| Type of microorganism |
Bacterium |
| Temperature range |
15-45°C (Zhuang et al., 2024)
|
| pH range |
pH 6-8 (Zhuang et al., 2024)
|
| Carbon and nitrogen source |
Wide variety of C and N sources, including hydrocarbons and gaseous sources (Woern & Grossmann, 2023). See organism table for specific cases.
|
| Growth rate (µ) |
0.35-1.39/hour (Bratosin et al., 2021)
|
| Companies |
|
| Wild-type or GMO |
Wild-type |
| Feedstock suitability |
Not a lot of studies on agro-industrial waste streams for bacteria used in biomass fermentation, but some bacteria can grow on gaseous waste streams (Pander et al., 2020). See organism table for specific cases.
|
| % SCP (w/w percentage of protein in dried biomass) |
40-80% (Zhuang et al., 2024)
|
| cell biomass dry weight (CDW) = biomass yield? (g/L or g/g?) (weight of biomass/total weight or volume) |
-
15-85% (w/w) depending on organism and process (see organism table)
-
0.5-10% (w/v) depending on organism and process (see organism table)
|
| Protein titer (g/L or g/g?) grams of protein / total weight or volume |
-
9-45% (w/w) depending on organism and process (see organism table)
-
0.25-2.5% (w/v) depending on organism and process (see organism table)
|
| Productivity (g/Lh) |
2-6 depending on organism and process (see organism table) |
| Protein yield on C-source (% w/w) |
10-40% depending on organism and process (see organism table) |
| Scale |
From lab scale to pilot scale to industrial scale |
| Downstream purification processing complexity |
Harversting needed in two centrifugation steps because of their smaller size. Floccuation can be done as alternative. Nucleic acid reduction also necessary. In general more complex purification process than fungi and yeasts. (Ye et al., 2024)
|
| Nucleic acid content |
8-12% (Li et al., 2024)
|
| Techno-functional and/or nutritional properties (e.g. meat-like texture, amino acid profile, digestibility) |
|
| Target application (Food, feed, other) |
Used in both feed and food sector (Zhuang et al., 2024)
|
| Advantages |
Rapid growth, high protein content (Rajput et al., 2024)
|
| Challenges (Key limitations, risk factors) |
Small size, difficulty in harvesting, high nucleic acid content (Rajput et al., 2024)
|
| Regulatory status in Europe |
No product allowed for food in Europe yet, some products are allowed for feed (see organism table for specific cases) |
| Regulatory status in other parts of the world |
Not a lot of approval for bacterial biomass fermentation products in the US, Canada or Singapore (see organism table for specific cases) |
| Publications/references |
-
Zhuang, Z., Wan, G., Lu, X., Xie, L., Yu, T., & Tang, H. (2024). Metabolic engineering for single-cell protein production from renewable feedstocks and its applications. Advanced Biotechnology, 2(4). https://doi.org/10.1007/s44307-024-00042-8
-
Li, Y. P., Ahmadi, F., Kariman, K., & Lackner, M. (2024). Recent advances and challenges in single cell protein (SCP) technologies for food and feed production. Npj Science of Food, 8(1). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41538-024-00299-2
-
Bratosin, B. C., Darjan, S., & Vodnar, D. C. (2021). Single Cell Protein: A Potential Substitute in Human and Animal Nutrition. Sustainability, 13(16), 9284. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13169284
-
Rajput, S. D., Pandey, N., & Sahu, K. (2024). A comprehensive report on valorization of waste to single cell protein: strategies, challenges, and future prospects. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 31(18), 26378–26414. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-024-33004-7
-
Ye, L., Bogicevic, B., Bolten, C. J., & Wittmann, C. (2024). Single-cell protein: overcoming technological and biological challenges towards improved industrialization. Current Opinion in Biotechnology, 88, 103171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copbio.2024.103171
-
Nordlund, E., Silventoinen-Veijalainen, P., Hyytiäinen-Pabst, T., Nyyssölä, A., Valtonen, A., Ritala, A., Lienemann, M., & Rosa-Sibakov, N. (2024). In vitro protein digestion and carbohydrate colon fermentation of microbial biomass samples from bacterial, filamentous fungus and yeast sources. Food Research International, 182, 114146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2024.114146
-
Woern, C., & Grossmann, L. (2023). Microbial gas fermentation technology for sustainable food protein production. Biotechnology Advances, 69, 108240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biotechadv.2023.108240
-
Pander, B., Mortimer, Z., Woods, C., McGregor, C., Dempster, A., Thomas, L., Maliepaard, J., Mansfield, R., Rowe, P., & Krabben, P. (2020). Hydrogen oxidising bacteria for production of single‐cell protein and other food and feed ingredients. Engineering Biology, 4(2), 21–24. https://doi.org/10.1049/enb.2020.0005
|