Table 4.

Comparison of substrates, products, and microbial communities between previous literature studies and this study

Authors	Type of substrates	Target product	Operation mode	Fermentation condition	Highest product yield	Major microorganism	Relative studies (Y to yes, N to no)
							Substrates composition and microbial community	Microbial community and metabolic pathway
Jia et al. [10]	WAS, perennial ryegrass	VFAs	Batch	35 ± 1 °C, without pH control	368.71 ± 17.53 gCOD/kg TS	Clostridia, Spirochaetes, and Bacteroidetes	Y	N
Rughoonundun et al. [25]	WAS, bagasse	VFAs	Batch	55 °C, pH 7.0	360 mg/g VS	–	N	N
Huang et al. [11]	WAS, henna plant biomass	VFAs	Batch	35 ± 1 °C, initial pH 8.0, without pH control	7891 ± 411 mg COD/L	–	N	N
Guo et al. [30]	WAS, agricultural residues	VFAs	Semi-continuous	pH 10.0 ± 0.5	486.6 mgCOD/g VSS	Proteobacteria, Firmicutes, and Actinobacteria	Y	N
Huang et al. [31]	WAS, bio-surfactants	VFAs	Batch	pH 9.0, 10.0, and 11.0	425.2 mg COD/g VSS	Firmicutes, Proteobacteria, Bacteroidetes, Actinobacteria, and Chloroflexi	Y	N
Maspolim et al. [32]	WAS	VFAs	Semi-continuous	35 °C, pH 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11	–	Tissierella, Petrimonas, Proteiniphilum, Levilinea, Proteiniborus, and Sedimentibacter	Y	N
Sivagurunathan et al. [33]	Galactose	H2	Batch and continuous	35 ± 1 °C, pH over 5.5	1.05 mol H2/mol galactose	Clostridium sp. and Sporolactobacillus sp.	Y	Y
Kumar et al. [34]	Microalgae	H2	Batch	The seed inoculum included BESA addition (1 g/L), pH 5.5	29.5 mL/g VSadded	–	N	N
Ho et al. [35]	Microalgal C. vulgaris FSP-E	Ethanol	Batch	30 °C, pH 5.0-6.0	11.66 g/L	Pure culture of Z. mobilis ATCC 29191	N	N
This study	WAS, potato waste, food waste	VFAs	Batch	35 ± 1 °C, pH 10.0	343.54 ± 14.63 mg COD/g VS	Firmicutes, Chloroflexi, and Proteobacteria	Y	Y

– Not mentioned in literature