IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jeners/v13y2020i18p4793-d413325.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparing Hydrogen Sulfide Removal Efficiency in a Field-Scale Digester Using Microaeration and Iron Filters

Author

Listed:
  • Joanna K. Huertas

    (Academic Department of Environmental Engineering, National Agrarian University La Molina, Lima 15024, Peru)

  • Lawrence Quipuzco

    (Academic Department of Environmental Engineering, National Agrarian University La Molina, Lima 15024, Peru)

  • Amro Hassanein

    (Department of Environmental Science and Technology, University of Maryland, 1429 Animal Sci./Ag Engineering Bldg., College Park, MD 20742, USA)

  • Stephanie Lansing

    (Department of Environmental Science and Technology, University of Maryland, 1429 Animal Sci./Ag Engineering Bldg., College Park, MD 20742, USA)

Abstract

Biological desulfurization of biogas from a field-scale anaerobic digester in Peru was tested using air injection (microaeration) in separate duplicate vessels and chemical desulfurization using duplicate iron filters to compare hydrogen sulfide (H 2 S) reduction, feasibility, and cost. Microaeration was tested after biogas retention times of 2 and 4 h after a single injection of ambient air at 2 L/min. The microaeration vessels contained digester sludge to seed sulfur-oxidizing bacteria and facilitate H 2 S removal. The average H 2 S removal efficiency using iron filters was 32.91%, with a maximum of 70.21%. The average H 2 S removal efficiency by iron filters was significantly lower than microaeration after 2 and 4 h retention times (91.5% and 99.8%, respectively). The longer retention time (4 h) resulted in a higher average removal efficiency (99.8%) compared to 2 h (91.5%). The sulfur concentration in the microaeration treatment vessel was 493% higher after 50 days of treatments, indicating that the bacterial community present in the liquid phase of the vessels effectively sequestered the sulfur compounds from the biogas. The H 2 S removal cost for microaeration (2 h: $29/m 3 H 2 S removed; and 4 h: $27/m 3 H 2 S removed) was an order of magnitude lower than for the iron filter ($382/m 3 H 2 S removed). In the small-scale anaerobic digestion system in Peru, microaeration was more efficient and cost effective for desulfurizing the biogas than the use of iron filters.

Suggested Citation

  • Joanna K. Huertas & Lawrence Quipuzco & Amro Hassanein & Stephanie Lansing, 2020. "Comparing Hydrogen Sulfide Removal Efficiency in a Field-Scale Digester Using Microaeration and Iron Filters," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(18), pages 1-14, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:13:y:2020:i:18:p:4793-:d:413325
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/13/18/4793/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/13/18/4793/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Abhinav Choudhury & Stephanie Lansing, 2019. "Methane and Hydrogen Sulfide Production from Co-Digestion of Gummy Waste with a Food Waste, Grease Waste, and Dairy Manure Mixture," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(23), pages 1-12, November.
    2. Abhinav Choudhury & Timothy Shelford & Gary Felton & Curt Gooch & Stephanie Lansing, 2019. "Evaluation of Hydrogen Sulfide Scrubbing Systems for Anaerobic Digesters on Two U.S. Dairy Farms," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(24), pages 1-13, December.
    3. Schiavon Maia, Djeine Cristina & Niklevicz, Rafael R. & Arioli, Rafael & Frare, Laercio M. & Arroyo, Pedro A. & Gimenes, Marcelino L. & Pereira, Nehemias C., 2017. "Removal of H2S and CO2 from biogas in bench scale and the pilot scale using a regenerable Fe-EDTA solution," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 188-194.
    4. Arif, Sania & Liaquat, Rabia & Adil, Manal, 2018. "Applications of materials as additives in anaerobic digestion technology," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 354-366.
    5. Haosagul, Saowaluck & Prommeenate, Peerada & Hobbs, Glyn & Pisutpaisal, Nipon, 2020. "Sulfide-oxidizing bacteria community in full-scale bioscrubber treating H2S in biogas from swine anaerobic digester," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 150(C), pages 973-980.
    6. Scarlat, Nicolae & Dallemand, Jean-François & Fahl, Fernando, 2018. "Biogas: Developments and perspectives in Europe," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 129(PA), pages 457-472.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Magdalena Zielińska & Katarzyna Bułkowska & Wioleta Mikucka, 2021. "Valorization of Distillery Stillage for Bioenergy Production: A Review," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(21), pages 1-17, November.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Becker, C.M. & Marder, M. & Junges, E. & Konrad, O., 2022. "Technologies for biogas desulfurization - An overview of recent studies," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 159(C).
    2. Pallavicini, Jacopo & Fedeli, Matteo & Scolieri, Giacomo Domenico & Tagliaferri, Francesca & Parolin, Jacopo & Sironi, Selena & Manenti, Flavio, 2023. "Digital twin-based optimization and demo-scale validation of absorption columns using sodium hydroxide/water mixtures for the purification of biogas streams subject to impurity fluctuations," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 219(P1).
    3. Fernandez, Helen Coarita & Buffiere, Pierre & Bayard, Rémy, 2022. "Understanding the role of mechanical pretreatment before anaerobic digestion: Lab-scale investigations," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 187(C), pages 193-203.
    4. Dumitru Peni & Marcin Dębowski & Mariusz Jerzy Stolarski, 2022. "Influence of the Fertilization Method on the Silphium perfoliatum Biomass Composition and Methane Fermentation Efficiency," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(3), pages 1-13, January.
    5. Sofia Dahlgren & Jonas Ammenberg, 2021. "Sustainability Assessment of Public Transport, Part II—Applying a Multi-Criteria Assessment Method to Compare Different Bus Technologies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(3), pages 1-30, January.
    6. Park, Min-Ju & Kim, Hak-Min & Gu, Yun-Jeong & Jeong, Dae-Woon, 2023. "Optimization of biogas-reforming conditions considering carbon formation, hydrogen production, and energy efficiencies," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 265(C).
    7. Psarros, Georgios N. & Papathanassiou, Stavros A., 2023. "Generation scheduling in island systems with variable renewable energy sources: A literature review," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 205(C), pages 1105-1124.
    8. Bedoić, Robert & Dorotić, Hrvoje & Schneider, Daniel Rolph & Čuček, Lidija & Ćosić, Boris & Pukšec, Tomislav & Duić, Neven, 2021. "Synergy between feedstock gate fee and power-to-gas: An energy and economic analysis of renewable methane production in a biogas plant," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 173(C), pages 12-23.
    9. Zheng, Lei & Cheng, Shikun & Han, Yanzhao & Wang, Min & Xiang, Yue & Guo, Jiali & Cai, Di & Mang, Heinz-Peter & Dong, Taili & Li, Zifu & Yan, Zhengxu & Men, Yu, 2020. "Bio-natural gas industry in China: Current status and development," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 128(C).
    10. Valerii Havrysh & Antonina Kalinichenko & Grzegorz Mentel & Tadeusz Olejarz, 2020. "Commercial Biogas Plants: Lessons for Ukraine," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(10), pages 1-24, May.
    11. Carsten Herbes & Johannes Dahlin & Peter Kurz, 2020. "Consumer Willingness To Pay for Proenvironmental Attributes of Biogas Digestate-Based Potting Soil," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(16), pages 1-19, August.
    12. Nur Izzah Hamna A. Aziz & Marlia M. Hanafiah & Shabbir H. Gheewala & Haikal Ismail, 2020. "Bioenergy for a Cleaner Future: A Case Study of Sustainable Biogas Supply Chain in the Malaysian Energy Sector," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(8), pages 1-24, April.
    13. Dahye Kim & Kyung-Tae Kim & Young-Kwon Park, 2020. "A Comparative Study on the Reduction Effect in Greenhouse Gas Emissions between the Combined Heat and Power Plant and Boiler," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(12), pages 1-11, June.
    14. Rawan Hakawati & Beatrice Smyth & Helen Daly & Geoffrey McCullough & David Rooney, 2019. "Is the Fischer-Tropsch Conversion of Biogas-Derived Syngas to Liquid Fuels Feasible at Atmospheric Pressure?," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(6), pages 1-28, March.
    15. Mehta, Neha & Anderson, Aine & Johnston, Christopher R. & Rooney, David W., 2022. "Evaluating the opportunity for utilising anaerobic digestion and pyrolysis of livestock manure and grass silage to decarbonise gas infrastructure: A Northern Ireland case study," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 196(C), pages 343-357.
    16. Aguilar-Moreno, Guadalupe Stefanny & Navarro-Cerón, Elizabeth & Velázquez-Hernández, Azucena & Hernández-Eugenio, Guadalupe & Aguilar-Méndez, Miguel Ángel & Espinosa-Solares, Teodoro, 2020. "Enhancing methane yield of chicken litter in anaerobic digestion using magnetite nanoparticles," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 147(P1), pages 204-213.
    17. Chein, Rei-Yu & Hsu, Wen-Huai, 2019. "Thermodynamic analysis of syngas production via chemical looping dry reforming of methane," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 180(C), pages 535-547.
    18. Wajahat Ullah Khan Tareen & Zuha Anjum & Nabila Yasin & Leenah Siddiqui & Ifzana Farhat & Suheel Abdullah Malik & Saad Mekhilef & Mehdi Seyedmahmoudian & Ben Horan & Mohamed Darwish & Muhammad Aamir &, 2018. "The Prospective Non-Conventional Alternate and Renewable Energy Sources in Pakistan—A Focus on Biomass Energy for Power Generation, Transportation, and Industrial Fuel," Energies, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-49, September.
    19. Jiapei Wei & Gefu Liang & James Alex & Tongchao Zhang & Chunbo Ma, 2020. "Research Progress of Energy Utilization of Agricultural Waste in China: Bibliometric Analysis by Citespace," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-22, January.
    20. Sun, Hui & Wang, Enzhen & Li, Xiang & Cui, Xian & Guo, Jianbin & Dong, Renjie, 2021. "Potential biomethane production from crop residues in China: Contributions to carbon neutrality," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 148(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:13:y:2020:i:18:p:4793-:d:413325. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.