Search Advanced

AIMS Energy

2019, Volume 7, Issue 3: 371-381. doi: 10.3934/energy.2019.3.371
Previous Article Next Article
Research article Topical Sections

Simulation and experimental analysis of biogas upgrading

  • 1.
    Department of Mechanical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Technology,Wachemo University
  • 2.
    School of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, Addis Ababa Institute of Technology, Addis Ababa University
  • Biogas production is a consolidated approach for converting organic waste into renewable energy. To better use the biogas and increase the calorific value and remove unwanted components from the raw biogas, it is crucial to clean raw biogas and upgrade it. The cleaned biogas is used in high efficient power generation systems. However, it is hard to find innovative biogas upgrading technologies for electricity generation in Ethiopia. Almost all of the Biogas produced in Ethiopia has been used for cooking. In this study, a novel technology to upgrade Biogas and reduce H2S content of biogas has been studied. After production of the biogas different chemicals have been used to upgrade the biogas: activated carbon to remove H2S, NaOH and KOH to remove CO2, silica gel and charcoal to remove the moisture. The experimental result shows that these innovative technologies reduces the acidic content (H2S) by 99% and removes the CO2content by 82%. As a result, the methane content increased from 56.7% to 85%. The CO2content decreased from 36% to 7%. This shows that the upgraded biogas can be used for electricity power generation.

    Citation: Yonael Mezmur, Wondwossen Bogale. Simulation and experimental analysis of biogas upgrading[J]. AIMS Energy, 2019, 7(3): 371-381. doi: 10.3934/energy.2019.3.371

    Related Papers:

    [1] Muhammad Rashed Al Mamun, Shuichi Torii . Comparative Studies on Methane Upgradation of Biogas by Removing of Contaminant Gases Using Combined Chemical Methods. AIMS Energy, 2015, 3(3): 255-266. doi: 10.3934/energy.2015.3.255
    [2] Wasinton Simanjuntak, Kamisah Delilawati Pandiangan, Tika Dwi Febriyanti, Aryani Putri Islami, Sutopo Hadi, Ilim Ilim . Catalytic upgrading of palm oil derived bio-crude oil for bio-hydrocarbon enrichment using protonated zeolite-Y as catalyst. AIMS Energy, 2024, 12(3): 600-616. doi: 10.3934/energy.2024028
    [3] Kharisma Bani Adam, Jangkung Raharjo, Desri Kristina Silalahi, Bandiyah Sri Aprilia, IGPO Indra Wijaya . Integrative analysis of diverse hybrid power systems for sustainable energy in underdeveloped regions: A case study in Indonesia. AIMS Energy, 2024, 12(1): 304-320. doi: 10.3934/energy.2024015
    [4] Sokna San, Seyla Heng, Vanna Torn, Chivon Choeung, Horchhong Cheng, Seiha Hun, Chanmoly Or . Production of biogas from co-substrates using cow dung, pig dung, and vegetable waste: A case study in Cambodia. AIMS Energy, 2024, 12(5): 1010-1024. doi: 10.3934/energy.2024047
    [5] Muhammad Rashed Al Mamun, Anika Tasnim, Shahidul Bashar, Md. Jasim Uddin . Potentiality of biomethane production from slaughtered rumen digesta for reduction of environmental pollution. AIMS Energy, 2018, 6(5): 658-672. doi: 10.3934/energy.2018.5.658
    [6] Sebastian Auburger, Richard Wüstholz, Eckart Petig, Enno Bahrs . Biogas digestate and its economic impact on farms and biogas plants according to the upper limit for nitrogen spreading—the case of nutrient-burdened areas in north-west Germany. AIMS Energy, 2015, 3(4): 740-759. doi: 10.3934/energy.2015.4.740
    [7] Lihao Chen, Kunio Yoshikawa . Bio-oil upgrading by cracking in two-stage heated reactors. AIMS Energy, 2018, 6(1): 203-215. doi: 10.3934/energy.2018.1.203
    [8] Mikael Lantz, Emma Kreuger, Lovisa Björnsson . An economic comparison of dedicated crops vs agricultural residues as feedstock for biogas of vehicle fuel quality. AIMS Energy, 2017, 5(5): 838-863. doi: 10.3934/energy.2017.5.838
    [9] Robinson J. Tanyi, Muyiwa S Adaramola . Bioenergy potential of agricultural crop residues and municipal solid waste in Cameroon. AIMS Energy, 2023, 11(1): 31-46. doi: 10.3934/energy.2023002
    [10] Antonio Gagliano, Salvatore Giuffrida, Francesco Nocera, Maurizio Detommaso . Energy efficient measure to upgrade a multistory residential in a nZEB. AIMS Energy, 2017, 5(4): 601-624. doi: 10.3934/energy.2017.4.601
  • Biogas production is a consolidated approach for converting organic waste into renewable energy. To better use the biogas and increase the calorific value and remove unwanted components from the raw biogas, it is crucial to clean raw biogas and upgrade it. The cleaned biogas is used in high efficient power generation systems. However, it is hard to find innovative biogas upgrading technologies for electricity generation in Ethiopia. Almost all of the Biogas produced in Ethiopia has been used for cooking. In this study, a novel technology to upgrade Biogas and reduce H2S content of biogas has been studied. After production of the biogas different chemicals have been used to upgrade the biogas: activated carbon to remove H2S, NaOH and KOH to remove CO2, silica gel and charcoal to remove the moisture. The experimental result shows that these innovative technologies reduces the acidic content (H2S) by 99% and removes the CO2content by 82%. As a result, the methane content increased from 56.7% to 85%. The CO2content decreased from 36% to 7%. This shows that the upgraded biogas can be used for electricity power generation.


    1.   Introduction

    Due to industrialization, increasing number of populations and modern agricultural machineries and way of life, the demand of energy is increasing at an alarming rate. To satisfy the energy need, large amount of fossil fuels are used with adverse impact on the environmental impact [1]. To decrease the reliance on fossil fuels, renewable energy is being used.

    Considering, Ethiopia where more than 60% of the municipal solid waste is organic, advanced Biogas systems can be adopted for generation of electricity, cooking and transportation purpose. One of the most important components of municipal solid waste is food waste such as household food waste, food-processing waste, and cafeteria and restaurant waste. Besides, more than 82% of the Ethiopian population is living in rural area and most of them are farmers. Thus, by combining food waste, animal waste and agricultural waste, it is possible to generate energy for the rural communities. Thus, Biogas is a recommended technology to convert organic waste into energy.

    Biogas is produced when organic material is decomposed under anaerobic condition in a digester. Biogas is a mixture of mainly methane and carbon dioxide produced by bacterial decomposition of sewage, manure, garbage, or plant crop [1]. Raw biogas consists mainly of methane (CH4, 50–75%) and Carbon dioxide (CO2, 25–40%) and other elements like, water (H2O, 5–10%), Hydrogen sulfide (H2S, 0.005–2%), ammonia (NH3, < 1%), oxygen (O2, 0–1%), carbon monoxide (CO, < 0.6%) and nitrogen (N2, 0–2%) can be present. The average lower heating value of a biogas varies between 30 and 35 MJ/kg [2]. Whereas, the calorific value of pure methane is approximately 55 MJ/kg. The difference in calorific value is due to CO2, which is the incombustible part of Biogas. Besides reducing the calorific value, the existence of CO2 in the Biogas also increases compression and transportation costs [3]. Thus, purified methane can be used for various applications: compressed gas, electricity generation, internal combustion engines, etc.

    Even though Biogas is used without removing unwanted gases, it is very useful to upgrade the biogas and so that it can be used as a natural gas and for various applications with high efficiency. Biogas upgrading and compressing is the most promising technology to convert raw biogas to Bio methane [2]. Biogas production shows an increased trend in recent years. So, biogas purification and upgrading had been researched extensively in recent years.

    Awe OW et al. [4] reviewed biogas purification with the focus on the removal of contaminants, such as H2S, NH3, and siloxanes, but the removal of CO2 was only briefly mentioned.Weiland [5] presented an overview of the complete biogas production and consumption chain but did not focus on currently available upgrading technologies. Bekkering et al. [6] studied the current status and future options of biogas upgrading technologies but did not present the technical performance and economic report on various upgrading technologies. Beil et al. [7] reviewed different biogas upgrading technologies with the focus on their operating conditions, drawbacks and efficiency. Pertl et al. [8] and Starr et al. [9] applied life cycle assessment (LCA) to biogas upgrading Masebinu et al. [10] found that the market shares for biogas upgrading technologies have been changed rapidly in recent years, amine scrubbing is continuously achieving significant market shares. Kárászová et al. [11] reviewed membrane separation processes for biogas and found that membrane gas permeation is able to compete with classical biogas upgrading technologies.Sun et al. [12] encouraged more researches on membrane separation process for economical biogas upgrading and its utilization as a vehicle fuel. Chen et al. [13] revealed that hybrid processes for biogas upgrading are more efficient, where membrane separation is combined with absorption, adsorption, and cryogenic technique. This combined separation processes can improve the performance and reduce the operational cost of the process.

    Removal of contaminants from biogas can be generally conducted as follows: H2S can be removed using activated carbon, Iron Sponge, biological oxidation, etc., CO2 can be removed using NaOH/KOH, amine solution etc., H2O can be removed using Silicagel [14,15,16]. CO2 can be removed by biological purification processes using algae cultures [17].

    Even though several literatures can be found for biogas upgrading, it is still needs special attention in reducing the operational cost of the upgrading system and disseminate the technologies for a wider use. Especially in Ethiopia, more than 82 % of the population is living in the rural areas and most of them are farmers. At the same time the rural electrification rate in Ethiopia is less than 10% [18]. Thus, if we use the waste from cattle to produced biogas and upgrade it, it can be used for various applications: compressed gas, electricity generation, transportation etc. Thus, in this paper, a chemical absorption method is used to upgrade the biogas (Activated carbon to remove H2S, Potassium hydroxide and Sodium hydroxide to remove CO2 and Silica gel to remove H2O). Detailed analysis of the food waste, raw Biogas and upgraded biogas were performed.

    2.   Material and methods

    2.1.   Experimental procedure

    An experimental analysis together with extensive survey of different literature on upgrading technologies was carried out. Thus, a chemical adoption method has been adopted for gas cleaning due to the availability of the chemicals in the Ethiopian local market and their economical benefits. The chemical absorption method uses aqueous chemical solution (NaOH solution, KOH solution), activated carbon and silica gel. The schematic diagram of the procedure is depicted as shown in Figure 1. First, activated carbon has been used to remove H2S. Then two different chemical solutions, i.e. NaOH and KOH have been used to remove CO2. After that, silica gel has been used to remove H2O. Finally, the treated gas has been compressed and stored in a gas cylinder.

    Figure 1.  Schematic diagram of biogas upgrading systems.
    DownLoad: Full-Size Img PowerPoint

    2.2.   Feedstock

    Organic wastes (leftover food from student's cafeteria) were collected from Addis Ababa University (Sidist Kilo Campus) and the cattle manure was collected from a nearby area. The substrates which are collected were crushed into small pieces of 2 mm sizes with a mechanical crusher and blended together. The blended sample was mixed and diluted with water in a ratio to get a 10% total solid content inside the digester. The prepared stock was fed to a volume of 10 m3 Biogas digester. Inoculum was prepared from fresh cow dung with a total solid matter of less than with < 15 % of dry matter. Note: Inoculum is microbial biomass which is added at the beginning of fermentation or during the course of fermentation in order to accelerate it [19]. The temperature of the digester is kept at 30 ℃ using heating system. The retention time was around 30 days.

    2.3.   Characterization of food waste

    Ultimate analysis: The ultimate analyses of the food waste were estimated experimentally using EA 1112 Flash CHNS/O ultimate analyzer. The results of ultimate analysis by using ultimate analyzer are 45.405%, 7.655%, 42.915%, 3.945%, and 0.4% for contents of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, and Sulfur, respectively. The following are the measurement conditions of the analyzer: Carrier gas flow rate of 120 ml/min, reference flow rate 100 ml/min, oxygen flow rate 250 ml/min; furnace temperature of 900 ℃ and oven temperature of 75 ℃, 4 calibration points for every component were taken. Samples were run in duplicate and the average values were taken. Based on the ultimate analysis result, the chemical formula of the sample is calculated: C3.78H7.66O3.78N0.28S3.70.018. Equation for the theoretical biogas composition, including sulphur and nitrogen is expressed according to Boyle[20]:

    caHbocNdSe+(a−b4−c2+3d4+e2)H2O→(a2+b8−c4−3d8−e4)cH4+(a2−b8+c4+3d8+e4)co2+dNH3+eH2s

    It worth mentioning that, the produced ammonia can be recovered and used as a fertilizer. This can increase the economic sustainability of biogas cleaning.

    2.4.   Mathematical model

    A simple system consists of a stirred reactor with a single input and output stream, and constant feedstock volume. This bioreactor is fed by reactants A and B which are converted through a series of biological steps into products C and D as shown in Figure 2. The rate of accumulation of each component in the reaction can be described by a mathematical differential equation. For instance, the rate of change of concentration of 'A' in the tank is equal to the rate of change of concentration due to new feedstock being added plus the rate of change of concentration due to material going to outlet plus the rate of change of concentration due to the biochemical reaction.

    Figure 2.  Schematic of a typical well stirred single tank reactor.
    DownLoad: Full-Size Img PowerPoint

    A mathematical differential equation is used to describe the rate of accumulation of each component in the reaction. The rate of change of concentration of A in the tank is equal to the rate of change of concentration due to new feedstock being added plus the rate of change of concentration due to material going to outlet plus the rate of change of concentration due to the biochemical reaction [21]. The set of differential equations that follows from the simple equation is given below:

    d[A]dt=d[A]dtin−dAdtout−K[A][B]c1 (1)
    dBdt=d[B]dtin−d[B]dtout−C1K[A][B]C1 (2)
    dCdt=d[C]dtin−d[C]dtout+C2K[A][B]C1 (3)
    dDdt=d[D]dtin−d[D]dtout+C3K[A][B]C1 (4)

    The reaction rate constant k can be either determined experimentally. Theoretically, k can be determined from the Arrhenius equation and where C1, C2 and C3 are constants of chemical reaction.

    K=Ce−EA/RT (5)

    For an initial approximation, Wu et al. [22] gave an estimation of the value of k:

    K=6.21×10−8(moll×t)−1 (6)

    The value of k used in this model is determined by matching the model to the experiment initially and more accurately by running a number of simulations.

    2.5.   Experimental setup for purification

    In order to remove CO2, H2S and H2O, a purification system has been used. NaOH/KOH, activated carbon and silica gel were added to purification system to remove CO2, H2S and H2O from the raw biogas respectively. The purification system is arranged as shown in Figure 3.

    Figure 3.  Purification system.
    DownLoad: Full-Size Img PowerPoint

    Removal of H2S: Since activated carbon has high surface area, porosity, and surface chemistry, it is suitable to adsorb H2S from biogas [23]. During removal process the impregnated activated carbon was 10 g per liter of water and NaOH. This reaction is an adsorption process. Hydrogen sulfide is adsorbed on the carbon surface and dissolution of H2S into the water film is resulted.

    Removable of CO2: The upgrading section consists of solutions of NaOH/KOH which was varied from 1–10 kg per litter for all the experimental runs. Biogas was passed through the upgrading first flask where it reacts with NaOH of 0.1 moles with a Biogas flow rate of 15 L/min and solution flow rate of 10–20 L/min. The chemical reaction during the process is depicted here below:

    2NaOH(aqu)+CO2(g)→Na2CO3(aqu)+H2O(l) (7)

    The Carbon dioxide removal efficiency was calculated using:

    ηco2=(1−co2pureco2raw)×100% (8)
    2KOHacq+CO2↔K2CO3,acq+H2O(l) (9)

    The chemical absorption process of CO2 using KOH is no different from the process applied using NaOH. However, KOH is more expensive than NaOH [4]. Yan et al. [24] discussed in detail that instead of using expensive chemicals, biomass ash could be used in substitution of NaOH/KOH, in order to reduce operational expense. The formation of K2CO3,acq in equation 10, can improve biogas upgrading through the subsequent reaction of K2CO3 + CO2 + H2O = 2KHCO3 and this reaction further increases the CO2 [25].

    Removal of H2O: Silica gel as it has very good moisture absorbing capacity. The biogas enters the moisture eliminating column after passing the H2S and CO2 removal unit. H2O is mostly adsorbed on silica without chemical reactions.

    3.   Result and discussion

    The raw biogas was passed through the upgrading system where it reacted with NaOH and KOH solution. In this case, aqueous solutions of NaOH and KOH were used as chemical solvents to demonstrate and compare which chemical solvent is best to absorb CO2. The reactor flask was observed to remove a high portion of CO2 gradually (approximately 80–85% removal efficiency) resulting in CH4 enriched biogas. This alkali solution NaOH fully controls CO2 reaction in the biogas intensively through an acid-base neutralization reaction absorbing and reducing the desired gas. The average CO2 concentration in the raw biogas was about 35.4%, whereas, the CO2 concentration in upgrading gas decreased steadily with increasing of NaOH and KOH concentration.

    Figure 4.  Experimental result of CO2 removal.
    DownLoad: Full-Size Img PowerPoint
    Figure 5.  Experimental result of H2S removal.
    DownLoad: Full-Size Img PowerPoint

    Water vapor is the leading corrosion risk factor when reacting with H2S since it produces H2SO4 acid. The color of the silica gel was changed from blue to pink after absorbing the water vapor from the raw biogas. A decrease in moisture content was noticed when the quantity of Silica gel increases. Based on the result, silica gel is extremely porous and can absorb a large amount of water due to its large internal surface area.

    Figure 6.  Experimental result of H2O removal.
    DownLoad: Full-Size Img PowerPoint

    3.1.   Comparative results study of removal efficiency

    The removal efficiency is increasing almost linearly with increasing the mass of chemical agents. The removal efficiency was the highest using those chemicals, with efficiency results such as 91.5%, 87.96%, 89.90%, for CO2, H2S, and H2O, respectively during the experiments as shown in Figure 7. The corresponding methane content is 88%. Based on the experimental result, it can be concluded that chemical purification process would be considered as the best way to upgrade biogas by enhancing the CH4 concentration. Based on the experiment result using Method 1, which is using NaOH, activated carbon, and silcagel is good enough when we compare to Method 2 of using KOH, Wood charcoal and Silcagel.

    Figure 7.  Methane enrichment.
    DownLoad: Full-Size Img PowerPoint
    Figure 8.  Comparison of removal efficiency.
    DownLoad: Full-Size Img PowerPoint

    4.   Conclusion

    In this study a detailed experimental analysis to upgrade raw biogas has been performed in order to increase the calorific value and remove unwanted components from the raw biogas. The experimental result shows that these innovative technologies reduces the acidic content (H2S) by 99% and removes the CO2 content by 82%. As a result, the methane content increased from 56.7% to 85%. The CO2 content decreased from 36% to 7%. Based on the experimental result, it can be concluded that chemical purification process would be considered as the best way to upgrade biogas by enhancing the CH4 concentration. Based on the experiment result using method 1, which is using NaOH, activated carbon and silcagel is good enough when compared to method 2 of using KOH, wood charcoal and silcagel. It is highly recommended to do economic analysis to prove that the additional cost to upgrade biogas can be returned back by selling the upgrade biogas. Future works can be performed by using different biogas upgrading technologies to better select the right technologies that are efficient, economical and environmental friendly.

    Acknowledgements

    Authors acknowledge the financial support of the Vice President for Research and Technology Transfer Office of Addis Ababa University.

    Conflict of Interest

    All authors declare no conflict of interest in this paper.



    [1] Abatzoglou N, Boivin S (2009) A review of biogas purification processes. Biofuels, Biopro Biorefin 3: 42–71. doi: 10.1002/bbb.117
    [2] Aile, Nantes (2012) Biogas to Biomethane Technology Review. Vienna Univ. Technoloy (Austria), Inst. Chem. Eng. Res. Div. Therm. Process Eng. Simul., (May): 1–15.
    [3] Sahota S, Shah G, Ghosh P (2018) Review of trends in biogas upgradation technologies and future perspectives. Bioresour Technol Reports: 79–88.
    [4] Lyczko N, Nzihou A, Awe OW, et al. (2017) A review of biogas utilisation, purification and upgrading technologies. Waste Biomass Valorization 8: 267–283. doi: 10.1007/s12649-016-9826-4
    [5] Weiland P (2010) Biogas production: Current state and perspectives. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 85: 849–860. doi: 10.1007/s00253-009-2246-7
    [6] Bekkering J, Broekhuis AA, van Gemert WJT (2010) Optimisation of a green gas supply chain- A Review. Bioresour Technol 101: 450–456. doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2009.08.106
    [7] Beil M, Beyrich W (2013) Biogas upgrading to biomethane, biogas handbook, woodhead publishing, 342–377.
    [8] Pertl A, Mostbauer P, Obersteiner G (2010) Climate balance of biogas upgrading systems. Waste Manag 30: 92–99. doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2009.08.011
    [9] Starr K, Gabarrell X, Villalba G, et al. (2012) Life cycle assessment of biogas upgrading technologies. Waste Manag 32: 991–999. doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2011.12.016
    [10] Masebinu SO, Aboyade AO, Muzenda E (2015) Economic analysis of biogas upgrading and utilization as vehicular fuel in South Africa. Proc. World Congr. Eng. Comput. Sci. 2015 Vol II WCECS 2015, Oct. 21–23, 2015, San Fr. USA 2220: 579–588.
    [11] Kárászová M, Sedláková Z, Izák P (2015) Gas permeation processes in biogas upgrading: A Short Review. Chem Pap 69: 1277–1283.
    [12] Sun Q, Li H, Yan J, et al. (2015) Selection of appropriate biogas upgrading technology-a review of biogas cleaning, upgrading and utilisation. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 51: 521–532. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2015.06.029
    [13] Chen XY, Vinh-Thang H, Ramirez AA, et al. (2015) Membrane gas separation technologies for biogas upgrading. Rsc Adv 5: 24399–24448. doi: 10.1039/C5RA00666J
    [14] Abdeen FR, Mel M, Jami MS, et al. (2016) A review of chemical absorption of carbon dioxide for biogas upgrading. Chinese J Chem Eng 24: 693–702. doi: 10.1016/j.cjche.2016.05.006
    [15] Shah R, Nagarsheth J, Acharya P (2016) Purification of biogas using chemical scrubbing and application of purified biogas as fuel for automotive engines. Res J Recent Sci 5: 1–7. doi: 10.5530/jscires.5.1.1
    [16] Maile OI, Muzenda E, Tesfagiorgis H (2017) Chemical absorption of carbon dioxide in biogas purification. Proc Manuf 7: 639–646.
    [17] Ramaraj R, Dussadee N (2015) Biological purification processes for biogas using algae cultures: A review. 4: 20.
    [18] Barnes DF, Golumbeanu R, Bank W, et al. (2016) Beyond electricity access: Output-Based aid and rural electrification in Ethiopia. 148.
    [19] Verein Deutscher Ingenieure (2014) VDI 4630 - Gärsubstrate. (April).
    [20] Boyle WC (1977) Energy recovery from sanitary landfills-A review.   The Proceedings of a Seminar Sponsored by the UN Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR) and the Ministry for Research and Technology of the Federal Republic of Germany Held in Göttingen. 119–138.
    [21] Rea J (2014) Kinetic Modeling and experimentation of anaerobic digestion. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
    [22] Wu B, Bibeau EL, Gebremedhin KG (2006) Three-Dimensional numerical simulation model of biogas production for anaerobic digesters. American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers.
    [23] Yuan W, Bandosz TJ (2007) Removal of hydrogen sulfide from biogas on sludge-derived adsorbents. Fuel 86: 2736–2746. doi: 10.1016/j.fuel.2007.03.012
    [24] Yan S, He Q, Wang W, et al. (2017) CO2 absorption using biogas slurry: CO2 absorption enhancement induced by biomass ash. Energy Procedia 114: 890–897. doi: 10.1016/j.egypro.2017.03.1232
    [25] Paolini V, Torre M, Giacopini W, et al. (2019) CO2/CH4 separation by hot potassium carbonate absorption for biogas upgrading. Int J Greenh Gas Control 83: 186–194. doi: 10.1016/j.ijggc.2019.02.011

  • This article has been cited by:

    1. Ahmad Rafiee, Kaveh R. Khalilpour, James Prest, Igor Skryabin, Biogas as an energy vector, 2021, 144, 09619534, 105935, 10.1016/j.biombioe.2020.105935
    2. Register Mrosso, Revocatus Machunda, Tatiana Pogrebnaya, Removal of Hydrogen Sulfide from Biogas Using a Red Rock, 2020, 2020, 2356-735X, 1, 10.1155/2020/2309378
    3. Maria Andronikou, Vasiliki Adamou, Loukas Koutsokeras, Georgios Constantinides, Ioannis Vyrides, Magnesium ribbon and anaerobic granular sludge for conversion of CO2 to CH4 or biogas upgrading, 2022, 435, 13858947, 134888, 10.1016/j.cej.2022.134888
    4. Wondwossen Bogale, Maya F. Misikir, Bruck Sewnet, Ann-Kathrin van Laere, Saut Sagala, Chuan Ma, Jorge Antonio Hilbert, Mutala Mohammed, Yaseen Salie, Strengthening the biogas sector of Ethiopia through international collaboration: the case of the Digital Global Biogas Cooperation (DiBiCoo), 2022, 1094, 1755-1307, 012009, 10.1088/1755-1315/1094/1/012009
    5. Denny K.S. Ng, Sarah L.X. Wong, Viknesh Andiappan, Lik Yin Ng, Mathematical optimisation for sustainable bio-methane (Bio-CH4) production from palm oil mill effluent (POME), 2023, 265, 03605442, 126211, 10.1016/j.energy.2022.126211
    6. Mayerlin Edith Acuña Montaño, Richard de Albuquerque Felizola Romeral, Maria de Almeida Silva, Kevin Nabor Paredes Canencio, Murilo Duma, Gustavo Rafael Collere Possetti, Renata Mello Giona, Alesandro Bail, Co-Hydrothermal Carbonization of Sewage Sludge and Waste Pickling Acid to Produce a Novel Adsorbent for Hydrogen Sulfide Removal From Biogas, 2024, 2193-567X, 10.1007/s13369-024-09129-9
    7. Gebrehiwot Kunom Hagos, Wondalem Misganaw Golie, Fentahun Abebaw Belete, Yared Hagos Gidey, Biogas upgrading produced through anaerobic co-digestion of organic biowastes: a comparative study, 2025, 2190-6815, 10.1007/s13399-025-06757-5
  • Reader Comments
  • © 2019 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)
通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com
  • 1. 

    沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院 沈阳 110142

  1. 本站搜索
  2. 百度学术搜索
  3. 万方数据库搜索
  4. CNKI搜索
AIMS Energy
1.8 3.8

Metrics

Article views(6935) PDF downloads(1694) Cited by(7)

Preview PDF
Download XML
Export Citation
Article outline
Abstract
   Introduction
   Material and methods
   Result and discussion
   Conclusion
Acknowledgements
Conflict of Interest
References

Other Articles By Authors

Related pages

Tools

Copyright © AIMS Press

/

DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
Return
Return

Catalog