Biogas purication for MCFC application

S.P. Herna ndez

a,
*, F. Scarpa
b
, D. Fino
b
, R. Conti
b
a
Italian Institute of Technology (IIT@POLITO), Center for Space Human Robotics, Corso Trento 21, 10129 Turin, Italy
b
Department of Materials Science and Chemical Engineering, Politecnico di Torino, Corso Duca degli Abruzzi 24, 10129 Turin, Italy
a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history:
Received 28 April 2010
Received in revised form
25 September 2010
Accepted 10 January 2011
Available online 13 February 2011
Keywords:
Biogas
Fuel cells
Desulphurisation
Dehalogenation
Activated carbon
Zeolites
a b s t r a c t
Biogas from landlls is a powerful renewable fuel that can be used as a feedstock for fuel
cell systems. However, it has to be puried of sulphur compounds and halogenated
species, which are poisonous for both fuel cells and reforming catalysts. This work pres-
ents a benchmarking study on the removal of sulphur and halogenated compounds from
a model landll biogas through adsorption. Six commercial adsorbents have been tested to
compare their selectivity and their uptake capacity towards nine different sulphur
compounds. A multi-step adsorption process, characterised by a high adsorptive-capacity
and rather low costs has been proposed. Two specic activated carbons for the removal of
halogenated species have also been tested for the purication of nine chlorinated hydro-
carbons that are present in the model biogas. One single system that could completely
eliminate the halogenated molecules contained in the biogas could not be found, which
indicates the necessity of specic developments.
Copyright 2011, Hydrogen Energy Publications, LLC. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights
reserved.
1. Introduction
Fuel cells (FCs) are highly efcient, cost-effective, and ultra-
low-emission power generation systems. The major applica-
tions for FCs are as stationary electric power plants, including
cogeneration units; as motive power for vehicles; and as
on-board electric power for space vehicles or other closed
environments [1]. The most promising progress, on which
Europeanprogrammes have concentratedconcerns the family
of polymer membranes (so-called PEMFCs). Nevertheless, the
molten carbonate (MCFCs) and solid oxide (SOFCs) fuel cells
can operate at much higher temperatures and are competitors
for the development of high-power units permitting heat and
electricity co-generation. They offer higher performance and
can be supplied with different kinds of fuels: natural gas, LPG,
biogas, gaseous carbon and liquid fuels (such as gasoline and
diesel) [2e4].
This work was done in the frame of the BioH
2
Power project,
whose objective was to carry out a feasibility study on a power
unit (250 kW), based on Molten Carbonate Fuel Cells (MCFCs),
integrated with a landll biogas fuel processor to decentralise
methane and hydrogen production, and specically tailored
for a fuelling station capable of supplying about 20e100
vehicles per day. MCFCs offer certain advantages for this
purpose since it operates efciently with CO
2
-containing fuels
because CO
2
is required at the cathode to form the carbonate
ion so as to improve the FC performance. However, the anode
is very sensitive to sulphur compounds. Therefore, as a
primary target, the system should be capable of withstanding
the effect of the sulphur and poisoning species that are
present in the biogas, and of guaranteeing long termreliability
(10,000 h) and acceptable costs. In order to meet the stringent
S tolerance limits of the MCFC and the reforming catalysts [5],
a desulphurisation-purication step has to be carried out. The
* Corresponding author. ItalianInstitute of Technology (IIT@POLITO), Center for Space HumanRobotics, Corso Trento 21, 10129 Turin, Italy.
E-mail address: simelys.hernandez@iit.it (S.P. Herna ndez).
Avai l abl e at www. sci encedi r ect . com
j our nal homepage: www. el sevi er . com/ l ocat e/ he
i nt e r na t i ona l j o ur na l o f hy d r o g e n e ne r g y 3 6 ( 2 0 1 1 ) 8 1 1 2 e8 1 1 8
0360-3199/$ e see front matter Copyright 2011, Hydrogen Energy Publications, LLC. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ijhydene.2011.01.055
strategy followed in this project will likely result in a multi-
stage process aimed at reducing not only sulphur, but also
halogenated hydrocarbons, to concentrations of less than
0.1 ppm prior to MCFC feed.
At present, adsorption technology is recognised to be the
most common technology applied to reach ultra-low sulphur
levels for fuel cells applications. Moreover, several technolo-
gies can be used for recovering volatile organic compounds
(VOCs) from gaseous wastes, but one of the most important
and effective methods for controlling the emission of VOCs is
the adsorption process. Activated carbon is one of the most
versatile adsorbents known with high removal efciency, low
costs, reusability and possible product recovery [6,7].
However, there are many other commercial adsorbents used
for fuels desulphurisation at ambient temperature and pres-
sure such as silica, alumina, zeolites and some metal oxides
[8e10]. Hence, this work presents a benchmarking study on
the purication of a model landll biogas fuel from sulphur
and chlorinated species through the adsorption technology.
Nine sulfurated species and nine chlorinated compounds
were chosen to reproduce the total content of sulphur and
chlorine present in the landll biogas in a most realistic way.
Recently this topic has received more and more attention but
only few reports are focused on the selectivity of the different
adsorbent materials respect to these different molecules. In
this work, a comparative study was performed to identify the
most active material or the best combination of these
regarding the above mentioned lack of information.
2. Experimental
2.1. Biogas analysis
Biogas usually contains trace gases that are extremely harm-
ful for the embedded catalytic processes of fuel cell systems.
The presence, as well as the amounts, of these contaminants
depend on the biogas source (i.e., landlls, anaerobic
fermentation of manure, etc). The typical components in
biogas are: CH
4
: 40e70%; CO
2
: 30e50%; N
2
: 0e20%; O
2
: 0e5%;
H
2
S: 0e4000 ppm; mercaptane: 0e100 ppm; siloxane:
0e100 mgm
3
; halogenated hydrocarbons: 0e100 mgm
3
[6].
However, in order to obtain a reference for the tests here
presented, a biogas analysis of the municipal solid waste
(MSW) landll in Pianezza (Turin) was performed together
with the company Asja Ambiente Italia S.p.A. Table 1 shows
the minimum and maximum values of the different
compounds that were found in the biogas in four sampling
campaigns which were conducted in February 2004, February
2005, June 2006 and May 2007. The samples were stored after
dehumidication by condensation and dry ltration.
2.2. Adsorbent testing
Commercial adsorbents were tested (see Table 2) in order to
identify any potential candidates for the removal of the
various sulphur and halogenated compounds present in the
biogas. Activated carbon RGM-3 was also tested in the pres-
ence of 1.2 mol% of water vapour. Commercial materials were
selected on the basis of their different features and capacity to
desulphurise or dehalogenate at ambient temperature. Before
the tests, the adsorbents were pelletised to obtain a grain size
ranging between 250 and 425 mm. Chlorinated hydrocarbons
and sulphur compounds were chosen since they are the only
species available in cylinders on the market, a feature which
was necessary to guarantee the reproducibility of the tests.
Model fuel 1 (Table 3), which contains almost twice the
maximum quantity of mercaptanes found in the Pianezza
landll biogas, was used for desulphurisation tests at room
temperature and 1 barg. The tests were performed in the
absence of H
2
S, since many data exist in the literature that
discuss its removal from biogas sources [11,12]. Hence, this
work aims the identication of a material able to eliminate the
other S-species present in biogas. As shown in Fig. 1a, CH
4
(certied as G20) and the synthetic gas mixture listed in Table
3, were dosed with Brooks

mass ow controllers to compose

the model biogas. Teon tubes and Sulnert

coated stainless
Table 1 e Analysis of the Pianezza MSW landll biogas.
Parameter Measure
unit
Minimum
value
Maximum
value
Temperature

C 9 26
Humidity % v 0.6 1.1
O
2
% v t.q. 1.5 2.8
CO
2
% v t.q. 34 40.9
CO % v t.q. < 0.001 0.003
N
2
% v t.q. 11.4 16.0
H
2
% v t.q. < 0.1 < 0.1
CH
4
% v t.q. 42.8 50.2
Hydrocarbons > C5
(as hexane)
mg/m
3
N
337.3 1178.0
Aromatic hydrocarbons mg/m
3
N
101.4 128.0
Total organic carbon (as C) mg/m
3
N
306 790.1
Siloxanes mg/m
3
N
< 0.05 < 0.2
NH
3
mg/m
3
N
< 0.5 15.7
HCl mg/m
3
N
< 0.6 2.0
Organochlorurated
compounds
mgCl/m
3
N
20 30.6
Total chlorine mgCl/m
3
N
17.4 32.0
HF mg/m
3
N
< 0.5 0.8
Organouorinated
compounds
mgF/m
3
N
1.2 6
Total uorine mgF/m
3
N
1.2 < 6,6
H
2
S p.p.m. 114.3 205
H
2
SO4 p.p.m. < 0.3 1.0
Mercaptanes (C
2
H
5
SH) p.p.m. 0.7 27.7
Table 2 e Adsorbents tested.
Use Active
component
Supplier Product
name
Desulphurisation Activated carbon
with Cr and
Cu salts
Norit RGM-3
Zeolite 13X Grace Davison 554HP
Molecular sieve Grace Davison Sylobead 522
Molecular sieve Grace Davison Sylobead 534
Metal oxides Non disclosable ST
Metal oxides ECN SulfCath
Dehalogenation Activated carbon Norit R1540W
Activated carbon Norit RB4W
i nt e r na t i o na l j our na l o f hy d r og e n e ne r g y 3 6 ( 2 0 1 1 ) 8 1 1 2 e8 1 1 8 8113
steel ttings were used, in order to ensure the total inertness
of the test-rig lines. In order to determine the breakthrough
adsorption capacity of each material, approximately 1.2 g of
adsorbent material was packed in a Teon 4 mm i.d. and
12 mm long pipe and the model fuel was fed to the reactor at
a GHSV of 14,700 h
1
. Samples of the outlet treated-fuel were
periodically analysed on-line using a Varian gas chromato-
graph (GC) equipped with a capillary column (Varian CP
SILICA PLOT, 30 m long, 0.32 mm i.d.) and a sulphur-selective
pulsed ame photometric detector (PFPD).
Model fuel 2 (Table 4), which contains nearly four times the
maximum concentration of organo-chlorinated compounds
found in the Pianezza landll biogas (see Table 1), was instead
used in dehalogenation tests at room temperature and 1 barg.
In order to determine the breakthrough adsorption capacity of
each material, approximately 0.1 g of adsorbent was packed
into a 4 mm i.d. quartz reactor. Model fuel 2 was fed to the
reactor at aGHSVof 60,000h
1
withatotal owrateof 200Nml/
min which contained: 50% of the synthetic halogenated gas
mixture (Table 4), 25%of CH
4
and 25%of N
2
. This total mixture
was fed to the adsorbent bed using Brooks

MFCs (see Fig. 1b).

Finally, parts of the outlet treated-fuel were sampled and
Table 3 e Composition of the model biogas for adsorptive
desulphurisation tests.
Compound Cylinder
conc. (ppmv)
a
Model fuel
1 conc. (ppmv)
COS (carbonyl sulde) 49.2 8.3
MM (methylmercaptane) 47.9 8.1
EM (ethylmercaptane) 50.7 8.6
DMS (dimethylsulde) 47.9 8.1
MES (metylethylsulde) 46.8 7.9
iPM (isoprophylmercaptane) 49.8 8.4
tBM (terbuthylmercaptane) 50.6 8.5
sBM (sec-buthylmercaptane) 50.4 8.5
THT (tetrahydrothiophene) 198 33.4
Methane Rest
Total sulphur (ppmv S) 44
a SIAD certied mixture.
Fig. 1 e Schematic set-up of the lab test rigs for: a) desulphurisation, b) dehalogenation.
Table 4 e Composition of the model biogas for adsorptive
dehalogenation tests.
Compound Cylinder conc.
(mg/Nm
3
)
a
Model fuel 2
conc. (mg/Nm
3
)
Chloromethane 37.8 18.9
Chloroethane 38.4 19.2
1,1,1-trichloroethane 38.2 18.9
1-chlorobutane 37.5 19.2
Trichloroethene 38.8 19.1
1,3-dichloroprop-1-ene (cis) 38.4 20.3
1,3-dichloroprop-1-ene (trans) 37.8 19.4
1,1,2-trichloroethane 40.5 18.8
1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane 38.2 19.1
Total Cl (mgCl/Nm
3
) 119.0
Balance gas Conc. (%v/v) Conc. (%v/v)
CH
4
50 50
CO
2
40 20
N
2
Rest Rest
a SIAD Certied mixture.
i nt e r na t i ona l j o ur na l o f hy d r o g e n e ne r g y 3 6 ( 2 0 1 1 ) 8 1 1 2 e8 1 1 8 8114
periodically analysed on-line using an Agilent gas chroma-
tography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS) system, equipped with
a capillary column (Agilent HP-1, 60 m long, 0.32 mm i.d.).
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Comparison between the commercial sorbents for
gaseous fuel desulphurisation
Table 5 shows the breakthrough adsorption capacity of each
sulphur compound encountered in the treated model biogas
which contained 100 ppmv S at a GHSV of 14,700 h
1
for
diverse commercial sorbents. In the tests with an absence of
water vapour, the different adsorbents, tested under the same
conditions, adsorbed the different S-compounds to different
degrees. This may be caused by a number of issues such as
the molecular weight or the different availability of the S
atoms to undertake directly adsorption links with the sorbent.
These two factors likely play a different role in the different
molecules tests.
For instance, sulphur is readily available in the carbonyl
sulphide molecule to interact with the sorbent, but the
molecule is so small that tends to easily escape from the
sorbent beds unless quite large beds are employed. No sorbent
could indeed reduce the COS concentration in the gas to less
than 0.1 ppm, apart from the RGM-3 activated carbon [9]. The
COS adsorption capacity is at least one order of magnitude
lower than that of the other S-species.
This Norit activated carbon presented the highest adsorp-
tion capacities for COS, MM, EM, tBM and sBM. Conversely,
zeolite 13x had the highest uptake capacity for DMS and iPM,
and the ST material showed the highest capability to adsorb
MES and THT; almost the same performance was noted for
MES adsorption on zeolite 13x. In these last cases, it must be
hypothesised that the direct sulphur interaction with the
various sorbents should play a peculiar role in determining
the adsorption capacity.
The full understanding of these specic adsorption mech-
anisms goes well beyond the scope of the present investiga-
tion, whose primary role was that of assessing whether
sorbents commercially available at reasonable prices could
effectively accomplish the pre-treatment requirements for
MCFC fuel cell feed. To these last merits it was felt as essential
toevaluatethesorptioncapacitynot onlyunder dryconditions,
but alsointhepresent of moisture. Moistureandother sulphur-
free hydrocarbons (such as C2 to C5) are indeed present in the
real biogas and may eventually inuence the adsorption
process. In particular, since activated carbon and molecular
sieves can easily adsorb water (producer data), this capability
can signicantly reduce their selectivity and uptake capacity
towards sulphur compounds [8,9,13,14]. When RGM-3 was
tested in the presence of moisture in the model biogas, its
uptake capacity towards some sulphur compounds was in fact
greatly reduced (see Table 5). Reductions of up to 100%for COS,
57%for DMS-iPM, 89%for MES and 60%for THTwere observed.
Keeping into account all the above evidences, a specic
desulphurisation process was devised for in-eld application.
The desulphurisation of biogas should likely be carried out
according to a two-beds adsorption process in order to reach
the low sulphur levels required for fuel cells. For the rst bed
a molecular sieve bed (cheaper than the other materials) is
perhaps the most appropriate choice. As the second bed, an
activated carbon one could remove all the S-compounds
present in the biogas: the species not adsorbed in the rst bed
could in fact be trapped in the second one. Moreover, satura-
tion of the whole system would be delayed and the adsorp-
tion-capacity/cost ratio increased.
Tests that have conrmed such a hypothesis have been
performed on the SOFC Power Generation System at the
Turbocare site in Turin [13]. Atwo-component arrangement of
130 kg zeolite-X, followed by 90 kg activated carbon provided
an acceptable solution for the large SOFC unit. After four
months of operation, no sulphur breakthrough was observed.
3.2. Selective adsorption for gaseous fuel dehalogenation
Figs. 2a and b shows the adsorption curves of each chlorinated
compound present in the treated model biogas over both the
R1540W and RB4W activated carbons, respectively. A gradual
increaseintheC/Coratios(outlet concentrationtotheinitial one)
was observed for each compound; C/Co increased till reaching
avalue of 1, as longas thebedgets saturated. If thebreakthrough
point is dened as the time at which the C/Co ratio reached the
value of 0.1, Table 6 shows the total uptake capacities at the
breakthrough and saturation points for both materials.
Table 5 e Breakthrough adsorption capacity (wt%, g-S/g-sorbent) of different commercial sorbents for each sulphur
compound present in a model biogas containing ppmv S at 28

C, 1 barg, GHSV [ 14,700 h
L1
.
Sulphur compound Adsorbent material
Norit RGM-3 Norit RGM-3 in the
presence of H
2
O
ST Zeolite 13x Sylobead 534 Sulfcatch ECN Sylobead 522
COS 0.083% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.006% 0.000% 0.002%
MM 4.639% 1.392% 0.011% 0.295% 0.954% 0.000% 0.271%
EM 6.671% 2.001% 1.353% 1.343% 1.922% 0.000% 0.443%
DMS - iPM 0.164% 0.070% 0.026% 2.767% 0.043% 0.001% 0.005%
tBM 7.391% 2.956% 2.309% 1.958% 0.009% 0.000% 0.003%
sBM 28.083% 11.233% 6.621% 2.775% 0.009% 0.080% 0.006%
MES 0.775% 0.084% 2.592% 2.498% 0.376% 0.000% 0.020%
THT 11.088% 4.428% 27.281% 18.529% 0.086% 0.742% 0.027%
Total 58.892% 22.164% 40.195% 30.165% 3.404% 0.823% 0.776%
i nt e r na t i o na l j our na l o f hy d r og e n e ne r g y 3 6 ( 2 0 1 1 ) 8 1 1 2 e8 1 1 8 8115
From Fig. 2 and Table 6 it can been noticed that each
halogenated compound is adsorbed on the activated carbon in
a different manner. Clearly, both activated carbons, could
remove the majority of the chlorinated species but with
different breakthrough times. For instance, the adsorptive-
capacity for the smaller molecular weight species (chloro-
methane and chloroethane) is practically zero but it is the
highest for the 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane (6.79 and 7.76 wt%,
for the R1540W and RB4W respectively). Hence, these acti-
vated carbons have an uptake capacity that increase with
the molecular weight (MW) of the halogenated molecules,
although this trend is not absolute. In fact, even though the
adsorption capacity increases with molecular weight for most
of the chlorinated molecules studied; from Fig. 2 and Table 6
is evident that 1,1,1-trichloroethane, trichloroethene, 1,3-
dichloroprop-1-ene (cis) and 1,3-dichloroprop-1-ene (trans) do
not followthis trend, indicating that the shape of the molecule
if not even its specic molecular groups can actually inuence
the adsorption behaviour.
Getting into deeper details, large molecules in which the
electrons are far from the nucleus are relatively easy to
polarise and therefore their adsorption via Van der Waals
forces might be favoured. Moreover, there is a different
polarisation effect on the molecules due to the different
numbers of chlorine atoms and their positions (symmetry of
the molecule) that also affects the adsorption tendency. For
example, 1,1,1-trichloroethane is less adsorbed than 1,1,2-
trichloroethane despite these two molecules have the same
molecular weight. This is possibly due to its asymmetrical
shape and charge distribution.
Furthermore, the degree of unsaturation of the molecule
should also play a role. For instance, trichloroethene (MW
131.39) is more adsorbed than 1,1,1-trichloroethane (MW
133.40), even though it has a lower molecular weight.
Moreover, both isomers of 1,3-dichloroprop-1-ene (MW
110.97) canberemovedwithahigher efciencybytheactivated
carbons respect to the two previous molecules that posses
higher molecular weight. Such behaviour is probably due to
the planar shape and more homogeneous charge allocation in
the alkenes-species caused by the double carbon bond.
In addition, when comparing the adsorption of 1,3-
dichloroprop-1-ene cis and trans, it is evident that the cis form
is less adsorbed than the trans form, which can also be explain
as a function of symmetry a polarisation of these molecules.
In the cis isomer the two polar CeCl bond dipole moments
combine to give an overall molecular dipole, so that there are
intermolecular dipoleedipole forces which add to the London
dispersion forces and induces an asymmetrical charge
distribution. On the other hand, in the trans isomer the two
chlorines are more symmetrically distributed making a more
symmetric and less polar molecule which is on the basics of
its higher adsorption. Thus, adsorption capacity of the tested
activated carbons for organo-chlorinated compounds can
Table 6 e Adsorption capacities (wt%, g-halogenated compound/g-sorbent) at the breakthrough and saturation points of
the activated carbons tested for dehalogenation of the model biogas.
Adsorbent material compound Molecular weight Norit R1540W Norit RB4W
Breakthrough Saturation Breakthrough Saturation
Chloromethane 50.49 0.00% 0.01% 0.00% 0.02%
Chloroethane 64.51 0.00% 0.01% 0.00% 0.02%
1,1,1-trichloroethane 133.40 0.57% 0.81% 0.40% 0.55%
1-chlorobutane 92.57 0.26% 0.39% 0.19% 0.28%
Trichloroethene 131.39 0.80% 1.13% 0.80% 1.25%
1,3-dichloroprop-1-ene (cis) 110.97 0.65% 0.98% 0.64% 1.03%
1,3-dichloroprop-1-ene (trans) 110.97 0.93% 1.35% 0.95% 1.42%
1,1,2-trichloroethane 133.40 1.25% 1.81% 1.27% 1.93%
1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane 167.85 4.25% 6.79% 4.86% 7.76%
Total capacity 8.72% 13.28% 9.10% 14.26%
Fig. 2 e Breakthrough curves of each chlorinated
compound over the activated carbons: a) Norit R1540W and
b) Norit RB4W.
i nt e r na t i ona l j o ur na l o f hy d r o g e n e ne r g y 3 6 ( 2 0 1 1 ) 8 1 1 2 e8 1 1 8 8116
be explained as a function of the adsorbate molecular weight,
degree of unsaturation, polarisation and symmetry as well.
Furthermore, Fig. 3 shows the chromatograms of the model
biogas analysis. Fig. 3a shows the feed before passing through
the RB4Wactivated carbon and Fig. 3b and c the treated biogas
downstream the RB4W bed at two different moments during
the test: 5 and 450 min, which correspond to 100 and 7600 g-
biogas/g-adsorbent, respectively. After 5 min almost all halo-
genated species (with the only exception of chloromethane
and chloroethane) were successfully removed. However,
undesirable adsorption of the other hydrocarbons contained
on traces amounts on the model biogas (compounds number
3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 15, 19, 20, 22, 23 and 24 in Fig. 3a)
were also observed. In the same way, after 450 min of test,
when only 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane could still be adsorbed,
the high molecular weight hydrocarbons (compounds number
19 to 24) were also unfortunately adsorbed. These results
conrm the low selectivity of the activated carbons for the
adsorption of only sulphur or halogenated species [13]. This
represent a drawback on the use of this type of adsorbent
since decrease of the adsorptive-capacity due to adsorption of
heavy hydrocarbons occurs, thereby reducing the operating
time and increasing the operating costs.
4. Conclusions
Tests on different commercial adsorbents for gaseous fuel
desulphurisation demonstrated that almost none the tested
adsorbents couldremove thewide varietyof S-compounds that
are present in a landll biogas. Activated carbon RGM-3,
unfortunately, turned out not be a selective material, as it also
adsorbed moisture, and thus reduced its adsorption capacity
towards S-compounds. Moreover, tests on two commercial
activated carbons for gaseous dehalogenation have veried
that none of the adsorbents could eliminate the chlorinated
compounds with low molecular weight that could be present
intoa landll biogas, suchas chloromethane andchloroethane.
Hence, none of the adsorbents currently in commerce can
reach, on its own, the ultra-low sulphur and halogens concen-
trations required for fuel cell systems. Therefore, an effective
solutioncouldbeproposedjust for thecaseof desulphurisation.
Particularly, a low cost molecular sieve bed with an activated
carbon bed downstream (combined system characterised by
a high adsorption-capacity/cost ratio), has proved to reach the
lower sulphur levels required for fuel cells by removing all S-
compounds present in the fed fuel. Nevertheless, more
research is needed for the development of new materials or
multifunctional beds capable of blocking all the sulphur and
halogenated compounds that could be found in gaseous fuels.
Acknowledgements
The nancial support of Regione Piemonte for the BioH
2
Power
Project is gratefully acknowledged. Martina Chiappero is
appreciated for the helpful discussions.
Fig. 3 e Chromatograms of the model biogas fed to the AC RB4W: (a) upstream the adsorbent bed, (b) downstream the
adsorbent after 5 min of test (or 100 g-fuel/g-sorbent treated), (c) downstream the adsorbent after 450 min of tests (or 7600
g-fuel/g-sorbent treated).
i nt e r na t i o na l j our na l o f hy d r og e n e ne r g y 3 6 ( 2 0 1 1 ) 8 1 1 2 e8 1 1 8 8117
r e f e r e n c e s
[1] Evers AA. Go to where the market is! Challenges and
opportunities to bring fuel cells to the international market.
Int J Hydrogen Energy 2003;28:725e33.
[2] Levin DB, Chahine R. Challenges for renewable hydrogen
productionfrombiomass. Int J HydrogenEnergy2010;35:4962e9.
[3] Cigolotti V, Massi E, Moreno A, Polettini A, Reale F. Biofuels as
opportunity for MCFC niche market application. Int J
Hydrogen Energy 2008;33:2999e3003.
[4] Bensaid S, Specchia S, Federici F, Saracco G, Specchia V.
MCFC-based marine APU: comparison between conventional
ATR and cracking coupled with SR integrated inside the stack
pressurized vessel. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2009;34:2026e42.
[5] Herna ndez S, Mescia D, Cugino M, Russo N, Fino D,
BIOH
2
POWER: from waste to renewable gaseous fuels for
current and future vehicles, WP2: desulphurisation and
dehalogenation. In Proceedings of Sardinia 2009, 12th
International Waste Management and Landll Symposium,
Cagliari, Italy, 5e9 October 2009.
[6] Fa ngmark IE, Hammarstro m LG, Stro mqvist ME, Ness AL,
Norman PR, Osmond NM. Estimation of activated carbon
adsorption efciency for organic vapours I. A strategy for
selecting test compounds. Carbon 2002;40:2861e9.
[7] Esteves IAAC, Lopes MSS, Nunes PMC, Mota JPB. Adsorption
of natural gas and biogas components on activated carbon.
Sep Purif Technol 2008;62:281e96.
[8] Gordon Israelson PE. hydrocarbon condensation heating of
natural gas by an activated carbon desulfurizer. J Fuel Cell Sci
Technol 2009;6:034506e8.
[9] Gordon Israelson PE. Results of testing various natural gas
desulphurisation adsorbents. J Mater Eng Perform 2004;13:
282e6.
[10] Hyung-Tae K, Seung-Moon K, Ki-Won J, Young-Seek Y,
Jin-Hong K. Desulphurisation of odorant-containing gas:
removal of t-butylmercaptan on Cu/ZnO/Al
2
O
3
. Int J
Hydrogen Energy 2007;32:3603e8.
[11] Trogisch S, Hoffmann J, Daza Bertrand L. Operation of molten
carbonatefuel cellswithdifferent biogas sources: achallenging
approach for eld trials. J Power Source 2005;145:632e8.
[12] Abatzoglou N, Boivin S. A review of biogas purication
processes. Biofuels Bioprod Bioref 2009;3:42e71.
[13] Herna ndez S, Solarino L, Orsello G, Russo N, Fino D,
Saracco G, et al. Desulphurisation processes for fuel cells
systems. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2008;33:3209e14.
[14] Gordon Israelson PE. Water vapor effects on fuel cell
desulfurizer performance - a decade of eld experience. Proc
Fuel Cell 200 Sixth Int Fuel Cell Science Eng Tech; 2008.
Conference Denver, Colorado, USA.
i nt e r na t i ona l j o ur na l o f hy d r o g e n e ne r g y 3 6 ( 2 0 1 1 ) 8 1 1 2 e8 1 1 8 8118