See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/364236085

Biogas impurities: Environmental and health implications, removal

technologies and future perspectives

Article in Heliyon · October 2022

DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e10929

CITATIONS READS

60 553

1 author:

Adhena Ayaliew Werkneh

Northumbria University
34 PUBLICATIONS 10,880 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Adhena Ayaliew Werkneh on 01 December 2022.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Heliyon 8 (2022) e10929

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Heliyon
journal homepage: www.cell.com/heliyon

Review article

Biogas impurities: environmental and health implications, removal

technologies and future perspectives
Adhena Ayaliew Werkneh *
Department of Environmental Health, School of Public Health, College of Health Sciences, Mekelle University, P.O. Box 1871, Mekelle, Ethiopia

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Biogas is a promising bioenergy alternative to be recovered from waste/wastewater in the context of environ-
Biogas mental sustainability and circular economy. However, raw biogas contains various secondary impurities such as
Biogas impurities carbon dioxide, hydrogen sulphide, siloxanes, nitrogen oxides (NOx), ammonia, and halogens. Depending on the
Biogas and health
emission rate of these biogas impurities, the importance of biogas is being hampered for its environmental, health
Biogas upgrading and cleaning
Biomethane
and the detrimental effects possess by the impurities towards the downstream of the biogas users. Biogas im-
purities can cause different public health concerns (like pulmonary paralysis, asthma, respiratory diseases and
deaths) and environmental impacts (such as global warming, climate change and their indirect impacts like
drought, flooding, malnutrition and other disasters). The absence/inconsistent emission standards among coun-
tries, agencies, and other stakeholders is the other challenge that they possess during monitoring and controlling
of these impurities. Different commercially available and emerging technologies are available for separating
carbon dioxide (via biogas upgrading) and removing other biogas impurities. Technologies such as pressure swing
adsorption, membrane separation, absorption-based techniques (water, chemical and physical organic solvents),
cryogenic separation, and other emerging biotechnological platforms (like photobioreactor and biocatalysis) have
been adopted in removing the impurities. This paper reviewed the main commercially available and new tech-
nologies and their performance in removing carbon dioxide (the main constituent of biogas) and other biogas
impurities. Besides, the environmental and public health implications of biogas and future research perspectives
are also highlighted.

1. Introduction controlled moisture, temperature, and pH to produce a higher energy

value fuel under anaerobic conditions (Grande et al., 2011; Chen et al.,
Development of clean energy from sustainable sources (waste sector) 2015; L
opez et al., 2012). Recent research has approved that the devel-
is a global interest of our time to mitigate the issue of environmental opment and usage of biogas have a vital contribution to reduce global
degradation and climate change (Carranza-Abaid et al., 2021; Kohlheb warming (Tan et al., 2017; Ardolino and Arena, 2019; Wasajja et al.,
et al., 2021). This causes a paradigm shift in the circular economy 2020; Paglini et al., 2022). Biogas is used to generate electricity in gas
perspective of organic waste and wastewater management (Atelge et al., turbines and is considered an environmentally friendly and clean energy
2021; Paglini et al., 2022). In this approach, the conventional thinking of source when compared to non-renewable sources (fossil fuel from coal)
waste as a disposable material is no-longer appropriate, but the organic (Hoyer et al., 2016). However, biogas utilization has limited due to its
waste/wastewater is a resource for bioenergy production through the composition, which depends on the type and origin of feedstock, treat-
process of anaerobic digestion (Nguyen et al., 2020). The implementa- ment processes (digestion process), and the process parameters (Table 1)
tion of anaerobic digestion is an encouraging success and has become an (L

opez et al., 2012; Kaparaju, 2013). This implies that the potential
impetus for its simultaneous applications in waste management and calorific value of methane in the raw biogas could be different (Mattioli
biogas production (Wickham et al., 2018; Paolini et al., 2018b; Kohlheb et al., 2017; Wickham et al., 2018). This raw biogas mainly contains
et al., 2021). 40–75% methane and 15–60% carbon dioxide (Atelge et al., 2021; Macor
Biogas is a biofuel produced by a huge number of anaerobic microbial and Benato, 2021; Carranza-Abaid et al., 2021; Dannesboe et al., 2021).
species that possess the ability to biodegrade organic matter under However, the rest are secondary impurities such as 0–15% nitrogen (N2),

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: [email protected], [email protected].

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e10929
Received 29 June 2022; Received in revised form 14 August 2022; Accepted 29 September 2022
2405-8440/© 2022 The Author. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
A.A. Werkneh Heliyon 8 (2022) e10929

Table 1. Main composition of raw biogas from different waste sources with their calorific value and corresponding effects (adapted from Kaparaju, 2013; Awe et al.,
2017).
Parameter Farm-scale AD plant Centralized AD plant Landfill gas Sewage treatment Natural gas (Holland) Biomethane
Methane (% vol.) 55–60 60–70 30–65 60–65 81–89 >97
Carbon dioxide (% vol.) 35–40 30–40 25–45 35–40 0.67–1 <2
Hydrogen sulphide (ppm) 25–30 0–2000 30–500 <0.5–6800 0–2.9 3.5
1.5*
Water vapor (% vol.) – 1–5 1–5 – – –
Hydrocarbons (% vol.) 0 0 0 0 3.5–9.4 –
Hydrogen (% vol.) 0 0 0–3 0 – <0.5
Nitrogen (% vol.) <1–2 2–6 <1–17 <1–2 0.28–14
Oxygen (% vol.) <1 0.5–1.6 <1–3 <0.05–0.7 0
Ammonia (ppm) 100 100 5 <1–7 0 0.25
0.01*
Halogens (as Cl in mg/m3) <0.01 <0.25 0.3–225 0–2 –
Siloxanes (mg/m3) <0.03–<0.2 <0.08–<0.5 <0.3–36 <1–400 –
Wobbe index (MJ/m3) 24–33 24–33 20–25 25–30 44–55
Lower heating value, (MJ/Nm3) 23 23 16 22 31–40

Note: * – mg/m3.

<0.6% carbon monoxide (CO), 0–10000 ppmv hydrogen sulphide (H2S), cleaning of other impurities prior to utilization. In this way, pressure
0–3% oxygen (O2), 0–100 ppmv ammonia (NH3), 0–41 mg Si/m3 silox- swing adsorption (PSA) and water scrubbers are the most commonly used
anes, 0–200 mg/m3 hydrocarbons, 1–5% water (H2O) and other partic- technologies in biogas upgrading (Kohlheb et al., 2021). During the
ulates (Persson et al., 2007; Bauer et al., 2013; Ryckebosch et al., 2011; earliest biogas upgrading developments, the PSA and water scrubbing
Awe et al., 2017; Mattioli et al., 2017, Wickham et al., 2018). Several techniques are considered as the most dominant technologies in small
countries have their own biogas quality requirements for injection into scale operations (Sun et al., 2015; Kohlheb et al., 2021). Currently, a
the natural gas grid or/and vehicle fuel utilization (Allegue and Hinge, wider range of physico-chemical biogas upgrading technologies such as
2012; Macor and Benato, 2021). The energy content of biogas is deter- membrane and cryogenic separations, chemical and physical organic
mined by methane composition (i.e. the higher methane concentration scrubbers (Biernat and Samson-Bręk, 2011; L
opez et al., 2012; Hoyer
leads to a higher calorific energy value) (Chen et al., 2015; Kohlheb et al., et al., 2016; Xu et al., 2017; Nguyen et al., 2020) and other emerging
2021) (Table 1). For example, according to the Wobbe index, the calorific biological technologies (photobioreactor) have been adopted (Mann
value of biogas with 70% and 100% methane and biomethane content et al., 2009; Rodero et al., 2019; Nguyen et al., 2020; Debowski et al.,
yields 21.5 and 35.8 MJ/Nm3, respectively (Nguyen et al., 2020). 2021; Toledo-Cervantes et al., 2022). Selection of the best appropriate
However, the presence of a high content of carbon dioxide (CO2) and technologies among the available processes are performed through a
other trace gases reduces the economic value, its heat content and limits variety of conditions such as required degree of purity, composition of
beneficial applications of biogas (Xu et al., 2017; Atelge et al., 2021). the raw biogas to be treated, scale of operation and operational cost
Accordingly, if biogas is not treated for the removal of its impurities (Riboldi and Bolland, 2015; Baena-Moreno et al., 2019), where not a
(prior to its high value applications), the heat value of biogas will drop single technique is being more/less essentially than the other (Brunetti
(due to its lower calorific value during combustion by reducing the et al., 2010; Vrbov
a and Ciahotný, 2017; Maurya et al., 2019;
biogas methane content) and these impurities will cause environmental Carranza-Abaid et al., 2021). This paper reviews the existing and
impacts (Paolini et al., 2018b) and health concerns (Macor and Benato, emerging technologies and their performance in removing carbon diox-
2020a, 2020b, 2021). Different public health concerns (like pulmonary ide (the main constituent of biogas) and other biogas impurities. In
paralysis, asthma, respiratory diseases, the spread of communicable addition, the environmental and public health implications of biogas and
diseases and deaths) and various environmental impacts (such as global future research perspectives are also discussed.
warming, climate change and their indirect impacts like drought,
flooding, malnutrition, and other disasters) have been reported (Macor 2. Biogas impurities
and Benato, 2020a, 2020b, 2021) (Table 2). According to the Health
Impact Assessment (HIA) explained by Macor and Benato (2021), the Biogas, which is produced through the anaerobic digestion of
biogas impurities, NOx, SOx, volatile organic compounds (VOC) and CO biodegradable waste/wastewater is typically composed of mainly
contributes to 91, 6.5, 1.4 and 0.7%, respectively to damage human methane and carbon dioxide and a variety of impurities such as H2S,
health. With respect to effects into the biogas upgrading process, it can water vapour, siloxanes, NH3 and VOC (Wasajja et al., 2020), where their
lead to the failure of process functions of pipelines, power equipment, composition differs with the source of their feedstock (Surendra et al.,
connections, and nozzles, triggering the process equipment to corrode 2014; Saadabadi et al., 2019) and the type of biomass fed into the biogas
(Biernat and Samson-Bręk, 2011), as they tend to build-up or accumulate. producing digester (Wasajja et al., 2020). These biogas impurities have
A complete removal of carbon dioxide and other impurities is essential to detrimental effect in the biogas conversion devices and possess a harmful
enhance the biogas quality into biomethane (Nguyen et al., 2020) and to consequence to human health and the environment as emissions when
withdraw the revealed impacts. The need for biogas pretreatment is not their presence are above their threshold limits (Papurello et al., 2016;
only to address the aforementioned issues (Macor and Benato, 2020a, Paglini et al., 2022) (Table 2). This section provides the description of the
2021), but also to increase its calorific value for use in high-value ap- main biogas impurities and sources during the biogas production. Carbon
plications by converting it to biomethane (a quality equivalent to natural dioxide (CO2) is the main component of biogas next to methane, which
gas) (L

opez et al., 2012). Therefore, there is a need to apply sustainable produced in some steps during the biogas production process. CO2 can be
technologies based on economic, environmental, and health implications utilized by the methanogenic microorganisms to be act as an electron
of biogas. acceptor as, where its composition in the raw biogas is influenced by
The biogas has to be improved into biomethane via different raw- various operating conditions such as pressure, temperature and digester
biogas purification methods aimed at carbon dioxide removal and liquid content (Atelge et al., 2021). The formation of carbonic acid when

2
A.A. Werkneh Heliyon 8 (2022) e10929

Table 2. Effects of some common biogas impurities to human health, environment and process equipment.

Biogas Threshold limit to health and the Effects on human health and the Effects to process equipment References
impurities env't. environment
1
Hydrogen Odor: < 0.014 mg/m3 2,5,9
Hazardous to environment, Highly corrosive,6,7 poisoning to 1
Drimal et al. (2010),2Rubright
sulphide Few days of eye irritation and forming SO2 and SO3 and acid rain the catalytic converter8 et al. (2017),3Axelsson et al.
respiration irritation: < 1 ppm.2 (H2SO4) Toxic to the PSA adsorbents9 (2012),4Roth (2004), 5Lim et al.
Bad smell3, eye irritation and (2016), 6Guidotti (1994), 7Tang
unhealthy1,2,4 et al. (2010), 8Awe et al. (2017),
H2S is a potent nerve poison9 Paolini et al. (2018b), 9Atelge
et al. (2021),
Siloxanes - No environmental effect1, only Formation of “glassy micro- 1
Graiver et al. (2003),2Soreanu
“responsible for fouling in the crystalline silica” that decreases et al. (2011),3Arnold (2009)
post-combustion emissions control life span of equipment.2,3
catalytic system”.2
Ammonia Max. emission rate: <50 ppmv.1 Formation and emission of NOx Corrosion, anti-knock properties 1
Mojtahedi and Abbasian (1995),
During combustion, NH3 converts after combusion.3 to engines5, NH3 is less corrosive 2
Wendt and Sternling (1974),
into NOx: <10%.2 Toxic to the anaerobic bacteria6 than H2S.4 3
Ranalli (2007), 4Francis (1985),
5
Health problems, toxic and bad Awe et al. (2017), 6Atelge et al.
smell6 (2021)
Nitrogen - No harmful environment effect.1 Reducing the calorific value, 1
Wasajja et al. (2020);8Awe et al.
corrosion and anti-knock (2017)
properties2
1 1
Water vapour - Water vapour forms acids with Corrosion due to the reactions Awe et al. (2017)
CO2 and H2S.2 with NH3
Particulate matter <20 μg/m3 for 24 h and for - - Plugs the gas system and pores of 1
Buysman (2015);2Williams et al.
particle size of <2.5 μm < 2.5 μm.1 the adsorbent.2 (2014)

water is mixed with CO2, causes to damage the process equipment Deng while no information could found from small scale biogas digesters
et al. (2020); Atelge et al. (2021). (Wasajja et al., 2020).
Hydrogen sulphide, is an odorous gas and the most plentiful con- Volatile organic compounds (VOC) are other constituents of biogas,
stituent of biogas, which is toxic for both to human health and the which includes alkanes, alcohols, halogens and aromatic compounds,
environment quality (Paglini et al., 2022), where it's corrosively char- which are found at various concentration levels depending on the con-
acteristics lead to damage the biogas-conversion devices and end-users ditions of anaerobic digestion and type of biomass ((Papadias et al.,
(harms the internal composition engines and the pipelines of the gas 2012; Paglini et al., 2022). The downstream equipment and pipelines are
transport (Lanzini et al., 2017). The main source of H2S is from organi- also affected by halogens, mainly due to the corrosive products formed by
cally bounded sulfur compounds from proteins and SO2 4 through sulfate the reaction of halogens (like chlorine) with Ni-based catalysts (on the
reducing bacteria (SRB) (Du and Parker, 2012; Van Loosdrecht et al., anode side) “followed by the sublimation of the reaction product” (for
2016) is while with the contribution of biomass type, the concentration example, gas phase NiCl2 for Cl2 poisoning) (Papadias et al., 2012;
of H2S could reach up to several thousands of ppmv (Table 1) (Lanzini Sitthikhankaew et al., 2014). However, the composition of chlorine in
et al., 2017; Wasajja et al., 2020; Paglini et al., 2022). When sulphate is the raw biogas is too low, thereby no further treatment is required for its
present during the anaerobic digestion, H2S is always produced by SRB removal (Bona et al., 2020; Rout et al., 2021; Paglini et al., 2022).
(Rasi et al., 2007; Papadias et al., 2012; Wasajja et al., 2020). Hydrogen
sulphide could be a source of sulfur oxides formation, NOx (SO2 and SO3) 3. Effects of impurities in the biogas upgrading processes
through oxidation in the combustion engines and boilers, which are
released into the atmosphere as emissions along with exhaust gas The presence of a high volume of carbon dioxide in the biogas not only
(Niakolas, 2014; Paglini et al., 2022). The toxic and irritative nature of reduces the calorific value but also makes the biogas not economically
both SO2 and SO3 towards mucous membrane affects human breathing viable for transportation and compression during offsite utilization. The
system (Munawer, 2018; Khan et al., 2019; Paglini et al., 2022). biogas impurities can be detrimental to the downstream utilization pro-
Siloxanes are highly water souluble and lead to be the second type cesses, where hydrogen sulphide is corrosive to the co-generators, com-
of biogas impurities having a significant concern (De Arespacochaga pressors, biogas storage facilities, and pipelines. Besides, the combustion of
et al., 2015; Wasajja et al., 2020) during its applications. Siloxanes are hydrogen sulphide produces major air pollutants such as sulfur dioxide.
semi-volatile organic compounds which contains silicon and used in a However, the European biomethane standard sets the required threshold
number of cosmetics industry such as deodorants, detergents, food concentration limit of hydrogen sulphide to be less than 1 pmv for injection
additives and soap (McBean, 2008; De Arespacochaga et al., 2015; gas grid and transport fuel (Nguyen et al., 2020). Raw biogas is commonly
Paglini et al., 2022) and widely spread within the environmental saturated with water once leaving the digester, and it causes a problem as it
components (Arnold and Kajolinna, 2010; Wasajja et al., 2020). This may condensate in the gas pipelines when passing from higher to lower
makes that siloxanes are abundant in the sludge of the wastewater pressures, causing corrosion and clogging together with sulphur com-
treatment plants at the same time contributed as the main constituent pounds (like hydrogen sulphide), affects and destabilizes the structure of
of biogas (Lanzini et al., 2017). At higher temperature of the anaerobic the adsorbent materials during the purification process via activated car-
digester for biogas production, the volatilze nature of siloxanes could bon (Petersson and Wellinger, 2009a,b; L
opez et al., 2012). Besides, water
be entered as a biogas constituents (Papadias et al., 2012; Madi et al., vapor causes a trick during vehicle fuel or grid injections later in the
2015; Lanzini et al., 2017; Wasajja et al., 2020; Papadias et al., 2021; biomethane applications. Accordingly, the pipeline quality standards need
Paglini et al., 2022). The composition of siloxanes in the landfill gas 100 mg/m3 of water content, while “compressed natural gas vehicle fuel
and WWTs are expected to contain a maximum of 4–9 ppm and high as standards” also desire 10  C dew points (Ryckebosch et al., 2011).
41 ppm, respectively (Arnold and Kajolinna, 2010). However, the The permissible content of water vapor is below 10 mg/Nm3 for in-
biogas from farm digesters also contains the least amount of siloxanes, jection into the gas grid (Nguyen et al., 2020). In addition to these

3
A.A. Werkneh Heliyon 8 (2022) e10929

impurities, the presence of siloxanes in biogas can lead to the formation their maximum levels, while the unregulated emissions (which have
of siloxane dioxide particles, having an abrasive and adhesive property to higher toxicity impacts) are compounds without fixed regulatory limits"
metal surfaces, causing excessive tear and wear of co-generator engines, (Macor and Benato, 2020b). Those of the biogas impurities considered as
while its maximum permissible concentration limit in natural gas is 5 mg regulated emissions are SOx, NOx, HCl, CO, VOCs, particulate matters,
(Si)/Nm3 (Nguyen et al., 2020). The halogenated hydrocarbons, mainly while the polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, furans, dioxins, and alde-
chlorine, bromine, and fluorine based compounds, are frequently found hydes are considered as unregulated emissions. Furthermore, SOx, NOx,
in the biogas from landfills, while they are rarely present in the biogas and H2S are responsible for human health damage (Macor and Benato,
from the digestion of organic wastes or sewage sludge. Halogens are 2020a, 2020b, 2021). The main challenges of the biogas impurities to
corrosive and, during the combustion of biogas, can be the precursors to human health are mainly due to the absence of a widely adopted and
the formation of dioxins and furans (L
opez et al., 2012), which pose common emissions standard (e.g. at EU level) for both regulated and
public health risks. unregulated emissions. This is a point of concern for the stakeholders, as
each country (mostly in developed nations) independently defines the
4. Environmental and health implications of biogas impurities that need to be "tracked and their maximum levels", which is
considered the most challenging (Macor and Benato, 2020a, 2020b).
Half of the population, and specifically in developing countries, up to
95% of the population, relies on the energy supply based on solid fuels 5. Removal technologies for carbon dioxide from biogas
(biomass fuels) to meet their energy requirements, such as animal dung,
wood, coal, and agricultural residues, while facing indoor air pollution The basic principle of biogas upgrading is to concentrate methane by
that causes millions of deaths every year (Abadi et al., 2016). The World separating carbon dioxide and removing other gaseous impurities such as
Health Organization lists “indoor air pollution from primitive house- hydrogen sulphide, water, nitrogen, hydrogen, VOC, and oxygen from the
holds’ cooking fires as the leading environmental cause of death in the inlet raw biogas (Hoyer et al., 2016). There are different kinds of carbon
world, contributing to nearly 4.3 million deaths annually, or about as dioxide separation technologies, which are classified according to the
many as tuberculosis and malaria combined together” (Abadi et al., physico-chemical mechanisms utilized during their separation (Hoyer
2016). Cooking with biomass fuel is a major contributor to increased et al., 2016), while their maturity varies widely. It is advantageous that
carbon dioxide emissions, resulting in climate change and a variety of some technologies result in the simultaneous removal of both carbon di-
public health concerns. However, currently, biogas technology has been oxide and other impurities, while others require a pretreatment unit to
developing rapidly to substitute the drawbacks of wood based solid fuels remove biogas impurities. For example, PSA and water scrubbing (mainly
in terms of health and environmental implications. at higher pH) remove both carbon dioxide and hydrogen sulphide simul-
Hence, biogas protects the environment (water, air, and soil), is a taneously, while in chemical scrubbing and membrane separation tech-
profitable renewable energy resource, and is responsible as a safe waste niques, a pre-treatment step is required for the removal of hydrogen
management solution, having a net positive impact in terms of cost and sulphide using amines prior to carbon dioxide separation, and it is essential
environmental friendliness compared with the non-renewable alterna- to avoid membrane poisoning (Allegue and Hinge, 2012; Nguyen et al.,
tives (Abadi et al., 2016). Due to the convenience and adaptability of use, 2020). Then, the pre-treated biogas can be further processed to remove
biogas can be an opportunity for both developing and developed coun- carbon dioxide to upgrade the biogas to biomethane level. In a multi-staged
tries in terms of reduction of fossil fuel dependent energy supply, miti- process, these technologies involve the following applications (Allegue and
gating the effect of climate change and reduction of greenhouse gas Hinge, 2012): i) An upgrading process with inert gases, mainly carbon di-
emissions. Besides, biogas is an attractive alternative energy supply oxide, is captured to concentrate methane in order to meet the Wobbe index
pathway for those countries that have a strong dependency on fossil fuel specifications, ii) During the cleaning process, trace constituents harmful to
energy supply (Macor and Benato, 2020a). the natural gas grid end-users are removed. Various carbon dioxide sepa-
However, the increasing emission of carbon dioxide into the atmo- ration technologies are available on the market, which include pressure
sphere is the main contributor to environmental crises (Debowski et al., swing adsorption, membrane separation, and absorption/scrubbing (i.e.
2021). Impurities in biogas have several health implications (Macor and water, chemical, and physical organic solvent) based absorption tech-
Benato, 2020a, 2020b, 2021) as well as environmental consequences niques, and other emerging technologies such as cryogenic separation and
(Paolini et al., 2018b). The biogas impurities, for example, carbon di- other emerging biological techniques (like photobioreactor) (Nguyen et al.,
oxide and NOx, have different environmental impacts such as climate 2020). This section describes how these technologies separate carbon di-
change that results in malnutrition, flooding, the spread of communi- oxide from biogas to upgrade into biomethane and their performance in
cable diseases and other disasters. With respect to the public health point removing different impurities during the pre/during/post-treatments.
of view, for example, hydrogen sulphide, which is among the main Table 3 describes the comparisons among biogas upgrading technologies
contaminants of biogas, is characterized as heavier than air, highly toxic in removing carbon dioxide and other impurities.
and flammable gas, while upon inhalation, it reacts with the biological
enzymes within the blood stream and results in inhibiting cellular 5.1. Pressure swing adsorption
respiration to cause sudden collapse, pulmonary paralysis, and death
(L
opez et al., 2012). The odor threshold limit of hydrogen sulphide is This technology relies on the principle of adsorption that separates
about 0.00047 ppmv (Aroca et al., 2007), whereas at higher concentra- carbon dioxide from methane at different specific surfaces/pores of the
tions of 200–300 ppm, the hydrogen sulphide may cause respiratory adsorbents (Nguyen et al., 2020) based on their physical properties (Mel
arrest that leads to unconsciousness (Syed et al., 2006). Due to the cor- et al., 2016). The principle of this technology is that raw biogas is com-
rosive and toxic nature of hydrogen sulphide, sulfur dioxide emissions pressed at a raised pressure and then fed into an adsorption column that
are caused by biogas use in combustion (L
opez et al., 2012). As it was retains carbon dioxide while CH4 is not (Biernat and Samson-Bręk, 2011).
described by Macor and Benato (2020a), biogas is on average 10 times This is because of the selective affinity of carbon dioxide on the surface of
more toxic than natural gas in terms of dioxins and furans toxicity, and the adsorbent, which is done at different pressures (used for controlling
exhausts three times more NOx emissions than the natural gas standard. the separation) (Hoyer et al., 2016). The pressure swing adsorption
SOx emissions contributed about 6% of the imposed biogas human health process utilizes preserved/temperature variations, where the adsorption
toxicity. of carbon dioxide is proportionally to low temperatures and high pres-
As a general overview, human health damage from biogas impurities sure (Ntiamoah et al., 2016). In this system, carbon dioxide is removed
has been imposed through regulated and unregulated emissions, where from biogas by adsorption on different surfaces of the adsorbents (such as
"the regulated emissions are substances that have regulatory limits for activated carbon, calcium oxides, synthetic and natural zeolites, silica

4
A.A. Werkneh Heliyon 8 (2022) e10929

Table 3. Comparisons between the biogas upgrading and cleaning technologies in removing carbon dioxide and other impurities (Adapted from Allegue and Hinge,
2012; Sutherland et al., 2019; Nguyen et al., 2020; Bose et al., 2020; Carranza-Abaid et al., 2021).
Methods Opportunity Limitations
Water scrubbers - Its capacity is adjustable by varying the temperature and pressure - High pressure (4–10 bars), methane loss (up to 5% by vol.), and
- Several plants are operated worldwide (simple operation, cheap energy consumption (is up to 0.2–0.5 kWh/Nm3 of biogas)
and simple method) - Pretreatment and drying of biomethane required
- H2S (>300/500 ppmv) and ammonia co-removal (tolerance for - Clogging occurred due to the growth of bacteria
impurities) - Medium content of biomethane produced, H2S (when >300/500
- No additional heat required ppmv) damages the equipment
- Environmental friendly and low-cost solvent - Higher water consumption (even within the regeneration process)
- Low operating cost - Loading and absorbent rate is too low (water is less selective), and a
- Achieved 95–99% biomethane purity possibility to cause foaming
Solvent scrubbers - Lesser footprint exists - Methane loss is up to 4% by vol., and heat is required for effective
- Higher and effective absorption rate, and “higher loading per regeneration
volume of solvent” - Energy consumption is from 0.1-0.33 kWh/Nm3 of biogas)
- Due to the environmental pollution of used solvents, additional
post-treatment is required
Pressure swing adsorption - No chemicals and no heat demand required - Medium amount of biomethane produced with medium/higher
- Cheap and compact technology, several plants are under operation, CH4 loss exist
easy operation - “Extensive process control” and the use of valves often required
- Co-adsorption of N2 and O2 together with CO2 - Pretreatment required for H2S and H2O, and attained 1–9%
- Achieved 95–99% biomethane purity methane loss
Physical organic scrubbers - Methane loss is low and coarse pretreatment step is required - Relatively expensive operation and investment cost
- Produces higher content of methane (energetic and more - Difficulty in operation (can be reduced when the dilution of glycol
auspicious than water) with water exists)
- Co-removal of hydrogen sulphide, ammonia and other impurities - Boiling required to avoid incomplete regeneration
- Achieved 95–99% biomethane purity
Amine-based chemical - Higher efficiency of methane content - Quite an expensive investment required
absorption - Process is carried out without pressure and no moving components - High demand of heat required for regeneration
required except lower - Causes corrosion, poisoning and decomposition of amines by
- Low demand of electricity oxygen occurred
- Methane loss is very low - Salts precipitation exists and foaming possibility
- Dissolves more CO2 per unit of water (when compared with water) - Pretreatment required for hydrogen sulphide removal
- Achieved >99% biomethane purity - Lower working pressure (1 bar) and required heat
- Process handling is complex and attained 1–2% methane loss
Membrane technology - Easy operation and construction, and low maintenance - Medium methane contents produced, while multiple stages are
- No moving components required except blower, no demand of heat needed to achieve higher methane purity
or no chemical required, higher reliability - Medium to higher (10–15%) losses of methane (depending on
- Small footprint and low weight membrane configuration)
- Modular configuration needed even at lower volume rates, Minor - Purity of methane is compromised with the amount of upgraded
gas flows as treated without proportional increment of the cost biogas
- Acquired pure CO2 to be used in industrial applications - Requires petty operational experience for an improved membrane
- Gas-liquid provides cheap operation and investment cost technology
- Achieved 95–99% biomethane purity - Membrane cost is expensive, H2S removal step is required or
- Low operational and moderate initial costs pretreatment should be required
- Easy process handling when compared with others - It is not suitable for biogas having many unknown contaminants
(like from landfill)
- Unsure membrane durability and low selectivity of membrane
Cryogenic separation - Achieved higher methane content in the upgraded biogas - Expensive operation and investment cost required
- Lower methane loss exists - Further removal step required for siloxanes, hydrogen sulphide and
- No chemicals added, and carbon dioxide produced as a byproduct other impurities
- Requires lower extra cost of energy to “reach liquid biomethane” - Technical skill is very demanding and the process handling is
- Achieved up to 99% biomethane recovery potential complex
- The technology is still emerging
- Pretreatment required and needs higher working pressure (40 bar)
- Higher operational and initial costs. Methane loss is up to 1–2%
Photobioreactor - Emerging Green technology (environmentally friendly), - Higher methane loss because of its solubility within the microalgae
economically feasible culture and possess difficulty in harvesting the biomethane
- Applied in an integrated system with wastewater treatments (for - Lack of tolerant microalgae species at higher carbon dioxide
removal of nutrients) content; and oxygen introduction from the microalgae
- Sewage purification performance is too high (photosynthesis) into the upgraded methane
- Higher carbon dioxide reduction and thereby increases in methane - Higher carbon dioxide content dissolves in water and thereby pH
in the upgraded biogas. reduces to <6 to cause a detrimental effect to the growth of
microalgae or disrupts the permeability of cell membrane and
photosynthesis
- Limiting solubility of carbon dioxide in the growth medium of
microalgae and leads to lose up to 90% of raw biogas and this
system is not yet validated at large scale operations

gels, hydrotalcites, and carbon molecular sieves) at increased pressure different alternating cycles called the adsorption, de-pressuring, regen-
(Ntiamoah et al., 2016). Figure 1 shows the pressure swing adsorption eration, and pressure build-up columns (L
opez et al., 2012).
(PSA) that illustrates several stages of unit operations in a series of vessels During the adsorption process, biogas enters from the bottom side
(i.e. filled with adsorption material, usually from 4-6) working on four into one of the adsorbers within the PSA vessel, and when passing

5
A.A. Werkneh Heliyon 8 (2022) e10929

through the vessel, nitrogen, oxygen, and carbon dioxide are adsorbed by lowering the pressure in the system (since pressure is reduced gradually
the media, and the gas exists as biomethane (Mel et al., 2016). Biogas during the regeneration process). Then, the gas that is adsorbed is
goes to another ready vessel, which has already been regenerated to recycled back into the tank together with the raw biogas, because a
achieve continuous operation before the adsorbent material is certain recoverable amount of methane might be adsorbed together with
completely saturated (Allegue and Hinge, 2012). The choice of the carbon dioxide (Biernat and Samson-Bręk, 2011; Nguyen et al., 2020).
adsorbent and the bed material that selectively adsorbs carbon dioxide The adsorbed material in the PSA column contains a waste stream
from the gas stream is very significant for the function of the PSA unit. including oxygen, nitrogen, and carbon dioxide along with a small
Research and development in this section is focused on: (i) optimizing the fraction of methane that can be recirculated again into the inlet in order
PSA for small scale applications; (ii) reducing the number of PSA units; to recover methane, while the methane-free outlet gas-stream leaving the
and (iii) reducing energy consumption (Hoyer et al., 2016). vessel contains mainly carbon dioxide (that can be released directly into
The PSA technique requires a pre-treatment step in order to remove the atmosphere or can be sent for further treatment). For example, the
hydrogen sulphide and water vapor present in the biogas inlet stream outlet gas-stream can be linked to a generator and, thereby, the emission
(L
opez et al., 2012). When the column material is saturated with carbon of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere can be avoided (L
opez et al.,
dioxide, then pressure is released and carbon dioxide can be desorbed 2012).
and led into an off-gas stream (Hoyer et al., 2016). Adding more columns The PSA has been operated as a common biogas upgrading plant for
is required as they will be opened and closed sequentially and to optimize many years and achieved 96–98% biomethane quality with 1.5–2.5%
more advanced flows between the columns. This is the way to increase methane loss and required 0.15–0.35 kWh/Nm3 overall energy of biogas
both methane energy and carbon dioxide separation efficiencies, but has (Allegue et al., 2012), while post-combustion of the exhaust gas is
difficulty in technological acceptability and investment costs (Hoyer required to minimize the methane loss into the atmosphere (Nguyen
et al., 2016). In the PSA process, hydrogen sulphide removal in the et al., 2020). According to a study by Paolini et al. (2018a) a vacuum
treatment step is needed using activated carbon filtration followed by an swing adsorption (VSA) (which is similar to the PSA but has the capacity
increase in temperature between 60 and 90  C to which the gas-phase for its stronger resistance to siloxane and hydrogen sulphide) onto syn-
from biogas can be easily removed) (Schulte-Schulze, 2005), otherwise thetic zeolite has been demonstrated for the removal of carbon dioxide
it irreversibly binds to the adsorption media at elevated pressure and from biogas produced from sewage sludge, and achieved close to 99%
causes damage, generates toxic effects, and possesses bed deactivation in removal efficiency of carbon dioxide. Augelletti et al. (2016) studied the
the PSA column (Patterson et al., 2011; Nguyen et al., 2020). Water vapor performance of PSA technique for separating methane and carbon di-
can also destroy the adsorbent structure, therefore, its removal in the oxide from biogas and achieved above 99% of biomethane recovery with
pretreatment is required through condensation after the desulfurization the consumption of 1250 kJ/kg biomethane energy. As it was described
(L
opez et al., 2012). Besides, volatile organic compounds (VOC) and by Schulte-Schulze (2005) and L
opez et al. (2012), PSA is advantageous
ammonia from the raw biogas can be removed in the PSA adsorption because it: i) produces 96% biomethane concentration and low levels of
column after the compression stage. The concentrated biomethane exit- air emissions and solid waste, ii) simple and automated operations, iii)
ing the PSA scheme is dry enough, with a dew point of 50  C, to be used simultaneous co-removal of other impurities (silicon, halogenated com-
without further drying (Hoyer et al., 2016). pounds, and partial removal of nitrogen and oxygen), iv) no handling of
The regeneration of the adsorbed material is usually done in several chemicals or water, thereby no formation of wastewater streams. How-
steps: i) the pressure is reduced by linking the vessel with an already ever, the PSA has some disadvantages (L
opez et al., 2012): (i) waste gas
regenerated vessel, ii) the pressure is reduced to the atmospheric stan- and carbon dioxide emissions exist; (ii) a pretreatment unit for hydrogen
dard values, and iii) the vessel is completely evacuated using a vacuum sulphide removal and water vapor removal is required; and (iii) energy is
pump (Petersson and Wellinger 2009; L
opez et al., 2012). The typical required in the heat exchangers and compressors cycle of adsorption,
adsorption and regeneration pressures in the PSA are in the range of 3–7 pressure buildup, and regeneration.
bar and 100–200 mbar, respectively, while its temperature range is
50–60  C (Hullu et al., 2008). Accordingly, carbon dioxide adsorption 5.2. Absorption/scrubbing techniques
takes place at an optimum pressure, while the adsorbent regeneration is
done at a reduced pressure and by the subsequent application of light 5.2.1. Water scrubbing techniques
vacuum (Hoyer et al., 2016). After exploiting the adsorption capacity, the Water scrubbing (Figure 2) is the most popular biogas upgrading
adsorbent material can be regenerated by direct heating of the gas to the technique, and the plant equipment is commercially available from several
boiling point of the adsorbent in the PSA column or by injecting hot air, suppliers in a broad range of capacities (Biernat and Samson-Bręk, 2011).
nitrogen gas, or steam into the column (Biernat and Samson-Bręk, 2011; This technique is a very simple process having lower energy consumption
Ntiamoah et al., 2016). The decomposition of substances occurs by and high water consumption (200 m3/h for a gas flow of 1000 Nm3/h),

Figure 1. Schematics of pressure swing adsorption for biogas upgrading

6
A.A. Werkneh Heliyon 8 (2022) e10929

with few rotating components at higher operational time (Sun et al., 2015), because secondary and tertiary effluents can be used as a water source
while the methane loss (3–5%) is the main drawback (Ryckebosch et al., without the requirement of a regeneration process (Angelidaki et al.,
2011; Nguyen et al., 2020). In this system, water is used to separate carbon 2018; Nguyen et al., 2020).
dioxide from biogas based on the principle that relies on the gaseous sol- There are two types of water absorption processes in the liquid
ubility difference between carbon dioxide and methane in a wash solution stream; single pass absorption and regenerative absorption. In a single
(water) and involves no chemical addition (Allegue and Hinge, 2012; pass process (without regeneration), the washing water is used only once
Andriani et al., 2014). The pretreated biogas should be maintained at a and the wastewater produced not only emits carbon dioxide into the
40  C temperature and 6–10 bar pressure in the scrubbing column to yield atmosphere, but also hydrogen sulphide and methane. Having this
the carbon dioxide solubility, which is approximately 26 times higher than justification, this technique is advantageous in that the inlet water is free
methane (Hoyer et al., 2016; Nguyen et al., 2020). Methane is also dis- of carbon dioxide and hydrogen sulphide. As it was noted by Allegue and
solved in water, while its solubility is much lower than the biogas impu- Hinge (2012), this system is primarily used with biogas from wastewater
rities (Allegue and Hinge, 2012), while the methane concentration in the treatment plants since they have access to the large supply of onsite water
gas-phase is going to be increased. In this process, raw biogas is cleaned and wastewater treatment. The drawbacks of this technique is that it
from carbon dioxide, ammonia, and hydrogen sulphide, which are physi- requires a huge amount of water, which produces a large amount of WW
cally dissolved in water under increased and reduced pressure and tem- that has to be treated in the WWT plants, is not eco-friendly, and un-
perature, respectively, in the absorption column to increase their solubility profitable in terms of cost. However, in the regenerative water scrubbing
(Allegue and Hinge, 2012), and thereby the pollutants can be easily dis- process, the washing water is regenerated through desorption after
solved in the aqueous phase (L
opez et al., 2012). biogas is subjected to washing. When compared to the single pass
As shown in Figure 2A, the scrubbers involve two columns working in scrubbing process, a significant reduction in the quantity of water used is
parallel in different stages (when the first column is filled, the second achieved when the water can be recirculated in the system (Hullu et al.,
may be emptied). Biogas is compressed and injected via the bottom side 2008; L
opez et al., 2012), and in most cases, the regenerative absorption
of the column (Nguyen et al., 2020), while water is provided from the top is preferable. More than 97% of biomethane can be produced (L
opez
side of the column, and the biogas impurities such as carbon dioxide and et al., 2012). Furthermore, high concentrations of volatile sulfur com-
sulfur compounds are dissolved in it. In order to increase the contact pounds, chlorine and nitrogen can be removed easily under optimized
surface between biogas and water, the column is filled with a packed process conditions.
material (Hullu et al., 2008; Andriani et al., 2014). When the cleaning
process is accomplished, gas leaving the scrubber column, which has a 5.2.2. Organic physical scrubbing techniques
much higher concentration of methane gas, has to be recovered and This technique (Figure 2B) is basically a robust technology, similar to
the carbon dioxide rich water is pumped into a stripping column for the water scrubber in being able to handle various impurities, with the
regeneration (removal of carbon dioxide from water) (Biernat and difference that in this scrubber, instead of water, organic solvents are
Samson-Bręk, 2011). The recovered methane is subjected to a drying step used to absorb carbon dioxide and then ammonia, hydrogen sulphide and
for biomethane formation (Angelidaki et al., 2018; Nguyen et al., 2020) water can be separated (Allegue and Hinge, 2012). Carbon dioxide and
and the water is recycled back to the adsorption column to be used for hydrogen sulphide are more soluble in the organic solvent than in water,
further carbon dioxide and hydrogen sulphide absorption. Water scrub- while the operational costs, wastewater treatment costs, solvent regen-
bing technology is advantageous when applied at the WWT plants, eration and pumping requirements will be reduced (Hoyer et al., 2016).

Figure 2. Schematics of the scrubbing techniques for biogas upgrading through carbon dioxide separation and removal of other impurities: (A) water scrubbers, (B)
physical organic scrubbers, and (C) chemical scrubbers (i) - desulfurization, (ii) – absorption column, and (iii) – regeneration column (adapted from Hullu et al., 2008;
Hoyer et al., 2016).

7
A.A. Werkneh Heliyon 8 (2022) e10929

Regeneration: 2[Fe2þ] þ 0.5O2 þ 2Hþ2[Fe3þ] þ H2O

Polyethylene glycol, Selexol®, and Genosorb® (mixtures of dimethyl
ethers and polyethylene glycol) are the most commonly used solvents for Carbon dioxide can also be absorbed using caustic soda (NaOH)
biogas absorption, and this system also removed water, hydrogen sul- mainly applied for the simultaneous removal of carbon dioxide and
phide, nitrogen, and halogenated hydrocarbons along with carbon di- hydrogen sulphide, while the higher technical requirements to study
oxide before the purification process (L
opez et al., 2012). The absorption with the caustic soda solution are hardily applied where large volumes of
process occurs at lower pressure (mainly 4–8 bars) and results in a lower water can be contaminated with sodium sulphide that requires further
energy compared to the water scrubbing (6–10 bars). The organic disposal (Allegue and Hinge, 2012). Due to the environmental legislation
scrubbing technique is much less energy-consuming than the water with regard to the disposal of contaminated absorbers and absorber
scrubbers (Biernat and Samson-Bręk, 2011). chemicals, the absorbers (amines) should be regenerated either using
Regeneration of organic solvents is a complex process compared to heat (steam) or vacuum (L
opez et al., 2012). For regeneration of the
water, because pressure release and air stripping are not effective for carbon dioxide saturated amine solution, it should be heated to 120–160

regenerating organic solvents (Allegue and Hinge, 2012). In practice, the C in the desorption column and cooled down to 40  C before the start of
organic solvent (solutions of polyethylene glycol) from the scrubbing the new absorption cycle (Allegue and Hinge, 2012). During regenera-
medium is recirculated into the system and regenerated by heating to 40 tion, 0.5 kWh/Nm3 of cleaned biogas or 15–30% of the generated energy
and 80  C, requiring an additional energy of 0.1–0.15 kWh/Nm3 of the from the biomethane is consumed (Leung et al., 2014; L
opez et al., 2012).
biogas or/and the gradual reduction of pressure (Ryckebosch et al., 2011; This technique has an advantage since amines are highly selective (react
Nguyen et al., 2020). Likewise, a large amount of energy is required to only with CO2 as 2RNH2 þ CO2 ¼ RNHCOO þ RNHþ 3 ), thereby the loss
regenerate the organic solvent from hydrogen sulphide (L
opez et al., of methane is usually low (L
opez et al., 2012). In this system, solvent
2012). This is because hydrogen sulphide is highly soluble in the organic regeneration requires an energy intensive process by breaking the strong
solvent and during regeneration at a higher temperature (approximately chemical reactions between the gas molecules (Kapdi et al., 2004; L
opez
50  C) is desired. In this system, methane concentrations in the product et al., 2012). Therefore, it is advisable to remove hydrogen sulphide
gas stream are in the range of 93–98% with >2% methane loss within the before the absorption processes in the amine scrubber using iron com-
exhaust gas stream (contains hydrogen sulphide), due to environmental pounds (a process having higher hydrogen sulphide removal efficiency
legislation, further cleaning steps are required for its removal (Allegue and low chemical consumption (Biernat and Samson-Bręk, 2011).
and Hinge, 2012). The easiest way to reduce hydrogen sulphide
post-treatment difficulty is by applying pretreatment to the raw biogas
5.3. Membrane separation technology
prior to absorption (Hoyer et al., 2016). The advantage of this technique
is that no additional drying process is required, because of the absorption
Unlike the conventional membranes for methane and carbon dioxide
of water by the organic solvent (Allegue and Hinge, 2012).
separation (that are densely polymeric membranes built on the “solution-
diffusion mechanism”), the membranes used in this study are materials
5.2.3. Chemical scrubbing techniques
made permeable to carbon dioxide, water, and ammonia (Deng and H€agg
Chemical absorption (Figure 2C) is based on the principle of revers-
2010). In this case, oxygen and hydrogen sulphide permeate to some
ible chemical reactions between carbon dioxide and the chemical ad-
extent through the membrane fiber, while nitrogen and methane pass
sorbents present in the liquid-phase, which are alkanol amine solutions
only to a very low level of extent (L
opez et al., 2012). Membrane based
such as mono-ethanol amine (MEA) di-methyl ethanol amine (DMEA),
biogas separation follows the fact that gases have different
diethanolamine (DEA), tertiary amines, and other amine compounds
permeabilities.
(Nguyen et al., 2020). These solvents can be used to dissolve carbon
Methane and carbon dioxide gas molecules travel through the
dioxide, which is not a simple dissolving process, but they react chemi-
membrane at different rates, and carbon dioxide has a higher perme-
cally with them and drive them into a solution (Kumar et al., 2002; L
opez
ability than methane (which can separate these gas mixtures accordingly)
et al., 2012; Allegue and Hinge, 2012). The chemical adsorbents are
(Hoyer et al., 2016). The membrane separation is based on the principle
selectively reacted with carbon dioxide so that the CH4 loss is insignifi-
that gases permeate through the membrane pores at different selectiv-
cant (<0.1%) after it dissolves in the solvent solution (Sun et al., 2015;
ities, where the membrane is impermeable to methane (large molecule)
Nguyen et al., 2020) due to evaporation (Biernat and Samson-Bręk,
and permeable to carbon dioxide (small molecules). The difference in
2011), thereby there is no requirement for post-combustion of the lean
partial pressure between various gases found in the biogas is the driving
gas. Ideally, ammonia and hydrogen sulphide can also be removed,
force behind the separation process (L
opez et al., 2012), where the dif-
because the chemical solvents are toxic to the environment and affects
ference in particle size or affinity of a certain molecules can be trans-
public health. Several authors reported that using the chemical scrubber
ported through the membrane, while other gases can’t (Figure 3D) (Hullu
technique, it is possible to produce 99% by volume methane purity
et al., 2008). Membrane separation occurs in a variety of designs, with
(Petersson and Wellinger 2009; L
opez et al., 2012), while if there is no O2
typical operating pressures ranging from 7 to 20 bar (Peppers et al.,
or/and N2 in the biogas inflow, it can be increased to 99.5% (Allegue and
2019), resulting in higher pressure in the produced biomethane (Hoyer
Hinge, 2012).
et al., 2016). As a general overview, the membrane suitability is 20 times
Hydrogen sulphide produces a corrosive chemical reaction with
permeable to carbon dioxide than to methane. From membrane separa-
amine solution that results in the degradation of amine. Its removal
tion, the exhaust gas rich in carbon dioxide can be produced with high
should therefore be recommended (Vega et al., 2014; Nguyen et al.,
purity with 99.9% carbon dioxide being achieved (which can be used in
2020). Hydrogen sulphide can be oxidized into elemental sulfur using
beverage and food industries) (Esposito et al., 2019); after cooling to -30
catalytic oxidation with chelated-iron salt solutions through the reduc- 
C, oxygen, nitrogen, and trace methane are being separated (Nguyen
tion of soluble ferric chelated iron (Fe3þ) into ferrous iron (Fe2þ) (see
et al., 2020). The membrane technique allows the separation of pollut-
reaction below). In this way, the chelating agents (either Fe3þ or Fe2þ)
ants, mainly, carbon dioxide as well as hydrogen sulphide, water, and
prevent the precipitation of iron hydroxide or iron sulphide when Fe2þ
ammonia that are transported through a thin layer membrane, and
can be re-oxidized to Fe3þ simply by air stripping, where Fe3þ partici-
methane is retained owing to the difference in affinity or/and particle
pating in the absorption process acts as a catalyst. In this system, about
size (Allegue and Hinge, 2012). This technique is still an emerging
99.99% of sulphide removal efficiencies can be achieved (Allegue and
technology, having limited practical experience in biogas upgrading
Hinge, 2012).
(Biernat and Samson-Bręk, 2011).
Purification: H2Sþ2[Fe3þ] S þ 2[Fe2þ] þ 2Hþ If the tube bundles are linked in 2-stage or 3-stage cascades
(Figure 3(A–C)), the membrane can be maintained at higher methane

8
A.A. Werkneh Heliyon 8 (2022) e10929

purity and provide higher recovery potential than the single cascades. hydrogen sulphide (Allegue and Hinge, 2012). The molecules from the
Hence, in the 2-stage system, the circulation loop returns the gas from the biogas stream flowing in one direction and able to diffuse through the
first membrane to the inlet and the “enriched methane” continues to the membrane fiber are absorbed on the opposite side by liquid flowing in
next membrane (Nguyen et al., 2020). In some laboratory studies the counter current. However, due to the slight pressurization of the gas,
(Makaruk et al., 2010; Baena-Moreno et al., 2020), with energy re- the liquid is prevented from flowing to the gas side at an atmospheric
quirements between 0.18-0.33 kWh/Nm3 of biogas, the methane loss was pressure of 100 kPa which permits very high selectivity. If an amine solu-
up to 2%. Peppers et al. (2019) recently demonstrated the feasibility of tion is used in this technique, the biogas with 55% methane can be
membrane separation for a 100 Nm3/h biogas plant and recommend that upgraded to more than 96% in one stage (Allegue and Hinge, 2012). To
pre-treatment of other gases is required to maintain the safety of the increase the membrane life time, hydrogen sulphide should be removed
membrane and ensure higher purity of biomethane (Peppers et al., 2019; before high pressure (gas-liquid) membranes by cleaning with activated
Baena-Moreno et al., 2020; Nguyen et al., 2020). The properties of these carbon before the membrane separation (Petersson and Wellinger 2009).
separation techniques strongly depend on the type of membranes used However, due to their high cost, membranes are not yet competitive for the
(L

opez et al., 2012) with their particular specifications (Allegue and selective removal of hydrogen sulphide together with carbon dioxide
Hinge, 2012). Thus, the membrane separation techniques are classified (Allegue and Hinge, 2012). The hydrogen sulphide free (that is removed in
under two categories: 1) high pressure (gas–gas) separation, where the the pretreatment) biogas is subjected to further purification using gas
membrane has a gas phase on both sides, and 2) gas-liquid absorption permeable membranes. In this technique, carbon dioxide will be permeated
separation, with the liquid absorbing the diffused molecules (Allegue and through the membrane at a faster rate than the other separation mem-
Hinge, 2012). branes (Petersson and Wellinger 2009).

5.3.1. Gas–gas separation (dry or solid) membrane processes 5.4. Cryogenic separation technology
For biogas upgrading, the dry membranes are made of materials that
are permeable to carbon dioxide, water, oxygen, and ammonia. They Cryogenic treatment is based on the difference in sublimation and
permeate to some extent and to a low extent to methane and nitrogen boiling points between the biogas impurities (specifically, carbon dioxide
through the membrane. Before the biogas enters the hollow fiber mem- and methane) (L
opez et al., 2012; Prussi et al., 2019; Paglini et al., 2022).
brane, it first passes through the filter (mainly activated carbon) that was This technique is employed where gases could become liquid (condensed)
used to retain the oil droplets, water, aerosols, and hydrocarbons. or solid (re-sublimate) at higher pressures and lower temperatures, where
Otherwise, these pollutants may affect the performance of the membrane methane and carbon dioxide have different condensation temperatures
(Biernat and Samson-Bręk, 2011). However, the imperfect separation of (Tan et al., 2017). Cryogenic separation is an emerging technology (L
opez
raw biogas using this technique results in a low biomethane yield of 92% et al., 2012) and its principle is implemented in 4 phases: drying,
in one step (Allegue and Hinge, 2012), whereas a continuously operating compression, gas cleaning, and carbon dioxide removal. First, the incoming
system in three stages (Figure 3(iii)), with selective separation of carbon biogas is compressed to 17–26 bar pressure, consequently cooled to 25  C
dioxide, methane, and hydrogen sulphide, increases the methane yield to (Allegue and Hinge, 2012). In this phase, hydrogen sulphide, water, sulfur
more than 96% (L
opez et al., 2012). Besides, the purity of the upgraded dioxide, siloxanes, halogens, and other undesirable components are
methane gas can be improved by adding its size or by increasing the removed from the raw biogas. Then, the gas is further subjected to coa-
number of membrane modules, whereby a large amount of methane will lescence filtering. Upon catalyst addition, the remaining contaminants are
permeate through the membrane and be found as methane lost. These removed. Carbon dioxide is removed in two stages: first, the biogas is
losses can be mitigated in part by recirculating a portion of the permeated cooled to lower temperatures (50 and -59  C), and up to 30–40% of the
carbon dioxide-enriched gas. However, when numerous membrane carbon dioxide is removed as liquid. In a subsequent phase, the retaining
modules are linked in series, the best result is achieved with recirculation gas stream is cooled to 85  C to solidify carbon dioxide (Allegue and
of the permeated gas only from the last module (Allegue and Hinge, Hinge, 2012), allowing carbon dioxide to be separated from the biogas in
2012). solid or liquid form, while methane accumulates in the gas phase and the
separated carbon dioxide is clean and used/sold for further applications
5.3.2. Gas–liquid absorption membranes (Biernat and Samson-Bręk, 2011).
The gaseous from the liquid phase can be separated using micro-porous This system is technically very demanding, but it can produce very
hydrophobic membrane separators, where low-pressure “gas–liquid pure methane and carbon dioxide (for both up to 99.9% by volume)
membrane” processes are an auspicious technology for the removal of within <1 % methane loss and 0–5% electrical energy demand

Figure 3. Different process schematics of membrane configurations in a biogas upgrading system (A–C): (A) one stage, (B) two stage, (C) three stages cascades and (D)
principles of membrane separation technology (adapted from Allegue and Hinge, 2012; Hoyer et al., 2016).

9
A.A. Werkneh Heliyon 8 (2022) e10929

(Nguyen et al., 2020). This technique is an environmentally friendly photobioreactor is the most recent development that can be carried out
technique, because no chemicals are used. Before starting the cryogenic for the simultaneous removal of carbon dioxide and other trace compo-
upgrading process, it is recommended to remove hydrogen sulphide nents like hydrogen sulphide (Hoyer et al., 2016). Because microalgae
and water vapor from raw biogas in the pretreatment step. Otherwise, have a higher capacity for carbon dioxide fixation, biological carbon
it causes freezing and may damage the heat exchangers (Hoyer et al., dioxide sequestration in biogas upgrading using photosynthetic micro-
2016) by clogging of the system (Allegue and Hinge, 2012). While algae (in the photobioreactor) has received a lot of attention (Xu et al.,
siloxanes and volatile organic compounds (VOC) are efficiently 2017). The microalgae-based technique is an emerging technology
removed during the cooling and condensation process (i.e. natural part developed in recent years, and applied for simultaneous wastewater
of the cryogenic biogas upgrading process), it is also used to remove treatment and biogas upgrading. Because of its high economic and
trace contaminants such as oxygen and nitrogen) from the landfill gas environmental convenience, this technique is advantageous (Xu et al.,
(Hoyer et al., 2016). Figure 4 illustrates the schematics of cryogenic 2017). A limited number of studies have been conducted on using
separation techniques applied in the biogas upgrading process. The microalgae cultures in an integrated anaerobic digestate wastewater
advantage of cryogenic treatment is the possibility to produce biogas treatment followed by biogas upgrading (Converti et al., 2009; Xu et al.,
with a high CH4 content of up to 99%, while it also uses a lot of 2017; Nagarajan et al., 2019; Bose et al., 2020).
technological equipment (i.e. compressors, heat exchangers, and tur- In the integrated systems, the anaerobic digester that produces raw
bines) and the substantial demand for equipment makes this treatment biogas is fed into the photobioreactor, where the carbon dioxide is taken
extremely expensive (Biernat and Samson-Bręk, 2011). However, the up by the microalgae in a direct approach (Figure 5A), and thereby the
disadvantage of this technique is that higher energy is needed (mainly crude biogas is upgraded in an economically feasible process when
up to 10% of methane produced) for compression and refrigeration of applied in combination with wastewater treatment (aiming at biogas
the raw biogas, while if the produced biomethane is going to be liq- generation) (Xu et al., 2017). Converti et al. (2009) first introduced this
uefied (at 125  C and 15 bar), the energy required to condense the configuration through the linkage of an anaerobic digester of a mixed
initial biogas can be recovered (Nguyen et al., 2020). As well, the solid sludge followed by a photobioreactor that leads to the production of
frozen carbon dioxide can be utilized as dry ice for further industrial biogas with a methane content of above 70%. Various authors achieved a
applications (Esposito et al., 2019). higher content of methane in the upgraded biogas using a similar setting
of an integrated (wastewater treatment-biogas upgrading scheme) (Yan
5.5. Emerging biological technologies and Zheng, 2013; Xu et al., 2017; Nagarajan et al., 2019; Bose et al.,
2020).
5.5.1. Biocatalysis techniques The C/N ratio is very significant for the growth of microalgae once
As described by Nguyen et al. (2020), this technique is promising in the co-cultivation with bacteria or fungi has been carried out (Xu et al.,
capturing carbon dioxide, but has no application yet for biogas 2017). In addition, at higher C/N ratios of the influents, this technology
upgrading into biomethane. Biocatalysis is a common technique mainly achieves low removal efficiency of phosphate and nitrogen in the
in removing carbon dioxide using common enzymes called “carbonic wastewater, and thereby the microalgae growth rate is limited. Besides,
anhydrases”, to convert water and carbon dioxide (from the raw biogas) the microalgae growth is also affected by the nutrients and organic
into bicarbonates, which thereby reduces the cost of energy supply matter concentrations and the occurrence of heterotrophic microor-
during the removal step (Nguyen et al., 2020). The energy requirement ganisms in the wastewater. The algal-based photobioreactor is advan-
in the chemical absorption technique is determined via the capability of tageous in terms of cost-effectiveness and environmental friendliness
the solvents (in taking up carbon dioxide and its specific heat of reac- when compared to conventional biogas enhancing and sewage treat-
tion). Higher energy savings could be achieved when a solvent has a ment techniques, though some limitations exist, such as methane loss,
higher capacity and lower heat of reaction (Gundersen et al., 2014; challenges in harvesting microalgae biomass, energy consumption,
Kunze et al., 2015). For example, alkali carbonates and amines are the and/or leading to an increase in effluents (Xu et al., 2017). As it was
potential solvents, but suffer from unhurried absorption kinetics (Kunze explored by Nagarajan et al. (2019) and Bose et al. (2020), the limita-
et al., 2015), while enzymes are activators or catalysts used in tion of the direct method (Figure 5A) could be alleviated by applying an
enhancing the absorption kinetics of carbon dioxide. In such a case, the indirect biogas upgrading system (Figure 5B), where carbon dioxide can
formation of bicarbonates during the conversion is a rate limiting step of be taken in a carbonate solution, whereas its saturated solution is fed
carbon dioxide absorption (Beiron et al., 2019). The absorption capacity into microalgae culture. The bicarbonate has been utilized by the
(absorbed volume) has been improved by a factor of >4 by the addition microalgae (as a carbon source for growth), and the carbonate is being
of carbonic anhydrase at 0.2–30 wt. % with K2CO3 and MEA to the raw regenerated for the subsequent biogas upgrading cycle (Xia et al.,
biogas (Kunze et al., 2015), and increased by a factor of 3 for MDEA 2015). However, the principle of this approach has been restricted only
absorption by the addition of catalytic enzyme (carbonic anhydrase) to a limited number of specific microalgal species (that tolerate the
(Vinoba et al., 2013). alkali environment and higher ionic strength (Xia et al., 2015; Nguyen
et al., 2020).
5.5.2. Microalgae-based photobioreactors Xu et al. (2017) applied three different treatment techniques, namely
The microalgae (as autotrophic microorganisms) have the capability algal-bacterial, mono-algae, and algal-fungal cultures to synthetic do-
to fix carbon dioxide in the presence of sunlight and, upon nutrient uti- mestic sewage for the removal of carbon dioxide from biogas in a pho-
lization, produce new biomass (Xu et al., 2017). An algal-bacterial tobioreactor system. The highest average methane content of 93.25

Figure 4. Schematics of cryogenic separation techniques (adapted from Biernat and Samson-Bręk, 2011).

10
A.A. Werkneh Heliyon 8 (2022) e10929

Figure 5. Schematics of microalgae-based photobioreactor in different approaches: (A) direct biogas upgrading using microalgae, and (B) indirect biogas upgrading
using microalgae with carbonate/bicarbonate cycle approaches (adapted from Nguyen et al., 2020).

3.84% (v/v) was achieved in the upgraded biogas when using have various health problems (Macor and Benato, 2020a; 2020b) and must
algal-fungal culture. Besides, at an influent C/N ratio of 5:1, the be removed depending on whether they are unglued together with carbon
algal-fungal cultures achieved an average 80.23
3.92%, 78.41
3.98% dioxide during the biogas upgrading or during pretreatment (i.e., before the
and 75.85
6.61% of COD, total phosphorus and total nitrogen removal carbon dioxide removal begins), or in the upgraded biomethane (Hoyer
efficiency, respectively; while the algal-bacterial culture also achieved et al., 2016), or depending on the existing regulations. Figure 6 shows an
82.28% total nitrogen removal efficiency. These findings will confirm indicative overview of the separation pathways of different biogas impu-
that the microalgae-based photobioreactor is a reference for simulta- rities over different upgrading techniques.
neous wastewater treatment and biogas upgrading (Xu et al., 2017). By
applying an optimization of the cultural conditions using Chlorella sp. 6.1. Removal of water
microalgae attained a methane content of 92% (Yan and Zheng, 2013).
Rodero et al. (2019) also investigated the performance of an Water can be removed from biogas using various techniques such as
algal-bacterial photobioreactor in a semi-industrial scale treatment of cooling, compression, and adsorption and absorption methods. By
centrate wastewater type at a maximum liquid to gas (L/G) ratio of 3.5 refrigerating through heat exchangers, usually by increasing pressure
and achieved the highest removal efficiencies of 99% and 100% for and at decreased temperature (Biernat and Samson-Bręk, 2011).
carbon dioxide and hydrogen sulphide, respectively, where the Thereby, the condensed water droplets are removed as wastewater based
maximum upgraded biomethane content was 90% (the limitation was on the existing environmental standards or recycled into the digester
due to oxygen and nitrogen desorption). (Ryckebosch et al., 2011; Allegue and Hinge, 2012). The biogas moisture
In another study by Mann et al. (2009), the biogas conditioning has can also be removed by using adsorption dryers using high water dryer
been carried out at a laboratory-scale photobioreactor using the micro- adsorbents, for example, silica gel, aluminum oxide, activated carbon,
algae Chlorella sp. and found up to 97.07% carbon dioxide and hydrogen magnesium oxide, and molecular sieves, whereas adsorbent regeneration
sulphide removal efficiency, respectively. Toledo-Cervantes et al. (2022) can be done through heating (Nguyen et al., 2020). Amongst them,
carried out a continuous study to evaluate the performance of a tabular adsorption via zeolites/molecular sieves, or alumina is the most common
photobioreactor linked with a gas absorption column for the reduction of chemical drying method (Allegue and Hinge, 2012). Water absorption is
carbon dioxide from biogas. The results showed that up to 98% and 99% also another common technique, which can be applied using water
of carbon dioxide and hydrogen sulphide removal efficiency was ach- binding constituents like glycol or triethylene glycol as well as hygro-
ieved in an alkaline environment (pH ~ 10). scopic salts. These salts are then dissolved by absorbing moisture from
biogas, and the saturated salt solution is released from the bottom side of
6. Removal of other biogas impurities the vessel (Allegue and Hinge, 2012). Water-soluble aerosols and gaseous
impurities are removed from biogas at the same time as water (Petersson
Apart from carbon dioxide and methane, raw biogas involves undesir- and Wellinger, 2009a,b; Biernat and Samson-Bręk, 2011; L
opez et al.,
able contaminants, which are referred to as biogas impurities, including 2012).
hydrogen sulphide, water vapor, nitrogen, oxygen, siloxanes, ammonia,
and particulates (Allegue and Hinge, 2012). To use biogas as a vehicle fuel 6.2. Removal of hydrogen sulphide
by enhancing its energy value (to provide longer driving distances using
fixed volume gas storage), it has to be enriched with methane, achieved Hydrogen sulphide is the main biogas impurity produced during the
primarily by removing carbon dioxide (Hoyer et al., 2016). These impu- reduction of sulfur compounds (amino acids, peptides, sulfates) through
rities may cause various undesirable effects in the upgrading process and microbial action. Hydrogen sulphide removal is carried out through the

11
A.A. Werkneh Heliyon 8 (2022) e10929

Figure 6. The separation pathways of various biogas impurities through different biogas upgrading technologies (Hoyer et al., 2016).

range of treatment steps via primary to tertiary steps (Hoyer et al., 2016). sulfuric acid through the scrubbing process (Schweigkofler and Niessner,
This method is mainly used in digesters having higher concentrations of 2001; Hoyer et al., 2016). An appropriate method for the high level of
sulphur whereby the amount of hydrogen sulphide in the biogas is ex- siloxane is primarily by chilling the biogas to 30  C and thereby via
pected to be higher (>1000 mg/L) (Petersson and Wellinger, 2009a,b). adsorption using molecular sieve or activated carbon such as silica gel
The primary step is the precipitation of hydrogen sulphide using the (Hoyer et al., 2016). When the biogas is quite free of VOC, the removal of
addition of iron salts, Fe2þ or Fe3þ ions in the form of [FeCl3, FeSO4 or siloxane is performed using the vacuum swing adsorption process, while
FeCl2] into the digester, which produces an insoluble iron sulphide temperature swing adsorption might be used if both of them exist together
precipitate (FeS) to be removed simultaneously with the digester in the biogas, and the vacuum is very useful in the adsorption bed regen-
(Petersson and Wellinger, 2009a,b) and prevents its transport further eration (Inc, 2014).
into the downstream. Accordingly, the hydrogen sulphide removal in the A study conducted by Schweigkofler and Niessner (2001) achieved
primary step can be made to reach hydrogen sulphide concentrations of approximately 95% removal efficiency of siloxanes by chemical ab-
50–200 ppmv (Hoyer et al., 2016). The secondary and tertiary steps are sorption techniques using a mixture of 650 L/m3 nitric acid and 480
the biological and activated carbon adsorption techniques, which have L/m3 sulfuric acid at 60  C. Besides, about 98% of siloxanes can be
been applied to remove hydrogen sulphide from biogas. removed using selexol from a biogas plant (Wheless and Pierce, 2004).
The biological processes are carried out by inoculating a strain of In another study, cryogenic separation technology had been effectively
bacteria (for example, Thiobacillus and Sulfolobus) that feeds the sulphur removed siloxanes at different temperatures, where the highest and
on a carrier material (i.e. filling plates or bark). This technique is mostly lowest removal effeicncy had been achieved at 70  C, and 5  C,
used when there is only a small amount of hydrogen sulphide emissions respectively for 99.3% and 12% (Ruiling et al., 2017). As reported by
(Hoyer et al., 2016), whereas the most common technique is tertiary Schweigkofler and Niessner (2001) a good adsorption capacity for si-
removal, which is based on the interaction of the pore surface of acti- loxanes removal have been achieved using different adsorbents such as
vated carbon and hydrogen sulphide in the presence of oxygen to pro- silica gel, molecular sieves, polymer beads and activated carbon.
duce hydrogen sulphide (Hoyer et al., 2016). This process is carried out Membrane separation techniques are also commonly achieved above
in the gas phase at lower pressures and temperatures, while water 80% removal of siloxanes (Favre et al., 2009). Piechota (2021a) studied
condensation (in the biogas and activated carbon) is controlled by a cryogenic temperature-condensation system ranged from þ40 to 50  C
heating before the process of adsorption is carried out; whereas both at various flow rates of biogas achieved 99.87% removal efficiency of
chemical and physical adsorption have occurred in the activated carbon siloxanes. The same author had been performed the removal of siol-
filters (Hoyer et al., 2016). xanes completely and achieved 99.76% removal of non-siloxanes im-
purities using adsorptive packed column system from raw biogas
6.3. Removal of siloxanes and particulates (Piechota (2021b).
Particulates such as oil and dust exist from the compressors, and are
Siloxanes are water-insoluble and have a remarkable high vapor pres- removed through filtration at 2–5 μm. For the removal of particulates, a
sure (Paolini et al., 2018a). Volatile siloxane like hexamethyldisiloxane is proven filtration technology has been used, such as passing the biogas
present to some extent in the biogas (mainly in the sewage sludge up to 50 through a filter pad made of wide stainless steel, using a suitable cyclone
mg/Nm3 (beyond the limits set by engines of 15 mg/Nm3) and in the separator, or using packs of ceramic filters (Allegue and Hinge, 2012).
landfill gas (Hoyer et al., 2016). When siloxane is in contact with the dryers,
it adsorbs on the adsorbent (like zeolite) pore surface (in the dryer) and is 6.4. Removal of ammonia, nitrogen and oxygen
used as a desiccant. During regeneration of the dryer, siloxanes are sub-
jected to decomposition via heating and found to silicone precipitate Ammonia is formed as an end-product of biogas during the biodeg-
(which leads to fouling through pore surface blockages in the long term and radation of proteins, and its amount depends on pH and the composition
then lowers the effective rate of desiccant (Hoyer et al., 2016). The tradi- of the substrates in the digester (Hoyer et al., 2016). At lower ammonia
tional methods of siloxane removal from biogas are either by water concentrations, a separate removal step is not required, as it is simulta-
scrubbing (mainly for the volatile hexamethyldisiloxane) or using hot neously removed by gas drying in the adsorption process of the biogas

12
A.A. Werkneh Heliyon 8 (2022) e10929

upgrading schemes. Due to the higher ammonia solubility in water, scrubbers and membrane-based separation perform the simultaneous
ammonia is removed together with water, while a complete removal can removal of carbon dioxide with other impurities (CO2/CH4 and H2S/
be successfully achieved without the requirement of a pretreatment step, CH4), while the pressure swing adsorption and amine-based chemical
when scrubbers are used as biogas upgrading techniques (Allegue and absorption require a pretreatment stage, and others, like cryogenic and
Hinge, 2012; Nguyen et al., 2020). A horizontal biotrickling filter filled membrane separations, require post-treatment after the biomethane has
with the activated carbon inoculated with nitrifying bacteria to oxidized been produced. The water scrubbing technique can reduce the level of
sulfur had been employed for the co-removal of biogas pollutants ach- H2S from biogas, but it has a limitation to remove the organic sulfur
ieved 95% H2S and 98% NH3 at an operating range of 20–100 ppm and fractions by forming a solid sulfur deposits. The membrane and cryogenic
gas resident time of 8 and 4 s, respectively (Jiang et al., 2009). Besides, separation provides higher biomethane purity standards and are inter-
the water scrubbing can be effectively removed sulfur, halogens and esting for large-scale plants, but. Micro-algae based photobioreactor
ammonia, while PSA co-removed water vapour and ammonia from raw system is a promising alternative for its low cost and co removals (CO2
biogas (Ullah et al., 2017). and H2S), but not yet tested at large-scale applications in separating the
In the biogas digester, oxygen is not simply present because oxygen impurities from biogas. Further research will be required to adopt: i) low-
could be consumed through the facultative aerobic microbial, while the cost, environmentally friendly, and long-term technologies for inte-
landfill gas constitutes nitrogen and oxygen when the landfill gas has grating pre- and post-treatment with biogas upgrading technologies, ii)
collected under pressure (Petersson and Wellinger, 2009a,b). As hybrid systems, by integrating a promising and emerging technologies
explained by Petersson and Wellinger (2009a,b) the adsorption tech- (like photobioreactor or membrane separation with other processes) to
nique can be removed both N2 and O2 from biogas using activated carbon achieve higher removal of impurities and to enhance the recovery po-
and molecular sieve, the membrane separation technique and PSA that tential of biomethane compared to single step processes.
are designed to remove CO2 and H2S could remove some fractions of N2
and O2. These gases can be removed using adsorption via activated Declarations
carbon, membrane separation, and molecular sieves, while the desul-
phurisation process also removes them to some extent (Nguyen et al., Author contribution statement
2020).
All authors listed have significantly contributed to the development
6.5. Removal of halogenated compounds and hydrocarbons and the writing of this article.

The removal techniques of halogenated hydrocarbons and VOCs are

Funding statement
in a similar way to those applied to the removal of carbon dioxide in
biogas upgrading technologies (Hoyer et al., 2016). A special technology
This work was supported by Mekelle University (Ethiopia) under grant
applied for halogen removal is the adsorption method by passing the
agreement number of CRPO/MU-CHS/Rec/Medium/3/2019–2021.
biogas through “pressurized tube exchangers” filled with specific
adsorbent materials like activated carbon. Hence, small molecules like
carbon dioxide and methane will pass through the column, while big Data availability statement
molecules (halogens) will be adsorbed in the first vessel (treating the
biogas), while the second vessel is used for desorbing (regeneration) of Data will be made available on request.
the pollutants by heating to 200  C (Wellinger and Lindberg, 2000; L

opez
et al., 2012). Then, the adsorbed impurities are evaporated through the Declaration of interest’s statement
flow of inert gas, which requires further treatment due to the existing
environmental standards (Allegue and Hinge, 2012). The authors declare no conflict of interest.

7. Conclusions and future perspectives

Additional information
Unlike coal and fossil fuels, biogas is among the renewable energy
resources that are growing rapidly as a promising, economically feasible No additional information is available for this paper.
and environmentally benign alternative made through the anaerobic
digestion of organic water and sludge. In developing countries, biogas References
technology has been developed promptly to substitute the drawbacks of
Allegue, L.B., Hinge, J., 2012. Biogas and Bio-Syngas Upgrading Report, 1. Danish
wood based solid fuels in terms of health and environmental implica- Technological Institute, p. 97.
tions. However, biogas contains various impurities, including carbon Abadi, N., Gebrehiwot, K., Techane, A., Nerea, H., 2016. Links between biogas technology
dioxide (main constituent of biogas), and small fractions of other gas adoption and health status of the households in rural Tigray, Northern Ethiopia.
Energy Policy.
contaminants (like nitrogen, carbon monoxide, hydrogen sulphide, ox- Andriani, D., Wresta, A., Atmaja, T.D., Saepudin, A.A., 2014. Review on optimization
ygen, ammonia, and trace contents of siloxanes and halogenated hy- production and upgrading biogas through CO2 removal using various techniques.
drocarbons). Depending on the emission level, these impurities result in Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol. 172 (4), 1909–1928.
Angelidaki, I., Treu, L., Tsapekos, P., Luo, G., Campanaro, S., Wenzel, H., Kougias, P.G.,
various direct/indirect environmental impacts. To tackle these problems, 2018. Biogas upgrading and utilization: current status and perspectives. Biotechnol.
different commercially available and emerging technologies are being Adv. 36 (2), 452–466.
developed worldwide to remove carbon dioxide (via biogas upgrading) Ardolino, F., Arena, U., 2019. Biowaste-to-biomethane: an LCA study on biogas and
syngas roads. Waste Manag 87, 441–453.
and other biogas impurities to enrich the methane content. The use of Arnold, M., 2009. Reduction and Monitoring of Biogas Trace Compounds, 2496. VTT
biomethane as a product of upgraded biogas (by removing carbon di- Tiedotteita – Research Notes, pp. 1–74.
oxide and other constituents) has emerged as an alternative mitigation Arnold, M., Kajolinna, T., 2010. Development of on-line measurement techniques for
siloxanes and other trace compounds in biogas. Waste Manag 30, 1011–1017.
strategy to reduce the problems of fossil fuel-based energy demand.
Aroca, G.E., Urrutia, H., Nú~nez, D., Oyarzún, P., Arancibia, A., Guerrero, K., 2007.
The commercially available technologies applied in removing biogas Comparison on the removal of hydrogen sulfide in biotrickling filters inoculated with
impurities are pressure swing adsorption, membrane separation, water Thiobacillus thioparus and Acidithiobacillus thiooxidans. J. Biotechnol. 10, 515–520.
scrubbers, chemical scrubbers, physical organic solvent scrubbers, cryo- Atelge, M.R., Senol, H., Djaafri, M., Hansu, T.A., Krisa, D., Atabani, A., Eskicioglu, C.,
Muratçobanoglu, H., Unalan, S., Kalloum, S., Azbar, N., Kıvrak, H.D., 2021. A Critical
genic separation, and other emerging biotechnological platforms (like overview of the state-of-the-art methods for biogas purification and utilization
photobioreactor and biocatalysis). Amongst them, physical organic processes. Sustain 13, 11515.

13
A.A. Werkneh Heliyon 8 (2022) e10929

Augelletti, R., Conti, M., Annesini, M.C., 2016. Pressure swing adsorption for biogas Kohlheb, N., Wluka, M., Bezama, A., Thr€an, D., Aurich, A., Müller, R.A., 2021.
upgrading. A new process configuration for the separation of biomethane and carbon Environmental-economic assessment of the pressure swing adsorption biogas
dioxide. J. Clean. Prod. upgrading technology. BioEnergy Res 14, 901–909.
Awe, O.W., Zhao, Y., Nzihou, A., Minh, D.P., Lyczko, N., 2017. A review of biogas Kumar, P.S., Hogendoorn, J.A., Feron, P.H.M., Versteeg, G.F., 2002. New absorption
utilization, purification and upgrading technologies: Review. Waste Biomass Valor 8 liquids for the removal of CO2 from dilute gas streams using membrane contactors.
(2), 267–283. Chem. Eng. Sci. 57, 1639–1651.
Axelsson, L., Franz
en, M., Ostwald, M., Berndes, G., Lakshmi, G., Ravindranath, N.H., 2012. Kunze, A.K., Dojchinov, G., Haritos, V.S., Lutze, P., 2015. Reactive absorption of CO2 into
A review of biogas purification processes. Biofuels, Bioprod. Bioref. 6, 246–256. enzyme accelerated solvents: from laboratory to pilot scale. Appl. Energy 156,
Baena-Moreno, F.M., Rodríguez-Gal
an, M., Vega, F., Vilches, L.F., Navarrete, B., 676–685.
Zhang, Z., 2019. Biogas upgrading by cryogenic techniques. Environ. Chem. Lett. 17 Lanzini, A., Madi, H., Chiodo, V., Papurello, D., Maisano, S., Santarelli, M., Van Herle, J.,
(3), 1251–1261. 2017. Dealing with fuel contaminants in biogas-fed solid oxide fuel cell (SOFC) and
Baena-Moreno, F.M., Sach
e, E., Pastor-P
erez, L., Reina, T.R., 2020. Membrane-based molten carbonate fuel cell (MCFC) plants: degradation of catalytic and electro-
technologies for biogas upgrading: a review. Environ. Chem. Lett. (in press). catalytic active surfaces and related gas purification methods. Prog. Energy Combust.
Bauer, F., Persson, T., Hulteberg, C., Tamm, D., 2013. Biogas upgrading — technology Sci. 61, 150–188.
overview, comparison and perspectives for the future. Biofuels. Bioprod. Biorefining. Leung, D.Y.C., Caramanna, G., Maroto-Valer, M.M., 2014. An overview of current status
7, 499–511. of carbon dioxide capture and storage technologies. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 39,
Beiron, J., Normann, F., Kristoferson, L., Str€ omberg, L., Gardarsd  Johnsson, F.,
ottir, S.O., 426–443.
2019. Enhancement of CO2 absorption in water through pH control and carbonic Lim, E., Mbowe, O., Lee, A.S.W., Davis, J., 2016. Effect of environmental exposure to
anhydrase – a technical assessment. Indus. Eng. Chem. Res. 58 (31), 14275–14283. hydrogen sulfide on central nervous system and respiratory function: a systematic
Biernat, K., Samson-Bręk, I., 2011. Review of technology for cleaning biogas to natural review of human studies. Int. J. Occup. Environ. Health 22, 80–90.
gas quality. Chem 65 (5), 435–444. L

opez, M.E., Rene, E.R., Veiga, M.C., Kennes, C., 2012. Biogas Technologies and cleaning
Bona, D., Beggio, G., Weil, T., Scholz, M., Bertolini, S., Grandi, L., Baratieri, M., techniques. In: Lichtfouse, E., et al. (Eds.), Environmental Chemistry for a Sustainable
Schievano, A., Silvestri, S., Pivato, A., 2020. Effects of woody biochar on dry World: Volume 2: Remediation of Air and Water Pollution. Springer, pp. 347–377.
thermophilic anaerobic digestion of organic fraction of municipal solid waste. Macor, A., Benato, A., 2020a. A human health toxicity assessment of biogas engines
J. Environ. Manag. 267, 110633. regulated and unregulated emissions. Appl. Sci. 10, 7048.
Bose, A., O'Shea, R., Lin, R., Murphy, J.D.A., 2020. Perspective on novel cascading algal Macor, A., Benato, A., 2020b. Regulated emissions of biogas engines – onsite
biomethane biorefinery systems. Bioresour. Technol. 304, 123027. experimental measurements and damage assessment on human health. At. Energy 13,
Brunetti, A., Scura, F., Barbieri, G., Drioli, E., 2010. Membrane technologies for CO2 1044.
separation. J. Membr. Sci. 359 (1-2), 115–125. Macor, A., Benato, A., 2021. Costs to reduce the human health toxicity of biogas Engine
Buysman, E., 2015. Biogas and household air quality household air quality Impact of Emssions. Energies 14, 6360.
biogas stoves versus wood-fired stoves in Rural Cambodia biogas and household air Madi, H., Lanzini, A., Diethelm, S., Papurello, D., Van Herle, J., Lualdi, M., Gutzon
quality. Clim. Neutral Rep. 52. Larsen, J., Santarelli, M., 2015. Solid oxide fuel cell anode degradation by the effect
Carranza-Abaid, A., Wanderley, R.R., Knuutila, H.K., Jakobsen, J.P., 2021. Analysis and of siloxanes. J. Power Sources 279, 460–471.
selection of optimal solvent-based technologies for biogas upgrading. Fuel 303 Makaruk, A., Miltner, M., Harasek, M., 2010. Membrane biogas upgrading processes for
(121327), 1–20. the production of natural gas substitute. Separ. Purif. Technol. 74 (1), 83–92.
Chen, X.Y., Vinh-Thang, H., Ramirez, A.A., Rodrigue, D., Kaliaguine, S., 2015. Membrane Mann, G., Schlegel, M., Schumann, R., Sakalauskas, A., 2009. Biogas-conditioning with
gas separation technologies for biogas upgrading. RSC Adv 5, 24399–24448. microalgae. Agron. Res. 7 (1), 33–38.
Converti, A., Oliveira, R.P.S., Torres, B.R., Lodi, A., Zilli, M., 2009. Biogas production and Mattioli, A., Gatti, G.B., Mattuzzi, G.P., Cecchi, F., Bolzonella, D., 2017. Co-digestion of
valorization by means of a two-step biological process. Bioresour. Technol. 100 (23), the organic fraction of municipal solid waste and sludge improves the energy
5771–5776. balance of wastewater treatment plants: Rovereto Case Study. Renew. Energy 113,
Dannesboe, C., Hansen, J.B., Johannsen, I., 2021. Removal of sulfur contaminants from 980–988.
biogas to enable direct catalytic methanation. Biomass Conv. Bioref. 11, 1823–1834. Maurya, R., Tirkey, S.R., Rajapitamahuni, S., Ghosh, A., Mishra, S., 2019. Recent
De Arespacochaga, N., Valderrama, C., Raich-Montiu, J., Crest, M., Mehta, S., advances and future prospective of biogas production. In: Adv. Feed. Convers.
Cortina, J.L., 2015. Understanding the effects of the origin, occurrence, monitoring, Technol. Altern. Fuels Bioprod. New Technol. Challenges Oppor. Elsevier,
control, fate and removal of siloxanes on the energetic valorization of sewage biogas - pp. 159–178.
a review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 52, 366–381. McBean, E.A., 2008. Siloxanes in biogases from landfills and wastewater digesters. Can. J.
Debowski, M., Krzemieniewski, M., Zielinski, M., Kazimierowicz, J., 2021. Immobilized Civ. Eng. 35, 431–436.
microalgae-based photobioreactor for co2 capture (IMC-CO2PBR): efficiency Mel, M., Ibrahim, M.M.A., Setyobudi, R.H., 2016. Preliminary study of biogas upgrading
estimation, technological parameters and prototype concept. Atmosphere 12, 1031. and purification by pressure swing adsorption. AIP Conf. Proc. 1755, 130010-
Deng, L., H€ agg, M.B., 2010. Techno-economic evaluation of biogas upgrading process 1–130010-5.
using CO2 facilitated transport membrane. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control 4, 638–646. Mojtahedi, W., Abbasian, J., 1995. Catalytic decomposition of ammonia in a fuel gas at
Deng, L., Liu, Y., Wang, W., 2020. Biogas cleaning and upgrading. In: Deng, L., Liu, Y., high temperature and pressure. Fuel 74, 1698–1703.
Wang„, W. (Eds.), Biogas Technology. Springer, Singapore, pp. 201–243. Munawer, M.E., 2018. Human health and environmental impacts of coal combustion and
Drimal, M., Koppov
a, K., Kl€
oslov
a, Z., Fabi
anov
a, E., 2010. Environmental exposure to post-combustion wastes. J. Sustain. Min. 17, 87–96.
hydrogen sulfide in central Slovakia (Ruzomberok area) in context of health risk Nagarajan, D., Lee, D.J., Chang, J.S., 2019. Integration of anaerobic digestion and
assessment. Cent. Eur. J. Publ. Health 18, 224–229. microalgal cultivation for digestate bioremediation and biogas upgrading. Bioresour.
Esposito, E., Dellamuzia, L., Moretti, U., Fuoco, A., Giorno, L., Jansen, J.C., 2019. Technol. 290, 121804.
Simultaneous production of biomethane and food grade CO2 from biogas: an Nguyen, L.N., Kumar, J., Vu, M.T., Mohammed, J.A.H., Pathak, N., Commault, A.S.,
industrial case study. Energy Environ. Sci. 12 (1), 281–289. Sutherland, D., Zdarta, J., Tyagi, V.K., Nghiem, L.D., 2020. Bio-methane production
Favre, E., Bounaceur, R., Roizard, D., 2009. Biogas, membranes and carbon dioxide from anaerobic co-digestion at wastewater treatment plants: a critical review on
capture. J. Membr. Sci. 328, 11–14. development and innovations in biogas upgrading techniques. Sci. Total Environ.
Francis, R., 1985. Effect of pollutants on corrosion of copper alloys in seawater: part 1: Niakolas, D.K., 2014. Sulfur poisoning of Ni-based anodes for solid oxide fuel cells in H/C-
ammonia and chlorine effect of pollutants on corrosion of copper alloys in sea water based fuels. Appl. Catal. Gen. 486, 123–142.
part 1: ammonia and chlorine. Br. Corrosion J. 20, 167–174. Ntiamoah, A., Ling, J., Xiao, P., Webley, P.A., Zhai, Y., 2016. CO2 capture by temperature
Graiver, D., Farminer, K.W., Narayan, R., 2003. A review of the fate and effects of swing adsorption: use of hot CO2-rich gas for regeneration. Indus. Eng. Chem. Res. 55
silicones in the environment. J. Polym. Environ. 11, 129–136. (3), 703–713.
Guidotti, T.L., 1994. Occupational exposure to hydrogen sulfide in the sour gas industry: Paglini, R., Gandiglio, M., Andrea Lanzini, A., 2022. Technologies for deep biogas
some unresolved issues. Int. Arch. Occup. Environ. Health 66, 153–160. purification and use in zero-emission fuel cells systems – a review. Energies 15
Gundersen, M.T., von Solms, N., Woodley, J.M., 2014. Enzymatically assisted CO2 (3551), 1–30.
removal from flue-gas. Energy Proc. 63, 624–632. Paolini, V., Petracchini, F., Carnevale, M., Gallucci, F., Perilli, M., Esposito, G.,
Hoyer, K., Hulteberg, C., Svensson, M., Jernberg, J., Nørregård, Ø., 2016. Biogas Segreto, M., Occulti, L.G., Scaglione, D., Ianniello, A., Frattoni, M., 2018a.
upgrading - technical review. Energiforsk 1–71. https://www.hivos.org/sites/defa Characterization and cleaning of biogas from sewage sludge for biomethane
ult/files/biogas_and_household_air_quality_30-10-15_0.pdf. production. J. Environ. Manag. 217, 288–296.
Hullu, J., Maassen, J.I.W., van Meel, P.A., Shazad, S., Vaessen, J.M.P., 2008. Comparing Paolini, V., Petracchini, F., Segreto, M., Tomassetti, L., Naja, N., Cecinato, A., 2018b.
Different Biogas Upgrading Techniques. Final Report. Eindhoven University of Environmental impact of biogas: a short review of current knowledge. J. Environ. Sci.
Technology. Health, Part A 53, 899–906.
Inc, A.S., 2014. Siloxanes and VOC removal. Available from: http://www.airscien Papadias, D.D., Ahmed, S., Kumar, R., 2012. Fuel quality issues with biogas energy – an
ce.ca/#!siloxane -and-voc-removal/c1zf9. economic analysis for a stationary fuel cell system. Energy 44, 257–277.
Jiang, X., Yan, R., Tay, J.H., 2009. Simultaneous autotrophic biodegradation of H2S and Papurello, D., Silvestri, S., Tomasi, L., Belcari, I., Biasioli, F., Santarelli, M., 2016.
NH3 in a biotrickling filter. Chemosphere 75, 1350–1355. Biowaste for SOFCs. Energy Proc. 101, 424–431.
Kaparaju, P., 2013. Biogas upgrading. In: RE1 Biogas Technology for Sustainable Second Peppers, J., Li, Y., Xue, J., Chen, X., Alaimo, C., Wong, L., Young, T., Green, P.G.,
Generation Biofuel Production. Jyv€askyl€a University. August 12 – 16. Jenkins, B., Zhang, R., Kleeman, M.J., 2019. Performance analysis of membrane
Kapdi, S.S., Vijay, V.K., Rajesh, S.K., Prasad, R., 2004. Biogas scrubbing, compression and separation for upgrading biogas to biomethane at small scale production sites.
storage: perspective and prospectus in Indian context. Renew. Energy 30, 1195–1202. Biomass Bioenergy 128, 105314.
Khan, M.A.H., Rao, M.V., Li, Q., 2019. Recent advances in electrochemical sensors for Persson, M., Jonsson, O., Wellinger, A., 2007. Biogas upgrading to vehicle fuel standards
detecting toxic gases: NO2, SO2 and H2S. Sensors 19, 905. and grid. IEA Bioenergy 1–32.

14
A.A. Werkneh Heliyon 8 (2022) e10929

Petersson, A., Wellinger, A., 2009a. Biogas upgrading technologies–developments and Surendra, K.C., Takara, D., Hashimoto, A.G., Khanal, S.K., 2014. Biogas as a sustainable
innovations. IEA Bioenergy 20, 1–19. energy source for developing countries: opportunities and challenges. Renew.
Petersson, A., Wellinger, A.J.I.B., 2009b. Biogas upgrading technologies – developments Sustain. Energy Rev. 31, 846–859.
and innovations, 20, pp. 1–19. Syed, M., Soreanu, G., Falletta, P., B
eland, M., 2006. Removal of hydrogen sulfide from
Piechota, G., 2021a. Removal of siloxanes from biogas upgraded to biomethane by gas streams using biological processes – a review. Can. Biosyst. Eng. 48, 1–14.
cryogenic temperature condensation system. J. Clean. Prod. 308, 127404. Tan, Y., Nookuea, W., Li, H., Thorin, E., Yan, J., 2017. Cryogenic technology for biogas
Piechota, G., 2021b. Multi-step biogas quality improving by adsorptive packed column upgrading combined with carbon capture – a review of systems and property impacts
system as application to biomethane upgrading. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 9, 105944. capture – a review of systems and property impacts. Energy Procardia 142, 3741–3746.
Prussi, M., Padella, M., Conton, M., Postma, E.D., Lonza, L., 2019. Review of technologies Tang, J., Shao, Y., Guo, J., Zhang, T., Meng, G., Wang, F., 2010. The effect of H2S
for biomethane production and assessment of Eu transport share in 2030. J. Clean. concentration on the corrosion behavior of carbon steel at 90  C. Corrosion Sci. 52,
Prod. 222, 565–572. 2050–2058.
Ranalli, P., 2007. Microbiology of Methane Formation, Improvement of Crop Plants for Toledo-Cervantes, A., Morales, T., Gonzalez, A., Munoz, R., Lebrero, R., 2022. Long-term
Industrial End Uses. Springer, pp. 340–368. Photosynthetic CO2 Removal from Biogas and Flue-Gas: Exploring the Potential of
Rasi, S., Veijanen, A., Rintala, J., 2007. Trace compounds of biogas from different biogas Closed Photobioreactors for High-Value Biomass Production (Article in press).
production plants. Energy 32, 1375–1380. Ullah, I., Ha, M., Othman, D., Hashim, H., Matsuura, T., Ismail, A.F., Rezaei-
Riboldi, L., Bolland, O., 2015. Evaluating pressure swing adsorption as a CO2 separation dashtarzhandi, M., Azelee, I.W., 2017. Biogas as a renewable energy fuel – a review
technique in coal-fired power plants. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control 39, 1–16. of biogas upgrading, utilisation and storage. Energy Convers. Manag. 150, 277–294.
Rodero, M.d.R., Lebrero, R., Serrano, E., Lara, E., Arbib, Z., Garcia-Encina, P.A., Van Loosdrecht, M.C.M., Nielsen, P.H., Lopez-Vazquez, C.M., Brdjanovic, D., 2016.
Munoz, R., 2019. Technological validation of photosynthetic biogas upgrading in Biological Sulphate-Reduction, Experimental Methods in Wastewater Treatment. IWA
a semi-industrial scale algal-bacterial photobioreactor. Bioresour. Technol. 279, Pub, pp. 54–72.
43–49. Vega, F., Sanna, A., Navarrete, B., Maroto-Valer, M.M., Cort
es, V.J., 2014. Degradation of
Roth, H., 2004. Toxicological and environmental impacts of hydrogen sulfide. Signal amine-based solvents in co2 capture process by chemical absorption. Greenhouse
Transduction Gasotransmitters 293–313. gases. Sci. Technol. 4 (6), 707–733.
Rout, P.R., Zhang, T.C., Bhunia, P., Surampalli, R.Y., 2021. Treatment technologies for Vinoba, M., Bhagiyalakshmi, M., Grace, A.N., Kim, D.H., Yoon, Y., Nam, S.C., Baek, I.H.,
emerging contaminants in wastewater treatment plants: a Review. Sci. Total Environ. Jeong, S.K., 2013. Carbonic anhydrase promotes the absorption rate of CO2 in post-
753, 141990. combustion processes. J. Phys. Chem. B 117 (18), 5683–5690.
Rubright, S.L.M., Pearce, L.L., Peterson, J., 2017. Environmental toxicology of hydrogen Vrbov
a, V., Ciahotný, K., 2017. Upgrading biogas to biomethane using membrane
sulfide, Nitric Oxide. Biol. Chem. 71, 1–13. separation. Energy Fuels 31 (9), 9393–9401.
Ruiling, G., Shikun, C., Zifu, L., 2017. Research progress of siloxane removal from biogas. Wasajja, H., Lindeboom, R.E.F., van Lier, J.B., Aravind, P.V., 2020. Techno-economic
Int. J. Agric. Biol. Eng. 10, 30–39. review of biogas cleaning technologies for small scale off-grid solid oxide fuel cell
Ryckebosch, E., Drouillon, M., Vervaeren, H., 2011. Techniques for transformation of applications. Fuel Process. Technol. 197, 106215.
biogas to biomethane. Biomass Bioenergy 35 (5), 1633–1645. Wendt, J.O.L., Sternling, C.V., 1974. Effect of ammonia in gaseous fuels on nitrogen oxide
Saadabadi, S.A., Thattai, A.T., Fan, L., Lindeboom, R.E.F., Spanjers, H., Aravind, P.V., emissions. J. Air Pollut. Control Assoc. 24, 1055–1058.
2019. Solid oxide fuel cells fuelled with biogas: potential and constraints. Renew. Wheless, E., Pierce, J., 2004. Siloxanes in landfill and digester gas update. In: Proceedings
Energy 134, 194–214. of the 27th SWANA Landfill Gas Symposium. Silver Springs, San Antonio, TX, USA.
Schulte-Schulze, B.A., 2005. Biogas upgrading with pressure swing adsorption versus Wickham, R., Xie, S., Galway, B., Bustamante, H., Nghiem, L.D., 2018. Anaerobic digestion of
biogas reforming. In: Lens, P., Westermann, P., Haberbauer, M., Moreno, A. (Eds.), soft drink beverage waste and sewage sludge. Bioresour. Technol. 262, 141–147.
Biofuels for Fuel Cells. IWA Publishing, London, pp. 414–429. Williams, R.B., Kaffka, S.R., Oglesby, R., 2014. Draft INTERIM project report; draft
Schweigkofler, M., Niessner, R., 2001. Removal of siloxanes in biogases. J. Hazard Mater. comparative Assessment of Technology Options for Biogas Clean-Up, Davis. https://
83 (3), 183–196. biomass.ucdavis.edu/wp-content/uploads/Biogas-Cleanup-Report_FinalDraftv3_12
Sitthikhankaew, R., Chadwick, D., Assabumrungrat, S., Laosiripojana, N., 2014. Effects of Nov2014-2.pdf.
humidity, O2, and CO2 on H2S adsorption onto upgraded and KOH impregnated Xu, J., Wang, X., Sun, S., Zhao, Y., Hu, C., 2017. Effects of influent C/N ratios and
activated carbons. Fuel Process. Technol. 124, 249–257. treatment technologies on integral biogas upgrading and pollutants removal from
Soreanu, G., B
eland, M., Falletta, P., Edmonson, K., Svoboda, L., Al-Jamal, M., Seto, P., synthetic domestic sewage. Sci. Rep. 7, 10897.
2011. Approaches Concerning Siloxane Removal from Biogas – A Review. 53. Xia, A., Herrmann, C., Murphy, J.D., 2015. How do we optimize third-generation algal
Canadian Biosystems Engineering/Le Genie Des Biosystems Au Canada. biofuels? Biofuels, Bioprod. Biorefin. 9 (4), 358–367.
Sun, Q., Li, H., Yan, J., Liu, L., Yu, Z., Yu, X., 2015. Selection of appropriate biogas Yan, C., Zheng, Z., 2013. Performance of photoperiod and light intensity on biogas
upgrading technology-a review of biogas cleaning, upgrading and utilisation. Renew. upgrade and biogas effluent nutrient reduction by the microalgae Chlorella sp.
Sustain. Energy Rev. 51, 521–532. Bioresour. Technol. 139, 292–299.

15

View publication stats