Full-scale Odour Abatement Technologies in WWTPs: History
View Latest Version
Please note this is an old version of this entry, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Subjects: Green & Sustainable Science & Technology
Contributor:
Giuseppina Oliva

The release of air pollutants from the operation of wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) is often a cause of odor annoyance for the people living in the surrounding area. Odors have been indeed recently classified as atmospheric pollutants and are the main cause of complaints to local authorities. In this context, the implementation of effective treatment solutions is of key importance for urban water cycle management. An overview of these technologies is given by discussing their strengths and weaknesses. A sensitivity analysis is presented, by considering land requirements, operational parameters and efficiencies, based on data of full-scale applications. Biofilters and biotrickling filters represent the two most applied technologies for odor abatement at full-scale plants, due to lower costs and high removal efficiencies. Innovative and sustainable technologies are also presented and discussed, evaluating their potential for full-scale applicability.

  • Wastewater Treatment Plants
  • Odor treatment technology (OTT)
  • Photo-Bioreactor
  • Biological Treatment
  • Chemical-Physical Treatment

1. Odor Emissions Management in Wastewater Treatment Plants (WWTPs)

During the last decade, national and international authorities have increased their interest in resolving odor problems. In Europe, according to the Directive 2008/98/CE, “Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that waste management is carried out without endangering human health, without harming the environment and, in particular: (b) without causing a nuisance through noise or odors”.
There are two main approaches to odor emission control, the first one is to apply a different strategy without any treatment unit, and the second one is to apply an OTT for the specific treatment of emissions.
The main strategies for reducing or masking the odorous emissions from WWTPs are good process design, good operational practices [1], implementation of buffer zones [2] and spraying masking agents [3].
Different technologies are applied for the odor emission treatment, they can be divided into three main groups: physical, chemical, and biological technologies. For the treatment of the emissions from the different units of the WWTP, it is necessary to cover the odorous sources. OTTs are based on the collection and treatment of the odorous emissions generated in WWTPs, reducing or removing the concentration of odorants before being released to the atmosphere [4].
Chemical scrubbers and activated carbon filters are the most widespread pilot plant scale physical/chemical technologies used in WWTPs for odor treatment [5]. These odor abatement techniques are based on chemical oxidation [6] and solid-phase adsorption [7]. Biological OTTs such as biofilters, biotrickling filters, bioscrubbers and activated sludge diffusion, are based on the biological oxidation of chemical agents by microorganisms once they have been transferred from the gaseous emission to an aqueous phase [8][9]. Different methods can be used for odor measurement such as sensorial, analytical and senso-analytical techniques [10][11]. Sensorial approaches such as dynamic olfactometry, field inspection and recording from residents are based on how humans respond to emissions, while analytical methods, such as gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC/MS), identification of specific compounds, infrared and electrochemical sensors, etc., are based on a laboratory Senso-analytical methods are the most promising. They overcome the main drawbacks of using analytical instruments (e.g., expense and inability to quantify the odor of a gas mixture), in the field for the prediction of the odor released on-site [10]. Among senso-instrumental methods, instrumental odor monitoring systems (IOMSs), also known as “electronic noses” (e.Noses), represent the tool with the greatest potential for future development for the continuous monitoring of environmental odors, with a view to obtaining real-time information [12].
One of the main sensorial approaches used to measure odor concentration (OUE m−3) is dynamic olfactometry regulated by EN13725:2003 [13][14]. According to European standardization, 1 OUE m−3 is defined as the amount of odorant that, when evaporated into 1 m3 of gas air at standard conditions, causes a physiological response from a panel (detection threshold) equivalent to that of n-butanol (reference gas) evaporated into 1 m3 of neutral gas [15][16]. Meanwhile, under analytical methods, GC-MS has been widely used for the measurement of chemical concentration. This tool can only measure the mass concentration (ppm or mg m−3) of a single or multiple gaseous compounds that is/are responsible for odor, but not the odor concentration of the emission [17]. Nonetheless, the quantity of gas determined by GC-MS can correlate to acquire insights on the odor concentration [18].
During the last decades, IOMSs have been improved by hardware components and the selection of the array of the sensors [19][20]. A set of nonspecific sensors are used to characterize an odor by IOMS, where each sensor is responsive to a variety of odorous compounds, but reacts differently to each other [12][21]. It can provide a total response output from a simple or complex odor immediately [17]. In contrast, the measurements in conventional GC-MS required further interpretation of a statistical program to obtain the analysis [18][22]. Moreover, IOMS can be applied on-site while sensorial and analytical analysis of odor can mostly be carried out in the laboratory.
OTTs are installed, principally, where the odor emissions are higher in terms of flow rate and odorant loads. As reported in Figure 1, 52% of the OTTs analyzed were installed at the headworks of the plant (e.g., pumping station, screening systems, grit systems). Twenty-nine percent of the OTT installations investigated were located at the sludge treatment units, while only 19% of OTTs were implemented to treat odorous emissions at primary treatment. The results obtained from this analysis agree with the data shown in Figure 2, where the principal malodorous units in WWTPs were reported.
Water 13 03503 g002 550
Figure 1. Localization of OTTs in WWTPs.
Water 13 03503 g003 550
Figure 2. Odor abatement technologies: (a) biofilter, (b) bio-trickling filter, (c) bio-scrubber, (d) adsorption system and (e) chemical scrubber.

2. Full-Scale Odor treatment technology (OTT) in WWTPs

Only a few reviews [23][24] explored, collected and summarized chemical/physical and biological technologies for the treatment of odorous emission. Figure 2 reports the configuration of the main chemical/physical and biological technologies applied in WWTPs for the treatment of odorous compounds emissions.
Biologically based odor treatment technologies, such as biofilters, biotrickling filters, and bioscrubbers have gained more and more popularity due to their lower O&M cost, reduced energy and chemical consumption and the absence of expensive adsorbent materials. Biotechnologies also have a more environmentally friendly profile because pollutants are finally converted into innocuous compounds such as CO2, H2O and biomass at ambient pressure and temperature. Best Available Techniques (BAT) Reference Document for Common Waste water and Waste gas Treatment/Management Systems in the Chemical Sector (2016) reported an overview of end-of-pipe odor treatment techniques. This document reported the advantages of biofiltration, including (i) low shift of pollution to any other media, (ii) few chemical agents added, and (iii) low energy consumption. Moreover, it also suggested the combination of biofiltration and bioscrubbing since the bioscrubber may act as a humidifier and degrade a high portion of the odorous load.
In a biofilter system (Figure 2a), the odorants are forced through a packed bed (compost, peat, bark or a mixture of these) on which the microorganisms are attached as a biofilm. The pollutants are absorbed by the filter material and degraded by the biofilm.
In BTF (Figure 2b), the odorous gas is forced through a packed bed filled with a chemically inert carrier material that is colonized by microorganisms, similar to trickling filters in wastewater treatment. The liquid medium is recirculated over the packed bed and the pollutants are first taken up by the biofilm on the carrier material and then degraded by the microorganisms. The liquid medium can be recirculated continuously or discontinuously and in a co- or countercurrent to the gas stream. Flow directions will not affect the efficiency of the process.
In BS (Figure 2c), the pollutant is adsorbed in an aqueous phase in an absorption tower then converted by the active microorganisms into CO2, H2O and biomass in a separate activated sludge unit. The effluent is circulated over the absorption tower in a co- or countercurrent direction to the gas stream.
Physical/chemical technologies consist of two types of reactors, namely adsorption systems and chemical scrubbing. Adsorption systems (Figure 2d) generally consist of static beds of granular materials in vertical cylindrical columns. Among purification methods, adsorption is simple and easy to apply to real-scale wastewater treatment plants [25]. Several sorbents have been studied, including fly ash, carbon, activated carbon, polymers, carbon-coated polymers, ceramics, micro- and mesoporous materials, metal-organic frameworks, natural zeolites, and synthetic zeolites. Chemical scrubbers (Figure 2e) are among the most mature abatement techniques employed in WWTPs due to the extensive experience and high robustness as well as the short gas retention time (as low as 1–2.5 s). The most common configuration (Figure 2) is a vertical shell with gas flow going up through packing and the liquid solution (depending on the target compounds) going down. The liquid solution is usually circulated over the packing by pumping from a collection sump in the bottom of the tower, while chemicals are added either in the sump or in the recirculation piping.
To the best of our knowledge, the current work is the first review paper to analyze and compare more than 50 full-scale odor treatment technologies (chemical/physical and biological) applied in WWTPs. The main characteristics of full-scale OTTs found in the scientific literature are reported and critically analyzed for each treatment method.

2.1. Biofilter

Different studies [26][27][28][29] reported H2S and NH3 as the main pollutants removed by the biofilters (BFs). In the Subiaco Wastewater Treatment Plant (Western Australia, the waste gas flowrate of 65,000 m3 h−1, 75 ppm H2S and 5 ppm NH3), a biofilter installed after the acid scrubber to promote the formation of a biofilm for H2S removal, was then moved to the inlet of the scrubber to treat H2S and NH3 mixtures [29]. BFs were also used to treat odors from the sludge thickeners, effluent channel and influent splitter box at the Mill Creek WWTP of the Metropolitan Sewer District of Greater Cincinnati [30] and in Shandong, China with PU packing materials [31]. The REs, in terms of H2S and NH3 concentrations, to be higher than 90%. The removal yields thus reduced odor emissions to under detection limits. Compared to scrubber operations which entail using of acid/alkali as scrubbing media, BFs can provide less negative environmental impacts because water is added instead of chemicals and small amounts of leachate are produced. However, the capital and operating costs must require further investigation to consider this target. High concentrations of H2S were detected at pumping stations in the WWTP of the City of Birmingham (Alabama), at a WWTP of South Walton (Florida) and at Etaples-Le Touquet’s WWTP (Artois-Picardie Region, France) [32]. The H2S levels fluctuations ranged between 4–26 ppm. A total of six BF units were installed at the Birmingham WWTP (waste gas flowrate of 51,000 m−3 h−1), while BF with inorganic bed media was utilized in Le Touquet’s WWTP. REs higher than 99% were obtained by utilizing the biofilters. Owing to the significant waste gas volume to treat and considering that these sites were mostly located in sensitive areas, even a slight exceeding of the threshold limits due to accidental leaks may be annoying and, consequently, strict monitoring is required also using a dispersion model [33], and/or, multiple BF units in series can be installed to increase the treatment efficacy [34].
Some papers dealt with the use of different packing materials to enhance biofiltration in municipal WWTP including peat [35] (Charguia, Tunisia with inlet H2S concentrations ranging between 200–1300 mg m−3), seashells [36] (Lake Wildwood WWTP, California with 55,200 L h−1 of wastewater flowrate and air flowrate of 28,300 L min−1), polyurethane foam [31] (Shandong, China, H2S, NH3 and VOC inlet concentrations were 0.5–28.4, 0.9–34.3 and 0–0.9 mg m−3, respectively), advanced biofiltration with organic and inorganic phase in the medium [37] (Mallorca, Spain with air flow rate of 15,000 m3 h−1), packed waste straw and cortex [38] (refinery WWTP in Shanghai, China). Using the modified packing materials, biofiltration was demonstrated to be an optimum OTT by having 90–99% RE. The goal of the authors was to provide a nutrient-rich environment for the bacteria in the packing material, which may increase the efficiency of the process. However, the efficiencies were dependent on the different operating conditions since the packing materials are sensitive to shock loadings. In a real case scenario, the H2S inlet loads fluctuate, and sometimes, the loading rates overcome the microbial activity capacities. This scenario is challenging because the microbial population in the medium must be enough and must not be as a limiting factor [39]. Moreover, some articles assess removal yields in terms of odor concentrations measured with dynamic olfactometry in OUE m−3 [37][40]. In Harnaschpolder WWTP, a full-scale biofilter (headworks and the sludge handling units air flowrate: 60,000 m3 h−1 and activated sludge including aerobic and anaerobic tanks air flowrate: 70–100,000 m3 h−1) is applied [40], while in Middelfart’s municipal waste water treatment plant (Norway), a BF is implemented in order to treat 1500 m3 h−1 of odorous emissions from headworks and primary treatment areas [37]. Both BFs have performance higher than 96% RE. BFs were able to withstand an acidic environment without adding NaOH or NaOCl. Even though the filter must be periodically replaced and there are savings in chemical consumption, this phenomenon can bring to the production of high amount of acid leachate that might be difficult to dispose of.
Evaluating the studies, the type of packing material influenced the efficiency of biofilter, as well as other parameters such as pH and moisture content. Heterotopic bacteria are the dominant microorganisms. Moisture levels in the packing materials must be maintained only at the ideal point because, at low levels, the microbial activity might decrease, while at high levels, anaerobic zones can be present and decrease the amount of oxygen for biological activity, affecting OTT’s performances. The bed must be continuously aerated to avoid anaerobic conditions.

2.2. Biotrickling Filter

Kasperczyk et al. [19] tested a semi-industrial scale biotrickling filter in a WWTP in Poznań (Poland) for the treatment of odor in the exhaust air with 440 ppmv H2S and 240 ppmv VOCs at maximum. The authors used biocatalysts such as Pseudomonas fluorescens bacteria and bacterial strains Thiobacillus sp. to promote the formation of the BTF’s biofilm to metabolize the odorants. Yang et al. [41] studied biotrickling filters in a chemical fiber WWTP at both lab- and pilot-scale to degrade TVOCs. At the laboratory scale, the degradation seemed to be due to the combination of adsorption and biological reactions (i.e., 90% RE on the fourth day and a declined during the fifth to eighth day). However, in the pilot-scale WWTP, RE was affected by the EBRT, since REs decreased by more than 40% when the EBRT was reduced to 32 s. This condition might be due to the scale-up of the BTF. Furthermore, Wu et al. [42] achieved 95% of RE in a pilot-scale BTF in a Singapore WWTP, while Cox et al. [43] obtained 98% of RE for H2S and VOCs at the Hyperion WWTP in Los Angeles, (California). Chen et al. [44] achieved RE of 96% in BTF using activated carbon-loaded polyurethane packing materials to remove H2S in the upper layer and modified organism-suspended fillers in the lower layer, with EBRTs lower than 1 min.
The BTFs in the investigated studies [45][46][47][48] demonstrated high efficiencies (higher than 85% of RE). Guerrero and Bevilaqua [49] evaluated the performance of a BTF to treat H2S emissions from a UASB reactor. Only 50.9% of RE for H2S was obtained in the experiment, carried out on a real case scenario (brewery WWTP) with EBRT of 1.6 min and, thus, values were higher than in other studies. This condition in the scenario might be due to the type of microorganisms in the packing materials utilized. These were an autotrophic H2S-degrading culture obtained from the anaerobic sludge of the UASB reactor of the WWTP, sensitive to a temperature lower than 29 °C.
Biotrickling filters are capable of treating high inlet loads compared to other OTTs, but their efficacy is still strongly dependent on the type of packing material. In fact, the study of Lakey [50], reported that a BF in the WWTP of Perth (Australia) with an inlet air flowrate of 79,000 m−3 h−1 achieved a H2S RE of 99.5% and a VOCs RE of 95%. The replacement of chemical scrubbers with BTFs can be thus considered economically viable since the theoretical consumption of need chemicals for the absorption and oxidation of both H2S and VOCs [51].
Plastic fibers (i.e., polyurethane foams) are preferred in some studies to enhance the BTFs’ removal performances [31][52]. In terms of operation, the BTF requires relatively low power, since only the pumping phase requires energy and an aeration blower is not needed. Moreover, less sludge is produced than by suspended-growth systems. Despite the high manufacturing costs of this technology, their life span is longer than ordinary packing material. On the other hand, the clogging incidence is expected and the packing material’s porosity has to be periodically maintained by back-washing. The generated sludge needs further treatment and disposal and the final effluent must be treated in the WWTP [52].

2.3. Scrubber System

Baawain et al. [14] reported the application of a chemical wet scrubber (with two identical parallel-train cross-flow systems) as OTT in Al-Ansab WWTP (Oman), with wastewater flowrate of 2300 m−3 h−1, waste gas flowrate of 160,000 m3 h−1 and H2S inlet concentrations of 65–170 ppm. The removal efficiency ranged between 80 and 96%, but declined to 67% during the maintenance period. Meanwhile, some papers investigated the usage of oxidants in the scrubbing medium to enhance wet scrubbing efficiency. For example, Kerc and Olmez [53] analyzed different scrubbing compounds (i.e., water, ozonated water, caustic and ozone injected caustic) to remove H2S in Tuzla WWTP (Istanbul, Turkey) in which 99% RE was achieved using caustic scrubbing and ozonation, while Yang et al. [54] utilized peroxymonofulfate (PMS) as an oxidant for odor reduction (e.g., methyl mercaptan, CH3SH(G)) in a wet scrubbing process. Furthermore, in Orange County Sanitation District, California, Zhou et al. [18] used both chemicals and bioscrubbers in one plant (headworks and primary treatment) and another (headworks), respectively, while Biard et al. [55] investigated a conventional chemical scrubber to treat H2S using NaOH and NaOCl solution.
Zhou et al. [18] revealed that chemical scrubbers and biofilters performed best among other odor control technologies (OCTs), while Kerc and Olmez [53] offered ozonation as an effective scrubbing enhancement. However, the cost of installation and complexity of the operation must be taken into account. To accelerate the mass transfer of gas pollutant to a liquid solution, Yang et al. [54] showed that synthetic oxidants can be applied. The approach of Kerc and Olmez [53] and Yang et al. [54] offered a promising technique to enhance the efficiency of wet scrubbing, but the production of byproducts in the liquid solution has to be further investigated.
Wet treatment techniques such as scrubbers in odor control are mostly applied because the gaseous pollutant can be dissolved in liquid phase and temporarily stabilized for further treatment [12]. Chemical scrubbers have the ability to deal with a wide range of gas pollutants from sulfur to acidic gases and can tolerate fluctuating temperatures, which is ideal for operation in almost any environment. However, they require periodic maintenance and suffer from corrosion due to chemical attacks.

2.4. Combined OTT

Integrated OTTs designs are implemented to address situations in which different typologies of odor compounds or high inlet loads are present. These cases are usually detected in refineries where high odorant concentrations, mainly BTEX, are present and, thus, a combination of different OTTs is [56][57][58]. Rada et al. [59] utilized a bioscrubber, two biotrickling filters and a biofilter with an overall RE higher than 70% to remove benzene (C6H6), while Torretta et al. [60] implemented water scrubbing followed by biofilter (Italy) with an overall RE of almost 95% (benzene inlet concentration of 12.4 mg m−3, benzene outlet concentration of 1.02 mg m−3, toluene inlet concentration of 11.1 mg m−3, toluene outlet concentration of 0.25 mg m−3, ethylbenzene inlet concentration of in: 2.7 mg m−3, ethylbenzene outlet concentration of 0.32 mg m−3, xylene inlet concentration of 9.5 mg m−3, xylene outlet concentration of 0.26 mg m−3). Another study of Raboni et al. [56] implemented water scrubbing as pretreatment, followed by a biotrickling filter and a biofilter (inlet air flowrate of 600 m3 h−1, Refinery WWTP in Milan, Italy) with an overall RE of 96%, while Zhou et al. [18] used bioscrubbers and biotrickling filters at the headworks and primary treatment units respectively, with a RE of 50–70% in terms of odour removal.
Torretta et al. [60] and Raboni et al. [56] utilized water scrubbing without adding chemicals (i.e., NaOH or NaOCl) with low REs (lower than 50% of total BTEX removal) since BTEX have moderate solubility in water. However, this condition might lead to the fact that the leachate is less dangerous than using chemicals and the lifespan of the wet scrubber is higher due to fewer corrosion problems. Biological methods (i.e., biofilters) can be regarded as polishing techniques or can be installed in points where the odor threshold is low (i.e., headworks) [40]. Lafita et al. [40] converted chemical scrubbers with biofilters to biotrickling filters (air flowrate of 2000–3500 m3 h−1) with 95% RE in terms of H2S removal at Hoogheemraadschap van Delfland WWTP (Netherlands). Municipal WWTPs have lower loads of sulfide and VOCs compared to refineries. Consequently, Martinez et al. [61] and Jones et al. [48] utilized the combination of a biotrickling filter and a biofilter to treat H2S and VOCs (>91.00% RE of H2S and >74.00% for VOCs) in real urban WWTPs. The biological systems successfully removed low concentrations of VOCs in the presence of highly fluctuating H2S concentrations, but chemical scrubbing still needed pretreatment in heavy industries (i.e., refineries) that are characterized by high levels of odorous gases. Although chemical scrubbing is complex in terms of NaOH handling and material corrosion, biofilters’ efficiency may be affected by the pressure drops due to compaction, water retention and excessive microbial growth that may cause clogging.
Other conventional methods are still used by some research such as air stripping [62] and carbon adsorption (at bioscrubber outlet) [63][64]. Finke et al. [64] managed odor emissions by a bioscrubber followed by four activate carbon filters (air flowrate of 52,000 m3 h−1) in Merrimac WWTP (Gold Coast, Australia) with a 99.5% RE for VOCs, while a combination of absorption and a bioscrubber with 99% RE for H2S was achieved by Hansen and Rindel [65] in a WWTP in Copenhagen (Denmark) (inlet flowrate of 6000 m3 h−1). Behnami et al. [62] implemented a steam stripping technique which has been demonstrated as an effective solution for the pretreatment of the waste gas prior to biofiltration in a WWTP in East Azerbaijan (Iran) with a flowrate of 4800 m3 d−1. The method was able to achieve a higher removal of VOCs. Further research must be carried out for H2S loads fluctuation.

3. Photo-Bioreactor Based on Algae–Bacteria Synergism

Environmentally friendly technology for the abatement of all types of emissions coming from plants are necessary to achieve the 17 sustainable development goals (SDGs) of the United Nations [66]. Biotechnologies have gained popularity thanks to the improvements driven by scientists. They contribute to the development of more robust and cost-effective biotechnologies. Algae-based technologies use low-cost materials and are proven to be effective at laboratory scale as odor control processes in WWTPs [66]. The synergism between algae and bacteria biodegrades H2S and VOCs while CO2 biofixation occurs in open and closed photobioreactors has been studied and proved [9][4][67]. Biotechnologies used to treat odorous compounds released in the atmosphere [67]. Algal-bacteria photo-bioreactors could be an optimum choice due to the simultaneous treatment of odor compounds (e.g., VOC and H2S) contained in waste gas and the capture of CO2 [68].
The algal biomass generated could be used to produce valuable byproducts (e.g., biofuel, fertilizers, pharmaceuticals, biopolymers, etc.) [69][70]. Even though it has been studied at a laboratory scale and demonstrated good efficiency in terms of oxidation of odorant compounds (e.g., VOCs and H2S), a scaled-up analysis is needed for the evaluation of the robustness at full-scale application on a WWTPs with a real mixture of odorants.

This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/w13243503

References

  1. Kraakman, N.J.R.; Estrada, J.M.; Lebrero, R.; Cesca, J.; Muñoz, R. Evaluating odour control technologies using reliability and sustainability criteria - A case study for water treatment plants. Water Sci. Technol. 2014, 69, 1426–1433.
  2. Iftekhar, M.S.; Burton, M.; Zhang, F.; Kininmonth, I.; Fogarty, J. Understanding Social Preferences for Land Use in Wastewater Treatment Plant Buffer Zones. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2018, 178, 208–216.
  3. Rousseille, F.; Ventura, A. Masking agent efficiency on odor removal from WWTP sludge drying process. Water Pract. Technol. 2018, 1–10.
  4. Muñoz, R.; Meier, L.; Diaz, I.; Jeison, D. A review on the state-of-the-art of physical/chemical and biological technologies for biogas upgrading. Rev. Environ. Sci. Biotechnol. 2015, 14, 727–759.
  5. Alinezhad, E.; Haghighi, M.; Rahmani, F.; Keshizadeh, H.; Abdi, M.; Naddafi, K. Technical and economic investigation of chemical scrubber and bio-filtration in removal of H 2 S and NH 3 from wastewater treatment plant. J. Environ. Manage. 2019, 241, 32–43.
  6. Ksibi, M. Chemical oxidation with hydrogen peroxide for domestic wastewater treatment. Chem. Eng. J. 2006.
  7. Tadda, M.A.; Ahsan, A.; Shitu, A.; Elsergany, M.; Arunkumar, T.; Jose, B.; Razzaque, M.A.; Nik, N.N. A review on activated carbon: Process, application and prospects. J. Adv. Civ. Eng. Pract. Res. 2016, 2, 7–13.
  8. Talaiekhozani, A.; Bagheri, M.; Goli, A.; Talaei Khoozani, M.R. An overview of principles of odor production, emission, and control methods in wastewater collection and treatment systems. J. Environ. Manage. 2016, 170, 186–206.
  9. Oliva, G.; Ángeles, R.; Rodríguez, E.; Turiel, S.; Naddeo, V.; Zarra, T.; Belgiorno, V.; Muñoz, R.; Lebrero, R. Comparative evaluation of a biotrickling filter and a tubular photobioreactor for the continuous abatement of toluene. J. Hazard. Mater. 2019, 380, 120860.
  10. Oliva, G.; Zarra, T.; Pittoni, G.; Senatore, V.; Galang, M.G.; Castellani, M.; Belgiorno, V.; Naddeo, V. Next-generation of instrumental odour monitoring system (IOMS) for the gaseous emissions control in complex industrial plants. Chemosphere 2021, 271, 129768.
  11. Oliva, G.; Zarra, T.; Massimo, R.; Senatore, V.; Buonerba, A.; Belgiorno, V.; Naddeo, V. Optimization of classification prediction performances of an instrumental odour monitoring system by using temperature correction approach. Chemosensors 2021, 9, 147.
  12. Zarra, T.; Galang, M.G.; Ballesteros, F.; Belgiorno, V.; Naddeo, V. Environmental odour management by artificial neural network—A review. Environ. Int. 2019, 133, 105189.
  13. Zarra, T.; Naddeo, V.; Belgiorno, V. Characterization of odours emitted by liquid waste treatment plants (LWTPs). Glob. Nest J. 2016, 18, 721–727.
  14. Baawain, M.; Al-Mamun, A.; Omidvarborna, H.; Al-Sulaimi, I.N. Measurement, control, and modeling of H2S emissions from a sewage treatment plant. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2019, 16, 2721–2732.
  15. Belgiorno, V.; Naddeo, V.; Zarra, T. Odour Impact Assessment Handbook; John & Wiley Sons, Inc.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2012.
  16. Giuliani, S.; Zarra, T.; Naddeo, V.; Belgiorno, V. Measurement of odour emission capacity in wastewater treatment plants by multisensor array system. Environ. Eng. Manag. J. 2013, 12, 173–176.
  17. Zarra, T.; Reiser, M.; Naddeo, V.; Belgiorno, V.; Kranert, M. Odour emissions characterization from wastewater treatment plants by different measurement methods. Chem. Eng. Trans. 2014, 40, 37–42.
  18. Zhou, Y.; Hallis, S.A.; Vitko, T.; Suffet, I.H.M. Identification, quantification and treatment of fecal odors released into the air at two wastewater treatment plants. J. Environ. Manage. 2016, 180, 257–263.
  19. Kasperczyk, D.; Urbaniec, K.; Barbusinski, K.; Rene, E.R.; Colmenares-Quintero, R.F. Application of a compact trickle-bed bioreactor for the removal of odor and volatile organic compounds emitted from a wastewater treatment plant. J. Environ. Manage. 2019, 236, 413–419.
  20. Fisher, R.M.; Alvarez-Gaitan, J.P.; Stuetz, R.M. Review of the effects of wastewater biosolids stabilization processes on odor emissions. Crit. Rev. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2019, 49, 1515–1586.
  21. Naddeo, V.; Zarra, T.; Oliva, G.; Kubo, A.; Ukida, N.; Higuchi, T. Odour measurement in wastewater treatment plant by a new prototype of e.nose: Correlation and comparison study with reference to both European and Japanese approaches. Chem. Eng. Trans. 2016, 54, 85–90.
  22. Hayes, J.E.; Fisher, R.M.; Stevenson, R.J.; Mannebeck, C.; Stuetz, R.M. Unrepresented community odour impact: Improving engagement strategies. Sci. Total Environ. 2017, 609, 1650–1658.
  23. Lebrero, R.; Bouchy, L.; Stuetz, R.; Muǹoz, R. Odor Assessment and Management in Wastewater Treatment Plants: A Review. Crit. Rev. Environ. Sci. 2011, 41, 915–950.
  24. Ren, B.; Zhao, Y.; Lyczko, N.; Nzihou, A. Current Status and Outlook of Odor Removal Technologies in Wastewater Treatment Plant. Waste and Biomass Valorization 2019, 10, 1443–1458.
  25. Piechota, G. Multi-step biogas quality improving by adsorptive packed column system as application to biomethane upgrading. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 2021, 9, 105944.
  26. Cadee, K.; Wallis, I. Odour containment and ventilation at Perth’s major WWTPs. Water 2007, 34, 54–60.
  27. Gao, L.; Keener, T.C.; Zhuang, L.; Siddiqui, K.F. A technical and economic comparison of biofiltration and wet chemical oxidation (scrubbing) for odor control at wastewater treatment plants. Environ. Eng. Policy 2001, 2, 203–212.
  28. Zheng, T.; Li, L.; Chai, F.; Wang, Y. Factors impacting the performance and microbial populations of three biofilters for co-treatment of H2S and NH3 in a domestic waste landfill site. Process Saf. Environ. Prot. 2021, 149, 410–421.
  29. Rabbani, K.A.; Charles, W.; Kayaalp, A.; Cord-Ruwisch, R.; Ho, G. Pilot-scale biofilter for the simultaneous removal of hydrogen sulphide and ammonia at a wastewater treatment plant. Biochem. Eng. J. 2016, 107, 1–10.
  30. Zhuang, L.; Keener, T.C.; Siddiqui, K.F. Long-term evaluation of an industrial-scale biofilter for odor control at a large metropolitan wastewater treatment plant. Environ. Prog. 2001, 20, 212–218.
  31. Liu, J.; Yang, K.; Li, L.; Zhang, J. A full-scale integrated-bioreactor with two zones treating odours from sludge thickening tank and dewatering house: Performance and microbial characteristics. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng. 2017, 11, 6.
  32. Patria, L.; Cathelain, M.; Laurens, P.; Barbere, J.P. Odour removal with a trickling filter at a small WWTP strongly influenced by the tourism season. Water Sci. Technol. 2001, 44, 243–249.
  33. Donaldson, F.H.; Dilego, T.J.; Higgins, M.S.; Padewski, E.A.; Peluso, J.S. Assessing and managing PCCP water transmission mains—Baltimore County, Maryland—A case study. In Proceedings of the 2006 Pipeline Division Specialty Conference-Pipelines, Chicago, IL, USA, 2 August 2006.
  34. Abdel-Jabbar, N.; Ahmed, W.; Shareefdeen, Z. System identification and control of a biotrickling filter. Chem. Prod. Process Model. 2015, 10, 39–53.
  35. Omri, I.; Aouidi, F.; Bouallagui, H.; Godon, J.J.; Hamdi, M. Performance study of biofilter developed to treat H2S from wastewater odour. Saudi J. Biol. Sci. 2013, 20, 169–176.
  36. Abraham, S.; Joslyn, S.; Suffet, I.H. Treatment of odor by a seashell biofilter at a wastewater treatment plant. J. Air Waste Manag. Assoc. 2015, 65, 1217–1228.
  37. Almarcha, D.; Almarcha, M.; Nadal, S.; Poulssen, A. Assessment of odour and VOC depuration efficiency of advanced biofilters in rendering, sludge composting and waste water treatment plants. Chem. Eng. Trans. 2014, 40, 223–228.
  38. Xie, B.; Liang, S.B.; Tang, Y.; Mi, W.X.; Xu, Y. Petrochemical wastewater odor treatment by biofiltration. Bioresour. Technol. 2009, 100, 2204–2209.
  39. Oliva, G.; Zarra, T.; Naddeo, V.; Munoz, R.; Lebrero, R.; Ángeles, R.; Belgiorno, V. Comparative analysis of AOPs and biological processes for the control of VOCs industrial emissions. Chem. Eng. Trans. 2018, 68, 451–456.
  40. Lafita, C.; Penya-Roja, J.M.; Sempere, F.; Waalkens, A.; Gabaldón, C. Hydrogen sulfide and odor removal by field-scale biotrickling filters: Influence of seasonal variations of load and temperature. J. Environ. Sci. Heal. Part A Toxic/Hazardous Subst. Environ. Eng. 2012, 47, 970–978.
  41. Yang, Z.; Li, J.; Liu, J.; Cao, J.; Sheng, D.; Cai, T. Evaluation of a pilot-scale bio-trickling filter as a VOCs control technology for the chemical fibre wastewater treatment plant. J. Environ. Manage. 2019, 246, 71–76.
  42. Wu, L.; Loo, Y.Y.; Koe, L.C.C. A pilot study of a biotrickling filter for the treatment of odorous sewage air. Water Sci. Technol. 2001, 44, 295–299.
  43. Cox, H.H.J.; Deshusses, M.A.; Converse, B.; Schroeder, E.D.; Vosooghi, D.; Samar, P.; Iranpour, R. Odor and Voc Treatment By Biotrickling Filters: Pilot Scale Studies At the Hyperion Treatment Plant. Proc. Water Environ. Fed. 2012, 2001, 297–315.
  44. Chen, Y.; Wang, X.; He, S.; Zhu, S.; Shen, S. The performance of a two-layer biotrickling filter filled with new mixed packing materials for the removal of H2S from air. J. Environ. Manage. 2016, 165, 11–16.
  45. Yang, K.; Li, L.; Wang, Y.; Xue, S.; Han, Y.; Liu, J. Airborne bacteria in a wastewater treatment plant: Emission characterization, source analysis and health risk assessment. Water Res. 2019, 149, 596–606.
  46. US EPA. Toxicological Review of Hydrogen Sulfide (CAS No. 7783-06-4). Summ. Inf. Integr. Risk Inf. Syst. 2003, 74.
  47. Ghawi, A.H. Design of Biofilter Odor. J. Ecol. Eng. 2018, 19, 7–15.
  48. Jones, K.D.; Yadavalli, N.; Karre, A.K.; Paca, J. Microbial monitoring and performance evaluation for H 2S biological air emissions control at a wastewater lift station in South Texas, USA. J. Environ. Sci. Heal. Part A Toxic/Hazardous Subst. Environ. Eng. 2012, 47, 949–963.
  49. Guerrero, R.B.S.; Bevilaqua, D. Biotrickling Filtration of Biogas Produced from the Wastewater Treatment Plant of a Brewery. J. Environ. Eng. 2015, 141, 04015010.
  50. Lakey, M.; Manager Victoria, G.; Pitt, M.; Manager, G.; TeQ Limited, C.; Michael Pitt, V. Dual phase biotrickling filter treatment of H2S and VOC’s. Water Ind. Oper. Work. 2011, 31, 80–86.
  51. Santos, A.; Guimerà, X.; Dorado, A.D.; Gamisans, X.; Gabriel, D. Conversion of chemical scrubbers to biotrickling filters for VOCs and H2S treatment at low contact times. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2015, 99, 67–76.
  52. Lebrero, R.; Rodr, E.; De Juan, C.; Norden, G.; Rosenbom, K. Comparative Performance Evaluation of Commercial Packing Materials for Malodorants Abatement in Biofiltration. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 2966.
  53. Kerc, A.; Olmez, S.S. Ozonation of odorous air in wastewater treatment plants. Ozone Sci. Eng. 2010, 32, 199–203.
  54. Yang, S.; Li, Y.; Wang, L.; Feng, L. Use of peroxymonosulfate in wet scrubbing process for efficient odor control. Sep. Purif. Technol. 2016, 158, 80–86.
  55. Biard, P.-F.; Couvert, A.; Renner, C.; Zozor, P.; Bassivière, S.; Levasseur, J.-P. Hydrogen sulphide removal in waste water treatment plant by compact oxidative scrubbing in Aquilair PlusTM process. Water Pract. Technol. 2009, 4, 1–9.
  56. Raboni, M.; Torretta, V.; Viotti, P. Treatment of airborne BTEX by a two-stage biotrickling filter and biofilter, exploiting selected bacterial and fungal consortia. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2017, 14, 19–28.
  57. Baawain, M.; Al-Mamun, A.; Omidvarborna, H.; Al-Jabri, A. Assessment of hydrogen sulfide emission from a sewage treatment plant using AERMOD. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2017, 189, 263.
  58. Hansen, N.G.; Rindel, K. Bioscrubbing: An effective and economic solution to odour control at sewage-treatment plants. Water Environ. J. 2001, 15, 141–146.
  59. Rada, E.C.; Raboni, M.; Torretta, V.; Copeli, S.; Ragazzi, M.; Caruson, P.; Istrate, I.A. Removal of benzene from oil refinery wastewater treatment plant exchausted gases with a multi-stage biofiltration pilot plant. Rev. Chim. 2014, 65, 68–70.
  60. Torretta, V.; Collivignarelli, M.C.; Raboni, M.; Viotti, P. Experimental treatment of a refinery waste air stream, for BTEX removal, by water scrubbing and biotrickling on a bed of Mitilus edulis shells. Environ. Technol. (United Kingdom) 2015, 36, 2300–2307.
  61. Martinez, A.; Rathibandla, S.; Jones, K.; Cabezas, J. Biofiltration of wastewater lift station emissions: Evaluation of VOC removal in the presence of H2S. Clean Technol. Environ. Policy 2008, 10, 81–87.
  62. Behnami, A.; Zoroufchi Benis, K.; Shakerkhatibi, M.; Derafshi, S.; Chavoshbashi, M.M. A systematic approach for selecting an optimal strategy for controlling VOCs emissions in a petrochemical wastewater treatment plant. Stoch. Environ. Res. Risk Assess. 2019, 33, 13–29.
  63. Vitko, T.; Cowden, S.; Erdal, Z.; Witherspoon, J.; Suffet, I.H. Innovative odor mapping and management method sets the stage for targetted foul air treatment. In Proceedings of the WEFTEC 2016-89th Water Environment Federation Annual Technical Exhibition and Conference, Milwaukee, WI, USA, 21–24 March 2016; 2016.
  64. Finke, G.; Oliver, P.; Thomas, M.; Evanson, I. Environmentally sustainable odour control for the Merrimac WWTP upgrade. Chemeca 2008, 1996–2005.
  65. Hansen, N.G.; Rindel, K. Bioscrubbing, an effective and economic solution to odour control at wastewater treatment plants. Water Sci. Technol. 2000, 41, 155–164.
  66. Senatore, V.; Buonerba, A.; Zarra, T.; Oliva, G.; Belgiorno, V.; Boguniewicz-Zablocka, J.; Naddeo, V. Innovative Membrane Photobioreactor for Sustainable CO2 Capture and Utilization. Chemosphere 2021, 273, 129682.
  67. Rajamanickam, R.; Baskaran, D.; Kaliyamoorthi, K.; Baskaran, V.; Krishnan, J. Steady State, transient behavior and kinetic modeling of benzene removal in an aerobic biofilter. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 2020.
  68. Ángeles Torres, R.; Marín, D.; Rodero, M. Biogas treatment for H2S, CO2, and other contaminants removal. In From Biofiltration to Promising Options in Gaseous Fluxes Biotreatment; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2020; ISBN 9780128190647.
  69. Vermi, M.; Corpuz, A.; Borea, L.; Senatore, V.; Castrogiovanni, F.; Buonerba, A.; Oliva, G.; Ballesteros, F.; Zarra, T.; Belgiorno, V.; et al. Wastewater treatment and fouling control in an electro algae-activated sludge membrane bioreactor. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 786, 147475.
  70. Pahunang, R.R.; Buonerba, A.; Senatore, V.; Oliva, G.; Ouda, M.; Zarra, T.; Muñoz, R.; Puig, S.; Ballesteros, F.C.; Li, C.W.; et al. Advances in technological control of greenhouse gas emissions from wastewater in the context of circular economy. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 792, 148479.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
This entry is offline, you can click here to edit this entry!
Video Production Service
Feedback