This document summarizes a study measuring hydrogen sulfide emission rates at several wastewater treatment plants in Valencia, Spain. Automatic monitors and passive samplers were used to continuously monitor hydrogen sulfide concentrations. Meteorological data and a dispersion model were also used. The study estimated average hydrogen sulfide emission rates for different campaigns at three plants ranging from 0.09 to 2.47 g/s. Outputs included odor impact characterization, emission rate estimates, and adjustment of an emission model.

1. 7th International Symposium on Modern Principles for Air Monitoring and Biomonitoring. Loen (Norway), 19-23 June 2011
HYDROGEN SULFIDE EMISSION RATES AT SEVERAL WASTEWATER
TREATMENT PLANTS IN THE VALENCIAN COMMUNITY (SPAIN)
Fernando LLAVADOR-COLOMER (1)
, Héctor ESPINÓS-MORATÓ (2), Enrique MANTILLA-IGLESIAS(2),
Marta DOVAL MIÑARRO(2,3)
• Entidad Pública de Saneamiento de Aguas Residuales de la Comunidad Valenciana (EPSAR), Valencia, Valencia
• Instituto Universitario Centro de Estudios Ambientales del Mediterráneo – Universidad Miguel Hernández (CEAM-UMH), Paterna, Valencia http://www.ceam.es/
(3) Departamento de Ingeniería Química, Facultad de Química, Universidad de Murcia, 30071, Murcia (Spain)
*Correspondence: Héctor Espinós-Morató, Instituto Universitario CEAM-UMH, Charles R. Darwin 14, 46980-Paterna (Valencia), Spain; e-mail: hector@ceam.es
The management and operation of wastewater treatment plants
(WWTP's) usually involve the release into the atmosphere of ODOUR PROBLEM
substances that cause bad odours, which can potencially produce
annoyance and reduce life quality of the surrounding population. STRATEGY DESIGN
EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN
This olfatory impact can be analyzed using many perspectives and FIELD MEASUREMENTS
+ DISPERSIVE APPROACH
methodologies (psychometry, field inspections, dynamic olfactometry,
INTRODUCTION
CONTINOUS INTEGRATED DISPERSION MODEL
electronic nose ...). CONCENTRATION CONCENTRATION
MONITORING: MEASUREMENTS: OUTPUTS INPUTS
Automatic monitors Passive samplers
An interesting approach is to consider it as a typical pollutant dispersion Meteorological
problem, in which chemical compounds are emitted, transported and PURPOSE measurements
diffused from its origin to the potential receptors, via atmospheric Estimation of Topography
PURPOSE:
dispersion mechanisms. Evaluation ADJUST hydrogen Source
and sulfide characteristics
management emission rates
This approach has several advantages: Olfactory impact
characterization
 To carry out systematic measurement programs; Average concentrations Maximum concentration
 Deployment of ‘ad hoc’ field monitoring networks; Ocurrence frecuency
Localization of
 Experimental adjustment of modelling results; Temporal series maximum concentration
 Checking of corrective measures. points
Fig.1: Conceptual map proposed for odour problem
TOOLS PRODUCTS
INTEGRATED CONCENTRATION MEASUREMENTS CONTINOUS CONCENTRATION MONITORING
An automatic H2S monitor 1. ODOUR IMPACT
DATA AND METHODOLOGY
Palmes-type diffusion provide high resolution of CHARACTERIZATION.
tubes are used to sample time-varying concentrations
H2S, impregnated with a
solution of AgNO3 and
analysed by a fluorimetry
method • ESTIMATION OF H2S
Fig. 4: Automatic H2S monitor
EMISSION RATES.
Fig. 2: Passive samplers used: parts and picture
+ DISPERSION MODEL
A simple diagnostic
METEOROLOGICAL MEASUREMENTS 5. ADJUSTMENT OF AN
three-dimensional
dispersion model is used EMISSION MODEL:
to describe odour impact
A 15 m. meteorological tower placed and quantify emissions • At present: constant emissions
in each plant provide precise (Q=cte).
meteorological information of
dispersion processes 3D DIAGNOSTIC PUFF TYPE DISPERSION • In the future: emissions varying in time
METEOROLOGICAL MODEL MODEL as a function of environmental
parameters [Q(t)=Q(T,H,P,v)].
Fig. 3: Meteorological tower installed in a studied WWTP (Camp de Turia II, Ribarroja del Turia)
STUDY AREAS OUTPUTS
(a) (b) (c)
C AS T EL LO N W W TP C ASTE L LO N W W TP
C a m p a ig n I : 1 4 / 0 7 / 2 0 0 5 t o 1 9 / 0 7 / 2 0 0 5 C a m p a ig n I : 1 4 / 0 7 / 2 0 0 5 t o 1 9 / 0 7 / 2 0 0 5
4 4 3 3 .0
4 4 3 3 .0
CAMPAÑA 1 TRANSECTO 1 N1 N2 N3 VEL*22.5 DIR
OUTPUTS AND H2S EMISSION RATES
9 5 9 5
14/07/05 15/07/05 16/07/05 17/07/05 18/07/05 19/07/05
30 360
8 5
4 4 3 2 .5
8 5
4 4 3 2 .5
270
180
grads-m/s
7 5 7 5 20
90
EMISSION RATES
ppb
0
4 4 3 2 .0
4 4 3 2 .0
6 5 6 5
10 -90
5 5 5 5 -180
-270
4 4 3 1 .5
4 4 3 1 .5
4 5 4 5 0 -360
0:00 12:00 0:00 12:00 0:00 12:00 0:00 12:00 0:00 12:00 0:00 12:00
3 5
WWTP Campaign Experimental Average Emission (g/s)
U T M (km )
3 5
U T M (km )
4 4 3 1 .0
4 4 3 1 .0
period
2 5 2 5
CAMPAÑA 1 TRANSECTO 3 N8 N9 N10
N11 VEL*22.5 DIR
1 5 1 5
4 4 3 0 .5
4 4 3 0 .5
5 5
60
14/07/05 15/07/05 16/07/05 17/07/05 18/07/05 19/07/05
360 I February 2002 1.34
(CAST) 270
II July 2002 1.55
50
4 4 3 0 .0
180
4 4 3 0 .0
grads-m/s
40
90
III January 2003 1.48
ppb
30 0
4 4 2 9 .5
-90
4 4 2 9 .5
20
(CR) 10
-180
-270 RL IV May 2003 2.29
0 -360
V July 2003 2.47
4 4 2 9 .0
4 4 2 9 .0
7 5 4 .0 7 5 4 .5 7 5 5 .0 7 5 5 .5 7 5 6 .0 7 5 6 .5 7 5 7 .0 7 5 7 .5 7 5 8 .0 0:00 12:00 0:00 12:00 0:00 12:00 0:00 12:00 0:00 12:00 0:00 12:00
7 5 4 .0 7 5 4 .5 7 5 5 .0 7 5 5 .5 7 5 6 .0 7 5 6 .5 7 5 7 .0 7 5 7 .5 7 5 8 .0
January 2004 2.37
U T M ( km )
O c u rr e n c e F r e c u e n c y ( % ) > 0 .5 p p b
U T M (km )
O c u rr e n c e F r e c u e n c y ( % ) > 5 . 0 p p b VI
(d)
C A STELLON W W TP
(e)
C A STELLO N W W TP
(f)
C AST EL LO N W W TP
VII February 2004 1.03
C a m p a ig n I: 1 4 /0 7 /2 0 0 5 to 1 9 /0 7 /2 0 0 5 C a m p a ig n I: 1 4 /0 7 /2 0 0 5 to 1 9 /0 7 /2 0 0 5 C a m p a ig n I: 1 4 /0 7 /2 0 0 5 to 1 9 /0 7 /2 0 0 5
I June 2002 1.74
4 4 3 3 .0
4 4 3 3 .0
4 4 3 3 .0
36 0
34 0
3 0
2 7
II August 2002 0.44
February 2003 0.09
4 4 3 2 .5
CR III
4 4 3 2 .5
4 4 3 2 .5
32 0
2 5
30 0
2 3
April 2003 0.46
28 0
26 0 2 1
IV
4 4 3 2 .0
4 4 3 2 .0
4 4 3 2 .0
24 0 1 9
(RL) 22 0
20 0
1 7 V June 2003 1.56
1 5
I July 2005 1.36
4 4 3 1 .5
4 4 3 1 .5
4 4 3 1 .5
18 0
1 3
16 0
CAST II September 2005 1.41
14 0 1 1
U T M (k m )
U T M (km )
U T M (km )
4 4 3 1 .0
12 0 9
4 4 3 1 .0
4 4 3 1 .0
10 0 7
80 5
60
4 4 3 0 .5
4 4 3 0 .5
3
4 4 3 0 .5
40
20
1 Table 1: Hydrogen sulfide average emission rates estimates
for the three WWTP studied.
4 4 3 0 .0
4 4 3 0 .0
4 4 3 0 .0
(CAST) (CR) (RL)
4 4 2 9 .5
4 4 2 9 .5
4 4 2 9 .5
4 4 2 9 .0
4 4 2 9 .0
4 4 2 9 .0
7 5 4 .0 7 5 4 .5 7 5 5 .0 7 5 5 .5 7 5 6 .0 7 5 6 .5 7 5 7 .0 7 5 7 .5 7 5 8 .0
7 5 4 .0 7 5 4 .5 7 5 5 .0 7 5 5 .5 7 5 6 .0 7 5 6 .5 7 5 7 .0 7 5 7 .5 7 5 8 .0 7 5 4 .0 7 5 4 .5 7 5 5 .0 7 5 5 .5 7 5 6 .0 7 5 6 .5 7 5 7 .0 7 5 7 .5 7 5 8 .0
U T M (k m )
U T M (k m ) U T M (k m )
A V E R A G E C O N C E N T R A T IO N S ( p p b )
M A X IM U M C O N C E N T R A T IO N S ( p p b ) P O IN T S L O C A L IZ A T IO N O F M A X I M U M C O N C E N T R A T IO N
Fig. 6: Simulation outputs from the dispersion model.
Different and complementary aspects of odour impact:
(a,b) Frequency of occurrence above different concentration thresholds;