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. Environ. Sci. Eng.    2016, Vol. 10 Issue (6) : 3    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11783-016-0869-3
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Removing ammonia from air with a constant pH, slightly acidic water　spray wet scrubber using recycled scrubbing solution
Ahmad Kalbasi Ashtari1,Amir M. Samani Majd1,Gerald L. Riskowski1(),Saqib Mukhtar2,Lingying Zhao3
1. Biological & Agricultural Engineering Deptartment, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843, USA
2. University of Florida, Gainesville, ?FL?32611, USA
3. Deptartment of Food, Agricultural and Biological Engineering, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210, USA
 Download: PDF(299 KB)   HTML
 Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks
Abstract

Slightly acidic solutions are a practical means of removing ammonia from air

Scrubbed NH3 accumulates in solution as NH4+ and should be an excellent fertilizer

Increased air velocity decreased NH3 removal and increased NH4+ collection

Previous research on wet scrubbers has only studied highly acidic scrubbing solutions because of their high ammonia capture efficiencies; however, the high acidity created practical problems. Lower acidity solutions would reduce corrosion, maintenance, and cost; however, designers may need to use strategies for increasing scrubber effectiveness, such as using lower air velocities. The objective of this study was to determine if a spray scrubber with slightly acidic and higher pH scrubbing solution (pH from 2 to 8) could effectively remove NH3 from NH3 laden air (such as animal building exhaust air), and also collect this valuable resource for later use as a fertilizer. A bench-scale spray wet scrubber treated 20 ppmv NH3/air mixture in a countercurrent contact chamber. First, the solution pH was varied from 2 to 8 while maintaining constant air velocity at 1.3 m·s−1. Next, air velocity was increased (2 and 3 m·s−1) while solution pH remained constant at pH6. At 1.3 m·s−1, NH3 removal efficiencies ranged between 49.0% (pH8) and 84.3% (pH2). This study has shown that slightly acidic scrubbing solutions are a practical means of removing ammonia from air especially if the scrubber is designed to increase collisions between solution droplets and NH3 molecules. The NH3 removed from the air was held in solution as NH4+ and accumulates over time so the solution should be an excellent fertilizer.
Keywords Ammonia      Spray wet scrubber      Slightly acidic scrubbing solution      Controlled pH      Removal efficiency     
PACS:     
Fund: 
Corresponding Author(s): Gerald L. Riskowski   
Issue Date: 13 September 2016
 Cite this article:   
Ahmad Kalbasi Ashtari,Amir M. Samani Majd,Gerald L. Riskowski, et al. Removing ammonia from air with a constant pH, slightly acidic water　spray wet scrubber using recycled scrubbing solution[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2016, 10(6): 3.
 URL:  
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fese/EN/10.1007/s11783-016-0869-3
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fese/EN/Y2016/V10/I6/3
Fig.1  Schematic diagram of the NH3 wet spray scrubber with pH controlling system.
Fig.2  The effects of pH on relative concentrations of NH3 and NH4+ in aqueous solution [26].
water source type calcium (Ca) sodium (Na) carbonate (CO3) bicarbonate (HCO3) sulfate (SO42−) chloride (Cl−) nitarate-N (NO3-N) phosphorus (P) pH conductivity hardness alkalinity TDS
ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm – umhos/cm ppm CaCO3 ppm CaCO3 ppm CaCO3
ROW 1.00 10.7 0.00 37.00 1.0 5.67 0.01 0.01 6.5 36.7 7.00 31.00 57.67
TW 3.00 218 4.00 506.7 9.0 77.3 0.07 0.17 8.1 712.7 11.0 422.3 822.7
Tab.1  Properties of the TW and ROW that was used for the scrubbing solution
time/min ROW1) TW2) preliminary
pH8 pH6 pH4 pH6 pH4 pH3 pH2 run3)
30 49.0(±2.1) 54.4(±1.1) 63.7(±0.9) 57.8(±1.3) 58.8(±1.6) 68.4(±1.9) 81.2(±1.4) 49.7(±2.5)
60 50.0(±1.9) 56.8(±3.1) 64.8(±1.1) 59.9(±1.8) 64.7(±2.5) 73.7(±2.0) 84.0(±0.1) 37.3(±3.1)
90 49.7(±0.8) 57.2(±0.1) 64.3(±0.7) 58.1(±2.3) 65.8(±0.4) 73.8(±1.2) 84.3(±1.3) 26.5(±1.1)
120 48.4(±1.1) 56.8(±1.4) 64.6(±1.5) 59.0(±1.1) 63.9(±0.1) 74.2(±1.7) 84.4(±2.0) 20.6(±3.2)
150 47.7(±0.1) 55.5(±2.0) 64.8(±2.3) 56.6(±0.1) 63.6(±2.0) 75.5(±1.3) 85.5(±0.1) 17.5(±2.7)
180 49.7(±3.1) 54.8(±0.9) 64.1(±1.1) 56.5(±2.0) 63.0(±1.2) 76.0(±1.4) 85.5(±1.1) 13.3(±2.9)
210 48.1(±2.8) 53.5(±1.8) 64.6(±1.8) 56.7(±1.1) 62.7(±0.3) 75.9(±0.6) 85.4(±1.6) 13.4(±1.1)
average over 210 min4) 49.0a(±1.2) 55.6b(±0.9) 64.4c(±1.1) 57.8b(±0.7) 63.2c(±0.9) 73.9d(±1.2) 84.3e(±0.9) 25.5f(±2.8)
Tab.2  The effects of scrubbing solution type and pH, and scrubbing time on NH3 removal efficiency (%) for the 1.3 m·s−1 air velocity tests
Fig.3  Effects of scrubbing solution pH on NH4+ (mg·L-1) concentration in the scrubbing solution. Measured values are the measured NH4+ concentration in the scrubbing solution at the end of 210 min scrubber runs. Calculated NH4+ concentrations are based on the mass of NH3 removed from the air over the 210 min scrubber runs. These calculations include the effect of water loss from the scrubbing solutions from the operation of the scrubber. Effects of water type were assumed to be negligible.
scrubbing ROW1) TW2)
solution type pH8 pH6 pH4 pH6 pH4 pH3 pH2
initial volume of
dosing acid to 0 0.7 0.9 0.9 1.1 1.3 1.5
scrubbing solution/mL
volume of dosing
acid added during 10.7 12.6 16.3 12.9 17.7 23.4 33.9
experiments/mL
total dosing acid
volume3)/mL 10.7 13.3 17.2 13.8 18.8 24.7 35.4
total cost of added
acid4), US$/1000 m3 1.83 2.28 2.97 2.38 3.24 4.24 6.10
Tab.3  Volume and cost of H2SO4 (16N) added to the scrubbing solution at the beginning and during the 210 min of operation
Fig.4  Effect of air velocity on NH4+ (mg?L-1) concentration in scrubbing solution for TW and pH 6. At air velocity of 1.3 m·s-1, the contact time was 0.95 s, the airflow was 0.023 m3·s-1, the amount of air processed over 210 min was 289 m3. At air velocity of 2.0 m·s−1, the contact time was 0.62 s, the airflow was 0.035 m3·s−1, and the amount of air processed over 210 min was 441 m3. At air velocity of 3.0 m·s-1, the contact time was 0.41 s, the airflow was 0.053 m3·s-1, and the amount of air processed over 210 min was 668 m3.
1 USDA. Poultry- Production and Value 2011 Summary. USDA, National Agricultural Statistics Service, 2012
2 Gates R S, Casey K D, Wheeler E F, Xin H, Pescatore A J. US broiler housing ammonia emissions inventory. Atmospheric Environment, 2008, 42(14): 3342–3350
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2007.06.057
3 Wheeler E F, Casey K D, Gates R S, Xin H, Zajaczkowski J L, Topper P A, Liang Y, Pescatore A J. Ammonia emissions from twelve U.S. broiler chicken houses. Transactions of the ASABE, 2006, 49(5): 1495–1512
https://doi.org/10.13031/2013.22042
4 Miles D M, Branton S L, Lott B D. Atmospheric ammonia is detrimental to the performance of modern commercial broilers. Poultry Science, 2004, 83(10): 1650–1654
https://doi.org/10.1093/ps/83.10.1650 pmid: 15510548
5 Donham K J, Cumro D, Reynolds S. Synergistic effects of dust and ammonia on the occupational health effects of poultry production workers. Journal of Agromedicine, 2002, 8(2): 57–76
https://doi.org/10.1300/J096v08n02_09 pmid: 12853272
6 Liang Y, Quan X, Chen J, Chung J S, Sung J Y, Chen S, Xue D, Zhao Y. Long-term results of ammonia removal and transformation by biofiltration. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 2000, 80(1–3): 259–269
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-3894(00)00314-9 pmid: 11080582
7 Melse R W, Ogink N W M. Air scrubbing techniques for ammonia and odor reduction at livestock operations: review of on-farm research in the Netherlands. Transactions of the ASAE. American Society of Agricultural Engineers, 2005, 48(6): 2303–2313
https://doi.org/10.13031/2013.20094
8 Marsh L S, Gay S W, Van Wicklen G L. Performance evaluation of the Sanscent air scrubber for removal of dust, ammonia, and hydrogen sulfide from the exhaust air of a swine nursery. In: ASAE Paper No. 034052. St. Joseph, Mich: ASAE, 2003.
9 Zhang Y, Polakow J A, Wang X, Riskowski G L, Sun Y, Ford S E. An aerodynamic deduster to reduce dust and gas emissions from ventilated livestock facilities. In Livestock Environment VI: Proceedings of the 6th International Symposium. Kentucky, USA, 2001.
10 Hadlocon L S, Manuzon R B, Zhao L Y. Optimization of ammonia absorption using acid spray wet scrubbers. Transactions of the ASABE, 2014, 57(2): 647–659
11 Hadlocon L S, Zhao L Y, Manuzon R B, Elbatawi I E. An acid spray scrubber for recovery of ammonia emissions from a deep-pit swine facility. Transactions of the ASABE, 2014, 57(3): 949–960
12 Zhao L Y, Riskowski G L, Stroot P, Robert M, Heber A J. Development of a wet scrubber to reduce dust and gas emissions from swine buildings. In ASAE Paper No. 014075. St. Joseph, Mich: ASAE, 2001.
13 Aarnink A J A, Landman W J, Melse R W, Huynh T T T. Systems for eliminating pathogen exhaust air of animal houses. In: Livestock Environment VII, Proceedings of the 7th International Symposium. Beijing, China, 2005
14 Manuzon R B, Zhao L Y, Keener H M, Darr M J. A prototype acid spray scrubber for absorbing ammonia emissions from exhaust fans of animal buildings. Transactions of the ASABE, 2007, 50(4): 1395–1407
https://doi.org/10.13031/2013.23628
15 Ocfemia K, Zhang Y, Tan Z. Ammonia absorption in a vertical sprayer at low ammonia partial pressures. Transactions of the ASAE. American Society of Agricultural Engineers, 2005, 48(4): 1561–1566
https://doi.org/10.13031/2013.19189
16 Samani Majd A M, Kalbasi A, Riskowski G L, Muhhtar S, Zhao L Y, Fang W. Electrolyzed water spray scrubber for removing ammonia from air. Transactions of the ASABE, 2015, 58(4): 1069–1078
17 Hadlocon L J, Manuzon R B, Zhao L. Development and evaluation of a full-scale spray scrubber for ammonia recovery and production of nitrogen fertilizer at poultry facilities. Environmental Technology, 2015, 36(1–4): 405–416
https://doi.org/10.1080/09593330.2014.950346 pmid: 25518983
18 Davies T H, Ip S Y. The droplet size and height effects in ammonia removal in a spray tower. Water Research, 1981, 15(5): 525–533
https://doi.org/10.1016/0043-1354(81)90015-4
19 ASHRAE. ANSI 41.2. ASHRAE 41.2: Standard Methods for Laboratory Airflow Measurment. Atlanta, GA: ASHRAE, 2001
20 Samani Majd A M, Mukhtar S. Ammonia recovery enhancement using a tubular gas-permeable membrane system in laboratory and field-scale studies. Transactions of the ASABE, 2013, 56(5): 1951–1958
21 APHA. Standard Methodes for the Examination of Water and Wastewater. Washington, DC: American Public Health Association, 2005
22 Hach. Sension, Ammonia Gas Sensing Combination Electrode.Colorado: Hach Company, Loveland, 2011
23 . Hach. Sension, Gel-filled pH Electrode.Colorado: Hach Company, Loveland, 2011
24 Zahn J A, Tung A E, Roberts B A, Hatfield J L. Abatement of ammonia and hydrogen sulfide emissions from a swine lagoon using a polymer biocover. Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association, 2001, 51(4): 562–573
https://doi.org/10.1080/10473289.2001.10464295 pmid: 11321913
25 Emerson K, Russo R C, Lund R E, Thurston R V. Aqueous ammonia equilibrium calculations: effect of pH and temperature. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada, 1975, 32(12): 2379–2383
https://doi.org/10.1139/f75-274
26 Environmental Protection Agency of United States. Aqueous ammonia equilibrium-tabulation of percent un-ionized ammonia. EPA-600/3–79–091, 1979
27 Faul F, Erdfelder E, Buchner A, Lang A G. Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 2009, 41(4): 1149–1160
https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149 pmid: 19897823
28 Samani Majd A M. Application of gas permable membranes for mitigation of ammonia gas from animal manure. Dissertation for the Doctoral Degree. College Station: Texas A&M University, 2015
29 Hadlocon L S, Zhao L Y. Production of ammonium sulfate fertilizer using acid spray wet scrubbers. Agric. Eng. Int: CIGR Journal, 2015, 41–51
30 Shi Q, Davidovits P, Jayne J T, Worsnop D R, Kolb C E. Uptake of gas-phase ammonia. 1. Uptake by aqueous surfaces as a function of pH. J. Phus. Chemical Analysis, 1999, 103: 8812–8823
31 Swartz E, Shi Q, Davidovits P, Jayne J T, Worsnop D R, Kolb C E. Uptake of gas-phase ammonia. 2. Uptake by sulfuric acid surfaces. J. Phus. Chemical Analysis, 1999, 103: 8824–8833
[1] Mengqing Ge, Tao Lin, Kemei Zhou, Hong Chen, Hang Xu, Hui Tao, Wei Chen. Characteristics and removal mechanism of the precursors of N-chloro-2,2-dichloroacetamide in a drinking water treatment process at Taihu Lake[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2021, 15(5): 93-.
[2] Zeshen Tian, Bo Wang, Yuyang Li, Bo Shen, Fengjuan Li, Xianghua Wen. Enhancement on the ammonia oxidation capacity of ammonia-oxidizing archaeon originated from wastewater: Utilizing low-density static magnetic field[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2021, 15(5): 81-.
[3] Kuo Fang, Fei Peng, Hui Gong, Huanzhen Zhang, Kaijun Wang. Ammonia removal from low-strength municipal wastewater by powdered resin combined with simultaneous recovery as struvite[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2021, 15(1): 8-.
[4] Madhavaraj Lavanya, Ho-Dong Lim, Kong-Min Kim, Dae-Hyuk Kim, Balasubramani Ravindran, Gui Hwan Han. A novel strategy for gas mitigation during swine manure odour treatment using seaweed and a microbial consortium[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2020, 14(3): 53-.
[5] Alisa Salimova, Jian’e Zuo, Fenglin Liu, Yajiao Wang, Sike Wang, Konstantin Verichev. Ammonia and phosphorus removal from agricultural runoff using cash crop waste-derived biochars[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2020, 14(3): 48-.
[6] Chunhong Chen, Hong Liang, Dawen Gao. Community diversity and distribution of ammonia-oxidizing archaea in marsh wetlands in the black soil zone in North-east China[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2019, 13(4): 58-.
[7] Weihua Wang, Wanfeng Zhang, Hong Liang, Dawen Gao. Occurrence and fate of typical antibiotics in wastewater treatment plants in Harbin, North-east China[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2019, 13(3): 34-.
[8] Yao Zhang, Yayi Wang, Yuan Yan, Haicheng Han, Min Wu. Characterization of CANON reactor performance and microbial community shifts with elevated COD/N ratios under a continuous aeration mode[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2019, 13(1): 7-.
[9] Mengqian Lu, Bin-Le Lin, Kazuya Inoue, Zhongfang Lei, Zhenya Zhang, Kiyotaka Tsunemi. PM2.5-related health impacts of utilizing ammonia-hydrogen energy in Kanto Region, Japan[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2018, 12(2): 13-.
[10] Jianwei Liu, Kaixiong Yang, Lin Li, Jingying Zhang. A full-scale integrated-bioreactor with two zones treating odours from sludge thickening tank and dewatering house: performance and microbial characteristics[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2017, 11(4): 6-.
[11] Xiao Zhang, Biwu Chu, Junhua Li, Chaozhi Zhang. Effects of seed particles Al2O3, Al2(SO4)3 and H2SO4 on secondary organic aerosol[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2017, 11(4): 5-.
[12] Jiaxuan YANG, Jun MA, Dan SONG, Xuedong ZHAI, Xiujuan KONG. Impact of preozonation on the bioactivity and biodiversity of subsequent biofilters under low temperature conditions—A pilot study[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2016, 10(4): 5-.
[13] Jie GAO,Jun HUANG,Weiwei CHEN,Bin WANG,Yujue WANG,Shubo DENG,Gang YU. Fate and removal of typical pharmaceutical and personal care products in a wastewater treatment plant from Beijing: a mass balance study[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2016, 10(3): 491-501.
[14] Boxiong SHEN,Jianhong CHEN,Ji CAI. Removal of elemental mercury by KI-impregnated clay[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2016, 10(2): 236-243.
[15] Yuyao ZHANG,Huan LI,Can LIU,Yingchao CHENG. Influencing mechanism of high solid concentration on anaerobic mono-digestion of sewage sludge without agitation[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2015, 9(6): 1108-1116.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited
  Shared   
  Discussed