<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD Journal Publishing DTD v3.0 20080202//EN" "http://dtd.nlm.nih.gov/publishing/3.0/journalpublishing3.dtd">
<article xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" dtd-version="3.0" xml:lang="en" article-type="research article">
 <front>
  <journal-meta>
   <journal-id journal-id-type="publisher-id">
    gsc
   </journal-id>
   <journal-title-group>
    <journal-title>
     Green and Sustainable Chemistry
    </journal-title>
   </journal-title-group>
   <issn pub-type="epub">
    2160-6951
   </issn>
   <issn publication-format="print">
    2160-696X
   </issn>
   <publisher>
    <publisher-name>
     Scientific Research Publishing
    </publisher-name>
   </publisher>
  </journal-meta>
  <article-meta>
   <article-id pub-id-type="doi">
    10.4236/gsc.2025.154007
   </article-id>
   <article-id pub-id-type="publisher-id">
    gsc-146957
   </article-id>
   <article-categories>
    <subj-group subj-group-type="heading">
     <subject>
      Articles
     </subject>
    </subj-group>
    <subj-group subj-group-type="Discipline-v2">
     <subject>
      Chemistry 
     </subject>
     <subject>
       Materials Science
     </subject>
    </subj-group>
   </article-categories>
   <title-group>
    High-Yield Bioethanol Production from Unfit Oranges for Consumption
   </title-group>
   <contrib-group>
    <contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple">
     <name name-style="western">
      <surname>
       Kosi Mawuéna
      </surname>
      <given-names>
       Novidzro
      </given-names>
     </name> 
     <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"> 
      <sup>1</sup>
     </xref> 
     <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff2"> 
      <sup>2</sup>
     </xref>
    </contrib>
    <contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple">
     <name name-style="western">
      <surname>
       Gnimdou Issanga
      </surname>
      <given-names>
       Abli
      </given-names>
     </name> 
     <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"> 
      <sup>1</sup>
     </xref> 
     <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff3"> 
      <sup>3</sup>
     </xref>
    </contrib>
    <contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple">
     <name name-style="western">
      <surname>
       Sassou
      </surname>
      <given-names>
       Megnassan
      </given-names>
     </name> 
     <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff3"> 
      <sup>3</sup>
     </xref> 
     <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff4"> 
      <sup>4</sup>
     </xref>
    </contrib>
    <contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple">
     <name name-style="western">
      <surname>
       Kossi Honoré
      </surname>
      <given-names>
       Koumaglo
      </given-names>
     </name> 
     <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"> 
      <sup>1</sup>
     </xref>
    </contrib>
   </contrib-group> 
   <aff id="aff1">
    <addr-line>
     aLaboratory of Process Engineering and Natural Resources (LAGEPREN), University of Lomé, Lomé, Togo
    </addr-line> 
   </aff> 
   <aff id="aff2">
    <addr-line>
     aDepartment of Chemistry, Faculty of Sciences, University of Lomé, Lomé, Togo
    </addr-line> 
   </aff> 
   <aff id="aff3">
    <addr-line>
     aLaboratory of Organic Chemistry and Environmental Sciences (LaCOSE), Kara, Togo
    </addr-line> 
   </aff> 
   <aff id="aff4">
    <addr-line>
     aDepartment of Chemistry, Faculty of Sciences and Techniques, University of Kara, Kara, Togo
    </addr-line> 
   </aff> 
   <pub-date pub-type="epub">
    <day>
     03
    </day> 
    <month>
     11
    </month>
    <year>
     2025
    </year>
   </pub-date> 
   <volume>
    15
   </volume> 
   <issue>
    04
   </issue>
   <fpage>
    99
   </fpage>
   <lpage>
    121
   </lpage>
   <history>
    <date date-type="received">
     <day>
      23,
     </day>
     <month>
      September
     </month>
     <year>
      2025
     </year>
    </date>
    <date date-type="published">
     <day>
      1,
     </day>
     <month>
      September
     </month>
     <year>
      2025
     </year> 
    </date> 
    <date date-type="accepted">
     <day>
      1,
     </day>
     <month>
      November
     </month>
     <year>
      2025
     </year> 
    </date>
   </history>
   <permissions>
    <copyright-statement>
     © Copyright 2014 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc. 
    </copyright-statement>
    <copyright-year>
     2014
    </copyright-year>
    <license>
     <license-p>
      This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution International License (CC BY). http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
     </license-p>
    </license>
   </permissions>
   <abstract>
    With their very high fermentable sugar content, rotten oranges stand out as one of the raw materials of choice to maximize bioethanol production. This work was deliberately aimed to evaluate the efficiency of the technology for producing bioethanol from musts prepared from rotten oranges. To achieve this goal, four types of musts (16 ˚Brix, 20 ˚Brix, 24 ˚Brix, and 28 ˚Brix) were prepared from raw juice (9.5 ˚Brix) extracted by mechanical pressing of the oranges. Sucrose was used as the reference fermentable sugar. Sodium glutamate, added to the musts, played the role of increasing yeast cells to effectively boost their enzymatic catalysis. Ethanol fermentation in batch mode and fed-batch mode was adopted. The ethanol fermentation reaction was monitored by refractometric measurement, while the alcoholic strength of the fermented musts was determined by the pycnometric method. The results revealed that the ethanol content (% vol.) produced from the must of 28 ˚Brix from rotten oranges, fermented in batch mode, reached a maximum value of 16.51 ± 0.21 with the addition of sodium glutamate SG (2 g/L), whereas with the same must, only a content (% vol.) of 14.72 ± 0.05 was obtained in semi-continuous mode. However, without SG, an ethanol content (% vol.) of 4.93 ± 0.33 was only produced from the raw juice (9.5 ˚Brix), by mechanical pressing of rotten oranges. In contrast to the results obtained with sucrose, the musts of rotten oranges without SG supplementation produced higher ethanol contents than those supplemented with SG (2 g/L). Finally, batch fermentation of rotten orange musts was more efficient than fed-batch fermentation. However, the addition of SG (2 g/L) in the rotten orange musts fermented by fed-batch mode enhanced the ethanol content, while in batch mode, this addition was only beneficial for the rotten orange musts of 28 ˚Brix and 9.5 ˚Brix. The valorization of rotten oranges into bioethanol therefore fits into local circular economy approaches to promote the sustainable use of natural resources.
   </abstract>
   <kwd-group> 
    <kwd>
     Inedible Oranges
    </kwd> 
    <kwd>
      Valorization
    </kwd> 
    <kwd>
      Green Energy
    </kwd> 
    <kwd>
      Environmental Protection
    </kwd> 
    <kwd>
      Circular Economy
    </kwd>
   </kwd-group>
  </article-meta>
 </front>
 <body>
  <sec id="s1">
   <title>1. Introduction</title>
   <p>For a number of decades, energy and environmental concerns have taken center stage in global discourse. Indeed, the rise in fossil fuel prices, the depletion of non-renewable energy reserves, and the intensification of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions have prompted the scientific community to explore sustainable energy solutions <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.146957-1">
     [1]
    </xref>. These solutions share the common goal of reducing dependence on polluting energy sources while limiting their environmental footprint <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.146957-2">
     [2]
    </xref>. In this context, biofuels, as an inexhaustible source of green energy, stand out as one of the most outstanding substitutes for petroleum-based fuels <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.146957-3">
     [3]
    </xref>. Moreover, the exploitation of new raw material sources, such as algae, offers significant opportunities to reduce environmental impacts and integrate sustainable fuels into the global energy cycle <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.146957-4">
     [4]
    </xref>.</p>
   <p>Biofuels, such as bioethanol, are gaining popularity as alternative solutions to fossil fuels, especially in the transport sector, thanks to their almost low environmental impacts. Indeed, derived from organic materials, these fuels provide a response to energy challenges while mitigating their impact on the environment <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.146957-5">
     [5]
    </xref> <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.146957-6">
     [6]
    </xref>. However, their large-scale production remains a major challenge, particularly with regard to the preservation of global food security <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.146957-7">
     [7]
    </xref> <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.146957-8">
     [8]
    </xref>. Accordingly, the use of food crops to produce first-generation bioethanol has sparked strong criticism concerning the competition between energy and food needs <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.146957-9">
     [9]
    </xref>. To address the challenge of food competition in bioethanol production, scientists are exploring sustainable alternative solutions. Using non-edible substrates, including agricultural leftovers, especially fruit waste, is one of the attractive solutions that is now generating debate. These agro-industrial by-products, which are naturally rich in fermentable sugars, constitute an underutilized resource for producing bioethanol through fermentation processes with optimal profitability <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.146957-10">
     [10]
    </xref> <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.146957-11">
     [11]
    </xref>. Consequently, these tactics have a significant positive impact on the environment, particularly in terms of decreasing food waste and satisfying the rising need for renewable energy <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.146957-12">
     [12]
    </xref>. Unlike food crops, the exploitation of agro-industrial residues rich in fermentable sugars ensures attractive bioethanol yields while minimizing impacts on food security <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.146957-13">
     [13]
    </xref>. In addition, these residues contribute to a circular economy by reintegrating plant-based waste into energy value chains <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.146957-14">
     [14]
    </xref>. This raises the question of which method would be the most effective for producing bioethanol with optimal profitability.</p>
   <p>The most fermentable carbohydrates for the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae are glucose, fructose, and sucrose. Glucose is the preferred carbon source for yeast, followed by fructose, then sucrose, which must be hydrolyzed into glucose and fructose to be used <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.146957-15">
     [15]
    </xref>. The work carried out by <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.146957-16">
     [16]
    </xref> highlighted that the major sugars contained in orange (Citrus sinensis L. Osbeck) juice were sucrose, glucose, and fructose, with respective contents (g/L) of 46.40 ± 1.41, 30.99 ± 1.84, and 33.05 ± 1.13, equivalent to a major sugar content of 110.44 ± 1.53 g/L.</p>
   <p>In response to this question, bioethanol production from fruit waste undoubtedly requires the optimization of various parameters, including: must sugar concentration, the applied fermentation mode, and the use of nutritional additives to enhance the efficiency of enzymatic catalysis in the bioconversion of fermentable sugars by yeast of the genus Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Previous studies have demonstrated that certain nitrogen-based nutrients, such as sodium glutamate, can effectively stimulate yeast growth, and as a result, improve ethanol yields <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.146957-17">
     [17]
    </xref> <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.146957-18">
     [18]
    </xref>. Furthermore, the adoption of alternative fermentation modes, such as fed-batch fermentation, extends the active fermentation phase, which in turn increases ethanol production yield <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.146957-19">
     [19]
    </xref>.</p>
   <p>The current study approach consists of exploring cost-effective bioethanol production with optimal profitability from oranges discarded in nature due to spoilage. Accordingly, the objective of the present study was to optimize bioethanol production parameters from rotten oranges. To achieve this goal, two fermentation modes were comparatively adopted, namely batch fermentation and fed-batch fermentation. In parallel with these two fermentation modes, the influence of sodium glutamate on the efficiency of bioethanol production was also assessed.</p>
  </sec><sec id="s2">
   <title>2. Materials and Methods</title>
   <sec id="s2_1">
    <title>2.1. Materials Used for Agroethanol Production</title>
    <p>Rotten oranges (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig1">
      Figure 1
     </xref>), by-products from agri-food distribution chains in Lomé-Togo, served as a raw material rich in fermentable sugars, offering significant</p>
    <fig id="fig1" position="float">
     <label>Figure 1</label>
     <caption>
      <title>
       <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.146957-"></xref>Figure 1. Photo of rotten oranges used as raw material.</title>
     </caption>
     <graphic mimetype="image" position="float" xlink:type="simple" xlink:href="https://html.scirp.org/file/5500496-rId13.jpeg?20251104024816" />
    </fig>
    <p>potential for bioethanol production. To valorize this waste in this green energy, their juice was mechanically extracted with a juicer after peeling and manual cutting. The resulting must was supplemented with sodium glutamate (SG) to stimulate yeast growth and improve fermentation kinetics. The conversion of sugars into ethanol was carried out by the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae (Saf-Levure S.I. Lesaffre), usually applied in the form of active dry yeast.</p>
   </sec>
   <sec id="s2_2">
    <title>2.2. Experimental Procedure for the Bioconversion of Rotten Oranges into Bioethanol</title>
    <p>Prior to its utilization as a raw material, rotten oranges were carefully washed to remove all impurities, including plant debris, plastics, sand, and microorganisms. They were then peeled, cut, and pressed to extract the raw juice. After filtration, the collected filtrate was concentrated by evaporation through heating without reflux in a glass flask to obtain four types of musts with concentrations of 16 ˚Brix, 20 ˚Brix, 24 ˚Brix, and 28 ˚Brix. The ethanol fermentation of the prepared musts was carried out with the genus Saccharomyces cerevisiae, used as fermentative microorganisms. Once ethanol fermentation of the musts was complete, the produced bioethanol was recovered by fractional distillation through mass transfer using a simple distillation column in order to determine the ethanol content in the musts at the end of fermentation.</p>
   </sec>
   <sec id="s2_3">
    <title>2.3. Physicochemical Characterization of the Raw Material</title>
    <p>The principle adopted for this characterization was based on oven-drying slices of degraded orange, with an initially known mass, placed in a Petri dish at a temperature of about 103˚C ± 2˚C until complete removal of water and volatile matter. The moisture and volatile matter content (MC) was then calculated using Equation (1) <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.146957-20">
      [20]
     </xref>.</p>
    <p>
     <math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <mrow> 
       <mtext>
         MC 
       </mtext> 
       <mo>
         = 
       </mo> 
       <mfrac> 
        <mrow> 
         <mtext>
           MH 
         </mtext> 
         <mo>
           − 
         </mo> 
         <mtext>
           MS 
         </mtext> 
        </mrow> 
        <mrow> 
         <mtext>
           MH 
         </mtext> 
         <mo>
           − 
         </mo> 
         <mtext>
           MB 
         </mtext> 
        </mrow> 
       </mfrac> 
       <mo>
         × 
       </mo> 
       <mn>
         100 
       </mn> 
      </mrow> 
     </math> (1)</p>
    <p>where:</p>
    <p>MH = mass of the fresh rotten orange + Petri dish before oven-drying;</p>
    <p>MS = mass of the dried rotten orange + Petri dish after oven-drying;</p>
    <p>MB = mass of the empty Petri dish.</p>
    <p>Dry matter content (Si), which is the mass percentage (%) of dry matter contained in an organic substance, was expressed relative to its total mass (wet matter). In practice, this percentage is theoretically calculated using the value of the moisture and volatile matter content (MC), according to Equation (2) <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.146957-20">
      [20]
     </xref>.</p>
    <p>
     <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.146957-"></xref>Si + MC = 100% (2)</p>
    <p>The experimental protocol used consisted of calcining oven-dried slices of rotten orange for two hours in a crucible placed in a muffle furnace, with the maximum temperature set at 550˚C. This operation was carried out with a heating rate of 10˚C/min from the beginning to the end of the experiment. After the complete destruction and elimination of the organic matter in the form of gases escaping from the crucible, the ash content (AC) was evaluated using Equation (3) <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.146957-20">
      [20]
     </xref>.</p>
    <p>
     <math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <mrow> 
       <mtext>
         AC 
       </mtext> 
       <mo>
         = 
       </mo> 
       <mfrac> 
        <mrow> 
         <msub> 
          <mi>
            M 
          </mi> 
          <mn>
            1 
          </mn> 
         </msub> 
         <mo>
           − 
         </mo> 
         <msub> 
          <mi>
            M 
          </mi> 
          <mn>
            0 
          </mn> 
         </msub> 
        </mrow> 
        <mrow> 
         <msub> 
          <mi>
            M 
          </mi> 
          <mn>
            2 
          </mn> 
         </msub> 
         <mo>
           − 
         </mo> 
         <msub> 
          <mi>
            M 
          </mi> 
          <mn>
            0 
          </mn> 
         </msub> 
        </mrow> 
       </mfrac> 
       <mo>
         × 
       </mo> 
       <mn>
         100 
       </mn> 
      </mrow> 
     </math> (3)</p>
    <p>where:</p>
    <p>AC = Ash content of the rotten oranges;</p>
    <p>M<sub>0</sub> = Mass of the empty crucible;</p>
    <p>M<sub>2</sub> = Total mass of the crucible and the sample before calcination;</p>
    <p>M<sub>1</sub> = Total mass of the crucible and the ashes after calcination.</p>
   </sec>
   <sec id="s2_4">
    <title>2.4. Raw Juice Extraction from Rotten Oranges</title>
    <p>In this study, the extraction method applied for recovering raw juice from rotten oranges was mechanical pressing, using a juicer, commonly employed by juice vendors in Lomé-Togo for preparing citrus juices. The raw juice obtained through mechanical pressing was heated to 80˚C for 60 minutes, then cooled to room temperature before being stored in a freezer at −23˚C for later use.</p>
   </sec>
   <sec id="s2_5">
    <title>2.5. Preparation of Musts for Ethanol Fermentation</title>
    <p>To minimize substrate inhibition, the effects of feeding yeast with different sugar concentrations on the ethanol production by batch and fed-batch cultures <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.146957-21">
      [21]
     </xref> in a 1-L fermentor were investigated. To achieve this purpose, the raw juice taken from the freezer was first thawed, and the resulting liquid was concentrated by heating without reflux to obtain four types of concentrated musts (16 ˚Brix, 20 ˚Brix, 24 ˚Brix, and 28 ˚Brix). These intentionally prepared musts were stored in a freezer (−23˚C) for later operations. To make a comparison, sucrose musts were also prepared to carry out fermentation in fed-batch mode. Ethanol fermentation of the sucrose musts was used as a reference for that of the rotten orange musts in order to optimize bioethanol production in this study. Indeed, the sucrose musts used as a model substrate to carry out the ethanolic fermentation in order to transpose the method to the case of orange juice because sucrose, glucose, and fructose are the sugars predominantly present in orange juice, as referenced in the work done by <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.146957-16">
      [16]
     </xref>. Moreover, the hydrolysis of sucrose leads to the formation of glucose and fructose, which are the monosaccharides whose ethanolic fermentation based on Saccharomyces cerevisiae yields the best bioethanol production rates <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.146957-16">
      [16]
     </xref>.</p>
   </sec>
   <sec id="s2_6">
    <title>2.6. Ethanol Pre-Fermentation</title>
    <p>Pre-fermentation is the step that precedes ethanol fermentation itself. At this stage, an inoculum was prepared with 1/10 of the volume of each rotten orange must, with the addition of baker’s yeast of the genus Saccharomyces cerevisiae (1 g/L) and SG in a concentration range from 0 to 8 g/L. The resulting ethanol fermentation broths were left to ferment under anaerobic conditions at room temperature (30˚C - 32˚C) for 24 hours, allowing the fermentative microorganisms to adapt to their culture medium.</p>
   </sec>
   <sec id="s2_7">
    <title>2.7. Initiation of Ethanol Fermentation</title>
    <p>At this stage, each pre-fermented must was mixed with the remaining 9/10 of the must to initiate ethanol fermentation properly <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.146957-22">
      [22]
     </xref>. After stirring, the mixture was left to ferment at room temperature (30˚C - 32˚C) under two ethanol fermentation modes, namely batch fermentation and fed-batch fermentation.</p>
   </sec>
   <sec id="s2_8">
    <title>2.8. Monitoring of Ethanol Fermentation and Measurement of Ethanol Content</title>
    <p>The ethanol fermentation reaction was periodically monitored every 24 hours from the start until the exhaustion of each must by measuring the total soluble solids (TSS), expressed in degrees Brix. An Abbe/Azzota refractometer, model AR-2 <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.146957-20">
      [20]
     </xref>, was used for this measurement. At the end of fermentation, the limit attenuation (LA) of each fermented must was determined using Equation (4).</p>
    <p>LA = [(Initial Brix − Final Brix)/Initial Brix] × 100% (4)</p>
    <p>The alcoholic strength, or ethanol content produced from the musts at the end of fermentation, was determined using the pycnometric method according to the recommendations of AOAC (Association of Official Analytical Chemists), method 982.10.</p>
   </sec>
   <sec id="s2_9">
    <title>2.9. Applied Ethanol Fermentation Modes</title>
    <p>Ethanol fermentation in batch mode and fed-batch mode were comparatively applied with the aim of maximizing ethanol yield.</p>
   </sec>
  </sec><sec id="s3">
   <title>
    <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.146957-"></xref>3. Results</title>
   <sec id="s3_1">
    <title>3.1. Physicochemical Characteristics of the Rotten Oranges</title>
    <p>The physicochemical properties of rotten oranges, namely moisture and volatile matter content (MC), dry matter content (Si), mineral fraction or ash (AC), as well as the proportion of organic matter (OM), are illustrated in the form of a two-dimensional pie chart (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig2">
      Figure 2
     </xref>).</p>
    <fig id="fig2" position="float">
     <label>Figure 2</label>
     <caption>
      <title>
       <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.146957-"></xref>Figure 2. Physicochemical characteristics of rotten oranges.</title>
     </caption>
     <graphic mimetype="image" position="float" xlink:type="simple" xlink:href="https://html.scirp.org/file/5500496-rId18.jpeg?20251104024831" />
    </fig>
    <p>The analysis of the data from this representation indicates that the decomposed oranges used in this study have a moisture and volatile matter content of 87.10% ± 0.50%. In addition, the dry fraction corresponding to a dry matter content (Si) of 12.90% ± 0.50% is divided into an ash content (AC) of 0.67% ± 0.01% and an organic matter content (OM) of 12.23 ± 0.49%.</p>
   </sec>
   <sec id="s3_2">
    <title>
     <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.146957-"></xref>3.2. Influence of SG on Sucrose Must Fermentation</title>
    <p>The variation of TSS as a function of time during batch fermentation of sucrose musts with normal density (20 ˚Brix) and very high density (28 ˚Brix), supplemented with SG at different concentrations, produced the curves illustrated in <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig3(A)">
      Figure 3(A)
     </xref> and <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig3(B)">
      Figure 3(B)
     </xref>.</p>
    <fig id="fig3" position="float">
     <label>Figure 3</label>
     <caption>
      <title>
       <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.146957-"></xref>Figure 3. Variation of TSS over time in sucrose musts NG (Part A) and VHG (Part B), supplemented with SG during batch fermentation.</title>
     </caption>
     <graphic mimetype="image" position="float" xlink:type="simple" xlink:href="https://html.scirp.org/file/5500496-rId19.jpeg?20251104024833" />
    </fig>
    <p>A decrease in TSS over time was observed in each must. However, this decrease in TSS was noticeably more pronounced in the sucrose musts supplemented with SG.</p>
    <p>The ethanol contents (EC) obtained through batch fermentation of sucrose musts NG (20 ˚Brix) and VHG (28 ˚Brix), with or without SG supplementation, are shown in <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig4">
      Figure 4
     </xref>.</p>
    <p>From the results presented in <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig4">
      Figure 4
     </xref>, it can be observed that, regardless of the batch fermentation method adopted or the sucrose must concentration, whether NG (20 ˚Brix) or VHG (28 ˚Brix), the use of SG as a growth factor led to significantly higher ethanol contents compared to the control musts.</p>
    <p>The results shown in Figure 5 present the experimental yields of ethanol production (EYP) in batch mode with sucrose musts NG (20 ˚Brix) and VHG (28 ˚Brix).</p>
    <p>The ethanol EYPs in this study are relatively close to the theoretical Gay-Lussac yield of 100%. They range from 35.46% ± 0.67% to 87.92% ± 0.65% for NG sucrose musts and from 31.40% ± 0.11% to 66.85% ± 0.33% for VHG sucrose musts.</p>
    <fig id="fig4" position="float">
     <label>Figure 4</label>
     <caption>
      <title>
       <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.146957-"></xref>Figure 4. Influence of SG on EC through batch fermentation of sucrose musts NG (20 ˚Brix) and VHG (28 ˚Brix).</title>
     </caption>
     <graphic mimetype="image" position="float" xlink:type="simple" xlink:href="https://html.scirp.org/file/5500496-rId20.jpeg?20251104024835" />
    </fig>
    <fig id="fig5" position="float">
     <label>Figure 5</label>
     <caption>
      <title>Figure 5. Influence of SG on the EYP (%) of ethanol through batch fermentation of sucrose musts NG (20 ˚Brix) and VHG (28 ˚Brix).</title>
     </caption>
     <graphic mimetype="image" position="float" xlink:type="simple" xlink:href="https://html.scirp.org/file/5500496-rId21.jpeg?20251104024836" />
    </fig>
    <p>The curves in <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig6">
      Figure 6
     </xref> illustrate the variation of TSS over time in VHG (28 ˚Brix) sucrose musts under semi-batch fermentation.</p>
    <p>It can be seen in this figure that the decrease in TSS is not continuous due to the periodic additions of sugars to the fermentation broths, which resulted in</p>
    <fig id="fig6" position="float">
     <label>Figure 6</label>
     <caption>
      <title>
       <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.146957-"></xref>Figure 6. Variation of TSS in VHG sucrose musts during fed-batch fermentation.</title>
     </caption>
     <graphic mimetype="image" position="float" xlink:type="simple" xlink:href="https://html.scirp.org/file/5500496-rId22.jpeg?20251104024837" />
    </fig>
    <p>cascading increases in TSS in the musts over time. This practice is particularly intended to reduce the stress that fermentative microorganisms would undergo if they were exposed to a must with an initially high sugar concentration (Crabtree effect). Thus, to lower the osmotic pressure across the yeast cell membrane surface during ethanol fermentation, it has been wisely recommended not to introduce the total amount of fermentable sugars into the culture medium at once, but rather progressively.</p>
    <p>The analysis of these curves shows that, at the end of semi-batch fermentation, the SG concentration of 4 g/L appeared to produce the most significant decrease in TSS, as indicated by the corresponding curve reaching the lowest level at the end of fermentation. However, this decrease in TSS is practically similar to that obtained with SG concentrations of 2 g/L and 8 g/L. In contrast, in the neutral sucrose must, the decrease in TSS was comparatively much lower.</p>
    <p>A more detailed analysis of the results presented in this section shows that the addition of SG had a very significant positive effect on sucrose consumption during fed-batch fermentation.</p>
    <p>
     <xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">
      Table 1
     </xref> records the ethanol contents (EC) obtained from fed-batch fermentation of sucrose musts (28 ˚Brix) as a function of SG concentrations.</p>
    <p>From the results presented in <xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">
      Table 1
     </xref>, it can be observed that the use of SG as a growth factor led to significantly higher EC values compared to the neutral must.</p>
    <p>In this study, the increase in EC resulting from the use of SG is consistent with the results illustrated in <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig6">
      Figure 6
     </xref>.</p>
    <p>The experimental yields of production (EYP) of bioethanol from fed-batch fermentation of sucrose musts (28 ˚Brix), as a function of SG concentrations, are presented in <xref ref-type="table" rid="table2">
      Table 2
     </xref>. The EYPs from fermentation of sucrose musts (28 ˚Brix) ranged between 67.34% ± 0.77% and 69.66% ± 0.42% for sucrose musts supplemented with SG, whereas that of the neutral sucrose must was only 32.99% ± 0.18%.</p>
    <table-wrap id="table1">
     <label>
      <xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">
       Table 1
      </xref></label>
     <caption>
      <title>
       <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.146957-"></xref>Table 1. EC in VHG sucrose musts fermented in fed-batch mode.</title>
     </caption>
     <table class="MsoTableGrid custom-table" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"> 
      <tr> 
       <td class="custom-bottom-td acenter" width="24.99%"><p style="text-align:center">SG (g/L)</p></td> 
       <td class="custom-bottom-td acenter" width="75.01%"><p style="text-align:center">EC (% v/v)/VHG/Fed-batch mode</p></td> 
      </tr> 
      <tr> 
       <td class="custom-top-td acenter" width="24.99%"><p style="text-align:center">0.00</p></td> 
       <td class="custom-top-td acenter" width="75.01%"><p style="text-align:center">07.60 ± 0.30</p></td> 
      </tr> 
      <tr> 
       <td class="acenter" width="24.99%"><p style="text-align:center">2.00</p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="75.01%"><p style="text-align:center">14.79 ± 0.17</p></td> 
      </tr> 
      <tr> 
       <td class="acenter" width="24.99%"><p style="text-align:center">4.00</p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="75.01%"><p style="text-align:center">15.12 ± 0.04</p></td> 
      </tr> 
      <tr> 
       <td class="acenter" width="24.99%"><p style="text-align:center">8.00</p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="75.01%"><p style="text-align:center">15.29 ± 0.09</p></td> 
      </tr> 
     </table>
    </table-wrap>
    <table-wrap id="table2">
     <label>
      <xref ref-type="table" rid="table2">
       Table 2
      </xref></label>
     <caption>
      <title>
       <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.146957-"></xref>Table 2. EYP (%) of bioethanol from fed-batch ethanol fermentation of sucrose must (28 ˚Brix).</title>
     </caption>
     <table class="MsoTableGrid custom-table" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"> 
      <tr> 
       <td class="custom-bottom-td acenter" width="27.46%"><p style="text-align:center">SG (g/L)</p></td> 
       <td class="custom-bottom-td acenter" width="72.54%"><p style="text-align:center">EYP (%)/VHG/Fed-batch mode</p></td> 
      </tr> 
      <tr> 
       <td class="custom-top-td acenter" width="27.46%"><p style="text-align:center">0.00</p></td> 
       <td class="custom-top-td acenter" width="72.54%"><p style="text-align:center">32.99 ± 0.18</p></td> 
      </tr> 
      <tr> 
       <td class="acenter" width="27.46%"><p style="text-align:center">2.00</p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="72.54%"><p style="text-align:center">67.34 ± 0.77</p></td> 
      </tr> 
      <tr> 
       <td class="acenter" width="27.46%"><p style="text-align:center">4.00</p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="72.54%"><p style="text-align:center">68.85 ± 0.18</p></td> 
      </tr> 
      <tr> 
       <td class="acenter" width="27.46%"><p style="text-align:center">8.00</p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="72.54%"><p style="text-align:center">69.66 ± 0.42</p></td> 
      </tr> 
     </table>
    </table-wrap>
    <p>The supplementation of sucrose musts (28 ˚Brix) with SG improved the experimental yield of bioethanol production in fed-batch mode, with values ranging from 104.12% to 111.15% compared to the neutral sucrose must.</p>
    <p>The results presented in <xref ref-type="table" rid="table3">
      Table 3
     </xref> indicate that the limit attenuation (LA) values of ethanol fermentation in NG sucrose musts (20 ˚Brix) were higher than those of VHG sucrose musts (28 ˚Brix). The presence of SG in the musts had a beneficial effect on LA values. Moreover, fed-batch fermentation yielded higher LA values than batch fermentation for the high-density sucrose must (28 ˚Brix).</p>
    <table-wrap id="table3">
     <label>
      <xref ref-type="table" rid="table3">
       Table 3
      </xref></label>
     <caption>
      <title>
       <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.146957-"></xref>Table 3. Limit attenuation (LA) of fermented sucrose musts.</title>
     </caption>
     <table class="MsoTableGrid custom-table" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"> 
      <tr> 
       <td rowspan="2" class="acenter" width="14.59%"><p style="text-align:center">SG (g/L)</p></td> 
       <td class="custom-bottom-td acenter" width="85.41%" colspan="3"><p style="text-align:center">LA (%)</p></td> 
      </tr> 
      <tr> 
       <td class="custom-bottom-td custom-top-td acenter" width="26.74%"><p style="text-align:center">NG/Batch mode</p></td> 
       <td class="custom-bottom-td custom-top-td acenter" width="26.44%"><p style="text-align:center">VHG/Batch mode</p></td> 
       <td class="custom-bottom-td custom-top-td acenter" width="32.23%"><p style="text-align:center">VHG/Fed-batch mode</p></td> 
      </tr> 
      <tr> 
       <td class="custom-top-td acenter" width="14.59%"><p style="text-align:center">0.00</p></td> 
       <td class="custom-top-td acenter" width="26.74%"><p style="text-align:center">28.33 ± 0.83</p></td> 
       <td class="custom-top-td acenter" width="26.44%"><p style="text-align:center">19.64 ± 0.00</p></td> 
       <td class="custom-top-td acenter" width="32.23%"><p style="text-align:center">23.81 ± 0.60</p></td> 
      </tr> 
      <tr> 
       <td class="acenter" width="14.59%"><p style="text-align:center">2.00</p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="26.74%"><p style="text-align:center">70.00 ± 0.00</p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="26.44%"><p style="text-align:center">42.26 ± 0.60</p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="32.23%"><p style="text-align:center">50.60 ± 0.60</p></td> 
      </tr> 
      <tr> 
       <td class="acenter" width="14.59%"><p style="text-align:center">4.00</p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="26.74%"><p style="text-align:center">70.00 ± 0.00.</p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="26.44%"><p style="text-align:center">47.62 ± 1.19</p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="32.23%"><p style="text-align:center">51.79 ± 0.00</p></td> 
      </tr> 
      <tr> 
       <td class="acenter" width="14.59%"><p style="text-align:center">8.00</p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="26.74%"><p style="text-align:center">64.17 ±0.83</p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="26.44%"><p style="text-align:center">46.77 ± 0.00</p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="32.23%"><p style="text-align:center">50.00 ± 0.00</p></td> 
      </tr> 
     </table>
    </table-wrap>
    <p>However, it was observed that the LA values of NG sucrose must (20 ˚Brix) fermented in batch mode were significantly higher than those corresponding to the fermentation of VHG sucrose must (28 ˚Brix).</p>
   </sec>
   <sec id="s3_3">
    <title>
     <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.146957-"></xref>3.3. Influence of SG on Batch Fermentation of Orange Musts</title>
    <p>
     <xref ref-type="fig" rid="figFigures 7-11">
      Figures 7-11
     </xref> present the influence of SG on the decrease of TSS in rotten orange musts during ethanol fermentation in batch mode, with different initial must concentrations in ˚Brix: 9.5, 16.0, 20.0, 24.0, and 28.0.</p>
    <fig id="fig7" position="float">
     <label>Figure 7</label>
     <caption>
      <title>
       <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.146957-"></xref>Figure 7. Influence of SG on the decrease of TSS during batch fermentation of rotten orange must (28 ˚Brix) over time.</title>
     </caption>
     <graphic mimetype="image" position="float" xlink:type="simple" xlink:href="https://html.scirp.org/file/5500496-rId23.jpeg?20251104024843" />
    </fig>
    <fig id="fig8" position="float">
     <label>Figure 8</label>
     <caption>
      <title>
       <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.146957-"></xref>Figure 8. Influence of SG on the decrease of TSS during batch fermentation of rotten orange must (24 ˚Brix) over time.</title>
     </caption>
     <graphic mimetype="image" position="float" xlink:type="simple" xlink:href="https://html.scirp.org/file/5500496-rId24.jpeg?20251104024842" />
    </fig>
    <fig id="fig9" position="float">
     <label>Figure 9</label>
     <caption>
      <title>
       <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.146957-"></xref>Figure 9. Influence of SG on the decrease of TSS during batch fermentation of rotten orange must (20 ˚Brix) over time.</title>
     </caption>
     <graphic mimetype="image" position="float" xlink:type="simple" xlink:href="https://html.scirp.org/file/5500496-rId25.jpeg?20251104024843" />
    </fig>
    <fig id="fig10" position="float">
     <label>Figure 10</label>
     <caption>
      <title>
       <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.146957-"></xref>Figure 10. Influence of SG on the decrease of TSS during batch fermentation of rotten orange must (16 ˚Brix) over time.</title>
     </caption>
     <graphic mimetype="image" position="float" xlink:type="simple" xlink:href="https://html.scirp.org/file/5500496-rId26.jpeg?20251104024843" />
    </fig>
    <p>The shape of these curves reveals that there are no significant differences between the pure must and the musts supplemented with SG (2 g/L). In particular, in <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig11">
      Figure 11
     </xref>a markedly less pronounced decrease in TSS is observed in the must supplemented with SG (2 g/L) compared to the neutral must. This suggests that the presence of SG in rotten orange musts slows down the consumption of fermentable sugars.</p>
    <p>The ethanol contents (EC) obtained during batch fermentation of rotten orange musts with initial concentrations ranging from 9.5 ˚Brix to 28.0 ˚Brix are shown in the histograms of <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig12">
      Figure 12
     </xref>.</p>
    <fig id="fig11" position="float">
     <label>Figure 11</label>
     <caption>
      <title>
       <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.146957-"></xref>Figure 11. Influence of SG on the decrease of TSS during batch fermentation of rotten orange must (9.5 ˚Brix) over time.</title>
     </caption>
     <graphic mimetype="image" position="float" xlink:type="simple" xlink:href="https://html.scirp.org/file/5500496-rId27.jpeg?20251104024843" />
    </fig>
    <fig id="fig12" position="float">
     <label>Figure 12</label>
     <caption>
      <title>
       <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.146957-"></xref>Figure 12. Influence of SG on EC through batch fermentation of sucrose musts fluence of SG on the experimental yields of bioethanol production through batch fermentation of rotten orange musts.</title>
     </caption>
     <graphic mimetype="image" position="float" xlink:type="simple" xlink:href="https://html.scirp.org/file/5500496-rId28.jpeg?20251104024843" />
    </fig>
    <p>The results indicate that ethanol production increased progressively with the initial concentration of the rotten orange musts. Thus, in the present study, fermentation of rotten orange musts produced ethanol contents (% v/v) ranging from 4.55% ± 0.15% to 16.51% ± 0.21% for initial concentrations from 9.5 to 28.0 ˚Brix. The highest ethanol content (16.51% ± 0.21% v/v) was obtained with the must having the highest initial concentration, 28.0 ˚Brix, and supplemented with SG (2 g/L), while the lowest ethanol content was recorded in the neutral must with the lowest initial concentration, 9.5 ˚Brix.</p>
    <p>The experimental yields of production (EYP) of bioethanol from rotten orange musts (28 ˚Brix) through batch fermentation are presented in <xref ref-type="table" rid="table4">
      Table 4
     </xref>. The highest ethanol EYP, 75.15% ± 0.96%, was obtained from the rotten orange must with an initial concentration of 28 ˚Brix supplemented with SG (2 g/L).</p>
    <table-wrap id="table4">
     <label>
      <xref ref-type="table" rid="table4">
       Table 4
      </xref></label>
     <caption>
      <title>
       <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.146957-"></xref>Table 4. Influence of SG on the EYP of ethanol through fed-batch fermentation of rotten orange musts [9.5 ˚Brix - 28 ˚Brix].</title>
     </caption>
     <table class="MsoTableGrid custom-table" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"> 
      <tr> 
       <td rowspan="2" class="acenter" width="15.47%"><p style="text-align:center">SG (g/L)</p></td> 
       <td class="custom-bottom-td acenter" width="84.53%" colspan="6"><p style="text-align:center">EYP (%) of ethanol through batch ethanol fermentation of rotten orange musts</p></td> 
      </tr> 
      <tr> 
       <td class="custom-top-td acenter" width="16.88%"><p style="text-align:center">9.5 ˚Brix</p></td> 
       <td class="custom-top-td acenter" width="16.88%"><p style="text-align:center">16.0 ˚Brix</p></td> 
       <td class="custom-top-td acenter" width="16.90%"><p style="text-align:center">20.0 ˚Brix</p></td> 
       <td class="custom-top-td acenter" width="16.88%"><p style="text-align:center">24.0 ˚Brix</p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="16.90%"><p style="text-align:center">28.0 ˚Brix</p></td> 
      </tr> 
      <tr> 
       <td class="acenter" width="15.47%"><p style="text-align:center">0.00</p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="16.88%"><p style="text-align:center">61.15 ± 2.08</p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="16.88%"><p style="text-align:center">57.44 ± 1.42</p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="16.90%"><p style="text-align:center">67.09 ± 0.61</p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="16.88%"><p style="text-align:center">70.58 ± 2.25</p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="16.90%"><p style="text-align:center">72.23 ± 2.19</p></td> 
      </tr> 
      <tr> 
       <td class="acenter" width="15.47%"><p style="text-align:center">2.00</p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="16.88%"><p style="text-align:center">66.30 ± 4.44</p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="16.88%"><p style="text-align:center">51.21 ± 1.90</p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="16.90%"><p style="text-align:center">64.95 ± 0.56</p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="16.88%"><p style="text-align:center">66.12 ± 0.28</p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="16.90%"><p style="text-align:center">75.15 ± 0.96</p></td> 
      </tr> 
     </table>
    </table-wrap>
    <p>The lowest EYP, 51.21% ± 1.90%, was recorded for the must with an initial concentration of 16 ˚Brix supplemented with SG (2 g/L). Overall, it can be observed that, with the exception of musts having initial concentrations of 28 ˚Brix and 9.5 ˚Brix, all other musts showed higher ethanol EYPs when supplemented with SG (2 g/L).</p>
    <p>The results presented in <xref ref-type="table" rid="table5">
      Table 5
     </xref> indicate the final capacities of consumption of fermentable sugars contained in rotten orange musts, expressed as limit attenuation LA (%), through batch fermentation using Saccharomyces cerevisiae.</p>
    <table-wrap id="table5">
     <label>
      <xref ref-type="table" rid="table5">
       Table 5
      </xref></label>
     <caption>
      <title>
       <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.146957-"></xref>Table 5. LA (%) of rotten orange musts fermented in batch mode.</title>
     </caption>
     <table class="MsoTableGrid custom-table" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"> 
      <tr> 
       <td rowspan="2" class="acenter" width="13.85%"><p style="text-align:center">SG (g/L)</p></td> 
       <td class="custom-bottom-td acenter" width="86.15%" colspan="5"><p style="text-align:center">LA (%) of rotten orange musts</p></td> 
      </tr> 
      <tr> 
       <td class="custom-bottom-td custom-top-td acenter" width="17.23%"><p style="text-align:center">9.5 ˚Brix</p></td> 
       <td class="custom-bottom-td custom-top-td acenter" width="17.23%"><p style="text-align:center">16.0 ˚Brix</p></td> 
       <td class="custom-bottom-td custom-top-td acenter" width="17.23%"><p style="text-align:center">20.0 ˚Brix</p></td> 
       <td class="custom-bottom-td custom-top-td acenter" width="17.23%"><p style="text-align:center">24.0 ˚Brix</p></td> 
       <td class="custom-bottom-td custom-top-td acenter" width="17.23%"><p style="text-align:center">28.0 ˚Brix</p></td> 
      </tr> 
      <tr> 
       <td class="custom-top-td acenter" width="13.85%"><p style="text-align:center">0.00</p></td> 
       <td class="custom-top-td acenter" width="17.23%"><p style="text-align:center">68.42 ± 0.00</p></td> 
       <td class="custom-top-td acenter" width="17.23%"><p style="text-align:center">50.00 ± 0.00</p></td> 
       <td class="custom-top-td acenter" width="17.23%"><p style="text-align:center">55.00 ± 0.00</p></td> 
       <td class="custom-top-td acenter" width="17.23%"><p style="text-align:center">53.47 ± 0.35</p></td> 
       <td class="custom-top-td acenter" width="17.23%"><p style="text-align:center">53.57 ± 0.00</p></td> 
      </tr> 
      <tr> 
       <td class="acenter" width="13.85%"><p style="text-align:center">2.00</p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="17.23%"><p style="text-align:center">63.16 ± 0.00</p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="17.23%"><p style="text-align:center">49.48 ± 0.52</p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="17.23%"><p style="text-align:center">53.75 ± 0.00</p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="17.23%"><p style="text-align:center">52.08 ± 0.00</p></td> 
       <td class="acenter pli" width="17.23%"><p style="text-align:center">± 0.60</p></td> 
      </tr> 
     </table>
    </table-wrap>
   </sec>
   <sec id="s3_4">
    <title>
     <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.146957-"></xref>3.4. Influence of SG on the Fermentation of Rotten Orange Musts in Fed-Batch Mode</title>
    <p>The curves presented in <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig13">
      Figure 13
     </xref> show the evolution of total TSS in rotten orange musts (28 ˚Brix) over time through ethanol fermentation in fed-batch mode.</p>
    <p>The shape of these curves shows that there is no positive improvement between the neutral must and the musts supplemented with SG.</p>
    <p>Among the EC values (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table6">
      Table 6
     </xref>) obtained through fed-batch fermentation of very high-density rotten orange musts (28 ˚Brix), the highest, 14.72% ± 0.12% (v/v), was achieved with supplementation of the must with SG (2 g/L).</p>
    <fig id="fig13" position="float">
     <label>Figure 13</label>
     <caption>
      <title>
       <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.146957-"></xref>Figure 13. Influence of SG on total TSS over time through fed-batch fermentation of rotten orange musts.</title>
     </caption>
     <graphic mimetype="image" position="float" xlink:type="simple" xlink:href="https://html.scirp.org/file/5500496-rId29.jpeg?20251104024847" />
    </fig>
    <table-wrap id="table6">
     <label>
      <xref ref-type="table" rid="table6">
       Table 6
      </xref></label>
     <caption>
      <title>
       <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.146957-"></xref>Table 6. Influence of SG on EC through fed-batch fermentation of rotten orange musts (28 ˚Brix).</title>
     </caption>
     <table class="MsoTableGrid custom-table" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"> 
      <tr> 
       <td class="custom-bottom-td acenter" width="21.62%"><p style="text-align:center">SG (g/L)</p></td> 
       <td class="custom-bottom-td acenter" width="78.38%"><p style="text-align:center">EC (% v/v) from rotten orange musts (28 ˚Brix)</p></td> 
      </tr> 
      <tr> 
       <td class="custom-top-td acenter" width="21.62%"><p style="text-align:center">0.00</p></td> 
       <td class="custom-top-td acenter" width="78.38%"><p style="text-align:center">14.00 ± 0.05</p></td> 
      </tr> 
      <tr> 
       <td class="acenter" width="21.62%"><p style="text-align:center">2.00</p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="78.38%"><p style="text-align:center">14.72 ± 0.12</p></td> 
      </tr> 
      <tr> 
       <td class="acenter" width="21.62%"><p style="text-align:center">4.00</p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="78.38%"><p style="text-align:center">14.33 ± 0.14</p></td> 
      </tr> 
      <tr> 
       <td class="acenter" width="21.62%"><p style="text-align:center">8.00</p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="78.38%"><p style="text-align:center">14.69 ± 0.05</p></td> 
      </tr> 
     </table>
    </table-wrap>
    <p>The ethanol EYPs from fed-batch fermentation of rotten orange musts at 28 ˚Brix are recorded in <xref ref-type="table" rid="table7">
      Table 7
     </xref>.</p>
    <table-wrap id="table7">
     <label>
      <xref ref-type="table" rid="table7">
       Table 7
      </xref></label>
     <caption>
      <title>
       <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.146957-"></xref>Table 7. Influence of SG on the EYP of bioethanol through fed-batch fermentation of rotten orange must (28 ˚Brix).</title>
     </caption>
     <table class="MsoTableGrid custom-table" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"> 
      <tr> 
       <td class="custom-bottom-td acenter" width="25.11%"><p style="text-align:center">SG (g/L)</p></td> 
       <td class="custom-bottom-td acenter" width="74.89%"><p style="text-align:center">EYP of bioethanol (%) through fed-batch fermentation of rotten orange musts (28 ˚Brix)</p></td> 
      </tr> 
      <tr> 
       <td class="custom-top-td acenter" width="25.11%"><p style="text-align:center">0.00</p></td> 
       <td class="custom-top-td acenter" width="74.89%"><p style="text-align:center">63.72 ± 0.25</p></td> 
      </tr> 
      <tr> 
       <td class="acenter" width="25.11%"><p style="text-align:center">2.00</p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="74.89%"><p style="text-align:center">66.98 ± 0.54</p></td> 
      </tr> 
      <tr> 
       <td class="acenter" width="25.11%"><p style="text-align:center">4.00</p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="74.89%"><p style="text-align:center">65.22 ± 0.65</p></td> 
      </tr> 
      <tr> 
       <td class="acenter" width="25.11%"><p style="text-align:center">8.00</p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="74.89%"><p style="text-align:center">66.86 ± 0.21</p></td> 
      </tr> 
     </table>
    </table-wrap>
    <p>These results indicate that supplementation of the must with SG (2 g/L) produced the highest yield, with a value of 66.98% ± 0.54%, compared to 63.72% ± 0.25% for the neutral must, which gave the lowest yield.</p>
    <p>The results presented in <xref ref-type="table" rid="table8">
      Table 8
     </xref> show that ethanol fermentation of neutral VHG rotten orange musts yielded higher LA values than neutral VHG sucrose musts, i.e., 51.79% ± 0.00% versus 23.81% ± 0.60%. While supplementation of sucrose musts with SG had a beneficial effect on LA, which generally increased with SG concentration, supplementation of rotten orange musts, on the other hand, had a negative effect on LA, which worsened as SG concentration increased.</p>
    <table-wrap id="table8">
     <label>
      <xref ref-type="table" rid="table8">
       Table 8
      </xref></label>
     <caption>
      <title>
       <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.146957-"></xref>Table 8. LA (%) for sucrose and rotten orange musts (28 ˚Brix) fermented in fed-batch mode.</title>
     </caption>
     <table class="MsoTableGrid custom-table" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"> 
      <tr> 
       <td rowspan="2" class="acenter" width="17.08%"><p style="text-align:center">SG (g/L)</p></td> 
       <td class="custom-bottom-td acenter" width="82.92%" colspan="2"><p style="text-align:center">LA (%) through fed-batch fermentation</p></td> 
      </tr> 
      <tr> 
       <td class="custom-bottom-td custom-top-td acenter" width="39.03%"><p style="text-align:center">Sucrose musts (28 ˚Brix)</p></td> 
       <td class="custom-bottom-td custom-top-td acenter" width="43.90%"><p style="text-align:center">Rotten orange musts (28 ˚Brix)</p></td> 
      </tr> 
      <tr> 
       <td class="custom-top-td acenter" width="17.08%"><p style="text-align:center">0.00</p></td> 
       <td class="custom-top-td acenter" width="39.03%"><p style="text-align:center">23.81 ± 0.60</p></td> 
       <td class="custom-top-td acenter" width="43.90%"><p style="text-align:center">51.79 ± 0.00</p></td> 
      </tr> 
      <tr> 
       <td class="acenter" width="17.08%"><p style="text-align:center">2.00</p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="39.03%"><p style="text-align:center">50.60 ± 0.60</p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="43.90%"><p style="text-align:center">51.19 ± 0.60</p></td> 
      </tr> 
      <tr> 
       <td class="acenter" width="17.08%"><p style="text-align:center">4.00</p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="39.03%"><p style="text-align:center">51.79 ± 0.00</p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="43.90%"><p style="text-align:center">50.30 ± 0.30</p></td> 
      </tr> 
      <tr> 
       <td class="acenter" width="17.08%"><p style="text-align:center">8.00</p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="39.03%"><p style="text-align:center">50.00 ± 0.00</p></td> 
       <td class="acenter pli" width="43.90%"><p style="text-align:center">± 0.00</p></td> 
      </tr> 
     </table>
    </table-wrap>
    <p>When the two fermentation modes of rotten orange musts are compared (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table9">
      Table 9
     </xref>), it is found that batch mode achieved higher LA values.</p>
    <table-wrap id="table9">
     <label>
      <xref ref-type="table" rid="table9">
       Table 9
      </xref></label>
     <caption>
      <title>
       <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.146957-"></xref>Table 9. LA (%) of rotten orange musts (28 ˚Brix) fermented in batch and fed-batch modes.</title>
     </caption>
     <table class="MsoTableGrid custom-table" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"> 
      <tr> 
       <td rowspan="2" class="acenter" width="21.36%"><p style="text-align:center">SG (g/L)</p></td> 
       <td class="custom-bottom-td acenter" width="78.64%" colspan="2"><p style="text-align:center">LA (%) of rotten orange must fermentation (28 ˚Brix)</p></td> 
      </tr> 
      <tr> 
       <td class="custom-bottom-td custom-top-td acenter" width="42.22%"><p style="text-align:center">Batch mode</p></td> 
       <td class="custom-bottom-td custom-top-td acenter" width="36.42%"><p style="text-align:center">Fed-batch mode</p></td> 
      </tr> 
      <tr> 
       <td class="custom-top-td acenter" width="21.36%"><p style="text-align:center">0.00</p></td> 
       <td class="custom-top-td acenter" width="42.22%"><p style="text-align:center">53.57 ± 0.00</p></td> 
       <td class="custom-top-td acenter" width="36.42%"><p style="text-align:center">51.79 ± 0.00</p></td> 
      </tr> 
      <tr> 
       <td class="acenter" width="21.36%"><p style="text-align:center">2.00</p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="42.22%"><p style="text-align:center">52.98 ± 0.60</p></td> 
       <td class="acenter pli" width="36.42%"><p style="text-align:center">± 0.60</p></td> 
      </tr> 
     </table>
    </table-wrap>
   </sec>
  </sec><sec id="s4">
   <title>4. Discussion</title>
   <p>Supplementation with SG optimized ethanol production in sucrose musts studied at different concentrations, regardless of the ethanol fermentation mode applied. This nutritional additive promoted an increase in sucrose consumption, which was reflected in a rise in limit attenuation. The optimal SG concentration is estimated at 2 g/L. Thus, in batch mode, the LA at the end of fermentation reached 70% for NG sucrose must (20 ˚Brix) supplemented with SG (2 g/L), while for VHG sucrose must (28 ˚Brix), the value obtained was 46.43%. In fed-batch mode, the LA reached a value of 51.79% for the VHG must supplemented with SG (4 g/L), whereas the neutral VHG must yielded only 23.83%. The increase in LA due to supplementation of sucrose musts with SG is consistent with the findings of <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.146957-23">
     [23]
    </xref>, who highlighted those nitrogenous substances tend to enhance yeast cell growth necessary for continuous ethanol production, resulting in more intense sugar consumption. Similarly, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.146957-24">
     [24]
    </xref> demonstrated that nitrogen supplementation promotes yeast productivity, while <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.146957-25">
     [25]
    </xref> showed that sodium, by passively diffusing through the cell membrane, stimulates sugar transport. This increase in LA is always accompanied by a rise in the EYP of bioethanol. With batch fermentation of NG sucrose musts, significant improvements in yields were observed, with rates ranging between 136.55% and 147.94%, thus confirming the efficiency of sucrose bioconversion into bioethanol only in the presence of a low SG concentration. However, VHG sucrose musts fermented in both batch and fed-batch modes showed moderate improvements, with values ranging from 105.86% to 112.90% and from 104.12% to 111.15%, respectively. Although batch fermentation yielded the highest EYP of bioethanol for NG sucrose musts, it was the fed-batch fermentation of VHG sucrose musts that provided the most notable performance in terms of EC at the end of fermentation. This finding is consistent with the work of <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.146957-21">
     [21]
    </xref>. The advantage of a higher EC at the end of fermentation lies in the reduction of energy required during the distillation step. Indeed, a high EC allows for an estimated energy saving of about 29% per liter of pure ethanol when the ethanol content in the musts reaches 15% v/v compared to those containing 10% v/v, according to <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.146957-26">
     [26]
    </xref>.</p>
   <p>In batch mode, fermentation of the VHG sucrose must generated relatively higher EC values than those obtained with the NG sucrose must. However, these EC values from VHG musts remained below the theoretical value, estimated at 21.96%.</p>
   <p>Another advantage highlighted in this study is the adoption of fed-batch fermentation, which plays a role in reducing yeast osmotic stress. Indeed, through the progressive addition of fermentable sugar into the fermentation broth, the fed-batch mode helps better manage high-sugar conditions that create both elevated osmotic pressure and increasing ethanol concentrations. The combined mechanism of these two factors is likely to hinder yeast growth and fermentative activity, given that maintaining cell integrity under osmotic variations is crucial for achieving optimal yield. Thus, osmotically stable conditions enhance yeast tolerance and longevity. This strategy optimizes fermentation performance while limiting metabolic constraints, consistent with the conclusions of <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.146957-27">
     [27]
    </xref> and <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.146957-28">
     [28]
    </xref>, who emphasized the importance of maintaining yeast cell membrane integrity to maximize ethanol production. To make the bioconversion of rotten orange musts more cost-effective, the techniques previously developed for the bioconversion of sucrose musts were applied. For this purpose, the raw juice (9.50 ˚Brix) from rotten oranges was first concentrated into four different types of musts with concentrations of 16 ˚Brix, 20 ˚Brix, 24 ˚Brix, and 28 ˚Brix. These carefully prepared musts were then supplemented with SG (2 g/L). Finally, two fermentation modes were tested. These three strategies developed in the present work aim to optimize bioethanol production from cheaper raw materials.</p>
   <p>In this study, fermentation of rotten orange musts yielded EC values ranging from 4.55% ± 0.15% to 16.51% ± 0.21% (v/v). The highest ethanol content (16.51% ± 0.21% v/v) was obtained with high-density musts (28 ˚Brix) enriched with 2 g/L of SG, while the lowest was found in low-density musts (9.5 ˚Brix), also enriched with 2 g/L of SG. Overall, the rotten orange must (28 ˚Brix) supplemented with SG achieved an EC of 16.51% ± 0.21% (v/v), compared to 15.87% ± 0.48% (v/v) for the neutral must.</p>
   <p>Only a maximum ethanol content of 8.1% (v/v) was obtained in the orange wine under optimized conditions by <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.146957-30">
     [30]
    </xref>, demonstrating that the current study's orange juice maximum ethanol production rate is extremely high, around double that obtained by <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.146957-29">
     [29]
    </xref>.</p>
   <p>This was achieved by the supplementation of sucrose musts with SG improved the EYP of bioethanol, whereas supplementation of rotten orange musts instead led to sluggish ethanol fermentation. Indeed, the presence of SG as a nitrogenous substance in sucrose musts increased the yeast population, which in turn stimulated sugar consumption and enhanced the EYP of bioethanol <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.146957-30">
     [30]
    </xref> <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.146957-31">
     [31]
    </xref>. On the other hand, since rotten orange musts originally contain other organic and mineral substances, this may have resulted in an inhibitory effect of SG <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.146957-32">
     [32]
    </xref>. These findings allow us to deduce that the optimal conditions for the ethanolic fermentation of a pure sugar substrate like sucrose may not transfer directly to a fruit must because of the complexity of this type of must in additional substances that can act favorably or against the bioethanol production.</p>
   <p>It was also observed that the fermentation time of rotten orange musts was shorter (about 3 days) than that of sucrose musts (about 12 days for a must with a concentration of 28 ˚Brix). This difference could partly be explained by the availability of other favorable factors in orange musts, particularly the nature of the fermentable sugars. Indeed, fermentable sugars such as fructose and glucose are already present in rotten orange musts and are directly assimilable by yeast. This is not the case for sucrose, which is a disaccharide that must first undergo hydrolysis to yield glucose and fructose. Only after this inversion step do the yeast begin to assimilate the two monosaccharides formed, leading to ethanol production.</p>
   <p>Moreover, orange juice naturally contains nutritional factors such as vitamins (B1, B6, B12), minerals (calcium, magnesium, potassium), as well as essential amino acids, all of which are indispensable for the growth and enhancement of the fermentative capacity of Saccharomyces cerevisiae. The presence of these naturally occurring nutritional factors largely explains the disparity observed in the fermentation kinetics of sucrose musts compared to rotten orange musts. However, another limiting factor that may act against ethanol fermentation of rotten orange musts is the presence of natural inhibitory compounds such as essential oils (e.g., limonene), phenols, and flavonoids, which can hinder the growth of Saccharomyces cerevisiae <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.146957-33">
     [33]
    </xref>-<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.146957-35">
     [35]
    </xref>. These compounds alter the membrane permeability of yeast cells and inhibit certain key metabolic enzymes involved in fermentation, thereby slowing down their activity <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.146957-36">
     [36]
    </xref>. In addition to these potential inhibitors, the ethanol produced by the yeast itself also acts as an inhibitor when its concentration rises significantly in the fermentation broth. In fed-batch mode, these inhibitors of ethanol fermentation accumulate progressively with each substrate addition, since the medium is not renewed. This prolonged accumulation creates suboptimal conditions for the yeast, thereby reducing the fermentation rate. However, in batch mode, even though these inhibitors are present from the start of fermentation, the rapid kinetics of rotten orange must fermentation allow the process to be completed before the inhibitors reach toxic levels <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.146957-37">
     [37]
    </xref>. In contrast, in fed-batch mode, the successive additions of substrate prolong yeast exposure to inhibitors and accumulated ethanol, which limits fermentation performance. These inhibitors would be more detrimental in fed-batch mode compared to batch mode, because the fed-batch mode is seriously vulnerable to bacterial contamination, which is very detrimental to bioethanol production, leading to a decrease in bioethanol yield. Bacteria can consume sugar and ethanol in a fermentation broth, producing undesirable by-products and inhibiting yeast activity <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.146957-38">
     [38]
    </xref>.</p>
   <p>Based on the various criteria previously mentioned, it appears that supplementation of rotten orange musts with SG is not necessary to improve the EYP of bioethanol. Regarding the two fermentation modes applied, it was noted that fed-batch mode yielded ethanol contents of 14.00% ± 0.05% (v/v), corresponding to an ethanol EYP of 63.72% ± 0.25% for neutral sucrose musts, compared to an EC of 14.72% ± 0.12% (v/v) for sucrose must supplemented with SG (2 g/L), corresponding to an ethanol EYP of 66.98% ± 0.54%. As for batch mode, fermentation of rotten orange musts yielded EC values of 15.87% ± 0.15% (v/v) and 16.51% ± 0.12% (v/v), respectively for the neutral must and the must supplemented with SG (2 g/L), with corresponding ethanol EYPs of 72.23% ± 2.19% and 75.15% ± 0.96%. These results show that batch fermentation of rotten orange musts produced more bioethanol than fed-batch fermentation. On the other hand, for sucrose musts, it was fed-batch fermentation that resulted in a higher ethanol content.</p>
  </sec><sec id="s5">
   <title>5. Conclusions and Perspectives</title>
   <p>The valorization of rotten oranges into bioethanol proved particularly successful in the present study, as it enabled the production of bioethanol with a maximum ethanol content of about 16.51% ± 0.12% (v/v), corresponding to a maximum concentration of 130.26 ± 0.95 g/L of ethanol. Large-scale application of the technology developed in this work could generate additional benefits for the various stakeholders involved in orange production and sales in Togo, such as a reduction of wastes for fruit vendors, a decrease of the reliance on fossil fuels in local transport, or a creation of a value-added product from agricultural surplus. In addition to these all-socio-economic outcomes, there would also be positive impacts on environmental protection.</p>
   <p>For future work, it is important to identify other, more effective growth factors for the bioconversion of rotten oranges into bioethanol.</p>
  </sec><sec id="s6">
   <title>Acknowledgements</title>
   <p>All the authors of this article thank the authorities of the University of Lomé for their financial support, which made this study possible.</p>
  </sec>
 </body><back>
  <ref-list>
   <title>References</title>
   <ref id="scirp.146957-ref1">
    <label>1</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Mignogna, D., Szabó, M., Ceci, P. and Avino, P. (2024) Biomass Energy and Biofuels: Perspective, Potentials, and Challenges in the Energy Transition. Sustainability, 16, Article No. 7036. &gt;https://doi.org/10.3390/su16167036
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.146957-ref2">
    <label>2</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Sandaka, B.P. and Kumar, J. (2023) Alternative Vehicular Fuels for Environmental Decarbonization: A Critical Review of Challenges in Using Electricity, Hydrogen, and Biofuels as a Sustainable Vehicular Fuel. Chemical Engineering Journal Advances, 14, Article ID: 100442. &gt;https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ceja.2022.100442
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.146957-ref3">
    <label>3</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Desta, M., Lee, T. and Wu, H. (2022) Life Cycle Energy Consumption and Environmental Assessment for Utilizing Biofuels in the Development of a Sustainable Transportation System in Ethiopia. Energy Conversion and Management: X, 13, Article ID: 100144. &gt;https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecmx.2021.100144
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.146957-ref4">
    <label>4</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Kwakye, J.M., Ekechukwu, D.E. and Ogbu, A.D. (2024) Characterization of Algal Biomass for Biofuel Production: Techniques and Applications. International Journal of Engineering Research and Development, 20, 248-260.&gt;https://ijerd.com/paper/vol20-issue7/2007248260.pdf
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.146957-ref5">
    <label>5</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Sadaqat, B., Dar, M.A., Xie, R. and Sun, J. (2025) Drawbacks of First-Generation Biofuels: Challenges and Paradigm Shifts in Technology for Second-and Third-Generation Biofuels. In: Zhu, D., Dar, M.A. and Shahnawaz, M., Éds., Biofuels and Sustainability, Elsevier, 33-47. &gt;https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-443-21433-2.00003-7
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.146957-ref6">
    <label>6</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Bertrand, E. and Dussap, C. (2022) First Generation Bioethanol: Fundamentals—Definition, History, Global Production, Evolution. In: Soccol, C.R., et al., Eds., Biofuel and Biorefinery Technologies, Springer International Publishing, 1-12. &gt;https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-01241-9_1
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.146957-ref7">
    <label>7</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Igwebuike, C.M., Awad, S. and Andrès, Y. (2024) Renewable Energy Potential: Second-Generation Biomass as Feedstock for Bioethanol Production. Molecules, 29, Article No. 1619. &gt;https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules29071619
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.146957-ref8">
    <label>8</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Lászlok, A., Takács-György, K. and Takács, I. (2020) Examination of First Generation Biofuel Production in Some Selected Biofuel Producing Countries in Europe: A Case Study. Agricultural Economics (
     <span style="font-family:Cambria;">Zemědělská Ekonomika</span>), 66, 469-476. &gt;https://doi.org/10.17221/237/2020-agricecon
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.146957-ref9">
    <label>9</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Machado, R.L. and Abreu, M.R. (2024) Multi-Objective Optimization of the First and Second-Generation Ethanol Supply Chain in Brazil Using the Water-Energy-Food-Land Nexus Approach. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 193, Article ID: 114299. &gt;https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2024.114299
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.146957-ref10">
    <label>10</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Saputro, E.A., Panjaitan, R., Bobsaid, A.A. and Hutabarat, M.C. (2023) Utilization of Vegetable and Fruit Waste as Raw Material of Bioethanol. In: Al-Baarri, A. and Afifah, D., Eds., Food Sustainability, Environmental Awareness, and Adaptation and Mitigation Strategies for Developing Countries, IGI Global, 182-197. &gt;https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-6684-5629-3.ch011
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.146957-ref11">
    <label>11</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Basaglia, M., D’Ambra, M., Piubello, G., Zanconato, V., Favaro, L. and Casella, S. (2021) Agro-Food Residues and Bioethanol Potential: A Study for a Specific Area. Processes, 9, Article No. 344. &gt;https://doi.org/10.3390/pr9020344
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.146957-ref12">
    <label>12</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Vasileiadou, A. (2024) From Organic Wastes to Bioenergy, Biofuels, and Value-Added Products for Urban Sustainability and Circular Economy: A Review. Urban Science, 8, Article No. 121. &gt;https://doi.org/10.3390/urbansci8030121
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.146957-ref13">
    <label>13</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Pal, P., Singh, A.K., Srivastava, R.K., Rathore, S.S., Sahoo, U.K., Subudhi, S., et al. (2024) Circular Bioeconomy in Action: Transforming Food Wastes into Renewable Food Resources. Foods, 13, Article No. 3007. &gt;https://doi.org/10.3390/foods13183007
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.146957-ref14">
    <label>14</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Garg, A., Basu, S., Shetti, N.P., Bhattu, M., Alodhayb, A.N. and Pandiaraj, S. (2024) Biowaste to Bioenergy Nexus: Fostering Sustainability and Circular Economy. Environmental Research, 250, Article ID: 118503. &gt;https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2024.118503
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.146957-ref15">
    <label>15</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     D'Amore, T., Russell, I. and Stewart, G.G. (1989) Sugar Utilization by Yeast during Fermentation. Journal of Industrial Microbiology, 4, 315-323. &gt;https://doi.org/10.1007/bf01577355
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.146957-ref16">
    <label>16</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Kelebek, H. and Selli, S. (2011) Determination of Volatile, Phenolic, Organic Acid and Sugar Components in a Turkish cv. Dortyol (Citrus sinensis L. Osbeck) Orange Juice. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 91, 1855-1862. &gt;https://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.4396
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.146957-ref17">
    <label>17</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Chaudhary, A., Aihetasham, A., Younas, S., Basheer, N., Hussain, N., Naz, S., et al. (2024) Statistical Optimization for Comparative Hydrolysis and Fermentation for Hemicellulosic Ethanolgenesis. Italian Journal of Food Science, 36, 231-245. &gt;https://doi.org/10.15586/ijfs.v36i2.2526
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.146957-ref18">
    <label>18</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Hamdi, G.M.H., Abbas, M.N. and Ali, S.A.K. (2024) Bioethanol Production from Agricultural Waste: A Review. Journal of Engineering and Sustainable Development, 28, 233-252. &gt;https://doi.org/10.31272/jeasd.28.2.7
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.146957-ref19">
    <label>19</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Khatun, F., Islam, Z., Habib, A., Saha, S. and Yasmin, S. (2023) Sustainable Utilization of Fruit Wastes for Production of Bioethanol Using Thermotolerant Saccharomyces cerevisiae Yeast Isolated from Common Fruits of Bangladesh. The Journal of Animal and Plant Sciences, 33, 440-452. &gt;https://doi.org/10.36899/japs.2023.2.0636
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.146957-ref20">
    <label>20</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Novidzro, K.M., Anoumou, K., Fagla, B.A., Melila, M., Dotse, K. and Koumaglo, K.H. (2019) Second Generation Bioethanol Production from Pineapple Peels. International Journal of Green and Herbal Chemistry, 8, 938-953. &gt;https://doi.org/10.24214/IJGHC/GC/8/4/93853
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.146957-ref21">
    <label>21</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Chang, Y.-H., Chang, K.-S., Chen, C.-Y., Hsu, C.-L., Chang, T.-C. and 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, Article No. 45. &gt;https://doi.org/10.3390/fermentation4020045
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.146957-ref22">
    <label>22</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Novidzro, K.M., Fagla, B.A., Houndji, B.S., Melila, M., Dotse, K. and Koumaglo, K.H. (2019) Balanites aegyptiaca Fruits’ Valorisation by Liquid Biofuels Production. American Journal of Chemical Engineering, 7, 102-112. &gt;https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajche.20190704.11
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.146957-ref23">
    <label>23</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Novidzro, K.M. (2013) Production du bioéthanol par fermentation alcoolique des jus de fruits. Éditions Universitaires Européennes.
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.146957-ref24">
    <label>24</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Srichuwong, S., Fujiwara, M., Wang, X., Seyama, T., Shiroma, R., Arakane, M., et al. (2009) Simultaneous Saccharification and Fermentation (SSF) of Very High Gravity (VHG) Potato Mash for the Production of Ethanol. Biomass and Bioenergy, 33, 890-898. &gt;https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2009.01.012
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.146957-ref25">
    <label>25</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Plášek, J., Gášková, D., Ludwig, J. and Höfer, M. (2013) Early Changes in Membrane Potential of Saccharomyces cerevisiae Induced by Varying Extracellular K+, Na+ or H+ Concentrations. Journal of Bioenergetics and Biomembranes, 45, 561-568. &gt;https://doi.org/10.1007/s10863-013-9528-6
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.146957-ref26">
    <label>26</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Puligundla, P., Smogrovicova, D., Obulam, V.S.R. and Ko, S. (2011) Very High Gravity (VHG) Ethanolic Brewing and Fermentation: A Research Update. Journal of Industrial Microbiology&amp;Biotechnology, 38, 1133-1144. &gt;https://doi.org/10.1007/s10295-011-0999-3
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.146957-ref27">
    <label>27</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Xu, Y., Yang, H., Brennan, C.S., Coldea, T.E. and Zhao, H. (2020) Cellular Mechanism for the Improvement of Multiple Stress Tolerance in Brewer’s Yeast by Potassium Ion Supplementation. International Journal of Food Science&amp;Technology, 55, 2419-2427. &gt;https://doi.org/10.1111/ijfs.14491
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.146957-ref28">
    <label>28</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Zhang, Q., Jin, Y., Fang, Y. and Zhao, H. (2019) Adaptive Evolution and Selection of Stress-Resistant Saccharomyces cerevisiae for Very High-Gravity Bioethanol Fermentation. Electronic Journal of Biotechnology, 41, 88-94. &gt;https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejbt.2019.06.003
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.146957-ref29">
    <label>29</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Patharkar, S.R. and Rathod, M.S. (2019) Optimization of Mixed Culture Fermentation Conditions for the Development Orange (Citrus reticulata Blanco) Wine. International Journal of Chemical Studies, 7, 1176-1180.
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.146957-ref30">
    <label>30</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Ghaffar, T., Irshad, M., Anwar, Z., Aqil, T., Zulifqar, Z., Tariq, A., et al. (2014) Recent Trends in Lactic Acid Biotechnology: A Brief Review on Production to Purification. Journal of Radiation Research and Applied Sciences, 7, 222-229. &gt;https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrras.2014.03.002
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.146957-ref31">
    <label>31</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Eliasson, A., Christensson, C., Wahlbom, C.F. and Hahn-Hägerdal, B. (2000) Anaerobic Xylose Fermentation by Recombinant Saccharomyces cerevisiae Carrying XYL1, XYL2, and XKS1 in Mineral Medium Chemostat Cultures. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 66, 3381-3386. &gt;https://doi.org/10.1128/aem.66.8.3381-3386.2000
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.146957-ref32">
    <label>32</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Gírio, F.M., Fonseca, C., Carvalheiro, F., Duarte, L.C., Marques, S. and Bogel-Łukasik, R. (2010) Hemicelluloses for Fuel Ethanol: A Review. Bioresource Technology, 101, 4775-4800. &gt;https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2010.01.088
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.146957-ref33">
    <label>33</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Konwar, J., Das, M., Gogoi, M., Kaman, P.K., Goswami, S., Sarma, J., et al. (2024) Enemies of Citrus Fruit Juice: Formation Mechanism and State-of-the-Art Removal Techniques. Current Research in Nutrition and Food Science Journal, 12, 977-999. &gt;https://doi.org/10.12944/crnfsj.12.3.2
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.146957-ref34">
    <label>34</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Mamma, D. and Christakopoulos, P. (2013) Biotransformation of Citrus By-Products into Value Added Products. Waste and Biomass Valorization, 5, 529-549. &gt;https://doi.org/10.1007/s12649-013-9250-y
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.146957-ref35">
    <label>35</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Muanda Nsemi, F. (2010) Identification de polyphénols, évaluation de leur activité antioxydante et étude de leurs propriétés biologiques. Thèse de doctorat en biologie végétale, Université Paul Verlaine-Metz. &gt;https://tel.archives-ouvertes.fr/tel-01752680
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.146957-ref36">
    <label>36</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Gu, H., Zhu, Y., Peng, Y., Liang, X., Liu, X., Shao, L., et al. (2019) Physiological Mechanism of Improved Tolerance of Saccharomyces cerevisiae to Lignin-Derived Phenolic Acids in Lignocellulosic Ethanol Fermentation by Short-Term Adaptation. Biotechnology for Biofuels, 12, Article No. 682. &gt;https://doi.org/10.1186/s13068-019-1610-9
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.146957-ref37">
    <label>37</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Patelski, A.M., Dziekońska-Kubczak, U. and Ditrych, M. (2024) The Fermentation of Orange and Black Currant Juices by the Probiotic Yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae var. boulardii. Applied Sciences, 14, Article No. 3009. &gt;https://doi.org/10.3390/app14073009
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.146957-ref38">
    <label>38</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Viegas, C.A. and Sá-Correia, I. (1995) Toxicity of Octanoic Acid in Saccharomyces cerevisiae at Temperatures between 8.5˚C and 30˚C. Enzyme and Microbial Technology, 17, 826-831. &gt;https://doi.org/10.1016/0141-0229(94)00111-4
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
  </ref-list>
 </back>
</article>