To date, little research has addressed biofiltration of
volatile organic compound (VOC) and reduced sulfur compound
(RSC) mixtures at the relatively high concentrations
(0 to 450ppmJ of interest to the pulp and paper industry.
The objectives of this study were to assess the impact of
cotreatment on the biofiltration of air emissions containing
mixtures of RSCs and VOCs, and to develop models of the
processes. Expm’ments were conducted at various concentrations
(1 6 s EBRO using hydrogen sulfide as a model RSC
(0-45OppmJ and methanol as a model VOC (0-400ppmJ.
Reaction-limited and biofilm models showed that hydrogen
sulfide degradation followed Monod kinetics, while
methanol removal was first order. The maximum hydrogen
sulfide removal rate obserued during the first three months
of operation was 144g H$/m3 bed/h. However, this declined
to 85-95g HS/m3 bedh in subsequent months. The
methanol removal rate was 7040% of the applied load
(maximum 480 g methanoYm3 be&) for single component
and mixture treatment. The results indicate that methanol
and hydrogen sulfide removal in biofilten are independent
and that co-treatment is an attractive option.
To date, little research has addressed biofiltration of
volatile organic compound (VOC) and reduced sulfur compound
(RSC) mixtures at the relatively high concentrations
(0 to 450ppmJ of interest to the pulp and paper industry.
The objectives of this study were to assess the impact of
cotreatment on the biofiltration of air emissions containing
mixtures of RSCs and VOCs, and to develop models of the
processes. Expm’ments were conducted at various concentrations
(1 6 s EBRO using hydrogen sulfide as a model RSC
(0-45OppmJ and methanol as a model VOC (0-400ppmJ.
Reaction-limited and biofilm models showed that hydrogen
sulfide degradation followed Monod kinetics, while
methanol removal was first order. The maximum hydrogen
sulfide removal rate obserued during the first three months
of operation was 144g H$/m3 bed/h. However, this declined
to 85-95g HS/m3 bedh in subsequent months. The
methanol removal rate was 7040% of the applied load
(maximum 480 g methanoYm3 be&) for single component
and mixture treatment. The results indicate that methanol
and hydrogen sulfide removal in biofilten are independent
and that co-treatment is an attractive option.
To date, little research has addressed biofiltration of
volatile organic compound (VOC) and reduced sulfur compound
(RSC) mixtures at the relatively high concentrations
(0 to 450ppmJ of interest to the pulp and paper industry.
The objectives of this study were to assess the impact of
cotreatment on the biofiltration of air emissions containing
mixtures of RSCs and VOCs, and to develop models of the
processes. Expm’ments were conducted at various concentrations
(1 6 s EBRO using hydrogen sulfide as a model RSC
(0-45OppmJ and methanol as a model VOC (0-400ppmJ.
Reaction-limited and biofilm models showed that hydrogen
sulfide degradation followed Monod kinetics, while
methanol removal was first order. The maximum hydrogen
sulfide removal rate obserued during the first three months
of operation was 144g H$/m3 bed/h. However, this declined
to 85-95g HS/m3 bedh in subsequent months. The
methanol removal rate was 7040% of the applied load
(maximum 480 g methanoYm3 be&) for single component
and mixture treatment. The results indicate that methanol
and hydrogen sulfide removal in biofilten are independent
and that co-treatment is an attractive option.
Methanol V.S. Sologar, Zijin l u, and D. Grant Allen Department of Chemical Engineering and Applied Chemistry, and Pulp & Paper Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, M5S 3E5, Canada; allendgachem-eng,utoronto.ca (primary author) To date, little research has addressed biofiltration of volatile organic compound (VOC) and reduced sulfur com- pound (RSC) mixtures at the relatively high concentrations (0 to 450ppmJ of interest to the pulp and paper industry. The objectives of this study were to assess the impact of cotreatment on the biofiltration of air emissions containing mixtures of RSCs and VOCs, and to develop models of the processes. Expmments were conducted at various concen- trations (1 6 s EBRO using hydrogen sulfide as a model RSC (0-45OppmJ and methanol as a model VOC (0-400ppmJ. Reaction-limited and biofilm models showed that hydrogen sulfide degradation followed Monod kinetics, while methanol removal was first order. The maximum hydrogen sulfide removal rate obserued during the first three months of operation was 144g H$/m3 bed/h. However, this de- clined to 85-95g HS/ m3 bedh in subsequent months. The methanol removal rate was 7040% of the applied load (maximum 480 g methanoYm3 be&) for single component and mixture treatment. The results indicate that methanol and hydrogen sulfide removal in biofilten are independent and that co-treatment is an attractive option. INTROWCTION Air emissions from the forest products industry tend to be complex mixtures of compounds. The impact of the interactions between compounds and their effects on biofilter operation and performance must be characterized in order to develop good mod- els for design and scale-up. Reduced sulfur compounds (RSCs) emitted from Kraft pulping include hydrogen sulfide (HzS), methyl mercaptan (MM), dimethyl sulfide (DMS), and dimethyl disulfide (DMDS). In the Kraft process, RSCs are emitted from smelt dissolving tanks, washer hood and seal tank vents, lime kiln exhausts, lime slaker vents, and black liquor oxidation systems 11, 21. Methanol and terpenes, two of the most common volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from the Kraft process, are released from multiple effect evapo- rators, brown stock washers, and pulp storage tanks [l, 31. Other gaseous organic pollutants include alco- hols, phenols, ketones, and acids [41. A review of the literature suggests that biofiltration of hydrogen sulfide and methanol mixtures are feasible at low concentrations and low loading rates (Table 1). However, the feasibility of cotreatment at concentrations relevant to pulp and paper industry emissions has not been addressed. Furthermore, the interaction effects between RSCs and VOCs, and the impact of mixture treatment on biofilter operation and performance has not been addressed under controlled conditions, and no attempts have been made to model mixture biofiltration of RSCs and VOCs. Cox and Deshusses [91addressed biofiltration of the highest concentrations of hydrogen sulfide and toluene mixtures, but the narrow range of loading rates studied precludes modeling of interaction effects. Thus, biofiltration of RSC and VOC mixtures at the high concentrations (0-500 ppmv) found in many pulp and paper industry emissions has not been investi- gated prior to this study. Theobjectives of this study were to model the biofil- tration of air emissions containing hydrogen sulfide, a representative RSC, and methanol, a representative VOC, in order to identlfy interaction effects between the two classes of compounds, and to assess the feasibility of co-treatment. Two biofilter models, one based on the reaction-limited model presented by Hirai, et ul. [lo1 and the other on the biofilm model for biofiltration of VOC mixtures presented by Mohseni and Allen [ill, were modified for application to the biofiltration of hydrogen sulfide and methanol mixtures. MATERIALS AND METHODS Operating conditions for the single component and mixture biofiltration studies were selected based on the nature of pulp and paper air emissions, and typical biofilter operating characteristics. The target concentration ranges for hydrogen sulfide and July 2003 129 Environmental Progress (V01.22, No.2) Table 1. Reduced sulfur compound/volatile organic compound mixture biofiltration studies. I source I Compounds 1 Studied I VOCs, HzS Webster et al. 1999 [6] Other VOCs [ 71 Allen and Ellis I M S 2000 [8] Cox and Deshusses Toluene 2000 [9] Concentration Range (ppmv) 1 - 10 ppm HzS 26 ppm VOCs 0.i'- lppm vocs 1.5 - 3.8 ppm H2S on avg. 8 - 12 ppm H2S 8 - 12 ppm MT 8 - 12 ppm DMS 8 - 12 ppm DMDS MeOH 0 - 170 ppm H2S 0 - 600 ppm Tol. 30 - 80 ppm Loading Ranges Studied and Removal Rate Obtained V- IOW VOC and H2S loadings .O g H ~ S /m3 bed/h was created. >99% H2S removal Loading: 0.64 g H2S / m3 bed / h, 0.67 g MeOH / m3 bed / h. 91.7% H2S removal, 98.3% combined removal Two stage biofiltration for H2S pre-treatment. >91% removal of H2S in Stage 1 of Acid Gas Biofilter (AGB) Loadings: 2 - 12 gH2S / m3 bed/ h 9.1 - 9.3 g MeOH / m3 bed/ h 100 YO H2S, MT removal 90 - 95% MeOH removal Loadings: 0-24.1 gH2S/m3bed/h 0 - 225 g Tol. / m3 bed / h. Removal Rates: 100% for H2S <7gl m3 bed/ h 70 - 80% H2S removal at 24p/m3 be&. Figure 1. A T Schematic of the experimental apparatus. methanol were identified as 0-450 ppm, and 0-400 ppm,, respectively. In addition, biofiltration experi- ments were conducted at neutral pH, to reflect the general pH optima for VOC degrading microorgan- isms, and at 30" C, which is in the optimum temper- ature range for mesophilic microorganisms. Nova InertB, a porous inflated glass packing material ( 5 to 7 mm particle diameter), was selected to prevent complications arising from bed compaction and aging over the experimental period, and to allow continuous control of nutrient availability. Nutrients were delivered via a recirculating nutrient solution that also controlled pH, and provided continuous removal of sulfate ions from hydrogen sulfide degra- dation. A schematic of the experimental apparatus is shown in Figure 1. Three identical biofilters, operating in parallel at 30" C and neutral pH, were employed over one year to study the biofiltration of hydrogen sulfide and methanol, as single components and in mixtures. The glass biofilter columns were 9.0 cm in diameter and 45 cm in height. Preliminary experiments were conducted with single-stage biofilters filled with 40 cm of continu- ous packing. Themajority of the experiments were con- ducted using staged biofilters in which each reactor contained three packed sections, each 11 cmin height. Concentration measurements were performed using a gas chromatograph (Varian Star 3400 CX, Mis- sissauga, ON, Canada) equipped with a pulsed flame photometric detector for hydrogen sulfide detection, and a flame ionization detector for methanol detec- tion. A 16-port auto-sampler with a 50 pL sample loop was used for the majority of the experiments. Manual 130 J uly 2003 Environmental Progress (V01.22, No.2) sampling was used in the last three months of experi- mental work due to a malfunction in the auto-sam- pler. Inlet concentrations were measured at the begin- ning and at the end of the sampling to ensure that the rotameter flow had not changed over the sampling period. MODEL DEVELOPMENT Two modeling approaches were evaluated. The first was a reaction-controlled, lumped parameter approach for a well-mixed biofilm, as per Hirai, et al. [lo]. The second was the VOC mixture biofiltration model presented by Mohseni, et al. [I l l , which accounts for reaction rate and mass transfer processes in biofilters, and was extended to treat hydrogen sul- fide and methanol. In both cases, the contribution of the liquid trickling solution to the mass transfer and reaction rates was assumed to be negligible. Reaction-Limited Model Wani, et al. [121extended a lumped parameter model, first proposed by Hirai, et al. [lo], to RSC mixtures. In this study, the model is applied to RSC and VOC co- treatment as a simple method of assessing interaction effects between the compounds in biofilter operations. The model is based on a substrate mass balance across the reactor, Monod reaction kinetics, and a well-mixed biofilm. For the methanol and hydrogen sulfide system, the elimination capacity (EC) for the reaction-limited model can be expressed as follows: where k is the first order rate constant (s-l), A is the biofilter cross-sectional area (m2), H is the biofilter height (m), and Q is the air flow rate through the biofil- ter (m3/s>. Biofllm Model Mohseni and Allen I l l 1 developed a model for the co-treatment of a-pinene and methanol based on the Ottengraf and van den Oever [131biophysical model for biofilms. The model is based on the following assumptions: Monod kinetics, plug flow operation with no axial dispersion, uniform biofilm growth over the packing medium, and the presence of all growth factors other than the substrates being tested in excess. An adapted version of Mohseni and Allen's model applicable to a methanol and hydrogen sulfide system is given below. The steady-state biofilm mass balances for the two components are given by: ( 6) d2sMeOH =p . 'MeOH p=. Me OH S MeOH dx2 'MeOH Km, MeOH +'MeOH De,MeOH ECH2, =a 'max,H,S Ch, H2S Km, H, S +'ln.H2S 'max, MeOH * ' 1, MeOH Km, MeOH +Cln,MeOH ECMeOH =P (3) where Vmax is the maximum substrate removal rate (g/m3/h), Km is the Monod constant (g/m3), C is the gas phase substrate concentration (g/m3), and a and p are empirically determined interaction parameters. If interaction is significant, then the functional form of these parameters could be complex and would depend on the nature of any observed interactions. The model can also be solved for first order kinet- ics, which apply to the methanol removal kinetics in the range of study. For first order kinetics, the elimina- tion capacity at a constant empty-bed retention time can be described in terms of the mass loading rates: EC =LO&( 1 - e-uH' Q) where Deis the effective diffusion coefficient (m2/h), S is the substrate concentration in the biofilm (g/m3), x is the dimension across the biofilm (m), X is the biofilm density (kg/m3), Y is the biofilm yield coeffi- cient Wg), pmax is the maximum specific rowth rate (h-l), and Km is the Monod constant (g/m 8 1. The boundary conditions are: (7) ' H2S mH2S mMeOH SHZs =-and S,,, =- .-, dsH S 2 =0 at x = dx where m is the air-water partition coefficient and 6 is the biofilm thickness (m). The gas phase mass balances on methanol and hydrogen sulfide in the biofilter are: x=o (9) (10) ' s Oe, MeOH [ 7 1 dsMeOH x=o Environmental Progress (V01.22, No.2) July 2003 131 Table 2. Model parameters for the biofiltration of hydrogen sulfide and methanol. (1) Shl v#f dan ct al. 1993; (2) Mohseni (1998); (3) WiUcc-Chang oomlation in Geanlroplis 1993; (4) Pary end &em 1997 where Ug is the gas velocity (m/h) and As is the biofilm surface area (m2). The boundary conditions are: (11) MeOH = MeOHj n H,S =H,S,in at h=O The system of four nested nonlinear differential equations can be solved using Matlab@ (The Math- Works Inc, Release 12); however, the Km, X, Y, and pmax values for each component must first be deter- mined, either with experimental data or by parameter fitting. The X/Y* pmax terms can be lumped in the parameter r because they appear as a multiplicative group in the mass balance equations. The kinetic parameters r and K, can be fitted to the experimental data using a nonlinear least-squares approach. For the case of first order kinetics, the biofilm model can be solved analytically: (12) 7 .-I Model Parameters In order to facilitate data analysis and modeling, we had to estimate a number of physical properties for the substrates and the biofiltration system. These parameters may be estimated using the system prop- erties, and physical property data and biofilm charac- teristics from the literature. The parameters used in the modeling exercises and their sources are summa- rized in Table 2. The interaction parameters a and p were set to 1, which assumes no interaction effects. The form of the interaction parameters will depend upon the nature of the interactions. That is, whether the interactions are chemical, physical, or biological, and whether they are concentration-dependent, will determine the functional forms of a and p. In this study, no significant interaction effects were observed. Therefore, there was no need to address the form of the interaction parameters. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Hydrogen Sulfide Bioflltration Preliminary experiments on single component hydrogen sulfide biofiltration performed using single- stage biofilters indicated that very high removal rates, up to 144 g H2S/m3 bed/h, can be achieved initially. This is comparable to the 136-147 g H2S/m3 bed/h removal rate obtained by Wani, et al. [2, 41for hydro- gen sulfide removal using hog fuel biofilters. Howev- er, after 100 days of operation, the maximum removal rates decreased to 85-95 g H2S/m3 bed/h. Through- out the study, deposition of elemental sulfur in the biofilter packing material was observed, and the rates of deposition increased with biofiltration loading. The reduction in bed porosity and changes in packing sur- face properties caused by sulfur deposition, as well as biofilm aging, are the most likely causes for the dete- rioration in maximum removal rate over time. The presence of methanol had no significant effect on the hydrogen sulfide removal rate (See Figure 2). The removal rate was plotted as a function of the log mean concentration difference to facilitate compari- son between the experimental data and predicted removal rates using the reaction-limited model. The model predictions are shown with 95% confidence 132 J uly 2003 Environmental Progress (V01.22, No.2) _ _ ~- - Hydrogen Sulfide Biofiltration Hydrogen Sulfide Biofiltration in the Pre, ence of Methanol m 1 _ _ _ _ _ Vmax (g H2S/m3 W h ) K, (PPmy> BF1 BF2 BF1 BF2 66f 19 56* 10 1 2 f 16 17f 11 63 f 20 59 f 14 66+44 28f 19 I __. - .___ . _ -~ Hydrogen Sulfide Biofiltration Hydrogen Sulfide Biofiltration in the Presence of Methanol Log M#n C o n c ~ c n Di fl mnce, C I 0 0 Figure 2. Comparison of experimental results and reaction-limited model predictions for single compo- nent and mixture hydrogen sulfide biofiltration in BF2 at 30" C, pH 7, and an EBRT of 16 seconds. r (kg H2S/m3 biofihdh) BF1 BF2 BF1 BF2 64 47 1.2 2 57 50 125 10 K, (mg/m3 biofllm) -__ bounds for the estimated parameters, Vmax and Km. Analysis of the 95% confidence bounds for the reac- tion-limited model indicates that the difference between the two data sets is not significant. However, gas short-circuiting and sulfur accumulation in the packing were reduced during mixture treatment, indi- cating increased reactor stability. Figure 2 also shows that the reaction-limited model with Monod kinetics described the biofiltration of hydrogen sulfide in the presence and absence of methanol well despite the fact that mass transfer and biofilm properties are not taken into account. The fit- ted values and associated uncertainties at a confi- dence level of 95% for the kinetic parameters Vm and K, are given in Table 3. The uncertainties in the esti- mated parameters are large, and indicate significant variability in the reactor performance throughout the experiments. + * o 20 40 60 ao l o o 120 140 180 180 200 Figure 3. Comparison of experimental results and biofilm model predictions for single component hydrogen sulfide biofiltration at 30" C, pH 7, and an EBRT of 16 seconds. The biofilm model, solved for Monod kinetics, was also used to model hydrogen sulfide removal in the presence and absence of methanol (Figure 3, Table 41, and, overall, the results indicate that methanol had no significant impact on the hydrogen sulfide removal rate. The value of Km was increased in the presence of methanol, indicating that per- formance at low loading rates may have been some- what reduced, particularly in BF1. In order to fit the model to the experimental data, a very thin biofilm, 10 pm in depth, was required. This suggests that hydrogen sulfide biofilms are very thin and very active, or that the system is strongly diffusion limit- ed. The biofiltration literature indicates that VOC degrading biofilms are several hundred microns in depth [3, 14, 151. However, no research on the depth or properties of RSC, and, specifically H2S, degrading biofilms has been presented. Environmental Progress (V01.22, No.2) _ ~_ - ~ ~ _ _ Table 5. First order rate constants for methanol removal Overall, the hydrogen sulfide biofiltration experi- ments indicate that co-treatment of RSCs and VOCs in biofilters is attractive, and may even stabilize the biofilter. In terms of modeling, there is no need to include any interaction parameter (i.e., a =1.0) Methanol Biofiltration The maximum methanol removal rate was 380 g methanoVm3 bed/h (80% removal). This removal rate is much higher than the maximum removal rates reported in the literature, which range from 50-250 g methanoUm3 bed/h [ 3 , 14-171. Furthermore, the methanol removal rate increased linearly with the loading rate throughout the study, which suggests that other nutrients (e.g., oxygen) were not rate limiting in this study. Methanol biofiltration, in the presence and absence of hydrogen sulfide, was found to be more stable than hydrogen sulfide biofiltration. That is, methanol removal rates reached steady state in one to two days, as com- pared to more than one week for hydrogen sulfide. The methanol biofiltration results were also more repeatable than those of hydrogen sufide. However, slime accumu- lation in the reactors occurred on several occasions, sug- gesting that there was some conversion of methanol to extracellular polymeric substances (EPS). Methanol removal rates were linearly dependent on concentration (or the inlet loading rate, at constant EBRT). Thus, first order kinetics were used to model methanol biofiltration (See Figure 4). Linear regression was used to determine the slopes of the lines in Figure 4, and from these slopes, the first order rate constants for both the reaction-limited and biofilm models were determined. For first order kinet- ics, the rate constants for the two models are directly proportional to one another and differ only in the degree of isolation of the kinetic parameter from the biofilm and mass transfer properties. The first order rate constants for the reaction-limited and biofilm models are given in Table 5. The rate constants for methanol removal for both models have overlapping confidence bounds for BF2 in the presence and absence of methanol. However, the rate constant for methanol removal in the presence of hydrogen sulfide in BF1 is significantly lower than for single component methanol biofiltration. The hydrogen sulfide removal rate during mixture treatment was also lower than in BF2, which suggests that the reduced removal rate may be due to operating problems in BF1 rather than the impact of methanol. Therefore, it appears that the impact of hydrogen sulfide on the 134 J uly 2003 0 1W 200 3W 400 500 Load (0 MaOH I ma bod I h) Figure 4. Methanol removal rate as a function of inlet loading for BF1 and BF2 in the presence and absence of hydrogen sulfide at 3OoC, pH 7, and an EBRT of 16 seconds. methanol removal rate is negligible within the experi- mental error and so there is no justification for including an interaction parameter (i.e., p =1). The absence of a decline in methanol removal over time during mixture biofiltration suggests that the pH cycling and sulfur accumulation in the packing material do not inhibit methanol removal. Therefore, co-treatment of VOCs and RSCs in biofilters appears to be feasible and attractive for the pulp and paper industry. CONCLUSIONS Experiments with biofilters degrading hydrogen sul- fide and methanol singly and in mixtures have shown the following: 1. The interaction effects between hydrogen sulfide and methanol in biofiltration are negligible. No sig- nificant differences were observed between the removal rates or efficiencies during single compo- nent and mixture treatment. 2. Hydrogen sulfide removal is best described by Monod kinetics. 3. The methanol removal can be describe with a first order model. 4. Both reaction-limited and biofilm-based models describe hydrogen sulfide biofiltration well, given the simple first-order to zero-order transition observed. However, a very thin (10 pm) biofilm was required in order to fit the model to the data. 5. The reaction-limited and biofilm models for methanol biofiltration fitted the experimental data identically, and the rate constants for the two mod- els were directly proportional to each other. Environmental Progress (V01.22, No.2) ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors would like to thank the National Sci- ences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, and members of the Research Consortium on Mini- mizing the Impact of Pulp and Paper Mill Discharges 2000-2003, including: Aracruz Celulose SA, Domtar, Inc., EKA Chemicals, Inc., Georgia-Pacific Corpora- tion, Irving Forest Services Ltd., J apan Carlit Co. Ltd., Potlatch Corporation, Sterling Pulp Chemicals Ltd., Tasman Pulp & Paper Co. Ltd., and Tembec, Inc., for their financial support. NOMENCLATURE AS A C Cln De EC h H Km k Load m Q r S ug Vmax X X Y Biofilmsurface area per unit volume of the biofilter m2.m-3 Cross-sectional area of the biofilter m2 Substrate concentration in the air stream ppmv or g.m-3 Log mean concentration difference ppmv or g.m-3 Effective diffusivity of substrate in the biofilm m2.h-l Elimination capacity g.m-3 h-l Distance from the biofilter inlet m Total height of the biofilter m Half saturation constant in Monod kinetics ppm 0rg.m-3 First order reaction rate constant s- Inlet mass loading rate of substrate g.m-3 h-l Aidbiofilm partition coefficient - Volumetric air flow rate m3/s Macro-kinetic growth rate constant Kg.m-3. h-l Concentration of substrate in the biofilm g . m-3 Velocity of air through the biofilter m.h-l Maximum substrate removal rate (reaction limited model) g.rn3.h-l Dimension across the biofilm m Dry cell density of the microbial community Biomass yield coefficient g / g v1 Kg.m-3 DMS DMDS EBRT MeOH MM RSC DMDS voc H2S Dimethyl sulfide Dimethyl disulfide Hydrogen sulfide Methanol Methyl mercaptan Reduced sulfur compounds Dimethyl disulfide Volatile organic compound Empty bed retention time S LITERATURE CITED 1. Springer, A.M., Industrial Environmental Con- trol: Pulp and Paper Industry, TAPPI Press, Atlanta, GA, 1993. 2. Wad, AH., AK. Lau, and RK. Bradon, Biofil- tration Control of Pulping Odors-Hydrogen Sul- fide: Performance, Macrokinetics and Coexistence Effects of Organo-Sulfur Species, Journal of Chemical Technology and Biotechnology, 74, 1, pp 9-16, Society of Chemical Industry, J anuary 1999. 3. Mohseni , M., Biofiltration of Hydrophilic and Hydrophobic Volatile Organic Compounds Using Wood-Based Media, Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Chemical Engineering and Applied Chemistry, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada, 1998. 4. Wa d , A.H., Biofiltration for the Removal of Reduced Sulfur Gases from Low Concentration Air Streams, Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Chemical & Bio-Resource Engineering, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 1999. 5. Webster, T.S., J.S. Devinny, E.M. Torres, and S.S. Basrai, Biofiltration of Odors, Toxics and Volatile Organic Compounds from Publicly Owned Treatment Works, Environmental Progress, 15, 3, AIChE, pp 141-147, Fall 1996. 6. Chi t wood, D.E., J.S. Devi nny, and F.E. Reynolds, Jr., Evaluation of a Two-Stage Biofilter for Treatment of POTW Waste Air, Environmental Progress, 18, 3, AIChE, pp 212-221, Fall 1999. 7. Devi nny, J.S. and D.E. Chitwood, Two-Stage Biofiltration of Sulfides and VOCs from Waste- water Treatment Plants, Water Science and Tech- nology, 42, 5-6, pp 411-418, 2000. 8. Allen, L. and S. Ellis, Laboratory Evaluation of Trickling Biofiltration for Treatment of Kraft Mill Noncombustion Air Emissions, TAPPI 2000 Interna- _ _ tional Environmental Conference, Denver, CO, 2000. GREEK LElTERS 9. Cox, H.H.J. and M.A. Deshusses, Combined a Inhibition function, impact of methanol on Removal of H2S and Toluene in a Single-Stage hydrogen sulfide - Biotrickling Filter, Paper 773, Annual Meeting and p Inhibition function, impact of hydrogen sulfide Exhibition of the Air and Waste Management Associa- on methanol - tion, Salt Lake City, LIT, A M , Pittsburgh, PA, 2000. 6 Biofilmthickness m 10. Hirai, M., M. Ohtake, andM. Shoda, Removal h Effective biofilm thickness m Kinetics of Hydrogen Sulfide, Methanethiol, and pmax Maximum specific growth Dimethyl Sulfide by Peat Biofilters, Journal of rate h-l Fermentation and Bioengineering, 70, 5, pp 334- 339, 1990. 11. Mohseni , M. and D.G. Allen, Biofiltration of ABBREVIATIONS Mixtures of Hydrophilic and Hydrophobic Volatile BFl Biofilter 1 Organic Compounds, Chemical Engineering Sci- BF2 Biofilter 2 ence, 55, pp 1545-1558, 2000. z Tortuosity factor - Environmental Progress (V01.22, No.2) J uly 2003 135 12. Wani, A.H., R.M.R. Brani on, and A.K. Lau, Biofiltration Using Compost and Hog Fuel as a Means of Removing Reduced Sulphur Gases from Air Emissions, Pulp and Paper Canada, 102, 5, 13. Ottengraf, S.P.P. and A.H.C. van den Oever, Kinetics of Organic Compound Removal from Waste Gases with a Biological Filter, Biotechnolo- gy and Bioengineering, 25, pp 3089-3102, 1983. 14. Shareefdeen, Z., B.C. Baltzis, Y.-S. Oh, and R. Bart ha, Biofiltration of Methanol Vapor, Biotechnology and Bioengineering, 41, 5, pp 512- 524, 1993. 15. Yang, H., B. Mhuth, and D.G. Allen, Effects of Nitrogen and Oxygen on Biofilter Performance, Journal of the Air and Waste Management Associ- ation, 52, pp 279-286, 2002. pp 27-32, 2001. 16. Lee, B.D., W.A. Apel, M.R. Walton and L.L. Cook, Treatment of Methanol Contaminated Air Streams Using Biofiltration, Air and Waste Man- agement Association, 89th Annual Meeting and Exhibition, Nashville, TN, 1996. 17. Krailas, S., Q.T. Pham, R. Amal, J.K. Jiang, and M. Heitz, Effect of Inlet Mass Loading, Water, and Total Bacteria Count on Methanol Elimination Using Upward Flow and Downward Flow Biofil- ters, Journal of Chemical Technology and Biotechnology, 75, 4, Society of Chemical Indus- try, pp 299-305, April 2000. 18. Geankoplis, C.J., Transport Processes and Unit Operations, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1993. 19. Perry, R.H. and D.W. Green, Perrys Chemical Engineers Handbook, 7th Edition, McGraw-Hill Professional Publishing, New York, NY, Chapter 3, 1997. 136 J uly 2003 Environmental Progress (V01.22, No.2)