Comparison of the Biological H2S Removal Characteristics among Four Inorganic Packing Materials
JOURNAL OF BIOSCIENCE AND BIOENGINEElUNG
'Vo). 91. No.4, 396--402. 2001
Comparison of the Biological H 2S Removal Characteristics among
Four Inorganic Packing Materials
MITSUYO HIRAI, MANABU KAMAMOTO, MOHAMAD YANI. AND MAKOTO SHODA·
Chemical Resources lAboratory, Tokyo Institute o/Techn%gy. 4259 Nagatsutll-Cho. Midori-ku. Yokohama 226-8503. Japan
Received 14 September 20001Accepted 31 January 2001
Fool' iDOfllUlif paddJJgmaterfais were evaiualed in tenns of their availability as pacld. materials of a packed
tower deodorizatioll appuatu (bIoIiIter) lrom the 'riewpoiats of biologk:ai HJ8 remoYai dlanc:terisda ud
lOIRe ,lIysieal properties. AmOlll poJODII cenm1cs (A), caIduted cristobalHe (8), c:aIri ..led aad lor:aed
obsidla (C), pu.wed ad ealdaaled soU (D), tile superiority of dIae JNICIdnI materials determlDed based 011
tile YlliIMS of DOobioiogic:al re.oyai per aoit weigllt 01' wait yolume of paddDI uu.teriaJ, complete relDoYlli
atptICity of BJ8 per .llIt wddtt of packing materild per 0,. or wnlt "olame of paddDg material per oy u4
pl1!SSllJ't! tlrop of tile ptIded bed was III (he order of A :::::C> D:::::B, nicllis correlated willi! tile maximum water
COD teD" porosity, and meaD pore diameter.
[Key wonk:
biofilter, bydrogen sulfide, removal capacity. inorganic packing materials1
The applications of biological deodorizing methods
have been increasing (1-4) because of their cost effectiveness and simple maintenance (2, S) compared to chemical and physical methods. Biological deodorizations are
divided into two types of system. gas-solid and gas-liC!uid systems (6). Among the gas..solid systems. a packed
tower deodorization system is efficient mainly because
this can be constructed in a small construction area and
can function sufficiently in urban a:eas. To reduce the
scale of the apparatus, the selection of parldnc: m.:..terials
is an important factor anJ. manj ､ｩｦｾ･ｮｴ＠
tyPeS of packing materials suited for ｭｩ｣ｲｯｴＺｾ｡ｬ＠
growth have been actively researched. Some requirements for a good packing
material are as follows: (i) high water-holding capacity,
(ii) high porosity and large specific surface area, (iii) less
compacting nature, (iv) low-pressure drop over a wiue
range of water content, (v) small change in form in long
periods of use, (vi) lightness, (vii) low cost, (viii) appropriate adsorbing ability for malodorous gases and (ix)
large buffering capacity for acidic end products. Requirements (ill). (iv). (v), (vi) and (vii) are mainly related
to the construction and maintenance of the biological
deodorization apparatus, and (i) and (il) are related to
its biological activities. The acidity or basicity of gases
may be one of the factors for selecting packing materials. As organic packing materials, soil, compost and
peat were sbown as good packing materials (7-14) that
meet requirements (i), (ii), (vii), (viii) and (ix). Inorganic
packing materials, such as perlite (15). porous ceramics
(16), activated carbon fiber (17,18) and porous lava (19),
are used, because they meet requirements (ill), (iv) and
(v). Because comparative study of different packing
materials has been rarely conducte
(%'·d- ' )
62.8
-8.57
35.S
89.0
34.0
-4.39
-3.26
-6..28
COMPARlSON OF INORGANIC PACKING MATERIALS IN TERMS OF H,s REMOVAL
Vat. 91.2001
399
Amounts of H,s removed nonbiolo&ically by packing materials under p$ flow conditions, and complete H,s removal
capacity ami pressure drop in biofilter
TABLE 5.
Packing
material
0.23
0.10
0.36
0.13
A
B
C
D
51
32.6
3SOO
64
39
50
2.1
30.9
3.0
1200
3400
1600
6.1
21.7
U.S
31.1
• Measured at the end of H,s removal.
c
0
:p
2500
...
!III
2000
1g ｾ＠
u
100 f'
1500
-91000
....
E•
---
500
II:
0
150
.
I
III
.lO:
V,
I
..!!
.........- - - - l i ! I
ｾ＠
o 10
40
0
SO
20
10
0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
0
30
50
60
Load
(g-S-kg-l-dry paekin8 material'd- 1)
Time Cd)
FIG. S. Time course of H;$ load. Symbob: . packing mat.eriaJ.
A; A. pad.ing JD&!erial B; o. packing maurial Ci o. padins material
20
D.
FIO. 6. Plot of H"s.S load veuus removal capacity in packing
materialA.
as shown in Fig. 4a. Loads of unit weight packing
materials were different in each packing material as
shown in Fig. 5 because the bulk density shown in Table
4 is < 10"
2.0 x 10'1
3.11 x 10"
1.7XIO"
1.9>< 10'·
2.6 x 10"'
1.1 x 10'.
7.7 x 10'
End
1.4X 10"
105 x 10"
2.2 x 10"
2.3 x 10'1
COMPARISON OF INORGANIC PACKING MATERIALS IN TERMS OF H;i REMOVAL
VOL. 91. 2001
•
401
water content contribute to the differences in mass transfer capacity of HzS. resulting in a different complete ｈｾ＠
removal capacity of each packing material. In selecting
inorganic packing materials for use in biofilters, these
physical parameters are important factors for determining the reaction rate between the microorganisms and
H1S.
Packing material B
Packinc material A
REFERENCES
]. SItMa,. M.l Metbocis for &be biological treatment of exhaust
gases, p. 3]-46. lit Martin, A. M. (ed.), Biological degradation
of wastes. EIse¥ier Science, London (1991).
2. OtiaIpaf. S. P. P.: Exhaust gas purification, p. 42$-452. In
Rehm, H. J. and Reed. O. (ed.), Biotechnol.. vol. 8. VCH.
Weinheim (1986).
3. Glllap, D. L: BIOX hydrogen sulfide abatemc.ut process-applieation analysis, Trans. Geothenn. Resour. COUncl., 28, 11-17
(1996).
4. NacI, G.: Controlling H;) emission. Cbem.
Ene., 104,
125-128
(1997).
5. Elridge, A. F....4 BUtz, l.: Cost benefits of biological odour
Packlnc materia' C
Packing material 0
6.
7.
MonbioIocIcaI removal
per unit weicht
100
Pre ...ure drop
o
NonbloloeicaJ removal
100
8.
per unit volume
9.
10.
100
\'00
Complete removal "aPtW:1ty Complete removal capaelty
per ul'llt volume
per ""it weicht
FIG. 7. Overall appraisal as a biological deodorization packing
material from the results of H;i removal eJqJeriment on packing
materials A, B. C and D. Axis is graduated in rdative ratio to the
maximal value of all pa(:king materials.
plete removal per unit weight and unit volume, nonbiological removal per unit weight and volume and pressure
drop, is shown in Fig. 7 as a radar graph. Each axis is
graduated in. relative ratios to the maximal value of all
packing materials, except for pressure drop which is
marked in opposite direction. The price of each packing
material is in the order of A»D==B»C (detailed data
not shown). Overall appraisal of the packing materials
used from the results described above is A==C> D==B in
excellence order. In the removal of acidic H 2S gas, packing materials which have higher pH values are expected
to be 1:uperior than tbose with acidic pH values, ｢ｾｵｳ･＠
of their physical and chemical adsorbiilg ability,
However, in this experiment the pH of the packing
materials did not correlate to their removal capacity.
The efficient and complete H:§ removal capacity of packing materials A and C is correlated ｾｯ＠ their physical and
chemical properties such as high porosity and mean pore
diameter (Tab!e 4). Although there are no differences in
cell numbers among the bioiilter packing materials at the
end of experiment. the differences in physical properties
such as porosity. mean pore diameter and maximum
1 J.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
control. Ind. Waste Maugt., 18-20 (1992).
1CJuaa&a-. T.: Fundamentals of biological deodorization, p. 144. In Fukuyama, J. (ed.), Base and application of biological
deodorization. Odot Research and Engineering of Japan.
Tokyo (1994). (10 Japanese)
Zeisi&, H.D., Hoimr, A., IUl4 K.rdtDlft-, S.: Anvendung von
biologischen Filtem zur Reduzienmg von gauchs-intensiven
Emissionen. Heft 2. Schriftreihe der l..andtechnik Weihenstephan (Hrsg), ｆｲ･ｩｳｮｾ＠
(1980).
Fnrusawa, N., Togasld, I., Hirai, M., Sboda, M., and Kubota,
H.: Removal of hydrogen sulfide by a bio6lter with fibrous
peat. J. Ferment. Techno!., 61, 589-594 (1984).
Teruawll, M., iiinU, M., ud KBbota. H.: Soil deodorization
systems. RioCycie., July 28-32 (1986).
ClIo, K. S., HInd, M., aad Shoda, M.l Degradation characteristics of hydrogen sulfide, methanetiol, dimethyl sulfide and
dimethyl disulfide by Thiobacillus thioparu5 DW44 isolated
from peat biofilter. 1. Fennent. Bioeng., 71, 384-389 (1991).
ZhllDg, L., Hirai, M., .lId Sfloda, M.: Removal chara(:(eristics
of dimethyl sulfide, methanethiol and hydrogen sulfide by
Hyphomicrobium sp., 155 isolated from peat bi06lter. 1. Ferment. Bioeng.. 12, ＳＹＲｾＶ＠
(1991).
010, K. S., HInd, M., ud Sflada, M.: Enhanced removal
efficiency of malodorous gases in a pilot-scale peat biofilter
inoculated with 77.iobuci//us thiojXlt1l6 DW44. 1. Fennent.
Bioeng.• 73, 46--50 (1992).
Dqorao-o..., l. R., Kow.., S., aM Le 00irK, P.:
Microbiologica1 Oxida1ivil .;;;.f !:.:1'::'vr;cu ｾｷｬＧｩｵ｣＠
in it Oionner.
Can. 1. Microbial., 43, 264-271 (1997).
Va. Laagealtol'e, H., WByas, E., u.
'Vo). 91. No.4, 396--402. 2001
Comparison of the Biological H 2S Removal Characteristics among
Four Inorganic Packing Materials
MITSUYO HIRAI, MANABU KAMAMOTO, MOHAMAD YANI. AND MAKOTO SHODA·
Chemical Resources lAboratory, Tokyo Institute o/Techn%gy. 4259 Nagatsutll-Cho. Midori-ku. Yokohama 226-8503. Japan
Received 14 September 20001Accepted 31 January 2001
Fool' iDOfllUlif paddJJgmaterfais were evaiualed in tenns of their availability as pacld. materials of a packed
tower deodorizatioll appuatu (bIoIiIter) lrom the 'riewpoiats of biologk:ai HJ8 remoYai dlanc:terisda ud
lOIRe ,lIysieal properties. AmOlll poJODII cenm1cs (A), caIduted cristobalHe (8), c:aIri ..led aad lor:aed
obsidla (C), pu.wed ad ealdaaled soU (D), tile superiority of dIae JNICIdnI materials determlDed based 011
tile YlliIMS of DOobioiogic:al re.oyai per aoit weigllt 01' wait yolume of paddDI uu.teriaJ, complete relDoYlli
atptICity of BJ8 per .llIt wddtt of packing materild per 0,. or wnlt "olame of paddDg material per oy u4
pl1!SSllJ't! tlrop of tile ptIded bed was III (he order of A :::::C> D:::::B, nicllis correlated willi! tile maximum water
COD teD" porosity, and meaD pore diameter.
[Key wonk:
biofilter, bydrogen sulfide, removal capacity. inorganic packing materials1
The applications of biological deodorizing methods
have been increasing (1-4) because of their cost effectiveness and simple maintenance (2, S) compared to chemical and physical methods. Biological deodorizations are
divided into two types of system. gas-solid and gas-liC!uid systems (6). Among the gas..solid systems. a packed
tower deodorization system is efficient mainly because
this can be constructed in a small construction area and
can function sufficiently in urban a:eas. To reduce the
scale of the apparatus, the selection of parldnc: m.:..terials
is an important factor anJ. manj ､ｩｦｾ･ｮｴ＠
tyPeS of packing materials suited for ｭｩ｣ｲｯｴＺｾ｡ｬ＠
growth have been actively researched. Some requirements for a good packing
material are as follows: (i) high water-holding capacity,
(ii) high porosity and large specific surface area, (iii) less
compacting nature, (iv) low-pressure drop over a wiue
range of water content, (v) small change in form in long
periods of use, (vi) lightness, (vii) low cost, (viii) appropriate adsorbing ability for malodorous gases and (ix)
large buffering capacity for acidic end products. Requirements (ill). (iv). (v), (vi) and (vii) are mainly related
to the construction and maintenance of the biological
deodorization apparatus, and (i) and (il) are related to
its biological activities. The acidity or basicity of gases
may be one of the factors for selecting packing materials. As organic packing materials, soil, compost and
peat were sbown as good packing materials (7-14) that
meet requirements (i), (ii), (vii), (viii) and (ix). Inorganic
packing materials, such as perlite (15). porous ceramics
(16), activated carbon fiber (17,18) and porous lava (19),
are used, because they meet requirements (ill), (iv) and
(v). Because comparative study of different packing
materials has been rarely conducte
(%'·d- ' )
62.8
-8.57
35.S
89.0
34.0
-4.39
-3.26
-6..28
COMPARlSON OF INORGANIC PACKING MATERIALS IN TERMS OF H,s REMOVAL
Vat. 91.2001
399
Amounts of H,s removed nonbiolo&ically by packing materials under p$ flow conditions, and complete H,s removal
capacity ami pressure drop in biofilter
TABLE 5.
Packing
material
0.23
0.10
0.36
0.13
A
B
C
D
51
32.6
3SOO
64
39
50
2.1
30.9
3.0
1200
3400
1600
6.1
21.7
U.S
31.1
• Measured at the end of H,s removal.
c
0
:p
2500
...
!III
2000
1g ｾ＠
u
100 f'
1500
-91000
....
E•
---
500
II:
0
150
.
I
III
.lO:
V,
I
..!!
.........- - - - l i ! I
ｾ＠
o 10
40
0
SO
20
10
0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
0
30
50
60
Load
(g-S-kg-l-dry paekin8 material'd- 1)
Time Cd)
FIG. S. Time course of H;$ load. Symbob: . packing mat.eriaJ.
A; A. pad.ing JD&!erial B; o. packing maurial Ci o. padins material
20
D.
FIO. 6. Plot of H"s.S load veuus removal capacity in packing
materialA.
as shown in Fig. 4a. Loads of unit weight packing
materials were different in each packing material as
shown in Fig. 5 because the bulk density shown in Table
4 is < 10"
2.0 x 10'1
3.11 x 10"
1.7XIO"
1.9>< 10'·
2.6 x 10"'
1.1 x 10'.
7.7 x 10'
End
1.4X 10"
105 x 10"
2.2 x 10"
2.3 x 10'1
COMPARISON OF INORGANIC PACKING MATERIALS IN TERMS OF H;i REMOVAL
VOL. 91. 2001
•
401
water content contribute to the differences in mass transfer capacity of HzS. resulting in a different complete ｈｾ＠
removal capacity of each packing material. In selecting
inorganic packing materials for use in biofilters, these
physical parameters are important factors for determining the reaction rate between the microorganisms and
H1S.
Packing material B
Packinc material A
REFERENCES
]. SItMa,. M.l Metbocis for &be biological treatment of exhaust
gases, p. 3]-46. lit Martin, A. M. (ed.), Biological degradation
of wastes. EIse¥ier Science, London (1991).
2. OtiaIpaf. S. P. P.: Exhaust gas purification, p. 42$-452. In
Rehm, H. J. and Reed. O. (ed.), Biotechnol.. vol. 8. VCH.
Weinheim (1986).
3. Glllap, D. L: BIOX hydrogen sulfide abatemc.ut process-applieation analysis, Trans. Geothenn. Resour. COUncl., 28, 11-17
(1996).
4. NacI, G.: Controlling H;) emission. Cbem.
Ene., 104,
125-128
(1997).
5. Elridge, A. F....4 BUtz, l.: Cost benefits of biological odour
Packlnc materia' C
Packing material 0
6.
7.
MonbioIocIcaI removal
per unit weicht
100
Pre ...ure drop
o
NonbloloeicaJ removal
100
8.
per unit volume
9.
10.
100
\'00
Complete removal "aPtW:1ty Complete removal capaelty
per ul'llt volume
per ""it weicht
FIG. 7. Overall appraisal as a biological deodorization packing
material from the results of H;i removal eJqJeriment on packing
materials A, B. C and D. Axis is graduated in rdative ratio to the
maximal value of all pa(:king materials.
plete removal per unit weight and unit volume, nonbiological removal per unit weight and volume and pressure
drop, is shown in Fig. 7 as a radar graph. Each axis is
graduated in. relative ratios to the maximal value of all
packing materials, except for pressure drop which is
marked in opposite direction. The price of each packing
material is in the order of A»D==B»C (detailed data
not shown). Overall appraisal of the packing materials
used from the results described above is A==C> D==B in
excellence order. In the removal of acidic H 2S gas, packing materials which have higher pH values are expected
to be 1:uperior than tbose with acidic pH values, ｢ｾｵｳ･＠
of their physical and chemical adsorbiilg ability,
However, in this experiment the pH of the packing
materials did not correlate to their removal capacity.
The efficient and complete H:§ removal capacity of packing materials A and C is correlated ｾｯ＠ their physical and
chemical properties such as high porosity and mean pore
diameter (Tab!e 4). Although there are no differences in
cell numbers among the bioiilter packing materials at the
end of experiment. the differences in physical properties
such as porosity. mean pore diameter and maximum
1 J.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
control. Ind. Waste Maugt., 18-20 (1992).
1CJuaa&a-. T.: Fundamentals of biological deodorization, p. 144. In Fukuyama, J. (ed.), Base and application of biological
deodorization. Odot Research and Engineering of Japan.
Tokyo (1994). (10 Japanese)
Zeisi&, H.D., Hoimr, A., IUl4 K.rdtDlft-, S.: Anvendung von
biologischen Filtem zur Reduzienmg von gauchs-intensiven
Emissionen. Heft 2. Schriftreihe der l..andtechnik Weihenstephan (Hrsg), ｆｲ･ｩｳｮｾ＠
(1980).
Fnrusawa, N., Togasld, I., Hirai, M., Sboda, M., and Kubota,
H.: Removal of hydrogen sulfide by a bio6lter with fibrous
peat. J. Ferment. Techno!., 61, 589-594 (1984).
Teruawll, M., iiinU, M., ud KBbota. H.: Soil deodorization
systems. RioCycie., July 28-32 (1986).
ClIo, K. S., HInd, M., aad Shoda, M.l Degradation characteristics of hydrogen sulfide, methanetiol, dimethyl sulfide and
dimethyl disulfide by Thiobacillus thioparu5 DW44 isolated
from peat biofilter. 1. Fennent. Bioeng., 71, 384-389 (1991).
ZhllDg, L., Hirai, M., .lId Sfloda, M.: Removal chara(:(eristics
of dimethyl sulfide, methanethiol and hydrogen sulfide by
Hyphomicrobium sp., 155 isolated from peat bi06lter. 1. Ferment. Bioeng.. 12, ＳＹＲｾＶ＠
(1991).
010, K. S., HInd, M., ud Sflada, M.: Enhanced removal
efficiency of malodorous gases in a pilot-scale peat biofilter
inoculated with 77.iobuci//us thiojXlt1l6 DW44. 1. Fennent.
Bioeng.• 73, 46--50 (1992).
Dqorao-o..., l. R., Kow.., S., aM Le 00irK, P.:
Microbiologica1 Oxida1ivil .;;;.f !:.:1'::'vr;cu ｾｷｬＧｩｵ｣＠
in it Oionner.
Can. 1. Microbial., 43, 264-271 (1997).
Va. Laagealtol'e, H., WByas, E., u.