The production of lipids from oleaginous yeasts involves several stages starting from cultivation and lipid accumulation, biomass harvesting and finally lipids extraction. However, the complex and relatively resistant cell wall of yeasts limits the full recovery of intracellular lipids and usually solvent extraction is not sufficient to effectively extract the lipid bodies. A pretreatment or cell disruption method is hence a prerequisite prior to solvent extraction. In general, there are no recovery methods that are equally efficient for different species of oleaginous yeasts. Each method adopts different mechanisms to disrupt cells and extract the lipids, thus a systematic evaluation is essential before choosing a particular method. In this review, mechanical (bead mill, ultrasonication, homogenization and microwave) and nonmechanical (enzyme, acid, base digestions and osmotic shock) methods that are currently used for the disruption or permeabilization of oleaginous yeasts are discussed based on their principle, application and feasibility, including their effects on the lipid yield. The attempts of using conventional and “green” solvents to selectively extract lipids are compared. Other emerging methods such as automated pressurized liquid extraction, supercritical fluid extraction and simultaneous in situ lipid recovery using capturing agents are also reviewed to facilitate the choice of more effective lipid recovery methods.

Nowadays, the replacement of petro-diesel with biodiesel has raised the concern among the community for the utilization of improper feedstocks and the cost involved. However, these issues can be solved by producing single cell oil (SCO) from lignocellulosic biomass hydrolysates by oleaginous microorganisms. This study introduced Yarrowia lipolytica JCM 2320 with a desiccated coconut residue (DCR) hydrolysate (obtained from the 2% dilute sulphuric acid pretreatment) as a carbon source in generating SCO. However, common inhibitors formed during acid pretreatment of biomass such as five-hydroxymethylfurfural (HMF), furfural, acetic acid and levulinic acid resulting from the sugar degradations may have detrimental effects towards the fermentation process. To visualize the effect of inhibitors on Y. lipolytica, an inhibitory study was conducted by adding 0.5–5.0 g/L of potential inhibitors to the YPD (yeast, peptone and D-glucose) medium. It was found that the presence of furfural at 0.5 g/L would increase the lag phase, which beyond that was detrimental to Y. lipolytica. Furthermore, increasing the five-hydroxymethylfurfural (HMF) concentration would increase the lag phase of Y. lipolytica, whereas, for acetic acid and levulinic acid, it showed a negligible effect. Detoxification was hence conducted to remove the potential inhibitors from the DCR hydrolysate prior its utilization in the fermentation. To examine the possibility of using adsorption resins for the detoxification of DCR hydrolysate, five different resins were tested (Amberlite® XAD-4, Amberlite® XAD-7, Amberlite® IR 120, Amberlite® IRA 96 and Amberlite® IRA 402) with five different concentrations of 1%, 3%, 5%, 10% and 15% (w/v), respectively. At resin concentration of 10%, Amberlite® XAD-4 recorded the highest SCO yield, 2.90 ± 0.02 g/L, whereas the control and the conventional overliming detoxification method, recorded only 1.29 ± 0.01 g/L and 1.27 ± 0.02 g/L SCO accumulation, respectively. Moreover, the fatty acid profile of the oil produced was rich in oleic acid (33.60%), linoleic acid (9.90%), and palmitic acid (14.90%), which indicates the potential as a good biodiesel raw material.