Removal of H2S and H2O by Chemical Treatment To Upgrade Methane of Biogas Generated From Anaerobic Co-Digestion of Organic Biomass Waste

IPASJ International Journal of Mechanical Engineering (IIJME)
A Publisher for Research Motivation........
Volume 3, Issue 12, December 2015
Web Site: http://www.ipasj.org/IIJME/IIJME.htm

Email: editoriijme@ipasj.org
ISSN 2321-6441
Removal of H2S and H2O by Chemical

Treatment to Upgrade Methane of Biogas
Generated from Anaerobic Co-digestion of
Organic Biomass Waste
Muhammad Rashed Al Mamun , Shuichi Torii
Department of Mechanical System Engineering, Graduate School of Science and Technology,
Kumamoto University, 2-39-1 Kurokami, Kumamoto, 860-8555 JAPAN
ABSTRACT
The presence of H2S and H2O in biogas affects the pipeline and engine performance adversely. Reducing H2S and H2O content
will significantly improve the quality of biogas. A lab-scale chemical process was performed efficiently using FeCl2, Fe2O3,
activated carbon, CaO, Na2SO4 and silica gel to remove corrosive H2S and H2O for enriched of methane content in biogas, to
produce upgrade biomethane. H2S is to react with FeCl2, Fe2O3 and reversibly bound on the surface of activated carbon, the
silica gel, CaO, Na2SO4 is to reduce the presence of water vapor. Results obtained in this study, investigate that it is possible to
achieve 90-98% removal of H2S and H2O from biogas using chemical absorption or adsorption process. The removal of H2S
and H2O depends on the use of chemical agents mass, concentration and pH conditions. The results showed that for both
FeCl2 and Fe2O3 solutions, the degree of acidity appeared to have a noticeable influence on the desulfurization performance.
Among all adsorbents activated carbon performed best, successfully enriched CH4-concentration almost 76%. However, the
best removal efficiency shows silica was 98%. Thus, given the successful H2S and H2O elimination, these chemical processes is
a feasible method for biogas purification.
Keywords: Biogas, Chemical treatment, Methane, Hydrogen sulfide (H2S), Water vapor (H2O)
1. INTRODUCTION
The exploration of alternative energy source is associated with a number of urgent issues, including, the energy
independence, fluctuation of petroleum fuel costs, the threat of climate change and foreseen depletion of non-renewable
fuel sources. The stock of conventional sources of energy such as oil, coal and natural gas is limited and would be
available to mankind only for a limited time due to their diversified use and up going demand in every country [1].
Besides, the increasing concentration emission of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide and methane has strengthened
the interest in development and utilization of alternative, non-petroleum based renewable sources of energy [2], [3].
Considerable research is being devoted for using biogas originated from biomass as an alternative fuel in some crucial
sectors including, off road vehicles and farm machinery consuming a small but vital amount of energy of around 2
Mtoe [4]. The utilization of biogas is associated with the sustainable solid waste management security, which is recently
becoming an issue of global concern due to the steady increase in population, urbanization, and industrialization.
Biomass can be used generally in three different energy-producing ways: i) burning to produce heat directly ii)
alcoholic fermentation to produce ethanol for burning and iii) anaerobic digestion (AD) to produce biogas. Hence,
biogas is an important renewable fuel among the various biomass-derived renewable fuels. It is an environmentfriendly, clean, cheap, and versatile fuel. Nowadays, biogas has been extensively used for heating purposes and/or
electricity generation [5]. The principle of biogas generation includes the degradation of carbohydrate and cellulose
materials through anaerobic biodegradation of biomass wastes in the absence of oxygen through the action of anaerobic
microorganisms. The digestion is the consequence of a series of metabolic interactions between waste materials and
various groups of microorganisms. The process is carried out in digesters incubated at the temperatures ranging from
30 to 65 [6]. The nature of the raw materials and the operational conditions used during anaerobic digestion
determine the chemical composition of the biogas [7]. Raw biogas consists mainly of methane (CH4, 40-75%) and
carbon dioxide (CO2, 15-60%). Trace amounts of other components such as water (H2O, 5-10%), hydrogen sulfide
(H2S, 0.005-2%), siloxanes (0-0.02%), halogenated hydrocarbons (VOC, < 0.6%), ammonia (NH3, <1%), oxygen (O2,
0-1%), carbon monoxide (CO, <0.6%) and nitrogen (N2, 0-2%) can be present [8]-[12]. All trace components need to
remove depending on the use of the biogas, but H2S and H2O components must be removed from the biogas before
further upgradation. The H2S originated in biogas plant by the conversion of sulfur-containing protein. This can be
Page 42


ISSN 2321-6441
protein from the feedstock, such as rapeseed or animal excrements when bacteria excreted in the intestines [13]. It is
also created through the microbial reduction of inorganic sulfate by sulfate-reducing bacteria in the digester [14]. On
the other hand, biogas from digesters is normally collected from headspace above a liquid surface or very moist
substrate, the gas is usually saturated with water vapor. The amount of saturated water vapor in a gas depends on
temperature and pressure. However, the high heating value of CH4 (37.78 MJ/m3) makes biogas a good renewable
energy source [15]. Conversion of chemical energy in biogas to heat or electricity is possible via combustion. Apart
from direct combustion in burners or boiler units, gas engines are usually employed as prime movers in utilization of
biogas [16]-[18]. There is even greater potential for biogas if it can be compressed for using in farm machineries and
transport vehicles. But the H2S in biogas is both poisonous and corrosive and causes significant damage to piping,
equipment and instrumentation. In combustion, H2S present in the gas is also released as sulfur dioxide, contributing to
atmospheric pollution [19]. Water vapor can be particularly hazardous because it is highly corrosive when H2S and
water vapor react to form sulfuric acid (H2SO4), which can result in severe corrosion in pipes and other equipment that
comes into contact with the biogas. Even if the H2S has been removed, water vapor can react with CO2 to form carbonic
acid (H2CO3), which is also corrosive (pH near 5) [20]. Therefore, it is necessary to remove this incombustible
component gas from the raw biogas generated in the digester. After anaerobic digestion, there are numerous chemical,
physical and biological methods used for the removal of H2S from the biogas stream. Many of these methods are labor
intensive and generate a waste stream that poses environmental disposal concerns and risks. Previously we reported the
removal of CO2 include physical adsorption, chemical treatment, reverse flow of gas through various scrubbing towers
and fixation of the harmful component passing through a number of polymeric molecular filter [21]. Herein, we report
the removal of H2S and H2O by chemical treatment from raw biogas generated through anaerobic co-digestion of
cafeteria waste (CW), fruit waste (FW), vegetable waste (VW) and cow manure.
The present work successfully investigated Iron chloride (FeCl2) after digestion and iron oxide (Fe2O3) solution with
the pH study to remove the H2S. Previously, some researchers FeCl2 was used to remove H2S during digestion and
Fe2O3 were used by adsorption method. Calcium oxide (CaO), sodium sulfate (Na2SO4) and silica gel were used for the
removal of H2O vapor. Activated carbon was simultaneously adsorbed of H2S and H2O in this process. The effect of pH
was observed for all H2S absorption based purification methods. We propose that the purified biomethane can be used
as a power source for internal combustion engine especially in the farm sector.
2. MATERIALS AND METHODS

2.1. Biogas digester
Biogas digester also known as a methane digester is a piece of equipment which can transform organic waste into
usable fuel in anaerobic condition. A laboratory scale digester made of 200 L polypropylene tank (used as a reactor)
with an air tight rubber gasket was used for biogas generation is shown in Fig. 1. The apparatus consists of the batch
digester are hopper through which feedstocks slurry is introduced into the digestion chamber, inlet pipe (25 mm
diameter and 1 m long) which convey slurry from hopper to the digester or fermentation chamber, where fermentation
processes occurred. There is 12 mm diameter hope pipe for the transportation of the raw biogas from the fermentation
chamber to raw gas collection chamber. The gas flow is controlled by gas flow control valve. The pressure of the gas
was monitored using a pressure gauge. There also has a bio-slurry outlet include collected tank and excess water
expelled through a drainage pipe which controlled by a gate valve.
2.2. Raw materials preparation for biogas generation
Raw cafeteria waste (CW), vegetable waste (VW), fruit waste (FW) and except cow manure (CM) was crushed into
small pieces 2 mm with the help of mechanical crusher after collecting on the consecutive day. The crushed sample was
mixed with equal proportion 1:1:1:1 and diluted in a ratio of 1:1 (w/w) with tap water. This slurry was filled with a
volume of 160 liter in the reactor. The reactor was sealed properly and was connected with gas outlet pipe on the top of
the digester tank. Initially, the reactor was in aerobic condition; aerobic digestion started in the reactor and carbon
dioxide includes other trace components were produced as byproduct. Due to the air tightness the amount of available
oxygen was drastically decreased in the reactor and finally, the anaerobic condition was established inside the reactor,
methane was produced by a complex degradation process.
2.3. Experimental design
In purification, we designed to clean the raw biogas by removing incombustible gases from biogas mixtures. The
experimental design consists of four sections: gas production, sampling, upgrading and collection unit. The first section
is digestion medium described as before. The second section contents is raw gas storage chamber, pressure monitoring,
flow rate control apparatus. The third section is biogas cleaning section. Finally, the fourth section is the upgraded gas
storage section for compositions sampling. The purifying section consists of three glass flasks (2L) for two sets of
experiment. In first set of study, the first flask was contained FeCl2 / Fe2O3 chemical solutions which connected with
Page 43


ISSN 2321-6441
raw gas collection unit by 5 mm diameter and 1.0 m long hose pipe with flow control valve. The concentration of the
solution was constant 10 g/L. Besides, the pH of the solutions were tuned from 5-9 by increasing 0.5 using hydrochloric
acid and ammonium hydroxide drop wise depends on experimental conditions. However, biogas produced at digester
was directly passed from raw biogas collection chamber through FeCl2/Fe2O3 solutions to remove the corrosive H2S gas
respectively. Under batch operational conditions, the biogas is introduced at the bottom of the absorber flask as
produced small bubbles through the FeCl2 / Fe2O3 solutions. After absorbing H2S the biogas comes out on the top of the
first flask into sampling gas bag to measure the outlet concentration of H2S and compare with initial concentration.
Figure 1 Schematic diagram of experimental apparatus.

In the second set of experiments, the first, second and third flasks were interconnected by U-shaped hose pipe (5 mm
diameter and 1.5 m long each). The spontaneous pressure and constant flow rate (2.5 L/min) of biogas produced inside
the digester was utilized to flow the gas through air tight U tubes filled by variable amount (from 1 to 10 g) of solid
FeCl2, Fe2O3 and activated carbon to adsorption H2S in first interconnected tube and CaO, Na2SO4 and silica gel to
remove H2O in second interconnected tube respectively. We were used U-shape tubes to increase the capturing capacity
of H2S and H2O from the biogas mixtures by maintaining slow flow rate. We were made power form of CaO, Na2SO4
and silica gel from solid form for increasing interior surface area and adsorbing capacity of water. Finally, the upgraded
biogas was stored in the third flask and then transferred to the aluminum gas bag for sampling using gas
chromatography. Biogas samples were collected before and after it flowed through these chemical and the removal
efficiency as well as CH4 enriched was determined as the percentage of H2S and H2O removed from the biogas of each
sample. To obtain and detect the optimum values we repeated each experimental step at least three times. The best data
obtained from the gas chromatographic assessment were used for analysis. The pressure was maintained to be constant
and steady, as the fluctuation is pressure was found to significantly affect the removal efficiency. The highest concern
was given to maintain the air tight condition to obtain the accurate and consistent result. Fig.1 shows the schematic
representation for the research work.
2.4. Analytical methods
Gas composition was analyzed off line by gas chromatography (GC-8AIT / C-R8A SHIMADZU Corporation, JAPAN)
and Testo-350 portable gas analyzer. The gas chromatograph was fitted with a Porapak N 80/100, 274.32 cm, 1/8 mesh
250250145 mm column, a molecular sieve (Mole sieve 5 A 60/80, 182.88 cm, 1/8), maximum temperature 399 C,
temperature stability 0.1C a stainless-steel column and a thermal conductivity detector. Detector type was TCD made
by Tungsten rhenium filament. Maximum temperature and sensitivity of the detector was 400 C and 7000
(mVmL/mg) respectively. Argon (Ar) was used as the carrier gas at a flow rate of 30 mL/min. The column
temperature were 60 oC and the injector/detector temperatures was 80 oC and current 60 (mA). Methane, H2S and H2O
content of raw biogas and purified biogas were compared. The rate of gas flow, pressure, pH, and water content was
measured using gas flow meter, gas pressure gauge, digital pH meter (HM-25R, DKK-TOA Corporation, Japan) and
moisture meter (MOC63u) respectively.
Page 44

ISSN 2321-6441

3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
3.1. Hydrogen sulfide and methane contents in raw biogas
The amount of biogas generated from cafeteria, vegetable fruit and cow manure wastes through anaerobic co-digestion
was monitored for 35 days hydraulic retention time (HRT) as observed in Fig. 2. The result shows that CH4 and H2S
concentration fluctuated over the study period, depending upon the composition of raw materials and the process
conditions. The amount of gas production increased gradually from 1 to 15th day. From 16th to 25th day the amount of
gas generation followed some random order. The highest concentration of CH4 and H2S was 71% (16th day) and 712
ppm (7th day), respectively. However, the average concentration of CH4 and H2S was 66% and 613 ppm respectively
during the digestion process.
CH4 (%) in raw biogas
74
72
230
70
68
220
66
210
64
62
200
60
58
190
56
180
54
1
CH4 concentration in raw biogas (%)
H2S concentration in raw biogas (ppm)
H2S (ppm) in Raw biogas

240
11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35
Digestion time (day)
Figure 2 H2S & CH4-concentration of biogas during the digestion process.

3.2. Removal of toxic hydrogen sulfide (H2S)
The produces biogas from the anaerobic fermentation of solid organic biomass waste treatment was introduced into the
chemical solutions of FeCl2/Fe2O3 for H2S eliminating at constant gas flow rate with respect to constant mass of H2S
removing phase (FeCl2/Fe2O3) and variable pH ranges. Fig. 3a shows the amount of H2S in the biogas before and after
treatment. The average H2S-concentration in raw biogas during the operation was 605 ppm, which gradually decreased
after treating with FeCl2 solution in acidic pH conditions. The amount of H2S decreased from 608 ppm at pH 5 to 60
ppm at pH 6.5. It can be seen that the H2S concentrations were noticeable fallen at pH 6.5-7. The H2S-concentration is
58 ppm at pH 7, beyond which a steady increased in H2S concentration is noticed up to pH 9. On the other hand, the
average H2S-concentration in raw biogas was passed during the operation of 708 ppm and decreased gradually after
treating with Fe2O3 solution. Interestingly, the same behavior of FeCl2 solution shows in Fe2O3 solution mean acidic
conditions. In this study, the amount of H2S was decreased from 707 ppm at pH 5 to 105 ppm at pH 6.5. Approximately
85% of initial sulfide concentrations were removed at pH 6.5. The maximum H2S concentration was decreased in pH
range 6-7. The H2S-concentration is 100 ppm at pH 7, beyond which H2S concentration absorption trends were
remained stable up to pH 9.
The variation of H2S removal efficiency over the study period is presented in Fig. 3b. The efficiency increased sharply
from 37% to 90% at pH below 7. A sudden jump in removal efficiency was found at pH 6.5. The H2S concentration was
decreased the least amount (58 ppm) at pH 7 with removal efficiency above 90%. In case of Fe2O3 solution the H2S
removal efficiency increases as a function of pH is promotes the chemical reaction to remove H2S from gas in acidic
conditions. Sulfide readily reacts with Fe (III) to form iron sulfide (FeS). Accordingly, the pH effect on the sulfide
removal with may be attributed to the formation of FeS through the precipitation of Fe (III) and sulfide. However, the
results showed that the removal efficiency increased sharply from 49% to 85% with the increment in pH from 5 to 7.
In Fig. 3c the volumetric composition is presented on an H2S-free basis. The concentration of CH4 at treated biogas was
64% and 68% at pH 5 and pH 7, respectively. There was a small fluctuation in the CH4 concentration from pH 6 to pH
7. In this process H2S is physically absorbed in water and then, by reacting with ferrous solution, elemental sulfur is
precipitated out. In addition, of Fe2+ ions forms insoluble iron sulfide that is removed easily. The capacities of CH4
enrichment were gradually improved from 66% to 74% at pH 5 to pH 7 without fluctuations by treating Fe2O3 solution.
Page 45

ISSN 2321-6441
These processes no contaminants introduced to biogas. The Fe2O3 might be regenerated to purge oxygen in the solution.
It is noticeable that added chloride does not result in chloride-related combustion discharge and the precipitated FeS is
pyrophoric can spontaneously combust. Therefore, we proposed that it is an effective method to remove H2S from
biogas.
H2S- concentration of biogas (ppm)
H2S (ppm) in Raw biogas (Fecl2, g/L)
H2S (ppm) in Raw biogas (Fe2O3, g/L)
H2S (ppm) in purified biogas (Fecl2, g/L)
H2S (ppm) in purified biogas (Fe2O3, g/L)
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
5
5.5
6.5
7.5
8.5
pH value
(%) Removal efficiency,(Fecl2, g/L)
(%) Removal efficiency, (Fe2O3, g/L)
Removal efficiency (%)
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
5
5.5
6.5
7.5
8.5
pH value
CH4- concentration of biogas (%)
CH4 (%) in raw biogas (Fecl2, g/L)
CH4 (%) in raw biogas (Fe2O3, g/L)
CH4 (%) in purified biogas (Fecl2, g/L)
CH4 (%) in purified biogas (Fe2O3, g/L)
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
5
5.5
6.5
7.5
8.5
pH value
Figure 3 Biogas purification conditions: (a) H2S-concentration, (b)

Removal efficiency and (c) CH4-concentration.
Page 46

ISSN 2321-6441
The biogas was upgraded by passing through FeCl2, Fe2O3 and activated carbon to absorb H2S at constant gas flow rate
with respect to variable mass of the absorbents. Fig.4a shows the concentration of corrosive H2S in the raw and
upgraded gas. The average inlet H2S-concentration in raw biogas during the operation was 521, 594 and 632 ppm
which gradually decreased after treating with variable amount of FeCl2, Fe2O3 and activated carbon respectively. The
amount of H2S decreased from 520, 592, and 630 ppm at 1 g of FeCl2, Fe2O3 and activated carbon to a minimum
concentration of 53, 48 and 13 ppm at 10 g of FeCl2, Fe2O3 and activated carbon respectively. A sharp decrease in H2S
concentration is noticed for treating with 4-7 g for all purifying materials might be optimum level in 7 g. The possible
reason is that the concentrations of H2S decreased tendency were almost remained stable at 8-10 g in all experiments.
H2S (ppm) in raw biogas (Fecl2)
H2S (ppm) in raw biogas (Fe2O3)
H2S (ppm) in raw biogas (activated carbon)
H2S (ppm) in purified biogas (Fecl2)
H2S (ppm) in purified biogas (Fe2O3)
H2S (ppm) in purified biogas (activated carbon)
H2S-Concentration of biogas
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
1
10
H2S absorbents (g)
% Removal efficiency (Fecl2)
% Removal efficiency (Fe2O3)
% Removal efficiency (activated carbon)
% Removal efficiency (%)
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1
10
H2S absorbents (g)
Figure 4 Biogas purification conditions: (a) H2S-concentration and

(b) Removal efficiency.
Fig. 4b represents the impact of the amount of FeCl2, Fe2O3 and activated carbon on H2S removal efficiency. The
efficiency increased sharply by 32%, 49% and 43% to 89%, 91% and 98% with the increment of FeCl 2, Fe2O3 and
activated carbon in 1 g and 10 g respectively. The maximum removal efficiency was achieved 98% at 10 g of activated
carbon. Because, activated carbon is a form of carbon that has been processed to make it extremely porous and thus to
have a very large surface area available for adsorption or chemical reactions [22]. It shows affinity to polar substances
such as H2O, H2S, CO2, SO2 among others. In this case of H2S, activated carbon adsorbs and decomposes it to
elemental sulfur.
3.3. Concentration of water vapor and methane
The second stage experiments was conducted in batch mode digestion system generated biogas yields at mesophilic
temperature are shown in Fig. 5. The daily CH4 and H2O concentration varies with a minimum of 62% (35th day) and
4.77% (7th day) respectively. The curve for production of methane and water exhibit several peaks, which is supposed to
be generated from the variation in fed materials composition, temperature and pH. However, the highest concentration
Page 47

ISSN 2321-6441
for CH4 and H2O was 70% (15th day) and 5.95% (22th day), respectively. The average concentration for CH4 and H2O
was 65% and 5.33%, respectively.
H2O (%) in Raw biogas
10
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
H2 O concentration in raw biogas (%)
CH4 concentration in raw biogas (%)
CH4 (%) in raw biogas

100
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011121314151617181920212223242526272829303132333435
Digestion time (day)
Figure 5 CH4 & H2O-concentration of biogas during the digestion

3.4. Removal of water vapor (H2O)
Water vapor is the leading corrosion risk factor. It is adsorbed and reversibly bound on the surface of drying agents like
calcium oxide, sodium sulfide, silica gel. Fig. 6a shows removal pattern of H2O from the untreated biogas. In this study
the H2O-concentration in raw biogas almost 5% which decreased steadily with the mass of CaO, Na2SO4 and silica gel.
The percentage of H2O decreased from 3.07%, 3.72% and 4.34% to 0.26%, 1.1% and 0.09% for treating with 1 and 10
g CaO, Na2SO4 and silica gel respectively. A steady decreased trend was observed from the beginning to end of this
work. It could be lowered down to a minimum of .26%, 1.1% and 0.09% for treating with 10 g CaO, Na 2SO4 and silica
gel but could not be kept at a constant level. The decreased in H2O results in a minimum concentration of 1.1% for
treating with 10 g Na2SO4, which is lower than similar results displayed by CaO and silica gel adsorbent. Due to the
hard granular form Na2SO4 has low extraction capability and small surface area.
% H2O-Concentration of biogas
H2O (%) in Raw biogas (CaO)
H2O (%) in Raw biogas (Na2SO4)
H2O (%) in Raw biogas (silica gel)
H2O (%) in purified biogas (CaO)
H2O (%) in purified biogas (Na2SO4)
H2O (%) in purified biogas (silica gel)
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
1
10
H2O absorbent (g)
Page 48

ISSN 2321-6441

% Removal efficiency (CaO)
% Removal efficiency (Na2SO4)
% Removal efficiency (silica gel)
100
% Removal efficiency
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1
10
H2 O absorbent (g)
Figure 6 Biogas purification conditions: (a) H2O-concentration and
(b) Removal efficiency.
The variation in H2O removal efficiency was detected during the study period as shown in Fig. 6b. It is quite obvious
that the amount of CaO, Na2SO4 and silica gel has a direct influence on the removal efficiency of H2O. The removal
efficiency increased steadily from 38%, 28% and 26% to 94%, 75% and 98% at 1 and 10 g of CaO, Na 2SO4 and silica
gel respectively. It is clear show the removal efficiency higher than CaO, and Na2SO4 98% at 10 g silica gel. The exact
reason is that the silica gel is extremely porous and can adsorb a large amount of water due to its large internal surface
area. It does not react with chemicals and is tasteless, odorless, non-toxic and non-corrosive. It will adsorb water more
readily than most other liquids and gases, although it is also capable of adsorbing gasoline-range hydrocarbons, sulfur
and nitrogen compounds, CO2, C12, and many other substances [23].
Fig. 7 shows that the CH4-concentration was increased from raw gas to purified gas after treatment. The CH4 increased
gradually with the mass of purifying agents. The concentration of CH4 at purifying biogas was 68% and 72% after
treating with 1 and 10 g FeCl2 respectively. The CH4-concentration enriched gradually from 64% to 74% at 1 and 10
g/L Fe2O3, respectively. We suppose that Fe2O3 reacts with H2S to form iron sulfide and sulfur are shown in the
following equations:
Fe2O3 + 3H2SFe2S3 + 3H2O
(1)
2Fe2S3 + 3O2 Fe2O3+6S
(2)
After treating with activated carbon the result shows that the CH4-concentration gradually increased 62% and 76% at 1
and 10 g, respectively. It is also clear from the figure that the activated carbon enriched CH4concentration is suitable
for further upgradation of biogas within range of standard requirement for grid injection or utilization for vehicle fuel
[24]. The activated carbon also removed simultaneously water and carbon dioxide by adsorption. On the other hand, the
CH4-concentration increased sharply from 63% in raw gas to 66% in purified biogas after treating with 10 g CaO. At
the same time CaO also capable of adsorbing water from gas stream which is positive response for biogas cleaning.
Very sharp increase pattern was observed for upgrading of 68% methane to 73% at 1 g to 10 g of Na2SO4. Although it
dipped at 7 g, but it then rose steadily and reached 73% at 10 g. Finally, the results were obtained that the CH4concentration increased sharply over the investigated period as well as with increasing silica gel. However, the CH4concentration at its highest level more than 75% from 66% concentration after treated at 1 g to 10 g and the influence
of the silica gel rate was high. The H2S is removed by FeCl2 and Fe2O3 through the chemical transformation of H2S
into S.
Page 49

ISSN 2321-6441

CH4 (%) in raw biogas (Fecl2, g)
CH4 (%) in raw biogas (Fe2O3, g)
CH4 (%) in raw biogas (Activated carbon, g)
CH4 (%) in raw biogas (CaO, g)
CH4 (%) in raw biogas (Na2SO4, g)
CH4 (%) in raw biogas (Silica gel)
CH4 (%) in purified biogas (Fecl2, g)
CH4 (%) in purified biogas (Fe2O3, g)
CH4 (%) in purified biogas (Activated carbon, g)
CH4 (%) in purified biogas (CaO, g)
CH4 (%) in purified biogas (Na2SO4, g)
CH4 (%) in purified biogas (Silica gel, g)
CH 4-concentration of biogas (%)
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1
10
Quantity of removal agents
Figure7 Comparison profile of upgraded CH4-concentration of

biogas.
All used purifying materials are obtained commercially especially CaO and activated carbon form calcinations of lime
and carbonaceous materials. Therefore, they are cheap, available and non toxic. The above mentioned results indicate
the possibility for H2S and H2O removal and CH4 upgraded through simple and affordable instrumentation. However,
the fact behind this interesting phenomenon needs further scientific reasoning. We propose both the chemical reaction
and physical adsorption process for the removal of H2S and H2O from contaminant biogas. For all the materials the
removal efficiency increases almost linearly with the amount of purifying chemical agents. Above all, the activated
carbon and silica gel shows the maximum removal efficiency. The possible reason is that physical adsorption process
would function as better way than chemical reaction for removing H2S and H2O from the biogas mixtures. Therefore,
these chemical methods are fascinating as it eliminates the pollutant H2S and H2S. The activated carbon removes H2S
by simple adsorption through its mesoporous surface. The water vapor is removed by physical adsorption only.
4. CONCLUSIONS
The study concludes the potential explore of renewable energy from the cafeteria, vegetable food waste and cow
manure. The amount and quality of material used in biogas production have a significant effect on concentrations of
different trace compounds in biogas. The average biogas composition was 66% CH4, 613 ppm H2S and 5% H2O.
Removal of H2S and H2O from biogas by chemical purification process was investigated. FeCl2, Fe2O3, activated
carbon, CaO, Na2SO4 and silica were employed in the present work and their performance characteristics were
examined. Results obtained in this study shows that it is possible to achieve 90-98% removal of H2S and H2O from
biogas using chemical absorption or adsorption. In this process the total removal of H2S and H2O depends on the use of
the removal substances mass, concentration and pH conditions. Results presented that the almost increased rate of H2S
removal is accompanied by chemical absorption and transformation of H2S into S. In case of H2O removal the best
removal efficiency was exhibited by silica gel due to extremely porous and thus to have a very large surface area
available for adsorption. However, the experimental results revealed that the various absorbent can successfully enrich
CH4-concentration up to 75%. Therefore, the chemical process is feasible for further upgrading biogas in order to meet
the standard for injection in the gas grid or vehicle fuel.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The first author would like to acknowledge the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology
(MONBUKAGAKUSHO:MEXT for providing the financial support (PhD scholarship) for this research and the
extended help of Thermal engineering laboratory under the Department of Mechanical System Engineering, Kumamoto
University, Japan, for providing the facility for experimentation. We thank our biomass group lab mates for helping
with the measurements.
Page 50


ISSN 2321-6441
REFERENCES
[1] M. R. Al Mamun, M. S. Kabir, M. M. Alam, M. M. Islam, Utilization Pattern of Biomass for Rural Energy
Supply in Bangladesh, Int. J. Sustain. Crop Prod, 4 (1), 62-71, 2009.
[2] C. N. Hamelinck, H. G. Van, A. P. C. Faaij, Ethanol from lignocellulosic biomass: techno-economic
performance in short-, middle- and long-term, Biomass and Bioenergy, 28(4), 384410, 2005.
[3] Y. Sun, J. Cheng, () Hydrolysis of lignocellulosic materials for ethanol production: a review, Bioresource
Technology, 83(1), 111, 2002.
[4] A. Hilkiah Igoni, M. J. Ayotamuno, C. L. Eze, S. O. T. Ogaji, S. D. Probert, Designs of anaerobic digesters for
producing biogas from municipal solid-waste, Applied Energy, 85(6), 430438, 2008.
[5] J. Chang, J. Fontenelle, N. Serveau, Inventaires des missions polluantes atmosphriques en France, sries
sectorielles et analyses et tendues, Tech. rep., CITEPA, Paris; fvrier, 2007.
[6] N. Tippayawong, P. Thanompongchart, Biogas quality upgrade by simultaneous removal of CO2 and H2S in a
packed column reactor, Energy, xxx, 1-5, 2010.
[7] M. Persson, Utvrdering av uppgraderingstekniker fr biogas, Malm, Sweden: Svenskt Gastekniskt Center;
2003 November. 85 pp. Rapport SGC 142.
[8] A. Wellinger, A. Lindberg, Biogas Upgrading and Utilisation, [Internet] IEA Bioenergy Task 24: Energy from
Biological Conversion of Organic Waste, 2005.
[9] E. Wheless, J. Pierce, Siloxanes in Landfill and Digester Gas Update. [Internet] Whittier (Canada) and Long
Beach (California): Los Angeles Country Sanitation Districts and SCS Energy, 2004.
[10] M. Hagen, E. Polman, J. Jensen, A. Myken, O. Jnsson, A. Dahl, Adding gas from biomass to the gas grid, 144.
Malm, Sweden: Swedish Gas Center 2001 July. pp. Report SCG 118.
[11] M. Persson, A. Wellinger, Biogas upgrading to vehicle fuel standards and grid injection, IEA Bioenergy 2006
[Report].
[12] K. Krich, A. Augenstein, J. Batmale, J. Benemann, B. Rutledge, D. Salour, Upgrading Dairy Biogas to
Biomethane and Other Fuels, In: Andrews K., Editor. Biomethane from Dairy Waste-A Sourcebook for the
Production and Use of Renewable Natural Gas in California. California: Clear Concepts 47-69, 2005.
[13] D. Preiler, U. Drochner, A. Lemmer, H. Oechsner, T. Jungbluth, Schwefelbildung in Biogasanlagen mittels
Eisensalzen, Landtechnik, 65(2), 2010.
[14] C. J. N. Buisman, B. G. Geraats, P. Ijspeert, G. Lettinga, Optimization of sulphur production in a
biotechnological sulphide-removing reactor, Biotechnol Bioeng, 35(1), 50-56, 1990.
[15] A. S. Nizami, J. D. Murphy, What type of digester configurations should be employed to produce biomethane
from grass silage?, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 14, 15581568, 2010.
[16] P. Borjesson, B. Mattiasson, Biogas as a resource-efficient vehicle fuel, Trends Biotechnol, 26: 7-13, 2007.
[17] N. Tippayawong, A. Promwungkwa, P. Rerkkriangkrai, Long-term operation of a small biogas/diesel dual-fuel
engine for on-farm electricity generation, Biosyst Eng, 98, 26-32, 2007.
[18] N. Tippayawong, A. Promwungkwa, P. Rerkkriangkrai, Durability of a small agricultural engine on biogas/diesel
dual fuel operation, Iran J Sci Technol Trans B Eng, 34(B2), 167-77, 2010.
[19] L. B. Kimberly, Characterization of biogas from anaerobically digested dairy waste for energy use, Master
Thesis, 2007.
[20] K. Ken, A. Don, J.P. Batmale, B. John, R. Brad, S. Dara, Biomethane from dairy waste, Chapter 3: Upgrading
Dairy Biogas to Biomethane and Other Fuels , A Sourcebook for the production and use of renewable natural gas
in California, 51, 2005.
[21] M.R. Al Mamun, M.R. Karim, M.M. Rahman, A.M. Asiri, S. Torii, Methane enrichment of biogas by carbon
dioxide fixation with calcium hydroxide and activated carbon, J. the Taiwan institute of Chem. Engr, 1-6, 2015.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jtice.2015.06.029.
[22] M. S. Horikawa, M. L. Rossi, M. L. Gimenes, C. M. M. Costa, M. G. C. da Silva, Chemical Absorption of H2S for
biogas purification, Brazilian Journal of Chemical Engineering, 21(3), 415-422, 2004.
[23] http://www.deltaadsorbents.com/blue-indicating-silica-gel-desiccant-bulk/ t101c36.aspx #.UylcdKiSxho.
Page 51


ISSN 2321-6441
[24] P. Wladyslaw Biogas as vehicle fuel, J. KONES Powertrain and Transport, 18(1), 403-410, 2011.
AUTHOR
Muhammad Rashed Al Mamun was born on February 8, 1982 in Kaliganj, Dhaka-Gazipur,
Bangladesh. Al Mamun successfully completed B.Sc. in Agricultural Engineering and MS
(Masters) degree in Farm Power and Machinery from Bangladesh Agricultural University,
Mymensingh, Bangladesh in 2005 and 2007 respectively. Now he is studying PhD under the
Department of Mechanical System Engineering at Kumamoto University, Japan from
April 2013 and he will be graduated on March 2016. Before graduation he received
secondary high school and high school certificate from Kaliganj, Gazipur, Bangladesh, in 1997
and 1999 respectively.
He is an ASSISTANT PROFESSOR in the Department of Farm Power and Machinery, Faculty of Agricultural
Engineering and Technology in Sylhet Agricultural University, Sylhet, Bangladesh. Prior to this position, he worked
as a LECTURER for the same University and AGRICULTURAL ENGINEER at the Department of Agricultural
Extension in Ministry of Agriculture, Dhaka, Bangladesh. He also worked as the VISITING Professor at Shahjalal
University of Science and Technology, Forestry Science and Technology School and Agricultural Training Institute in
Syhlet, Bangladesh. He was working in the field of renewable energy based on biomass which supplies energy in rural
areas and developed by improving utilization technology. His research interests include renewable energy,
agricultural machinery, precision agriculture, and GIS based agricultural policy management for sustainable
agriculture in rural areas.
Mr. Al Mamun is a member of Engineering Institute of Bangladesh (IEB), Krishibid Institute of Bangladesh (KIB)
and Asia-Pacific Chemical, Biological & Environmental Engineering Society (APCBEES).
Page 52

Removal of H2S and H2O by Chemical Treatment To Upgrade Methane of Biogas Generated From Anaerobic Co-Digestion of Organic Biomass Waste

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Removal of H2S and H2O by Chemical Treatment To Upgrade Methane of Biogas Generated From Anaerobic Co-Digestion of Organic Biomass Waste

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

IPASJ International Journal of Mechanical Engineering (IIJME)

A Publisher for Research Motivation........

Volume 3, Issue 12, December 2015

Web Site: http://www.ipasj.org/IIJME/IIJME.htm