA1 61.6 [97]
      − − Cupriavidus necator DSM 428 24.33 [98]
      − − Mixed microbial culture 57.5 [99]
      Molasses 0.0–0.5 g/L Not mentioned Alcaligenes eutrophus DSM 545 18–26 [100]
      Molasses 2–10 Not mentioned Bacillus flexus strain AZU-A2 88.0 [101]

      Table 1. 

      Production of PHAs from sugarcane by-products.

    • By-product Concentration of
      raw material      		 Initial treatment of
      raw material      		 Microbe utilized with inoculum concentration PHA yield (%) Ref.
      Beet molasses 40% Acid and enzymatic
      hydrolysis      		 Cupriavidus necator B-10646 wild strain 80 [37]
      Beet molasses 5% w/v Not mentioned Azotobacter cinelandii UWD 75–85 [88]
      Beet juice 1 L Not mentioned Alcaligenes latus (ATCC 29714) 38.66 [103]
      Cane molasses + beet molasses 3% Not mentioned Bacillus megaterium strain L9 41 [105]
      Beet molasses + sugar beet waste water 1%–15%
      (with odd intervals)      		 Not mentioned Bacillus megaterium AUMC b 272 27.20–32.92 [106]
      Beet molasses 5% w/v Not mentioned Azotobacter vinelandii UWD (4% w/v) 65–73 [107]
      Sugar beet pulp 6% Recombinant endoglucanase (rCKT3eng) Haloarcula sp. TG1 17.8 [108]
      Pressed sugar beet pulp Not mentioned Acidification Pseudomonas citronellolis 38 [109]
      Pseudomonas putida KT2440 31

      Table 2. 

      Production of PHAs from sugar beet by-products.

    • Other sugar rich feedstocks Concentration/weight of
      raw material      		 Initial treatment of
      raw material      		 Microbe utilized with inoculum concentration PHA yield (%) Ref.
      Hydrolyzed citrus pulp Not mentioned Dilute acid hydrolysis Bacillus sp. strain COL1/A6 54.6 [2]
      Corn cob hydrolyzate 0.2, 0.5, and 1 g Acid hydrolysis Bacillus spp. BM 37 36.16 [119]
      Apple pulp waste 1:3 v/v deionized water Not mentioned Pseudomonas citronellolis NRRL B-2504 30 [123]
      Apple pulp waste 1:3 v/v deionized water Not mentioned Co-culture of Cupriavidus necator DSM 428 and Pseudomonas citronellolis NRRL B-2504 52 [124]
      Apple pulp waste 1:3 v/v deionized water Not mentioned Co-culture of Cupriavidus necator DSM 428 and Pseudomonas citronellolis NRRL B-2504 48 [124]
      Banana peels 20 g Not mentioned Zobellella sp. DD5 34.38 [125]
      Corn oil waste 20–50 mg Acidic treatment Pseudomonas sp. strain DR2 Up to 37.34 [126]
      Coir pith 3% Hydrolysis Azotobacter beijerinickii 48.9 [127]
      Ground orange juicing waste 10 mL Gas chromatography Cupriavidus necator H16 73 [128]
      Jackfruit seed hydrolysate 0.2 mL Enzymatic hydrolysis Bacillus sphaericus NCIM 5149 49 [129]
      Oil palm empty fruit bunch Not mentioned Enzymatic hydrolysis B. megaterium R11 51.6 [130]
      Apricots 10 g Enzymatic hydrolysis Pseudomonas resinovorans 1.4 [131]

      Table 3. 

      Comparison of PHAs yield through different sugar rich feedstocks utilizing various microbial strains.