Cover Story

Biological Treatment of
VOCs
TABLE 1. COMPARISON OF VARIOUS PHYSICAL, CHEMICAL
AND BIOLOGICAL METHODS FOR TREATING VOCS IN AIR
Type of Maturity Capital Oper- VOC Safety Nature Down- Oper-
method of tech- cost ating opera- issues of side stream ation
nology cost bility pro- issues prob-
range ducts lems

Biotreatment methods Thermal

Catalytic
D
D
H
H
H
H
M
M
H
H
Y
Y
T
T
Y
Y
N
N
oxidation
can offer advantages, Chemical D H L M H N T Y N
oxidation
such as lower operating Absorption R H M M H N - N N
Adsorption R H M L M N - N N
and capital costs, Condensation R H H H M N - N N
Membrane R M H M M N - N Y
over the more-established filtration
Liquid cyclone R H L L L-M N - N N
chemical and physical Biotreatment Techniques
Biofiltration D M-H L L M N N N Y-N
processes Biotrickling
filtration
D M L L M N N N Y-N

Suspended - D H M M L-M N N N N
growth reactor
Bioscrubber D M H L L N N N Y-N
Membrane D L H H M N N N Y
Mukesh Doble, bioreactor
Department of Biotechnology D – Destruction, R – Recovery, L – Low, M – Medium, H – High, N – No, Y – Yes, T – Possible
at IIT, Madras toxic side products, N – Not toxic

V
olatile organic compounds
(VOCs), together with par-
ticulate matter, sulfur ox-
ides and nitrogen oxides,
are major components of air
pollution that can lead to serious envi-
ronmental and health hazards. Physi-
cal, chemical and biological treatment
methods are available to remove VOCs
from the air by either recovery or de-
struction [1-3]. Biological treatment
methods, while less well-established
than some of the other methods, can
offer advantages over physical and
chemical approaches.
Table 1 compares the various meth-
ods with respect to the maturity of
the technology, capital and operating
costs, operability range, safety issues,
nature of side products and potential
downstream issues. In some cases, a
hybrid approach that combines more
than one technology can be advanta-
geous over the individual treatment
procedures.
VOCs generally have low boiling
points and hence vaporize readily.
These emissions originate from many
places, including the chemical pro-
cess industries (CPI), where sources
include breathing and loading losses
from storage tanks, venting of pro-
cess vessels, leaks from piping and
equipment, paint booths, wastewater
streams and losses from heat exchang-
ers. The compounds from which the
VOCs arise may include, for example,
chlorinated and oxygenated solvents,
thinners, degreasers, cleaners, lubri-
cants, and liquid fuels. A few common
VOCs are the following: hydrocarbons
such as methane, ethane and styrene;
chlorohydrocarbons such as tetrachlo-
roethane and methyl chloride; perfluo-
rocarbons and naphthalenes.
Physical and chemical methods
The features of biological treatment
become clearer to appreciate after a
glance at the conventional non-biologi-
cal options. Physical treatment meth-
ods can be designed for recovery and
reuse of VOCs that can lead to cost
savings. Reuse of solvents, for example,
CHEMICAL ENGINEERING WWW.CHE.COM JUNE 2006
can be more economical than burning
them as fuel. Physical treatment in-
cludes well-established methods such
as adsorption and absorption. In ad-
sorption, removal efficiencies of 95% or
better can be achieved with a carbon,
zeolite or activated-alumina bed. While
these are relatively simple processes,
the costs of absorbents/adsorbents and
their recovery, which requires addi-
tional hardware and high-temperature
operations, are generally high. Another
method, condensation, can be economi-
cally competitive with adsorption at
high VOC concentrations. At low VOC
concentrations, however, condensation
is more capital intensive.
Chemical methods convert the VOC
either to a harmless product or to an-
other product that can be removed
with an additional treatment step.
Chemical methods fall into two cat-
egories: thermal and catalytic. While
they are effective and well-known,
they can pose disadvantages such as
high capital and operating costs, and
the potential for generating even more
35

Cover Story
TABLE 2. MICROORGANISMS THAT DEGRADE VOCS IN AIR
(a partial listing)
Organism
Pseudomonas AM1
Pseudomonas aminovorans
Pseudomonas putida,
Pseudomonas sp.
Pseudomonas putida
Bacteria + yeast
Exophiala yeanselmei
Rhodococcus sp.
Nocardia sp.
Hypomicrobium sp.
Pseudomonas fluorescence
Pseudomonas sp.
Chromobacterium violaceum
Bacteria
toxic products by converting the pol-
lutant from one type to another. High-
temperature oxidation of halogenated
compounds, for example, allows for
possible energy recovery, but also re-
quires special attention since it can
lead to the formation of dioxins.
Biotreatment techniques
Some of the advantages that biotreat-
ment methods can offer over the
physical and chemical techniques
include lower capital and operat-
ing costs, removal of VOCs without
the production of toxic byproducts,
and the ability to operate at ambi-
ent temperature without the need for
high-temperature regeneration steps.
Care does have to be taken, however,
to avoid poisoning or inhibiting the
growth of the microorganisms em-
ployed. This approach also produces
biomass, which requires disposal.
Biological methods for treating
VOCs include the use of biofilters,
biotrickling filters, bioscrubbers, sus-
pended growth reactors [4] and the
emerging technology of membrane
bioreactors. In some of these processes
the gas comes in contact with a fixed
biofilm, whereas in others, the micro-
organisms are suspended. Biotreat-
ment processes are aerobic, need 100%
relative humidity, long contact times,
and a community of microorganisms.
The products of biotreatment are CO2,
salts, water, and biomass.
36 CHEMICAL ENGINEERING WWW.CHE.COM JUNE 2006
�����
�������
������������
�������������
�������
VOC component
Methanol, formaldehyde
Dimethyl amines
Phenol
Benzene
Toluene
Xylene
Styrene
Methyl ethyl ketone
Aniline
Dimethyl sulfide
p-Cresol
m-Cresol
Indole
Methyl tert-butyl ether
Biodegradability of VOCs. A wide
range of VOCs can be treated biologi-
cally. The type of microorganism used
depends on the VOC that is to be de-
stroyed, and a large number of organ-
isms have already been identified for
treating most volatile organics. Table
2 gives a partial list. Compounds that
biodegrade easily include petroleum
products, benzene, xylenes, toluene,
phenols, alcohols, ketones, acrylonitrile,
esters, hydrogen sulfide and styrene.
Moderately biodegradable materials
include crude oil, pentachlorophenol,
long-chain aliphatic hydrocarbons, tri-
chloroethylene, vinyl chloride, ethers,
and ammonia. VOCs that are difficult
to biodegrade include perchloroethy-
lene and carbon tetrachloride.
Factors that affect biodegrada-
tion. Processes to biodegrade VOCs
are affected by factors such as mois-
ture content, temperature, pH, nu-
trient amount, contaminant type,
fine-particle presence and oxygen
mass-transfer rates. A warmer reactor
can, for example, oxidize the contami-
nants faster, thereby increasing the
destruction and the removal efficiency,
but could also deactivate the sensitive
microorganisms.
Biomass growth and biofilm devel-
opment can be controlled by control-
ling the nutrient supply. Good biomass
growth is needed for effective rates
of consumption of the VOCs being
treated. This, however, must be bal-
�����������
���������
��������
������
���
��������������
������������ �������
FIGURE 1. In a biofilter, the micro-
organisms are fixed as a biofilm onto
support media. Moisture levels are con-
trolled by a humidification system.
�����������
�����
�����
���������
��������
������
���
������������
�����
FIGURE 2. Biotrickling filters
combine a fixed biofilm with a slow
water flow over it.
anced with excessive growth, which
can present disadvantages such as
pressure buildup inside the process
vessel, or mechanical instability if bio-
mass falls from the support and blocks
a column (such as a biofilter column).
Biomass needs moisture for growth,
but if too much water is present, the
biomass can be washed out.
While a wide range of pH is accept-
able for these processes (almost from
2 to 9), careful thought must be given
to pH when the contaminants are sul-
fur- or chlorine-containing compounds.
Destruction of these chemicals leads to
acid production (sulfurous or sulfuric
acid or, hydrochloric acid respectively),
which makes the biomass too highly
acidic.
Biofilms. Several biological treat-
ment processes use a fixed biofilm. A
biofilm is defined as a structured com-
munity of bacterial cells enclosed in a
self-produced, polymeric matrix and
attached to an inert or living surface.
In general, there are four stages to
the development of a mature biofilm:
initial attachment; irreversible at-
tachment by the production of extra-
 TABLE 3. ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF VARIOUS IMMOBILIZATION TECHNIQUES
Method Principle Materials used Advantages Disadvantages

Adsorption Van der Waal forces and hydro- Wood, glass, ceramic, Cheap, no chemical modification Leakage of organism from
gen bond carbon needed to support biocells support

Covalent Enzyme/Protein coupled to sup- Amino, carbonyl, hydroxyl Support is hydrophilic so proteins Toxicity of the linkage al-
bonding port via covalent linkage and thiol groups maintain conformation ters enzyme conformation

Entrap- Inclusion in a rigid matrix Agar, alginate, - Hard product Diffusion resistance
ment in a porous gel or polymer k-carrageena - Separated from harsh environment

Encap- In a semi-permeable Nylon, cellulose acetate - Free movement of the enzyme Diffusion resistance
sulation membrane - Hard product
- Separated from harsh environment

Cross- Enzyme/protein attached to Glutaraldehyde, toluene No diffusional resistance - Toxicity of the

linking each other by di/poly-valent diisocyanate linkage is an issue
ligands - no support

TABLE 4. TYPICAL DESIGN
PARAMETERS FOR BIOFILTERS
AND BIOTRICKLING FILTERS
Retention time 25 to 60 s
Reactor height 0.5 to 1.5 m
VOC concentra- 0 to 1000 ppmv
tion handled
Waste air flow 50 to 300,000 m3/hr
Inlet oxygen con- 11 to 21%
centration
cellular polymeric substances; early
development; and maturation of bio-
film architecture.
Several parameters affect how
quickly biofilms form and mature.
Rough surfaces tend to speed up bio-
film formation because shear forces
are lower near a rough surface and
there is a larger surface area to which
cells can adhere. Pores provide a safe
environment for cells to attach and
grow, as shear forces are very low
inside of them. Biofilm formation in-
creases with the hydrophobicity of
surfaces. Materials such as polytet-
rafluoroethylene and other plastics
favor faster biofilm growth than glass
or metal due to differences in surface
hydrophobicity and ionic charges. With
these materials, the hydrophobic cell
walls are able to overcome the initial
electrostatic repulsion with the solid
surface and adhere more readily.
BIOLOGICAL PROCESSES
Biofilters
A biofilter (Figure 1) is basically a
tube that is packed with material con-
taining the microorganisms, nutrients
for its growth, and support material to
hold the growing colony. The inert sup-
port material prevents clogging of the
reactor and also keeps the pressure
drop low. The bed includes soil, peat,
compost material, activated carbon,
calcium alginate, bark or wood chips,
yard waste or plastic. Air contain-
ing VOCs is introduced to the bottom
of the column and treated air leaves
from the top. A humidification system
[5,6] controls the moisture level.
During biofiltration, the contami-
nant may be adsorbed directly onto
the biofilm, or dissolved in the aque-
ous layer. A large number of VOCs,
among them ethanol, aldehydes, sty-
rene, hydrocarbon solvents and methyl
methacrylate, have been successfully
treated to 85–95% removal efficiencies
with biofiltration.
In order to achieve high degradation
efficiency, the microorganisms must
first adapt to the VOCs. This is accom-
plished by gradually increasing the
organic loading to the colony. If acidic
impurities are involved, the addition
of a neutralizing agent, such as lime,
can prevent the buildup of sulfates,
chlorides and nitrates that might in-
hibit growth of the biomass. It may,
however, not be possible to neutralize
large amounts of these products.
Examples. An application where
biofilters can excel over other treat-
ment methods is treating exhaust air
from paint booths. These airstreams
are typically high volume (at about
9,500 ft3/min) and contain low VOC
concentrations (~500 ppm). Treating
this exhaust air by incineration con-
sumes large amounts of fuel to main-
tain the combustion temperature and
can result in the formation of nitrogen
oxides and other greenhouse gases.
Activated carbon adsorption may be
used, but problems similar to those
mentioned for incineration can occur
during regeneration. Biofilters, on
the other hand, involve energy costs
that are about one-fourth to one-tenth
those for thermal-oxidation technolo-
gies. The capital cost for biofiltration
is about two-thirds to three-fourths of
that for competing technologies. Bio-
filters can also serve as odor preven-
CHEMICAL ENGINEERING WWW.CHE.COM JUNE 2006
ters if installed at the exhaust side of
waste-treatment plants, sewer vents
and paint booths.
Biofiltration’s effectiveness has also
been illustrated in other applications.
Even though chlorinated solvents
produce acids, which can adversely
affect the growth of microorganisms,
biofilters are successfully being used
to achieve more than 85% destruc-
tion of VOCs with chlorinated-solvent
levels of 500 to 1,500 ppm. A biofilter
designed to treat propellant gases and
hazardous VOCs released from empty
aerosol cans has been able to efficiently
destroy the unwanted effluents and
has led to a savings of $114,000 with a
payback period of one year [6].
Benzene, ethylbenzene, toluene
and xylenes (BTEX), are among the
compounds on the U.S. Environmen-
tal Protection Agency’s (EPA) prior-
ity-pollutant list. In one instance, a
biofilter, packed with a mixture of
compost and activated carbon, has
achieved removal efficiencies greater
than 90% for inlet concentrations of
200 ppm and a gas-loading rate of
17.6 m3/(m2)(h). This technology can
save on the order of $300,000/yr in
operating costs when compared to a
thermal oxidizer (with both operat-
ing at 90% efficiency) for an airstream
flow of 85,000 m3/h containing 500
parts per million by volume (ppmv) of
VOC. A typical biofilter, thermal oxi-
dizer and a catalytic converter could
cost $280,000, $300,000–400,000 and
$325,000–425,000 respectively.
Biotrickling filters
Biotrickling filters also have a pack-
ing material on which the microorgan-
isms grow, but in these systems, water
trickles down the packing, while the
gas rises from the bottom of the col-
umn (Figure 2) [7,8]. The water, which
flows at rate of approximately 1–20
m3/(m2)(d), is collected at the bottom
37
 Cover Story
and recycled back to the top of the
column. Contaminants dissolve in the
flowing water and are washed away.
The surface area needed for mass
transfer is lower in biotrickling filters
than in the biofilters.
In biotrickling filters, the microor-
ganisms can be immobilized on the fil-
ter packing by five different methods,
which include adsorption, cross-link-
ing, entrapment, microencapsulation
and covalent bonding (carrier bind-
ing). Each of these methods has its
own advantages and disadvantages,
which are listed in Table 3.
Typical design parameters for bio-
filter and biotrickling filters are given
in Table 4. The packing material used
in these two systems should be se-
lected with certain properties, such as
a high void fraction, light weight, low
pressure drop, a hydrophilic surface
and low bulk density. Some of the ad-
vantages that organic materials have
over inorganic materials include high
absorbability, the presence of nutri-
ents and higher porosity.
Excessive accumulation of biomass
that can cause filter clogging is an im-
portant operational issue. This can be
addressed with one of several strate-
gies that include periodic backwash-
ing of the bed, mechanical agitation,
or chemical removal of excess biomass.
The potential release of microorgan-
isms to the atmosphere is also a con-
cern in both of these technologies.
To determine the required bed vol-
ume, consideration must be given to
the concentrations of the pollutants,
the desired removal efficiency and
the air flowrate that is to be treated.
Using the bed volume, Deshusses and
Cox [9] proposed a simple relationship,
as shown below, to estimate the capi-
tal cost of a biotrickling filter. The cost
includes basic components (pumps and
a level switch), but does not include
ducting. This estimate is for a simple
biotrickling filter constructed from in-
expensive materials. For more expen-
sive materials, such as stainless steel,
a multiplication factor should be used.
Biotrickling Filter Capital Cost ($) =
13,000 X (Bed Volume)0.757
This equation is valid for bed volumes
ranging from 5 to 1,000 m3.
Examples. Several examples of suc-
38 CHEMICAL ENGINEERING WWW.CHE.COM JUNE 2006
cessful, plant-scale applications �������������������
for biotrickling filters are found
in the literature. Estimates ���������
have shown the savings in
capital and operating costs that
this technology can bring. One
example involves the removal
of methylene chloride from pol- ���������
��������
luted air. With an air flowrate
�����
of 100 m3/h, a methylene chlo-
���
ride inlet concentration of 2 g/
3
m and a removal efficiency of �������
�����
99.5%, studies have concluded ��������
that a biotrickling filter is the ���
most cost-effective reactor, at an
operating cost of about $62 per FIGURE 3. In a bioscrubber, contaminated air
is cleaned by passing it through an aqueous
1,000 m3 of treated air. Treat- scrubber. The water phase is then sent to a bio-
ment by catalytic oxidation is mass-containing system, where contaminats are
five times as expensive [10]. removed.
In another example, an ad-
sorber system with four carbon beds and 23% respectively. The technologies
was compared to a 31-m3 biotrick- were compared for an incoming impu-
ling filter for removing hazardous rity concentration of about 150–300
and odorous air from an industrial mg carbon per cubic meter of air at
wastewater-treatment plant. The op- treatment efficiencies of 70% [14]. As
erating cost for the adsorber system compared to incineration, biological
was found to be $36,000/yr (which VOC abatement also avoids fuel-han-
included removal and replacement of dling issues, which reduces the risk of
carbon, electricity and other utilities), explosion or fire.
as compared to $5,000 for the biotreat- Four technologies, namely a bi-
ment system [11]. otrickling filter, bioscrubber, catalytic
Air that contains H2S is generally incinerator and regenerative incin-
treated by chemical scrubbers. Similar erator, were recently considered for
removal efficiencies, however, can be treating air from an amino-molding,
achieved using biotrickling filters at powder-drying process. The capital
an annual savings in operating costs costs for the four technologies, includ-
(chemicals and electricity) of about ing installation, were estimated to be
$10,000–50,000 per year. The esti- £200,000, £500,000, £1.05 million and
mated commercial cost of converting £600,000, respectively. In addition to
a chemical scrubber to a biotrickling having the lowest estimated capital
filter is about $40,000–60,000, which cost, the biotrickling filter was esti-
for the typical installation works out mated to have a low annual-operating
to a payback period of one to two years cost at less than £3,000. The design
[12]. was based on an air flowrate of 60,000
A biotrickling filter has been success- m3/h containing VOCs up to 200 mg/
fully demonstrated for removing 90% m3. The VOCs, predominantly form-
ethanol emissions from a bakery-oven aldehyde and methanol, needed to be
exhaust-gas stream. The maximum reduced to below 85 mg/m3 in order to
inlet concentration is 3,500 ppmv. The meet EPA guidelines [15].
total capital cost of a plant has been es-
timated to be $50–160 per ft3/min for Bioscrubbers
gas flowrates that range from 1,000 to The third biooxidation process for
5,000 cfm [13]. treating VOCs consists of a twin-reac-
Comparison of biotrickling and in- tor system that includes water scrub-
cineration technologies for treating bing and biooxidation vessels [16,17].
VOCs from a footwear-manufacturing As depicted in Figure 3, the airstream
industry led to the conclusion that the to be treated enters the bottom of the
former could offer capital and operat- water scrubber, where the water ab-
ing cost savings of approximately 16% sorbs the VOCs and is pumped to the
 ��� ��������� ��� ��������� ��� ���������
���������

�������� ��������
��������

��������� ������
���������� ��������
��������� ��������� ��������� ��������� ������
�� ������ �� ��

��������� ���������

��� ������������� ��������� FIGURE 4. In suspended growth reactors (SGRs), the biomass
is suspended in an aqueous, nutrient medium and not fixed.
������� a) A fully immersed impeller is used to maintain suspension.
�������� b) Surface impellers are often used in SGRs.
c) In an airlift reactor, an internal draft tube aids in forcing the
��������� liquid and gas to rise in the vessel.
��
d) External recirculation can be used to suspend the microor-
������������ ganisms.

top of the biooxidation filter. In this
vessel, microorganisms are either sus-
pended or attached onto a support.
Both the bioscrubber and biotrick-
ling filter can tolerate acidic gases
better than a biofilter, because in
both cases, the biomass is not in di-
rect contact with these gases. In a bi-
otrickling filter, the water layer sur-
rounds the biofilm, preventing direct
contact between the acidic gases and
microorganisms; and in the bioscrub-
ber, the pollutants dissolve in the
water phase first, before the biodeg-
radation process can take place. The
rate of degradation of the VOCs in
both bioscrubbers and biotrickling fil-
ters, however, depends on the rate of
transfer of the pollutant from the gas
phase to the aqueous phase, which
can be the controlling resistance to
the overall process kinetics. If the
solubility of the pollutant is poor in
the aqueous medium, then degrada-
tion will also be poor.
Examples. An example of a successful
bioscrubber application is the treat-
ment of water-soluble VOC emissions
from the printing industry. When
compared to catalytic incineration,
the bioscrubber has achieved an an-
nual savings of £18,000 on operating
costs. The capital cost for setting up
the bioscrubber plant is, however, 20%
higher. Costs are based on 14,500 m3/
h of air with a carbon concentration of
300–500 mg/m3, at a pH of 5.7.
In another example, a bioscrubber
was compared to chemical treatment
for an airstream of 400 ft3/min that
contained H2S at a concentration of
3.9–27.7 ppmv. A 99% removal effi-
ciency was needed. It was estimated
that the cost of operating the bioscrub-
ber would be $1,000/yr, while the chem-
icals for the same level of liquid-phase
treatment would cost around $100,000/
yr. The capital cost for the bioscrub-
ber was, however, higher than for the
chemical route [14].
Suspended growth reactors
A suspended growth reactor (SGR)
is a vessel that contains a nutrient
medium with microorganisms in a
suspended state [18,19]. VOC-contain-
ing air is passed through the aqueous
suspension of active biomass. The mi-
croorganisms are kept in suspension
either by mechanical agitation or by
air that is sparged into the reactor
bottom. Fully immersed (Figure 4a) or
surface (Figure 4b) impellers are used
in mechanically agitated systems.
Unagitated reactor designs include
several variations, such as the inter-
nal draft tube or airlift reactor (Figure
4c) and external recirculation (Figure
CHEMICAL ENGINEERING WWW.CHE.COM JUNE 2006
4d). The internal draft tube aids in
forcing the liquid and gas to rise up
due to bouyancy. During this cocur-
rent contact, the two phases are thor-
oughly mixed. The gas is disengaged
at the reactor top and escapes through
the vent, while the liquid flows down
through the annular space. In the ex-
ternal recirculation design, the liquid
returns to the reactor bottom through
an external loop.
Mass transfer of organic chemicals
and oxygen from the gas to the liquid
phase — where suspended active or-
ganisms biodegrade the contaminant
of interest — is crucial to this pro-
cess. Absence of plugging and easier
biomass and nutrient control are ad-
vantages of the SGR design. A settling
tank always follows the reactor for the
solids (predominantly active biomass)
to settle. The clear liquid is decanted
from the top of this tank and the solids
are recycled back into the SGR.
One of the operational problems in
SGR is bulking, which is the forma-
tion of chains or colonies of bacteria
that don’t settle or sink to the bot-
tom. Bulking is generally caused by
changes in wastewater strength or
quantity. Bulked bacteria remain
suspended in the liquid and can clog
the outflow. When too much water or
wastewater is added to the system,
39
 Cover Story

TABLE 5 (A). DESIGN TECHNIQUES FOR MECHANICALLY AGITATED

SUSPENDED GROWTH REACTORS
To be estimated Type of model Parameters required

1 Hydraulic residence time Use standard stirred-tank-reactor Reaction mechanism and

2 Gas-to-liquid mass transfer
rate
3 Substrate-to-solid mass
transfer rate
4 Minimum rpm required for
solid suspension
5 Maximum shear stress and
compare with cell properties
6 Agitator power
model
Use appropriate gas-liquid mass
transfer correlation
Use appropriate solid-liquid mass Physical properties of the
transfer correlation
Correlation for minimum rpm re-
quired for solid suspension
Shear stress correlations
Use power number
correlation
rate constants.
Physical properties of the
fluid, gas-liquid contact-
ing mode
fluid and solid
Solid properties and agi-
tator details
Agitator details, rpm
Liquid properties, agitator
details, rpm

TABLE 5 (B). FOR NON-AGITATED SUSPENDED GROWTH REACTOR

FIGURE 5. A membrane separates the
VOC-containing gas and a liquid phase
in membrane bioreactors. The biomass
grows on the aqueous side and cannot
penetrate the membrane.
the bacteria can run out of food or be-
come overloaded.
Examples. Biofilters can generally
handle higher VOC loadings than
SGRs. For example, both biofilters and
SGRs were able to remove approxi-
mately 97% of toluene at loadings
from 5 to 30 mg/(L)(h). In the SGR,
however, the process performance de-
creased at mass loadings greater than
17 mg/(L)(h) [19]. In the biofilter, dry-
ing of the media over time — due to
high mass loadings and slight tem-
perature increases in the media — re-
duced biofilter removal efficiencies.
Removal of methylene chloride from
polluted air has been studied in a bi-
otrickling filter and an airlift reactor
(SGR) at an air flowrate of 100 m3/h,
a methylene chloride inlet concentra-
tion of 2 g/m3 and a removal efficiency
of 99.5%. It has been concluded that
the treatment cost for the biotrickling
filter was half of that for the SGR [10].
The capital and operating costs of agi-
tated SGRs will always be higher than
those for biofilm reactors, because the
former requires accessories such as a
mechanical agitator or motor, which
are not needed in the latter.
Membrane bioreactors
In membrane bioreactors, a membrane
partition separates liquid and gas
phases, as shown in Figure 5. Microor-
ganisms grow on the liquid side of the
40 CHEMICAL ENGINEERING WWW.CHE.COM JUNE 2006
To be estimated Type of model
1 Hydraulic residence time Use mass balance relation
2 Gas-to-liquid mass transfer Use appropriate mass transfer
rate correlation
3 Substrate-to-solid mass Use appropriate mass transfer
transfer rate correlation
4 Minimum gas flowrate re- Fluidization correlation for solid
quired for solid suspension suspension
membrane, where water and nutri-
ents required for growth are available.
The presence of the water also aids in
washing out inorganic acidic salts to
prevent accumulation. The membrane
prevents microorganisms from pass-
ing through to the gas stream. Pollut-
ants and oxygen diffuse through the
membrane to the biofilm, where the
pollutants provide the carbon source
needed for microbial growth.
The design generally consists of
hollow-fiber, spiral-wound or plate-
and-frame modules. Membranes are
either hydrophobic and microporous
or dense. The reaction is controlled
by mass transfer, so this reactor is
designed with large gas-to-liquid con-
tact area. Pressure is not a concern in
membrane reactors, whereas it can be
a problem in biofiltration.
While membrane bioreactors are
finding commercial-scale applica-
tions for treating liquid pollutants,
their use for treating gaseous pollut-
ants is still in the laboratory stage,
with no commercial systems currently
in place. This is due to high capital
costs and problems caused by fouling
of the membrane material. Solid con-
taminants can also cause erosion of
Parameters required
Reaction mechanism and
rate constants.
Physical properties of the
fluid, gas-liquid contact-
ing mode
Physical properties of the
fluid and solid
Solid and liquid properties
the membranes. Silicone-tube dense
membranes have, however, success-
fully been shown to remove several or-
ganics, such as xylenes, n-butanol, di-
chloromethane, n-hexane, toluene and
dichloroethane with activated sludge
as the innoculum.
Design and costing
The tubular biofilter and biotrickling
filter can be designed using an ideal
packed-bed reactor model. Laboratory
experiments are needed to determine
the kinetics of the degradation. If the
degradation rate follows a Monod
type behavior, then the correspond-
ing constants need to be estimated
from laboratory data. Gas-to-liquid
and liquid-to-microorganism diffusion
and mass transfer coefficients can be
estimated from standard correlations,
or they can be determined from pilot
studies. The pressure drop across the
biofilter is generally estimated from
standard pressure-drop correlations.
Consideration should be given to the
fact that over time, the pressure drop
will increase as the biofilm grows on
the support.
The capital cost of a biofiltration
system is dependent on the size of the
 TABLE 6. DESIGN TECHNIQUES FOR BIOFILM OR FIXED-FILM REACTORS
To be estimated Type of model
1 Hydraulic residence Use standard plug-flow reactor
time model
2 Gas-to-liquid mass Use appropriate mass transfer
transfer rate correlation
3 Substrate-to-solid Use appropriate mass transfer
mass transfer rate correlation
4 Pressure drop across Pressure drop correlations
the bed
5 Growth rate of Substrate mass balance rela-
organism tions
reactor and the needed pretreatment
equipment. The reactor size depends
on the gas flowrate, its chemical com-
position and concentration, kinetics of
the decomposition reaction, and mass
transfer parameters. The cost of the
pretreatment equipment will depend
on flowrates, moisture concentration,
dry-bulb operating temperatures and
particulate loading.
Operating costs for biofiltration
systems include costs for electricity
use, natural-gas consumption, steam,
maintenance, filter media replacement,
water consumption and media disposal.
These costs are directly related to the
design and size of the biofilter.
Design of the agitated SGR can be
accomplished by using continuous-
flow, stirred-tank-reactor-model equa-
tions. Several gas-to-liquid, mass-
transfer correlations are available in
References
1. Khan, F. I. and Ghoshal, A. K., Removal of
Volatile Organic Compounds from Polluted
Air, J. of Loss Prevention in the Process In-
dustries, Vol. 13, pp. 527–545, 2000.
2. Engleman, V. S., Updates on Choices of Ap-
propriate Technology for Control of VOC
Emissions, Metal Finishing, Vol. 92, No. 5A,
pp. 238–251, 1994.
3. Spivey, J. J., Recovery of Volatile Organics
from Small Industrial Sources, Environmen-
tal Progress, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 31–37, 1988.
4. Doble, M. and Kumar, A., “Biotreatment of
Industrial Effluents,” Elsevier, Amsterdam,
2005.
5. Adler, S. F., Biofiltration: A Primer, Chem.
Eng. Prog., Vol. 97, No. 4, pp. 33–42, April
2001.
6. Garner, L. G. and Barton, T. A., Biofiltration
for Abatement of VOC and HAP Emissions,
Metal Finishing, Vol. 100, No. 11, pp. 12–18,
2002.
7. Edwards, F. G. and Nirmalakhandan, N.,
Biological Treatment of Airstreams Con-
taminated with VOCs: An Overview, Water
Science and Technology, Vol. 34, No. 3–4, pp.
565-571, 1996.
8. Cox, H. H. J. and Deshusses, M. A., Biologi-
cal Waste Air Treatment in Biotrickling Fil-
ters, Current Opinion in Biotechnology, Vol.
9, No. 3, pp. 256–262, June 1998.
Parameters required
Reaction mechanism and rate
constants.
Physical properties of the fluid,
gas-liquid contacting mode
Physical properties of the fluid and
solid
Bed void fraction, reactor dimen-
sion, fluid flow details
Yield factor, substrate concentra-
tions
the literature. These can be used to
estimate the rate of gas transfer from
the gas to the liquid phase.
Tables 5(A), 5(B) and 6 summarize
methods for designing these bioreac-
tors.
Conclusions
While chemical and physical methods
for VOC treatment are more well-es-
tablished, biological treatment sys-
tems have also been proven to be ef-
fective for organic-vapor removal from
air. As shown in several examples,
the biological methods are generally
cheaper to operate and can be less
capital intensive. While economy of
scale plays an important role in physi-
cal processes, small-scale biofilters
can be installed and run economi-
cally. In some instances, additional
advantages include removal of VOCs
9. Deshusses, M. A. and Cox, H.H.J., Biotrick-
ling Filter for Air Pollution Control, Environ-
mental Progress, Vol. 18, pp.188-196, 1999.
10. Zuber, L., Dunn, I. and Deshusses, M.A.,
Comparative Scale-up and Cost Estimation
of a Biological Trickling Filter and a Three-
phase Airlift Bioreactor for the Removal of
Methylene Chloride from Polluted Air, J.
Air & Waste Management Assoc., Vol. 47, pp.
969–975, 1997.
11. Webster, T. S., others, Treatment of Vapor
Emissions Generated from an Industrial
Wastewater Treatment Plant using a Full-
scale Biotrickling Filter Reactor, Envirogen,
letter report on pilot-scale biotrickling filter
reactor demonstration project, Aug. 13, 1998,
nelp.nnavy.mil/pdf cases/Compliance ENVI-
ROGEN.pdf.
12. Gabriel, D. and Deshusses, M. A., Retrofitting
Existing Chemical Scrubbers to Biotrickling
Filters for H2S Emission Control, Proc. of
National Academy of Sci., Vol. 100, No. 11,
pp. 6308–6312, May 27, 2003.
13. PRD Tech Inc., Biotrickling Filter for Treat-
ment of Ethanol Emissions from Bakeries,
prdtechinc.com/voc_a2.html
14. R Griggs Group Limited, Biological VOC
abatement brings business benefits,
www-iip.wiwi.uni-karlsruhe.de/forschung/
technik_html/projekte/abgeschlossen/
Platform/website/Guidelines/Footwear/bio-
wise_biological%20voc.pdf.
CHEMICAL ENGINEERING WWW.CHE.COM JUNE 2006
without the production of toxic by-
products, and the ability to operate
at ambient temperatures without the
need for high-temperature regenera-
tion steps or the hazards associated
with incineration. Because biological
systems can fail during sudden peaks
in loading, there are also advantages
to combining more than one treat-
ment procedure. For gases containing
high VOC levels, for example, a physi-
cal method such as absorption can be
used to recover most of the VOCs and
a biosystem can complete purification
to the desired level. ■
Edited by Dorothy Lozowski
Author
Mukesh Doble is an Associ-
ate Professor in the Depart-
ment of Biotechnology at IIT
Madras (Chennai-600036,
India. Phone: +91-044-2257-
4107; Email: mukeshd@iitm.
ac.in). He has more than 20
years of experience in biore-
actors, molecular modeling,
drug design, bioremediation
and biodegradation, scaleup,
process development, statisti-
cal process control, six-sigma and homogeneous,
heterogeneous and enzyme catalysis. Mukesh
has previously worked in the ICI India and GE
India Technology centers and has authored or co-
authored 100 technical papers in international
journals, and three books. Mukesh holds B.Tech.
and M. Tech. Chemical Engineering degrees from
the Indian Institute of Technology, Madras and a
Ph.D. from the University of Aston, Birmingham,
U.K. He is a recipient of the Herdillia Award for
“Excellence in Basic research” from the Indian
Institute of Chemical Engineers and is a trained
master black belt in six-sigma.
15. The Clean Air Technology Center of the U.S.
EPA, Using Bioreactors to Control Air Pollu-
tion, EPA-456/R-03-003, September 2003.
16. Moo-Young, M. and Chisti, Y., Bioreactor Ap-
plications in Waste Treatment, Resources,
Conservation and Recycling, Vol. 11, No. 1–4,
pp. 13–24, June 30, 1994.
17. Potivichayanon, S., Pokethitiyook, P. and
Kruatrachue, M., Hydrogen Sulfide Removal
by a Novel Fixed-film Bioscrubber System,
Process Biochemistry, October 10, 2005.
18. Artiga, P., others, An Innovative Biofilm-sus-
pended Biomass Hybrid Membrane Bioreac-
tor for Wastewater Treatment, Desalination,
Vol. 179, No. 1–3, pp. 171–179, July 10, 2005.
19. Neal, A. B., Use of Biofilters and Suspended-
growth Reactors to Treat VOCs, Waste Man-
agement, Vol. 20, No. 1, pp. 59–68, 2000.
20. Deshusses M. A. and Webster, T. S., Con-
struction and Economics of a Pilot/Full-Scale
Biological Trickling Filter Reactor for the Re-
moval of Volatile Organic Compounds from
Polluted Air, J. of Air & Waste management
Assoc, Vol. 50, No. 11, pp. 92–105, 2000.
21. Irving, Z. I. D. and Deshusses, M. A., Compara-
tive Scale-Up and Cost Estimation of a Biologi-
cal Trickling Filter and a Three-Phase Airlift
Bioreactor for the Removal of Methylene Chlo-
ride from Polluted Air, J. of Air & Waste Man-
agement Assoc, Vol. 47, No. 9, pp. 44–53, 1997.
41