African Journal of
Food Science

  • Abbreviation: Afr. J. Food Sci.
  • Language: English
  • ISSN: 1996-0794
  • DOI: 10.5897/AJFS
  • Start Year: 2007
  • Published Articles: 896

Full Length Research Paper

Effect of harvest age of cassava roots and sweet potato tubers on alcohol yield

Komlaga, G. A.
  • Komlaga, G. A.
  • Food Technology Research Division, CSIR-Food Research Institute, Accra, Ghana.
  • Google Scholar
Oduro, I.
  • Oduro, I.
  • Department of Food Science and Technology, College of Science, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, University Post Office, Kumasi, Ghana.
  • Google Scholar
Ellis, W. O.
  • Ellis, W. O.
  • Department of Food Science and Technology, College of Science, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, University Post Office, Kumasi, Ghana.
  • Google Scholar
Dziedzoave, N. T.
  • Dziedzoave, N. T.
  • Food Technology Research Division, CSIR-Food Research Institute, Accra, Ghana.
  • Google Scholar


  •  Received: 02 January 2021
  •  Accepted: 13 April 2021
  •  Published: 30 April 2021

 ABSTRACT

Several studies have been conducted in the past using cassava and sweet potato as feedstock to optimise the yield of alcohol. Harvest age of cassava and sweet potato may have some effects on the fermentable carbohydrates quantity. This study aims to establish the best harvest age of cassava and sweet potato for alcohol production. Two varieties of cassava (Sika bankye and Ampong) cultivated and harvested at 8, 10 and 12 months and two sweet potato varieties (Apomuden and Tuskiki) harvested at 3, 4 and 5 months were used for the study. Starch hydrolysis was performed with two sets of enzymes followed by fermentation with Bio-Ferm XR (Lallemand) yeast. The nutrients in Sika bankye were generally higher than in Ampong, except for ash. Sika bankye had the highest alcohol yield (14.8% v/v) between the two cassava varieties, with the best harvest age of cassava for ethanol production being 10 months. Apomuden had relatively higher nutrients than Tuskiki at all levels of growth except for fat. Apomuden had the highest alcohol yield (15.7% v/v) between the two sweet potato varieties with 3 months being the economical harvest age of sweet potato for ethanol production.

 

Key words: Cassava, sweet potato, harvest age, saccharification, fermentation, alcohol yield.


 INTRODUCTION

Cassava and sweet potato contain high concentrations of starch which could be converted into ethanol (Ozoegwua et al., 2017; Lareo et al., 2013). Several investigations in the recent past confirmed the potential of cassava and sweet potato as feedstock for ethanol production (Costa et al., 2018; Martinez et al., 2018; Pereira et al., 2017; Schweinberger et al., 2016; Archibong et al., 2016; Swain et al., 2013; Oyeleke et al., 2012). The major crops  that are usually used globally for ethanol production are corn, sugar cane and wheat (Zabed et al., 2016; Li et al., 2016; Gupta and Verma, 2015; McMurry, 2015; Vollhardt and Schore, 2014; Boundy et al., 2011).
 
Fresh cassava roots contain about 30% starch (Amarachi et al., 2015) and 1l of ethanol could be produced from 5-6 kg of fresh roots (containing 30% starch) and 3 kg of cassava chips (14% moisture content).
 
 
It is also reported that cassava and sweet potato have higher starch yield per unit area than grains (Duvernay et al., 2013; Lee et al., 2012; Srichuwong et al., 2009; Ziska et al., 2009). Cassava can be grown under relatively poor agronomic conditions; therefore, cassava is a “food security crop” (Parmar et al., 2017; Amarachi et al., 2015). Sweet potato is an excellent feedstock for ethanol production (Lareo et al., 2013). Industrial sweet potato could produce 4500–6500 l/ha of ethanol compared to 2800–3800 l/ha for corn (Duvernay et al., 2013; Ziska et al., 2009).
 
Importation and use of ethanol in developing countries such as Ghana in recent times has been on the rise. In 2016 for instance, a total of over seventy million litres of ethanol was imported into Ghana for various industrial uses (Ghana Business News, 2017), this quantity could have been produced using cassava as raw material. The Ministry of Food and Agriculture, Ghana (MoFA Statistics Ghana, 2016), reported 17,213,000 tonnes of fresh cassava production by Ghana in 2015. A surplus of 30 to 40% production figure was reported from the above production figure in 2016, which could be utilised in industries as raw materials for other products, without adverse effects on food security (Grow Africa, 2015).
 
The amount of fermentable carbohydrates available in cassava root and sweet potato tuber depend on the variety and growth conditions of the crops (Teerawanichpan et al., 2008). The harvest age of the crops could therefore have some effects on the fermentable carbohydrates, which could have direct relation with the amount of alcohol produced. The study was to establish the best harvest age of cassava and sweet potato for alcohol production.


 MATERIALS

Flour processed from two varieties of cassava (Sika bankye and Ampong) cultivated at Caltech Ventures Ltd farms, Ho, in the Volta region, Ghana and sweet potato flour processed from two varieties of sweet potato (Apomuden and Tuskiki) cultivated at Mantsi, in Greater Accra region, were used for the study. The cassava roots were harvested at 8, 10 and 12 months and the sweet potato was harvested at 3, 4 and 5 months and processed into flour for the study. Liquozyme SC DS, Viscozyme L and Spirizyme Fuel enzymes were provided by Novozymes, Denmark. Bio-Ferm XR yeast (unique yeast strain of Saccharomyces cerevisiae) produced by Lallemand, Georgia, USA was used for fermentation.


 METHODS

Processing of cassava (Sika bankye and Ampong) and sweet potato (Apomuden and Tuskiki) flours
 
The 8, 10 and 12 month old lots of Sika bankye and Ampong (freshly harvested) and the 3, 4 and 5 month old lots of freshly harvested Apomuden and Tuskiki were weighed, washed, sliced thinly (average of 2 mm thick) with peels on, steam blanched for 10 m, dried at 62°C in an oven for 6 h, after which it was  cooled  and milled through a sieve with 350µ mesh size. The flour samples were subsequently used for ethanol production. Amount of starch in the flour was determined using Litner’s method, proximate analysis carried out, visco-amylograph analysis and other physicochemical properties determined.
 
Ethanol production from cassava and sweet potato flour
 
The alcohol content of 50 g each of the cassava (8, 10 and 12 months) and sweet potato (3, 4 and 5 months) flour samples processed was determined using the method described by Komlaga et al. (2021), followed by alcohol yield by weight calculation using the Cutaia et al. (2009) formula: Aw/w = 0.38726* (OE – AE) + 0.00307* (OE – AE)2. Where, Aw/w is Alcohol content by weight, OE is original extract and AE is the apparent extract. The alcohol by volume conversion was done using the Probrewer conversion table (Probrewer, 2018).
 
Determination of Starch content A (Litner’s method)
 
Five grams of cassava and sweet potato flour samples were triturated with 10 ml of water, and 20 ml hydrochloric acid (sp.gr.1.15) added in small portions. The mixture was washed into a 100 ml flask with hydrochloric acid (12% w/w HCl) and 5 ml of 5% phosphotungstic acid added to precipitate proteins and the volume made up to 100 ml with 12% hydrochloric acid. The mixture was shaken, filtered and the optical rotation of the filtrate was measured in a 200 mm tube. The mean specific rotation of starch was taken as +200.
 
 
Proximate analysis
 
Moisture and protein contents were determined according to Helrich (1990), while ash and fat contents were determined according to Horwitz (2000) methods.
 
pH determination
 
The pH of the samples was determined by homogenizing 10g of flour samples in 50 ml of distilled water, after which the pH of the resulting mixture was measured with a Mettler Toledo (Seven Compact pH meter, Mettler Toledo group, Switzerland) pH meter. The experiment was performed in triplicates.
 
Pasting characteristics determination
 
Visco-Amylograph (Viscograph-E) manufactured by Brabender GmbH & Co, KG, Illinois, USA, was used to determine the gelatinisation temperature of the flour samples. The moisture content of the flour sample was determined using Sartorius MA 45 (Sartorius AG, Goettingen, Germany) moisture analyzer after which and the moisture value was fed into the software of the Viscograph-E. The quantities of flour sample and distilled water to mix for the test was then determined by the software. The flour sample was then weighed and poured in the measured distilled water, mixed well to form consistent slurry with no lumps. The sample was transferred into the reaction chamber of the Viscograph-E and run to analyse the sample. The data generated at the end of the analysis were copied and saved from which the gelatinisation temperature was recorded.
 
Data analysis
 
Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was carried out on the ethanol yields from the samples using Minitab version 17.1 (Kutner et al., 2005).


 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Moisture content
 
The moisture contents of the fresh cassava and sweet potato varieties studied are represented in Figures 1 and 3, respectively. The moisture content ranged from 57 to 67% for cassava varieties and 67 to 71% for sweet potato varieties for the three growth stages. The moisture content of the cassava roots was comparable with the 68.1% value reported by Amarachi et al. (2015). The moisture content of Ampong roots were significantly higher (p < 0.05) compared to Sika bankye variety for all three growth levels. The amount of moisture is related to dry matter content of root crops. The higher the moisture content, the lower the dry matter content. It therefore implied that, Sika bankye variety has relatively higher dry matter content than Ampong variety at the same harvest age. It was also observed from the two varieties that, the more matured the cassava roots, the less moisture it has. The cassava roots were harvested in June, August and October with highest root moisture content recorded in June and the least moisture documented in October. There was much rain in June at the time of the 8 month harvest than in August and October in the location  of the cultivation. The moisture levels in the soil at the time of harvest could make the roots absorb more water which could lead to higher moisture content in the 8 months matured roots than the 10 and 12 months matured roots. The moisture content of the fresh Tuskiki variety was significantly higher compared to Apomuden variety for all three harvesting stages. It implied that, Apomuden variety has relatively higher dry matter content than Tuskiki variety at same maturity levels.
 
Starch content
 
Figures 2 and 4 represent the starch contents of the cassava and sweet potato varieties studied. The starch content of the cassava varieties ranged between 52% and 69% and that for sweet potato ranged between 78 and 90% on dry basis. It was observed  that the starch content of Sika bankye variety was significantly higher at all levels of growth than in the Ampong variety. The starch content of Apomuden variety was significantly higher at all levels of maturity than in the Tuskiki variety. Ethanol yield from a starchy raw material is largely dependent on the starch content and dry matter of the raw material (Li et al., 2015; Ademiluyi and Mepba, 2013). Teerawanichpan et al. (2008) reported that the amount of hydrolysable carbohydrates available in cassava root and sweet potato tuber depended on the variety and growth conditions of the crops. Sika bankye variety is a better variety for ethanol production compared to Ampong variety based on the fact that it has higher dry matter and higher starch contents.  Likewise, for the sweet potato varieties, Apomuden is a better variety for ethanol production compared to Tuskiki variety.
 
 
 
Proximate composition
 
The proximate composition of the cassava and sweet potato varieties studied are presented in Tables 1 and 2, respectively. The nutrients (ash, fat, protein, carbohydrates and crude fibre) are generally higher in Sika bankye  than in Ampong variety except for ash. The nutrients determined (ash, fat, protein, carbohydrates, crude fibre) in the sweet potato varieties were generally higher in Apomuden than in Tuskiki variety, except for fat content. The fat content of Tuskiki variety was relatively higher for all levels of growth than that of Apomuden variety (Table 2). Nutrients in Wort during brewing (fermentation) are essential to how well the sugar is fermented into ethanol (Kunze, 2004). The yeast cells need amino acids to build proteins and new cells, they need vitamins and minerals to make enzymes work-well and they need phosphorous to create new DNA.
 
Nitrogen is a key factor in determining the ethanol yield in brewing (Agu et al., 2009). Nitrogen is approximately 10% of the dry weight of yeast cells. Since the nutrients are relatively higher in Sika bankye than in Ampong variety and higher in Apomuden than in Tuskiki variety, especially that of protein, it suggested that Sika bankye and Apomuden could supply, to a large extent, the needed nutrients to yeast cells during fermentation than Ampong and Tuskiki. Sika bankye and Apomuden varieties could therefore be the best varieties in terms of nutrients supply for ethanol production than Ampong and Tuskiki varieties.
 
Physico-chemical properties
 
The physico-chemical properties of the cassava and sweet potato varieties studied are presented in Table 3. The gelatinisation temperatures of the cassava varieties ranged between 68 and 70°C and that of the sweet potato varieties ranged between 72 and 73°C. Gelatinisation irreversibly dissolves starch granules in water in presence of heat, by breaking the intermolecular bonds of the starch molecules. The process improved the availability of starch molecules for hydrolysis by amylases. The gelatinisation temperatures observed for the cassava and sweet potato varieties were far below the optimum temperature (85°C) of the Liquozyme SC DS enzyme used for dextrinization in this study. The starch molecules in the cassava and sweet potato varieties would therefore gelatinise before the optimum temperature of the liquozyme SC DC enzyme is attained. This would ensure that all the starch molecules present in solution would be broken down into short chain carbohydrates for subsequent hydrolysis by saccharifying enzymes. The pH values recorded during the study for cassava and sweet potato varieties were between 5.5 and 6.1. The pH values obtained in the study are conducive for the hydrolysis and fermentation of the samples, since all the enzymes and the yeast used have their optimum pH values between 5 and 6. The adjustment of pH of the reaction medium, with economic implications for the ethanol production, is therefore not necessary.
 
 
The swelling capacities of the cassava varieties studied ranged from 9.4 to 10.0, with Sika bankye generally having relatively low swelling capacity compared to Ampong variety. The swelling capacity of the sweet potato varieties were 5.8 and 5.6 for Apomuden and Tuskiki, respectively. Swelling capacity is a measure of the ability of starch to imbibe water and expand in volume at a particular temperature (Amarachi et al., 2015). Low swelling capacity of flour suggested that the starch granules have strong binding force and low amylose content. Low-amylose starch has an excellent functionality of easy digestibility when compared with high-amylose starch (Amarachi et al., 2015). In addition, low swelling power in cassava flour is a clear indication of restricted starch which shows a high resistance to breaking during cooking. Since the cassava and sweet potato varieties studied have relatively low swelling capacities, they could all be digested easily, hence ideal for ethanol production. The water absorption capacity of the cassava and sweet potato varieties ranged between 0.3 and 3.2. Sika bankye variety had relatively higher water absorption capacity than Ampong, and Apomuden had relatively higher water absorption capacity than Tuskiki variety.
 
Water absorption capacity is the ability to take up and retain water either by adsorption or absorption. It is influenced by the extent of starch disintegration. Low water absorption capacity could be attributed to the protein content in a product because protein has been reported to limit the ability of water uptake in food (Amarachi et al., 2015). There were no significant differences between the water absorption capacities of Sika bankye and Ampong and between Apomuden and Tuskiki varieties.
 
Ethanol yield
 
 
Results of limit attenuation and corresponding  mean  alcohol yields from the cassava and sweet potato varieties studied are presented in Table 4. The attenuation of the samples ranged between 80 and 86%, which are comparable to other previous studies (Kunze, 2004). Attenuation refers to the conversion of fermentable sugars in a Wort into alcohol and carbon dioxide by yeast during fermentation. The greater the attenuation, the more sugar that has been converted into alcohol (Krstanovic et al., 2019). The alcohol values observed in the study ranged from 11.5 to 15.2% v/v. The results obtained are comparable with that of other studies (Cutzu and Bardi, 2017; Ocloo and Ayernor, 2010; Begea et al., 2010). Flour processed from 10 months old Sika bankye produced the highest alcohol (14.8% v/v) among the two varieties of cassava studied, while 3 months old Apomuden flour produced the highest alcohol (15.2% v/v) among the two varieties of sweet potato studied. The ethanol content of Sika bankye is higher and significantly different (p < 0.05) compared to those of Ampong variety of same level of growth (Table 4). This is attributed to the higher dry matter, starch content and other nutrients like protein and fat which are relatively higher in Sika bankye than Ampong variety (Table 1 and Figure 2). There was no significant difference between the ethanol yield of cassava samples of 10 and 12 months old. There is therefore no economic value, according to the findings, to keep cassava roots on the field after 10 months if they are meant for processing alcohol.
 
 
The economic harvest age of cassava meant for ethanol production is therefore 10 months. The starch contents of the sweet potato varieties studied are significantly higher than the cassava varieties studied. This reflected in higher ethanol yields in the sweet potato than cassava varieties. Apart from the higher starch content and other nutrients, the higher ethanol yields from the sweet potato varieties could also be attributed to significant β-amylase activity in sweet potato, which could aid the degradation of starch during mashing to produce simple sugars (Dziedzoave et al., 2010). There was no significant difference between the ethanol yield of sweet potato samples of 3, 4  and  5  months  old.  There  is  no economic value, according to the findings, to keep sweet potato on the field after 3 months if they are meant for ethanol production. The economic harvest age of sweet potato meant for ethanol production is therefore 3 months. The ethanol yields from the 10 months old Sika bankye and 3 months old Apomuden flours could be exploited to process the 30 to 40% surplus cassava (documented in Ghana in 2016) into ethanol to cut down the importation of ethanol, which indirectly saves foreign exchange for developing countries (Grow Africa, 2015).


 CONCLUSION

The results from the study indicate that nutrients in Sika bankye variety at the same harvest age are generally higher than in Ampong variety, except for ash. Sika bankye variety has more dry matter and higher starch content at the same harvest age which resulted in higher ethanol yield than Ampong variety. Sika bankye variety had highest ethanol yield (14.8% v/v) between the two cassava varieties at 10 months. The best harvest age of cassava for ethanol production is 10 months. Apomuden variety has relatively higher nutrients than Tuskiki variety at all levels of maturity except for fat. Apomuden variety has more starch and produced much ethanol than Tuskiki variety at the same harvest age. Apomuden variety had the highest ethanol yield (15.7% v/v) between the two sweet potato varieties at age of 3 months. The best economical harvest age for ethanol production from sweet potato is 3 months.


 CONFLICT OF INTERESTS

The authors have not declared any conflict of interest.



 REFERENCES

Ademiluyi FT, Mepba HD (2013). Yield and properties of ethanol biofuel produced from different whole cassava flours. ISRN Biotechnology ID 916481. 
Crossref

 

Afoakwa EO, Budu A, Asiedu S, Chiwona-Karltun C, Nyirenda DB (2012). Viscoelastic properties and physico-functional characterization of six high yielding cassava mosaic disease resistant cassava (Manihot esculenta Crantz) genotypes. Journal of Nutrition and Food Science 2:129.

 
 

Agu RC, Swanston JS, Walker JW, Pearson SY, Bringhurst JM, Jack FR (2009). Predicting alcohol yield from UK soft winter wheat for grain distilling: Combined influence on hardness and nitrogen measurement. Journal of the Institute of Brewing 115(3):83-190.
Crossref

 
 

Amarachi D, Ocheechukwu-Agua, Caleb OJ, Opara UL (2015). Postharvest handling and storage of fresh cassava root and products: A review. Food Bioprocess 8(4):729-748.
Crossref

 
 

Archibong EJ, Ifeanyi EO, Okafor OI, Okafor UI, Ezewuzie CS, Ezembor GC, Awah NC, Okeke BC, Anaukwu GC, Anakwenze VN (2016). Ethanol production from cassava wastes (pulp and peel) using alcohol tolerant yeast isolated from palm wine. American Journal of Life Science Researches 4(3):92-97.
Crossref

 
 

Begea M, Vladescu M, Baldea G, Cimpeanu C, Stoicescu C, Tobosaru T, Begea P (2010). Utilization of last generation enzymes for industrial use in order to obtain bioethanol from locally available agricultural renewable resources. Romanian Agricultural Research 27:155-160.

 
 

Boundy B, Diegel SW, Wright L, Davis SC (2011). Biomass energy data book, 4th edn Oak Ridge. TN: Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
Crossref

 
 

Costa D, Jesus J, Virgínio e Silva J, Silveira M (2018). Life cycle assessment of bioethanol production from sweet potato (Ipomoea batatas L.) in an experimental plant. Bio-Energy Research. 
Crossref

 
 

Cutaia AJ, Reid A-J, Speers RA (2009). Examination of the relationships between original, real and apparent extracts and alcohol in pilot and commercially produced beers. Journal of the Institute of Brewing 115 (4):318-327.
Crossref

 
 

Cutzu R, Bardi L (2017). Production of bioethanol from Agricultural wastes using thermal energy of a cogeneration plant in the distillation phase. Fermentation 3(2):24.
Crossref

 
 

Duvernay WH, Chinn MS, Yencho GC (2013). Hydrolysis and fermentation of sweet potatoes for production of fermentable sugars and ethanol. Industrial Crops and Products 42:527-537.
Crossref

 
 

Dziedzoave NT, Graffham AJ, Westby AJ, Otoo J, Komlaga G (2010). Influence of variety and growth environment on β-amylase activity of flour from sweet potato (Ipomea batatas). Food Control 21(2):162-165.
Crossref

 
 

Ghana Business News (2017). Local company announces production of ethanol from cassava. Available at:

View

 
 

Grow Africa (2015). Market opportunities for commercial cassava in Ghana, Mozambique and Nigeria: The sustainable trade initiative study report P 97.

 
 

Gupta A, Verma JP (2015). Sustainable bio-ethanol production from agro-residues: A review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 41:550-567.
Crossref

 
 

Helrich K (1990). AOAC: Official methods of analysis (Volume 1), 15th edition, 925.10.

 
 

Horwitz W (2000). Official methods of analysis of AOAC International, 17th edition, 920.39C.

 
 

Komlaga GA, Oduro I, Ellis WO, Dziedzoave NT, Djameh C (2021). Alcohol yield from various combinations of cassava and sweet potato flours. African Journal of Food Science 15(1):20-25.
Crossref

 
 

Krstanovic V, Mastanjevic K, Nedovic V, Mastanjevic K (2019). The influence of wheat malt quality on final attenuation limit of Wort. Fermentation 5:89.
Crossref

 
 

Kunze W (2004). Technology brewing and malting, Translated by Pratt. S., 3rd international edition, VLB Berlin, Germany pp. 197-320.

 
 

Kutner MH, Nachtsheim CJ, Neter J, Li W (2005). Applied linear statistical models, Fifth edition. McGraw-Hill Irwin, Boston, United States of America pp. 1267-1296.

 
 

Lareo C, Ferrari MD, Guigou M, Fajardo L, Larnaudie V, Ramírez MB, Martínez-Garreiro J (2013). Evaluation of sweet potato for fuel bioethanol production: hydrolysis and fermentation. Springer Plus 2:493.
Crossref

 
 

Lee WS, Chen IC, Chang CH, Yang SS (2012). Bioethanol production from sweet potato by co-immobilization of saccharolytic molds and Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Renewable Energy 39(1):216-222.
Crossref

 
 

Li J, Danao M-GC, Chen SF, Li S, Singh V, Brown PJ (2015). Prediction of starch content and ethanol yields of sorghum grain using near infrared spectroscopy. Journal of Near Infrared Spectroscopy 23(2):85-92.
Crossref

 
 

Li P, Cai D, Luo Z, Qin P, Chen C, Wang Y, Zhang C, Wang Z, Tan T (2016). Effect of acid pre-treatment on different parts of corn stalk for second generation ethanol production. Bioresource Technology 206:86-92.
Crossref

 
 

Martinez DG, Feiden A, Bariccatti R, Zara KRF (2018). Ethanol production from waste of cassava processing. Applied Sciences 8:2158.
Crossref

 
 

McMurry J (2015). Organic Chemistry. Ninth Edition. Cengage learning, MA, USA pp. 525-564.

 
 

Ministry of Food and Agriculture Statistics, Ghana (2016). Agriculture in Ghana: Facts and figures (2015). Ministry of Food and Agriculture; Statistics, Research and Information Directorate P 121.

 
 

Ocloo FCK, Ayernor GS (2010). Production of ethanol from cassava flour hydrolysate. Journal of the Institute of Brewing 1(2):15-21.

 
 

Oyeleke SB, Dauda BEN, Oyewole OA, Okolegbe IN, Ojebode T (2012). Production of Bioethanol from cassava and sweet potato peels. Advances in Environmental Biology 6(1):241-245.

 
 

Ozoegwua CG, Ezeb C, Onwosic CO, Mgbemenea CA, Ozor PA (2017). Biomass and bioenergy potential of cassava waste in Nigeria: Estimations based partly on rural-level garri processing case studies. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 72:625-638.
Crossref

 
 

Parmar A, Sturm B, Hensel O (2017). Crops that feed the world: Production and improvement of cassava for food, feed, and industrial uses. Food Security 9(5):907-927.
Crossref

 
 

Pereira CR, Resende JTV, Guerra EP, Lima VA, Martins MD, Knob A (2017). Enzymatic conversion of sweet potato granular starch into fermentable sugars: feasibility of sweet potato peel as alternative substrate for α amylase production. Biocatalysis and Agricultural Biotechnology 11:231-238.
Crossref

 
 

Probrewer (2018). Percent Alcohol Conversion Calculator. Available at:

View

 
 

Schweinberger CM, Putti TR, Susin GB, Trierweiler JO, Trierweiler LF (2016). Ethanol production from sweet potato: The effect of ripening, comparison of two heating methods, and cost analysis. The Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering 94(4):716-724.
Crossref

 
 

Srichuwong S, Fujiwara M, Wang X, Seyama T, Shiroma R, Arakane M, Mukojima N Tokuyasu K (2009). Simultaneous saccharification and fermentation (SSF) of very high gravity (VHG) potato mash for the production of ethanol. Biomass Bioenergy 33(5):890-898.
Crossref

 
 

Swain MR, Mishra J, Thatoi H (2013). Bioethanol production from sweetpotato (ipomea batatas L.) flour using co-culture of Trichoderma sp. and Saccharomyces cerevisiae in solid state fermentation. Brazilian Archives of Biology and Technology 56(2):171-179.
Crossref

 
 

Teerawanichpan P, Lertpanyasampatha M, Netrphan S, Varavinit S, Boonseng O, Narangajavana J (2008). Influence of cassava storage root development and environmental conditions on starch granule size distribution. Starch 60(12):696-705.
Crossref

 
 

Vollhardt P, Schore N (2014). Organic Chemistry: Structure and Function, Seventh edition. W.H. Freeeman and Company, New York, USA pp. 279-310.
Crossref

 
 

Zabed H, Sahu JN, Boyce AN, Faruq G (2016). Fuel ethanol production from lignocellulosic biomass: An overview on feedstocks and technological approaches. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 66:751-774.
Crossref

 
 

Ziska LH, Runion GB, Tomecek M, Prior SA, Torbet HA Sicher R (2009). An evaluation of cassava, sweet potato and field corn as potential carbohydrate sources for bioethanol production in Alabama and Maryland. Biomass Bioenergy 33(11):1503-1508.
Crossref

 
 

 




          */?>