J Fail. Anal. and Preven.
(2021) 21:711–718
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11668-021-01122-w
CASE HISTORY—PEER-REVIEWED
Corrosion of Sulfur Removal Tanks Used in the Processing
of Landfill Gas
Ellen L. S. Solomon . Alfred M. Pettinger . Jason R. Babcock .
Steven A. Sanders . Jeffrey L. McDougall
Submitted: 20 August 2020 / in revised form: 6 December 2020 / Accepted: 15 January 2021 / Published online: 3 February 2021
Ó ASM International 2021
Abstract Stainless steel tanks used in processing landfill
gas experienced significant, accelerated corrosion leading
to their sudden removal from service and unplanned
operational downtime. A root cause investigation limited to
visual and microscopic examination and EDS analysis was
conducted on sections of the tank walls and confirmed
under-deposit corrosion was the primary corrosion mech-
anism. Non-regenerable H2S removal media was used to
remove hydrogen sulfide from the landfill gas and had
direct contact with the tank walls, creating crevice-like
regions where localized corrosion could take place. The
corrosion mechanism was driven by sulfur, despite the
presence of chloride in the H2S removal media. Corrosion
products containing high levels of sulfur confirmed that
hydrogen sulfide combined with moisture in the landfill gas
formed an aggressive, corrosive environment that led to the
formation of pits.
Keywords Stainless steel  Corrosion  Hydrogen sulfide 
Landfill gas
E. L. S. Solomon (&)
E.L.S. Solomon, Engineering Systems Inc., Ann Arbor, MI, USA
e-mail: elsolomon@engsys.com
A. M. Pettinger
A.M. Pettinger, Engineering Systems Inc., Irvine, CA, USA
J. R. Babcock
J.R. Babcock, Engineering Systems Inc., Irvine, CA, USA
S. A. Sanders
S.A. Sanders, Engineering Systems Inc., O’Fallon, MO, USA
J. L. McDougall
J.L. McDougall, Engineering Systems Inc., Norcross, GA, USA
Introduction
Landfill gas (LFG) is a renewable energy source and a
natural byproduct of decomposing organic material within
landfills. According to the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), municipal solid waste (MSW) landfills are
the third-largest source of human-related methane emis-
sions in the USA [1]. Technologies for utilizing LFG to
reduce the negative impacts of methane on the environment
have been developed that convert the LFG into a useful
form of energy [2].
Before LFG can be used in an energy conversion pro-
cess, it must be treated to remove certain impurities and
moisture from the gas. Sulfur compounds such as hydrogen
sulfide (H2S) are a type of impurity present in LFG [3]. At
certain levels H2S can be extremely harmful to processing
equipment and dangerous to human health and safety
[4–7]. Even at low concentrations, H2S can be corrosive in
the presence of moisture. Therefore, a treatment step for
controlling hydrogen sulfide levels is typically included
early on in the gas treatment process in order to manage
H2S levels [8].
In the present investigation, equipment involved in the
processing of LFG used to fuel electricity-generating tur-
bines experienced significant corrosion after being in
service for approximately six years, forcing the facility into
an extended and unplanned shutdown. The tanks, where the
H2S is partially removed from the LFG by chemical
reaction with the filtration media, contained extensive pit-
ting in areas of the tank wall that were in direct contact
with H2S filtration media. These tanks were made of 304
stainless steel, which was selected based on the local LFG
composition and operational requirements, and it is an
acceptable material according to the ASME Boiler and
123
712 J Fail. Anal. and Preven. (2021) 21:711–718

Pressure Vessel Code [9]. Despite the widespread use of

304 stainless steel in the oil and gas industry, it is sus-
ceptible to corrosion in H2S environments.
Studies have shown that stainless steel alloys, including
304 stainless steel, are susceptible to localized corrosion
such as pitting and crevice corrosion in H2S environments
[10–14]. H2S is a highly corrosive substance that when
combined with water to form an aqueous solution, can
corrode corrosion-resistant materials such as 304 stainless
steel by breaking down the passive layer. The breakdown
of the passive layer is a complex mechanism that depends
on the local conditions of the material and environment
[15–17]. Once the protection of the passive layer is com-
promised, hydrogen sulfide is allowed to react with the
metal, resulting in a weak, sulfur-containing layer on the Fig. 1 Schematic diagram of a sulfur treatment tank with filtration
media bed
surface of the metal [13, 14, 18].
The following sections describe the investigative and
(pyrite) via the reaction shown in Equation [1]. Iron oxide
analysis steps taken to determine the cause of corrosion of
is depicted with a general formula because iron can
the sulfur removal tanks. A chemical evaluation of the H2S
potentially function as the reactive species in this reaction,
removal media and a metallurgical examination of the
and the iron oxide can function under multiple possible
tanks provided valuable insight into the effect of the fil-
crystalline phases and stoichiometries.
tration media and LFG characteristics on the corrosion
performance of the tanks and informed future operations at Fex Oy þ H2 S ! FeS2 þ H2 O ðEq 1Þ
the facility. In addition to the results presented in this The treated sweet gas then leaves the tanks through an
investigation, fitness-for-service evaluations were per- outlet pipe at the bottom of the tank (Fig. 1). The water that
formed by a third party on the subject tanks which will also is generated during this process condenses and flows to the
be discussed. bottom of the tanks where it drains to a sump. As the
filtration media becomes spent, it turns into a sticky clay,
which clumps into large masses and can adhere to the walls
Background: Sulfur Removal Process of the tanks and is an indication that the media should be
replaced. Increased H2S levels in the outlet gas is another
To protect expensive processing equipment and keep air sign that a media changeout may be necessary.
emissions below the prevention of significant deterioration
(PSD) limits, the facility involved in this investigation
utilized a sulfur abatement system that reduced the influent Investigation
H2S concentration to below 100 ppmv. While there are
multiple sulfur treatment methods available [8], the sulfur Analysis of H2S Removal Media
removal technology utilized in the presented investigation
involved an iron-based solid scavenger system made up of Since chloride is known to cause corrosion in 304 stainless
mixed metal oxide granules coated with iron oxide. These steel, a sample of unused H2S removal media was obtained
granules were contained in four media tanks made of SA- for analysis to determine whether the media had the
240 304 stainless steel. potential to release chlorides. A sample of granules
The sulfur removal tanks were filled approximately weighing 8.1 g was soaked in 20 mL deinonized water for
18’10’’ high with the H2S filtration media, as shown in five days and the resultant water solution was filtered and
Fig. 1, and were designed such that the filtration media analyzed via NEMI method 4500CL E 1997 for chloride
would be in direct contact with the walls of the tanks. concentration [19]. The chloride concentration in the
During the treatment process, sour gas enters the top of the solution was measured to be 111 mg/L. A blank containing
media tanks and passes through the non-regenerable media only deionized water was also analyzed as a control, and
(Fig. 1). The average temperature of the water-saturated chloride was not detected. The difference in chloride
LFG was measured at approximately 95 °F±10 oF, which concentration between the control and the test solution
was within the range listed in the specifications (70 to 120 suggests that the media can release chlorides into aqueous
°F). As the gas flows through the media bed, the hydrogen solution.
sulfide reacts with the iron oxide to form iron sulfide

123
J Fail. Anal. and Preven. (2021) 21:711–718
Iron chloride was the likely source of chloride in the
filtration media. To make the filtration media, iron was
impregnated onto the mixed metal oxide by soaking the
inorganic support in iron chloride and calcining to convert
the iron chloride to iron oxide. Incomplete conversion
likely resulted in residual chlorides remaining in the media
that were detected after soaking in water.
Metallurgical Evaluation of Subject Tank Walls
A nondestructive metallurgical investigation was per-
formed on sections of tank wall from one of four sulfur
treatment tanks. Four samples were analyzed and are
labeled in Fig. 2. Samples 1 and 2 had been powerwashed
to remove the sulfur removal media adhered to the walls
while Samples 3 and 4 had not been washed and contained
deposits on the surface. Samples 1 and 2 were removed
approximately four feet from the bed support, and Samples
Fig. 2 Photographs of the
power washed (Samples 1 & 2)
and unwashed (Samples 3 & 4)
samples from a subject tank
713
3 and 4 were obtained approximately ten feet from the bed
support.
Each of the samples was visually inspected and docu-
mented. Microscopic examination of the samples was
performed using light microscopy and scanning electron
microscopy (SEM) with energy-dispersive spectroscopy
(EDS). Since there was no significant variation in the
results from the different samples, the data from one
sample from each condition (washed and unwashed) are
presented.
Both the washed and unwashed samples exhibited sig-
nificant corrosion on the surfaces that were in contact with
the filtration media. The corroded surfaces contain irregu-
larly-shaped pits of various size and regions of general
corrosion between the pits. Black and red-colored deposits
consistent with the corrosion products of stainless steel and
filtration media cover a majority of the corroded surfaces of
the unwashed samples, while remants of these deposits
123
714
Fig. 3 Micrographs from Sample 1 showing the inside surface of the
tank wall after being power washed. Bottom image is a high
magnification view of the region indicated in red (Color
figure online).
remain present on the washed samples, as shown in Figs. 2,
3, 4.
SEM images obtained from an area where corrosion
product appears to have flaked off the surface of Sample 4
(unwashed) show evidence of intergranular corrosion in
addition to pitting (see Fig. 5). The low magnification
image in Fig. 5 was collected using secondary electron
imaging and shows a dark region that corresponds to the
corrosion deposit layer and a light region where the deposit
layer flaked off, exposing the underlying metal. The bottom
two images of Fig. 5 were obtained from the same area
(indicated in red) at higher magnification and show evi-
dence of grain boundary corrosion and uneven surfaces
consistent with shallow pitting.
Chemical analysis using EDS indicates that the corro-
sion of the tank walls was influenced by sulfur. The EDS
spectra from the washed and unwashed samples (see
Figs. 6 and 7) show the presence of the following elements:
C, Fe, Cr, O, Ni, Zn, Si, S, Ca, P, Al and Si. Several of the
123
J Fail. Anal. and Preven. (2021) 21:711–718
Fig. 4 Micrographs from Sample 4 showing the inside surface of the
unwashed tank wall. Bottom image is a high magnification view of
the region indicated in red (Color figure online).
detected elements are associated with either the base metal
composition, the corrosion product and/or the filtration
media composition. For instance, Fe, Cr, Ni, Si and C are
elements of the 304 stainless steel composition. High levels
of sulfur were also detected from the deposits inside the
pits and in the surrounding corroded areas of the sample
surfaces.
Discussion
The sulfur removal tanks experienced corrosion due to the
locally high concentration of an aqueous H2S environment
that condensed along the walls of the tanks. The wet gas
traveled through the bed of filtration media where the H2S
was partially removed from the LFG. The filtration media
contributed to the localized corrosion of the tank walls by
creating crevice-like regions against the wall where the
H2S concentration was locally higher than regions outside
of the crevice. High concentrations of corrosive species on
J Fail. Anal. and Preven. (2021) 21:711–718
Fig. 5 SEM micrographs obtained from the inside surface of Sample 4; (a) low magnification image regions with corrosion product (dark region) and
underlying metal (light region), (b) backscattered electron and (c) secondary electron images from the area indicated in red in (a) (Color figure online).
the surface of the tanks led to the initiation of corrosion by
breaking down the passive oxide layer of the 304 stainless
steel. Not only did the filtration media provide sites for
localized attack but it also produced reaction products,
such as water, that contributed to the corrosion of the
stainless steel tank walls.
Regions of high sulfur concentration on the surfaces of
the washed and unwashed samples indicate that sulfur was
the main corrosive species on the tanks. Analysis of the
filtration media revealed the presence of chlorides. The
susceptibility of austenitic stainless steels to corrosion in
aqueous chloride environments is well-known [20, 21];
however, EDS did not detect the presence of chlorine.
Although it is possible that levels of chlorine below the
detectable limits by EDS were present, it is unlikely that
this low of a concentration would have a significant con-
tribution on the corrosion behavior of the tanks. Despite the
presence of chlorides in the filtration media, EDS indicates
715
that the corrosion of the tanks was primarily driven by
sulfur which was introduced from the LFG.
With the filtration media in contact with the tank walls,
the original design of the sulfur removal tanks was inher-
ently susceptible to corrosion in the aqueous H2S
environment. Deposits such as dust or debris that contact
the metal surface are sufficient to cause localized
corrosion.
Fitness-for-Service evaluations to determine the degree
of tank wall corrosion were performed by a third party in
accordance with the rules of the API 579 standard [22]. The
results of these evaluations showed that the degree of tank
wall corrosion was most severe at the bottom half of the
media bed, with the most severe corrosion reported near
the bed support structures. This corrosion pattern can be
explained by the level of aqueous solution from the top to
the bottom of the media bed. The moisture on the walls of
the tanks flowed downwards due to gravity and collected
123
716 J Fail. Anal. and Preven. (2021) 21:711–718

Fig. 6 SEM image and

corresponding EDS spectra
obtained from Sample 1 (power
washed). The analysis regions
are labeled.

123
J Fail. Anal. and Preven. (2021) 21:711–718 717

Fig. 7 SEM image and

corresponding EDS spectra
obtained from Sample 4
(unwashed). The analysis
regions are labeled.

123
718
towards the bottom of the bed at the bed support. A nearly
continuous supply of moisture was supplied from the top of
the tank, which allowed for accelerated corrosion.
Conclusions
Examination of the tank walls and filtration media con-
firmed that the subject sulfur removal tanks experienced
extensive pitting due to a combination of the hydrogen
sulfide environment and the contact between the tank walls
and filtration media. High concentrations of sulfur were
detected from the tank wall samples using EDS, indicating
that corrosion was primarily driven by sulfur from the LFG
composition. The filtration media contributed to corrosion
of the tank walls by creating crevice-like regions with the
wall where there were elevated local H2S concentrations.
References
1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Landfill Methane Out-
reach Program and Landfill Gas Energy, February 2019.
2. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, LFG Energy Project
Development Handbook, June 2017.
3. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Landfill gas
primer: an overview for environmental health professionals,
November 2001.
4. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Hydrogen
sulfide-ToxFAQs, CAS #7783-06-4, December 2016.
5. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Heath,
Hydrogen Sulfide, 2019.
6. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Hy-
drogen Sulfide. [Online]. https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/npg/
npgd0337.html. Accessed 2020.
7. Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Hydrogen Sul-
fide. [Online]. https://www.osha.gov/SLTC/hydrogensulfide/
hazards.html. Accessed 2020.
8. N.N. Zulkefli, M.S. Masdar, J. Jahim, E.H. Majlan, Overview of
H2S removal technologies from biogas production. Int. J. Appl.
Eng. Res. 11(20), 10060–10066 (2016). ((in English))
123
J Fail. Anal. and Preven. (2021) 21:711–718
9. ‘‘ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code’’, Section Vlll, Amer-
ican Society of Mechanical Engineers, 2007.
10. S. Azuma, H. Tsuge, T. Kudo, and T. Moroishi, Crevice Corro-
sion of Duplex Stainless Steel in H2S-Cl Environments. (in
Trans. ISIJ), The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, 1987, p. 264.
11. S. Azuma, H. Tsuge, T. Kudo, T. Moroishi, Crevice corrosion of
duplex stainless steel in simulated sour gas environments. Corros.
Sci. 45(3), 235–242 (1989). ((in English))
12. M. Cabrini, S. Lorenzi, T. Pastore, S. Pellegrini, M. Burattini, R.
Miglio, Study of the corrosion resistance of austenitic stainless
steels during conversion of waste to biofuel. Mater. 10(3), 1–14
(2017). ((in English))
13. A. Davoodi, M. Pakshir, M. Babaiee, G.R. Ebrahimi, A com-
parative H2S corrosion study of 304L and 316L stainless steels in
acidic media. Corros. Sci. 53(1), 399–408 (2011). ((in English))
14. L. Li, J. Wang, J. Yan, L. Duan, X. Li, H. Dong, The effect of
liquid nitriding on the corrosion resistance of AISI 304 austenitic
stainless steel in H2S environments. Met. Mater. Trans. A. 49,
6521–6532 (2018). ((in English))
15. G. S. Frankel, Pitting Corrosion, ASM Handbook, Vol 13A:
Corrosion, Testing, and Protection, S. D. Cramer and B. S.
Covino, Jr., Eds. ASM International, 2003, pp. 236–241.
16. J. Jun, K. Holguin, G.S. Frankel, Pitting corrosion of very clean
type 304 stainless steel. Corros. Sci. 70(2), 146–155 (2014). ((in
English))
17. G. Riedel, C. Voigt, H. Werner, K.-P. Erkel, M. Gunzel, The
influence of acid soluble sulfide inclusions on the passivation
behaviour of austenitic Cr–Ni stainless steels. Corros. Sci. 27(6),
533–544 (1987). ((in English))
18. S. M. Hjaltason, Corrosion Behaviour of Materials in H2S
Abatement System for Geothermal Power Plants, University of
Iceland, 2015.
19. Standard Methods Online, Standard Methods for the Examination
of Water and Wastewater. http://standardmethods.org/. Accessed
2020.
20. J. R. Davis, Ed., Corrosion of Wrought Stainless Steels, Metals
Handbook Desk Edition, 2nd ed., ASM International, 1998, pp.
379–386.
21. R. G. Kelly, Crevice Corrosion, ASM Handbook, Vol 13A:
Corrosion: Fundamentals, Testing, and Protection, S. D. Cramer
and B. S. Covino, Jr., Eds. ASM International, 2003, pp. 242–
247.
22. ‘‘Fitness-for-Service’’, API 579-1/ASME FFS-1, 2007.
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.