International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology (2019) 16:2721–2732

https://doi.org/10.1007/s13762-018-1997-z

ORIGINAL PAPER

Measurement, control, and modeling of ­H2S emissions from a sewage

treatment plant
M. Baawain1 · A. Al‑Mamun1 · H. Omidvarborna1 · I. N. Al‑Sulaimi2

Received: 26 May 2017 / Revised: 24 October 2017 / Accepted: 15 September 2018 / Published online: 22 September 2018
© Islamic Azad University (IAU) 2018

Abstract
Hydrogen sulfide is reported as one of the most common odor-producing compounds from sewage treatment plants. The
literature review revealed that very little information is available on the emission of ­H2S from different units of sewage
treatment plants. Besides, the removal efficiency as well as dispersion studies of H ­ 2S should be explored more. Therefore,
the purposes of this study were to measure the emissions of H ­ 2S, evaluate the efficiency of odor control unit, and explore
the dispersion potential of ­H2S from a sewage treatment plant in Muscat, Sultanate of Oman. Site survey analysis revealed
four sources (tanker discharge area, grit/sand and fog removal channels, pre-aeration basin, and screen building) of H ­ 2S in
the plant premises. Additionally, measurement analysis showed that the efficiency of odor control unit, which treated the
emissions from all sources, except the tanker discharge facility, was 90.2%. The Gaussian plume dispersion modeling studies
demonstrated that the allowable concentration of dispersed H ­ 2S (1 ppm) was observed > 30 m from the identified sources.
Although the combined outlet of the odor control unit was greater than 1 ppm, the plant is complying with the current envi-
ronmental specifications at the boundaries (≤ 1 ppm) set by the environmental authorities. Hence, a set of recommendations
is suggested to improve the efficiency of the system to resolve the odor emission from the plant.

Keywords  Air pollution modeling · Gaussian plume dispersion · Hydrogen sulfides · Monitoring and assessment · Sewage
treatment plants

Introduction are headaches, eye irritation, and respiratory-related prob-

Various odorous compounds are emitted from industrial
sources, including organic/inorganic pollutants and par-
ticulates. Odorous compounds arise from many sources,
mainly in developing countries (Huang et al. 2016), such
as non-engineered landfills and improper-managed sewage
treatment plants (STPs) (Iranpour et al. 2005; Zarra et al.
2008). In such sites, trace amount of odorous compounds,
such as hydrogen sulfide (­H2S), causes unpleasant nui-
sances for plant operators and people in the neighborhood.
The major health effects related to odorous compounds
Editorial responsibility: M. Abbaspour.
* M. Baawain
msab@squ.edu.om
1
Department of Civil and Architectural Engineering, College
of Engineering, Sultan Qaboos University, P.O. Box 33,
Al‑Khodh, 123 Muscat, Oman
2
Al‑Ansab Sewage Treatment Plant, Haya Water,
P.O. Box 1047, Al Khuwair, 133 Muscat, Sultanate of Oman
lems. In addition, odor generates negative economic effects
in the society by reducing the property price and tourism
prospects due to aesthetic nuisance (Jehlickova et al. 2008;
Sucker et al. 2009; Zarra et al. 2012). That is the reason
why odor-related complaints from the communities close to
such sources have been constantly increasing and becoming
a significant source of environmental annoyance during the
last decades (Van Harreveld 2001, Karageorgos et al. 2010;
Latos et al. 2011).
H2S, a colorless and flammable gas with a characteristic
odor of rotten eggs, is the major reported compound close to
STPs, which can be detected at very low concentrations (Koe
1985; Riva and Elettronica 1992; Simms et al. 2000; Kong
et al. 2015). ­H2S has a low odor threshold limit (Table 1),
and its smell can be detected even below 1 ppm. The odor
detection threshold limit of H­ 2S (approximately 0.0004 ppm)
is the lowest among some other odorous substances as sum-
marized in Table 1 (Bhawan and Nagar 2008). ­H2S can be
toxic and even fatal, if both humans and animals are exposed
in greater than 2000 ppm within seconds or minutes (rapidly

13
Vol.:(0123456789)

2722 International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology (2019) 16:2721–2732

Table 1  Details of offensive odorous compounds emitted from industries (Capelli et al. 2009; Li et al. 2015)
Compound/odorant Formula Major health effects Odor detec-
tion threshold
(ppm)

Inorganic compounds
Ammonia NH3 Nose and throat irritation, bronchiolar and alveolar edema, and airway destruction 17.0
Chlorine Cl2 Eye/skin/airway irritation, sore throat, and cough 8.0E − 02
Hydrogen sulfide H2S Nausea, headaches, delirium, disturbed equilibrium, tremors, convulsions, skin and 4.7E − 04
eye irritation
Ozone O3 Asthma, chest pain, coughing, shortness of breath, and throat irritation 0.5
Sulfur dioxide SO2 Irritates the nose, throat, and airways to cause coughing, wheezing, shortness of 2.7
breath, or a tight feeling around the chest
Acids
Acetic acid CH3COOH The effects of acetic acid vapor include irritation and damage of the eyes, nose, throat, 1.0
and lungs
Butyric acid CH3(CH2)2COOH 1.2E − 01
Propionic acid (CH2)2COOH 2.8E − 02
Amines
Methylamine CH3NH2 Commonly irritates the nose and throat causing coughing and wheezing. 4.7
Dimethylamine (CH3)2NH 3.4E − 01
Trimethylamine (CH3)2N 4.0E − 04
Ethylamine C2H3NH2 2.7E − 01

absorbed through the lungs) (EPA 2003; Pavilonis et al.
2013).
H2S occurs naturally in crude petroleum and natural gas.
However, ­H2S is also produced by bacterial breakdown of
organic materials and human/animal wastes (e.g., sewage).
In STPs, sulfur exists as either organic sulfur from feces
or inorganic sulfur from the sulfate ion (SO−2
4 ). In typical
domestic sewage, microbial reduction of SO−24 is the domi-
nant mechanism of H ­ 2S formation (Bentzen et al. 1995).
Besides, ­H2S can be formed whenever sulfur-containing
compounds are exposed to organic materials at high tem-
peratures (Sulfide 1981). A prevailing mechanism of ­H2S
formation is shown in reaction 1.
Anaerobic microorganisms
(no dissolved oxygen)
SO−24
+ Organic matter ⟶ H2 S + CO2
(Re. 1)
Odors are considered as the main causes of nuisances
experienced by the exposed populations. Preventing the
release of odor from a source is the direct way of control-
ling human exposure to odor. The resultant exposure to a
specific odor can be mainly quantified by the integral effects
of emission sources, pathway of dispersion, and character-
istics of receptor. Thus, the reduction of human exposure
to an odor needs either eliminating any of these compo-
nents or separating the connection among them (Southwood
et al. 2010; Gujarat Maritime Board 2012). Absorption is a
treatment/elimination method in which one or more compo-
nents of odor are transferred from the gaseous phase to the
liquid solvent (Burgess et al. 2001). There are two types of
absorption system available in sewage treatment plants: the
chemical absorption system (e.g., wet/chemical scrubber)
and biological absorption system (e.g., bio-filters and bio-
trickling filters) (Lebrero et al. 2011). Some of the STPs in
crowded locations have utilized wet scrubbers for their off-
gas treatment and typically achieved 98% of odor removal
(Sanchez et al. 2006). Such methods have already diluted
the odor to the threshold units. The chemical wet scrubber
is one of the most common odor treatment technologies used
in the STPs. Typically, such scrubbers are highly effective
in treating H
­ 2S odor by using a chemical solution capable of
absorbing large amounts of the target gas (Davidson 2003;
Lebrero et al. 2011). Since most STP odors are sulfide based,
in scrubber towers, sodium hypochlorite and sodium hydrox-
ide (bleach and caustic soda, respectively) are commonly
used for odor removal (Lebrero et al. 2011). Moreover, due
to the importance of the task, the efficiency of the removal
process should be monitored regularly.
Air pollution models are regularly used to estimate envi-
ronmental impact assessments and environmental risk anal-
ysis. Such models cover a wide-ranging scale either from
local or global modeling requirements (Baawain et al. 2017).
Many of the available algorithms in the air quality mod-
els are based on simplified physical models of the various
dispersion processes in combination with some empirical
data (Macdonald 2003). Gaussian plume dispersion (GPD)
is one of the most important models that is extensively used
to estimate the concentration of air pollutants. GPD model

13
International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology (2019) 16:2721–2732 2723
is a mathematically driven model considering simultaneous
advection and diffusion of gaseous molecules/particles in
air media. The extreme advantage of GPD models is that
the models are extremely fast because a single formula is
used for every receptor point. However, their fast response
depends on the following simplifications (Brusca et  al.
2016): constant emission rates, negligible diffusion in the
downwind direction, homogeneous horizontal meteorologi-
cal conditions over the space modeled, no wind sheer in the
horizontal/vertical planes, non-reactive gases/aerosol, no
deposition/reaction with the surface from the plume, and
Gaussian distributions in the crosswind and vertical direc-
tion. This model has been widely implemented in study-
ing the dispersion of odors from different industrial sources
(Lehtinen et al. 2012; Llavador Colomer et al. 2012).
Most of the previous studies have been carried out to
identify the resultant effects of multiple odor-producing
compounds. However, instead of utilizing extensive odor
removal instruments, the current study enables to produce
knowledge on higher removal efficiency. In light of that, this
study aims to (1) investigate the potential sources and con-
centration levels of ­H2S emissions from an STP; (2) evaluate
the efficiency of the odor control unit or OCU (chemical wet
scrubber); (3) compare the actual receptor data with those
of the GPD model; and (4) identify the dispersion behav-
ior of the emitted H­ 2S using data acquisition receptor. The
samplings for this study were carried out during January 5
to March 25, 2014 in Al-Ansab STP, Sultanate of Oman.
Materials and methods
Site location and description
Al-Ansab STP, a new plant in 8 km southwest of the capital
district of Muscat, is currently owned and operated by Haya
Water Company, which was commissioned in 2010 with an
average treatment capacity of 55,000 m3/day (Baawain et al.
Fig. 1  Aerial picture of the STP
obtained from Google Maps
2014a). The plant receives and treats a proportion of tanker
sewage and pumped effluents from a central pump station
(CPS). The current flow from the tanker is 25,000 m3/day,
and that from the CPS (a residential area) is 30,000 m3/day
(Baawain et al. 2014b). The STP has an inlet facility (head-
work) comprising two covered pre-aeration lagoons, three
fine screens (3 mm) within open channels, but contained
within an inlet building and twin covered aerated grit and
sand removal lagoons that their emissions are sent to OCU to
be treated. For biological treatment, the flow passes through
four activated sludge lagoons and eight downstream sets of
membrane biological reactor units. Sludge treatment com-
prises aeration of surplus activated sludge with a covered
holding tank, followed by thickening with gravity belt thick-
eners. The OCU is designed as a chemical wet scrubber.
Figure 1 shows an aerial picture of the STP.
H2S sampling methodology
There are a number of odor sources within the STPs, which
together or independently result in significant emission of
odors. These sources and their corresponding sampling
points are shown in Fig. 2.
1. Tanker discharge area (open manholes, vents, and tanker
connections) as shown in Fig. 2a.
2. Covered pre-aeration basins (Fig. 2b). The air from the
basin is ducted into the OCU.
3. Screen building as presented in Fig. 2c.
4. Grit/sand and fog removal channels (Fig. 2d).
H2S was measured by using a portable multi-gas detector
(QRAE-II, RAE Systems, US) designed to provide real-time
exposure measurement of H ­ 2S emissions using an electro-
chemical sensor. The detection range of the instrument for
­H2S was 0–100 ppm. The instrument was calibrated with
the standard protocols provided by the manufacturer prior
to the tests. Each measurement was conducted three times a
13

2724 International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology (2019) 16:2721–2732

Fig. 2  Sources of ­H2S emissions: a tanker discharge area, b covered pre-aeration basins, c screen building, and d aerated grit/sand and fog
removal channels

day in order to check the repeatability of the instrument and

reliability of the ­H2S emission data.

Chemical wet scrubber

The OCU serves the headwork area of the STP and con-
sists of two identical parallel-trains cross-flow chemical wet
scrubbers. The OCU was designed to receive 165,450 m3/
hr wasted air volume. Al-Ansab STP has to comply with the
current ­H2S limits as designed (≤ 1 ppm at the plant bounda-
ries). In order to evaluate the performance of the OCU, ­H2S
emissions from the inlet and outlet points of the unit were
measured.

Fig. 3  Gaussian air pollution dispersion plume

Meteorological conditions

The meteorological conditions used in this study were Table 2  Dispersion coefficients based on Pasquill–Gifford classifica-
tions
based on the same period in 2013. The air temperature was
between 21.3 and 33.1 °C, and the mean temperature was Zref = 1.0 m 𝜎z = Dz X az 𝜎y = Dy X ay
28 °C. The atmospheric relative humidity varied from 47 Stability Dz az Dy ay
to 78% (the mean relative humidity was about 64%). The
Extremely unstable 0.61 0.83 0.58 0.88
wind direction was the mean direction of the year as 60°
weather condition
(mean wind speed, 6 m/s), which was northeast toward the
Moderately stable 0.31 0.58 0.09 0.88
expressway and residential areas. weather condition

Analytical dispersion model Emission dispersion from the tanker discharge

facility
Dispersion of air pollutants in the ambient atmosphere is
simulated by atmospheric dispersion models, which are For the tanker discharge facility, the concentration of ­H2S in
used to estimate/predict the downwind concentration of this premise was estimated as emission rate. The dispersion
air pollutants from pollutant sources as illustrated in Fig. 3 coefficients were calculated based on Pasquill–Gifford stabil-
(Sriram et al. 2006). The dispersion model has various forms ity classification as a function of distance from the source as
depending on the types, source, emission rate, stack height, demonstrated in Table 2. The ­H2S concentrations for the two
assumption, etc. In this study, the GPD model was imple- weather conditions were calculated by the following GPD
mented to estimate the downwind concentrations of ­H2S equation (assuming y = 0 and z = 1.0 m):
from the major sources. One source was the emissions from [ ( )]
the tanker discharge area (untreated H­ 2S), and the second Q − 12 y2 2
+ z2
source was the OCU outlet. The dispersion of ­H2S emissions C(x, y, z) = e 𝜎y2 𝜎z
(1)
2𝜋uc 𝜎y 𝜎z
was analyzed under two different weather conditions, mod-
erately stable and extremely unstable weather conditions.

13
International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology (2019) 16:2721–2732 2725

where x is distance in wind direction, y is lateral distance,

and z is vertical distance; C = H2S concentration at the
atmosphere at specific distance x (μg/m3), Q = source emis-
sion rate (Kg/s), σ = Pasquill–Gifford values in y and z direc-
tions (Macdonald 2003), and uc = corrected horizontal wind
speed (m/s) calculated by:
( )p
uc z
= (2)
uref zref

z = Roughness height; zref denotes a reference value (for cit-

ies = 1.0), uref = horizontal wind speed at zref, and p = cor-
rected wind speed profile for each stability class. The p value
increases with increasing surface roughness.

Emission dispersion from the chemical wet scrubber

outlet Fig. 4  Effective stack height in the plume

Similarly, ­H2S concentration at the OCU outlet was also

estimated as the emission rate under the two weather con- Step 2 Compute the stable crossover point (ΔTstable) by:
ditions. The dispersion coefficients were calculated based
on Pasquill–Gifford stability classifications (Table 2). The  � √�
following form of the GPD model was used to estimate the ΔTstable = 0.019582 Ts vs s (5)
dispersion of H
­ 2S from the source, where height of the stack
is included.
where T s  = stack exhaust temperature (K),
[ ( )]
− 12 y2
+ (z−h)
2 ѵs = stack exhaust velocity (m/s), and s = stability
Q
C(x, y, z;h) = e 𝜎y2 𝜎z2
(3) parameter ­(s−2)
2𝜋uc 𝜎y 𝜎z
Step 3 Determine the dominated plume, if:
where C (μg/m3), Q (Kg/s), uc (m/s), and P were calculated ( ) then
Ts − Ta > ΔTstable ⇒ buoyancy-dominated
the same way as Eq. 1; h = the effective stack height, which
plume
is the summation of the stack height and plume rise as illus-
trated in Fig. 4. ( ) then
 Ts − Ta < ΔTstable ⇒ momentum-dominated
plume
Under moderately stable weather condition Step 4 Calculate the dominated plume flux (where ds is the
stack diameter):
The estimation of ­H2S emissions from the OCU outlet
should be determined, whether the plume is buoyancy domi- 
nated or momentum dominated. This was achieved by the ( ) ( )2
T − Ta d
following procedure: Fb = g s vs s (6)
Ts 2

Step 1 Calculate the stability parameter (S) by Eq. 4 as

follows: 
( )( )2
2 Ta ds
Fm = vs (7)
Ts 2
 ( )
dT∕dz
S=g (4)
Ta
where Fb and Fm are buoyancy and momentum
where g = acceleration due to gravity (9.81 m/s2), Ta = ambi- flux, respectively.
ent air temperature (K), dT/dz = potential temperature gradi- Step 5 Calculate the effective stack height:
ent at stack top (K/m) = 0.05 for moderately stable weather
condition. For buoyancy-dominated plume:

13

2726 International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology (2019) 16:2721–2732

( ) then
 Ts − Ta < ΔTunstable ⇒ momentum-dominated

( )1∕ plume
Fb 3
h� = 2.6 (8) Step 4 Calculate the effective stack height:
Uc s
For buoyancy-dominated plume

For momentum-dominated plume: 

⎛ 3∕4 ⎞
 ⎜F ⎟
h = 21.425⎜ b ⎟ Fb < 55
�
(13)
� �1∕ ⎜ Uc ⎟
3
Fm (9) ⎝ ⎠
h� = 1.5 √
Uc s

Step 6 Include the effective height in the stack height in 

⎛ 3∕5 ⎞
GPD equation ⎜F ⎟
h� = 38.71⎜ b ⎟ Fb ≥ 55 (14)
⎜ Uc ⎟
⎝ ⎠

 �
h = hs + h (10)
For momentum-dominated plume

Under extremely unstable weather condition  ( )

vs
(15)
�
h = 3ds
For the unstable plume condition, the following modeling Uc
procedure was applied.
Step 5 Include the effective height of the stack height in
the GPD equation:
Step 1 Calculate the stability parameter (S) by Eq. 4:

where dT/dz is equal to 0.01 (K/m) for extremely


unstable weather condition. h = h s + h� (16)
Step 2 Compute the unstable crossover point (ΔT
unstable):
Results and discussion
Calculate buoyancy flux for buoyancy-dominated
Emissions of ­H2S from the sources
plume, if
As shown in Fig. 5, site survey results during January to March

( )1∕ 2014 revealed the sources with the highest impact on odor
vs 3
ΔTunstable = 0.0297Ts Fb < 55 (11) emissions. From the site survey, ­H2S emission from the tanker
ds2 discharge facility was detected to be very high (100 ppm)
compared to other sources. The root causes of odor were the
development of septicity and the intrinsic nature of the tanker
 raw sewage. Thus, because of the sewage nature, the tanker
( )1∕ discharge facility emitted the highest level of H­ 2S among the
v2s 3
ΔTunstable = 0.00575Ts Fb ≥ 55 (12) other sources in the STP premises. Site survey showed that
ds the tanker connections involved during the discharge process
release high amounts of ­H2S to the ambient. The aerated grit/
Step 3 Determine the dominated plume, if: sand and fog removal channels, screen building, and pre-aera-
tion basin were placed as the other sources of H ­ 2S emissions.
( ) then
Ts − Ta > ΔTunstable ⇒ buoyancy-dominated The minimum and maximum values of H ­ 2S emissions from
plume the aerated grit/sand and fog removal channels were 29 ppm
and 68 ppm, respectively. Open weir results in such variations

13
International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology (2019) 16:2721–2732 2727

(a) Tanker discharge area Aerated grit/sand and fog removal channels Ambient T [⁰C]
100 40

35

80

30

25
Concentraon [ppm]

60

Temperature [ºC]
20

40
15

10

20

0 0
1-07

1-12

1-14

1-19

1-21

1-26

1-28

2-02

2-04

2-09

2-11

2-16

2-18

2-23

2-25

3-02

3-04

3-09

3-11

3-16

3-18

3-23

3-25
1-05

Date (2014)

(b)
2.5
Pre-aeration basin Screen building

2.0
Concentration [ppm]

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0
1-12

3-11
1-05

1-07

1-14

1-19

1-21

1-26

1-28

2-02

2-04

2-09

2-11

2-16

2-18

2-23

2-25

3-02

3-04

3-09

3-16

3-18

3-23

3-25

Date (2014)

­ 2S emissions from different sources: a tanker discharge area, combined outlet of chemical wet scrubber and aerated
Fig. 5  Concentrations of H
grit/sand and fog removal channel in addition to ambient temperature, b pre-aeration and screen building

in ­H2S emissions from the channels. The open weir prevents flow, which increases the emission of H ­ 2S to the atmosphere.
the skimmed fats, oil, and grease from mixing with the sew- Additionally, the air bubbles during the aeration process might
age flow. The open weir creates turbulence in the sewage intensify emissions of H­ 2S through the opening weir. Besides,

13

2728 International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology (2019) 16:2721–2732

changes in the ambient temperature during the study period the unit ranged between 65 and 170 ppm, while the maxi-
might lead to higher emissions of ­H2S from the sources. mum value as outlet was less than 40 ppm. Thus, the H ­ 2S
The measured H ­ 2S emissions in the pre-aeration basin removal efficiencies by using chemical wet scrubbers were
were less than 1 ppm as shown in Fig. 5b. This narrow range between 80 and 96% as plotted in Fig. 6. The average effi-
was attributed to the installation of a cover over the basin, ciency of the unit with some exceptions was 90.2%, while
which prevented the emissions to the atmosphere. Due to the efficiency during maintenance period was reduced to
the atmospheric changes during the sampling period, the 67%. The average removal efficiency achieved by chemi-
­H2S emissions from the screen building showed some fluc- cal wet scrubber in this study was significantly lower than
tuations. This was due to the fact that the screen building the value reported by Sanchez et al. (2006) using the same
was partially open and some portion of the emissions were device (~ 98%). The orientation of the chemical wet scrubber
released to the atmosphere. Besides, temperature changes used in this study is the reason for this difference. Because
and some possible leakages from the air ducting system may of the deterioration in liquor quality across the flow of air,
also lead to such variations. For example, increasing H ­ 2S the cross-flow orientation of gas inside the scrubber was
emissions during the last month of the study confirmed the inherently less efficient than the countercurrent orientation.
impact of atmospheric temperature on ­H2S emissions. The
­H2S emissions from the screen building ranged from 0.4 to Dispersion of ­H2S from the tanker discharge facility
2.3 ppm, which showed one order of magnitude higher than
that of the pre-aeration basin. The dispersions of ­H2S from the tanker discharge facility
were analyzed using the GPD model under two different
Removal efficiency of ­H2S using chemical wet weather conditions. The estimated results were also vali-
scrubber dated with the experimental data as shown in Fig. 7. The
measured ­H2S concentration after 2 m from the tanker dis-
The combined inlet and outlet concentration of ­H2S from the charge facility was as high as 100 ppm, which was consid-
OCU is shown in Fig. 6. The concentrations of ­H2S input to ered as the emission rate under the two weather conditions.

Combined inlet Combined outlet Removal efficiency

180 100

160 90

80
140

70
120
Concentration [ppm]

60 Efficiency [%]
100

50

80
40

60
30

40
20

20 10

0 0
2-16
1-05

1-07

1-12

1-14

1-19

1-21

1-26

1-28

2-02

2-04

2-09

2-11

2-18

2-23

2-25

3-02

3-04

3-09

3-11

3-16

3-18

3-23

3-25

Date (2014)

Fig. 6  Combined emissions of H
­ 2S from the inlet and outlet of the OCU in addition to its efficiency of removal

13
International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology (2019) 16:2721–2732 2729

The high emission rate from this source was due to the
release of H
­ 2S under septic condition. The dispersion results
showed that the concentration of H ­ 2S was reduced sharply
with the increase of distance from the tanker discharge facil-
ity under different weather conditions.
The GPD model showed that there is not a significant
deviation between model predictions under different weather
conditions, when the distance is greater than 30 m. However,
predicted values very close to the source (< 30 m) under
moderately stable weather conditions showed higher val-
ues than those of moderately unstable weather conditions.
The high rate of decreasing H ­ 2S concentration under unsta-
ble weather condition was due to higher turbulence under
this condition. Table  3 shows the comparisons between
the main disparities of the dispersion studies under two
weather conditions. Despite the identical source concentra-
tions, the emission rate in the unstable weather condition
(0.003 kg/s) was higher than that of stable weather condition
(0.0001 kg/s). This was attributed to the high wind velocity
(turbulence) in unstable weather condition (3.1 m/s).
As per the current STP compliance regulations, the meas-
ured ­H2S concentration should be ≤ 1 ppm at the STP site
boundaries (x = 165 m). As indicated in Table 3, this value
was attributed at 50 m away from the tanker discharge facil-
ity under the stable weather condition and 30 m away under
the unstable weather condition. The resultant concentrations
of ­H2S at the STP boundary under the unstable and stable
weather conditions were 0.05 and 0.16 ppm, respectively.
The short distance under the unstable weather condition
might be ascribed to the dispersion due to the high vertical
turbulence of wind. Nevertheless, the ­H2S concentration can
be detected at nights by the neighborhood when the weather
conditions became stable.
Table 4 shows the comparisons between measured and
predicted values by the GPD model under stable weather
conditions. The analysis of the results confirmed that the
relative errors were between 11.7 and 20.8%, which could
be attributed to the impact of involved holes used for waste
drainage. Although the model is based upon many simpli-
fying assumptions, the error values are within the expected
limits of accuracy for most GPD models (Beychok 1995).

150

Stable weather conditions Unstable weather conditions

120
Concentration [ppm]

90

60

30

0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Distance [m]

Fig. 7  Dispersion of H
­ 2S emissions from the tanker discharge facility under two different weather conditions

Table 3  Comparison of Parameter Moderately stable weather Extremely

dispersion studies from tanker condition unstable weather
facility under two weather condition
conditions
Emission rate (Kg/s) 1.0E − 04 3.0E − 03
Corrected wind velocity (m/s) 1.58 3.08
H2S concentration at x = 2 m (ppm) 100 100
Distance at which ­H2S concentration ≤ 1 ppm (m) 50 30
H2S concentration at STP boundary (ppm) 0.16 0.05

13

2730 International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology (2019) 16:2721–2732

Table 4  Validation of H
­ 2S dispersion from the tanker discharge facil- unit in unstable weather condition. The concentration of
ity under stable weather conditions ­H2S was reduced suddenly to preferred value (≤ 1 ppm)
Distance (m) H2S conc. Predicted values Relative under unstable weather condition, while the stable weather
(ppm) (ppm) error condition was unable to disperse the concentration level
(%) below the favored value. The distance at which the con-
5 40 35.5 11.7 centration of ­H2S is attributed to 1 ppm was 8 m under
10 15 12.8 14.4 the unstable weather condition. However, 1 ppm of ­H2S
20 5.9 4.7 20.8 under the stable weather condition was estimated at 50 m.
Table 5 shows the dispersion of emissions from the OCU
under the weather conditions. Despite the same emission
Dispersion of ­H2S from the OCU Outlet rates, the reduction in H­ 2S dispersion under the unstable
weather condition might be attributed to the higher disper-
The combined ­H 2S concentration from the OCU outlet sion of H­ 2S at different directions under this condition.
(12.4 ppm) was used to estimate the emission rate under Moreover, the concentration of H ­ 2S at the STP boundary
two weather conditions. The emission rate from the out- (x = 150 m) under the unstable and stable weather condi-
let (6.0E − 04 ppm) was relatively lower than that of the tions was 0.005 and 0.17 ppm, respectively.
tanker discharge facility, since the released ­H2S had been Table 6 demonstrates the comparisons of the measured
already treated. Figure 8 shows the dispersion of ­H2S from and predicted values from the OCU outlet under the sta-
the OCU outlet versus distance in the wind direction. The ble weather condition. The results were predicted with an
same as stable weather condition, the concentration of acceptable range of 11.5–28.3%. Although the concentration
­H2S was decreased with increasing the distance from the of ­H2S was reduced to 1 ppm at far away from the sources,

15

Stable weather conditions Unstable weather conditions

12
Concentration [ppm]

0
0 25 50 75 100 125 150
Distance [m]

Fig. 8  Dispersion of H
­ 2S emissions from the OCU outlet under different weather conditions

Table 5  Comparison of Parameter Moderately stable Extremely

dispersion studies from the weather condition unstable weather
OCU outlet under two weather condition
conditions
Emission rate (Kg/s) 6.0E − 04 6.0E − 04
Corrected wind velocity (m/s) 8.6 6.8
Source height (m) = stack height plus effective height 28 20
H2S concentration at x = 1 m (ppm) 12.4 12.4
Distance at which ­H2S concentration ≤ 1 ppm (m) 50 8
H2S concentration at STP boundary (ppm) 1.7E − 01 5.0E − 03

13
International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology (2019) 16:2721–2732 2731
Table 6  Validation of ­H2S dispersion from the OCU outlet under the
stable weather conditions
Distance (m) H2S conc. Predicted values Relative
(ppm) (ppm) error
(%)
8 14 12.4 11.5
10 11 9.1 17.5
20 4.6 3.3 28.3
the ambient air surrounding the STP was being contami-
nated with a relatively high concentration of H
­ 2S, especially
the area in close proximity to the tanker discharge facility.
Therefore, the environmental authorities should set a new
concentration level for ­H2S emissions either at the outlet of
each unit or at site boundaries.
Conclusion
Odor emissions from the STPs are considered as a significant
environmental annoyance due to their direct impacts on both
the human health and economy. In this study, the potential
sources of ­H2S emissions from a STP were examined and the
dominant mechanisms of its dispersion were explored. In the
STP premises, the main contributors of H ­ 2S emissions were
identified as the tanker discharge facility (100 ppm) followed
by aerated sand/grit and oil removal channels (68 ppm)
and screen building (2.3 ppm). All of the H ­ 2S emissions,
except the tanker discharge facility, were ducted to the OCU
(maximum value of combined inlet = 170 ppm). The average
removal efficiency of ­H2S from the sources through the OCU
was observed approximately at 90.2%.
The dispersion of ­H 2S from the two main sources
(tanker discharge facility and OCU) was determined using
the GPD model with an acceptable error range in overall
(11.5–28.3%). GPD is the core of almost all regulatory dis-
persion models and is applied to a wide array of dispersion
scenarios. The model predicted that H ­ 2S emissions from the
tanker discharge facility and the OCU were reduced with the
increase of distance from them. The allowable concentration
of dispersed ­H2S (≤ 1 ppm) was definitely observed at 50 m
away from both the sources under test conditions. Although
the concentration of ­H2S was reduced to less than 1 ppm at
plant boundaries, the odor had been detected under the calm
weather condition outside the plant boundaries. Therefore,
the new regulation requires that all emissions should be con-
veyed to the OCU and combined emissions from the OCU
outlet should be ≤ 1 ppm. However, the plant is allowed to
have 1 ppm or less at the fence until all odor sources are
fully connected to the OCU. This is supposed to be com-
pleted as soon as possible. Furthermore, countercurrent flow
arrangement in the OCU is recommended to intensify mass
transfer coefficient and reach the best possible performance
of the unit. Hence, thus far, it is concluded that the plant is
complying with the current standard specifications of ­H2S
emissions set by the environmental authorities (≤ 1 ppm at
the plant boundaries).
Acknowledgements  The authors would like to acknowledge the field
and logistic support from Haya Water Company. The project was sup-
ported by the Ministry of Environment and Climate Affairs, Muscat,
Sultanate of Oman (Project Code: CR/DVC/CESAR/15/01).
References
Baawain MS, Al-Omairi A, Choudri BS (2014a) Characterization
of domestic wastewater treatment in Oman from three different
regions and current implications of treated effluents. Environ
Monit Assess 186(5):2701–2716
Baawain MS, Al-Jabri M, Choudri BS (2014b) Characterization of
domestic wastewater sludge in oman from three different regions
and recommendations for alternative reuse applications. Iran J
Public Health 43(2):168–177
Baawain M, Al-Mamun A, Omidvarborna H, Al-Jabri A (2017) Assess-
ment of hydrogen sulfide emission from a sewage treatment plant
using AERMOD. Environ Monit Assess 189(6):263
Bentzen G, Smith AT, Bennett D, Webster NJ, Reinholt F, Sletholt E,
Hobson J (1995) Controlled dosing of nitrate for prevention of
H2S in a sewer network and the effects on the subsequent treat-
ment processes. Water Sci Technol 31(7):293–302
Beychok MR (1995) Air dispersion modeling: keep predicted values
in perspective. Environ Eng World 1(6):16–18
Bhawan P, Nagar A (2008) Guidelines on odour pollution & its control.
Central Pollution Control Board, Ministry of Environmental &
Forests, Govt. of India, Delhi
Brusca S, Famoso F, Lanzafame R, Mauro S, Garrano AMC, Monforte
P (2016) Theoretical and experimental study of gaussian plume
model in small scale system. Energy Procedia 101:58–65
Burgess JE, Parsons SA, Stuetz RM (2001) Developments in odour
control and waste gas treatment biotechnology: a review. Biotech-
nol Adv 19(1):35–63
Capelli L, Sironi S, Del Rosso R, Céntola P (2009) Predicting odour
emissions from wastewater treatment plants by means of odour
emission factors. Water Res 43(7):1977–1985
Davidson S (2003) Know thy scrubber. Water Environ Technol
15(3):48–51
EPA (2003) Hydrogen sulfide (CASRN 7783-06-4) Toxicological
review. Retrieved October 2017 from https​://cfpub​.epa.gov/ncea/
iris/iris_docum​ents/docum​ents/toxre​views​/0061t​r.pdf
Gujarat Maritime Board (2012) EIA for common hazardous waste
incineration at Alang, Bhavnagar Gujarat, final report
Huang S, Zhao X, Sun Y, Ma J, Gao X, Xie T, Xu D, Yu Y, Zhao
Y (2016) Spatial distribution of organic pollutants in industrial
construction and demolition waste and their mutual interaction on
an abandoned pesticide manufacturing plant. Environ Sci Process
Impacts 18(4):482–492
Iranpour R, Cox HH, Deshusses MA, Schroeder ED (2005) Literature
review of air pollution control biofilters and biotrickling filters
for odor and volatile organic compound removal. Environ Prog
24(3):254–267
Jehlickova B, Longhurst PJ, Drew GH (2008) Assessing effects of
odour: a critical review of assessing annoyance and impact on
amenity. In: Odours and VOCs: measurement, regulation and con-
trol techniques, vol 31, p 139
13

2732 International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology (2019) 16:2721–2732
Karageorgos P, Latos M, Kotsifaki C, Lazaridis M, Kalogerakis N
(2010) Treatment of unpleasant odors in municipal wastewater
treatment plants. Water Sci Technol 61(10):2635–2644
Koe LC (1985) Ambient hydrogen sulphide levels at a wastewater treat-
ment plant. Environ Monit Assess 5(1):101–108
Kong X, Liu J, Ren L, Song M, Wang X, Ni Z, Nie X (2015) Identifica-
tion and characterization of odorous gas emission from a full-scale
food waste anaerobic digestion plant in China. Environ Monit
Assess 187(10):1–14
Latos M, Karageorgos P, Kalogerakis N, Lazaridis M (2011) Disper-
sion of odorous gaseous compounds emitted from wastewater
treatment plants. Water Air Soil Pollut 215(1–4):667–677
Lebrero R, Bouchy L, Stuetz R, Munoz R (2011) Odor assessment and
management in wastewater treatment plants: a review. Crit Rev
Environ Sci Technol 41(10):915–950
Lehtinen J, Giuliani S, Zarra T, Reiser M, Naddeo V, Kranert M, Bel-
giorno V, Romain AC, Nicolas J, Sówka I, Wang KY (2012) Case
studies for assessment, control and prediction of odour impact. In:
Belgiorno V, Naddeo V, Zarra T (eds) Odour impact assessment
handbook. Wiley, New york, pp 205–283
Li J, Yin C, Huo F (2015) Chromogenic and fluorogenic chemosensors
for hydrogen sulfide: review of detection mechanisms since the
year 2009. RSC Adv 5(3):2191–2206
Llavador Colomer F, Espinós Morató H, Mantilla Iglesias E (2012)
Estimation of hydrogen sulfide emission rates at several waste-
water treatment plants through experimental concentration meas-
urements and dispersion modeling. J Air Waste Manag Assoc
62(7):758–766
Macdonald R (2003) Theory and objectives of air dispersion modeling.
Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Waterloo,
Wind Engineering MME A, 474
13
Pavilonis BT, O’Shaughnessy PT, Altmaier R, Metwali N, Thorne PS
(2013) Passive monitors to measure hydrogen sulfide near con-
centrated animal feeding operations. Environ Sci Process Impacts
15(6):1271–1278
Riva G, Elettronica O (1992) Spartan Environmental Technologies.
Mentor, Ohio, USA
Sanchez C, Couvert A, Laplanche A, Renner C (2006) New compact
scrubber for odour removal in wastewater treatment plants. Water
Sci Technol 54(9):45–52
Simms KL, Wilkinson S, Bethan S (2000) Odour nuisance and disper-
sion modeling: an objective approach to a very subjective prob-
lem. Water Sci Technol 41(6):89–96
Southwood M, Rowland J, Lockwood R, Horrocks D, Pointing J, Lon-
ghurst P, Sneath R, Peirson S, Selwyn T (2010) Odour guidance
for local authorities. Department for Environment, Food and Rural
Affairs Nobel House, London
Sriram G, Mohan NK, Gopalasamy V (2006) Sensitivity study of
Gaussian dispersion models. J Sci Ind Res 65(4):321–324
Sucker K, Both R, Winneke G (2009) Review of adverse health effects
of odours in field studies. Water Sci Technol 59(7):1281–1289
Sulfide H (1981) World Health Organization, Geneva
Van Harreveld AP (2001) From odorant formation to odour nuisance:
new definitions for discussing a complex process. Water Sci Tech-
nol 44(9):9–15
Zarra T, Naddeo V, Belgiorno V, Reiser M, Kranert M (2008) Odour
monitoring of small wastewater treatment plant located in sensi-
tive environment. Water Sci Technol 58(1):89–94
Zarra T, Giuliani S, Naddeo V, Belgiorno V (2012) Control of odour
emission in wastewater treatment plants by direct and undirected
measurement of odour emission capacity. Water Sci Technol
66(8):1627–1633