| | Bed type/adsorbent | Gas | Impurity gas | Loading rate | RE (%) | Elimination capacity | Disadvantage | Reference |
| | Peat biofilter | NH3 | 20 ppmv | 1.8 g m-3 hr-1 | 80 | 41 g m−3 d−1 | Overloads at a loading rate of 7.9 gm-3 hr-1. Prone to channeling and maldistribution. Limited ability to neutralize acidic degradation products | [49] | | Perlite biofilter | NH3 | 20-50 ppmv | 8.6 g m−3 d−1 and 21.5 g m−3 d−1 | 99.5 | NA | Production of NO and NO2 at the outlet | [38] | | Cow manure compost | H2S | ~ 1500 ppm | 58 m3 h−1 | 80 | 16–118 g m-3 h-1 | High operating costs, clogging to deposition of elemental sulfur | [50] | | Red mud | H2S | 200 ppm | 0.0048 | NA | 2.1 g H2S/100 g | Due to the small mass of adsorbent, H2S removal was low | [42] | | Biomass ash | CO2 and H2S | 100–600 ppm H2S, 33–35% CO2 | 0.56-1.25 kg H2S t-1 ash, 35 kg CO2 t-1 ash, and 135 kg CO2 t-1 ash | 50 for H2S, not feasible for CO2 | NA | Not feasible for CO2 removal, ashes could not be reused for as fertilizer | [51] | | T3, T4 soil substrates | H2S | 771-819 ppm | 0.0048 m3 h-1 | 93, 97 | 20.8, 20.1 g S/100 g | A constant flow m3/hr to prevent large pressure drop | This study | | Moss substrate | CO2, NH3, H2S | CO2 31.6%, H2S 307 ppm, NH3 13 ppm | 0.006 m3 h-1 | 59 CO2, 38 NH3, 68 H2S | 6.0 g S/100 g of sorbent | The flow m3/hr to prevent intoxication of microbes by NH3 and H2S present | This study | | Cryptogamic filter | CO2, NH3, H2S | CO2 38%, NH3 8.7 ppm, H2S 819 ppm | 0.006 m3 h-1 | 99.7 CO2, 77.2 NH3, 98.6 H2S | 11 g S/100 g | It does not work on high pressure, high flow rate operation, and requires water scrubber for removal of excess oxygen | This study |
|
|
