Evaluation of H2S Scavenger Technologies ARCHIVE of

Information Source
Evaluation of H2S Scavenger Technologies

GRI Report No. GRI-94/0197
By A. J. Foral and B. H. AI-Ubaidi
The M.W. Kellogg Company
601 Jefferson Avenue
P. O. Box 4557
Houston, Texas 77210-4557
F. M. Floyd, Project Manager
Prepared for
Gas Research Institute
GRI Contract No. 5088-221-1753
Mr. Dennis Leppin, GRI Project Manager
Note: Minor changes have been made to this help file that supersede the original GRI report. Changes
were made to update information and clarify passages.
GRI Disclaimer
Leqal Notice
This report was prepared by The M.W. Kellogg Company as an account of work sponsored by the Gas
Research Institute (GRI). Neither GRI, The M.W. Kellogg Company, nor any person acting on behalf of
either:
A. Makes any warranty or representation, express or implied, with respect to the accuracy,
completeness or usefulness of the information contained in this report, or that the use of any
apparatus, method, or process disclosed in this report may not infringe privately-owned rights; or
B. Assumes any liability with respect to the use of, or for damages resulting from the use of, any
information, apparatus, method or process disclosed in this report.
Research Summary
Title
Evaluation of H2S Scavenger Technologies
Contractor
The M.W. Kellogg Company

GRI Contract No. 5088-221-1753
Principal
F.M. Floyd, Project Manager
Investigator
Report Period
Objective
01 June to 31 August 1993

The program objective was to establish the cost for removing Low level concentrations
of hydrogen sulfide from a natural gas stream using commercially available
scavengers. The scavengers were used in a batch process on a throw-away
basis. No attempt was made to regenerate the scavenger in place.

Related Topics:
Technical Perspective
Results
Technical Approach
Project Implications
Technical Perspective
A recent survey by Energy and Environmental Analysis, Inc. indicates that approximately 19 trillion cubic
feet (TCF) of natural gas resides in major hydrogen sulfide-prone reserves in the United States. Currently
about 15 percent of all gas produced is sour, much with low concentrations of hydrogen sulfide and also
small volume flows. At low hydrogen sulfide concentrations, conventional hydrogen sulfide removal
systems such as MEA (Monoethanol Amine), DEA (Diethanol Amine), MDEA (Methyldiethanol Amine), etc.
are uneconomical. To treat such Low concentration, Low flow hydrogen sulfide-bearing streams to pipeline
specifications numerous scavenger technologies have been developed. With the many choices and high
operating costs characterized by most technologies, operators are faced with the difficult choice of
selecting a treating option for their Low hydrogen sulfide concentration natural gas.
The use of H2S scavengers by the natural gas industry has been growing significantly for removing Low
concentrations of H2S (typically up to about 200 ppmv H2S depending on the gas flow rate), where
conventional amine treating is not economically feasible. For years, the Iron Sponge and other nonregenerable processes were widely used by the industry to treat this gas. Heightened concerns about
safety and environmental impact associated with spent material disposal have prompted the introduction
and use of many new scavenger technologies. As environmental regulations have become stricter, a keen
interest in identifying better and more environmentally-acceptable H2S scavenging technologies has
emerged, generating a need for information on the application and performance of these technologies. In
1993, GRI initiated a research program in H2S scavenging spanning activities in technical evaluation,
laboratory testing, and field evaluation.
This study was undertaken to survey the available commercial scavenger technologies, identify their
process capabilities and limitations and establish the relative Investment and operating costs associated
with the technologies. The information resulting from this evaluation was used to screen those
technologies with the greatest potential technical and economic merit for further study in GRI's field
evaluation program. The scavenger systems evaluated were employed as a batch process with a twentyfive-day life on a throw-away basis.
The scavenger systems are characterized by requiring minimum equipment to treat the gas to the desired
level. Normally, two contactors are arranged in parallel or lead-lag flow. The lead-lag option offers greater
utilization of the scavenger and greater flexibility in the scheduling of bed change-out. The designs
developed in this study allowed the flexibility to operate in either parallel or lead-lag flow arrangement.
Results
This study established the relative capital and operating costs and acceptability for treating 2 MMSCFD of
natural gas, containing 3, 60, and 100 lbs of sulfur/day as H2S, with the listed hydrogen sulfide scavenger
technologies. The results indicated that the hydrogen sulfide scavengers used were appropriate for Low
concentrations of H2S. Each scavenger had a maximum hydrogen sulfide concentration that it could
economically treat, above which it would be more appropriate to use a continuously regenerative process,
or an alternative scavenger.
A relative Screening Index (SI) was developed. The SI took into account: Investment and operating costs,
and subjective weightings of process reliability, ease of operation, operator acceptance, ease of spent
material disposal, and winterization requirements. Based on the weighting factors used, results indicated
that for a 3 lbs sulfur/day loading, the SulfaTreat Scavenger had the best rating and lowest total plant
Investment. The Magnatreat M-401 scavenger had the lowest operating cost.
For a 60 lbs sulfur/day loading, the SulfaTreat Scavenger still had the best rating and lowest total plant
Investment. The Sulfa-Check 2420 scavenger had the lowest operating cost.
For a 100 lbs sulfur/day loading, the SulfaTreat Scavenger still had the best rating and lowest total plant
Investment. The Sulfa-Check 2420 scavenger had the lowest operating cost.
Another evaluation was done to estimate the maximum economical H2S removal rate for each scavenger,
based on a volume-specific scavenger capacity, 4' ID x 30' T/T vessel size, and 25-day change-out period.
The scavenger Zinc Oxide (High Temperature) had the highest maximum economical loading of 300 lbs
sulfur/day. The scavengers Sulfa-Check 2420, Scavinox, SulfaTreat, SulfaGuard and SulfuRid are
limited to 200 lbs sulfur/day. The scavengers Sulfa-Scrub, Ecotreat and Iron Sponge are limited to 100 lbs
sulfur/day. The scavenger Gas Treat 114 is limited to 80 lbs sulfur/day. The Magnatreat M-401 scavenger
is limited to 60 lb sulfur/day. The scavengers Chemsweet and Activated Carbon Type CJ are limited to 40
lbs sulfur/day. The scavengers SulfuSorbTM and Caustic Soda are limited to 3 lbs sulfur/day.
The results of the project provided much-needed information on the relative cost and acceptability of many
commercial scavengers for treating Low H2S concentration natural gas. The information from this
screening evaluation has been used in the development of the test plan for GRI's field evaluation of the
more promising technologies. A scavenger system can be a useful process to treat gas of Low volume
and/or Low concentration of hydrogen sulfide. While the capacity of the scavenger is an important design
parameter, other characteristics of the system must be considered, such as the cost of material and the
cost of spent material disposal. The GRI field evaluation work is playing a key role in the validation of the
cost and performance of many of the scavengers.
In summary, this preliminary review warrants further study, especially in areas such as material loadings,
disposal, product availability, and site-specific factors.
Technical Approach
The list of hydrogen sulfide scavengers was generated by reference to literature describing where they
have been used and to vendors who have the materials available. In general hydrogen sulfide scavenger
technology is plagued by the vendors' desire to restrict information and the lack of reliable detailed design
information. Many vendors provide only the capacity of the material for hydrogen sulfide and the cost of the
scavenger. The design of the vessels is often left to the purchaser. Some of the scavenger systems
evaluated in this study were designed from data in the literature, where the vendors had not provided the
design information. Thus, the results of this study should be used for screening purposes only.
The scavenger systems were generically divided into two classes, liquids and solids. The direction of flow
was upward for liquid systems and downward in the solid systems.
All systems were designed with a flow arrangement allowing for parallel flow through two beds or lead-lag
flow through two beds. The advantage of the lead-lag arrangement allows for greater utilization of the
scavenger and greater flexibility in scheduling bed change-outs.
An inlet filter separator was provided for all systems. An outlet separator was provided for systems that
used a liquid scavenger. Anti-foam injection systems were provided for liquid systems where such systems
were indicated as being necessary by the vendor or based on the literature.
All systems were considered to be batch processes with no continuous injection of scavenger or in-place
regeneration. Some systems claim an advantage with continuous injection of the scavenger or staged
regeneration, but these configurations were not evaluated.
Some of the scavengers were marketed by more than one vendor under different names. For example,
Sulfa-Scrub, SulfaGuard, Arlox HS-101, Magnatreat M-401 and Sulfa-Check are all similar materials. The
commercial arrangements made in the past led to the proliferation of this material under different names.
At this time the Tretolite Division of the Petrolite Corporation has obtained the patent covering the
chemistry application of triazine, the base component of the Sulfa-Scrub scavenger (Tretolite 1994).
Where vendors responded to our request for design information and gave a range of capacity for their
scavenger for hydrogen sulfide, the average capacity was used to design contactor tower size and initial
scavenger charge.
A maximum vessel height of 30' T/T, and a 25-day run time were used as a basis for the study. All
contactor towers were sized for velocities of less than the maximum superficial velocities recommended by
the vendors.
Project Implications
Scavenging operations are of increasing importance to gas producers as production is increasingly sour.
Very little information has been available to aid in rational process selection and to minimize producer
operating costs. This study is GRI's first effort to provide a source of detailed information on the scavenger
options.
It was quickly decided that a computer program based on the information contained herein would be of
considerable value and a further effort is underway to produce such a product, which has been named
SeleXpert: H2S Scavenger Module. This program is expected to be released in its initial version in the
second quarter of 1995. A prototype of the program has been developed that generates relative rankings
of 15 commercial H2S scavenging technologies based on estimated Investment and operating costs; and
system-default or user-defined subjective weighting factors. These weighting factors cover the categories
referred to in this report as part of the Screening Index.
As this report and the associated program are primarily based on vendor-provided and unverified
information, a second major effort was undertaken to obtain field validation of scavenger performance for
several representative scavengers of the major types, i.e., liquid, solid and direct injection approaches. The
latter work has, at this time, resulted in a significant database of information on the liquid type in both
laboratory and field environments, and the testing of SulfaTreat, a solid type. The data and performance
information from the field evaluation will be incorporated in SeleXpert: H2S Scavenger Module.
Executive Summary
Hydrogen sulfide scavengers have been used for many years. An example is the Iron Sponge scavenger
which has been in use in Europe and the United States for over 100 years. Hydrogen sulfide scavengers
are appropriate for use at the Low H2S concentrations where conventional chemical absorption and
physical solvents are not economical. During recent years, hydrogen sulfide scavenger technology has
expanded with many new materials coming on the market and others being discontinued.
Heightened concerns about safety and environmental impact associated with spent material disposal have
prompted the introduction and use of many new scavenger technologies. As environmental regulations
have become stricter, a keen interest in identifying better and more environmentally-acceptable H2S
scavengers has emerged, generating a need for information on the application and performance of these
technologies. With many technology choices and the high operating costs characterized by most
technologies, operators are faced with a difficult task of selecting a treating option for their Low hydrogen
sulfide concentration natural gas.
In 1993, the Gas Research Institute (GRI) initiated a research program in H2S scavenging spanning
activities in technical evaluation, laboratory testing, and field evaluation. This study was undertaken under
the auspices of GRI to survey the available commercial scavenger technologies, identify their process
capabilities and limitations and establish the relative Investment and operating costs associated with the
technologies for treating 2 MMSCFD of natural gas containing 3, 60, and 100 lbs of sulfur/day as H:S. The
information resulting from this evaluation was used to screen these technologies with the greatest potential
technical and economic merit for further study in GRI's field evaluation program. Many of the scavenger
compositions were proprietary, thus requiring design data to be furnished by the vendors.
All hydrogen sulfide scavengers were evaluated on the basis of a comparable flow arrangement. A batch
system which could accommodate either lead-lag or parallel vessel arrangement was used for all
scavengers, whether liquid or solid. The gas flow direction was upward for all liquid scavengers and
downward for all solid scavengers.
At a given flow rate, each scavenger system was designed from vendor data or design data provided in the
literature. The total installed cost of each system was generated by Kellogg's inhouse Capcost Program.
The preliminary observation was that many of the scavengers are sensitive to the maximum hydrogen
sulfide concentration. Some of the scavenger vessels become extremely large at higher concentrations of
hydrogen sulfide due to designed load capacity of the material.
A relative total plant investment cost, relative operating cost and relative overall rating by Screening Index
(SI) were calculated. The SI took into account: investment and operating costs, and subjective weightings
of process reliability, ease of operation, operator acceptance, ease of spent material disposal, and
winterization requirements.
One of the scavengers' most significant aspects is the problem of the spent material disposal. Although not
included in the operating cost calculations in this study, a potentially large portion of the operating cost for
scavenger systems is the transportation and disposal of spent material. Some scavengers based on zinc
compounds may require disposal in a hazardous landfill, while other scavengers require disposal in a
nonhazardous landfill. Alternatively, the zinc compound in some of the scavengers can be disposed of by
negotiation with a local commercial metal recycler.
Because of the many state and local regulations which apply, site-specific information is required to
quantify the disposal requirements. Furthermore, costs for transportation and disposal are also sitespecific, and can vary widely from operator to operator. With a few exceptions, even the vendors have little
or no information to guide the user. Because of the many unknowns which exist, transportation and
disposal costs were not quantified in this evaluation, but instead were addressed only
qualitatively as part of the subjective criteria for screening: ease of spent material disposal.
Introduction
The objective of this evaluation was to determine the relative cost of removing hydrogen sulfide from a 2
MMSCFD natural gas stream. A stream containing up to 592 ppm(v) hydrogen sulfide (100 lbs sulfur/day)
as well as 0.13% (mol) carbon dioxide was chosen for the design basis. The design basis of 100 lbs of
sulfur/day was determined (based on engineering experience) to be a reasonable upper limit of the
application of the technologies evaluated for the vessel size and bed life assumed.
Twenty-one hydrogen sulfide scavengers which were listed in the literature as being commercially
available were investigated. Hydrogen sulfide scavenger technology is not well developed. Many
scavengers for hydrogen sulfide removal have been introduced to the industry, some of which have been
removed for bad performance or replaced by other scavengers.
Very few vendors offered sufficient engineering data for detailed design of a scavenger system. In design.
Basis For Evaluation

The literature was scanned for commercially available hydrogen sulfide scavengers. A list of 21
scavengers was generated along with possible vendors. A vendor for each scavenger mentioned in the
literature was not found, thus reducing the list evaluated to 15.
The 15 vendors were sent a design inquiry. They were asked to provide vessel sizes, costs and sufficient
basic engineering data on the capacity of the scavenger for hydrogen sulfide. Some vendors declined to
provide design data. Design data in the literature was used in these cases.
The scavenger evaluations were based on a batch system design operating with a 25-day bed or charge
life. Each system had the necessary equipment to operate under either parallel or lead-lag flow
arrangement. Only essential ancillary equipment was included: inlet filter separator, outlet separator for
liquid systems only, initial charge for two beds. If the literature indicated that a given system was prone to
foam, an antifoam injection package was included.
No ancillary equipment was included for charging or draining the systems. It was assumed that the
necessary equipment and labor would be rented on a per-job basis. The cost of bed or charge change was
developed by escalating costs in the literature (Schaack and Chan 1989a). The evaluation was based on
the relative cost of treating 2 MMSCFD of gas at the design conditions. The project was amortized over 5
years.
Maximum economical H2S removal rate for each scavenger was estimated based on a vo!ume-specific
scavenger capacity, 4' ID x 30' T/T vessel size, and 25-day change-out period.
Basis For Process Design

The systems were designed for the following:
Feed Gas Basis
Feed Gas Rate
2.0 MMSCFD
Pressure (psia)
1000
Temperature (oF)
100
Gas Composition
CH4 (mol%)
99.67
H2S (ppmv)
592
CO2 (mol%)
0.13
H20 (mol%) (saturated)
0.14
Location
Gulf Coast USA
Product Gas Specifications

H2S (maximum)
0.25 grains/100 SCF

(-4.0 ppmv)
CO2 (maximum)
2.0 mol%
Bed Life
25 days
The design basis of 100 lbs of sulfur/day was determined (based on engineering experience) to
be a reasonable upper limit of the application of the technologies evaluated for the vessel size
and bed life assumed.
The scavenger vessels were to be designed at a lower superficial velocity than the maximum
recommended by the literature or the vendor,
Most of the liquid systems were to be designed as bubble towers except those where the literature
or vendors suggested that packing be used.
The 3 and 60 lbs sulfur/day evaluations were obtained by changing the sulfur loading only.
Economic Criteria
The total installed cost was generated by Kellogg's Capcost Program. Vendor budget quotations
served as the basis of equipment cost for the filter separator, anti-foam injection package, and
chemical injection packages. The scavenger contact vessel and outlet separator costs were
determined from inhouse data.
The operating cost was determined for recharging one bed assuming a 25-day bed life. The
operating cost included the labor and equipment rental for changeout and the scavenger cost for
one charge. Spent material transportation and disposal costs were not included in the operating
cost calculation.
All costs were developed based on second-quarter 1993 U.S. dollars assuming a U.S. Gulf
Coast installation.
Assumptions and Limitations

All scavenger systems were designed as two contactor towers with flow arrangement that allows for both
parallel and lead-lag flow.
All scavenger systems had an inlet filter separator. All liquid scavengers had an outlet gas separator. Antifoam injection units were provided for liquid scavenger systems where indicated as being necessary or by
the vendor or based on the literature.
All scavenger systems were considered as batch processes with no continuous injection of scavenger or
any in-place regeneration. Some scavenger systems may show an advantage with continuous injection of
solvent or staged regeneration but these operations were not considered for this evaluation.
Where vendors gave a range of capacity for their hydrogen sulfide scavenger, the average capacity was
used to design contactor towers and scavenger charge.
Related Topics:
Economic Limitations
Economic Limitations
The most significant economic limitations were the cost of the scavenger charge and the disposal cost of
the spent scavenger.
Disposal of Spent Material
Because of the many unknowns which exist, transportation and disposal costs were not quantified in this
evaluation, but instead were addressed only qualitatively as part of the subjective criteria for screening:
ease of spent material disposal.
The disposal cost of a hazardous material is more than for a non-hazardous material. Although the spent
material from some of the zinc oxide scavengers are classified as hazardous, sometimes the material can
be recycled. As an example, from a typical zinc oxide scavenger system the spent material can be
disposed of as follows:
a) If the spent scavenger contains a high water and hydrocarbon content, the recycler would
charge approximately $200/ton to dispose of the material.
b) If the spent scavenger, in the form of a cake, contains a modest amount of water and hydrocarbon,
the recycler would dispose of the material free of charge.
c) If the spent scavenger, in the form of a cake, contains Low water and hydrocarbon, the recycler
would pay the plant operator $100/ton to dispose of the material.
The economic impact of zinc oxide disposal depends upon the analysis of the spent material. In this study,
the worst-case scenario (a) was used to establish the subjective rating for ease of spent material disposal.
Bed Change-Out Costs
The operating cost of a scavenger system is the sum of the bed change out and scavenger material costs.
No equipment was provided in the evaluation for loading the scavenger material or unloading the spent
scavenger from the contactor vessel. Any equipment required was assumed to be rented on a per-job
basis.
The typical cost for change-out labor and equipment rental according to Schaack (1989) and escalated to
2nd Quarter 1993 is:
Scaven,qer
Cost/Chanqe-Out
Dichem (Liquid)
$1,450
Scavinox (Liquid)
$1,400
Chemsweet (Slurry)
$ 2,900
Ecotreat (Slurry)
$ 2,900
Sulfa-Check 2420 (Slurry)
$ 2,900
Iron Sponge (Solid)
$10,875
The above costs were used in the study to estimate the bed change-out component of the operating cost.
The change-out cost used for other solids was $5,438. The pyrophoric nature of ferrous sulfide contained
in spent Iron Sponge requires special safety precautions during change-out. Also, the possibility of spent
Iron Sponge fusing could require a high-pressure water jet for removal. The above reasons make spent
Iron Sponge change-out a more time-consuming and expensive process compared to other solids. Hence,
an arbitrary factor of 1/2 was applied to the Iron Sponge change-out cost to arrive at the change-out cost of
other solid scavengers.
Other Economic Limitations
The scavenger systems contained no rotating equipment. The anti-foam injection system used a small
natural gas powered metering injection pump.
All systems were designed to handle both parallel and lead-lag flow arrangements. The lead-lag
arrangement allows greater chemical utilization and greater flexibility in scheduling bed change-out. An
inlet filter separator was provided for all systems.
Anti-foam injection was provided for liquid systems where indicated in the literature or by the vendor as a
requirement.
All systems were considered as batch processes with no continuous solvent injection or any in-place
regeneration. Some systems may show an advantage with continuous solvent injection or staged
regeneration, but those operations were not considered for this evaluation.
Caustic-Based
Caustic Soda Wash
The Caustic Soda wash (This section describes the conventional caustic process; a licensed caustic
process is offerred by Merichem Company. See Merichem Help File) is one of the oldest chemical
absorption processes for removing small quantities of CO2 and H2S from natural gas and refinery gases
(Raab 1976; Manieh and Ghorayeb 1981). A schematic diagram of the Caustic Soda process is depicted
in Figure 7.1. The Caustic Soda process operates on a batch cycle. Two contactors are normally used in
lead/lag arrangement, where one is contacting the inlet gas while the other (spent) bed is being drained
and cleaned. The inlet sour gas containing CO2 and H2S is first passed through an Inlet Filter Separator
(101L) so that entrained liquid droplets are removed from the feed gas stream. Typical contaminants may
include distillate, water, solids, and/or other treating chemicals.
The batch process uses a charge of 15% wt caustic soda in each vessel. The untreated gas is purged
through each vessel until the first vessel is not producing the desired specification; then, the first vessel is
isolated and the spent solution is drained and then recharged with new solution. The recharged vessel is
placed in service downstream of the other batch vessel. This arrangement allows for the maximum
utilization of the caustic charge without making off-specification product or interrupting the gas flow. The
major disadvantage of this scavenger system is that the carbon dioxide in the inlet gas consumes caustic
and must be considered in the caustic soda consumption rate which reduces the life of a given charge.
Carbon dioxide absorption and reaction with the caustic can be minimized by limiting the contact time, as
H2S reacts faster than CO2.
The sour inlet gas enters the bottom of a carbon steel Contactor (101E-NB) where the H2S and CO2 can
be absorbed by maintaining a proper residence contact time between the gas and alkaline (NaOH) liquid in
a batch mode operation. The Outlet Separator 101F is used to knock out any liquid carryover from
Contactor (101E-NB). The configuration shown in Figure 7.1 is one where the alkaline solution is discarded
because CO2 forms a non-regenerable product with the caustic. This is typical of wet scrubbing operations
in which both acid gases ( H2S and CO2) are absorbed.
To improve the contact of the liquid charge with the gas, the tower is equipped with a polyethylene
packing.
The system assumes that a 15-18% wt caustic solution can be purchased so that no mixing equipment is
included in the system. Hence, the safety hazard of establishing and handling the solution is reduced.
The caustic soda scavenger technology has been used in the industry for many years and considerable
information is available in the public domain.
The fresh scavenger composition is sodium hydroxide and water. The spent scavenger contains sodium
hydroxide, sodium carbonate, sodium bicarbonate, sodium sulfide and water.
The components in the fresh and spent scavenger may or may not be listed under one or more of the
following regulations. If they are, they may present a disposal problem.
a) Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) from 40 CFR 261.3.
b) Comprehensive Emergency Response Compensation and Liability Act 1980 (CERCLA) from 40
CFR Part 302 Table 302.4. Sodium hydroxide is listed under the current regulations.
c) Department of Transportation (DOT) from 49 CFR 172.102 "Hazardous Material Table," Sodium
hydroxide and sodium sulfide are listed under the current regulations.
d) Superfund Amendments and Reorganization of 1986 (SARA) Title Ill.
e) Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) with recommendations from the American
Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH), the National Institute of Occupational
Safety and Health (NIOSH) and the Province of Alberta's Occupational and Health and Safety Act
(Canada). Sodium hydroxide has a published exposure limit set by this regulation.
Local or state regulation may limit the handling and disposal of the spent scavenger. Sodium hydroxide is
listed under state regulation in Massachusetts, New Jersey and Pennsylvania, but not in California.
Sodium sulfide is listed under the state regulations in Massachusetts and New Jersey, but not in California
and Pennsylvania.
Ecotreat (Slurrisweet)
The Ecotreat process, previously known as Slurrisweet, is no lonqer commercially available. The process
is a non-regenerative batch-type cycle which selectively removes H2S in the presence of CO2 (Schaack
and Chan, 1989). The process basically uses a reactive iron compound in slurry form to be contacted with
the natural gas. Figure 7.2 shows a schematic flow diagram for a typical Ecotreat acid gas treating unit.
The major equipment includes an Inlet Filter Separator (301L), Contactor (301E-NB), and an Outlet Gas
Separator (301F). The Ecotreat process operates on a batch cycle. Two contactors are normally used in
lead/lag arrangement, where one is contacting the inlet gas while the other (spent) bed is being drained
and cleaned.
No data are available for Ecotreat, so data available in the literature for Slurrisweet were used for the
evaluation. The system is similar to the caustic wash in terms of using the lead-lag arrangement. The
solution contains a slurry of aqueous iron oxide. To be able to meet the predicted capacity, air or oxygen
must be added to oxidize the ferrous sulfide formed. To establish the contact between the slurry and the
gas to be treated the tower must be packed with polyethylene pall rings (Schaack and Chan, 1989a).
The inlet gas stream enters the unit through a small Inlet Filter Separator (301L) to separate out any
entrained liquid, salt water, and any liquid hydrocarbon in the gas stream. The sour gas stream then
passes into the bottom of the Contactor (301E-NB). The vertical vessel is filled approximately three-fourths
full with polyethylene pall rings and contains the liquid Ecotreat treating solution to a level of about one-half
full in the vessel. In this vessel the H2S in the gas stream reacts with the highly reactive iron compound
material in the Ecotreat solution to remove the hydrogen sulfide from the gas stream. An antifoam solution
(302L) is usually added to the system to eliminate any foaming tendencies that may occur inside the
contactors.
As the system is subject to severe foaming, the system requires an anti-foam injection system.
In addition, a dispersant must be added to the system (not shown in Figure 7.2) to maintain the slurry in
suspension.
The treated gas passes to an Outlet Gas Separator (301F) to knock out any carryover of chemical solution
from the contactor vessel into the gas pipeline. To increase the efficiency of the Ecotreat solution, a small
amount of oxygen is added. There are some hazards involved in this, but corrosion, according to the
vendor, is not a problem.
Although significant costs may be involved, Schaack and Chan (1989) indicated the disposal of the
scavenger consisted of separating the bulk of the water from the solid. The water can be disposed of down
hole after compatibility test and plugging potentials are checked out. The solids can then be disposed in
accordance with current regulations.
The fresh scavenger contains the known components ferric oxide (hematite) and ferroso ferric oxide
(magnetite).
The spent scavenger contains the known components ferric oxide (hematite), ferroso ferric oxide
(magnetite), ferric sulfide, ferrous sulfide (troilite), ferroso ferric sulfide, iron pyrite and sulfur.
CFR Part 302 Table 302.4.
c) Department of Transportation (DOT) from 49 CFR 172.102 "Hazardous Material Table." Ferric
oxide (hematite) is listed under the current regulations.
d) Superfund Amendments and Reorganization of i986 (SARA) Title iii.
e) Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) with recommendation from the American
(Canada). Ferric oxide (hematite) has a published exposure limit set by these regulations.
Local or state regulations may limit the handling and disposal of the spent scavenger. Ferric oxide
(hematite) is listed under the regulations of the states of Massachusetts, New Jersey and Pennsylvania.
Iron Sponge
The Iron Sponge process, currently licensed by Connelly-GPM Inc., is one of the oldest scavengers for
removing H2S and mercaptans from natural gas, with no interference by CO= concentration (Anerousis
and Whitman 1985). Iron Sponge originated in Europe more than a century ago and it is still being used to
treat natural gas today (Duckworth and Geddes, 1965). The process is a non-regenerative batch-type
cycle and is schematically shown in Fi.qure 7.3. The sour feed gas passes through an Inlet Filter Separator
(401L) so that entrained liquid droplets are removed from the feed gas stream. The gas then passes
through the top of the Contactor (401E-NB) loosely packed with Iron Sponge. Two contactors are normally
employed in lead/lag arrangement, where one bed is contacting the inlet gas while the other spent bed is
being dumped and cleaned. The sponge consists of wood shavings impregnated with a hydrated form of
iron oxide. The wood shavings serve as a carrier for the active iron oxide powder. Hydrogen sulfide is
removed by reacting with iron oxide to form ferric sulfide. It should be noted here that the gas should be
wet when passing through an Iron Sponge bed as drying of the bed will cause Iron Sponge to lose its
capacity for reactivity. If the gas is not already water-saturated or if the influent stream has a temperature
greater than 120F, water with soda ash is sprayed into the top of the contactor to maintain the desired
moisture and alkaline conditions during operation.
Recent regulations have become more restrictive in the method of classification and disposal of spent Iron
Sponge. As there is a potential of exposure to toxic off gas and possible spontaneous combustion of the
spent material when exposed to air, the material has come under the new regulations.
The fresh scavenger contains the known components of iron oxide and wood shavings.
The spent scavenger contains the known components of iron oxide wood shavings and iron sulfide. There
also is a potential of having the following components if caustic soda is added for pH control: sodium
hydroxide, sodium carbonate, sodium bicarbonate and sodium sulfide.
following regulations and if they are they may present a disposal problem.
CFR Part 302 Table 302.4. Sodium hydroxide is listed under the current regulations.
c) Department of Transportation (DOT) from 49 CFR 172.102 "Hazardous Material Table." Sodium
hydroxide, sodium sulfide, iron oxide and iron sulfide are listed under the current regulations.
d) Superfund Amendments and Reorganization of 1986 (SARA) Title II1.
(Canada). Sodium hydroxide and iron oxide are listed under the current regulations.
Local or state regulations may limit the handling and disposal of the spent scavenger. As an example,
sodium hydroxide and iron rust oxide are listed as hazardous substances in Massachusetts, New Jersey
and Pennsylvania under the current regulations.
SulfaTreat
The SulfaTreat process, currently licensed by The SulfaTreat Company, is a patented batch-type
process for the selective removal of hydrogen sulfide ( H2S ) and mercaptans (RSH), from natural gas,
carbon dioxide (CO2) and air. The process is dry, using no free liquids, and can be used for all natural gas
applications where a batch process is suitable.
The SulfaTreatTM system is a more recent development using iron oxide on a porous solid material. Unlike
Iron Sponge, the SulfaTreatTM material is non-pyrophoric. The SulfaTreatTM material has a higher capacity
than Iron Sponge on a volumetric or mass basis. However, the economic capacity (pounds of sulfur
removed per dollar of material) is somewhat lower than Iron Sponge (mid-1996 pricing). Despite this lower
economic capacity than Iron Sponge, it has other qualities that give it an advantage. Generally
SulfaTreatTM has a lower pressure drop and it does not tend to bridge over. SulfaTreatTM beds are easier to
change out due to its particle size and shape. The uniform shape and size also allows for greater utilization
of capacity. Carryover of liquid hydrocarbon and methanol has minimal effect on its hydrogen sulfide
capacity.
A schematic diagram of the process is depicted in Figure 7.4. The inlet gas stream enters the unit through
a small Inlet Separator (501L) to separate out any entrained liquid, salt water, and any liquid hydrocarbon
in the gas stream. The sour feed gas then passes to the top of the Contactor (501E-NB).
The SulfaTreat product is a dry, granular, free-flowing material of uniform porosity and permeability. Also,
the SulfaTreat product only reacts with sulfur-containing compounds. This eliminates any side reactions
with CO2 which could reduce its efficiency.
The reaction rate increases with temperature. As an example, from 40F to 130F the reaction rate
increases by a factor of six. Operation below 40F is not recommended. Furthermore, high temperature
could lead to bed drying. As the SulfaTreat bed dries out, the rate of reaction decreases. Optimum
efficiency may require measuring water content of the gas and injecting a sufficient amount of water into
the influent gas to maintain a water-saturated gas and evidence of free water in the outlet gas. The fresh
scavenger contains the known components of ferric oxide (hematite) and ferrosoferric oxide (magnetite).
The spent scavenger contains the known component iron pyrite.
c) Department of Transportation (DOT) from 49 CFR 172.102 "Hazardous Material Table." Ferric
oxide (hematite) is listed under the current regulations.
(Canada). Ferric oxide (hematite) has a published exposure limit set by these regulations.
Local or state regulations may limit the handling and disposal of the spent scavenger. Ferric oxide
(hematite) is listed under the regulations of the states of Massachusetts, New Jersey and Pennsylvania.
The vendor claims that the spent material can be disposed of in a Class 2 landfill (non-hazardous) or
buried on location. Disposal depends on local regulation (Gas Sweetener Bulletin).
Zinc Oxide (High Temperature)

The Zinc Oxide (High Temperature) process is a batch non-regenerative process employed primarily for
polishing applications to remove trace amounts of H2S and mercaptans from natural gas and liquid
hydrocarbons. The adsorption process is normally carried out at a high temperature (200-750F) so that
sulfur compounds can be removed totally. Recently, ICl claimed that a new zinc oxide based adsorbent
has been developed to give more porous structure and higher surface area to make Low temperature
operation more attractive. The new lower temperature adsorbent was not evaluated in this study. Figure 7.-5 shows a typical flowsheet for the zinc oxide desulfurization process.
The reaction rate of hydrogen sulfide with zinc oxide to form zinc sulfide increases with temperature. To
get an acceptable reaction rate the inlet gas is heated to 300F by utilizing a gas-gas heat exchanger and a
fired heater. The treated gas is further cooled in an air cooler to 100F (Carnell 1986).
Liquid hydrocarbon does not contaminate the zinc oxide bed (Camell 1986).
The zinc oxide scavenger technology is well established. Granular zinc oxide has been used for many
years to remove hydrogen sulfide and mercaptans from natural gas and associated gas that is used as
feed to produce hydrogen. The nickel catalyst used in production of hydrogen is easily poisoned by sulfur,
thus the granular zinc oxide operating at high temperature removes the sulfur compounds to a level of less
than 0.1 ppm which protects the nickel catalyst.
Granular zinc oxide has been used on an offshore platform in the North Sea to remove hydrogen sulfide
(Carnell 1986).
The inlet sour gas passes through an Inlet Filter Separator (601L) to separate out any entrained liquid or
salt water in the gas stream. The gas then passes through a two-stage preheating process Gas/Gas
Exchanger (601C) and Gas Heater (601B) to raise the temperature of the gas high enough before entering
the Contactor (601E-NB). The heated gas then enters the top of the contactor where the hydrogen sulfide
is removed by reaction with the granular zinc oxide packed in the fixed bed. The two contactors are in a
lead/lag arrangement, where one is contacting the inlet gas while the other (spent) bed is being cleaned
and recharged with fresh zinc oxide.
Carnell (1986) indicated the discharged, spent, zinc oxide is normally sold for metal recovery. No credit for
metal recovery was taken in this study, however.
The fresh scavenger contains the known component zinc oxide.
The spent scavenger contains the known components of zinc oxide and zinc sulfide.
a) Resource Conservation and Recovery ACt (RCRA) from 40 CFR 261.33.
c) Department of Transportation (DOT) from 49 CFR 172.102 "Hazardous Material Table."
d) Superfund Amendments and Reorganization of 1986 (SARA) Title II1. Zinc oxide and zinc sulfide
are listed under the current regulation.
(Canada). Zinc oxide has published exposure limits set by these regulations.
Local or state regulations may limit the handling and disposal of the spent scavenger. The zinc oxide is
considered as a hazardous substance in Massachusetts, New Jersey and Pennsylvania.
Chemsweet
The Chemsweet process, licensed by NATCO, Division of National Tank Company, is a non-regenerative
batch process for selectively removing H2S from natural gas. The white powder product, Chemsweet, is a
mixture of zinc oxide, zinc acetate, water and a dispersant to keep the solid (zinc oxide) particles in
suspension. The pH of the Chemsweet slurry is Low enough to prevent any significant absorption of CO2
when the ratio of CO2 to H2S is high (NATCO 1982).
The spent scavenger normally contains an aqueous slurry of zinc sulfide and approximately 85% wt water
(NATCO 1982).
The hydrogen sulfide scavenger, Chemsweet, is an aqueous slurry of specially formulated zinc oxide.
Liquid hydrocarbon must be removed from the feed to prevent contamination of the zinc oxide.
Figure 7.6 shows a schematic flow diagram for a typical Chemsweet acid gas treating unit. The major
equipment includes an Inlet Filter Separator (701L), Contactor (701E-A/B), and an Outlet Gas Separator
(701F). The Chemsweet process operates on a batch cycle. Two contactors are normally used in lead/lag
arrangement, where one is contacting the inlet gas while the other spent bed is being drained and cleaned.
salt water in the gas stream. The gas then enters the bottom of the Contactor (701E-A) where the
hydrogen sulfide is removed by reaction with the solid slurry. The other Contactor (701 E-B) is cleaned and
recharged with fresh Chemsweet. The treated gas passes out to an Outlet Gas Separator (701F) to
prevent any carry over of chemical solution from the contactor vessels into the gas pipeline.
The fresh scavenger contains the known components of zinc oxide and water.
The spent scavenger contains the known components of zinc oxide, zinc sulfide and water.
d) Superfund Amendments and Reorganization of 1986 (SARA) Title II1. Zinc oxide and zinc sulfide
are listed under current regulations.
(Canada). Zinc oxide has published exposure limits set by these regulations.
Local or state regulations may limit the handling and disposal of the spent scavenger. The zinc oxide is
considered as a hazardous substance in Massachusetts, New Jersey and Pennsylvania.
The vendor claims in most cases spent scavenger can be disposed of in a landfill site. Do not heat the
spent scavenger or allow it to stand in an open vesel, as the H2S could be released. The fresh scavneger
is not considered to be hazardous,
SulfuSorb
The SulfuSorb process, currently licensed by Calgon Carbon Corporation, is one of the scavengers for
removing H2S from natural gas streams. The scavenger SulfuSorb comes in two types, SulfuSorb and
SulfuSorb 12. The SulfuSorbm's are specially-impregnated granular activated carbons. They were
designed for vapor-phase application to remove hydrogen sulfide and Low molecular weight organic sulfur
compounds. A copper compound is used to impregnate the granular activated carbon (Calgon 1978).
High molecular weight hydrocarbons contaminate the SulfuSorbTM by masking the impregnated activated
carbon. The SulfuSorbTM in a properly operated unit can remove hydrogen sulfide to 0.2 ppm in the
treated gas. The SulfuSorbTM scavengers are more suited when the inlet gas contains 10 ppm or less of
hydrogen sulfide (Calgon 1978).
The process, schematically shown in Figure 7.7, operates on a batch cycle. Two contactors are normally
used in lead/lag arrangement, where one is contacting the inlet gas while the other (spent) bed is being
dumped and replaced. The sour feed gas passes through an Inlet Filter Separator (1101L) to remove any
entrainment liquid droplets from the feed gas stream. The gas then passes through the top of the
Contactor (1101E-NB) loosely packed with metal-oxide-impregnated activated carbon products. Hydrogen
sulfide is removed by adsorption on the dry activated-carbon bed (Calgon 1978).
The system is suited for regeneration in place with a significant reduction in capacity for sulfur (Calgon
1978).
The fresh scavenger contains the known components of activated carbon and a copper compound as the
impregnated material.
The spent scavenger contains the known components of activated carbon and copper sulfide.
The components in the new and spent scavenger may or may not be listed under one or more of the
CFR Part 302 Table 302.4. Copper compounds are listed under the current regulations.
c) Department of Transportation (DOT) from 49 CFR 172.102 "Hazardous Material Table." Activated
carbon is listed under the current regulations.
d) Superfund Amendments and Reorganization of 1986 (SARA) Title III.
(Canada).
Local or state regulations may limit the handling and disposal of the spent scavenger.
The vendor claims that for the SulfuSorb material with copper impregnation only, disposal is by land fill.
Activated Carbon Type CJ

The CJ activated carbon process, currently licensed by Barnebey & Sutcliffe Corp., is one of the H2S
scavengers for removing H2S and mercaptans from natural gas in non-oxygen atmospheres. The
Activated Carbon Type CJ hydrogen sulfide scavenger is made from chemically impregnated activated
carbon. The material used to impregnate the carbon is ferric oxide. The ferric oxide impregnate increases
the capacity for hydrogen sulfide eight fold over the unimpregnated activated carbon.
The process is a non-regenerative batch-type cycle, and is schematically shown in Figure 7.8. The sour
feed gas passes through an Inlet Filter Separator (2101L) to remove entrained liquid droplets from the feed
gas stream. The gas then passes through the top of the Contactor (2101 E-NB) loosely packed with
activated carbon type CJ. Type CJ is a metal oxide-treated carbon with high selectivity towards hydrogen
sulfide.
The fresh scavenger contains the known components of activated carbon and ferric oxide.
The spent scavenger contains the known components of activated carbon, ferric oxide and spent iron
oxide.
c) Department of Transportation (DOT) from 49 CFR 172.102 "Hazardous Material Table." Activated
carbon and spent iron oxide are listed under the current regulations.
(Canada).
The vendor did not provide any information on the handling or disposal of this scavenger.
Nitrite-Based
Sulfa-Check 2420
The Sulfa-Check process, licensed by Nalco/Exxon Energy Chemicals, L.P., is a direct liquid-phase
oxidation process using an aqueous solution of salt oxidizers such as sodium nitrite. The process is
generally operated at ambient temperature, used for selectively removing H2S and mercaptans from sour
gas in the presence of CO2 (Bhatia and AIIford 1986), and produces a by-product slurry of sulfur and
sodium salts.
A schematic diagram of the batch non-regenerative process is shown in Figure 7.9. Two contactors are
normally used in lead/lag arrangement, where one is contacting the inlet gas while the other (spent) bed is
being drained and cleaned. As shown in this figure, the inlet sour gas is first passed through an Inlet Filter
Separator (201L) so that entrained liquid droplets are removed from the feed gas stream.
The sour inlet gas enters the bottom of a Contactor (201E-NB) where acid gases ( H2S and CO2) react
with the alkaline solution of salt oxidizers such as sodium nitrite. As the system tends to foam, provision is
made for an anti-foam injection system to inject Sulfa-Check E22 and E25 anti-foam agents on a
continuous basis. In the Sulfa-Check process, the effects of all reactions between H2S, CO2 and the nitrite
solution are controlled by selecting the proper parameters such as pH and contact time so that H2 S reacts
to form sulfur with a minimum amount of CO2 reacting with the alkaline solution.
The treated gas leaves the top of the contactor and passes through an Outlet Gas Separator (201F),
where any solvent carried over is removed.
According to the manufacturer, the system must be maintained below 100F.
The following must be considered when using Sulfa-Check 2420:
1. The Sulfa-Check process may generate nitrogen oxide but does not normally generate nitrogen
dioxide.
2. Nitrogen dioxide can cause corrosion in a wet environment which could oxidize some elastomers
and plastic seals and reduce the ability of people to detect some odorant.
3. Ammonia can be produced when fresh Sulfa-Check 2420 is installed and when the concentration
of carbon dioxide is less than 0.1 percent. This is a transient effect which only occurs at the
beginning of a cycle.
Carbon steel is suitable for material of construction for major pieces of equipment.
The primary solids in the spent solution are sulfur and sodium bicarbonate. The acidification of spent slurry
will not cause hydrogen sulfide evolutions.
The fresh scavenger contains the known components of sodium nitrite, sodium hydroxide and water.
The spent scavenger contains the known components of sodium nitrite, sodium hydroxide, water,
ammonia, nitric oxide, sodium carbonate, sodium bicarbonate, sodium nitrate, sodium sulfate, tetrathionate
and sulfur.
a) Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) from 40 CFR 261.33. Nitric oxide is listed under
the current regulations.
CFR Part 302 Table 302.4. Sodium nitrite, sodium hydroxide, ammonia, sodium bisulfide,
ammonium carbonate and nitric oxide are listed under the current regulations.
Sodium nitrate, sodium hydroxide, sodium nitrite, nitric oxide, ammonia, sodium sulfide, sodium
bisulfide, ammonium carbonate and sulfur are listed under the current regulations.
d) Superfund Amendments and Reorganization of 1986 (SARA) Title III. Ammonia and nitric oxide
are listed under the current regulations.
(Canada). Nitric oxide, ammonia, sulfur and sodium hydroxide have published exposure limits set
by these regulations.
Local or state regulations may limit the handling and disposal of the spent scavenger. Refer to Table 8.1
for the components regulated in the states of California, Massachusetts, New Jersey and Pennsylvania.
According to Bhatia (1986), the spent slurry from the Sulfa-Check process was classified as a nonhazardous waste by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, fourteen state agencies and the U.K.
Department of Energy.
Sulfa-Scrub
The Sulfa-Scrub process, licensed by Petrolite Corporation, Tretolite Division, is a non-regenerative batch
process for selectively removing H2S and mercaptans from natural gas. The treating chemical, SulfaScrub, is a novel class of alkanolamines known as tria7ines. The Sulfa-Scrub instantaneously reacts with
H2S, but reacts minimally with CO2 (Dillon 1991).
At this time the Tretolite Division of the Petrolite Corporation has obtained the patent covering the
chemistry application of triazine, the base component of the Sulfa-Scrub scavenger (Tretolite 1994).
Sulfa-Scrub reacts with hydrogen sulfide to form a stable, water soluble product that is easily removed
from the system. The reaction products can include bis-dithiazine and dithiazine. Sulfa-Scrub scavenger is
an aqueous solution of 48-50% by weight of the triazine-based scavenger (Dillon 1991).
Fi,qure 7.10 shows a schematic flow diagram for a typical Sulfa-Scrub acid gas treating unit. The major
equipment includes an Inlet Filter Separator (1201L), Contactor (1201E-NB), and an Outlet Gas Separator
(1201F). The Sulfa-Scrub process operates on a batch cycle. Two contactors are normally used in lead/lag
arrangement, where one is contacting the inlet gas while the other (spent) bed is being drained and
cleaned.
salt water in the gas stream. The gas then enters the bottom of the Contactor (1201 E-A) where the
hydrogen sulfide is then removed by reaction with the Sulfa-Scrub material. The other Contactor (1201E-B)
is cleaned and recharged with fresh triazine. The treated gas passes to an Outlet Gas Separator (1201F)
to prevent any carryover of chemical solution from the contactor vessels into the gas pipeline.
Free hydrocarbon condensate must be removed from the inlet feed for satisfactory operation (Dillon 1991).
Originally the material used in the Sulfa-Scrub scavenger had been marketed to several distributors who
sold the material under their own trade names of SulfaGuard, Magnatreat M-401, Arlox HS-101 and SulfaCheck TX. This has led to some misunderstanding in the use of the material but with new commercial
agreements, the Petrolite Corporation is the sole distributor in the United States under the Tretolite
Division with trade name Sulfa-Scrub HSW-7OOL.
The fresh scavenger contains the known components of triazine, methanol and water.
The spent scavenger contains the known components of triazine, bis-dithiazine, dithiazine, methanol and
water.
a) Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) from 40 CFR 261.33. Methanol is listed under
CFR Part 302 Table 302.4. Methanol is listed under the current regulations.
c) Department of Transportation (DOT) from 49 CFR 172.102 "Hazardous Material Table." Methanol
and monoethanol amine are listed under the current regulations.
d) Superfund Amendments and Reorganization of 1986 (SARA) Title II1. Methanol is listed under the
current regulations.
Safety and Health (NIOSH) and the Provinc. P. nf Alberta's Occupational and Health and Safety
Act (Canada). Methanol and monoethanol amine are listed under the current regulations.
Although an expensive disposal method, the vendor claims that the spent Sulfa-Scrub scavenger can be
disposed of in a non-hazardous disposal well. The vendor has had several environmental analyses
conducted on the spent Sulfa-Scrub solution to verify that it is non-hazardous (Dillon 1991). Some
operators have found it was to their advantage to use the spent Sulfa-Scrub scavenger solution as a
corrosion inhibitor in appropriate aqueous systems (Dillon 1991),
SulfaGuard
The SulfaGuard process, licensed by Coastal Chemical Company, is a non-regenerative batch process for
selectively removing H2S from natural gas. The treating chemical, SulfaGuard, is a complex class of
amine/amino alcohol resin in an aqueous methanol solution. It is a triazine-based scavenger. The
SulfaGuard solution rapidly reacts with H2S, but minimally absorbs CO= because it is sterically hindered
(Coastal Report 1993).
SulfaGuard converts the hydrogen sulfide to a non-hazardous sulfur/amine compound and organic
thioalcohol (mercaptan) polymer. The reaction with hydrogen sulfide does not form any insoluble
precipitants. The scavenger is used as a 50% aqueous solution (Coastal 1993).
Fi.qure 7.11 shows a schematic flow diagram for a typical SulfaGuard acid gas treating unit. The major
equipment includes an Inlet Filter Separator (1501L), Contactor (1501 E-NB), and an Outlet Gas Separator
(1501F). The SulfaGuard process operates on a batch cycle. Two contactors are normally used in lead/lag
cleaned.
hydrogen sulfide is removed by reaction with the amine/amino alcohol resin to form stable, water soluble
products that may be easily removed from the system. The other Contactor (1501E-B) is cleaned and
recharged with fresh SulfaGuard and placed in series with Contactor (1501E-A). The treated gas passes
out to an Outlet Gas Separator (1501F) to prevent any carryover of chemical solution from the contactor
vessels into the gas pipeline.
The fresh scavenger contains the known components of triazine, methanol, monoethanol amine and water.
The spent scavenger contains the known components of triazine, bis-dithiazine, dithiazine, methanol,
monoethanol amine and water.
and monoethanol amine are listed under the current regulations.
d) Superfund Amendments and Reorganization of 1986 (SARA) Title III. Methanol is listed under the
(Canada). Methanol and monoethanol amine are listed under the current regulations.
The vendor claims the reaction product can be used as a corrosion inhibitor or that it can be disposed of in
a disposal well or any non-hazardous waste disposal site.
Sulfix 100
Sulfix 100 - Replaced by Magnatreat M-401, Arlox HS 101, Sulfa-Check TX
The vendor indicated that the scavenger Sulfix 100 was not suitable for this evaluation requirement. The
vendor replaced Sulfix 100 with Magnatreat M-401. The Magnatreat M-401 process, licensed by Baker
Performance Chemicals, Inc., is a non-regenerative batch process for selectively removing H=S from
natural gas. The Magnatreat product is a mixture of triazine and water. The reaction between Magnatreat
M-401 and H2S is complex and consists of series of reactions with the formation of a cyclic sulfur product
known as bis-dithiazine and dithiazine.
Figure 7.12 shows a schematic flow diagram for a typical Magnatreat acid gas treating unit. The major
equipment includes an Inlet Filter Separator (1701L), Contactor (1701 E-A/B), and an Outlet Gas
Separator (1701F). The Magnatreat process operates on a batch cycle. Two contactors are normally used
in lead/lag arrangement, where one is contacting the inlet gas while the other (spent) bed is being drained
and cleaned.
The inlet sour gas passes through an Inlet Filter Separator (1701L) to separate out any entrained liquid
and salt water in the gas stream. The gas then enters the bottom of the Contactor (1701 E-A) where the
hydrogen sulfide is then removed by its reaction with the Magnatreat product to form stable, water soluble
products that may be easily removed from the system. The other Contactor (1701E-B) is cleaned and
recharged with fresh Magnatreat M-401 and placed in series with Contactor (1701 E-A).
The treated gas passes to an Outlet Gas Separator (1701F) to prevent any carryover of chemical solution
from the contactor vessel into the gas pipeline.
The fresh scavenger contains a proprietary formulation and methanol.
The spent scavenger contains methanol and unknown components because of the proprietary formulation
of the fresh scavenger.
is listed under the current regulations.
d) Superfund Amendments and Reorganization of 1986 (SARA) Title II1. Methanol is listed under the
(Canada). Methanol is listed under the current regulations.
Local or state regulations may limit the handling and disposal of the spent scavenger. Methanol is listed
under state regulations for California, Massachusetts, New Jersey and Pennsylvania.
The vendor claims the spent scavenger is non-hazardous under 29 CFR 1910.1200.
Gas Treat 114

The hydrogen sulfide scavenger, Gas Treat 114, has replaced Gas Treat 102.
The Gas Treat 114 process, licensed by Champion Technologies Inc., is a non-regenerative batch process
for selectively removing hydrogen sulfide from natural gas. The treating chemical, Gas Treat 114, is a
novel class of alkylamine. The Gas Treat 114 instantaneously reacts with H=S, but does not react with
CO2. The scavenger is made up of 30% Gas Treat 114 and 70% water.
Figure 7.13 shows a schematic flow diagram for a typical Gas Treat acid gas treating unit. The major
(1401F). The Gas Treat process operates on a batch cycle. Two contactors are normally used in lead/lag
arrangement, where one is contacting the inlet feed gas while the other spent bed is being drained and
cleaned.
The inlet sour gas passes through an Inlet Filter Separator (1401L) to separate out any entrained liquid
and salt water in the gas stream. Liquid hydrocarbons must be removed from the feed to the scavenger
system. The gas then enters the bottom of the Contactor (1401 E-A) where the hydrogen sulfide is then
removed by the reaction with the alkylamine to form stable, water soluble products that may be easily
removed from the system. The other Contactor (1401E-B) is cleaned and recharged with fresh Gas Treat
114.
The treated gas passes to an Outlet Gas Separator (1401F) to prevent any carryover of chemical
solution from the contactor vessels into the gas pipeline.
The fresh scavenger contains an alkylamine and water. The scavenger is claimed to be a proprietary
formulation.
The spent scavenger contents are unknown.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) with recommendation from the American
(Canada).
The vendor claims the disposal of the expended solvent for inland use can be done in a Class II, nonhazardous waste system.
SulfuRid
The SulfuRid process, licensed by Weskem-Hall Inc., is a non-regenerative batch process for selectively
removing H2S from natural gas. The treating chemical, SulfuRid, is a high molecular weight, cyclic tertiary
amine. The SulfuRic] chemical rapidly reacts with H2S (Weskem Report 1993).
Enough data were furnished by the vendor to size the vessel and the cost of operation (Weskem 1993).
Figure 7.14 shows a schematic flow diagram for a typical SulfuRid acid gas treating unit. The major
(1601F). The SulfuRid process operates on a batch cycle. Two contactors are normally used in lead/lag
cleaned.
hydrogen sulfide is removed by reaction with a cyclic tertiary amine to form stable, water soluble products
that may be easily removed from the system. The other Contactor (1601 E-B) is cleaned and recharged
with fresh SulfuRid and placed in series with Contactor (1601 E-A).
from the contactor vessels into the gas pipeline.
The fresh scavenger contains proprietary compounds.
The spent scavenger contains proprietary components.
c) Department of Transportation (DOT) from 49 CFR 172.102 "Hazardous Material Table/'
(Canada).
The vendor claims the reacted by-products of the scavenger are water soluble salts that present no
disposal problems. The salts, when in a water solution, may be injected into most licensed salt water
disposal wells.
Magnatreat M-118W
The Magnatreat M-118W process, licensed by Baker Performance Chemicals, Inc., is a non-regenerative
batch process for selectively removing H2S from natural gas. The Magnatreat product is a mixture of
formaldehyde, methanol and water. The reaction between Magnatreat M-118W and H2S is complex and
consists of a series of reactions with the formation of a cyclic sulfur product known as trithiane and
medium- and long-chain mercaptans (Schaack and Chan 1989).
Similar to Scavinox and Dichem, Magnatreat M-118W has been taken off the market at this time (Schaack
1989).
Fi.qure 7.15 shows a schematic flow diagram for a typical Magnatreat M-118W acid gas treating unit. The
major equipment includes an Inlet Filter Separator (801L), Contactor (801E-A/B), and an Outlet Gas
Separator (801F). The Magnatreat process operates on a batch cycle. Two contactors are normally used
in lead/lag arrangement, where one is contacting the inlet gas while the other (spent) bed is being drained
and cleaned.
The inlet sour gas passes through an Inlet Separator (801L) to separate out any entrained liquid and salt
water in the gas stream. The gas then enters the bottom of the Contactor (801E-A) where the hydrogen
sulfide is then removed by the reaction with the Magnatreat product.
from the contactor vessels into the gas pipeline.
The spent scavenger contains the known components of formaldehyde, methanol and water. The spent
scavenger contains various forms of trithiane belonging to a family of complex chemicals known as
formthionals. Also according to Schaack and Chan (1989), one characteristic of the formaldehyde-based
scavenger is the formation of water soluble, medium- and long-chain mercaptans.
a) Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) from 40 CFR 261.33. Formaldehyde and
methanol are listed under the current regulation.
a) Comprehensive Emergency Response Compensation and Liability Act 1980 (CERCLA) from 40
CFR Part 302 Table 302.4. Formaldehyde and methanol are listed under the current regulation.
Formaldehyde and methanol are listed under the current regulation.
d) Superfund Amendments and Reorganization of 1986 (SARA) Title II1. Formaldehyde and
methanol are listed under the current regulations.
(Canada). Formaldehyde and methanol have published exposure limits set by these regulations.
Schaack and Chan (1989) indicated that Magnatreat M-118W or similar formaldehyde-based chemicals
are safe to use if handled properly. Also, Schaack and Chan (1989) indicated Alberta's Energy Resource
Conservation Board has approved the spent formaldehyde-based chemical for deep well disposal.
However, the compatibility of the formation and the risk of plugging must be checked. Formaldehyde is
suspected of having carcinogenic potential (MSDS).
Scavinox
The Scavinox process is a non-regenerative batch process for selectively removing H2S from natural gas.
The Scavinox product exhibits similar behavior to Magnatreat M-118W in its formulation. The hydrogen
sulfide scavenger, Scavinox, is a formaldehyde-based solvent. The scavenger is made up of
approximately 60% formaldehyde and 40% methanol. The reaction with hydrogen sulfide is complex with
the product being various forms of trithiane. These belong to a family of complex chemicals called
formthionals. Some of the side reactions form products of medium- and long-chain mercaptans which are
water soluble. These mercaptans give the spent scavenger a very distinctive and objectionable odor
(Schaack 1989a).
Similar to Magnatreat M-118W and Dichem, Scavinox has been taken off the market at this time (Schaack
1989).
The odor-causing mercaptans have contaminated the treated gas where it caused problems with
downstream equipment such as a regeneration system in a glycol dehydrator system and drip pots in
piping (Schaack 1989a).
The fresh scavenger solution has a freezing point of approximately -58F which may be an advantage in
cold climates.
Fi.qure 7.16 shows a schematic flow diagram for a typical Scavinox acid gas treating unit. The major
equipment includes an Inlet Filter Separator (901L), Contactor (901E-NB) and an Outlet Gas Separator
(901F). The Scavinox process operates on a batch cycle. Two contactors are normally used in lead/lag
cleaned.
hydrogen sulfide is removed by reaction with the Scavinox material. The other Contactor (901E-B) is
cleaned and recharged with fresh Scavinox. The treated gas passes to an Outlet Gas Separator (901F) to
prevent any carryover of chemical solution from the contactor vessels into the gas pipeline (Schaack and
Chart 1989a).
The fresh scavenger contains the known components of formaldehyde, methanol and water.
The spent scavenger contains the known components of formaldehyde, methanol, water, and various
forms of trithiane belonging to a family of complex chemicals known as formthionals. Also according to
Schaack and Chan (1989), one characteristic of the formaldehyde-based scavenger is the formation of
water soluble, medium- and long-chain mercaptans.
d) Superfund Amendments and Reorganization of 1986 (SARA) Title III. Formaldehyde and methanol
are listed under the current regulations.
e) Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) with recommendation from the
American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH), the National Institute of

Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) and the Province of Alberta's Occupational and Health
and Safety Act (Canada). Formaldehyde and methanol have published exposure limits set by
these regulations.
for the states of California, Massachusetts, New Jersey and Pennsylvania for the components regulated.
Schaack and Chan (1989) indicated that Scavinox or similar formaldehyde-based chemicals are safe to
use if handled properly. Also, Schaack and Chan (1989) indicated Alberta's Energy Resource
Conservation Board has approved the disposal of spent formaldehyde-based chemical for deep well
disposal. However, the compatibility of the formation and the risk of plugging must be checked. Because of
the odor, formaldehyde-based scavengers such as Scavinox require special care to be used in design to
reduce handling and direct contact of the chemical by operating personnel. Formaldehyde is suspected of
having carcinogenic potential (MSDS).
Prohib 196
The Prohib 196 process is a non-regenerative batch process for selectively removing H2S from natural
gas. The Prohib 196 product exhibits similar behavior to Magnatreat M-118W in its formulation.
Prohib 196 is one of the hydrogen sulfide scavengers that is based on the formaldehyde/methanol
solution. The reaction with hydrogen sulfide produces hydroxy/methyl mercaptan and dimercaptan methyl
ether. The mercaptans produce the characteristic offensive odor. In addition, the scavenger produces a
sticky white jelly that has fouled downstream equipment (Schaack 1989a).
The scavenger is a flammable liquid which requires the same precaution as the other
formaldehyde/methanol based chemicals. The fresh and spent solvent are not considered to be corrosive
thus carbon steel material of construction is satisfactory (Schaack 1989a).
Fi,qure 7.17 shows a schematic flow diagram for a typical Prohib 196 acid gas treating unit. The major
equipment includes an Inlet Filter Separator (1001L), Contactor (1001 E-NB), and an Outlet Gas Separator
(1001F).
The Prohib 196 process operates on a batch cycle. Two contactors are normally used in lead/lag
cleaned.
hydrogen sulfide is removed by reaction with the Prohib 196 material. The other Contactor (1001E-B) is
cleaned and recharged with fresh Prohib 196. The treated gas passes to an Outlet Gas Separator (1001 F)
to prevent any carryover of chemical solution from the contactor vessels into the gas pipeline.
The fresh scavenger contains the known components of formaldehyde, methanol and water.
The spent scavenger contains the known components of formaldehyde, methanol, water, and various
forms of trithiane belonging to a family of complex chemicals known as formthionals. Also according to
Schaack and Chart (1989), one characteristic of the formaldehyde-based scavenger is the formation of
water soluble, medium- and long-chain mercaptans.
d) Superfund Amendments and Reorganization of 1986 (SARA) Title II1. Formaldehyde and
methanol are listed under the current regulations.
(Canada). Formaldehyde and methanol have published exposure limits set by these regulations.
Schaack and Chart (1989) indicated that Prohib 196 or similar formaldehyde-based chemicals are safe to
use if handled properly. Also, Schaack and Chan (i989) indicated Alberta's Energy Resource
Conservation Board has approved the disposal of spent formaldehyde-based chemical for deep well disposal.
However, the compatibility of the formation and the risk of plugging must be checked. Formaldehyde is suspected of
having carcinogenic potential (MSDS)
Dichlor
The Dichlor process, licensed by Exxon Chemical Company, is a non-regenerative batch process for
selectively removing H2S from natural gas.
A schematic diagram of the Dichlor process is depicted in Figure 7.18. The Dichlor process operates on a
batch cycle. Two contactors are normally used in lead/lag arrangement, where one is contacting the inlet
gas while the other (spent) bed is being drained and cleaned. The inlet sour gas containing CO2 and H=S
is first passed through an Inlet Filter Separator (1901L) so that entrained liquid droplets are removed from
the feed gas stream. Typical contaminants may include distillate, water, solids, and/or other treating
chemicals.
The sour inlet gas enters the bottom of a carbon steel Contactor (1901E-A/B) where the H2S can be
absorbed selectively from the sour gas containing CO2. Selectivity is achieved by maintaining a proper
residence contact time between the gas and Dichlor (chlorine dioxide) liquid in a batch mode operation.
The treated gas leaves the top of the contactor and passes through a two-phase scrubber, Outlet Gas
Separator (1901 F), where any solvent carried over is removed.
Because the vendor did not supply any design information and no data were found in the literature, the
Dichlor process was not evaluated in this study.
Surflo 2341
The Surflo 2341 process, licensed by Exxon Chemical Company, is a non-regenerative batch process for
A schematic diagram of the Surflo 2341 process is depicted in Figure 7.19. The Surflo 2341 process
operates on a batch cycle. Two contactors are normally used in lead/lag arrangement, where one is
contacting the inlet gas while the other (spent) bed is being drained and cleaned. The inlet sour gas
containing CO2 and H2S is first passed through an Inlet Filter Separator (2001L) to remove entrained
liquid droplets from the feed gas stream. Typical contaminants may include distillate, water, solids, and/or
other treating chemicals.
The sour inlet gas enters the bottom of a carbon steel Contactor (2001E-A/B) where the H2S can be
absorbed selectively from the sour gas containing CO=. Selectivity is achieved by maintaining a proper
contact time between the gas and Surfio 2341 (chlorine dioxide) liquid in a batch mode operation.
Separator (2001F), where any solvent carried over is removed.
Because the vendor did not supply any design information and no data were found in the literature, the
Surflo 2341 process was not evaluated in this study.
MADS (Sulfur Resistant Molecular Sieve)

The MADS process, a sulfur resistant molecular sieve licensed by UOP (Universal Oil Products), is a nonregenerative batch process for selectively removing H2S from natural gas.
Figure 7.20 shows a schematic flow diagram for a typical MADS acid gas treating unit. The major
equipment includes an Inlet Filter Separator (1301 L) and Contactor (1301 E-A/B). The MADS process
operates on a batch cycle. Two contactors are normally used in lead/lag arrangement, where one is
contacting the inlet gas while the other (spent) bed is being drained and cleaned.
hydrogen sulfide is removed by adsorption on the molecular sieves. The other Contactor (1301E-B) is
cleaned and recharged with new molecular sieves.
Because the vender declined to give any design data for this system and no design data were found in the
literature, the MADS process was not evaluated in this study. The material was recently removed from the
market (Wolfe 1993).
Inhibit 101
The Inhibit 101 system, licensed by Stoller Enterprises, Inc., is a non-regenerative batch process for
A schematic diagram of the Inhibit 101 process is depicted in Figure 7.21. The Inhibit process operates on
a batch cycle. Two contactors are normally used in lead/lag arrangement, where one is contacting the inlet
gas while the other (spent) bed is being drained and cleaned. The inlet sour gas containing CO2 and H2S
is first passed through an Inlet Filter Separator (1801L) so that entrained liquid droplets are removed from
the feed gas stream. Typical contaminants may include distillate, water, solids, and/or other treating
chemicals.
The sour inlet gas enters the bottom of a carbon steel Contactor (1801E-NB) where the H2S can be
absorbed selectively from the sour gas containing CO2. Selectivity is achieved by maintaining a proper
contact time between the gas and Inhibit 101 (amine sulfide) liquid in a batch mode operation.
Separator (1801F), where any solvent carried over is removed.
Because the vendor did not provide design data and no design data were found in the literature, the Inhibit
101 system was not evaluated in this study.
Method of Evaluation
Screening Index (SI)
The hydrogen sulfide scavengers were evaluated by a screening index (SI). The SI was determined using
seven parameters having values between 0 (worst) and 5 (best). The parameters for each scavenger were
multiplied by a weighting factor, and summed: this sum is the SI. This method was introduced by Schaack
and Chan (1989a), called by them the Index of Selection, lOS.
The parameters and weighting factors are listed below.
Parameter
Weighting Factor
Total Plant Investment
0.2
Operating Cost
1.0
Process Reliability (PR)
1.0
Winterization (W)
0.2
Ease of Operation (EOP)
0.5
Operator Acceptance (OA)
0.4
Ease of Disposal of Spent Material (DOSM):

Hazardous
0.0
Non-hazardous
0.4
Hazardous and recyclable
0.8
Non-hazardous and recyclable

1.0
The highest theoretical value obtainable by a scavenger (assuming each parameter equal to 5, and the
spent material being non-hazardous and recyclable) is thus 21.5. All scavenger systems were normalized
to this highest theoretical SI (21.5). Refer to Tables 9.1, Table 9.2, and Table 9.3.
The SI has been used in this evaluation for screening purposes only, and the ratings and weighting factors
used are specific only to this particular evaluation. The ratings and weighting factors applicable to another
situation may be different than those used herein.
Several of the parameters are subjective in nature, and were assigned values based upon engineering
experience and judgment based upon the data available at the time. These values could change. For
example, future environmental regulations could affect the handling and disposal of scavenger materials,
which would require use of a different set of DOSM factors for those materials. The values used in this
study are presented below.
Scavenqer
PR
EOP
OA
DOSM
SulfaTreatTM
1.0
Zinc Oxide
0.8
MagnaTreat M-401
0.4
DOSM factor
SulfaCheck 2420
0.4
Scavinox
SulfuRid
0.4
Iron Sponge
SulfaScrub
1.0
EcoTreat
0.4
SulfaGuard
1.0
Gas Treat 114
0.4
ChemSweet
C.J. Carbon
0.4
Caustic Soda
SulfuSorbTM
2
5
4
3
5
0.4
The methods for obtaining the other parameter (operating cost and total plant Investment) ratings are
presented in the following sections.
Related Topics:
Operating Cost
Estimated Maximum Economical Sulfur Removal Rate
Disposal Regulations
Operating Cost
The operating cost for each hydrogen sulfide scavenger system was determined for recharging one bed. A
bed life of 25 days was set for comparison purposes. The operating cost included the labor and equipment
rental for changeout and the scavenger cost for one charge. Spent material transportation and disposal
costs were not included in the operating cost calculation. The operating costs of each system were
compared to the scavenger system that was determined to have the lowest operating cost. Thus the
relative cost of each system was established. Refer to Tables 9.4 through 9.6.
It is recognized that each scavenger has an optimum bed life for each specific site condition. However, a
25-day bed life was considered adequate for screening purposes in this study.

The Total Plant Investment (TPI) was determined by the procedure as outlined below: Field Costs:
Equipment Cost
xx
Bulk Material Cost
xx
Subcontract Cost
xx
Material Related Cost
xx
Construction Cost
xx
xxx
-->
Total Field Cost
xxx
Engineering (40% of Home Office Cost) xx
Procurement (4% of Home Office Cost) xx
Home Office Construction Support
(20% of Home Office Cost)
xx
Total Home Office Cost (12% of Field Cost) xxx -->
xxx
Base Plant Cost (Field Cost Plus Home Office Cost)

Project Contingency (20% of Base Plant Cost)
Total Facilities Investment (Base Plant Cost + Project Contingency)
Plus
Initial Charge of Chemical
Startup Cost (10% of Ann Op Cost)
xxxx
xxx
xxxx
xx
xx
Paid-Up Royalties (3% of Total Facilities

Investment)
xx
XXX
-->
Total Plant Investment (TPI)

xxxx
The TPI was determined for each scavenger system. The relative Total Plant Investment was established
by companng the TPI ot each scavenger system to the system that had the lowest TPI. Refer to Table 9.7,
Table 9.8, and Table 9.9.
Estimated Maximum Economical Sulfur Removal Rate

A separate screening analysis was done to estimate the maximum economical sulfur removal rate for each
scavenger. A vessel size of 4' ID x 30' TFF and 25-day life were assumed. Although not used with the
Screening Index directly, the resulting table (Table 9.10) could serve as a preliminary screening tool based
only on sulfur to be removed.
The vessel size of 4' ID x 30' T/T was assumed to be the maximum size that could be conveniently utilized
in an average scavenger application. The volume rate of inlet gas dictates the diameter of the vessel
required. Thus, the gas flow rate was variable for each scavenger's maximum superficial velocity and was
not considered in this separate evaluation. In addition, the cost of the vessel and the scavenger did not
enter into this calculation.
For the rest of the study scavenger comparisons were based on sulfur loading only. The scavengers were
then subjected to a detailed design where parameters of gas pressure, gas flow rate, minimum and
maximum superficial velocity, expansion of liquid, head space and loading capacity of the scavenger were
considered.
Disposal Regulations
A tabulation, Table 8.1a, Table 8.1b, and Table 8.1c, was made of the components that are known and
expected in the fresh and spent scavenger and the various regulations affecting handling and disposal of
the scavenger. The regulations considered in these evaluations were five federal and four state. The
federal regulations included:
a) Department of Transportation (DOT) from 49 CFR 172.101 "Hazardous Materials Table."
b) Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) from 40 CFR 261.23.
c) Comprehensive Emergency Response Compensation and Liability Acts 1980 (CERCLA) from
CFR Part 30Z Table 302.4.
e) Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) with recommendations from the American
(Canada).
The state regulations included:
g) California Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 "Proposition 65," "Chemical
Known to the State to Cause Cancer or Reproductive Toxicity, "April/1993.
h) Massachusetts Substance List, Massachusetts Department of Public Health. i) "Right to Know

Hazardous Substance List," New Jersey.
j) Hazardous Substance List from the 1990 Hazardous Substance Survey Form (HSSF),
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania's Department of Labor and Industry.
Only four state regulations were included in the tabulation due to limitation of data readily available. Local
regulations should also be consulted to establish additional handling and disposal requirements. All the
data presented in the tabulation were taken from "The Book of Chemical Lists Volume I and I1" produced
by Shafer Environmental Associates, Ltd and published by Business and Legal Reports, Inc.
To use the tabulation take Sulfa-Scrub scavenger as an example. The triazine and the reaction products,
bis-dithiazine and dithiazine are not listed under any regulation considered. The other components
included in the fresh scavenger are methanol and monoethanolamine. Methanol is also listed under the
federal regulations of DOT, RCRA, CERCLA, SARA and OSHA. Methanol is listed under state regulations
of California, Massachusetts and Jew Jersey. Monoethanolamine is listed under federal regulations of
DOT and OSHA. Monoethanolamine is listed under state regulations of Massachusetts, New .Jersey and
Pennsylvania.
Relative Screening Index (SI)

The hydrogen sulfide scavengers were evaluated by the Screening Index correlation. The Relative
Screening Index was determined for each by comparison to the maximum Screening Index, 25.5. The
scavenger with the best Relative Screening Index was SulfaTreatTM at all three sulfur capacities
evaluated:
Capacity Lbs Sulfur/Day Relative Screeninq Index

3
0.95
60
0.99
100
0.99
The next best rated scavenger was SulfaGuard at all three sulfur capacities evaluated:

3
0.90
60
0.89
100
0.89
The lowest SI-rated scavenger was SulfuSorbTM at all three sulfur capacities evaluated:

3
0.42
60
0.38
100
0.38
Refer to Table 9.1, Table 9.2, and Table 9.3 for the relative SI ratings of all scavengers evaluated.
Relative Operating Cost

The operating cost included the labor, equipment rental and scavenger cost for one bed changeout. Spent
material transportation and disposal costs were not included in the operating cost calculation. The Relative
Operating Cost was determined by comparing each scavengeds operating cost with the scavenger that
had the lowest operating cost. The lowest Relative Operating Cost was exhibited by the System 17
Magnatreat M-401 scavenger for the 3 lbs sulfur/day capacity, while the lowest relative operating cost was
exhibited by System 2 Sulfa-Check 2420 scavenger for the 60 and 100 lbs sulfur/day capacities.
The scavenger with the highest Relative Operating Cost was System 11 (SulfuSorbTM) for all sulfur
capacities evaluated. This is due to SulfuSorbTM'S significantly higher material cost.
While the scavenger with the highest and lowest relative operating costs were consistent (highest-System
11 SulfuSOrbTM; and lowest-System 8 Magnatreat M-118W and System 2 Sulfa-Check 2420) some of the
other scavengers showed a wide variation in cost with sulfur capacity. As examples consider System 16
SulfuRid and System 4 Iron Sponge:
System 16 SulfuRid:
Sulfur Capacity lb/dayRelative Operatin,q Cost
3
1.073
60
1.416
100
1.803
System 4 Iron Sponge:

Sulfur Capacity lb/dayRelative Operatin,q Cost
3
6.140
60
1.580
100
1.342
Refer to Table 9.4, Table 9.,5, and Table 9.6 for the relative operating costs of all the scavengers
evaluated.
Relative Total Plant Investment

The lowest-cost scavenger for the three capacities of 3, 60 and 100 lbs sulfur/day was the System 5
SulfaTreatTM Scavenger. The highest-cost scavenger varied with the sulfur capacity.
Sulfur Capacity lb/day
Hi,qhest Total Plant Investment
System 1 Caustic Soda
60
System 1 Caustic Soda
100
System 11 SulfuSorbTM
Refer to Tables 9.7, Table 9.8. and Table 9.9 for the relative total plant Investments of all the scavengers
evaluated.
Estimated Maximum Effective Sulfur Removal

System 6 Zinc Oxide had an estimated maximum effective sulfur removal of 300 lbs sulfur per day for the
vessel size and turnaround chosen. Five systems had an estimated maximum effective sulfur removal of
200 lbs sulfur per day, they included:
System 2
Sulfa-Check 2420
System 9
Scavinox
System 5
SulfaTreatTM
System 15
SulfaGuard
System 16
SulfuRid
Four systems had an estimated maximum effective sulfur removal of less than 100 lbs sulfur per day, they
include:
System 12
Sulfa-Scrub
System 3
Ecotreat
System 4
Iron Sponge
System 14
Gas Treat 114
The System 17 Magnatreat M-401 had an estimated maximum effective sulfur removal of less than 80 lbs
sulfur per day.
Two systems had an estimated maximum effective sulfur removal of less than 60 lbs per day, they
included:
System 7
Chemsweet
System 21
Activated Carbon Type CJ
Two systems had an estimated maximum effective sulfur removal of less than 3 lbs per day, they included:
System 11
SulfuSorbTM
System 1
Caustic Soda
Refer to Table 9.10 for the estimated maximum effective sulfur removal of all scavengers evaluated.
For a different size vessel and assumed bed life the maximum sulfur capacity will change. However, the
relative positions should not change.
Additional Comments
In the literature additional scavengers were found. While most of these materials are primarily used in the
drilling, completion and workover fluids area, some might be appropriate for removing hydrogen sulfide
from natural gas. None of these materials were considered in this evaluation (World Oil 1993). The current
study involves only a few of the H2S scavengers that are available but were selected for their specific
application. Table 10.1 contains additional scavengers that should be considered for future evaluation.
Conclusions
Under the conditions considered, the SulfaTreatTM System was the most favored scavenger technology
based on the Relative Screening Index and Relative Total Plant Investment. The SulfaTreatTM System is
easy to handle both for charging and removal of spent beds. The disposal of spent scavenger presented
only a minimal problem; the spent scavenger can be deposited in a Class I non-hazardous landfill or
recycled for other uses. A potential application of the spent scavenger as a soil additive has been
proposed.
While the formaldehyde-methanol based scavengers, such as Scavinox, have some advantages in relative
operating cost, they have a distinct disadvantage in ease of handling because of their offensive odor and
the probability of formaldehyde being a human carcinogen. Both the fresh and spent scavenger have a
very offensive odor and suspected carcinogen qualities.
Several scavengers are based on hexahydrotriazine, such as Sulfa-Scrub, SulfaGuard and Magnatreat M401. The results varied slightly among the scavengers although data was furnished by various vendors.
While the Relative Operating Cost for these scavengers was unfavorable, the advantage of ease of
handling both the fresh and spent solutions must be considered. The spent scavenger has a potential for
use as a corrosion inhibitor. In the future the single source for this type of scavenger may be the Petrolite
Corporation, Tretolite Division, who has obtained the patent covering the chemistry application of triazine,
the base component of the Sulfa-Scrub scavenger.
The H2S scavenger technologies appear to be under considerable dynamic change. Many vendors market
numerous scavengers. Many scavengers are being introduced and others are being withdrawn from the
market. Several scavengers have been renamed and reintroduced. The use of common names by the
various vendors has led to some confusion. The data provided by most vendors are insufficient, and the
engineering design of equipment is left to the user to develop.
The evaluation of H2S scavenger technologies indicated that the design basis of 592 ppm(v) as hydrogen
sulfide was the upper limit of the application of these technologies for the vessel size and bed life
assumed. With larger vessels and/or shorter bed lives that limit could be extended.
The evaluation also revealed that each H2S scavenger had an indicated maximum effective sulfur removal
at the design conditions. For example, Zinc Oxide (High Temperature), Sulfa-Check 2420, Scavinox,
SulfaTreatTM, SulfaGuard and SulfuRid can remove sulfur in excess of 100 lbs sulfur/day.
However, in excess of 100 lbs sulfur/day a regenerative type system such as MDEA or DGA may show an
economic advantage.
References
Anerouis, J. P., Whitman, S. K. 1985 "Iron Sponge: Still a Top Option for Sour Gas Sweetening" Oil and
Gas Journal Tulsa: PennWell Publishing Co., 71-76.
Baker Performance Chemical Inc. 1994. Personal communication.
Bhatia, K., AIIford K. T. 1986 "One-Step Process Takes U2S from Gas Stream" Oil and Gas Journal Tulsa:
PennWell Publishing Co., October 20, 44-49.
Bhatia, K., 1992 "Application of Sulfa-Check in the Gas Industry." Paper published in the Proceedings of
the Gas Research Institute Liquid Redox Sulfur Recovery Conference, Austin, October 4-6.
Calgon, 1978 "Sulfur Control with Metal Oxide- Impregnated Carbon." Houston.
Carnell, P. J. H. "New Fixed-bed Adsorbent for Gas Sweetening." Oil and Gas Journal. Tulsa: PennWell
Publishing Co., August 18, 59-62.
Coastal Chemical Company 1993 "Coastal Chemical Report." Houston.
Coastal Chemical Company 1994. Personal communication.
Dillon, E. T. 1991 "Gas Sweetening with a Novel and Selective Alkanolamine." Paper presented at the 70th
Annual Gas Processors Association (GPA), San Antonio, March 11-12.
Duckworth, G. L., Geddes, J. H. 1965. "Iron Sponge Process Works Well at Retlow." Hydrocarbon
Processing. Houston: Gulf Publishing Co., Vol 44, No. 9, 179-182.
Manieh, A. A., Ghorayebn, 1981 "How to Design a Caustic Wash." Hydrocarbon Processing. Houston: Gulf
Publishing Co., September, 143-144.
Manning, W. P., Trahan, D. O. 1992 "Batch Gas Sweetening Process." Paper presented at the 1992 Gas
Research Institute Liquid Redox Sulfur Recovery Conference. Austin, October 4-6.
NATCO 1982 "Efficient, Economical Gas Sweetening Systems." Houston.
Raab, M. 1976 "Caustic Scrubbers Can Be Designed for Exacting Needs." Oil and Gas Journal Tulsa:
PennWell Publishing Co., October 11,120-125.
Samuels, A. 1990. "Hydrogen Sulfide Removal System Shows Promise Over IRON SPONGE." Oil and
Gas Journal. Tulsa: PennWell Publishing Co., January 23, 51-55.
Schaack, J. P., Chart, F. 1989a. "Formaldehyde - Methanol, Metallic-Oxide Agents Head Scavenger List."
Hydrogen Sulfide Scavenging 1. Oil and Gas Journal. Tulsa: Pennwell Publishing Co., January 23, 51-55.
Schaack, J. P., Chan, F. 1989b. "Caustic-Based Process Remains Attractive." Hydrogen Sulfide
Scavenging 2. Oil and Gas Journal. Tulsa: Pennwell Publishing Co., January 30, 81-82.
Schaack, J. P., Chan, F. 1989c. "Process Design Guide-lines Vary Widely." Hydrogen Sulfide Scavenging
3. Oil and Gas Journal. Tulsa: Pennwell Publishing Co., February 20, 45-48.
Schaack, J. P., Chart, F., 1989d. "Cost Estimating Depends on Location, Material." Hydrogen Sulfide
Scavenging - End. Oil and Gas Journal. Tulsa: Pennwell Publishing Co., February 27, 90-91.
The SulfaTreat Co. 1992. "Sour Gas Sweetening with SulfaTreat. Paper presented to the Technical
Committee of the 1992 GRI Liquid Redox Sulfur Recovery Conference. Austin, October 4-6.
Tretolite Division, Petrolite Corp. 1994. Personal communication.
Petroleum Engineer International. 1981 "Unit Cuts Gas Sweetening Cost." Staff Report. Denver: Had
Publishing Co., August.
Weskem Inc. 1993 "Weskem Technical Report." Houston.
World Oil. 1993 "Classifications of Fluid Systems." Houston: Gulf Publishing Co., June, 69-104.

Evaluation of H2S Scavenger Technologies ARCHIVE of

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Evaluation of H2S Scavenger Technologies ARCHIVE of

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Information Source

Evaluation of H2S Scavenger Technologies

Evaluation of H2S Scavenger Technologies

The M.W. Kellogg Company

F.M. Floyd, Project Manager

01 June to 31 August 1993

basis. No attempt was made to regenerate the scavenger in place.

Basis For Evaluation

Basis For Process Design

H20 (mol%) (saturated)

Gulf Coast USA

Product Gas Specifications

0.25 grains/100 SCF

Assumptions and Limitations

Sulfa-Check 2420 (Slurry)

Iron Sponge (Solid)

Zinc Oxide (High Temperature)

Activated Carbon Type CJ

Gas Treat 114

American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH), the National Institute of

MADS (Sulfur Resistant Molecular Sieve)

Total Plant Investment

Process Reliability (PR)

Ease of Operation (EOP)

Operator Acceptance (OA)

Ease of Disposal of Spent Material (DOSM):

Hazardous and recyclable

Non-hazardous and recyclable

Gas Treat 114

Total Plant Investment

Base Plant Cost (Field Cost Plus Home Office Cost)

Paid-Up Royalties (3% of Total Facilities

Total Plant Investment (TPI)

Estimated Maximum Economical Sulfur Removal Rate

h) Massachusetts Substance List, Massachusetts Department of Public Health. i) "Right to Know

Relative Screening Index (SI)

Capacity Lbs Sulfur/Day Relative Screeninq Index

Capacity Lbs Sulfur/Day Relative Screeninq Index

Capacity Lbs Sulfur/Day Relative Screeninq Index

Relative Operating Cost

System 4 Iron Sponge:

Relative Total Plant Investment

Sulfur Capacity lb/day

Hi,qhest Total Plant Investment

System 1 Caustic Soda

System 1 Caustic Soda

Estimated Maximum Effective Sulfur Removal

You might also like