| dc.contributor.author |
Kastner, JR |
en |
| dc.contributor.author |
Das, KC |
en |
| dc.date.accessioned |
2014-06-06T06:46:13Z |
|
| dc.date.available |
2014-06-06T06:46:13Z |
|
| dc.date.issued |
2005 |
en |
| dc.identifier.issn |
02682575 |
en |
| dc.identifier.uri |
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jctb.1308 |
en |
| dc.identifier.uri |
http://62.217.125.90/xmlui/handle/123456789/2853 |
|
| dc.subject |
Aldehydes |
en |
| dc.subject |
Biofilter |
en |
| dc.subject |
Gas chromatography |
en |
| dc.subject |
Mass spectrometry |
en |
| dc.subject |
Odor |
en |
| dc.subject |
Volatile organic compounds (VOC) |
en |
| dc.subject |
Wet scrubber |
en |
| dc.subject.other |
Agriculture |
en |
| dc.subject.other |
Aldehydes |
en |
| dc.subject.other |
Chlorine compounds |
en |
| dc.subject.other |
Filtration |
en |
| dc.subject.other |
Gas chromatography |
en |
| dc.subject.other |
Mass spectrometry |
en |
| dc.subject.other |
Odors |
en |
| dc.subject.other |
Reaction kinetics |
en |
| dc.subject.other |
Scrubbers |
en |
| dc.subject.other |
Thermal effects |
en |
| dc.subject.other |
Biofiltration |
en |
| dc.subject.other |
Chlorine dioxide |
en |
| dc.subject.other |
Kinetic analysis |
en |
| dc.subject.other |
Poultry |
en |
| dc.subject.other |
Wet scrubbers |
en |
| dc.subject.other |
Volatile organic compounds |
en |
| dc.subject.other |
aldehyde |
en |
| dc.subject.other |
chlorine dioxide |
en |
| dc.subject.other |
biofiltration |
en |
| dc.subject.other |
emission control |
en |
| dc.subject.other |
scrubber |
en |
| dc.subject.other |
volatile organic compound |
en |
| dc.subject.other |
air temperature |
en |
| dc.subject.other |
article |
en |
| dc.subject.other |
biofilter |
en |
| dc.subject.other |
biofiltration |
en |
| dc.subject.other |
comparative study |
en |
| dc.subject.other |
controlled study |
en |
| dc.subject.other |
data analysis |
en |
| dc.subject.other |
environmental protection |
en |
| dc.subject.other |
gas chromatography |
en |
| dc.subject.other |
kinetics |
en |
| dc.subject.other |
mass spectrometry |
en |
| dc.subject.other |
monitoring |
en |
| dc.subject.other |
odor control |
en |
| dc.subject.other |
poultry farming |
en |
| dc.subject.other |
time |
en |
| dc.title |
Comparison of chemical wet scrubbers and biofiltration for control of volatile organic compounds using GC/MS techniques and kinetic analysis |
en |
| heal.type |
journalArticle |
en |
| heal.identifier.primary |
10.1002/jctb.1308 |
en |
| heal.publicationDate |
2005 |
en |
| heal.abstract |
Increasing public concerns and EPA air regulations in non-attainment zones necessitate the remediation of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) generated in the poultry-rendering industry. Wet scrubbers using chlorine dioxide (ClO2) have low overall removal efficiencies due to lack of reactivity with aldehydes. Contrary to wet scrubbers, a biofilter system successfully treated the aldehyde fraction, based on GC /MS analysis of inlet and outlet streams. Total VOC removal efficiencies ranged from 40 to 100% for the biofilter, kinetic analysis indicated that the overall removal capacity approached 25 g m-3 h-1, and aldehyde removal efficiency was significantly higher compared with chemical wet scrubbers. Process temperatures monitored in critical unit operations upstream from the biofilter varied significantly during operation, rising as much as 30 °C within a few minutes. However, the outlet air temperature of a high intensity scrubber remained relatively constant at 40 °C, although the inlet air temperature fluctuated from 50 to 65 °C during monitoring. These data suggest a hybrid process combining a wet scrubber and biofilter in series could be used to improve overall VOC removal efficiencies and process stability. © 2005 Society of Chemical Industry. |
en |
| heal.journalName |
Journal of Chemical Technology and Biotechnology |
en |
| dc.identifier.issue |
10 |
en |
| dc.identifier.volume |
80 |
en |
| dc.identifier.doi |
10.1002/jctb.1308 |
en |
| dc.identifier.spage |
1170 |
en |
| dc.identifier.epage |
1179 |
en |