Next Article in Journal
Removal of Heavy Metals from Contaminated Aquatic Streams Using a Resin Supported Green nZVI
Previous Article in Journal
Measuring the Effect of Built Environment on Students’ School Trip Method Using Neighborhood Environment Walkability Scale
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 16
Issue 5
10.3390/su16051939
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Deodorisation of Ventilated Air from a Fat-Processing Plant Using Different Types of Biofilter Fillings and Membranes

by
Mirosław Szyłak-Szydłowski
* and
Andrzej Kulig
Faculty of Building Services, Hydro and Environmental Engineering, Warsaw University of Technology, Nowowiejska 20, 00-653 Warsaw, Poland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2024, 16(5), 1939; https://doi.org/10.3390/su16051939
Submission received: 23 January 2024 / Revised: 21 February 2024 / Accepted: 24 February 2024 / Published: 27 February 2024
(This article belongs to the Section Pollution Prevention, Mitigation and Sustainability)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The aim of the research is to assess changes in odour concentration in the ventilated air of a production hall, using different types of biofilter fillings and different types of membranes. Deodorisation was carried out using a mobile combined biofilter at a plant producing lard and liquid oils. Ventilated air from the hall contained organic and inorganic pollutants. Two types of fillings were used for technological tests: stumpwood chips mixed with pine bark and a mix of stumpwood chips with pine bark and green waste compost. Two types of membranes were also used, differing in thickness, permeability, and water resistance. The subjects of the research were the air supplied to the filter, lifted directly from the bed, and the air above the membranes. The deodorisation efficiency—the percentage reduction in the odour concentration value as a result of air flow through the bed and membranes—was calculated. The filtration methods used allowed the selection of the most advantageous technological variant from the point of view of deodorisation effectiveness: a mix of stumpwood chips with pine bark and the Pro Eko Tex UV membrane. It has a total odour reduction efficiency of 99.3–99.9% and has been added to full-scale implementation works.

1. Introduction

1.1. Odours in Food Processing

Industrial sources are the most diversified of the anthropogenic sources of odour emission. Those facilities generate volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and other pollutants from installations and facilities—inter alia, refineries and agro-food or meat-processing plants, as well as related sewage treatment plants and waste-processing plants [1,2,3]. These emissions primarily contain ammonia and hydrogen sulphide. Both compounds are harmful beyond the threshold limit value—25 ppm for ammonia and 10 ppm for hydrogen sulphide [4,5,6,7].
Gaseous emissions from food-processing plants are malodorous to living habitats. For example, hydrogen sulphide and ammonia gases from the treatment of palm oil mill effluent emit a pungent and rancid smell [7,8]. High odour concentrations were determined at palm oil mills—8500 ou/m3 in anaerobic ponds, 6700 ou/m3 in facultative ponds, and 10,000 ou/m3 in aerobic ponds [9]. People living near the palm oil mill described the smell as very strong (intensity scale of five), and odours were detected more than 1 km away [10]. So, controlling pollution and reducing the amount of odorous compounds are crucial for the environment based on the principles of sustainable development. After all, these measures are part of the following Sustainable Development Goals: (3) Good health and well-being; (9) Industry, innovation, and infrastructure; (10) Sustainable cities and communities; (12) Responsible consumption and production; (13) Climate action; (15) Life on land.
In the agro-food industry, major contributors of odour pollution are as follows: food, milk, and meat-processing industries; bone mills; as well as slaughterhouses [11,12]. Among volatile organic compounds from the meat-rendering plants, the following should be mentioned in particular: organic sulphides, disulphides, aldehydes from C-4 to C-7, trimethylamine, C-4 amines, pyrazines, and organic acids from C-3 to C-6. In addition, there are potential emissions from such compounds as alcohols from C-4 to C-7 aliphatic hydrocarbons, ketones, and aromatic compounds [11].

1.2. Biofiltration Methods of Deodorisation

Treatment technologies of non-organic odorous compounds and VOCs are as follows: absorption, adsorption, combustion, and biotechnology [13]. Physico-chemical and thermal techniques for treating these emissions are now available [7,14,15,16], but they are energy intensive and cost prohibitive. Also, harmful compounds are transformed and the result is a secondary pollutant that must be treated during subsequent processes [17]. Within biological methods, biofilters have been successfully employed for odour and VOC treatment [18,19]. Biofiltration is part of the trend towards sustainable development in the field of biological odour neutralisation without using chemical reagents. This versatile tool addresses a variety of air quality and pollution problems, demonstrating how advanced solutions can work in harmony with nature to create a healthier, sustainable environment. Biological methods of waste-gas-cleaning techniques are nonhazardous and benign for the environment. Therefore, the use of biofiltration to reduce chemical pollutants, odour nuisance, as well as the emission of microorganisms from industry waste gas has become popular worldwide [20,21]. Possible drawbacks are limited process control and the relatively slow kinetics of the reaction [22]. Rolewicz-Kalińska et al. pointed out that there are also some problems with biofilter exploitation—accumulation of the biomass within the bed, fouling, preferential pathway formation, and excessive pressure drop. Also, there is a difficulty in controlling the operational parameters [23].
Biofilters, biological scrubbers, and biotrickling filters are cost-effective technologies, preferable at low concentrations of VOCs (below 1–10 g/m3) in food-processing plants, landfills, and sewage treatment plants [22,24,25]. In biofilters, odorous substances are transformed by microorganisms into carbon dioxide and energy [26,27]. Carbon dioxide production is a disadvantage of this method—for example, the CO2 production rate for compost as a biofilter filling is 81.6·10−3 mg/g media/h, while for compost–pumice–poremat it is 109.4·10−3 mg/g media/h [28].
The biofilm community attached to the substrate surface is crucial because it affects the overall performance of the biofilter [29,30]. The filter particles are typically soil, plastic material, compost, peat, granular activated carbon, wood chips, tree bark, lava rock, and heather [31]. Biofiltration uses bacteria and fungi to minimise the concentration of the broad range of compounds and VOCs—most published studies have focused on the removal of toluene, ethanol, propanol, and n-hexane [24,32,33,34].
Membrane reactors are used for purification of a low concentration of poorly soluble compounds. Purification is the effect of separation of the polluted air when passing through a membrane colonised by microorganisms. An aqueous phase is formed on the membrane, providing nutrients and appropriate humidity for bacterial colonies [35]. The biggest problem with using porous membranes is their susceptibility to clogging. This creates the need to replace them every 2–3 years.
The study aimed to evaluate changes in odour concentration in the air of the production hall at a lard and liquid oil plant, using different types of biofilter filling and different types of membranes as an additional step in the removal of pollutants from waste gases. The subject of the study was a pilot, two-stage biofilter carrying out biofiltration using traditional filling and purification using a membrane filter. The sub-goal was the application of two different filling materials and two types of membrane within the second stage of gas purification [36].

2. Material and Methods

2.1. Biofilter

A pilot biofilter was equipped with a fan and scrubber. The system also included automatic gas flow regulation and instrumentation for the measurement of technical parameters (gas flow, temperature, and humidity). It also has systems for the distribution of processed gases and leachate drainage. Two purification methods were used: biofiltration with the application of an open biofilter, and integrated biofiltration with membrane fabric covering the biofilter surface. The active part of the device has dimensions of 1.32 m × 3.00 m, while the height of the bed was 1.1–1.2 m. The pilot biofilter was connected to an installation to extract process gases from a food industry plant where animal and vegetable fats were produced [36]. Ventilation air from the production hall contained organic (volatile fatty acids) and inorganic (ammonia and hydrogen sulphide) contaminants. The description of that fat-processing installation is in an article by Lelicińska-Serafin et al. [36].
The average flow rate of the biofilter was 378 m3/h (with a range of 322–399 m3/h), which corresponded to an average empty bed residence time (EBRT) of 45 s (ranging from 41 to 66 s). In the range of 62.4–101.5 m3/(m2 × h), the average surface and volumetric load were 94.8 m3/(m2 × h) and 82.5 m3/(m3 × h), respectively. The range of the VOC concentration was between 780 ppb and 2890 ppb. The average pressure drop was 379 ± 13 Pa and 596 ± 84 Pa in the open biofilter filled with stumpwood chips and pine bark (M1) and stumpwood chips, pine bark, and compost from green waste (M2), respectively. Membranes A and B generated an additional pressure drop of 59–64 Pa (membrane A) and 28–63 Pa (membrane B) [37].

2.2. Research Variants

Two materials were used as the biofilter bed (first stage of treatment): M1 and M2 (Table 1). M1 was a 1:1 mix of pine bark and stumpwood chips, whereas M2 was a mix of stumpwood chips with pine bark (50%, 1:1 ratio) with compost (50%). The grain diameter of the stumpwood chips was between 20 and 80 mm.
Two different membranes were also subsequently tested (A and B, trade names Pro Eko Tex UV and Pro Eko Tex UV 6, respectively) (Table 2). Membranes consisted of 3 layers—2 outer layers and 1 middle functional layer. Those layers comprised PS (membrane A) and +ePTFE (membrane B).
Figure 1 contains a scheme of one- and two-stage biofiltration processes.
Detailed parameters of the biofilter bed materials, membranes, and operational parameters of the biofiltration process are in articles by Lelicińska-Serafin et al. [34] and Rolewicz-Kalińska et al. [23].
Twenty series of examinations between January and July were performed:
  • 10 series for M1 filling: without membrane—4 series; membrane A—3 series; membrane B—3 series;
  • 10 series for M2 filling: without membrane—4 series; membrane A—3 series; membrane B—3 series.
In each series, 16–21 points were measured.

2.3. Gas Sampling

The subject of the study was air supplied to the filter, taken directly from the bed, and taken from above the membranes. The location of the measurement points in the biofilter area is illustrated in Figure 2.
The contaminated air supply lines were sampled at the scrubber and the biofilter directly through the spigots. An odourless silicone tube was inserted inside the feed tube (to the centre of the tube cross-section), and the air was pumped into the olfactometer.
Samples from the biofilter were taken using a static chamber. Samples were then collected using a suction and discharge pump equipped with odourless hoses approximately 10 cm above the biofilter surface and analysed using an olfactometer.
Sampling from underneath the membrane was carried out by inserting the odourless silicone tube directly under the membrane, 30 cm from the biofilter wall. Air was pumped through the tube into the olfactometer.

2.4. Odour Measurement

A field olfactometry method was used to assess the effectiveness of the deodorisation process. A SM100 olfactometer (Scentroid, Stouffville, ON, Canada) and a static chamber for air sampling were used. Portable field olfactometers were used for olfactometric measurements, which allowed for a calibrated series of dilutions to be performed by mixing contaminated, odorous air with pure, filtered air. Odour concentration value is determined in units of odour (ou, according to the European standard PN-EN 13725:2022 [38]) per unit of volume [ou/m3] [39,40]. Scentroid SM100 is a field olfactometer ranging between 2 and 30,000 ou/m3 [41]. It has a much higher accuracy and range of determinability than the commonly used Nasal Ranger field olfactometer [42]. Before each examination, a Sniffin’ Sticks test (SST) was performed according to standard ISO 13301:2002 [43] to assess the olfactory performance of the testers. Four olfactometric measurements were taken at each point—the odour concentration value is, according to PN-EN 13725:2022, a geometric mean from the set of results of individual measurements.

2.5. Statistical Methods

The Kolmogorov–Smirnov test was performed to check whether the distribution of the variables tested met the normality assumption. To verify that the results obtained differed both according to the type of filling or membrane used and within these groups according to the date of the study, the Kruskal–Wallis test was carried out together with a test of multiple comparisons.
Kruskal–Wallis’s non-parametric test is an alternative to the one-way ANOVA test. It extends the two-sample Wilcoxon test as recommended when the ANOVA test assumptions are unmet. The Kruskal–Wallis test shows significant differences between groups but does not indicate which specific pairs of groups are different. Therefore, a significant Kruskal–Wallis test was followed by Dunn’s test. That test was carried out for the identification of which groups are different. Also, to calculate pairwise comparisons between group levels, Wilcoxon’s test was used.

3. Results and Discussion

Figure 2 and Table 3 contain the results of the odour concentration examinations in each variant, divided into individual test series; the air was taken from above the membranes or—in the variant without membranes—directly from the biofilter area.
The normality distribution condition was not met for some of the variables tested (for example, a Kolmogorov–Smirnov test p-value of less than 0.05 was obtained for the data of 5.01); the null or alternative hypothesis was rejected, which proves that non-parametric tests should be used to test statistical hypotheses.
Based on the analysis of Figure 3 and Table 3, some of the results obtained are not only significantly different according to the type of filling or membrane but also differ within these groups, depending on the date of the study.
This observation was confirmed by the Kruskal–Wallis test together with the test of multiple comparisons. For the variants:
  • M1, without membrane—the difference between tests from 5.01 and 12.01, 5.01 and 26.01, and 12.01 and 2.02 was statistically significant (p < 0.05). The difference between tests from 5.01 and 2.02 and 12.01 and 26.01 was not statistically significant.
  • M1A—the difference between the tests on 6.02 and 13.02 and between the tests on 13.02 and 27.02 was statistically significant, while it was not statistically significant (p > 0.05) between the tests on 6.02 and 27.02.
  • M2, without membrane—a statistically significant (p < 0.05) difference was found between the tests of 17.04 and 24.04, 17.04 and 22.05, 24.04 and 15.05, and 15.05 and 22.05. A statistically insignificant difference was found between the tests of 17.04 and 15.05 and 24.04 and 22.05.
  • M2A—the difference between the tests of 5.06 and 15.06 and 15.06 and 26.06 was statistically significant, and the difference between the tests of 5.06 and 26.06 was statistically insignificant.
These differences may be due to the heterogeneous composition of the gases flowing into the biofilter. The concentration of these gases varied, ranging from 1201 to 6000 ou/m3, depending on the type of processing performed at the facility.
For example, significant in-between concentration values for M1 without membrane were observed in cases where the difference in inflow odour concentration was as high as 800 ou/m3 (odour concentration in inflow on 12.01 was 3300 ou/m3, while on 2.02 it was 2500 ou/m3).
Table 4 provides a summary of the results obtained.
The results show a wide variation in the concentration of odour gases reaching the biofiltration system. Concentrations ranged from 1201 ou/m3 to 6000 ou/m3, with a median of 3300 ou/m3. This may have been caused by the variable production processes taking place in the hall.
Odour concentrations obtained in the one-stage biofilter, using only M1 or M2 filling (without membranes), showed that M1 filling (1:1 mix of pine bark and stumpwood chips) had better efficiency than M2 filling (mix of pine bark, stumpwood chips, and compost). Although the maximum concentration in the air above the infill was the same for both infill types, the median odour concentration value for the M1 infill was half that for the M2 infill (82 ou/m3 and 164 ou/m3, respectively).
A similar situation was observed when two types of membranes were used as a two-stage biofiltration system. In this case, the maximum odour concentration at the outflow (above the membrane) was 35 ou/m3 for the M1 filling, while it was more than ten times higher for the M2 filling: 390 ou/m3.
Table 5 summarises the values of deodorisation efficiency—the percentage reduction in odour concentration values due to airflow through the bed and the membranes. Deodorisation efficiency was calculated as follows:
DE (%) = (Cod inflow − Cod outflow)/Cod inflow × 100
where Cod inflow corresponds to the ou/m3 odour concentration in the raw gases, and Cod outflow corresponds to the ou/m3 odour concentration of the purified gases.
Considering the reduction in odour concentration during the flow of contaminated air through the biofilter fillings, the minimum concentration reduction with biofilter M1 was 91.2%, while with biofilter M2, it was 89.1%. The medians of these values were 98% and 94.5%, respectively. Table 6 shows the efficiency of the removal of malodorous compounds with membranes (air flowing into the membranes was treated as air, not “raw” air—from the inlet to the biofilter—which was emitted from the surface of the bed (sampling directly from under the membrane)). The lowest of these values was recorded at four (out of fifteen) points on April 17. This was the first test after the biofilter was replaced, so the results may have been influenced by the fact that it had not yet been “worked in”.
The minimum reduction in odour concentration was recorded for variant M2A, at 40.2%, and for variant M2B, at 57.1%. For the M1 infill, the minimum reduction was 74.3% (M1A) and 80% (M1B). The median decrease in odour concentrations was also much higher for the M1 infill—for the M1A and M1B variants, it was 97.1% and 97.6%, respectively, while for the M2A and M2B variants, it was 54.5% and 65.1%, respectively.
Chen and Hoff (2009) pointed out that the mixture of compost and wood chips is recommended as one of the better choices. Wood chips alone are another good option, providing enough bacteria and nutrients in the exhaust air. If not, there is the possibility of inoculating the material with compost, soil, or activated sludge [44].
In the examined variant with compost from green waste in addition to stumpwood chips and pine bark, the reduction of odours achieved was between 91.2% and 99.7%. The gas temperature did not exceed 33.2 °C, averaging 22.5 °C (SD ± 6.1 °C). The range of readings was 10.1 ÷ 33.2 °C. Inlet odour concentration was between 1201 ou/m3 and 6000 ou/m3. Janni et al. (2001) achieved a 91% odour reduction during migration through a 50:50 mixture by weight of yard waste compost and brush wood chips (odour concentration in the inlet was between 285 and 1304 ou/m3) [45]. DeBruyn et al. (2001) achieved a 95–97% reduction of odour concentration (inlet: 958 ou/m3) in a 50:50 mixture by weight of a bulking agent and compost as a biofilter bed [46]. For inlet odour concentrations similar to those obtained in this study, Mann et al. (2002) achieved 56–94% odour reduction (odour concentration in inflow was between 464 ou/m3 and 3036 ou/m3) in the biofilter with a mixture of wood chips and compost (1:1 ratio) [47]. In the case of higher odour concentrations in the inlet, Lau and Cheng (2007) achieved a 95% reduction of odour concentration in a duck confinement barn (from 8553 to 12,171 ou/m3) with a biofilter consisting of a 2:1 mixture of softwood chips and barks with finished compost [48]. Nicolai and Janni (2001) achieved an average odour reduction of 42.3%, 69.1%, and 78.8% for 27.6%, 47.4%, and 54.7% moisture content, respectively [49], while in the present research, reductions of 91.2–99.7% were achieved with a total moisture value of between 42.7% and 50.5%. That value is also confirmed by Liu et al. (2017)—they examined the combination of a mixed medium of wood chips and compost and pointed out that a moisture content of 55% is recommended [50].
While considering variants without compost addition, in the present research, the total moisture content of the stumpwood chip and pine bark bed was between 60.6% and 66.3%, and the reduction of odours achieved was between 89.1% and 97.6%. During examinations of lower inlet odour concentrations than those in the present study (1201 ou/m3 and 6000 ou/m3), Sheridan et al. (2002) examined wood chip filling. They achieved an 88–95% odour reduction from 829 to 859 ou/m3 in the inlet [51]. Chen et al. (2008) tested biofilters with hardwood chips and western cedar chips. Odour concentration in the inlet was between 320 ou/m3 and 2700 ou/m3 and they achieved odour reduction of 48.2–88% and 62–91.4%, respectively [52]. Martinec et al. (2001) achieved 40–82% odour reduction for inlet odour between 770 and 3100 ou/m3. They checked five fillings: biochips, 1:1 mix of coconut fiber and fiber peat, 1:1 mixture of chopped bark and wood, 2:1 BioContact filter pellets covered with bark, and biocompost [53]. Chen and Hoff (2012) tested biofilters filled with western cedar and hardwood chips. Western cedar chips achieved an average reduction efficiency of 51% for odour, while inlet odour concentration varied between 420 ou/m3 and 500 ou/m3 [54]. In the case of much higher odour concentrations in the inlet than those in the present study, Luo and Oostrom (1997) examined the following biofilters: unwashed pit sand, washed and screened sand, sawdust, and finely crushed bark (<20 mm) with a ratio of 30:70 (by volume). Odour reduction was between 75% and 99%, while odour concentration in the inlet ranged between 490,000 and 1,100,000 ou/m3 [55].

4. Summary and Conclusions

The research aimed to assess changes in odour concentration in the ventilation air of a production hall, using a one- or two-stage biofiltration method varying by biofilter fillings and membranes. During the literature review, no research was found which included that combination. The addition of membranes as a second biofiltration stage achieved a significant reduction in odour concentration in the recommended—from the point of view of deodorisation efficiency—technological variant: M1A (1:1 mix of pine bark and stumpwood chips with a grain diameter of 20–80 mm and Pro Eko Tex UV membrane). It has a total odour reduction efficiency from 99.3% to 99.9% and was introduced for full-scale implementation work.
While the maximum odour concentration in the system influent was 6000 ou/m3, the maximum outlet odour concentration after migration through the beds was 328 ou/m3. Despite the significant reduction in contaminants, the odour concentration value was still very high, resulting in a considerable nuisance to exposed persons. The addition of membrane A to the M1 bed system achieved outlet odour concentrations of only 4 to 9 ou/m3, effectively eliminating the odour nuisance of this source.
The olfactometry method (especially field olfactometry, in situ) can be beneficial for assessing the effectiveness of biofilter operation and can be an excellent complement to existing methods.

Author Contributions

Conceptualisation, A.K. and M.S.-S.; methodology, A.K. and M.S.-S.; software, M.S.-S.; validation, M.S.-S. and A.K.; formal analysis, M.S.-S.; investigation, M.S.-S.; data curation, A.K. and M.S.-S.; writing—original draft preparation, M.S.-S.; writing—review and editing, A.K. and M.S.-S.; visualisation, M.S.-S.; supervision, A.K. and M.S.-S.; funding acquisition, A.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the European Regional Development Fund operated by the National Centre for Research and Development under the Smart Growth Operational Programme 2014–2020 under the priority axis IV: “Increasing the scientific and research potential” in the Measure 4.1 “R&D activity”, Sub-measure 4.1.2 “Regional science and research agendas” in the frame of Project Contract No. POIR.04.01.02-00-0019/16. URL: https://biozin.wordpress.com/ (accessed on 13 January 2024).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Feilberg, A.; Liu, D.; Adamsen, A.P.S.; Hansen, M.J.; Jonassen, K.E.N. Odorant Emissions from Intensive Pig Production Measured by Online Proton-Transfer-Reaction Mass Spectrometry. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2010, 44, 5894–5900. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Wiśniewska, M.; Szyłak-Szydłowski, M. The Application of In Situ Methods to Monitor VOC Concentrations in Urban Areas—A Bibliometric Analysis and Measuring Solution Review. Sustainability 2022, 14, 8815. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Grzelka, A.; Romanik, E.; Miller, U. Odour Nuisance Assessment of the Food Industry Wastewater Treatment Plant. E3S Web Conf. 2019, 100, 00024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Anupoju, G.R.; Potumarthi, R.; Jetty, A. Operation of Biofilter with Mixed Agricultural Residue as Filter Material: Effects of Humidification and Inlet Hydrogen Sulfide Volume Fraction on the Performance. Chem. Biochem. Eng. Q. 2006, 20, 189–196. [Google Scholar]
  5. Hartikainen, T.; Ruuskanen, J.; Vanhatalo, M.; Martikainen, P.J. Removal of Ammonia from Air by a Peat Biofilter. Environ. Technol. 1996, 17, 45–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Kim, N.J.; Hirai, M.; Shoda, M. Comparison of Organic and Inorganic Carriers in Removal of Hydrogen Sulfide in Biofilters. Environ. Technol. 1998, 19, 1233–1241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Gandu, B.; Palanivel, S.; Juntupally, S.; Arelli, V.; Begum, S.; Anupoju, G.R. Removal of NH3 and H2S from Odor Causing Tannery Emissions Using Biological Filters: Impact of Operational Strategy on the Performance of a Pilot-Scale Bio-Filter. J. Environ. Sci. Health Part A 2021, 56, 625–634. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Abdullah, N.; Sulaiman, F. The Oil Palm Wastes in Malaysia; Books on Demand: Paris, France, 2013; pp. 75–93. ISBN 978-953-51-1105-4. [Google Scholar]
  9. Zaman, N.Q.; Yusup, Y.; Yaacof, N. Verification of Receptor Exposure to Palm Oil Mill Odor Using In-Field Olfactometer with Odor Characteristic. Chem. Eng. Trans. 2016, 54, 271–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Yaacof, N.; Zaman, N.; Yusop, Y. Odour Intensity Assessment at Different Area of a Palm Oil Mill Using Olfactometry Method. Appl. Mech. Mater. 2015, 802, 472–477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Psillakis, E.; Gekas, V. Odor Problems in the Food Industry. In Odors in the Food Industry; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2006; pp. 1–13. ISBN 978-0-387-33510-0. [Google Scholar]
  12. Skinner, J.A.; Lewis, K.A.; Bardon, K.S.; Tucker, P.; Catt, J.A.; Chambers, B.J. An Overview of the Environmental Impact of Agriculture in the U.K. J. Environ. Manag. 1997, 50, 111–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Barbusinski, K.; Kalemba, K.; Kasperczyk, D.; Urbaniec, K.; Kozik, V. Biological Methods for Odor Treatment—A Review. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 152, 223–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Gandu, B.; Sandhya, K.; Gangagni Rao, A.; Swamy, Y.V. Gas Phase Bio-Filter for the Removal of Triethylamine (TEA) from Air: Microbial Diversity Analysis with Reference to Design Parameters. Bioresour. Technol. 2013, 139, 155–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Pandey, R.A.; Chandrashekhar, B. Physicochemical and Biochemical Approaches for Treatment of Gaseous Emissions Containing NOx. Crit. Rev. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2014, 44, 34–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Searcy, E.M.L.; Zhang, Q.; Cicek, N. The Use of a Biofilter for Reducing Off-Gas Odour from an Industrial Fermentation Process. Environ. Technol. 2005, 26, 103–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Delhoménie, M.-C.; Heitz, M. Biofiltration of Air: A Review. Crit. Rev. Biotechnol. 2005, 25, 53–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Han, M.-F.; Wang, C.; Yang, N.-Y.; Hu, X.-R.; Wang, Y.-C.; Duan, E.-H.; Ren, H.-W.; Hsi, H.-C.; Deng, J.-G. Performance Enhancement of a Biofilter with pH Buffering and Filter Bed Supporting Material in Removal of Chlorobenzene. Chemosphere 2020, 251, 126358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Liu, J.; Yue, P.; Zang, N.; Lu, C.; Chen, X. Removal of Odors and VOCs in Municipal Solid Waste Comprehensive Treatment Plants Using a Novel Three-Stage Integrated Biofilter: Performance and Bioaerosol Emissions. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng. 2021, 15, 48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Wéry, N. Bioaerosols from Composting Facilities—A Review. Front. Cell. Infect. Microbiol. 2014, 4, 42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Affek, K.; Tabernacka, A.; Załęska-Radziwiłł, M.; Doskocz, N.; Muszyński, A. Bioaerosol Emission from Biofilters: Impact of Bed Material Type and Waste Gas Origin. Atmosphere 2021, 12, 1574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Sercu, B.; Peixoto, J.; Demeestere, K.; Van Elst, T.; Van Langenhove, H. Odors Treatment: Biological Technologies. In Odors in the Food Industry; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2006; pp. 125–158. ISBN 978-0-387-33510-0. [Google Scholar]
  23. Rolewicz-Kalińska, A.; Lelicińska-Serafin, K.; Manczarski, P. Volatile Organic Compounds, Ammonia and Hydrogen Sulphide Removal Using a Two-Stage Membrane Biofiltration Process. Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 2021, 165, 69–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Rybarczyk, P.; Szulczyński, B.; Gębicki, J.; Hupka, J. Treatment of Malodorous Air in Biotrickling Filters: A Review. Biochem. Eng. J. 2019, 141, 146–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Wang, Y.; Cui, R.; Jiang, H.; Bai, M.; Lin, K.; Zhang, M.; Ren, L. Removal of Hydrogen Sulfide and Ammonia Using a Biotrickling Filter Packed with Modified Composite Filler. Processes 2022, 10, 2016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Hu, Q.; Wang, C.; Huang, K. Biofiltration Performance and Characteristics of High-Temperature Gaseous Benzene, Hexane and Toluene. Chem. Eng. J. 2015, 279, 689–695. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Wang, Y.-C.; Han, M.-F.; Jia, T.-P.; Hu, X.-R.; Zhu, H.-Q.; Tong, Z.; Lin, Y.-T.; Wang, C.; Liu, D.-Z.; Peng, Y.-Z.; et al. Emissions, Measurement, and Control of Odor in Livestock Farms: A Review. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 776, 145735. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Tung, T.N.; Chiemchaisri, W.; Chiemchaisri, C.; Sanguanpak, S. Removal of greenhouse gas in biofilter using organic and inorganic media. Vietnam. J. Sci. Technol. Eng. 2021, 63, 83–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Zhang, S.; You, J.; Kennes, C.; Cheng, Z.; Ye, J.; Chen, D.; Chen, J.; Wang, L. Current Advances of VOCs Degradation by Bioelectrochemical Systems: A Review. Chem. Eng. J. 2018, 334, 2625–2637. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Wang, Y.-C.; Lv, Y.-H.; Wang, C.; Jiang, G.-Y.; Han, M.-F.; Deng, J.-G.; Hsi, H.-C. Microbial Community Evolution and Functional Trade-Offs of Biofilm in Odor Treatment Biofilters. Water Res. 2023, 235, 119917. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Re, A.; Schiavon, M.; Torretta, V.; Polvara, E.; Invernizzi, M.; Sironi, S.; Caruson, P. Application of Different Packing Media for the Biofiltration of Gaseous Effluents from Waste Composting. Environ. Technol. 2022; ahead of print. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Sheoran, K.; Siwal, S.S.; Kapoor, D.; Singh, N.; Saini, A.K.; Alsanie, W.F.; Thakur, V.K. Air Pollutants Removal Using Biofiltration Technique: A Challenge at the Frontiers of Sustainable Environment. ACS Eng. Au 2022, 2, 378–396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Estrada, J.M.; Quijano, G.; Lebrero, R.; Muñoz, R. Step-Feed Biofiltration: A Low Cost Alternative Configuration for off-Gas Treatment. Water Res. 2013, 47, 4312–4321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Su, Q.; Dai, D.; Liao, Y.; Han, H.; Wu, J.; Ren, Z. Synthetic Microbial Consortia to Enhance the Biodegradation of Compost Odor by Biotrickling Filter. Bioresour. Technol. 2023, 387, 129698. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Lebrero, R.; Rangel, M.G.L.; Munoz, R. Characterization and biofiltration of a real odorous emission from wastewater treatment plant sludge. J. Environ. Manag. 2013, 116, 50–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Lelicińska-Serafin, K.; Rolewicz-Kalińska, A.; Manczarski, P. VOC Removal Performance of a Joint Process Coupling Biofiltration and Membrane-Filtration Treating Food Industry Waste Gas. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 3009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Muszyński, A.; Tabernacka, A.; Załęska-Radziwiłł, M. How to Reduce the Emission of Microorganisms from a Biofilter Used to Treat Waste Gas from a Food Industry Plant. Atmosphere 2021, 12, 673. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. PN-EN 13725:2022; Stationary Source Emissions—Determination of Odour Concentration by Dynamic Olfactometry and Odour Emission Rate. The Polish Committee for Standardization: Warsaw, Poland, 2022.
  39. Kulig, A.; Szyłak-Szydłowski, M.; Wiśniewska, M. Application of Field Olfactometry to Monitor the Odour Impact of a Municipal Sewage System. Energies 2022, 15, 4015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Kulig, A.; Szyłak-Szydłowski, M. Assessment of the Effects of Wastewater Treatment Plant Modernization by Means of the Field Olfactometry Method. Water 2019, 11, 2367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Szyłak-Szydłowski, M. Validation of Odor Concentration from Mechanical-Biological Treatment Piles Using Static Chamber and Wind Tunnel with Different Wind Speed Values. J. Air Waste Manag. Assoc. 2017, 67, 1046–1054. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Szyłak-Szydłowski, M. Odour Samples Degradation During Detention in Tedlar® Bags. Water Air Soil. Pollut. 2015, 226, 227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. ISO 13301:2002; General Guidance for Measuring Odour, Flavour and Taste Detection Thresholds by a Three-Alternative Forced-choice (3-AFC) Procedure. ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2002.
  44. Chen, L.; Hoff, S.; Hoff, S. Mitigating Odors from Agricultural Facilities: A Review of Literature Concerning Biofilters. Appl. Eng. Agric. 2009, 25, 751–766. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Janni, K.A.; Maier, W.J.; Kuehn, T.; Yang, C.-H.; Bridges, B.; Vesley, D.; Nellis, M.A. Evaluation of Biofiltration of Air—An Innovative Air Pollution Control Technology. ASHRAE Trans. 2001, 107, 198–214. [Google Scholar]
  46. DeBruyn, J.C.; Mann, D.D.; Zhang, Q. Comparison of the Odour Levels of Biofiltered Air and Ambient Farmyard Air. Can. Biosyst. Eng. 2001, 43, 6. [Google Scholar]
  47. Mann, D.D.; DeBruyn, J.C.; Zhang, Q. Design and Evaluation of an Open Biofilter for Treatment of Odour from Swine Barns during Sub-Zero Ambient Temperatures. Can. Biosyst. Eng. 2002, 44, 21–26. [Google Scholar]
  48. Lau, A.; Cheng, K. Removal of Odor Using Biofilter from Duck Confinement Buildings. J. Environ. Sci. Health Part A 2007, 42, 955–959. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Nicolai, R.; Janni, K. Determining Pressure Drop through Compost-Wood Chip Biofilter Media. In Proceedings of the 2001 ASAE Annual Meeting, Philadelphia, PA, USA, 4–7 August 2001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Liu, T.; Dong, H.; Zhu, Z.; Shang, B.; Yin, F.; Zhang, W.; Zhou, T. Effects of Biofilter Media Depth and Moisture Content on Removal of Gases from a Swine Barn. J. Air Waste Manag. Assoc. 2017, 67, 1288–1297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Sheridan, B.A.; Curran, T.P.; Dodd, V.A. Assessment of the Influence of Media Particle Size on the Biofiltration of Odorous Exhaust Ventilation Air from a Piggery Facility. Bioresour. Technol. 2002, 84, 129–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Chen, L.; Hoff, S.J.; Koziel, J.A.; Cai, L.; Zelle, B.; Sun, G. Performance Evaluation of a Wood-Chip Based Biofilter Using Solid-Phase Microextraction and Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectroscopy-Olfactometry. Bioresour. Technol. 2008, 99, 7767–7780. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Martinec, M.; Hartung, E.; Jungbluth, T.; Schneider, F.; Wieser, P.H. Reduction of gas, odor and dust emissions from swine operations with biofilters. In Proceedings of the 2001 ASAE Annual Meeting, Philadelphia, PA, USA, 4–7 August 2001; American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers: St. Joseph, MI, USA. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Chen, L.; Hoff, S. A Two-Stage Wood Chip-Based Biofilter System to Mitigate Odors from a Deep-Pit Swine Building. Appl. Eng. Agric. 2012, 28, 893–901. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Luo, J.; Van Oostrom, A. Biofilters for Controlling Animal Rendering Odour—A Pilot-Scale Study. Pure Appl. Chem. 1997, 69, 2403–2410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 16 01939 g001
Figure 1. Scheme of the biofiltration process: (a) One-stage process with M1 or M2 filling material; (b) Two-stage process with M1 or M2 filling material and membrane A or membrane B.
Figure 1. Scheme of the biofiltration process: (a) One-stage process with M1 or M2 filling material; (b) Two-stage process with M1 or M2 filling material and membrane A or membrane B.
Sustainability 16 01939 g001
Sustainability 16 01939 g002
Figure 2. Location of the measurement points in the biofilter area. White circles numbered 1–15—samples taken from above the membranes; grey circles numbered I–IV—samples taken under the membrane, directly from the bed; IN—a sample taken from inflow to the biofilter.
Figure 2. Location of the measurement points in the biofilter area. White circles numbered 1–15—samples taken from above the membranes; grey circles numbered I–IV—samples taken under the membrane, directly from the bed; IN—a sample taken from inflow to the biofilter.
Sustainability 16 01939 g002
Sustainability 16 01939 g003
Figure 3. Results of the odour concentration examinations in each variant—without membrane, with membrane A and with membrane B, and with two biofilter fillings M1 and M2.
Figure 3. Results of the odour concentration examinations in each variant—without membrane, with membrane A and with membrane B, and with two biofilter fillings M1 and M2.
Sustainability 16 01939 g003
Table 1. Parameters of biofilter bed materials [23,36,37].
Table 1. Parameters of biofilter bed materials [23,36,37].
ParameterStumpwood Chips and Pine BarkStumpwood Chips, Pine Bark, and Compost from Green Waste
M1M2
Total organic matter [% d.m.]86.0 (85.0–87.5)45.0 (40.6–47.8)
Total moisture content [%]63.4 (60.6–66.3)46.8 (42.7–50.5)
pH6.77 (6.75–6.79)7.44 (7.27–7.70)
Specific surface [m2/g]0.55 (0.37–0.67)1.67 (1.53–1.80)
Substitute diameter [mm]37.1 (34.8–39.6)8.7 (6.7–9.9)
Table 2. Parameters of membranes [37].
Table 2. Parameters of membranes [37].
ParameterMembrane AMembrane B
More Permeable, ThinnerLess Permeable, Thicker
Average area weight (g/m2)400 ± 1474 ± 3
Average air permeability (mm/s)17.83.9
Average water tightness (cm H2O)199>2000
Table 3. Results of the odour concentration examinations in each variant—air taken from above the membranes or directly from the biofilter area—are divided into individual test series.
Table 3. Results of the odour concentration examinations in each variant—air taken from above the membranes or directly from the biofilter area—are divided into individual test series.
FillingMembraneDateOdour Concentration (ou/m3)
MinimumMedianAverageMaximum
M1-5.01.82109130.8328
12.01.446665.494
26.01.41110.914
2.02.82109131.1219
M1A6.02.698.49
13.02.465.16
27.02.697.69
M1B9.03.676.77
23.03.35353535
27.03.91110.111
M2-17.04.131238238.5328
24.04.73126126.6219
15.05.131178177.9219
22.05.109124123.7131
M2A5.06.667578.394
15.06.219328303.1390
26.06.739495.2131
M2B3.07.8213188.5131
10.07.829484.494
24.07.82948694
Table 4. Summary of the results obtained.
Table 4. Summary of the results obtained.
Odour Concentration (ou/m3)
Min.MedianAverageMax.
Inflow1201330032486000
Variants:-
M1 without membrane48284.6328
M2 without membrane73164166.7328
M1A467.09
M1B61117.235
M2A6694158.8390
M2B828286.3131
Table 5. Removal efficiency of odorous compounds on biofilter beds (M1 and M2 fillings).
Table 5. Removal efficiency of odorous compounds on biofilter beds (M1 and M2 fillings).
Fillings
M1M2
Date12.0126.0102.0217.0424.0415.0522.05
Point No.Removal efficiency of odorous compounds in the filter bed (%)
198.799.691.292.797.694.596.7
298.099.795.692.797.392.796.7
398.399.796.794.597.394.596.0
498.399.691.292.796.994.596.0
597.599.695.695.696.495.696.0
698.399.695.689.195.694.596.0
798.399.796.792.796.994.596.7
898.599.695.692.795.695.696.0
997.899.895.692.794.594.596.0
1097.899.795.692.792.792.796.0
1197.899.795.692.795.692.796.7
1297.299.695.692.794.594.596.7
1397.599.993.489.194.594.596.0
1497.899.795.689.195.692.796.0
1598.599.791.289.195.692.796.0
Table 6. Removal efficiency of malodorous compounds on biofilter membranes (A and B).
Table 6. Removal efficiency of malodorous compounds on biofilter membranes (A and B).
Technological Variant
M1AM1BM2AM2B
Date6.0213.0227.0209.0323.0327.035.0615.0626.063.0710.0724.07
Point No.Removal efficiency of odorous compounds with biofilter membranes (%)
191.791.882.980.097.698.854.369.662.675.062.665.1
291.791.882.982.997.698.559.854.562.675.062.660.0
394.594.574.380.097.698.559.854.540.275.062.660.0
491.791.882.980.097.698.554.354.562.675.062.665.1
591.794.574.380.097.698.554.369.657.171.362.665.1
691.794.582.982.997.698.854.345.957.171.357.165.1
791.791.882.980.097.698.859.854.562.675.057.165.1
894.591.874.380.097.698.842.769.662.660.157.160.0
994.594.574.380.097.698.854.354.562.671.362.660.0
1091.794.582.980.097.698.854.354.540.275.062.665.1
1191.791.874.382.997.698.842.754.557.175.062.665.1
1291.791.874.382.997.698.542.769.657.175.062.665.1
1391.794.574.382.997.698.542.754.557.175.062.665.1
1491.791.874.380.097.698.554.354.540.271.362.665.1
1591.794.582.980.097.698.554.354.566.775.062.660.0
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Szyłak-Szydłowski, M.; Kulig, A. Deodorisation of Ventilated Air from a Fat-Processing Plant Using Different Types of Biofilter Fillings and Membranes. Sustainability 2024, 16, 1939. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16051939

AMA Style

Szyłak-Szydłowski M, Kulig A. Deodorisation of Ventilated Air from a Fat-Processing Plant Using Different Types of Biofilter Fillings and Membranes. Sustainability. 2024; 16(5):1939. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16051939

Chicago/Turabian Style

Szyłak-Szydłowski, Mirosław, and Andrzej Kulig. 2024. "Deodorisation of Ventilated Air from a Fat-Processing Plant Using Different Types of Biofilter Fillings and Membranes" Sustainability 16, no. 5: 1939. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16051939

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop