Quality Assured Measurements of Animal Building Emissions: Gas Concentrations

Jacobson, Larry D.; Hetchler, Brian P.; Schmidt, David; Nicolai, R. E.; Heber, Albert J.; Ni, Ji-Qin; Hoff, Steven J.; Kozieł, Jacek A.; Zhang, Yuanhui; Beasley, David B.; Parker, David B.

doi:10.1080/10473289.2006.10465680

Cited by 62 publications

(69 citation statements)

References 3 publications

(3 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…12,13 Each facility monitored, as shown in Figure 1, was designed to house 1000 pigs ranging in weight between ϳ18 and 120 kg. Slurry was stored in a 2.4-m-deep holding concrete basin below a fully slatted concrete floor and was designed to store manure for one calendar year.…”

Section: Facility Descriptionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Emissions of Ammonia, Hydrogen Sulfide, and Odor before, during, and after Slurry Removal from a Deep-Pit Swine Finisher

Hoff

Bundy

Nelson

et al. 2006

Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It is a common practice in the midwestern United States to raise swine in buildings with under-floor slurry storage systems designed to store manure for up to one year. These so-called "deep-pit" systems are a concentrated source for the emissions of ammonia (NH 3 ), hydrogen sulfide (H 2 S), and odors. As part of a larger six-state research effort (U.S. Department of Agriculture-Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems Project, "Aerial Pollutant Emissions from Confined Animal Buildings"), realtime NH 3 and H 2 S with incremental odor emission data were collected for two annual slurry removal events. For this study, two 1000-head deep-pit swine finishing facilities in central Iowa were monitored with one-year storage of slurry maintained in a 2.4 m-deep concrete pit (or holding tank) below the animal-occupied zone. Results show that the H 2 S emission, measured during four independent slurry removal events over two years, increased by an average of 61.9 times relative to the before-removal H 2 S emission levels. This increase persisted during the agitation process of the slurry that on average occurred over an 8-hr time period. At the conclusion of slurry agitation, the H 2 S emission decreased by an average of 10.4 times the before-removal emission level. NH 3 emission during agitation increased by an average of 4.6 times the before-removal emission level and increased by an average of 1.5 times the before-removal emission level after slurry removal was completed. Odor emission increased by a factor of 3.4 times the before-removal odor emission level and decreased after the slurry-removal event by a factor of 5.6 times the before-removal emission level. The results indicate that maintaining an adequate barn ventilation rate regardless of animal comfort demand is essential to keeping gas levels inside the barn below hazardous levels.

show abstract

Section: Facility Descriptionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Emissions of Ammonia, Hydrogen Sulfide, and Odor before, during, and after Slurry Removal from a Deep-Pit Swine Finisher

Hoff

Bundy

Nelson

et al. 2006

Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Typically, the most representative air outlet was the continuous minimum-ventilation winter fan or fans, side by side with an exhaust air sampling point for gas measurement. 4 The PM sampling locations were inside the barn, near the inlets of the fans. However, the TEOMs were far enough away from the fans to force air velocity around the sampling head to be Ͻ2 m/sec.…”

Section: Experimental Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…4 The objectives of this paper are to: (1) describe the use of the TEOM for real-time PM concentration measurements at livestock buildings; (2) evaluate the agreement among collocated TEOMs, the effects of filter loading, and the relative magnitude of TSP, PM 10 , and PM 2.5 concentrations; and (3) present some preliminary data on baseline PM concentrations in swine and layer barns.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Quality-Assured Measurements of Animal Building Emissions: Particulate Matter Concentrations

Heber

Lim

et al. 2006

Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Federally funded, multistate field studies were initiated in 2002 to measure emissions of particulate matter (PM) Ͻ10 m (PM 10 ) and total suspended particulate (TSP), ammonia, hydrogen sulfide, carbon dioxide, methane, nonmethane hydrocarbons, and odor from swine and poultry production buildings in the United States. This paper describes the use of a continuous PM analyzer based on the tapered element oscillating microbalance (TEOM). In these studies, the TEOM was used to measure PM emissions at identical locations in paired barns. Measuring PM concentrations in swine and poultry barns, compared with measuring PM in ambient air, required more frequent maintenance of the TEOM. External screens were used to prevent rapid plugging of the insect screen in the PM 10 preseparator inlet. Minute means of mass concentrations exhibited a sinusoidal pattern that followed the variation of relative humidity, indicating that mass concentration measurements were affected by water vapor condensation onto and evaporation of moisture from the TEOM filter. Filter loading increased the humidity effect, most likely because of increased water vapor adsorption capacity of added PM. In a single layer barn study, collocated TEOMs, equipped with TSP and PM 10 inlets, corresponded well when placed near the inlets of exhaust fans in a layer barn. Initial data showed that average daily mean concentrations of TSP, PM 10 , and PM 2.5 concentrations at a layer barn were 1440 Ϯ 182 g/m 3 (n ϭ 2), 553 Ϯ 79 g/m 3 (n ϭ 4), and 33 Ϯ 75 g/m 3 (n ϭ 1), respectively. The daily mean TSP concentration (n ϭ 1) of a swine barn sprinkled with soybean oil was 67% lower than an untreated swine barn, which had a daily mean TSP concentration of 1143 Ϯ 619 g/m 3 . The daily mean ambient TSP concentration (n ϭ 1) near the swine barns was 25 Ϯ 8 g/m 3 . Concentrations of PM inside the swine barns were correlated to pig activity. INTRODUCTIONAlthough several studies of total suspended particulate (TSP) concentrations have been conducted, data concerning emissions of TSP and particulate matter (PM) Ͻ10 m (PM 10 ) from livestock buildings are rare. 1,2 It is well established that emissions are highly variable both diurnally and seasonally; therefore, measuring mass concentrations continuously or in real time is advantageous. Concentrations of PM 10 , particulate matter Ͻ2.5 m (PM 2.5 ), and TSP were measured during a 6-month measurement campaign in a single-layer barn (SLB) study. 3 Most recently, a six-state U.S. Department of Agriculture study (APECAB:

show abstract

“…The large number of animals raised in concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) can affect air quality by emissions of odor, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), NH 3 , H 2 S, greenhouse gases (GHGs), and particulate matter (PM) (National Research Council [NRC], 2003;Heber et al, 2006aHeber et al, , 2006bJacobson et al, 2008;Hoff et al, 2009). Air pollution and odor nuisance are a major challenge for livestock production (NRC, 2003;Kim et al, 2007;Parker et al, 2012;Cai et al, 2015;Zhang et al, 2015).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Testing odorants recovery from a novel metallized fluorinated ethylene propylene gas sampling bag

Wen-da

Kozieł

Cai

et al. 2015

Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Industry-standard Tedlar bags for odor sample collection from confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs) have been challenged by the evidence of volatile organic compound (VOC) losses and background interferences. Novel impermeable aluminum foil with a thin layer of fluorinated ethylene propylene (FEP) film on the surface that is in contact with a gas sample was developed to address this challenge. In this research, Tedlar and metallized FEP bags were compared for (a) recoveries of four characteristic CAFO odorous VOCs (ethyl mercaptan, butyric acid, isovaleric acid and p-cresol) after 30 min and 24 hr sample storage time and for (b) chemical background interferences. All air sampling and analyses were performed with solid-phase microextraction (SPME) followed by gas chromatography-mass spectroscopy (GC-MS). Mean target gas sample recoveries from metallized FEP bags were 25.9% and 28.0% higher than those in Tedlar bags, for 30 min and 24 hr, respectively. Metallized FEP bags demonstrated the highest p-cresol recoveries after 30-min and 24-hr storage, 96.1 ± 44.5% and 44.8 ± 10.2%, respectively, among different types of sampling bags reported in previous studies. However, a higher variability was observed for p-cresol recovery with metallized FEP bags. A 0% recovery of ethyl mercaptan was observed with Tedlar bags after 24-hr storage, whereas an 85.7 ± 7.4% recovery was achieved with metallized FEP bags. Recoveries of butyric and isovaleric acids were similar for both bag types. Two major impurities in Tedlar bags' background were identified as N,N-dimethylacetamide and phenol, while backgrounds of metallized FEP bags were significantly cleaner. Reusability of metallized FEP bags was tested. Implications: Caution is advised when using polymeric materials for storage of livestock-relevant odorous volatile organic compounds. The odorants loss with storage time confirmed that long-term storage in whole-air form is ill advised. A focused short-term odor sample containment should be biased toward the most inert material available relative to the highest impact target odorant. Metallized FEP was identified as such a material to p-cresol as the highest impact odorant from confined animal feeding operations. Metallized FEP bags have much cleaner background than commercial Tedlar bags do. Significantly higher recoveries of methyl mercaptan and p-cresol were also observed with metallized FEP bags. IntroductionIn recent decades, intensive large-scale livestock production has grown rapidly in the United States and other parts of the world. The large number of animals raised in concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) can affect air quality by emissions of odor, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), NH 3 , H 2 S, greenhouse gases (GHGs), and particulate matter (PM) (National Research Council [NRC], 2003;Heber et al., 2006aHeber et al., , 2006bJacobson et al., 2008;Hoff et al., 2009). Air pollution and odor nuisance are a major challenge for livestock production (NRC, 2003;Kim et al., 2007;Parker et al., 2012;Cai et al., 20...

show abstract

Quality Assured Measurements of Animal Building Emissions: Gas Concentrations

Cited by 62 publications

References 3 publications

Emissions of Ammonia, Hydrogen Sulfide, and Odor before, during, and after Slurry Removal from a Deep-Pit Swine Finisher

Emissions of Ammonia, Hydrogen Sulfide, and Odor before, during, and after Slurry Removal from a Deep-Pit Swine Finisher

Quality-Assured Measurements of Animal Building Emissions: Particulate Matter Concentrations

Testing odorants recovery from a novel metallized fluorinated ethylene propylene gas sampling bag

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About