Life cycle assessment of different physical-chemical and biological technologies for biogas desulfurization in sewage treatment plants

Life cycle assessment of different physical-chemical and biological technologies for biogas... Biogas desulfurization can be carried out by physical-chemical or biological technologies. Biological technologies are generally described as more environmentally friendly than physical-chemical techniques, although it is difficult to find studies in which the associated environmental burdens are compared. Therefore, the aim of the work described here was to perform a life cycle assessment to compare the environmental impact of four common desulfurization technologies for hydrogen sulfide removal from biogas produced in sewage treatment plants. The desulfurization technologies studied were aerobic biotrickling filtration, anoxic biotrickling filtration, caustic chemical scrubbing and adsorption on impregnated activated carbon. The environmental assessment was extended with a Capital Expenditures (CAPEX) and Operational Expense (OPEX) analysis. Furthermore, an extra scenario (no desulfurization with biogas combustion) was compared with biogas desulfurization by aerobic biofiltration coupled to energy valorization (best-case treatment scenario). Results indicate that biological technologies are much more favorable in most environmental impact categories than physical-chemical technologies and, as expected, are more favorable than the non-treatment scenario. In all desulfurization technologies the most contributing stage to the total environmental burdens was the daily desulfurization operation. The chemical scrubber was the worst scenario except for the “Climate Change”. In terms of the “Climate Change” (carbon dioxide equivalent emission), aerobic and anoxic desulfurization would emit 13.9 and 18.7 kg CO2 kg−1 S-H2S treated, respectively. The anoxic process could be improved to emit only 7.2 kg CO2 kg−1 S-H2S treated if the nitrate source was produced in a nitrification reactor built at the sewage treatment plant. Caustic chemical scrubber desulfurization and impregnated activated carbon desulfurization would emit 30.0 and 42.1 kg CO2 kg−1 S-H2S treated, respectively. To all impact categories, the contribution of sulfur compounds was less than 5%. The aerobic biotrickling filtration had the lower environmental impacts. However, the anoxic biotrickling filtration was the best approach if a nitrification reactor was already on-site. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Journal of Cleaner Production Elsevier

Life cycle assessment of different physical-chemical and biological technologies for biogas desulfurization in sewage treatment plants

Loading next page...
 
/lp/elsevier/life-cycle-assessment-of-different-physical-chemical-and-biological-5k9EPjtRlp
Publisher
Elsevier
Copyright
Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd
ISSN
0959-6526
D.O.I.
10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.02.018
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Biogas desulfurization can be carried out by physical-chemical or biological technologies. Biological technologies are generally described as more environmentally friendly than physical-chemical techniques, although it is difficult to find studies in which the associated environmental burdens are compared. Therefore, the aim of the work described here was to perform a life cycle assessment to compare the environmental impact of four common desulfurization technologies for hydrogen sulfide removal from biogas produced in sewage treatment plants. The desulfurization technologies studied were aerobic biotrickling filtration, anoxic biotrickling filtration, caustic chemical scrubbing and adsorption on impregnated activated carbon. The environmental assessment was extended with a Capital Expenditures (CAPEX) and Operational Expense (OPEX) analysis. Furthermore, an extra scenario (no desulfurization with biogas combustion) was compared with biogas desulfurization by aerobic biofiltration coupled to energy valorization (best-case treatment scenario). Results indicate that biological technologies are much more favorable in most environmental impact categories than physical-chemical technologies and, as expected, are more favorable than the non-treatment scenario. In all desulfurization technologies the most contributing stage to the total environmental burdens was the daily desulfurization operation. The chemical scrubber was the worst scenario except for the “Climate Change”. In terms of the “Climate Change” (carbon dioxide equivalent emission), aerobic and anoxic desulfurization would emit 13.9 and 18.7 kg CO2 kg−1 S-H2S treated, respectively. The anoxic process could be improved to emit only 7.2 kg CO2 kg−1 S-H2S treated if the nitrate source was produced in a nitrification reactor built at the sewage treatment plant. Caustic chemical scrubber desulfurization and impregnated activated carbon desulfurization would emit 30.0 and 42.1 kg CO2 kg−1 S-H2S treated, respectively. To all impact categories, the contribution of sulfur compounds was less than 5%. The aerobic biotrickling filtration had the lower environmental impacts. However, the anoxic biotrickling filtration was the best approach if a nitrification reactor was already on-site.

Journal

Journal of Cleaner ProductionElsevier

Published: Apr 20, 2018

References

You’re reading a free preview. Subscribe to read the entire article.


DeepDyve is your
personal research library

It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.

Enjoy affordable access to
over 18 million articles from more than
15,000 peer-reviewed journals.

All for just $49/month

Explore the DeepDyve Library

Search

Query the DeepDyve database, plus search all of PubMed and Google Scholar seamlessly

Organize

Save any article or search result from DeepDyve, PubMed, and Google Scholar... all in one place.

Access

Get unlimited, online access to over 18 million full-text articles from more than 15,000 scientific journals.

Your journals are on DeepDyve

Read from thousands of the leading scholarly journals from SpringerNature, Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford University Press and more.

All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.

See the journals in your area

DeepDyve

Freelancer

DeepDyve

Pro

Price

FREE

$49/month
$360/year

Save searches from
Google Scholar,
PubMed

Create lists to
organize your research

Export lists, citations

Read DeepDyve articles

Abstract access only

Unlimited access to over
18 million full-text articles

Print

20 pages / month

PDF Discount

20% off