Research progress in directed bioconversion of lactic acid and acetic acid from wood lignocellulosic wastes

doi:10.16085/j.issn.1000-6613.2023-0055

Abstract

Abstract:

Anaerobic fermentation technology is one of the critical ways of resource recycling to treat wood lignocellulosic wastes such as straw and cow manure. Lactic acid and acetic acid are essential intermediate products of anaerobic fermentation, and significant precursor substances for the production of biogas, medium chain fatty acids and additional energy chemical products. However, the collaborative production efficiency of directed biotransformation is not elevated, and the mechanism of collaborative production of lactic acid and acetic acid from wood lignocellulosic waste still needs to be further explored. Based on the analysis of the metabolic pathway mechanism of acid production, this paper sorted out the characteristics of simultaneous fermentation and stepwise fermentation in collaborative production of lactic acid and acetic acid and summarized the key factors affecting the efficiency of biological transformation in acid production. It was found that the wood lignocellulosic waste had a favorable synergic acid production effect under high solid content of 15%—20%, inoculation of 20%—40% active substances and appropriate process parameters [pH=5.0, moderate temperature and moderate organic load 5—10kgVS/(m³·d)]. In addition,we explored the promoting effect of physicochemical and bio strengthening coupling means on lignocellulosic degradation and target products, which provided a theoretical basis for the development of key technologies for the collaborative production of lactic acid and acetic acid by bioconversion, and the promotion of high-value conversion and utilization of wood lignocellulosic waste such as straw.

Key words: lactic acid, acetic acid, anaerobic fermentation, co-production of acid, medium chain fatty acid, wood lignocellulosic waste

摘要：

依托厌氧发酵技术处理秸秆和牛粪等木质纤维类废弃物，是资源循环利用的重要方式之一。乳酸和乙酸是厌氧发酵的重要中间产物，是生产沼气、中链脂肪酸等能源化工产品的重要前体物质，但定向生物转化协同生产效率不高、对木质纤维类废弃物协同产乳酸、乙酸机制等问题有待深入探索。本文基于对产酸代谢途径机理的分析，梳理了同步发酵和分步发酵协同产乳酸、乙酸特性，归纳了影响生物转化产酸效率的关键因素，发现在较高含固率15%~20%、接种20%~40%的活性物质和适宜的过程参数[pH为5.0左右、中温和有机负荷5~10kgVS/(m³·d)]下，木质纤维类废弃物具有良好的协同产酸效果。进一步探明物化和生物强化耦合手段对木质纤维素降解和目标产物的促进效应，为开发生物转化乳酸、乙酸协同生产关键技术以及促进秸秆等木质纤维类废弃物高值转化利用提供理论依据。

关键词: 乳酸, 乙酸, 厌氧发酵, 协同产酸, 中链脂肪酸, 木质纤维类废弃物

CLC Number:

TQ921

HUANG Yue, ZHAO Lixin, YAO Zonglu, YU Jiadong, LI Zaixing, SHEN Ruixia, AN Kemeng, HUANG Yali. Research progress in directed bioconversion of lactic acid and acetic acid from wood lignocellulosic wastes[J]. Chemical Industry and Engineering Progress, 2023, 42(5): 2691-2701.

黄越, 赵立欣, 姚宗路, 于佳动, 李再兴, 申瑞霞, 安柯萌, 黄亚丽. 木质纤维类废弃物定向生物转化乳酸、乙酸研究进展[J]. 化工进展, 2023, 42(5): 2691-2701.

Figures/Tables 6

产酸阶段	反应方程	反应条件	目标酸产量	关键菌	参考文献
乙酸/乙醇型代谢途径	1. C₆H₁₂O₆ + 2H₂O $→$ 2CH₃COOH+ 2CO₂ + 4H₂ 2. CH₃CH₂COOH + 2H₂O $→$ CH₃COOH+ CO₂ + 3H₂ 3. CH₃CH₂CH₂COOH + 2H₂O $→$ 2CH₃COOH + 2H₂ 4. CH₃CH₂OH + 2H₂O $→$ CH₃COOH+ 2H₂ 5. C₆H₁₂O₆ + H₂O $→$ CH₃CH₂OH+ CH₃COOH + 2H₂ + 2CO₂	HRT 5h、pH=4.3~4.4	乙醇3.82gCOD/L 乙酸0.66gCOD/L		[17]
丙酮-丁醇-乙醇发酵	1. C₆H₁₂O₆ + H₂O $→$ CH₃COCH₃ + 4H₂+ 3CO₂ 2. C₆H₁₂O₆ $→$ 2CH₃CH₂OH + 2CO₂ 3.C₆H₁₂O₆ $→$ CH₃CH₂CH₂ CH₂OH+ H₂O + 2CO₂	326h饲喂、葡萄糖474.9g/L、间歇性气体汽提、补料分批发酵	丙酮-丁醇-乙醇172g/L	hyper-butanol producing Clostridium acetobutylicum JB200	[18]
丙酸型代谢途径	1. C₆H₁₂O₆ + 2H₂ $→$ 2CH₃CH₂COOH+ 2H₂ 2. 3C₆H₁₂O₆ $→$ 4CH₃CH₂COOH + 2CH₃COOH + 2CO₂ + 2H₂O	两相发酵	丙酸7.13gCOD/L	Propionibacteriumacidipropionici	[19]
丁酸型代谢途径	1. C₆H₁₂O₆ $→$ CH₃CH₂CH₂COOH + 2CO₂ + 2H₂ 2. 4C₆H₁₂O₆ $→$ 8H₂ + 8CO₂ + 2CH₃COOH + 3CH₃CH₂CH₂COOH	50%含菌培养基	丁酸8.06g/L	Clostridium tyrobutyricum strain RPT-4213	[20]
混合酸代谢途径	1. 3C₆H₁₂O₆ $→$ 4CH₃CH₂COOH + 2CH₃COOH + 2CO₂ + 2H₂O 2. C₆H₁₂O₆ + H₂O $→$ CH₃CH₂OH + CH₃COOH + 2H₂ + 2CO₂ 3. 4C₆H₁₂O₆ $→$ 8H₂ +8CO₂ + 2CH₃COOH + 3CH₃CH₂CH₂COOH	pH=6.5、缓冲液15~20mmol/gVS	挥发酸及乙醇70mol/L		[21]
乳酸型代谢途径	1. C₆H₁₂O₆ $→$ 2CH₃CH(OH)COOH 2. C₆H₁₂O₆ $→$ CH₃CH(OH)COOH+ CO₂ + CH₃CH₂OH 3. C₆H₁₂O₆ $→$ CH₃CH(OH)COOH+ CO₂ + CH₃COOH	固体负荷为60g/L、35℃	乳酸14.7g/L、乙酸4.0g/L、乙醇3.2g/L	Lactobacillus brevis、Lactobacillus fermentum	[22]
同型产乙酸发酵	1. 4H₂ + 2CO₂ $→$ CH₃COOH + 2H₂O 2. C₆H₁₂O₆ $→$ 3CH₃COOH	氢分压1700mbar、pH=7.0	乙酸44g/L	Acetobacterium woodii	[15]

产酸阶段	反应方程	反应条件	目标酸产量	关键菌	参考文献
乙酸/乙醇型代谢途径	1. C₆H₁₂O₆ + 2H₂O $→$ 2CH₃COOH+ 2CO₂ + 4H₂ 2. CH₃CH₂COOH + 2H₂O $→$ CH₃COOH+ CO₂ + 3H₂ 3. CH₃CH₂CH₂COOH + 2H₂O $→$ 2CH₃COOH + 2H₂ 4. CH₃CH₂OH + 2H₂O $→$ CH₃COOH+ 2H₂ 5. C₆H₁₂O₆ + H₂O $→$ CH₃CH₂OH+ CH₃COOH + 2H₂ + 2CO₂	HRT 5h、pH=4.3~4.4	乙醇3.82gCOD/L 乙酸0.66gCOD/L		[17]
丙酮-丁醇-乙醇发酵	1. C₆H₁₂O₆ + H₂O $→$ CH₃COCH₃ + 4H₂+ 3CO₂ 2. C₆H₁₂O₆ $→$ 2CH₃CH₂OH + 2CO₂ 3.C₆H₁₂O₆ $→$ CH₃CH₂CH₂ CH₂OH+ H₂O + 2CO₂	326h饲喂、葡萄糖474.9g/L、间歇性气体汽提、补料分批发酵	丙酮-丁醇-乙醇172g/L	hyper-butanol producing Clostridium acetobutylicum JB200	[18]
丙酸型代谢途径	1. C₆H₁₂O₆ + 2H₂ $→$ 2CH₃CH₂COOH+ 2H₂ 2. 3C₆H₁₂O₆ $→$ 4CH₃CH₂COOH + 2CH₃COOH + 2CO₂ + 2H₂O	两相发酵	丙酸7.13gCOD/L	Propionibacteriumacidipropionici	[19]
丁酸型代谢途径	1. C₆H₁₂O₆ $→$ CH₃CH₂CH₂COOH + 2CO₂ + 2H₂ 2. 4C₆H₁₂O₆ $→$ 8H₂ + 8CO₂ + 2CH₃COOH + 3CH₃CH₂CH₂COOH	50%含菌培养基	丁酸8.06g/L	Clostridium tyrobutyricum strain RPT-4213	[20]
混合酸代谢途径	1. 3C₆H₁₂O₆ $→$ 4CH₃CH₂COOH + 2CH₃COOH + 2CO₂ + 2H₂O 2. C₆H₁₂O₆ + H₂O $→$ CH₃CH₂OH + CH₃COOH + 2H₂ + 2CO₂ 3. 4C₆H₁₂O₆ $→$ 8H₂ +8CO₂ + 2CH₃COOH + 3CH₃CH₂CH₂COOH	pH=6.5、缓冲液15~20mmol/gVS	挥发酸及乙醇70mol/L		[21]
乳酸型代谢途径	1. C₆H₁₂O₆ $→$ 2CH₃CH(OH)COOH 2. C₆H₁₂O₆ $→$ CH₃CH(OH)COOH+ CO₂ + CH₃CH₂OH 3. C₆H₁₂O₆ $→$ CH₃CH(OH)COOH+ CO₂ + CH₃COOH	固体负荷为60g/L、35℃	乳酸14.7g/L、乙酸4.0g/L、乙醇3.2g/L	Lactobacillus brevis、Lactobacillus fermentum	[22]
同型产乙酸发酵	1. 4H₂ + 2CO₂ $→$ CH₃COOH + 2H₂O 2. C₆H₁₂O₆ $→$ 3CH₃COOH	氢分压1700mbar、pH=7.0	乙酸44g/L	Acetobacterium woodii	[15]

影响因素	底物	接种物	调控因素	主要微生物	目标产物	参考文献
底物含固率	帝王草		萎蔫处理、30℃枯萎12h至帝王草含水量63%	Lactococcus、Enterococcus	乳酸4.07g/kgDM 乙酸16.73g/kgDM	[43]
接种物	稻草	青贮废水	黑麦草青贮出水180mL，加入100g稻草鲜料（FM）中，液固比9∶5	Lactobacillus、Weissella、Enterococcus	乳酸4.6%DM 乙酸2.1%DM	[44]
接种物	玉米秸秆	黑麦草、Lactobacillus plantarum (L694)	黑麦草70%、玉米秸秆30%	Lactobacillus plantarum、 Lactobacillus hammesii、 Lactobacillus brevis、 Lactobacillus coryniformi	乳酸14.98%DM 乙酸2.30%DM	[45]
	燕麦秸秆	Pediococcus acidilactici DSM 20284	pH=3.7 发酵35天		乳酸94.19g/kgDM 乙酸5.18g/kgDM	[46]
过程参数	纤维素生物污泥	Lactobacillus rhamnosus CECT-288	初始液固比12g/g、同步糖化产酸工艺、pH=4.85、分批补料		乳酸42g/L 乙酸4.3g/L	[47]
	玉米泡粉	30FPU（滤纸单位）/g 纤维素酶、P.acidilactici PA204	12% 秸秆、同步糖化产酸工艺、37℃、pH=6.0		乳酸0.77g/g 秸秆乙酸0.08g/g 秸秆	[48]
	小麦秸秆	Bacillus coagulans DSM 2314、酶制剂GC 220	20.0%（质量体积浓度）氢氧化钙悬浮液将pH控制在6.0、分批补料、同步糖化发酵		乳酸40.7g/L 乙酸1.5g/L	[49]
	青贮秸秆	Lactobacillus plantarum	pH=3.95±0.22	Lactobacillus plantarum、 Lactobacillus brevis、 Weissella cibaria、 Pediococcus acidilactici	乳酸5.14 % DM 乙酸1.06 % DM	[50]
	玉米秸秆	20FPU/g纤维素酶	50℃、NaOH每12h调整pH至6.0、分批补料、NHB15 预处理		乳酸51.4g/L 乙酸42g/L	[51]

强化手段	底物	强化条件	强化效果	参考文献
物理和化学强化	玉米秸秆	蒸汽爆破-氯化胆碱、1∶2.2（质量比）、1.0MPa、184℃、15min	有效脱除84.7%的木质素和78.9%的木聚糖	[59]
	玉米秸秆	碳酸铵作为氨化剂浓度20%、11d、固含量50%	还原糖产量为312.67mg/g，比对照增加了51.80%	[60]
	芦苇秸秆	深共熔溶剂（氯化苄三乙胺/甲酸）	葡萄糖得率达76.64%，比生芦苇秸秆高5.24倍左右	[61]
生物强化	青贮玉米秸秆	白腐菌固态发酵、15d	纤维素、半纤维素和木质素降解率分别为9.9%、23.2%、15.2%	[62]
	玉米秸秆	接种从青贮中分离菌株Lb. farciminis 1101、Lb. brevis 0991	乳酸含量分别为>150mmol/L、0.203mol/L，乙酸含量均为38mmol/L	[63]
	玉米秸秆	添加凝结芽孢杆菌、粪链球菌和乳酸杆菌，发酵60h	乳酸含量6.88g/L，乙酸含量14.53g/L	[64]
联合强化	玉米秸秆	超声波-好氧水解	初始还原糖含量12.62mg/mL，以乙酸为主的挥发性脂肪酸含量16.24g/L	[65]
联合强化	水稻秸秆	细菌（Cupriavidus basilensis B-8）与稀酸预处理	酶消化率提高了70%	[66]

References 66

1	农业农村部新闻办公室. 《全国农作物秸秆综合利用情况报告》发布2021年我国农作物秸秆综合利用率达88.1%[J]. 中国农业综合开发, 2022(10): 32.
	Information Office of the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs. The National Report on Comprehensive Utilization of Crop Straw was released. In 2021, the comprehensive utilization rate of crop straw in China reached 88.1%[J]. Agricultural Comprehensive Development in China, 2022(10): 32.
2	GUAN Ruolin, YUAN Hairong, YUAN Shuai, et al. Current development and perspectives of anaerobic bioconversion of crop stalks to Biogas: A review[J]. Bioresource Technology, 2022, 349: 126615.
3	LI Hongli, CAO Feifei, WANG Yan, et al. The effect of different acetic acid accumulation on the methanogenic population and methane production in dry mesophilic anaerobic digestion[J]. Energy Sources, Part A: Recovery, Utilization, and Environmental Effects, 2016, 38(12): 1678-1684.
4	VEZA Ibham, MUHAMAD SAID Mohd Farid, LATIFF Zulkarnain Abdul, et al. Recent advances in butanol production by acetone-butanol-ethanol (ABE) fermentation[J]. Biomass and Bioenergy, 2021, 144: 105919.
5	CHEN Yang, YIN Yanan, WANG Jianlong. Influence of butyrate on fermentative hydrogen production and microbial community analysis[J]. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 2021, 46(53): 26825-26833.
6	JIANG Dan, FANG Zhen, CHIN Siew-xian, et al. Biohydrogen production from hydrolysates of selected tropical biomass wastes with clostridium butyricum[J]. Scientific Reports, 2016, 6: 27205.
7	张盼月, 王清谚, 梁劲松, 等. 有机废物厌氧发酵液链延长合成中链脂肪酸研究进展[J]. 环境工程学报, 2022, 16(2): 363-374.
	ZHANG Panyue, WANG Qingyan, LIANG Jinsong, et al. Study progress on chain elongation of anaerobic fermentation liquid from organic wastes for medium-chain fatty acid synthesis[J]. Chinese Journal of Environmental Engineering, 2022, 16(2): 363-374.
8	KHOR Way Cern, ANDERSEN Stephen, VERVAEREN Han, et al. Electricity-assisted production of caproic acid from grass[J]. Biotechnology for Biofuels, 2017, 10: 180.
9	YAN Jing, SUN Yibo, KANG Yuehua, et al. An innovative strategy to enhance the ensiling quality and methane production of excessively wilted wheat straw: Using acetic acid or hetero-fermentative lactic acid bacterial community as additives[J]. Waste Management, 2022, 149: 11-20.
10	KHOR Way Cern, ROUME Hugo, COMA Marta, et al. Acetate accumulation enhances mixed culture fermentation of biomass to lactic acid[J]. Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology, 2016, 100(19): 8337-8348.
11	LIN Lin, WAN Chunli, LIU Xiang, et al. Effect of initial pH on mesophilic hydrolysis and acidification of swine manure[J]. Bioresource Technology, 2013, 136: 302-308.
12	AHMAD Fiaz, SILVA Edson Luiz, AMÂNCIO VARESCHE Maria Bernadete. Hydrothermal processing of biomass for anaerobic digestion—A review[J]. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 2018, 98: 108-124.
13	ZHOU Miaomiao, YAN Binghua, WONG Jonathan, et al. Enhanced volatile fatty acids production from anaerobic fermentation of food waste: A mini-review focusing on acidogenic metabolic pathways[J]. Bioresource Technology, 2018, 248: 68-78.
14	CASTILLO MARTINEZ Fabio Andres, BALCIUNAS Eduardo Marcos, SALGADO José Manuel, et al. Lactic acid properties, applications and production: A review[J]. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 2013, 30(1): 70-83.
15	DEMLER Martin, Dirk WEUSTER-BOTZ. Reaction engineering analysis of hydrogenotrophic production of acetic acid by Acetobacterium woodii [J]. Biotechnology and Bioengineering, 2011, 108(2): 470-474.
16	ABDEL-RAHMAN Mohamed Ali, TASHIRO Yukihiro, SONOMOTO Kenji. Recent advances in lactic acid production by microbial fermentation processes[J]. Biotechnology Advances, 2013, 31(6): 877-902.
17	WANG Bing, LI Yongfeng, REN Nanqi. Biohydrogen from molasses with ethanol-type fermentation: Effect of hydraulic retention time[J]. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 2013, 38(11): 4361-4367.
18	XUE Chuang, ZHAO Jingbo, LU Congcong, et al. High-titer n-butanol production by Clostridium acetobutylicum JB200 in fed-batch fermentation with intermittent gas stripping[J]. Biotechnology and Bioengineering, 2012, 109(11): 2746-2756.
19	CHEN Yinguang, LI Xiang, ZHENG Xiong, et al. Enhancement of propionic acid fraction in volatile fatty acids produced from sludge fermentation by the use of food waste and Propionibacterium acidipropionici [J]. Water Research, 2013, 47(2): 615-622.
20	LIU Siqing, BISCHOFF Kenneth M, LEATHERS Timothy D, et al. Butyric acid from anaerobic fermentation of lignocellulosic biomass hydrolysates by Clostridium tyrobutyricum strain RPT-4213[J]. Bioresource Technology, 2013, 143: 322-329.
21	ZHU Heguang, PARKER Wayne, BASNAR Robert, et al. Buffer requirements for enhanced hydrogen production in acidogenic digestion of food wastes[J]. Bioresource Technology, 2009, 100(21): 5097-5102.
22	BINTSIS Thomas. Lactic acid bacteria as starter cultures: An update in their metabolism and genetics[J]. AIMS Microbiology, 2018, 4(4): 665-684.
23	WANG Zhimin, ZHANG Fengjiao, Dongcan LYU, et al. Iron oxychloride-based heterogeneous Fenton pretreatment of corn stover for enhanced sugars production[J]. Chemical Engineering Journal, 2021, 416: 127703.
24	赵晶, 陈明, 张靖方, 等. 酶法糖化玉米芯发酵生产乙醇的研究[J]. 林产化学与工业, 2007, 27(4): 7-10.
	ZHAO Jing, CHEN Ming, ZHANG Jingfang, et al. Study on enzymatic hydrolysis of corncob for ethanol production[J]. Chemistry and Industry of Forest Products, 2007, 27(4): 7-10.
25	姚日生, 邓胜松, 齐本坤, 等. Tween80对稻草水解及同步糖化与发酵产乳酸的影响[J]. 精细化工, 2008, 25(2): 155-158.
	YAO Risheng, DENG Shengsong, QI Benkun, et al. The effect of surfactants on the enzymatic hydrolysis of rice straw and lactic acid production from rice straw by simultaneous saccharification and fermentation[J]. Fine Chemicals, 2008, 25(2): 155-158.
26	AGUILAR R, RAMÍREZ J A, GARROTE G, et al. Kinetic study of the acid hydrolysis of sugar cane bagasse[J]. Journal of Food Engineering, 2002, 55(4): 309-318.
27	甄月月, 葛一洪, 施国中, 等. 不同含固率和接种比对尾菜厌氧消化的影响[J]. 中国沼气, 2020, 38(2): 45-51.
	ZHEN Yueyue, GE Yihong, SHI Guozhong, et al. Effects of total solids content and inoculation ratio on anaerobic digestion of vegetable waste[J]. China Biogas, 2020, 38(2): 45-51.
28	马旭光, 江滔, 唐琼, 等. 油菜秸秆和鸡粪比例及含固率对其发酵产甲烷特性的影响[J]. 农业工程学报, 2018, 34(12): 236-244.
	MA Xuguang, JIANG Tao, TANG Qiong, et al. Effect of total solid content on biogas production from rape stalk and chicken manure with different mixing ratios[J]. Transactions of the Chinese Society of Agricultural Engineering, 2018, 34(12): 236-244.
29	GUO Zechong, ZHOU Aijuan, YANG Chunxue, et al. Enhanced short chain fatty acids production from waste activated sludge conditioning with typical agricultural residues: Carbon source composition regulates community functions[J]. Biotechnology for Biofuels, 2015, 8(1): 192.
30	LI Yan, XU Haipeng, HUA Dongliang, et al. Two-phase anaerobic digestion of lignocellulosic hydrolysate: Focusing on the acidification with different inoculum to substrate ratios and inoculum sources[J]. Science of the Total Environment, 2020, 699: 134226.
31	郭志超, 徐先宝, 徐婷婷, 等. 接种不同菌源的餐厨垃圾发酵代谢途径及产己酸效能分析[J]. 环境工程, 2021, 39(9): 160-168.
	GUO Zhichao, XU Xianbao, XU Tingting, et al. Analysis on fermentation pathway and caproate production from food waste by different inoculum[J]. Environmental Engineering, 2021, 39(9): 160-168.
32	潘怡博. 秸秆与畜禽粪便混合发酵产气特性研究[D]. 郑州: 河南农业大学, 2021.
	PAN Yibo. Characteristics of biogas production by mixed fermentation of straw and livestock manure[D]. Zhengzhou: Henan Agricultural University, 2021.
33	LIAN Tianjing, ZHANG Wanqin, CAO Qitao, et al. Improving production of lactic acid and volatile fatty acids from dairy cattle manure and corn straw silage: Effects of mixing ratios and temperature[J]. Bioresource Technology, 2022, 359: 127449.
34	李定龙, 戴肖云, 赵宋敏, 等. pH对厨余垃圾厌氧发酵产酸的影响[J]. 环境科学与技术, 2011, 34(4): 125-128.
	LI Dinglong, DAI Xiaoyun, ZHAO Songmin, et al. Influence of pH on acidity during anaerobic fermentation of kitchen waste[J]. Environmental Science & Technology, 2011, 34(4): 125-128.
35	Juan CUBERO-CARDOSO, RUSSO Egidio, SERRANO Antonio, et al. Enhancing the recovery of volatile fatty acids from strawberry extrudate through anaerobic fermentation at different pH values[J]. Environmental Technology & Innovation, 2022, 28: 102587.
36	LIU Yue, SHI Chuan, WU Yuanyuan, et al. Effect of pH dynamic control on ethanol-lactic type fermentation (ELTF) performance of glucose[J]. Environmental Technology, 2022, 43(26): 4102-4114.
37	TANG Jialing, WANG Xiaochang, HU Yisong, et al. Lactic acid fermentation from food waste with indigenous microbiota: Effects of pH, temperature and high OLR[J]. Waste Management, 2016, 52: 278-285.
38	马海玲, 吴远远, 郑明月, 等. pH控制下果蔬垃圾酸化反应器中微生物优势菌群识别[J]. 环境工程学报, 2016, 10(12): 7349-7354.
	MA Hailing, WU Yuanyuan, ZHENG Mingyue, et al. Identification dominant bacteria in acidification bioreactor fed by fruit and vegetable waste under pH control[J]. Chinese Journal of Environmental Engineering, 2016, 10(12): 7349-7354.
39	SURYAWANSHI P C, CHAUDHARI A B, KOTHARI R M. Thermophilic anaerobic digestion: The best option for waste treatment[J]. Critical Reviews in Biotechnology, 2010, 30(1): 31-40.
40	任海伟, 冯银萍, 刘通, 等. 温度对干玉米秸秆与废弃白菜混贮发酵品质的影响和微生物菌群解析[J]. 应用与环境生物学报, 2019, 25(3): 719-728.
	REN Haiwei, FENG Yinping, LIU Tong, et al. Effects of temperature on the mixed storage fermentation quality of dry corn stalk and cabbage wastes and their microbial communities[J]. Chinese Journal of Applied and Environmental Biology, 2019, 25(3): 719-728.
41	WANG C, NISHINO N. Effects of storage temperature and ensiling period on fermentation products, aerobic stability and microbial communities of total mixed ration silage[J]. Journal of Applied Microbiology, 2013, 114(6): 1687-1695.
42	LI Dong, LIU Shengchu, MI Li, et al. Effects of feedstock ratio and organic loading rate on the anaerobic mesophilic co-digestion of rice straw and pig manure[J]. Bioresource Technology, 2015, 187: 120-127.
43	CHEN Rong, LI Mao, YANG Jinsong, et al. Exploring the effect of wilting on fermentation profiles and microbial community structure during ensiling and air exposure of king grass silage[J]. Frontiers in Microbiology, 2022, 13: 971426.
44	SUN Hong, LIAO Chaosheng, CHEN Liangyin, et al. Potential for volatile fatty acid production via anaerobically-fermenting rice straw pretreated with silage effluent and phenyllactic acid[J]. Bioresource Technology, 2023, 369: 128355.
45	YAN Yanhong, LI Xiaomei, GUAN Hao, et al. Microbial community and fermentation characteristic of Italian ryegrass silage prepared with corn stover and lactic acid bacteria[J]. Bioresource Technology, 2019, 279: 166-173.
46	WANG Siran, YUAN Xianjun, DONG Zhihao, et al. Characteristics of lactic acid bacteria isolated from different sources and their effects on the silage quality of oat (Avena sativa L.) straw on the Tibetan Plateau[J]. Grassland Science, 2018, 64(2): 128-136.
47	ROMANI Aloia, YANEZ Remedios, GARROTE Gil, et al. SSF production of lactic acid from cellulosic biosludges[J]. Bioresource Technology, 2008, 99(10): 4247-4254.
48	HU Jinlong， LIN Yanxu, ZHANG Zhenting, et al. High-titer lactic acid production by Lactobacillus pentosus FL0421 from corn stover using fed-batch simultaneous saccharification and fermentation[J]. Bioresource Technology, 2016, 214: 74-80.
49	MAAS Ronald H W, BAKKER Robert R, JANSEN Mickel L A, et al. Lactic acid production from lime-treated wheat straw by Bacillus coagulans: Neutralization of acid by fed-batch addition of alkaline substrate[J]. Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology, 2008, 78(5): 751-758.
50	CAI Yimin, DU Zhumei, YAMASAKI Seishi, et al. Community of natural lactic acid bacteria and silage fermentation of corn stover and sugarcane tops in Africa[J]. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences, 2020, 33(8): 1252-1264.
51	LI Hong, KE Xuejia, LI Ming, et al. Bismuth ferrite Fenton-like pretreatment improves lactic acid production from corn stover without detoxification by Bacillus coagulans [J]. Biofuels, Bioproducts and Biorefining, 2021, 15(6): 1753–1762.
52	OLIVA José, NEGRO María, MANZANARES Paloma, et al. A sequential steam explosion and reactive extrusion pretreatment for lignocellulosic biomass conversion within a fermentation-based biorefinery perspective[J]. Fermentation, 2017, 3(2): 15.
53	TSEGAYE Bahiru, BALOMAJUMDER Chandrajit, ROY Partha. Optimization of microwave and NaOH pretreatments of wheat straw for enhancing biofuel yield[J]. Energy Conversion and Management, 2019, 186: 82-92.
54	XU Zhenshang, HE Huiying, ZHANG Susu, et al. Effects of inoculants Lactobacillus brevis and Lactobacillus parafarraginis on the fermentation characteristics and microbial communities of corn stover silage[J]. Scientific Reports, 2017, 7: 13614.
55	郭睿. 残次香梨与玉米秸秆混合发酵饲料的筛选及其评价[D]. 阿拉尔: 塔里木大学, 2022.
	GUO Rui. Selecting and evaluating of mixed fermentation feed of defective pear and corn stalks[D]. Alaer: Tarim University, 2022.
56	LALAK Justyna, KASPRZYCKA Agnieszka, MARTYNIAK Danuta, et al. Effect of biological pretreatment of Agropyron elongatum ‘BAMAR’ on biogas production by anaerobic digestion[J]. Bioresource Technology, 2016, 200: 194-200.
57	LI Na, XIAO Xingxiao, LI Cheng, et al. Boosting VFAs production during the anaerobic acidification of lignocellulose waste pulp and paper mill excess sludge: Ultrasonic pretreatment and inoculating rumen microorganisms[J]. Industrial Crops and Products, 2022, 188: 115613.
58	SIVAGURUNATHAN Periyasamy, Tirath RAJ, CHAUHAN Prakram Singh, et al. High-titer lactic acid production from pilot-scale pretreated non-detoxified rice straw hydrolysate at high-solid loading[J]. Biochemical Engineering Journal, 2022, 187: 108668.
59	NASIR Arslna, CHEN Hongzhang, WANG Lan. Novel single-step pretreatment of steam explosion and choline chloride to de-lignify corn stover for enhancing enzymatic edibility[J]. Process Biochemistry, 2020, 94: 273-281.
60	李建勋, 李鑫, 王雨萌, 等. 氨化预处理对玉米秸秆酶解产糖的影响[J/OL].食品工业科技, 2022. DOI: 10.13386/j.issn1002-0306. 2022090155 .
	LI Jianxun, LI Xin, WANG Yumeng, et al. Effect of ammonia pretreatment on enzymatic sugar production from corn stover [J]. Science and Technology of Food Industry, 2022. DOI: 10.13386/j.issn1002-0306. 2022090155 .
61	ZHANG Zhaohui, XU Jun, XIE Junxian, et al. Physicochemical transformation and enzymatic hydrolysis promotion of reed straw after pretreatment with a new deep eutectic solvent[J]. Carbohydrate Polymers, 2022, 290: 119472.
62	柳珊, 吴树彪, 张万钦, 等. 白腐真菌预处理对玉米秸秆厌氧发酵产甲烷影响实验[J]. 农业机械学报, 2013, 44(S2): 124-129, 142.
	LIU Shan, WU Shubiao, ZHANG Wanqin, et al. Effect of white-rot fungi pretreatment on methane production from anaerobic digestion of corn stover[J]. Transactions of the Chinese Society for Agricultural Machinery, 2013, 44(S2): 124-129, 142.
63	何慧英. 乳酸菌的筛选及其对青贮饲料有氧稳定性的研究[D]. 济南: 山东大学, 2018.
	HE Huiying. Isolation of lactic acid bacteria and their effects on aerobic stability in silage[D]. Jinan: Shandong University, 2018.
64	孟祥玉. 玉米秸秆生物预处理及L-乳酸发酵工艺研究[D]. 郑州: 郑州轻工业大学, 2022.
	MENG Xiangyu. Study on biological pretreatment of corn stalks and L-lactic acid fermentation process[D]. Zhengzhou: Zhengzhou University of Light Industry, 2022.
65	程秋爽. 超声波/好氧水解对玉米秸秆厌氧消化特性的影响[D]. 哈尔滨: 东北农业大学, 2021.
	CHENG Qiushuang. Effects on anaerobic digestion characteristics of corn stalks with ultrasonic/aerobic hydrolysis[D]. Harbin: Northeast Agricultural University, 2021.
66	YAN Xu, WANG Zhongren, ZHANG Kejing, et al. Bacteria-enhanced dilute acid pretreatment of lignocellulosic biomass[J]. Bioresource Technology, 2017, 245: 419-425.

[1]	JIN Yuanxun, HUO Di, SUN Xudong. Preparation of rod-like Al₂O₃ and Al₂O₃-ZrO₂ ceramic composite powders in aqueous solution [J]. Chemical Industry and Engineering Progress, 2021, 40(S2): 309-314.
[2]	LIU Rongtao, ZHANG Shiyang, HUANG Xingwen, PENG Xiaokang, MIN Yonggang. Effect of biocompatibility on surface morphology of polyaniline/polylactic acid composite nanofibers [J]. Chemical Industry and Engineering Progress, 2021, 40(8): 4406-4412.
[3]	FENG Xinzhen, LIU Jun, JI Weijie. Progresses in acrylic acid (acrylate) production via acetic acid (acetate)-formaldehyde condensation [J]. Chemical Industry and Engineering Progress, 2021, 40(4): 2005-2015.
[4]	ZHANG Cunsheng, LIU Yan, YANG Li, TIAN Yufei. Research progress of hexanol production through anaerobic fermentation of wasted industrial syngas [J]. Chemical Industry and Engineering Progress, 2021, 40(3): 1604-1610.
[5]	Yang JIAO, Zhixing LI, Yingjie ZHANG, Kai WANG, Xiquan CHENG. Research progress on biodegradable membrane materials and their applications [J]. Chemical Industry and Engineering Progress, 2021, 40(2): 949-958.
[6]	Yuqing ZHANG, Xiulan SONG, Pei BI. Effects of pH on the production of short-chain fatty acids from waste activated sludge enhanced by potassium peroxymonosulfate [J]. Chemical Industry and Engineering Progress, 2020, 39(9): 3786-3793.
[7]	Senlong YU, Xiangning HU, Feiyu TANG, Chenjie ZHU, Hengxue XIANG, Jialiang ZHOU, Zexu HU, Qiyun FENG, Meifang ZHU. Flame-retardant poly(lactic acid): an overview and outlook [J]. Chemical Industry and Engineering Progress, 2020, 39(9): 3421-3432.
[8]	Shiping ZHAN,Zetao WAN,Jingchang WANG,Jinqiu FU,Qicheng ZHAO. Synthesis and modification of biomedical material polylactic acid [J]. Chemical Industry and Engineering Progress, 2020, 39(1): 199-205.
[9]	Mingzhuan LI, Xiaoying HU, Min HE, Jie YU, Caihong WANG, Shengjun LU. Structure and properties of epoxy resin modified polylactic acid/low melting point nylon 6/montmorillonite nanocomposites [J]. Chemical Industry and Engineering Progress, 2019, 38(06): 2880-2888.
[10]	Yulong WANG, Yaqiong LI, Maoyong HE, Zhenzhong LI. Effect of diisocyanate on properties of polylactic acid/thermoplastic polyurethane blends [J]. Chemical Industry and Engineering Progress, 2019, 38(05): 2314-2319.
[11]	Shaoqi CHEN, Yuanyuan SHAO, Keying MA, Ying ZHENG, Jingxu ZHU. Development and applications of liquid-solid circulating fluidized beds—Process integration and intensification [J]. Chemical Industry and Engineering Progress, 2019, 38(01): 122-137.
[12]	FU Minxia, ZHU Lingyu, YUN Junxian. Recent advances in separation of lactate dehydrogenase and its applications in catalytic synthesis of phenyllactic acid [J]. Chemical Industry and Engineering Progress, 2018, 37(12): 4814-4820.
[13]	DU Gang, LIU Yun, ZHAN Mengtao, HU Qiuyue, ZHANG Zhenyu, YANG Haiying. Fermentation condition optimization for lactic acid production with cane molasses by Lactobacillus [J]. Chemical Industry and Engineering Progress, 2018, 37(10): 4006-4012.
[14]	LIU Ruilai. Fabrication and characterization of poly(L-lactic acid) porous microspheres [J]. Chemical Industry and Engineering Progress, 2018, 37(05): 1875-1880.
[15]	XU Chong, ZHANG Xiaolin, CONG Longkang, DENG Xiangsheng, JIN Xiao, NIE Sunjian. Progress of natural fiber reinforced polylactic acid biodegradable composites [J]. Chemical Industry and Engineering Progress, 2017, 36(10): 3751-3756.