separations

Article
The Comparison of Biotreatment and Chemical Treatment for
Odor Control during Kitchen Waste Aerobic Composting
Wei Wei 1 , Ningjie Wang 2 , Zhaobin Zhang 3 and Xiaolei Zhang 2, *

1 Shenzhen Xiaping Environment Park, Shenzhen 518000, China

2 School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Harbin Institute of Technology, Shenzhen 518055, China
3 Shenzhen Ruiqing Environmental Protection Technology Co., Ltd., Shenzhen 518055, China
* Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +86-(755)-2603-2692; Fax: +86-(755)-2670-3651

Abstract: Odor ΨΩγemission has become mathvariant="normal" mathvariant="sans-serif-bold-italic"

an important issue in kitchen waste management. Ammonia and hydrogen sulfide are the two most
important odor sources as they contribute malodor and can cause health problems. As biotreatment
and chemical treatment are two majorly applied technologies for odor control, in this study, they
were used to remove ammonia and hydrogen sulfide and the performance of each process was
compared. It was found that chemical absorption could efficiently eliminate both ammonia and
hydrogenmathvariant="script" sulfide, and the removal efficiencies of ammonia and hydrogen sulfide
highly depended on the pH of the adsorbent, contacting time, and gas and solution ratio (G/S).
The ammonia-removal efficiency reached 100% within less than 2 s at G/S 600 and pH 0.1. The
complete removal of hydrogen sulfide was achieved within 2 s at G/S 4000 and pH 13. Biotrickling
filter showed better ability for hydrogen sulfide removal and the removal efficiency was 91.9%;
however, the ammonia removal was only 73.5%. It suggests that chemical adsorption is more efficient
compared to biotreatment for removing ammonia and hydrogen sulfide. In the combination of
the two processes, biotrickling filter followed by chemical adsorption, the final concentrations of
Citation: Wei, W.; Wang, N.; Zhang,
ammonia and hydrogen sulfide could meet the Level 1 standard of Emission Standards for Odor
Z.; Zhang, X. The Comparison of
Pollution (China). The study provides a potential approach for odor control during kitchen waste
Biotreatment and Chemical
Treatment for Odor Control during
aerobic composting.
Kitchen Waste Aerobic Composting.
Separations 2022, 9, 348. https:// Keywords: odor control; kitchen waste treatment; aerobic composting; chemical adsorption; biotreatment
doi.org/10.3390/separations9110348

Academic Editors: Bin Xu and

Yu Gong
1. Introduction
Received: 27 September 2022 Kitchen waste generation has grabbed great attention in the development of the
Accepted: 1 November 2022 catering industry. It is continuously generated in large quantity in China [1]. Currently,
Published: 4 November 2022 anaerobic digestion and aerobic composting are the two major processes for kitchen waste
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral management. Both of the technologies are efficient in volume reduction and generate
with regard to jurisdictional claims in value-added products. However, they both simultaneously have an odor problem [2,3].
published maps and institutional affil- The odor is caused due to the emission of many compounds, including ammonia, hydrogen
iations. sulfide, volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Among these, ammonia and hydrogen sulfide
are generated in a remarkable amount and classified as malodors [4,5]. Hence, the efficient
removal of ammonia and hydrogen sulfide is significantly important for odor control. The
traditional odor-removal technology includes physical methods, chemical methods and
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors. biological methods. The physical method is normally to cover the odor with a pleasant
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
odor or dilute the odor, which does not really solve the problem.
This article is an open access article
The chemical method mainly includes scrubbing, catalytic oxidation, UV oxidation and
distributed under the terms and
thermal plasma [5–9]. It is based on a chemical reaction to grab or break odor compounds.
conditions of the Creative Commons
It was reported that with 0.01% sulfuric acid as a scrubbing solution, ammonia removal
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
efficiency reached up to 97.92% [10]). When scrubbing is used to treat hydrogen sulfide,
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
alkaline solution is required. Photocatalytic oxidation has been given extensive attention

Separations 2022, 9, 348. https://doi.org/10.3390/separations9110348 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/separations

Separations 2022, 9, 348 2 of 11

as it demands low energy consumption and shows almost no secondary pollution. A

floatable photocatalyst LFO/MEP composite was employed to degrade ammonia and
a maximum ammonia degradation efficiency of 45.7% was obtained with nitrate and
nitrite as the final products [11]. Many other types of photocatalysts including polyaniline
(PANI) coupled CuBi2 O4 , TiO2 and UiO-66 (Ti) -Fe3 O4 -WO3 have been used for ammonia
degradation [12–14]. These were mainly used for ammonia but not for hydrogen sulfide.
Non-thermal plasma has been found to simultaneously remove ammonia and hydrogen
sulfide. In addition, it is a low-energy consumption technology. As reported, the removal
efficiency of ammonia and hydrogen sulfide with single plasma could reach 67.3% and
66.1%, respectively, and the removal was even better when plasma was coupled with
catalyst, as it was found that the required energy was lower and the reaction time was
shorter [5]. It can be seen that novel chemical methods are developed but scrubbing is still
the most suitable one for practical application.
The biological method is normally more economical than the physical and chemical
methods. Biological treatment mainly employs microorganisms to degrade odor com-
pounds [15]. It involves the transportation of gas phase to liquid phase, liquid phase to
biofilm surface, biofilm surface to cell before degradation. It suggests that the solubility
of the target gas compounds has a great impact on their removal. Both ammonia and
hydrogen sulfide can be easily solubilized at a suitable pH. Currently, the biotreatment
in odor control includes biofilters, biotrickling filters and a bioscrubber [16–18]. In fact,
biotreatment has achieved high efficiency for odor removal. Vitko et al. found that a biofil-
ter could achieve 99.8% hydrogen sulfide removal within 45 s [18]. Ren et al. has achieved
even better hydrogen sulfide removal by employing a biofilter with a special modification
on the microorganism community, which has up to 100% removal efficiency [19]. Biotreat-
ment has been found to be capable of simultaneously removing ammonia and hydrogen
sulfide. A pilot-scale achieved almost stable ammonia and hydrogen sulfide removal dur-
ing a 150-days operation, and removal efficiency was 100% and 91.96% for ammonia and
hydrogen sulfide, respectively. Another study also reported that the removal efficiencies
of ammonia and hydrogen sulfide were 97.9% and 100%, respectively, by employing two
down-flow wood bark-based biofilters [16,20]. It can be concluded that biotreatment is
potential technology for the removal of odor generated from kitchen waste management.
Among them all, the biotrickling filter is considered to have a good performance [21].
From the above discussion, it can be learnt that scrubbing and biotreatment are the
two technologies with the most potential for ammonia and hydrogen sulfide removal in
practice. So far, there have been no studies directly evaluating which method would be
more suitable for the removal of ammonia and hydrogen sulfide at the same influent gas
concentration level. In this study, chemical scrubbing and a biotricking filter were employed
to investigate their suitability for the removal of ammonia and hydrogen sulfide generated
during kitchen waste management. The treatment efficiency of the two processes was
studied. Optimization of the removal for ammonia and hydrogen sulfide was conducted.
The performance of the two processes was evaluated and compared. The study will provide
an important basis for process selection for odor control in kitchen waste management.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Ammonia and Hydrogen Sulfide
The ammonia and hydrogen sulfide used in this study were purchased from a company
in Shenzhen, China. The original gases have a purity of 99.99% and were filled in separated
steel cylinders, respectively. The synthesized odor gas was made by mixing the ammonia
gas or/and hydrogen sulfide gas, and air in a gas mixing column. The composition analysis
of the odor collected from two kitchen waste treatment sites located in Shenzhen showed
that the concentrations of ammonia and hydrogen sulfide were at the range of 0.13 to
1.64 mg/m3 and 0.06 to 2.79 mg/m3 , respectively. Hence, in this study, ammonia or/and
hydrogen sulfide in the synthesis odor gas were set at concentrations of 2 mg/m3 and
3 mg/m3 , respectively.
Separations 2022, 9, 348 3 of 11

2.2. Chemical Scrubbing for Ammonia and Hydrogen Sulfide Removal

The chemical scrubbing was performed in three columns: the water scrubbing column,
acid scrubbing column and base scrubbing column. The columns were made of plexiglass
with a diameter of 200 mm and working height of 800 mm. A sprinkler was placed on the
top in each column to spray water or chemical solutions, and the odor gas was injected from
the bottom of the column. The tap water was used in water scrubbing. Acid solution used
in acid scrubbing was made by diluting H2 SO4 and the pH was adjusted to 2~6 according
to the demand. The base solution (base scrubbing) was obtained by addition of NaOH to
tap water and pH was adjusted to 8~13.
The water or chemical solutions were atomized into micro-fog particles with a size
of 10~50 µm, and met with the odor gas in the column and then, adsorbed odor gas. The
synthesis odor gas passed through the water scrubbing column, acid scrubbing column
or/and base scrubbing column, and the retention time was adjusted by varying the injection
gas flow rate. The water and solutions were collected from the bottom and recycled back
for scrubbing. The gas to solution ratio was adjusted between 2000 and 6000. Samples were
collected from the end of the scrubbing (after the base scrubbing column), respectively.

2.3. Biotricking Filter for Ammonia and Hydrogen Sulfide Removal

The biotricking filter was made of plexiglass with a diameter of 100 mm and total
height of 1000 mm. The filter was packed with a 600 mm height of ceramsite (10~12 mm)
which was supported by a stainless steel sieve plate. Spray was set on the top for feeding
nutrients.
Wastewater sludge collected from a local wastewater treatment of Shenzhen, China,
was used as inoculum to the filter. The wastewater was firstly acclimatized by feeding
Na2 S2 O3 along with the nutrient solution at a rate of 5 L/h. The nutrient solution (per
liter) was composed of 0.04 g of urea, 0.05 g of NaH2 PO4 , 0.1 g of MgSO4 , 0.1 g of CaCl2 ,
0.01 g of FeSO4 . The aeration was provided for 7 h and then stopped for 2 h as a cycle.
The concentration of SO4 2− was monitored and the preparation was considered as having
succeeded when the concentration of SO4 2− was stable. Then, the odor gas was introduced
from the bottom of the filter. Ammonia and hydrogen sulfide were in contact with biofilm
for their removal.
In this study, the biotrickling filter was regenerated by stopping to introduce odor
gas, and switching to aerating air only. Solution containing nutrient and Na2 S2 O3 was
sprayed to the ceramsite and aeration was provided in the same pattern as described above.
Similar to the preparation, the regeneration was finished when the concentration of SO4 2−
was stable.

2.4. Analytical Methods

In this study, ammonia samples were collected with a collection rate of 1 L/min for
5 min. Then, Nessler’s Reagent was used to adsorb ammonia. The ammonia concentration
was determined by following Nessler’s Reagent Spectrophotometry method [22]. Ultra-
pure water was used as blank and the absorbance was determined at 420 nm. Hydrogen
sulfide was determined by methylene blue spectrophotometry [23]: similar to ammonia
sample collection, but the adsorption solution used was zinc acetate–sodium acetate solu-
tion. Ultrapure water was used as blank and the absorbance was determined at 665 nm.
The concentration of SO4 2− was determined with the standard sulfate-barium chromate
Spectrophotometer method (HJ/T 342-2007). The pH of the solution and samples was
determined by a pH meter.

3. Results
3.1. Chemical Scrubbing
3.1.1. Ammonia Removal by Acid Scrubbing
The ammonia removal by acid scrubbing was to introduce the odor gas obtained by
mixing ammonia gas with air into water scrubbing and acid scrubbing. The results are
 determined by a pH meter.

3. Results
3.1. Chemical Scrubbing

Separations 2022, 9, 348

3.1.1. Ammonia Removal by Acid Scrubbing 4 of 11
The ammonia removal by acid scrubbing was to introduce the odor gas obtained by
mixing ammonia gas with air into water scrubbing and acid scrubbing. The results are
shown in Figure 1. It can be seen that the ammonia was rapidly adsorbed by the scrubbing
shown in Figure 1. It can be seen that the ammonia was rapidly adsorbed by the scrubbing
when the acid spray was set at pH 3 with a gas to solution ratio (G/S) of 2000 (Figure 1a).
when the acid spray was set at pH 3 with a gas to solution ratio (G/S) of 2000 (Figure 1a).3
At a retention time of 10 s, the removal efficiency was 57% (from the initial 2 mg/m to
At a retention 3time of 10 s, the removal efficiency was 57% (from the initial 2 mg/m3 to
0.86 mg/m ), and with the retention time increased to 50 s, ammonia was not detected. The
0.86 mg/m3 ), and with the retention time increased to 50 s, ammonia was not detected.
results proved that the retention time has a great impact on the ammonia removal as the
The results proved that the retention time has a great impact on the ammonia removal as
retention time
the retention time is
is related
related to
to the
the contacting
contactingtime
timebetween
betweenthe
theammonia
ammoniaandandscrubbing solu-
scrubbing
tion.
solution.

(a)
1 100
pH=3, G/S =2000
0.9 90
0.8 80
Concentration (mg/m3)

Removal efficiency (%)

0.7 70
0.6 60
0.5 50
0.4 40
0.3 Concentration (mg/m3) 30
0.2 removal efficiency (%) 20
0.1 10
0 0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Time (s)

(b) 80-100 60-80 40-60 20-40 0-20

100
Removal efficiency (%)

80

60

40

20 50

0 30 Time (s)
0.1 0.5 1
2
3 10
4
5
pH

Figure 1. The ammonia removal by chemical scrubbing ((a): ammonia removal at pH 3; (b): the
ammonia removal at different pH and retention time).

As ammonia is an alkaline gas, the pH of the scrubbing solution would be significant

for ammonia removal. To further study the pH impact on the ammonia removal, the pH of
the scrubbing solution in the acid scrubbing column was adjusted to 0.1, 0.5, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.
The ammonia removal efficiency showed that the removal efficiency reached 100% within
a 10 s retention time at pH 0.1 and 0.5. The 100% ammonia removal was obtained within a
20 s retention time for the case of pH 1. With pH gradually increasing, the required time
for complete ammonia removal was increased. However, the ammonia removal was lower
than 80% when the retention time was even up to 60 s at pH 4 and 5, showing that pH
Separations 2022, 9, 348 5 of 11

has great influence on ammonia removal. To efficiently eliminate ammonia from odor gas,
scrubbing solution with lower pH should be employed. For instance, the pH should be at
least set at lower than 2 if the complete removal is demanded. According to the Emission
Standards for Odor Pollution (China), the ammonia emission concentration should be
lower than 1 mg/m3 if the required emission level is Level 1 for the treatment plant. In fact,
if the removal aim is to meet the Level 1 standard, utilization of scrubbing solution with
pH 3 to treat for 10 s would be enough as the concentration of ammonia was reduced to
0.86 mg/m3 .
In order to investigate the capacity of the acid scrubbing with pH 3, the ammonia con-
centration was elevated from 2 to 10 mg/m3 . It was found that the ammonia concentration
was reduced to 0.93 mg/m3 (meeting the Level 1 standard) when the retention time was
set at 40 s at pH 0.1, but the ammonia removal efficiency was only 25% (final concentration
7.5 mg/m3 ) even with retention time of 60 s when the acid scrubbing solution pH was 3. It
reveals that the acid scrubbing could eliminate ammonia from odor gas but pH is crucial.
A similar conclusion was reported by the other study [24].
In addition, the gas to solution ratio (G/S) is another important factor for ammonia
removal. The ammonia removal with G/S was set at 2000, 3000, 4000, 5000 and 6000 at
pH 3 and a retention time of 10 s. It was found that ammonia removal was increased with
the increase of G/S, and the complete removal was achieved at G/S 4000. It is due to
the fact that the solution for scrubbing gas was increased, which provides high chances
for gas and solution to have contact. As the retention time would directly influence the
column size, reducing the retention time would increase the treatment capacity by using
the same size reactor. By varying the retention time, pH and G/S, it was found that at
G/S 6000, complete removal was obtained within less than 2 s at pH 0.1. This suggests
that increasing the contact chance between ammonia and scrubbing solution is the key for
enhancing ammonia removal.

3.1.2. Hydrogen Sulfide Removal by Base Scrubbing

The hydrogen sulfide removal by base scrubbing was to inject the odor gas obtained
by mixing hydrogen sulfide gas with air into water scrubbing and base scrubbing. The hy-
drogen sulfide removal was achieved in base scrubbing as shown in Figure 2. The removal
of hydrogen sulfide is rather rapid. With the scrubbing solution pH at 12, the hydrogen
sulfide removal efficiency increased with the retention time increase (Figure 2a). When the
retention time was shorter than 20 s, the hydrogen sulfide concentration in the effluent was
higher than 0.03 mg/m3 which is the Level 1 standard of Emission Standards for Odor
Pollution (China). It suggests that the retention time should be controlled at least at 20 s to
meet the required emission standard. The hydrogen sulfide concentration was not detected
after 30 s retention time, which can be considered as the complete removal. It suggests that
the base scrubbing with pH 12 has great potential for hydrogen sulfide removal.
To verify the pH impact on the removal of hydrogen sulfide, the removal efficiency
of hydrogen sulfide at different pH and retention time has been studied. The results are
shown in Figure 2b. It can be seen that pH has great impact on the removal of hydrogen
sulfide. With the pH increasing, the required time for complete removal of hydrogen
sulfide was gradually reduced. At pH 8, the removal efficiency gradually increased to
90.5% with the retention time increasing. When the pH was set at 10, hydrogen sulfide was
completely removed within 30 s, and the complete removal was only used 5 s when the pH
was increased to 13. The study reveals that pH is significantly important as it determines
the treatment efficiency and capacity of the process.
 pletely removed within 30 s, and the complete removal was only used 5 s when the pH
was increased to 13. The study reveals that pH is significantly important as it determines
the treatment efficiency and capacity of the process.
Similarly as in ammonia removal, the G/S (2000, 3000, 4000, 5000 and 6000) was also
investigated in hydrogen sulfide removal. It was found that the complete removal of hy-
Separations 2022, 9, 348 6 of 11
drogen sulfide could be finished within 2 s at G/S 4000 and pH 13. It suggests that the
removal would be efficient when the proper pH and G/S were set.

(a)
0.2 100
pH=12
0.18 99
0.16 98

Concentration (mg/m3)

Removal efficiency (%)

0.14 97
0.12 96
0.1 95
Concentration (mg/m3)
0.08 94
removal efficiency (%)
0.06 93
0.04 92
0.02 91
0 90
2 5 10 20 30
Time (s)

(b) 80-100 60-80 40-60 20-40 0-20

100
Removal efficiency (%)

80

60

40
30
20 20
0 10
Time (s)
8 5
9
10
11 2
12
13
pH

Figure
Figure 2. 2. The
The hydrogensulfide
hydrogen sulfideremoval
removalby
bychemical
chemical scrubbing:
scrubbing: (a)
(a) hydrogen
hydrogensulfide
sulfideremoval
removalatatpH
12; (b) the hydrogen sulfide removal at different pH and retention time.
pH 12; (b) the hydrogen sulfide removal at different pH and retention time.

Similarly
3.1.3. as in
Ammonia ammonia
and Hydrogen removal,
Sulfidethe G/S (2000,
Removal 3000, 4000,
by Chemical 5000 and 6000) was
Scrubbing
also investigated
From the above study, it can be seen that the required retention times removal
in hydrogen sulfide removal. It was found that the complete of
for complete
hydrogen sulfide could be finished within 2 s at G/S 4000 and pH 13. It suggests that
removal of ammonia and hydrogen sulfide are different. According to the results obtained the
removal would be efficient when the proper pH and G/S were set.

3.1.3. Ammonia and Hydrogen Sulfide Removal by Chemical Scrubbing

From the above study, it can be seen that the required retention times for complete
removal of ammonia and hydrogen sulfide are different. According to the results obtained
in a single system, compromising the two scrubbing is important for efficient removal of
odor gas. At pH 13 and G/S 4000, 2 s retention time was enough for 100% H2 S removal,
and at pH 0.5 and G/S 6000, the 100% removal efficiency on ammonia was achieved in
2 s. In fact, the two gases normally exist in the odor gas simultaneously. To remove them,
acid and base scrubbing can be connected together. In this study, three columns, a water
washing column, acid scrubbing column and base scrubbing column, were employed and
Separations 2022, 9, 348 7 of 11

the odor gas containing ammonia (2 mg/m3 ) and hydrogen sulfide (3 mg/m3 ) passed
through the columns. The scrubbing solution pH was adjusted to 0.5 and 13 in the acid
scrubbing column and base scrubbing column, respectively. The G/S of 6000 and 4000
was provided in the acid scrubbing column and base scrubbing column, respectively. The
retention time was set at 2 s. The result shows that the ammonia and hydrogen sulfide were
not detected after the chemical scrubbing. It suggests that the chemical scrubbing could
completely eliminate the odor as long as the pH and retention time are set suitably. When
the aim is to meet the Level 1 standard of Emission Standards for Odor Pollution (China),
pH 3 and 12 would be enough for ammonia and hydrogen sulfide removal. It would thus
reduce the acid and base consumption and thus reduce the cost.
Chemical scrubbing could efficiently remove the odor gas but it also generated wastew-
ater. The wastewater was discharged when the pH cannot be increased to 7.5 by addition of
NaOH in the base scrubbing and reduced to 6.5 by addition of H2 SO4 in the base scrubbing.
According to the experiment, 1 mL of wastewater was generated with around 25 m3 of
the odor gas containing 3 mg/m3 of hydrogen sulfide, and the wastewater contained S2−
at a concentration of 68–74 g/L. In base scrubbing, 1 mL of wastewater was generated
after treating 85 m3 of the odor gas containing 2 mg/m3 of ammonia, and the wastewater
contained 160–185 g/L NH4 + .

3.2. Biotrickling Filter for Ammonia and Hydrogen Sulfide Removal

3.2.1. The Start-Up of the Biotrickling Filter
The wastewater sludge adapted with Na2 S2 O3 was inoculated to the filter and the
system was stood for 24 h to provide the sufficient contacting time for microorganisms
and fillings (ceramsite). Thereafter, the hydrogen sulfide was injected from the bottom
of the filter with a concentration of 3 mg/m3 and empty bed retention time of 10 s. The
nutrient solution was sprayed from the top with a 4 L/h rate and collected from the bottom
and recycled. It was found that the hydrogen sulfide concentration in the effluent was
continuously declined from day 1 to day 5, and then became stable afterwards. The final
concentration of hydrogen sulfide was 0.27 mg/m3 . It is considered that the start-up
succeeded.

3.2.2. The Ammonia and Hydrogen Sulfide Removal by Biotrickling Filter

The odor gas containing ammonia (2 mg/m3 ) and hydrogen sulfide (3 mg/m3 ) was
injected to the biotrickling filter with empty bed retention time of 10 s. The ammonia
removal was almost stable during the operation, which was around 63% (Figure 3). It
was found that hydrogen sulfide removal efficiency was reduced from 91% to 75.3% in
the presence of ammonia (Figure 3a). It would be due to the addition of ammonia having
impacted on the pH of the nutrient solution. According to the pH monitoring, it can be
seen that the pH gradually decreased from 5 to around 4.2 when hydrogen sulfide was
the solo odor gas injected to the biotrickling filter. With the addition of ammonia, the pH
slightly increased from 5 to 5.8 (Figure 3a). In biotrickling filter, pH at around 4 was
found to favor the removal of hydrogen sulfide as the pH was suitable for related bacteria
growth [25]. Thus, the elevation of pH with the addition of ammonia would be the reason
for the removal reduction of hydrogen sulfide. To reduce the ammonia impact, the nutrient
solution was adjusted to 4 and it was found that the impact was highly reduced and the
removal efficiency of H2 S was kept around 90%.
Separations 2022,
Separations 9, 9,
2022, x FOR
348 PEER REVIEW 8 of812
of 11

(a) 100 6
5.9
90
5.8

Removal efficiency (%)

5.7
80
5.6
70 5.5

pH
5.4
60
5.3
5.2
50
NH3 H2S pH 5.1
40 5
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Time (h)

(b)

100
Ammonia removal (%)

90
80
70
60 10
7
50
5
40 Empty
2 3 retention
3 time (s)
4 2
5
pH 6
90-100 80-90 70-80 60-70 50-60 40-50

(c)
Hydrogen sulfide removal (%)

100

90

80
70 10
60 7
5
50 Empty
2 3 retention
3 time (s)
4 2
5
pH 6
90-100 80-90 70-80 60-70 50-60
Figure 3. The ammonia and hydrogen sulfide removal by biotrickling filter: (a) ammonia and
Figure 3. The
hydrogen ammonia
sulfide andwith
removal hydrogen
empty sulfide removal
bed retention byofbiotrickling
time 10 s; (b) thefilter:
ammonia(a) ammonia and
removal at hy-
different
drogen sulfide removal with empty bed retention time of 10 s; (b) the ammonia removal at different
pH and empty bed retention time; (c) hydrogen sulfide removal at different pH and empty bed
retention time.
Separations 2022, 9, 348 9 of 11

The empty bed retention time impacts on the treatment capacity. The short empty bed
retention time could treat more odor gas than the long one for the same sized filter. The pH
of the nutrient solution has shown an impact on NH3 and H2 S; therefore, it is predicted
that the empty bed retention time can be reduced if proper pH is provided. To study the
pH effect, the pH was maintained at 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 by adjusting the nutrient solution pH
according to real-time detection with a pH meter. For ammonia removal, the lower pH has
shown a better performance (Figure 3b). This would be due to the fact that the ammonia
removal in the biotrickling filter is mainly due to the adsorption, as the retention time is too
short to accomplish nitrification and/or denitrification [26]. Ammonia is an alkaline gas
and low pH could promote ammonia removal. Similar results have been reported by others
as well [27,28]. At pH 2, 60% ammonia removal only took 2 s, but it required more than
10 s to achieve the similar removal at pH 5, and it would be longer at pH 6 (Figure 3b). In
the removal of H2 S, it can be seen that the pH at 3 and 4 could greatly reduce the retention
time to achieve similar removal efficiency compared to other pH (Figure 3c). More than
90% removal efficiency has been obtained within 3 s at pH 3 and 4, but it was still less
than 80% at pH 2, 5 and 6 even with the retention time of 10 s. It is predicted that pH is
important for the growth of the bacteria, which is responsible for H2 S removal, and suitable
pH could enhance their growth [29,30].
Overall, it can be seen that the biotrickling filter can effectively remove hydrogen
sulfide but not ammonia. To meet the Level 1 standard for ammonia, it would require more
retention time which would cause high capital cost. In addition, it does not match with
the removal of hydrogen sulfide. This suggests that it would waste resources and time
if the proposal is to simultaneously remove hydrogen sulfide and ammonia. Moreover,
for hydrogen sulfide, 90% removal efficiency would still have around 0.3 mg/m3 concen-
tration left in the gas stream, which still cannot meet the Level 1 standard of Emission
Standards for Odor Pollution (China).

3.3. The Combined System for Ammonia and Hydrogen Sulfide Removal
From the results of chemical scrubbing and the biotrickling filter, it can be seen that
chemical scrubbing can rapidly remove ammonia and hydrogen sulfide. At a suitable
pH, no ammonia and hydrogen sulfide were detected after scrubbing, which suggests
the complete removal of the two gases. Biotrickling filter showed better performance on
hydrogen sulfide removal than on ammonia. However, it still cannot meet the requirement
unless further increasing the empty bed retention time, which would thus induce the
increase of capital cost. In fact, the combination of biotrickling filter and chemical scrubbing
would be a preferred method for efficiently simultaneous removal of hydrogen sulfide and
ammonia. The biological method is less costly compared to chemical scrubbing. Firstly,
employing a biotrickling filter to remove most of the odor and then applying chemical
scrubbing to ensure the effluent meets the standard would be a cost-effective approach for
odor control, as it could highly reduce chemical consumption. Based on this consideration,
in this study, a biotrickling filter followed by acid scrubbing and base scrubbing has been
employed. The biotrickling filter firstly removed most of the odor gas, and then chemical
scrubbing was applied. It thus reduced the chemical utilization and hence, reduced the cost.
The nutrient solution pH was set at 4 and the empty bed retention time was set at 3 s
in the biotrickling filter, and the G/S was set at 6000 in acid scrubbing (pH 3) and 4000 in
base scrubbing (pH 13). The final concentration of ammonia was 0.23 mg/m3 (<1 mg/m3 )
and hydrogen sulfide (<0.03 mg/m3 ) was not detected. It reveals that the combination
treatment on the given condition could meet the Level 1 standard of Emission Standards
for Odor Pollution (China).
To further evaluate the ability of the combined process to adapt the fluctuation, the am-
monia and hydrogen sulfide concentration was doubled (4 mg/m3 and 6 mg/m3 ) and
tripled (6 mg/m3 and 9 mg/m3 ). It was found that the concentration of ammonia and
hydrogen sulfide could finally be reduced to below the required standard with the increase
of retention time (Figure 4). This reveals that the combination of biotrickling filter and
 To further evaluate the ability of the combined process to adapt the fluctuation,
ammonia and hydrogen sulfide concentration was doubled (4 mg/m3 and 6 mg/m3) a
tripled (6 mg/m3 and 9 mg/m3). It was found that the concentration of ammonia and
Separations 2022, 9, 348 drogen sulfide could finally be reduced to below the required standard10with
of 11the incre
of retention time (Figure 4). This reveals that the combination of biotrickling filter a
chemical scrubbing has great potential to deal with the concentration variation of amm
nia and has
chemical scrubbing hydrogen sulfide in
great potential to the
dealodor
withgas
thestream.
concentration variation of ammonia
and hydrogen sulfide in the odor gas stream.

4 1.2
NH3 2 mg/m3

H2S concentration (mg/m3)

3.5
NH3 concentration (mg/m3)
1
NH3 4 mg/m3
3
NH3 6 mg/m3 0.8
2.5
H2S 3 mg/m3
2 H2S 6 mg/m3 0.6

1.5 H2S 9 mg/m3

0.4
1
0.2
0.5

0 0
3 5 7 10 15
Retention time in the biotrickling filter (s)
Figure 4. The ammonia and hydrogen sulfide removal by combined process.
Figure 4. The ammonia and hydrogen sulfide removal by combined process.
4. Conclusions
The study reveals that chemical scrubbing is more efficient than biotrickling filter for
4. Conclusions
ammonia and hydrogen
The study sulfide
revealsremoval. Chemical
that chemical scrubbing
scrubbing is targeted
is more asthan
efficient acid biotrickling
solution filter
for ammonia (alkaline gas) and base solution for hydrogen sulfide (acidic gas).
ammonia and hydrogen sulfide removal. Chemical scrubbing is targeted as acid solut Chemical
scrubbing efficiency is highly
for ammonia dependent
(alkaline on the
gas) and baseretention
solutiontime, scrubbingsulfide
for hydrogen solution pH and
(acidic gas). Chem
gas-to-solution ratio. At pH 0.1, the retention time required was less than 10 s for complete
scrubbing efficiency is highly dependent on the retention time, scrubbing solution pH a
ammonia removal. In hydrogen
gas-to-solution ratio.sulfide
At pH removal, 100% removal
0.1, the retention efficiency
time required was was
lessobtained
than 10 satfor comp
pH 13 within 5 s. It reveals that the suitable pH is significantly important for a successful
ammonia removal. In hydrogen sulfide removal, 100% removal efficiency was obtain
process. Biotrickling filter efficiency is impacted by ammonia addition as it could cause the
at pH 13 within 5 s. It reveals that the suitable pH is significantly important for a success
pH variation of the biotrickling. It was found that the biotrickling filter is more suitable
process. Biotrickling filter efficiency is impacted by ammonia addition as it could ca
for hydrogen sulfide compared to ammonia. Compared to employing only one of the
the pH variation of the biotrickling. It was found that the biotrickling filter is more suita
processes (chemical scrubbing or biotrickling filter), the combination of biotrickling filter
for hydrogen sulfide compared to ammonia. Compared to employing only one of the p
and chemical scrubbing would be a better choice, as it could reduce the chemical addition
cesses (chemical scrubbing or biotrickling filter), the combination of biotrickling filter a
amount and reduce the biotrickling filter size.
chemical scrubbing would be a better choice, as it could reduce the chemical addit
amount and
Author Contributions: reduce
W.W.: the biotrickling
Conceptualization, filter size. draft preparation. N.W.: Method-
Writing—Original
ology, Data curation, Visualization, Investigation. Z.Z.: Methodology, Resource. X.Z.: Conceptualiza-
AuthorVisualization,
tion, Methodology, Contributions: W.W.: Conceptualization,
Writing—Reviewing Writing—Original
and Editing, Supervision. draft preparation.
All authors have N.W.: M
odology, Data curation, Visualization, Investigation.
read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. Z.Z.: Methodology, Resource. X.Z.: Concep
alization, Methodology, Visualization, Writing—Reviewing and Editing, Supervision. All auth
Funding: Thehave
research
readisand
supported
agreed tobythe
Shenzhen Municipal
published version Bureau of Urban Management and Law
of the manuscript.
Enforcement Science Research Project (No. 202210).
Funding: The research is supported by Shenzhen Municipal Bureau of Urban Management and L
Data Availability Statement:
Enforcement DataResearch
Science is contained within
Project the article.
(No.202210).
Conflicts of Interest: The authors
Data Availability declare that
Statement: Datathey have no competing
is contained within theinterest.
article.

References Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare that they have no competing interest.

1. Peng, L.; Ma, R.; Jiang, S.; Luo, W.; Li, Y.; Wang, G.; Xu, Z.; Wang, Y.; Qi, C.; Li, Y.; et al. Co-composting of kitchen waste with
agriculture and forestry residues and characteristics of compost with different particle size: An industrial scale case study. Waste
Manag. 2022, 149, 313–322. [CrossRef]
2. Jin, C.; Sun, S.; Yang, D.; Sheng, W.; Ma, Y.; He, W.; Li, G. Anaerobic digestion: An alternative resource treatment option for food
waste in China. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 779, 146397. [CrossRef]
3. Yuan, J.; Yang, Q.; Zhang, Z.; Li, G.; Luo, W.; Zhang, D. Use of additive and pretreatment to control odors in municipal kitchen
waste during aerobic composting. J. Environ. Sci. 2015, 37, 83–90. [CrossRef]
4. Qamaruz-Zaman, N.; Milke, M.W. VFA and ammonia from residential food waste as indicators of odor potential. Waste Manag.
2012, 32, 2426–2430. [CrossRef]
Separations 2022, 9, 348 11 of 11

5. Wei, X.; Tao, Z.; Xinrui, J.; Huan, X. Degradation of mixed typical odour gases via non-thermal plasma catalysis. J. Hazard. Mater.
2022, 440, 129751. [CrossRef]
6. Yao, X.; Shi, Y.; Wang, K.; Wang, C.; He, L.; Li, C.; Yao, Z. Highly efficient degradation of hydrogen sulfide, styrene, and m-xylene
in a bio-trickling filter. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 808, 152130. [CrossRef]
7. Yang, J.T.; Pan, H.; Chen, J.; Su, Q.F.; Wang, D.H.; Shi, Y. Two-stage system of non-thermal plasma and adsorption for decomposi-
tion of hydrogen sulfide. Zhejiang Daxue Xuebao (Gongxue Ban)/J. Zhejiang Univ. (Eng. Sci.) 2010, 44, 2411–2415. [CrossRef]
8. Lee, M.; Koziel, J.; Murphy, W.; Jenks, W.; Chen, B.; Li, P.; Banik, C. Evaluation of TiO2 Based Photocatalytic Treatment of Odor
and Gaseous Emissions from Swine Manure with UV-A and UV-C. Animals 2021, 11, 1289. [CrossRef]
9. Sun, X.; Li, C.; Yu, B.; Wang, J.; Wang, W. Removal of gaseous volatile organic compounds via vacuum ultraviolet photodegrada-
tion: Review and prospect. J. Environ. Sci. 2023, 125, 427–442. [CrossRef]
10. Jafari, M.J.; Matin, A.H.; Rahmati, A.; Azari, M.R.; Omidi, L.; Hosseini, S.S.; Panahi, D. Experimental optimization of a spray
tower for ammonia removal. Atmos. Pollut. Res. 2018, 9, 783–790. [CrossRef]
11. Khen, L.Y.; Mohtar, S.S.; Aziz, F.; Salleh, W.N.W.; Yusof, N.; Jaafar, J.; Ismail, A.F. Floatable photocatalyst LaFeO3 /modified
expanded perlite composite for photocatalytic ammonia degradation. J. Water Process Eng. 2021, 44, 102401. [CrossRef]
12. Ahmad, N.; Anae, J.; Khan, M.Z.; Sabir, S.; Campo, P.; Coulon, F. A novel CuBi2 O4 /polyaniline composite as an efficient
photocatalyst for ammonia degradation. Heliyon 2022, 8, e10210. [CrossRef]
13. Bahmani, M.; Dashtian, K.; Mowla, D.; Esmaeilzadeh, F.; Ghaedi, M. UiO-66(Ti)-Fe3 O4 -WO3 photocatalyst for efficient ammonia
degradation from wastewater into continuous flow-loop thin film slurry flat-plate photoreactor. J. Hazard. Mater. 2020, 393,
122360. [CrossRef]
14. Mohammadi, Z.; Sharifnia, S.; Shavisi, Y. Photocatalytic degradation of aqueous ammonia by using TiO2 ZnO/LECA hybrid
photocatalyst. Mater. Chem. Phys. 2016, 184, 110–117. [CrossRef]
15. Reyes, J.; Toledo, M.; Michán, C.; Siles, J.; Alhama, J.; Martín, M. Biofiltration of butyric acid: Monitoring odor abatement and
microbial communities. Environ. Res. 2020, 190, 110057. [CrossRef]
16. Kafle, G.K.; Chen, L.; Neibling, H.; He, B.B. Field evaluation of wood bark-based down-flow biofilters for mitigation of odor,
ammonia, and hydrogen sulfide emissions from confined swine nursery barns. J. Environ. Manag. 2015, 147, 164–174. [CrossRef]
17. Ying, S.; Kong, X.; Cai, Z.; Man, Z.; Xin, Y.; Liu, D. Interactions and microbial variations in a biotrickling filter treating low
concentrations of hydrogen sulfide and ammonia. Chemosphere 2020, 255, 126931. [CrossRef]
18. Vitko, T.G.; Cowden, S.; Suffet, I.H. Evaluation of bioscrubber and biofilter technologies treating wastewater foul air by a new
approach of using odor character, odor intensity, and chemical analyses. Water Res. 2022, 220, 118691. [CrossRef]
19. Ren, B.; Lyczko, N.; Zhao, Y.; Nzihou, A. Simultaneous hydrogen sulfide removal and wastewater purification in a novel alum
sludge-based odor-gas aerated biofilter. Chem. Eng. J. 2021, 419, 129558. [CrossRef]
20. Rabbani, K.; 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. [CrossRef]
21. Sakuma, T.; Hattori, T.; Deshusses, M.A. Comparison of different packing materials for the biofiltration of air toxics. J. Air Waste
Manag. Assoc. 2006, 56, 1567–1575. [CrossRef]
22. Zhang, Y.; Yin, S.; Li, H.; Liu, J.; Li, S.; Zhang, L. Treatment of ammonia-nitrogen wastewater by the ultrasonic strengthened break
point chlorination method. J. Water Process Eng. 2022, 45, 102501. [CrossRef]
23. Chen, L.; Li, W.; Zhao, Y.; Zhou, Y.; Zhang, S.; Meng, L. Isolation and application of a mixotrophic sulfide-oxidizing Cohnella
thermotolerans LYH-2 strain to sewage sludge composting for hydrogen sulfide odor control. Bioresour. Technol. 2022, 345, 126557.
[CrossRef]
24. Cao, T.; Zheng, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Wang, Y.; Cong, Q.; Wang, Y.; Dong, H. Pilot study on gaseous pollution removal efficiency of acid
scrubbing in a broiler house. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2022, 335, 108021. [CrossRef]
25. Jia, T.; Zhang, L.; Zhao, Q.; Peng, Y. The effect of biofilm growth on the sulfur oxidation pathway and the synergy of microorgan-
isms in desulfurization reactors under different pH conditions. J. Hazard. Mater. 2022, 432, 128638. [CrossRef]
26. Kawase, Y.; Hirata, A.; Kojima, T.; Ohmori, S.; Akutagawa, H.; Uehara, K.; Iwata, K.; Nakajima, T.; Yamamoto, K. Improvement
of biodegradation in compact co-current biotrickling filter by high recycle liquid flow rate: Performance and biodegradation
kinetics of ammonia removal. Process Biochem. 2014, 49, 1733–1740. [CrossRef]
27. Tsang, Y.F.; Wang, L.; Chua, H. Simultaneous hydrogen sulphide and ammonia removal in a biotrickling filter: Crossed inhibitory
effects among selected pollutants and microbial community change. Chem. Eng. J. 2015, 281, 389–396. [CrossRef]
28. Sakuma, T.; Jinsiriwanit, S.; Hattori, T.; Deshusses, M.A. Removal of ammonia from contaminated air in a biotrickling filter–
Denitrifying bioreactor combination system. Water Res. 2008, 42, 4507–4513. [CrossRef]
29. Zhang, B.; Wang, Y.; Huang, S.; Hu, H.; Yuan, H.; Wu, X.; Li, B.; Tang, X. Removal of H2 S in an extremely acidic-biotrickling
filter: Evaluation of removal performance and characterization of microbial communities. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 2022, 10, 108504.
[CrossRef]
30. Nhut, H.H.; Thanh, V.L.T.; Le, L.T. Removal of H2 S in biogas using biotrickling filter: Recent development. Process Saf. Environ.
Prot. 2020, 144, 297–309. [CrossRef]