An experimental and modeling study on the removal of mono-chlorobenzene vapor in biotrickling filters

Abstract

Removal of mono‐chlorobenzene (m‐CB) vapor from airstreams was studied in a biotrickling filter (BTF) operating under counter‐current flow of the air and liquid streams. Experiments were performed under various values of inlet m‐CB concentration, air and/or liquid volumetric flow rates, and pH of the recirculating liquid. Conversion of m‐CB was never below 70% and at low concentrations exceeded 90%. A maximum removal rate of about 60 gm−3‐reactor h−1 was observed. Conversion of m‐CB was found to increase as the values of liquid and air flow rate increase and decrease, respectively. The effects of pH and frequency of medium replenishment on BTF performance were also investigated. The process was successfully described with a detailed mathematical model, which accounts for mass transfer and kinetic effects based on m‐CB and oxygen availability. Solution of the model equations yielded m‐CB and oxygen concentration profiles in all three phases (airstream, liquid, biofilm). It is predicted that oxygen has a controling effect on the process at high inlet m‐CB concentrations. From independent, suspended culture, experiments it was found that m‐CB biodegradation follows Andrews inhibitory kinetics. The kinetic constants were found to remain practically unchanged after the culture was used in BTF experiments for 8 months. © 1998 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Biotechnol Bioeng 59:328–343, 1998.

Modeling of a vapor-phase fungi bioreactor for the abatement of hexane: Fluid dynamics and kinetic aspects

“…Often the growth and substrate utilization kinetics inside the reactor are supposedly the same as those of the same microbial culture when it is developed in separate batch conditions (Mpanias and Baltzis, 1998), probably partly due to difficulties in obtaining experimental kinetics data. Actually, growth in a biofilm shows a disadvantage over microbial growth in suspension since mass transfer (especially diffusional) limitation occurs in biofilms.…”

Construction and Economics of a Pilot/Full-Scale Biological Trickling Filter Reactor for the Removal of Volatile Organic Compounds from Polluted Air

“…8 Biotrickling filters offer promise for the elimination of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and chlorinated VOCs, odors, and reduced sulfur compounds. [9][10][11][12][13] At this time, only a few full-scale biotrickling filters have been implemented for industrial usage. 14,15 The main drawbacks of biotrickling filters are their higher costs than biofilters and possible clogging of the reactor over time by growing biomass.…”

“…The reason is that in biotrickling filters, environmental conditions can be better controlled. 8,10,12,13 Because full-scale applications of biotrickling filters are still relatively rare, there is a lack of information on the true costs associated with the construction and operation of biotrickling filters at industrial scale. Recently, the comparative scale-up of two innovative reactor setups for biological waste air treatment was described.…”

Bioreactors for Waste Gas Treatment

“…Despite efforts to model biotrickling filter performance (e.g., Diks and Ottengraf, 1991a;Pcdersen and Arvin, 1995;Mpanias and Baltzis, 1998;Okkerse el al., 1999;Lobo el al., 1999), these have not yet proven to be very helpful for design. Therefore, it is stiH common practice to perform pilot plant studies before designing and constructing full-scale reactors.…”

“…and is usually recycled. Biotrickling filters are more complex than biofilters but are usually more effective, especially for the treatment of compounds difficult to degrade or compounds that generate acidic by-products, such as H2S (Oh and Bartha, 1997;Mpanias and Baltzis, 1998;Cox and Deshusses, 2000b). Biotrickling filters can also be built taller than biofilters, which reduces their footprint.…”