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. 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).
    2. 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).
    3. Mac Clay, Pablo & Börner, Jan & Sellare, Jorge, 2023. "Institutional and macroeconomic stability mediate the effect of auctions on renewable energy capacity," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 180(C).
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. Maktabifard, Mojtaba & Al-Hazmi, Hussein E. & Szulc, Paulina & Mousavizadegan, Mohammad & Xu, Xianbao & Zaborowska, Ewa & Li, Xiang & Mąkinia, Jacek, 2023. "Net-zero carbon condition in wastewater treatment plants: A systematic review of mitigation strategies and challenges," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 185(C).
    7. 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.
    8. 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).
    9. Elena Tamburini & Mattias Gaglio & Giuseppe Castaldelli & Elisa Anna Fano, 2020. "Is Bioenergy Truly Sustainable When Land-Use-Change (LUC) Emissions Are Accounted for? The Case-Study of Biogas from Agricultural Biomass in Emilia-Romagna Region, Italy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(8), pages 1-20, April.
    10. Anca-Couce, A. & Hochenauer, C. & Scharler, R., 2021. "Bioenergy technologies, uses, market and future trends with Austria as a case study," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 135(C).
    11. Pochwatka, Patrycja & Rozakis, Stelios & Kowalczyk-Juśko, Alina & Czekała, Wojciech & Qiao, Wei & Nägele, Hans-Joachim & Janczak, Damian & Mazurkiewicz, Jakub & Mazur, Andrzej & Dach, Jacek, 2023. "The energetic and economic analysis of demand-driven biogas plant investment possibility in dairy farm," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 283(C).
    12. 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.
    13. Arora, Amarpreet Singh & Nawaz, Alam & Qyyum, Muhammad Abdul & Ismail, Sherif & Aslam, Muhammad & Tawfik, Ahmed & Yun, Choa Mun & Lee, Moonyong, 2021. "Energy saving anammox technology-based nitrogen removal and bioenergy recovery from wastewater: Inhibition mechanisms, state-of-the-art control strategies, and prospects," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 135(C).
    14. 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.
    15. Gul, Eid & Baldinelli, Giorgio & Bartocci, Pietro & Shamim, Tariq & Domenighini, Piergiovanni & Cotana, Franco & Wang, Jinwen & Fantozzi, Francesco & Bianchi, Francesco, 2023. "Transition toward net zero emissions - Integration and optimization of renewable energy sources: Solar, hydro, and biomass with the local grid station in central Italy," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 207(C), pages 672-686.
    16. Herbes, Carsten & Rilling, Benedikt & Ringel, Marc, 2021. "Policy frameworks and voluntary markets for biomethane – How do different policies influence providers’ product strategies?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 153(C).
    17. Calbry-Muzyka, Adelaide & Tarik, Mohamed & Gandiglio, Marta & Li, Jianrong & Foppiano, Debora & de Krom, Iris & Heikens, Dita & Ludwig, Christian & Biollaz, Serge, 2021. "Sampling, on-line and off-line measurement of organic silicon compounds at an industrial biogas-fed 175-kWe SOFC plant," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 177(C), pages 61-71.
    18. Abbas, Yasir & Yun, Sining & Wang, Ziqi & Zhang, Yongwei & Zhang, Xianmei & Wang, Kaijun, 2021. "Recent advances in bio-based carbon materials for anaerobic digestion: A review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 135(C).
    19. Alberto Benato & Alarico Macor, 2019. "Italian Biogas Plants: Trend, Subsidies, Cost, Biogas Composition and Engine Emissions," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(6), pages 1-31, March.
    20. Scherzinger, Marvin & Kaltschmitt, Martin, 2021. "Thermal pre-treatment options to enhance anaerobic digestibility – A review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 137(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.