Please wait a minute...
Shopping Cart Email List Chinese
Advanced Search Fig/Tab
Frontiers of Environmental Science & Engineering

ISSN 2095-2201

ISSN 2095-221X(Online)

CN 10-1013/X

Postal Subscription Code 80-973

2018 Impact Factor: 3.883

Featured Articles  |  Most Downloaded  |  Most Reading
Online Submission Subscribe to Our RSS Content Feed
Front Envir Sci Eng Chin    0, Vol. Issue () : 149-158    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11783-011-0324-4
FEATURE ARTICLE
Control of hydrogen sulfide emissions using autotrophic denitrification landfill biocovers: engineering applications
Daoroong SUNGTHONG1, Debra R. REINHART2()
1. Department of Environmental Science, Faculty of Science, Silpakorn University, Nakhon Pathom, 73000, Thailand; 2. Civil, Environmental and Construction Engineering Department, University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL 32826, USA
 Download: PDF(314 KB)   HTML
 Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks
Abstract

Hydrogen sulfide (H2S) emitted from construction and demolition waste landfills has received increasing attention. Besides its unpleasant odor, long-term exposure to a very low concentration of H2S can cause a public health issue. In the case of construction and demolition (C&D) waste landfills, where gas collection systems are not normally required, the generated H2S is typically not controlled and the number of treatment processes to control H2S emissions in situ is limited. An attractive alternative may be to use chemically or biologically active landfill covers. A few studies using various types of cover materials to attenuate H2S emissions demonstrated that H2S emissions can be effectively reduced. In this study, therefore, the costs and benefits of H2S-control cover systems including compost, soil amended with lime, fine concrete, and autotrophic denitrification were evaluated. Based on a case-study landfill area of 0.04 km2, the estimated H2S emissions of 80900 kg over the 15-year period and costs of active cover system components (ammonium nitrate fertilizer for autotrophic denitrification cover, lime, fine concrete, and compost), ammonium nitrate fertilizer is the most cost effective, followed by hydrated lime, fine concrete, and yard waste compost. Fine concrete and yard waste compost covers are expensive measures to control H2S emissions because of the large amount of materials needed to create a cover. Controlling H2S emissions using fine concrete and compost is less expensive at landfills that provide on-site concrete recovery and composting facilities; however, ammonium nitrate fertilizer or hydrated lime would still be more cost effective applications.
Keywords hydrogen sulfide emissions      construction and demolition waste      autotrophic denitrification      landfill biocovers     
Corresponding Author(s): REINHART Debra R.,Email:debra.reinhart@ucf.edu   
Issue Date: 05 June 2011
 Cite this article:   
Daoroong SUNGTHONG,Debra R. REINHART. Control of hydrogen sulfide emissions using autotrophic denitrification landfill biocovers: engineering applications[J]. Front Envir Sci Eng Chin, 0, (): 149-158.
 URL:  
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fese/EN/10.1007/s11783-011-0324-4
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fese/EN/Y0/V/I/149
measureadvantagesdisadvantages
autotrophic denitrification landfill biocover (cover soil+ nitrate addition) [11]? simple and effective operation? the product, SO42-, may be converted back to H2S over time
? minimal operation and maintenance? requires absence of oxygen
? nitrate requirement function of H2S emissions? multiple additions required
? by-product of autotrophic denitrification, NO2, may be produced
cover soil+ lime [12,13]? simple and effective operation? H2S is not eliminated
? minimal operation and maintenance? H2S is reformed if pH drops
? finite capacity
? lime requirement function of cover area
? handling of lime is dangerous
fine concrete cover [12,13]? simple and effective operation? H2S is not eliminated
? minimal operation and maintenance? H2S is reformed if pH drops
? finite capacity
? fine concrete requirement function of cover area
compost cover [13]? simple and effective operation? the product, SO42-, may be converted back to H2S
? minimal operation and maintenance? requires availability of oxygen
? limited availability of compost
?compost requirement function of cover area
gas extraction+ flare [14]? highly effective operation? limited capacity for H2S oxidation
?high capital, operation, and maintenance costs
? SO2 emissions
gas extraction+ incinerator [14]? highly effective operation? high capital, operating, and maintenance costs
? applicable for wide range of H2S concentrations? SO2 emissions
? energy recovery if enough methane is produced
gas extraction+ biofiltration [15]? effective operation? high capital, operating, and maintenance costs gas extraction installation
? low capital and operating costs for biofiltration
gas extraction+ iron sponge [16]? highly effective operation? high capital, operating and maintenance cost
? difficult to remove byproduct
? byproduct needs to be properly disposed
gas extraction+ SulfaTreat? [17,18]? highly effective operation? high capital, operating, and maintenance costs
? high chemical cost
gas extraction+ Sulfur-Rite? [17-19]? highly effective operation? high capital, operating and maintenance costs
? byproduct needs to be properly disposed
gas extraction+ The Elimiator? [14,19]? highly effective operation? high capital, operating, and maintenance costs
? byproduct needs to be properly disposed
gas extraction+ LO-CAT? [16,19]? highly effective operation? high capital, operating, and maintenance costs
gas extraction+ MINI-CAT? [16,19]? highly effective operation? high capital, operating, and maintenance costs
masking and neutralizing agents [20]? low capital and operating costs? H2S is not eliminated
? odors are temporarily masked providing short-term control
Tab.1  Advantages and disadvantages of HS prevention/control measures
parameterssandy soilfine concretecoarse concretelime-amended sandy soil
D/(m2·s-1)6.09 × 10-66.53 × 10-61.09 × 10-56.16 × 10-6
ν /(m·s-1)4.23 × 10-54.42 × 10-53.10 × 10-54.21 × 10-5
μ /(1·s-1)1.65 × 10-31.00 × 10-21.23 × 10-39.86 × 10-3
Tab.2  Values of , , and of different cover materials []
Fig.1  Autotrophic denitrification landfill biocover
Fig.2  Collected HS emissions from case-study landfill over time
yearH2S emissions/kgfertilizer, 34% N/kg
13430066500
21980038300
31140022100
4660012700
538007300
622004200
713002400
87001400
9400800
10200500
11100300
12100200
13<100100
14<100100
15<100100
total80900157000
Tab.3  Amounts of ammonium nitrate fertilizer to be used each year.
chemical/materialunit chemical/material cost /(2010$/metric ton)
ammonium nitrate fertilizer, 34% N (purchased and delivereda)507b
hydrated lime (purchase and delivereda)370c
fine concrete (on-site process)17d
fine concrete (purchased and delivereda)34d
compost (on-site process)51e
compost (purchased and delivereda)68e
Tab.4  Chemical and material costs in year 2010.
chemical/Materialamount used /metric tontotal PW cost /2010 $cost /($/kg H2S removed)
NH4NO3 Fertilizer15776200a)0.94
hydrated lime260962001.19
fine concrete (on-site process)312005304006.6
fine concrete (purchased)31200106080013.1
compost (on-site process)1780090580011.2
compost (purchased)17800121040014.7
Tab.5  Chemical/material costs to treat case-study landfill
1 Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). Solid Waste Management Facilities, Chapter 62-701, 2010. http://www.dep.state.fl.us/waste/quick_topics/rules/documents/62-701.pdf, Accessed January11, 2010
2 O’Connell K A. Passing the Smell Test. Waste Age, 2005, April1. http://wasteage.com/mag/waste_passing_smell_test/, Assessed August4, 2006
3 Hao O, Chen J, Huang L, Buglass R. Sulfate-Reducing Bacteria. Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology , 1996, 26(2): 155–187
doi: 10.1080/10643389609388489
4 Widdel F. Sulphate-reducing Bacteria and Their Ecological Niches. In: Barnes E H, Mead G C, eds. Anaerobic Bacteria in Habitats other than Man . Oxford: Blackwell Scientific Publications, 1986, 157–184
5 Lee S, Xu Q, Booth M, Townsend T G, Chadik P, Bitton G. Reduced Sulfur Compounds in Gas from Construction and Demolition Debris Landfills. Waste Management (New York, N.Y.) , 2006, 26(5): 526–533
doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2005.10.010 pmid:16403620
6 Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). Toxicological Profile for Hydrogen Sulfide. Department of Health and Human Services, Division of Toxicology, Atlanta, Georgia , 2006
7 Brat L. A Gas Under Pressure. The Wall Street Journal December , 2007, 11: B1–B2
8 Lewis A, Rivers S, Wilder L, Wattigney W.Construction and Demolition Debris Landfills: Community and Occupational Health Issues. Florida Journal of Environmental Health , 2008, (200): 8–11
9 Glass D C. A Review of the Health Effects of Hydrogen Sulphide Exposure. Ann Occup Hyg , 1990, 34(3): 323–327
doi: 10.1093/annhyg/34.3.323 pmid:2196846
10 U S EPA. Management Practices to Prevent and Control Hydrogen Sulfide Gas Emission at C&D Debris Landfills Which Dispose of Pulverized Gypsum Debris in Ohio. 2006.http://epa.ohio.gov/portals/34/document/newsPDFs/cdd_h2s_bmps.pdf., Accessed January12, 2010
11 Sungthong D. Control of hydrogen sulfide emissions using autotrophic denitrification landfill biocovers. Dissertation for the Doctoral Degree . Florida: University of Central Florida, 2010
12 Plaza C, Xu Q, Townsend T, Bitton G, Booth M. Evaluation of Alternative Landfill Cover Soils for Attenuating Hydrogen Sulfide from Construction and Demolition (C&D) Debris Landfills. Journal of Environmental Management , 2007, 84(3): 314–322
doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2006.06.001 pmid:16890345
13 Xu Q, Townsend T, Reinhart D. Attenuation of hydrogen sulfide at construction and demolition debris landfills using alternative cover materials. Waste Management (New York) , 2010, 30(4): 660–666
pmid:20022738
14 Thichy R, Lens P, Grotenhuis J T C, Bos P. Solid-state Reduced Sulfur Compounds: Environmental Aspects and Bioremediation. Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology , 1998, 28(1): 1–40
doi: 10.1080/10643389891254188
15 Syed M, Soreanu G, Falletta P, Beland M.Removal of Hydrogen Sulfide from Gas Streams using Biological Processes-A Review. Canadian Biosystems Engineering , 2006, 48: 2.1–2.14
16 Kohl A, Neilsen R. Gas Purification. Houston: Golf Publishing Company, 1997
17 Graubard D, Rouleau W, Bogner J. Cost-effective Technologies for Removing H2S from Landfill Gas. In: Proceedings of Sardinia 2007 Eleventh International Waste Management and Landfilll Symposium, Cagliari, Italy . 2007
18 Zicari S M. Removal of Hydrogen Sulfide from Biogas using Cow-Manure Compost. Dissertation for the Master Degree New York: Cornell University, 2003
19 Gas Technology Products. Knock out Hydrogen Sulfide with Sulfur-rite?. http://www.gtp-merichem.com/downloads/sulfur-rite.pdf, Assessed January5, 2010
20 Otieno F A O, Magagula C S. Management Strategies of Odour Problems at Landfill Sites. African Journal of Science and Technology , 2001, 2(2): 108–112
21 Borgwardt R H, Roache N F, Bruce K R. Surface Area of Calcium Oxide and Kinetics of Calcium Sulfide Formation. Environment and Progress , 1984, 3(2): 129–135
doi: 10.1002/ep.670030215
22 Fenouil L A, Towler G P, Lynn S. Removal of H2S from Coal Gas Using Limestone: Kinetic Considerations. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research , 1994, 33(2): 265–272
doi: 10.1021/ie00026a014
23 Widdel F, Pfenning N. Dissimilatory Sulfate- or Sulfur-Reducing Bacteria. In: Krieg N R, HoltJ G, editors. Bergey’s Manual of Systematic Bacteriology Vol. 1 . Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins, 1984, 663–679
24 Xu Q. Hydrogen Sulfide Emissions and Control Strategies at Construction and Demolition Debris Landfills, Dissertation for the Doctoral Degree. Florida: University of Central Florida, 2005
25 Darbi A, Viraraghavan T, Butler R, Corkal D. Batch Studies on Nitrate Removal from Potable Water. Water S.A. , 2002, 28(3): 319–322
26 Oh S E, Bum M S, Yoo Y B, Zubair A, Kim I S. Nitrate Removal by Simultaneous Sulfur Utilizing Autotrophic and Heterotrophic Denitrification under Different Organics and Alkalinity Conditions: Batch Experiments. Water Science and Technology , 2003, 47(1): 237–244
pmid:12578200
27 Lampe D G, Zhang T C. Evaluation of Sulfur-based Autotrophic Denitrification. http://www.engg.ksu.edu/HSRC/96Proceed/lampe.pdf, 2005, Accessed August20, 2006
28 Wang A J, Du D Z, Ren N Q, van Groenestijn J W. An Innovative Process of Simultaneous Desulfurization and Denitrification by Thiobacillus denitrificans. Journal of Environmental Science and Health , 2005, 40(10): 1939–1949
doi: 10.1080/10934520500184590 pmid:16194914
29 Onay T T, Pohland F G. Nitrogen and Sulfate Attenuation in Simulated Landfill Bioreactors. Water Science and Technology , 2001, 44(2-3): 367–372
pmid:11548007
30 Telang A J, Ebert S, Foght J M, Westlake D W S, Jenneman G E, Gevertz D, Voordouw G. Effect of Nitrate Injection on the Microbial Community in an Oil Field as Monitored by Reverse Sample Genome Probing. Applied and Environmental Microbiology , 1997, 63(5): 1785–1793
pmid:16535595
31 Jenneman G E, Moffitt P D, Bala G A, Webb R H. Sulfide Removal in Reservoir Brine by Indigenous Bacteria. SPE Production and facilities , 1999, 14(3): 219–225
32 Vaiopoulou E, Melidis P, Aivasidis A. Sulfide Removal in Wastewater from Petrochemical Industries by Autotrophic Denitrification. Water Research , 2005, 39(17): 4101–4109
doi: 10.1016/j.watres.2005.07.022 pmid:16139866
33 Mathioudakis V L, Vaiopoulou E, Aivasidis A. Addition of Nitrate for Odor Control in Sewer Networks: Laboratory and Field Experiments. Global NEST Journal , 2006, 8(1): 37–42
34 Cooper C D, Alley F C. Air Pollution Control: A Design Approach. 3rd ed. Long Grove: Waveland Press, 2002
35 Nicolai R E, Janni K A. Biofilter Media Mixture Ratio of Wood Chips and Compost Treating Swine Odors. Water Science and Technology , 2001, 44(9): 261–267
pmid:11762471
36 Brennan B M, Donlon M, Bolton E. Peat Biofiltration as an Odour Control Technology for Sulphur-based Odours. Journal of the Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management , 1996, 10(3): 190–198
doi: 10.1111/j.1747-6593.1996.tb00030.x
37 O’Malley P G. Controlling Odor at Transfer Stations and MRFs: There’s More Than One Way to Reduce Complaints. MSW Management , 2003, 13(2) http://www.mswmanagement.com/march–april-2003/controlling-odor-transfer.aspx, Accessed August22, 2006
38 Anderson R, Jambeck J R, McCarron G P. Modeling of Hydrogen Sulfide Generation from Landfills Beneficially Utilizing Processed Construction and Demolition Materials. Environmental Research and Education Foundation . Virginia: Alexandria, 2009
39 Eun S, Reinhart D R, Cooper C D, Townsend T G, Faour A. Hydrogen Sulfide Flux Measurements from Construction and Demolition Debris (C&D) Landfills. Waste Management (New York) , 2007, 27(2): 220–227
doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2005.12.019 pmid:16540305
40 Christophersen M, Kjeldsen P. Lateral Gas Transport in Soil Adjacent to an Old Landfill: Factors Governing Gas Migration. Waste Management and Research , 2001, 19(6): 579–594
doi: 10.1177/0734242X0101900615 pmid:12201689
41 Kensey NDeep Nutrient Sampling and Necessary Fertilizer Applications. http://www.kinseyag.com/Article.htm, 2007, Accessed May4, 2010
42 Natural Environmental Systems. Microbes for Soil Improvement. http://www.naturalenviro.com/Article.php?ArticleSKU=Soil-Building, 2010, Accessed May4, 2010.
43 Plaza C. Evaluation of Cover Materials for the Removal of Hydrogen Hydrogen Sulfide from Construction and Demolition Landfill Gas. Dissertation for the Doctoral Degree . Florida: University of Central Florida, 2003
44 Hurst C, Longhurst P, Pollard S, Smith R, Jefferson B, Gronow J. Assessment of Municipal Waste Compost as a Daily Cover Material for Odour Control at Landfill Sites. Environmental Pollution , 2005, 135(1): 171–177
doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2004.09.004 pmid:15701404
45 Sonny Glasbrenner Inc. Personal Communications, 2010
46 United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). Fertilizer Use and Price. http://ers.usda.gov/Data/FertilizerUse/, 2010, Accessed May10, 2010
47 Sahr R C. Inflation Conversion Factor for Dollars 1774 to Estimated 2019. http://oregonstate.edu/cla/polisci/sahr/sahr, 2010, Accessed January12, 2010
48 United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). Yard Waste Composition and Effects on Compost and Mulch Production. St. Petersburg, Florida , 1992
49 Republic Mills Inc. Misc Price Sheet. http://www.republicmills.com/index.php?pagename=misc-pricesheet, 2010, Accessed May10, 2010
50 U.S. Department of the Treasury (USTREAS). Interest Rate Statistic. http://www.treas.gov/offices/domestic-finance/debt-management/interest-rate/ltcompositeindex.shtml, 2010, Assessed January10, 2010
51 MSDS. Hydrated Lime. http://www.lhoist.us/pdf/Hi-CalHydrate042908.pdf, 2008, Accessed May10, 2010
[1] Tian WAN,Guangming ZHANG,Fengwei DU,Junguo HE,Pan WU. Combined biologic aerated filter and sulfur/ceramisite autotrophic denitrification for advanced wastewater nitrogen removal at low temperatures[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2014, 8(6): 967-972.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited
  Shared   
  Discussed