Effects of straw type and ratio change on microbial community in anaerobic digestion of sludge

doi:10.16085/j.issn.1000-6613.2019-0777

Abstract

Abstract:

In order to investigate the effects of straw type and ratio change on microbial community structure in sludge anaerobic digestion system, 16S rRNA high-throughput sequencing technology was used to analyze the microbial community in sludge-straw anaerobic co-digestion system. The results showed that addition of corn straw had a great influence on the pH and volatile fatty acids (VFAs) in the system, especially on acetic acid. Addition of wheat and rice straw had a greater effect on alkalinity, but the VFAs and acetic acid concentrations in the system increased when the ratio increased, especially 1∶1.5 (mass ratio of volatile solids). Through the analysis of microbial community structure, it was found that the change of straw ratio and types could significantly increase the relative abundance of hydrolysis bacteria and acidification bacteria (p＜0.001) in anaerobic systems, for instance, Bathyarchaeota, norank_p_Bathyarchaeota (archaea), Bacteroidetes, Cloacimonetes, Synergistetes, unclassified_p_ Cloacimonetes, norank_c_Bacteroidetes_vadinHA17, Christensenellaceae_R-7_group, norank_f_Porphyromonadaceae, unclassified_f_Ruminococcaceae, Bacteroides, Prolixibacter, Longilinea and Leptolinea (bacteria), but the growth of methanogens (Methanosaeta) and hydrogen methanogenic bacteria (Methanospirillum, Methanobacterium and Methanobrevibacter) could be inhibited. It was also found that the addition of straw significantly promoted the growth of methylotrophic methanogens (Methanomassiliicoccus) (p＜0.001), which affected the methanogenic properties of anaerobic systems.

Key words: straw type, ratio, microbial community, anaerobic co-digestion, sludge

摘要：

为探讨秸秆类型及配比变化对污泥厌氧消化体系中微生物群落结构的影响，采用16S rRNA高通量测序技术，对污泥-秸秆联合厌氧消化体系中微生物群落进行分析。结果表明：玉米秸秆的添加对体系中pH和挥发性脂肪酸（VFAs）的影响较大，尤其是乙酸。而小麦和水稻秸秆的添加对碱度的影响较大，但当配比增加时体系中的VFAs和乙酸浓度也会增加，特别是1∶1.5（挥发性固体质量比）。通过对微生物群落结构分析发现，秸秆类型及配比的变化能显著提高厌氧体系中水解菌和酸化菌的相对丰度（p＜0.001），如深古菌门Bathyarchaeota、未识别的_c_深古菌门（norank_p_Bathyarchaeota）、拟杆菌门（Bacteroidetes）、阴沟单胞菌门（Cloacimonetes）、同力菌门（Synergistetes）、未分类的_p_阴沟单胞菌门（unclassified_p_Cloacimonetes）、未识别的_c_拟杆菌门_vadinHA17（norank_c_Bacteroidetes_vadinHA17）、（Christensenellaceae_R-7_group）、未识别的_f_紫单胞菌科（norank_f_ Porphyromonadaceae）、未分类的_f_瘤胃菌科（unclassified_f_Ruminococcaceae）、拟杆菌属（Bacteroides）、丙酸杆菌属（Prolixibacter）、长绳菌属（Longilinea）、纤绳菌属（Leptolinea）等菌群；但对体系中乙酸型产甲烷菌（Methanosaeta）和氢型产甲烷菌（甲烷螺菌属Methanospirillum、甲烷杆菌属Methanobacterium和甲烷短杆菌属Methanobrevibacter）的生长产生抑制作用。同时也发现秸秆的添加对甲基型产甲烷菌（Methanomassiliicoccus）的生长具有显著的促进作用（p＜0.001），从而影响厌氧体系的产甲烷特性。

关键词: 秸秆类型, 配比, 微生物群落, 联合厌氧消化, 污泥

CLC Number:

X172

Taotao TANG,Jiang LI,Aijinag YANG,Zhao YANG,Fuliang XIANG,Huayu YUAN. Effects of straw type and ratio change on microbial community in anaerobic digestion of sludge[J]. Chemical Industry and Engineering Progress, 2020, 39(2): 667-678.

唐涛涛,李江,杨爱江,杨钊,向福亮,袁华宇. 秸秆类型及配比变化对污泥厌氧消化中微生物群落的影响[J]. 化工进展, 2020, 39(2): 667-678.

Figures/Tables 10

样品	pH	化学需氧量COD/mg·L^-1	含水率/%	$V S T S$ /%
污泥	7.2±0.25	24257.07±2313.10	96.91±0.54	51.57±7.47
玉米	—	—	19.92±6.17	92.62±5.83
小麦	—	—	15.41±0.42	88.34±0.56
水稻	—	—	15.76±0.49	82.26±0.88

样品	pH	化学需氧量COD/mg·L^-1	含水率/%	$V S T S$ /%
污泥	7.2±0.25	24257.07±2313.10	96.91±0.54	51.57±7.47
玉米	—	—	19.92±6.17	92.62±5.83
小麦	—	—	15.41±0.42	88.34±0.56
水稻	—	—	15.76±0.49	82.26±0.88

试验号	累积沼气产量/L	pH	$N H 4 + - N$ /mg·L^-1	碱度/mg·L^-1	VFAs/mg·L^-1	VFAs/ALK
CK	52.43±1.67	7.31±0.16	324.43±13.28	1304.54±93.35	181.27±21.04	0.14±0.02
C1	106.13±5.80	7.62±0.26	478.33±27.05	1860.25±59.02	203.50±20.45	0.11±0.01
C2	163.02±3.99	6.94±0.23	293.42±7.00	1445.59±289.01	261.76±40.78	0.19±0.04
C3	223.98±8.63	6.89±0.24	262.89±9.54	1367.77±305.71	295.66±31.38	0.22±0.04
W1	93.82±3.71	7.76±0.13	449.94±17.56	1710.85±124.10	196.85±18.81	0.12±0.01
W2	150.88±4.55	7.39±0.18	442.44±12.96	1669.67±125.13	207.02±24.85	0.12±0.02
W3	211.5±5.17	7.51±0.20	536.0±38.96	2016.29±134.44	225.68±15.33	0.11±0.01
R1	106.91±1.86	7.44±0.18	390.19±15.52	1707.19±69.69	202.21±22.55	0.12±0.02
R2	149.99 ± 21.98	7.37±0.19	481.13±25.59	1869.41±77.10	211.83±21.05	0.11±0.01
R3	211.68 ± 11.29	7.42±0.24	542.52±25.96	2044.33±142.87	237.29±21.79	0.12±0.01
试验号	乙酸/mg·L^-1	丙酸/mg·L^-1	丁酸/mg·L^-1	异丁酸/mg·L^-1	戊酸/mg·L^-1
CK	57.24±19.69	16.17±3.80	21.95±1.17	30.19±2.00	26.55±6.82
C1	80.79±20.06	17.80±2.08	23.87±4.44	29.87±1.04	23.11±0.96
C2	119.89±35.62	19.78±4.94	23.35±3.31	34.88±3.95	23.80±3.28
C3	156.26±26.44	16.64±3.82	22.46±1.82	34.23±4.45	23.40±1.74
W1	68.04±16.06	21.89±2.81	25.43±5.60	28.86±0.91	23.18±1.03
W2	77.85±15.72	22.61±7.06	23.76±2.38	29.03±0.94	24.93±1.61
W3	99.54±11.52	21.22±5.57	23.59±1.44	30.09±1.12	24.50±1.82
R1	70.37±20.28	21.61±3.38	23.76±3.83	32.37±6.62	24.04±2.68
R2	83.33±18.35	20.83±2.96	25.21±4.13	29.66±1.55	23.40±1.89
R3	107.55±19.54	20.60±6.84	24.10±2.82	31.07±4.41	25.97±8.09

试验号	累积沼气产量/L	pH	$N H 4 + - N$ /mg·L^-1	碱度/mg·L^-1	VFAs/mg·L^-1	VFAs/ALK
CK	52.43±1.67	7.31±0.16	324.43±13.28	1304.54±93.35	181.27±21.04	0.14±0.02
C1	106.13±5.80	7.62±0.26	478.33±27.05	1860.25±59.02	203.50±20.45	0.11±0.01
C2	163.02±3.99	6.94±0.23	293.42±7.00	1445.59±289.01	261.76±40.78	0.19±0.04
C3	223.98±8.63	6.89±0.24	262.89±9.54	1367.77±305.71	295.66±31.38	0.22±0.04
W1	93.82±3.71	7.76±0.13	449.94±17.56	1710.85±124.10	196.85±18.81	0.12±0.01
W2	150.88±4.55	7.39±0.18	442.44±12.96	1669.67±125.13	207.02±24.85	0.12±0.02
W3	211.5±5.17	7.51±0.20	536.0±38.96	2016.29±134.44	225.68±15.33	0.11±0.01
R1	106.91±1.86	7.44±0.18	390.19±15.52	1707.19±69.69	202.21±22.55	0.12±0.02
R2	149.99 ± 21.98	7.37±0.19	481.13±25.59	1869.41±77.10	211.83±21.05	0.11±0.01
R3	211.68 ± 11.29	7.42±0.24	542.52±25.96	2044.33±142.87	237.29±21.79	0.12±0.01
试验号	乙酸/mg·L^-1	丙酸/mg·L^-1	丁酸/mg·L^-1	异丁酸/mg·L^-1	戊酸/mg·L^-1
CK	57.24±19.69	16.17±3.80	21.95±1.17	30.19±2.00	26.55±6.82
C1	80.79±20.06	17.80±2.08	23.87±4.44	29.87±1.04	23.11±0.96
C2	119.89±35.62	19.78±4.94	23.35±3.31	34.88±3.95	23.80±3.28
C3	156.26±26.44	16.64±3.82	22.46±1.82	34.23±4.45	23.40±1.74
W1	68.04±16.06	21.89±2.81	25.43±5.60	28.86±0.91	23.18±1.03
W2	77.85±15.72	22.61±7.06	23.76±2.38	29.03±0.94	24.93±1.61
W3	99.54±11.52	21.22±5.57	23.59±1.44	30.09±1.12	24.50±1.82
R1	70.37±20.28	21.61±3.38	23.76±3.83	32.37±6.62	24.04±2.68
R2	83.33±18.35	20.83±2.96	25.21±4.13	29.66±1.55	23.40±1.89
R3	107.55±19.54	20.60±6.84	24.10±2.82	31.07±4.41	25.97±8.09

样品名称	OTU	Chao	ACE	Shannon	Simpson	Coverage
CK	1301	1537.99	1515.78	5.28	0.017	0.9920
C1	1613	1805.21	1811.09	5.39	0.023	0.9925
C2	1595	1816.65	1785.31	4.98	0.043	0.9950
C3	1349	1622.81	1631.66	5.15	0.025	0.9879
W1	1572	1800.11	1781.41	5.45	0.016	0.9918
W2	1628	1835.45	1833.47	5.44	0.022	0.9923
W3	1346	1662.75	1658.87	4.90	0.030	0.9906
R1	1608	1864.64	1819.15	5.54	0.021	0.9923
R2	1627	1870.63	1849.14	5.37	0.019	0.9927
R3	1642	1805.18	1816.58	5.35	0.025	0.9942

样品名称	OTU	Chao	ACE	Shannon	Simpson	Coverage
CK	59	60.11	60.83	1.82	0.285	0.9999
C1	62	69.88	78.69	1.96	0.260	0.9997
C2	48	50.00	50.68	1.65	0.366	0.9999
C3	55	63.20	62.93	2.01	0.227	0.9997
W1	110	119.50	120.98	2.01	0.237	0.9995
W2	60	65.58	72.47	1.93	0.261	0.9997
W3	60	73.00	67.90	1.65	0.376	0.9998
R1	82	125.17	123.88	2.14	0.191	0.9995
R2	92	99.56	104.77	2.35	0.147	0.9997
R3	78	125.00	139.07	1.80	0.296	0.9993

环境因子	VIF
环境因子	筛选前	筛选后
pH	51.81	7.15
氨氮（ $N H 4 + - N$ ）	3631.04	4.34
乙酸	248838.3	3.96
丙酸	1474.49	2.42
丁酸	711.34	2.88
异丁酸	4888.83	4.67

环境因子	VIF
环境因子	筛选前	筛选后
pH	51.81	7.15
氨氮（ $N H 4 + - N$ ）	3631.04	4.34
乙酸	248838.3	3.96
丙酸	1474.49	2.42
丁酸	711.34	2.88
异丁酸	4888.83	4.67

References 46

1	石祖梁, 李想, 王久臣, 等. 中国秸秆资源空间分布特征及利用模式[J].中国人口·资源与环境, 2018, 28(s1): 202-205.
	SHI Zuliang, LI Xiang, WANG Jiucheng, et al. Thespatial distribution characteristics and utilization model of crop straw in China [J]. China Population, Resources and Environment, 2018, 28(s1): 202-205.
2	杭世珺, 傅涛, 戴晓虎, 等. 技术路线没有走通,产业没有融通,政策缺乏贯通污泥出路困境如何破?[J]. 环境经济, 2019(2): 34-39.
	HANG Shijun, FU Tao, DAI Xiaohu, et al. The technical route has not been communicated, the industry has not been integrated, and the policy lacks the way to break through the sludge[J]. Environmental Economy, 2019(2): 34-39.
3	DEVLIN D C, ESTEVES S R R, DINSDALE R M, et al. The effect of acid pretreatment on the anaerobic digestion and dewatering of waste activated sludge[J]. Bioresource Technology, 2011, 102(5): 4076-4082.
4	LI R, CHEN S, LI X. Anaerobic co-digestion of kitchen waste and cattle manure for methane production[J]. Energy Sources Part A: Recovery Utilization & Environmental Effects, 2009, 31(20): 1848-1856.
5	GELEGENIS J, GEORGAKAKIS D, ANGELIDAKI I, et al. Optimization of biogas production from olive-oil mill wastewater, by co-digesting with diluted poultry-manure[J]. Applied Energy, 2007, 84(6): 646-663.
6	XU S, SELVAM A, KARTHIKEYAN O P, et al. Responses of microbial community and acidogenic intermediates to different water regimes in a hybrid solid anaerobic digestion system treating food waste[J]. Bioresour. Technol., 2014, 168: 49-58.
7	NING J, ZHOU M D, PAN X F, et al. Simultaneous biogas and biogas slurry production from co-digestion of pig manure and corn straw: performance optimization and microbial community shift[J]. Bioresource Technology, 2019, 282: 37-47.
8	任南琪，王爱杰. 厌氧生物技术原理与应用[M]. 北京: 化学工业出版社, 2004: 30-31.
	REN N Q, WANG A J. The method and technology of anaerobic digestion[J]. Beijing: Chemistry Industry Press, 2004: 30-31.
9	CALLAGHAN F J, WASE D A J, THAYANIYHY K, et al. Continuous co-digestion of cattle slurry with fruit and vegetable wastes and chicken manure[J]. Biomass Bioenergy, 2002, 22(1): 71-77.
10	CHEN Y D, ZHAO Z Y, ZOU H J, et al. Digestive performance of sludge with different crop straws in mesophilic anaerobic digestion[J]. Bioresource Technology, 2019, 289: 121595.
11	PARAWIRA W, MURTO M, READ J S, et al. Volatile fatty acid production during anaerobic mesophilic digestion of solid potato waste[J]. J. Chem. Technol. Biotechnol., 2004, 79: 673-677.
12	MIRON Y, ZEEMAN G, LIER J Bet al VAN. The role of sludge retention time in the hydrolysis and acidification of lipids, carbohydrates and proteins during digestion of primary sludge in CSTR systems[J]. Water Res., 2000, 34: 1705-1713.
13	BARLINDHAUG J, ØDEGAARD H. Thermal hydrolysis for the production of carbon source for denitriﬁcation[J]. Water Sci. Technol., 1996, 34: 371-378.
14	CHANDRA R, TAKEUCHI H, HASEGAWA T. Methane production from lignocellulosic agricultural crop wastes: a review in context to second generation of biofuel production[J]. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev., 2012, 16(3): 1462-1476.
15	LI Y, JIN Y, LI H, et al. Kinetic studies on organic degradation and its impacts on improving methane production during anaerobic digestion of food waste[J]. Appl. Energy, 2018, 213: 136-147.
16	FITAMO T, TREU L, BOLDRIN A, et al. Microbial population dynamics in urban organic waste anaerobic co-digestion with mixed sludge during a change in feedstock composition and different hydraulic retention times[J]. Water Res., 2017, 118: 261-271.
17	JANG H M, HA H, KIM M S, et al. Effect of increased load of high-strength food wastewater in thermophilic and mesophilic anaerobic co-digestion of waste activated sludge on bacterial community structure[J]. Water Res., 2016, 99: 140-148.
18	LIU Y, WACHEMO A C, YUAN H R, et al. Anaerobic digestion performance and microbial community structure of corn stover in three-stage continuously stirred tank reactors[J]. Bioresource Technology, 2019, 287: 121339.
19	LU L, XING D F, REN N Q. Pyrosequencing reveals highly diverse microbial communities in microbial electrolysis cells involved in enhanced H₂ production from waste activated sludge[J]. Water Research, 2012, 46(7): 2425-2434.
20	ZHENG X, CHENG Y G, LI X, et al. Pyrosequencing reveals the key microorganisms involved in sludge alkaline fermentation for efficient short-chain fatty acids production[J]. Environmental Science & Technology, 2013, 47(9): 4262-4268.
21	SRILES M E, HOLZAPFEL W H. Lactic acid bacteria of foods and their current taxonomy[J]. Int. J. Food Microbiol., 1997, 36(1): 1-29.
22	BALK M, WEIJMA J, STAMS A J M. Thermotoga lettingae sp. nov., a novel thermophilic, methanol-degrading bacterium isolated from a thermophilic anaerobic reactor[J]. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol., 2002, 52(4): 1361-1368.
23	DONG X, XIN Y, JIAN W, et al. Bifidobacterium thermacidophilum sp. nov., isolated from an anaerobic digester[J]. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol., 2000, 50(1): 119-125.
24	YAMADA T, SEKIGUCHI Y, HANADA S, et al. Anaerolinea thermolimosa sp. nov., Levilinea saccharolytica gen. nov., sp. nov. and Leptolinea tardivitalis gen. nov.,sp. nov., novel filamentous anaerobes, and description of the new classes Anaerolineae classis nov. and Caldilineae classis nov. in the bacterial phylum chloroflexi[J]. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol., 2006, 56(6): 1331-1340.
25	VREELAND R, LITCHFIELD C, MARTIN E. Halomonas elongata, a new genus and species of extremely salt-tolerant bacteria[J]. Int. J. Syst. Bacteriol., 1980, 30: 485-495.
26	YI J, DONG B, JIN J. Effect of increasing total solids contents on anaerobic digestion of food waste under mesophilic conditions: performance and microbial characteristics analysis[J]. PloS One, 2014, 9: e102548.
27	HIRAISHI A, IWASAKI M, SHINJO H. Terminal restriction pattern analysis of 16S rRNA genes for the characterization of bacterial communities of activated sludge[J]. J. Biosci. Bioeng., 2000, 90: 148-156.
28	YUE Z, CHEN R, YANG F, et al. Effects of dairy manure and corn stover co-digestion on anaerobic microbes and corresponding digestion performance[J]. Bioresour. Technol., 2013, 128: 65-71.
29	YANG Y, YU K, XIA Y, et al. Metagenomic analysis of sludge from full-scale anaerobic digesters operated in municipal wastewater treatment plants[J]. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol., 2014, 98: 5709-5718.
30	ZOU H, CHEN Y, SHI J, et al. Mesophilic anaerobic co-digestion of residual sludge with different lignocellulosic wastes in the batch digester[J]. Bioresour. Technol., 2018, 268: 371-381.
31	XIAN C Q, MENG M J, XIAO G W, et al. Response of treatment performance and microbial community structure to the temporary suspension of an industrial anaerobic bioreactor[J]. Science of the Total Environment, 2019, 646: 229-237.
32	FLINT H J, BAYER E A, RINCON M T, et al. Polysaccharide utilization by gut bacteria: potential for new insights from genomic analysis[J]. Nature Reviews Microbiology, 2008, 6(2): 121-131.
33	FONTES C M, GILBERT H J. Cellulosomes: highly efficient nanomachines designed to deconstruct plant cell wall complex carbohydrates[J]. Annual Review of Biochemistry, 2010, 79(1): 655-681.
34	KOH A, DE VADDER F, KOVATCHEVA-DATHARY P, et al. From dietary fiber to host physiology: short-chain fatty acids as key bacterial metabolites[J]. Cell, 2016, 165(6): 1332-1345.
35	BESTEN G DEN, EUNEN K VAN, GROEN A K, et al. The role of short-chain fatty acids in the interplay between diet, gut microbiota, and host energy metabolism[J]. The Journal of Lipid Research, 2013, 54(9): 2325-2340.
36	MORRISON M, MIRON J. Adhesion to cellulose by Ruminococcus albus: a combination of cellulosomes and Pil-proteins?[J]. FEMS Microbiol. Lett., 2000, 185(2): 109-115.
37	ZHANG L, CHUNG J, JIANG Q, et al. Characteristics of rumen microorganisms involved in anaerobic degradation of cellulose at various pH values[J]. RSC Adv., 2017, 7(64): 40303-40310.
38	ZHIVIN O, DASSA B, MORAIS S, et al. Unique organization and unprecedented diversity of the Bacteroides (Pseudobacteroides) cellulosolvens cellulosome system[J]. Biotechnol. Biofuels., 2017, 10: 211.
39	HE Y, LI M, PERUMAL V. Genomic and enzymatic evidence for acetogenesis among multiple lineages of the archaeal phylum Bathyarchaeota widespread in marine sediments[J]. Nat. Microbiol., 2016, 1(6): 16035.
40	BECKER K W, ELLING F J, YOSHINAGA M Y, et al. Unusual butane-and pentanetriol-based tetraether lipids in Methanomassiliicoccus luminyensis, a representative of the seventh order of methanogens[J]. Appl. Environ. Microbiol., 2016, 82(15): 4505-4516.
41	KRONINGER L, BERGER S, WELTE C, et al. Evidence for the involvement of two heterodisulfide reductases in the energy-conserving system of Methanomassiliicoccus luminyensis[J]. FEBS J., 2016, 283(3): 472-483.
42	MATA-ALVAREZ J, DOSTA J, ROMERO-GUIZA M S, et al. A critical review on anaerobic co-digestion achievements between 2010 and 2013[J]. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev., 2014, 36: 412-427.
43	HOLMES D E, NEVIN K P, WOODARD T L, et al. Prolixibacter bellariivorans gen. nov., sp. nov., a sugar-fermenting, psychrotolerant anaerobe of the phylum Bacteroidetes, isolated from a marine-sediment fuel cell[J]. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol., 2007, 57(4): 701-707.
44	IINO T, Sakamoto M, Ohkuma M. Prolixibacter denitrificans sp. nov., an iron-corroding, facultatively aerobic, nitrate-reducing bacterium isolated from crude oil, and emended descriptions of the genus Prolixibacter and Prolixibacter bellariivorans[J]. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol., 2015, 65: 2865-2869.
45	MCILROY S J, KIRKEGAARD R H, DUEHOIM M S, et al. Culture-independent analyses reveal novel Anaerolineaceae as abundant primary fermenters in anaerobic digesters treating waste activated sludge[J]. Frontiers in Microbiology, 2017, 8: 1134.
46	YAMADA T, IMACHI H, OHASHI A, et al. Bellilinea caldifistulae gen. nov., sp. nov. and Longilinea arvoryzae gen. nov., sp. nov., strictly anaerobic, ﬁlamentous bacteria of the phylumchloroﬂexi isolated from methanogenic propionate-degrading consortia[J]. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol., 2007, 57(10): 2299-2306.

[1]	CUI Shoucheng, XU Hongbo, PENG Nan. Simulation analysis of two MOFs materials for O₂/He adsorption separation [J]. Chemical Industry and Engineering Progress, 2023, 42(S1): 382-390.
[2]	LI Shilin, HU Jingze, WANG Yilin, WANG Qingji, SHAO Lei. Research progress in separation and extraction of high value components by electrodialysis [J]. Chemical Industry and Engineering Progress, 2023, 42(S1): 420-429.
[3]	WANG Ying, HAN Yunping, LI Lin, LI Yanbo, LI Huili, YAN Changren, LI Caixia. Research status and future prospects of the emission characteristics of virus aerosols in urban wastewater treatment plants [J]. Chemical Industry and Engineering Progress, 2023, 42(S1): 439-446.
[4]	WANG Lele, YANG Wanrong, YAO Yan, LIU Tao, HE Chuan, LIU Xiao, SU Sheng, KONG Fanhai, ZHU Canghai, XIANG Jun. Influence of spent SCR catalyst blending on the characteristics and deNO _x performance for new SCR catalyst [J]. Chemical Industry and Engineering Progress, 2023, 42(S1): 489-497.
[5]	GUO Qiang, ZHAO Wenkai, XIAO Yonghou. Numerical simulation of enhancing fluid perturbation to improve separation of dimethyl sulfide/nitrogen via pressure swing adsorption [J]. Chemical Industry and Engineering Progress, 2023, 42(S1): 64-72.
[6]	LI Jitong, WANG Gang, XIONG Yaxuan, XU Qian. Energy and exergy analysis of single-effect absorption refrigeration system with different refrigerants [J]. Chemical Industry and Engineering Progress, 2023, 42(S1): 104-112.
[7]	ZHANG Ruijie, LIU Zhilin, WANG Junwen, ZHANG Wei, HAN Deqiu, LI Ting, ZOU Xiong. On-line dynamic simulation and optimization of water-cooled cascade refrigeration system [J]. Chemical Industry and Engineering Progress, 2023, 42(S1): 124-132.
[8]	QI Zhicheng, MA Runmei, LI Shuangxi, LIU Lijing, YAN Xinxin. Sealing performance and deformation failure analysis of high pressure flange metal O-ring with open holes [J]. Chemical Industry and Engineering Progress, 2023, 42(S1): 166-174.
[9]	HE Meijin. Application and development trend of molecular management in separation technology in petrochemical field [J]. Chemical Industry and Engineering Progress, 2023, 42(S1): 260-266.
[10]	LIAO Zhixin, LUO Tao, WANG Hong, KONG Jiajun, SHEN Haiping, GUAN Cuishi, WANG Cuihong, SHE Yucheng. Application and progress of solvent deasphalting technology [J]. Chemical Industry and Engineering Progress, 2023, 42(9): 4573-4586.
[11]	GAO Yanjing. Analysis of international research trend of single-atom catalysis technology [J]. Chemical Industry and Engineering Progress, 2023, 42(9): 4667-4676.
[12]	TAN Jihuai, YU Min, ZHANG Tongtong, HUANG Nengkun, WANG Ziwen, ZHU Xinbao. Manufacturing of tannin polypropoxy ether carboxylates as efficient and improved migration resistance plasticizers for PVC [J]. Chemical Industry and Engineering Progress, 2023, 42(9): 4847-4855.
[13]	CHEN Xiangyu, BIAN Chunlin, XIAO Benyi. Research progress on temperature phased anaerobic digestion technology [J]. Chemical Industry and Engineering Progress, 2023, 42(9): 4872-4881.
[14]	LI Dongze, ZHANG Xiang, TIAN Jian, HU Pan, YAO Jie, ZHU Lin, BU Changsheng, WANG Xinye. Research progress of NO _x reduction by carbonaceous substances for denitration in cement kiln [J]. Chemical Industry and Engineering Progress, 2023, 42(9): 4882-4893.
[15]	ZHU Chuanqiang, RU Jinbo, SUN Tingting, XIE Xingwang, LI Changming, GAO Shiqiu. Characteristics of selective non-catalytic reduction of NO _x with solid polymer denitration agent [J]. Chemical Industry and Engineering Progress, 2023, 42(9): 4939-4946.