Advertisement

Environmental Science and Pollution Research

, Volume 25, Issue 31, pp 31297–31306 | Cite as

Biofilter with mixture of pine bark and expanded clay as packing material for methane treatment in lab-scale experiment and field-scale implementation

  • Fang Liu
  • Cindy Wienke
  • Claudia Fiencke
  • Jianbin Guo
  • Renjie Dong
  • Eva-Maria Pfeiffer
Research Article
  • 69 Downloads

Abstract

Low methane (CH4) emission reduction efficiency (< 25%) has been prevalent due to inefficient biological exhaust gas treatment facilities in mechanic biological waste treatment plants (MBTs) in Germany. This study aimed to quantify the improved capacity of biofilters composed of a mixture of organic (pine bark) and inorganic (expanded clay) packing materials in reducing CH4 emissions in both a lab-scale experiment and field-scale implementation. CH4 removal performance was evaluated using lab-scale biofilter columns under varied inflow CH4 concentrations (70, 130, and 200 g m−3) and corresponding loading rates of 8.2, 4.76, and 3.81 g m−3 h−1, respectively. The laboratory CH4 removal rates (1.2–2.2 g m−3 h−1) showed positive correlation with the inflow CH4 loading rates (4–8.2 g m−3 h−1), indicating high potential for field-scale implementation. Three field-scale biofilter systems with the proposed mixture packing materials were constructed in an MBT in Neumünster, northern Germany. A relatively stable CH4 removal efficiency of 38–50% was observed under varied inflow CH4 concentrations of 28–39 g m−3 (loading rates of 1120–2340 g m−3 h−1) over a 24-h period. The CH4 removal rate was approximately 500–700 g m−3 h−1, which was significantly higher than relevant previously reported field-scale biofilter systems (16–50 g m−3 h−1). The present study provides a promising configuration of biofilter systems composed of a mixture of organic (pine bark) and inorganic (expanded clay) packing materials to achieve high CH4 emission reduction.

Graphic abstract

Keywords

Biofiltration Packing materials Greenhouse gas Waste treatment plant 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Mark Kurzbuch, Dietmar Schneider (MBA), Birgit Grabellus, and Wilfried Gläseker are acknowledged for their valuable assistance with the experiment conduction and data analysis.

Funding

This work was financially supported by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF, support code 033RD1102B), National key research and development plan (2018YFD0800102), the Beijing Municipal Education Commission Joint Building Project, and the China Scholarship Council.

References

  1. Amlinger F, Peyr S, Cuhls C (2008) Greenhouse gas emissions from composting and mechanical biological treatment. Waste Manag Res 26(1):47–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. ASTM (2007) ASTM D1762-84: standard test method for chemical analysis of wood charcoal. ASTM Int 2:D 1762–D 1784Google Scholar
  3. Burgess JE, Parsons SA, Stuetz RM (2001) Developments in odour control and waste gas treatment biotechnology: a review. Biotechnol Adv 19(1):35–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. du Plessis CA, Strauss JM, Sebapalo EM, Riedel K-HJ (2003) Empirical model for methane oxidation using a composted pine bark biofilter☆. Fuel 82(11):1359–1365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Gebert J, Gröngröft A (2006) Performance of a passively vented field-scale biofilter for the microbial oxidation of landfill methane. Waste Manag 26(4):399–407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Gingerich DB, Mauter MS (2017) Air emission reduction benefits of biogas electricity generation at municipal wastewater treatment plants. Environ Sci Technol 51(18):10299–10306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gómez-Cuervo S, Hernández J, Omil F (2016) Identifying the limitations of conventional biofiltration of diffuse methane emissions at long-term operation. Environ Technol 37(15):1947–1958CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gómez-Cuervo S, Alfonsín C, Hernández J, Feijoo G, Moreira MT, Omil F (2017) Diffuse methane emissions abatement by organic and inorganic packed biofilters: assessment of operational and environmental indicators. J Clean Prod 143:1191–1202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Halet D, Boon N, Verstraete W (2006) Community dynamics of methanotrophic bacteria during composting of organic matter. J Biosci Bioeng 101(4):297–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hanson RS, Hanson TE (1996) Methanotrophic bacteria. Microbiol Rev 60(2):439–471Google Scholar
  11. Humer M, Lechner P (2001) Microbial methane oxidation for the reduction of lanfill gas emissions. J Solid Waste Technol Manag 27(3/4):146–151Google Scholar
  12. IPCC (2014) Climate change 2014: synthesis report. In: Core writing team, Pachauri RK, Meyer LA (eds) Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the fifth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland, p 151Google Scholar
  13. Janni KA, Maier WJ, Kuehn TH, Ching-Hsu Y (2001) Evaluation of biofiltration of air--an innovative air pollution control technology. ASHRAE Trans 107:198Google Scholar
  14. Katayanagi N, Fumoto T, Hayano M, Shirato Y, Takata Y, Leon A, Yagi K (2017) Estimation of total CH4 emission from Japanese rice paddies using a new estimation method based on the DNDC-rice simulation model. Sci Total Environ 601:346–355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kizito S, Wu S, Kirui WK, Lei M, Lu Q, Bah H, Dong R (2015) Evaluation of slow pyrolyzed wood and rice husks biochar for adsorption of ammonium nitrogen from piggery manure anaerobic digestate slurry. Sci Total Environ 505:102–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Liu F, Fiencke C, Guo J, Rieth R, Cuhls C, Dong R, Pfeiffer EM (2017a) Bioscrubber treatment of exhaust air from intensive pig production: case study in northern Germany at mild climate condition. Eng Life Sci 17(4):458–466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Liu F, Fiencke C, Guo J, Rieth R, Dong R, Pfeiffer E-M (2017b) Performance evaluation and optimization of field-scale bioscrubbers for intensive pig house exhaust air treatment in northern Germany. Sci Total Environ 579:694–701CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Luo J, Lindsey S (2006) The use of pine bark and natural zeolite as biofilter media to remove animal rendering process odours. Bioresour Technol 97(13):1461–1469CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Luo H, Lv T, Shi M, Wu S, Carvalho PN, Dong R (2017) Stabilization of preliminary anaerobically digested slurry in post-storage: dynamics of chemical characteristics and hygienic quality. Water Air Soil Pollut 228(8):306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Malhautier L, Khammar N, Bayle S, Fanlo J-L (2005) Biofiltration of volatile organic compounds. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 68(1):16–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Nikiema J, Heitz M (2010) The use of inorganic packing materials during methane biofiltration. Int J Chem Eng 2010:1–8Google Scholar
  22. Olivier JGJ, Peters JAHW, Janssens-Maenhout G, Wilson J (2011) Long-term trend in global CO2 emissions. Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency. https://www.osti.gov/etdeweb/biblio/21514347. Accessed 15 Sept 2011
  23. Onn TM, Zhang S, Arroyo-Ramirez L, Chung Y-C, Graham GW, Pan X, Gorte RJ (2015) Improved thermal stability and methane-oxidation activity of Pd/Al2O3 catalysts by atomic layer deposition of ZrO2. ACS Catal 5(10):5696–5701CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Park S, Lee I, Cho C, Sung K (2008) Effects of earthworm cast and powdered activated carbon on methane removal capacity of landfill cover soils. Chemosphere 70(6):1117–1123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Patroescu VI, Dinu LR, Constantin LA, Alexie M, Jinescu G (2016) Impact of temperature on groundwater nitrification in an up-flow biological aerated filter using expanded clay as filter media. Rev Chim 67(8):1433–1435Google Scholar
  26. Pawłowska M, Stępniewski W (2006) An influence of methane concentration on the methanotrophic activity of a model landfill cover. Ecol Eng 26(4):392–395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Philopoulos A, Ruck J, McCartney D, Felske C (2009) A laboratory-scale comparison of compost and sand—compost—perlite as methane-oxidizing biofilter media. Waste Manag Res 27(2):138–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Pratt C, Walcroft AS, Tate KR, Ross DJ, Roy R, Reid MH, Veiga PW (2012) Biofiltration of methane emissions from a dairy farm effluent pond. Agric Ecosyst Environ 152:33–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Protocol K (1997) United Nations framework convention on climate change. Kyoto Protocol, United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. http://www.globaldialoguefoundation.org/files/ENV.2009-jun.unframeworkconventionclimate.pdf. Accessed 11 Dec 1997
  30. Saliling WJB, Westerman PW, Losordo TM (2007) Wood chips and wheat straw as alternative biofilter media for denitrification reactors treating aquaculture and other wastewaters with high nitrate concentrations. Aquac Eng 37(3):222–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Torretta V, Raboni M, Copelli S, Caruson P (2015) Effectiveness of a multi-stage biofilter approach at pilot scale to remove odor and VOCs. Int J Sustain Dev Plan 10(3):373–384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Umweltbundesamt (2017) Berichterstattung unter der Klimarahmenkonvention der Vereinten Nationen und dem Kyoto-Protokoll 2017. Nationaler Inventarbericht zum Deutschen Treibhausgasinventar 1990–2015. German Federal Environment Agency. https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/publikationen/berichterstattungunter-der-klimarahmenkonvention-2. Accessed 30 Jan 2017
  33. Van Groenestijn J, Kraakman N (2005) Recent developments in biological waste gas purification in Europe. Chem Eng J 113(2–3):85–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Fang Liu
    • 1
    • 2
  • Cindy Wienke
    • 2
  • Claudia Fiencke
    • 2
  • Jianbin Guo
    • 1
  • Renjie Dong
    • 1
  • Eva-Maria Pfeiffer
    • 2
  1. 1.College of Engineering (Key Laboratory for Clean Renewable Energy Utilization Technology, Ministry of Agriculture)China Agricultural UniversityBeijingChina
  2. 2.Center for Earth System Research and Sustainability, Institute of Soil ScienceUniversität HamburgHamburgGermany

Personalised recommendations