Comparison of H2S Gas Sensors: A Sensor Management Procedure for Sewer Monitoring
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Sensors
- OdaLog® Logger L2 (Thermo Fisher Scientific Australia Pty Ltd., Scoresby, Australia): Is an electrochemical gas data-logger with a measuring range between 0 and 200 ppm. It is compact and portable (L = 196 mm, Ø 62 mm, w = 420 g) and is widely used in wastewater and sewer applications [17]. For humid environments (>80% relative humidity), regular refreshment periods are recommended by the manufacturer [17]. This specific sensor is not provided with remote site logging; however, newer versions of the sensor offer this feature. In this work, this sensor is used as a reference.
- SulfiLogger™ S1/X1-1020 (SulfiLogger™, Arhus, Denmark): Is a micro-electrochemical sensor that can be used as a water sensor in the liquid phase or as a gas sensor in the gas phase. Its measuring range is 0–1000 ppm in the gas phase and enables continuous online monitoring as well as remote site logging. According to the manufacturer, this sensor does not require refreshment periods. This sensor is also portable (L = 240 mm, Ø 48.3 mm) and light weight (840 g) [18].
- MyDatasensH2S1000 BLE (Microtronics Engineering GmbH, Ruprechtshofen, Austria): Is equipped with an electrochemical sensor for measuring H2S gas in different wastewater applications. This sensor is also portable (height = 169 mm, width = 106 mm, depth = 61 mm) with a measuring range of 0–200 ppm. According to the manual, this sensor does not require refreshment periods [19]. However, if the sensor is placed in a site with high H2S exposure, the manufacturer recommends (telephone conversation on 20 August 2021) refreshing the sensor to extend its lifetime. The sensor can only be calibrated by the manufacturer or a service partner and should be calibrated at least once every six months. Indeed, the calibration procedure includes a refreshing period while travelling to the manufacturer. Data can be monitored online through a Bluetooth connection that provides access to the gas measurements [19].
OdaLog® Logger L2 [17] | Sulfilogger™ [18] | MyDatasensH2S1000 BLE [19] | |
---|---|---|---|
Sensor Type | Electrochemical | Microelectrochemical | Electrochemical |
Measuring Range | 0–200 ppm | 0–1000 ppm | 0–200 ppm |
Measuring Intervals | 1 s to 1 h intervals | 1 s | Adjustable, e.g., 1 min |
Accuracy | ±1% of full range | ±5% of actual value | 1% of signal [20] |
Humidity range | 15–90% non condensing | 0–100% | 15–90% non condensing |
Battery Life | >8 months (logging) | ~3 months (6 h transmission) [21] | ~2 years (1 min measurement) |
Data Logging or Transmission | 1 min logging = 29 days 5 min logging > 6 months | 6 h transmission [21] | ~3 h transmission |
ATEX Certified | Yes II 1 G, Ex ia IIC T4 Ga | Yes II 1G Ex ia IIC T4 Ga | Yes II 2G Ex ib IIB T3 Gb |
2.2. Sites and Conditions of Experimental Work
2.2.1. Sewer Manhole
2.2.2. Sewer Pilot Plant
2.2.3. H2S Gas Development in Sewer Systems
2.3. Control Test (Response Test)
2.4. Statistical Analyses
2.4.1. Data Overview and Handling
2.4.2. Quality Performance
- Root Mean Square Error (RMSE): Measures the average magnitude of the differences between the online sensor and the reference sensor [26]. Its optimum value is 0.0.
- Mean Absolute Error (MAE): Measures the mean of the absolute differences between the measurements of the reference sensor and the online sensor. It varies between 0.0 and a large positive value, with 0.0 being the optimum value.
- Mean Bias (MB): Is similar to the MAE, with the only difference being that the Mean Bias takes the direction of the differences into account. The optimal value of MB is also 0.0, meaning that both sensors measure on average equally. A positive value indicates an underestimation of the online sensor. On the contrary, a negative value means that the online sensor overestimates the measurements with respect to the reference sensor.
2.4.3. Graphical Comparison—Difference Plot with Respect to the Line of Equality
3. Results and Discussion
3.1. Sewer Manhole
3.2. Sewer Pilot Plant
3.3. Control Test Results
3.4. Challenges, Advantages and Disadvantages of the H2S Gas Sensors
3.5. Flowchart
4. Conclusions
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
Criteria | Short Name | Formula |
---|---|---|
Root Mean Square Error | RMSE | |
Mean Absolute Error | MAE | |
Mean Bias | MB |
References
- United States Environmental Protection Agency. Design: ManualOdor and Corrosion Control in Sanitary Sewarage Systems and Treatment Plants, pub. 10.1985; Last Revised November, 2017. Available online: https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi/300045C6.PDF?Dockey=300045C6.PDF (accessed on 2 July 2021).
- Hvitved-Jacobsen, T.; Vollertsen, J.; Nielsen, A.H. Sewer Processes: Microbial and Chemical Process Engineering of Sewer Networks; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2001; pp. 65–129. ISBN 978-1-4200-1266-8. [Google Scholar]
- Matias, N.; Matos, R.V.; Ferreira, F.; Vollertsen, J.; Matos, J. Release of hydrogen sulfide in a sewer system under intermittent flow conditions: The Ericeira case study, in Portugal. Water Sci. Technol. 2017, 75, 1702–1711. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- United States Environmental Protection Agency. Hydrogen Sulfide, Report by the Subcommittee on Hydrogen Sulfide, Committee on Medical, Biological Effects on Environmental Pollutants, National Research Council, pub. 02.1978. Available online: https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi/9100B2YD.PDF?Dockey=9100B2YD.PDF (accessed on 28 July 2021).
- Commission Directive 2009/161/EU of 17 December 2009. Establishing a Third List of Indicative Occupational Exposure Limit Values in Implementation of Council Directive 98/24/EC and Amending Commission Directive 2000/39/ECText with EEA Relevance; Official Journal of the European Union; European Union: Maastricht, The Netherlands, 2009; p. 3.
- Ali, F.I.M.; Awwad, F.; Greish, Y.E.; Mahmoud, S.T. Hydrogen Sulfide (H2S) Gas Sensor: A Review. IEEE Sens. J. 2019, 19, 2394–2407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jiang, G.; Sun, J.; Sharma, K.; Yuan, Z. Corrosion and odor management in sewer systems. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 2015, 33, 192–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Vollertsen, J.; Nielsen, A.H.; Jensen, H.S.; Wium-Andersen, T.; Hvitved-Jacobsen, T. Corrosion of concrete sewers—The kinetics of hydrogen sulfide oxidation. Sci. Total. Environ. 2008, 394, 162–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Guo, S.; Qian, Y.; Zhu, D.Z.; Zhang, W.; Edwini-Bonsu, S. Effects of Drop Structures and Pump Station on Sewer Air Pressure and Hydrogen Sulfide: Field Investigation. J. Environ. Eng. 2018, 144, 04018011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, Y.; Sharma, K.; Murthy, S.; Johnson, I.; Evans, T.; Yuan, Z. On-line monitoring of methane in sewer air. Sci. Rep. 2014, 4, 6637. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Pandey, S.K.; Kim, K.-H.; Tang, K.-T. A review of sensor-based methods for monitoring hydrogen sulfide. TrAC Trends Anal. Chem. 2012, 32, 87–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Calibrating and Testing Direct-Reading Portable Gas Monitors|Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Available online: https://www.osha.gov/publications/shib093013 (accessed on 10 September 2021).
- Despot, D.; Fernández, M.P.; Barjenbruch, M. Comparison of Online Sensors for Liquid Phase Hydrogen Sulphide Monitoring in Sewer Systems. Water 2021, 13, 1876. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wagh, M.; Patil, L.; Seth, T.; Amalnerkar, D. Surface cupricated SnO2–ZnO thick films as a H2S gas sensor. Mater. Chem. Phys. 2004, 84, 228–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jain, G.; Patil, L.; Wagh, M.; Patil, D.; Amalnerkar, D. Surface modified BaTiO3 thick film resistors as H2S gas sensors. Sens. Actuators B Chem. 2006, 117, 159–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mirzaei, A.; Kim, S.S.; Kim, H.W. Resistance-based H2S gas sensors using metal oxide nanostructures: A review of recent advances. J. Hazard. Mater. 2018, 357, 314–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hermo Fisher Scientific Australia Pty Ltd. Odalog Gas L2 Logger Manual Thermo Fisher Scientific Australia Pty Ltd. 2018. Available online: https://assets.thermofisher.com/TFS-Assets/ANZ/manuals/odalog-gas-l2-logger-manual.pdf (accessed on 17 June 2021).
- SulfiloggerA/S. SulfiLoggerTM User Manual; Sulfilogger A/S. 2020. Available online: https://sulfilogger.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/SulfiLogger_Manual_EN_204.pdf (accessed on 17 June 2021).
- Microtronics Engineering GmbH. User Manual MyDatasensH2S1000 BLE; Microtronics Engineering GmbH. 2017. Available online: https://support.microtronics.com/manuals/myDatasensH2S1000_BLE_ATEX_Zone1_Manual_en.pdf (accessed on 17 June 2021).
- City Technology Engineering Safety. Product Datasheet 7H Hydrogen Sulfide Sensor. City Technology Engineering Safety. 2017. Available online: https://support.microtronics.com/datasheet/7H_CiTiceL_Datasheet_en.pdf (accessed on 20 August 2021).
- Madsen, P.S. PowerCom Box. Available online: https://sulfilogger.com/powercom-box/ (accessed on 2 August 2021).
- Matos, R.V.; Ferreira, F.; Gil, C.; Matos, J.S. Understanding the effect of ventilation, intermittent pumping and seasonality in hydrogen sulfide and methane concentrations in a coastal sewerage system. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2018, 26, 3404–3414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Alwis, L.S.M.; Bustamante, H.; Roth, B.; Bremer, K.; Sun, T.; Grattan, K. Evaluation of the Durability and Performance of FBG-Based Sensors for Monitoring Moisture in an Aggressive Gaseous Waste Sewer Environment. J. Light. Technol. 2016, 35, 3380–3386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mukhopadhyay, S.C. Intelligent Sensing, Instrumentation and Measurements; Springer Science and Business Media LLC: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2013; p. 23. [Google Scholar]
- Sun, X.; Jiang, G.; Bond, P.L.; Keller, J.; Yuan, Z. A novel and simple treatment for control of sulfide induced sewer concrete corrosion using free nitrous acid. Water Res. 2015, 70, 279–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Brito, R.S.; Pinheiro, H.; Ferreira, F.; Matos, J.; Lourenco, N. In situUV-Vis spectroscopy to estimate COD and TSS in wastewater drainage systems. Urban Water J. 2013, 11, 261–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bland, J.M.; Altman, D.G. Measuring agreement in method comparison studies. Stat. Methods Med Res. 1999, 8, 135–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Occupational Safety and Health Branch, Labour Department. Prevention of Gas Poisoning in Drainage Work. Occupational Safety and Health Branch. 2007. Available online: https://www.labour.gov.hk/eng/public/oh/Drainage.pdf (accessed on 11 August 2021).
RMSE (ppm) | |MAD| (ppm) | MB (ppm) | Graphical Analysis (Points within the 0–5 ppm Range) (%) | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Very good | <3 | <1 | <1 | 100–85 | |
Good | 3–8 | 1–3 | 1–3 | 85–70 | |
Satisfactory | 8–15 | 3–5 | 3–5 | 70–66 | |
Unsatisfactory | ≥15 | >5 | >5 | <66 |
2.5 m | 0 m | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
RMSE (ppm) | |MAD| (ppm) | MB (ppm) | Graph. Analysis (%) | RMSE (ppm) | |MAD| (ppm) | MB (ppm) | Graph. Analysis (%) | |
OdaLog®-MyDatasensH2SBLE 1000 | 0.16 | 0.14 | 0.13 | 99.95 | 0.31 | 0.28 | −0.25 | 99.95 |
OdaLog®-SulfiloggerTM | 1.69 | 1.14 | −1.12 | 96.76 | 1.70 | 1.48 | −1.47 | 98.15 |
Gas Transport | No Transport | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
RMSE (ppm) | |MAD| (ppm) | MB (ppm) | Graph. Analysis (%) | RMSE (ppm) | |MAD| (ppm) | MB (ppm) | Graph. Analysis (%) | |
OdaLog®-MyDatasensH2S | 8.29 | 4.29 | −4.17 | 75.98 | 1.21 | 1.03 | −1.03 | 99.51 |
OdaLog®-SulfiLoggerTM Corrected | 4.88 | 2.93 | −2.58 | 81.29 | 1.45 | 0.95 | −0.63 | 99.56 |
Advantages | Disadvantages | |
---|---|---|
OdaLog® Logger L2 |
|
|
SulfiLogger™ |
|
|
MyDatasensH2S1000 BLE |
|
|
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Pacheco Fernández, M.; Despot, D.; Barjenbruch, M. Comparison of H2S Gas Sensors: A Sensor Management Procedure for Sewer Monitoring. Sustainability 2021, 13, 10779. https://doi.org/10.3390/su131910779
Pacheco Fernández M, Despot D, Barjenbruch M. Comparison of H2S Gas Sensors: A Sensor Management Procedure for Sewer Monitoring. Sustainability. 2021; 13(19):10779. https://doi.org/10.3390/su131910779
Chicago/Turabian StylePacheco Fernández, Micaela, Daneish Despot, and Matthias Barjenbruch. 2021. "Comparison of H2S Gas Sensors: A Sensor Management Procedure for Sewer Monitoring" Sustainability 13, no. 19: 10779. https://doi.org/10.3390/su131910779