Category: Air Quality

Posted on

Siting of Livestock & Poultry Facilities Using MNSET

Reprinted, with permission, from the proceedings of: Mitigating Air Emissions From Animal Feeding Operations Conference.

The proceedings, “Mitigating Air Emissions from Animal Feeding Operations”, with expanded versions of these summaries can be purchased through the Midwest Plan Service.

This Technology is Applicable To:

Species: Poultry, Dairy, Beef, Swine
Use Area: Animal Housing, Manure Storage
Technology Category: Facility Siting
Air Mitigated Pollutants: Odor, Hydrogen Sulfide, Ammonia

System Summary

MNSET predicts three separate air quality impacts. The first prediction is for odor impacts at any given distance downwind from the facilities. The second prediction is for the frequency of exceeding the MN state standard for hydrogen sulfide (30 ppb / 30-minute average not to be exceeded twice in a five day period). Although this may not be applicable for other states it does show relative impacts of hydrogen sulfide. Additionally, MNSET estimates both daily and annual pounds of hydrogen sulfide and ammonia emitted from the modeled facility. Remember however that the outputs of the models are only as valid as the inputs. A literature review was done to develop the flux values used in the model.

MNSET can be used to evaluate the impact of existing sites and quantify reductions of these impacts using various treatment technologies. Unfortunately, this requires reliable quantification of the emission reductions from the mitigation technologies.

Applicability and Mitigating Mechanism

  • Tool for predicting air quality impacts for odor, hydrogen sulfide and ammonia
  • Allows for adding mitigation to reduce these impacts
  • Free downloadable spreadsheet
  • User can add new technologies

Limitations

  • Based on average flux values
  • Conservative predictions
  • Based on Minnesota weather conditions and regulations

Cost

This software can be downloaded free at University of Minnesota Manure Management. The use of MNSET to evaluate the downwind impacts of any mitigation technologies is very valuable both in new construction and in solving existing air quality problems.

Authors

David Schmidt and Larry Jacobson, University of Minnesota
Point of Contact:
David Schmidt, schmi071@umn.edu

The information provided here was developed for the conference Mitigating Air Emissions From Animal Feeding Operations Conference held in May 2008. To obtain updates, readers are encouraged to contact the author.

Posted on

Siting Animal Production Facilities and Evaluating Odor Control Options Using the Odor Footprint Tool

Reprinted, with permission, from the proceedings of: Mitigating Air Emissions From Animal Feeding Operations Conference.

This Technology is Applicable To:

Species: Poultry, Dairy, Beef, Swine
Use Area: Animal Housing, Manure Storage
Technology Category: Facility Siting
Air Mitigated Pollutants: Odor

System Summary

The Odor Footprint Tool is a worksheet/spreadsheet that provides objective, science-based information on the risk-based impact of odors generated by livestock facilities. The user enters information about the livestock facilities for a given site, the site location (for selection of regional weather data), use of supplemental odor control, and any special terrain around the site. After using the Odor Footprint Tool, the user obtains minimum setback distances in four directions matching up with targets for avoiding odor annoyance. The Odor Footprint Tool can help assess the reduction in the size of a facility’s odor footprint due to use of proven odor control technology.

By using the Odor Footprint Tool, producers and their advisors can mitigate neighbor impacts of odor and air-borne pollutants through improved siting of facilities. They can also use the Odor Footprint Tool to assess the benefit of odor control technologies in terms of reduced area of odor impact, which encourages the utilization of effective control technologies.

Applicability

  • Assesses frequency of odor annoyance from housed swine, cattle and poultry production facilities
  • Considers animal housing facilities and manure storage facilities
  • Assesses reduction in odor footprint due to using proven odor control technology
  • Used on a regional basis within a state
  • Recommended for use as a planning and screening tool

Limitations

  • Not ready for use with open lots, treatment lagoons, and other large area sources
  • Not for assessing odor annoyance during application of manure
  • Requires its own set of emission values
  • Dispersion modeling is required upfront for confident use in a new region having differing weather patterns.
  • Simplified footprints may seem over-simplified or lack desired level of precision

Cost

There is no direct cost for using the publicly available versions of the Odor Footprint Tool to obtain directional setback distances or for conferring with an Extension educator. When producers defer use to an advisor/consultant, it is reasonable to expect to pay for consultant time associated with using the tool, getting their technical response and recommendations, creating project-specific visuals, and presenting material to permitting authorities, local zoning commissions, lenders, etc.

The primary costs associated with the Odor Footprint Tool are upfront costs of calibrating and validating the dispersion model and performing dispersion modeling using weather data for a specific area. Grant funds have been utilized within Nebraska and South Dakota for this purpose.

Authors

Rick Stowell, Chris Henry, Crystal Powers, and Dennis Schulte
University of Nebraska-Lincoln
Point of Contact:
Rick Stowell, rstowell2@unl.edu

The information provided here was developed for the conference Mitigating Air Emissions From Animal Feeding Operations Conference held in May 2008. To obtain updates, readers are encouraged to contact the author.

Posted on

Ammonia Deposition in Rocky Mountain National Park: What Is the Role of Animal Agriculture?

Air quality concerns related to animal agriculture include ammonia. One area that this has become apparent is Rocky Mountain National Park in Colorado. The park appears majestic and pristine. But is everything really in harmony?

Ammonia Deposition Alpine Ecosystems


Ammonia, which is a basic atmospheric gas emitted from livestock and other farms, combines with nitrogen oxides from cars and other combustion sources to create nitrogen particles which deposit in the park. As a result, this fragile ecosystem is being changed. What part do livestock operations play and how can they help preserve this national treasure?

If you need to download a copy of a segment, submit a request.

For additional information on this topic, visit “Ammonia Emissions from Animal Agriculture: An Introduction”

Acknowledgements

This video was authored by the late Dr. Ron Sheffield, Louisiana State University AgCenter. If you have questions or suggestions regarding this video, please contact Dr. Rick Stowell, rstowell2@unl.edu.

These materials were developed by the Air Quality Education in Animal Agriculture (AQEAA) project with with financial support from the National Research Initiative Competitive Grant 2007-55112-17856 from the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture.

Posted on

Diet Modification to Reduce Odors, Gas Emissions and Nutrient Excretions from Swine Operations

Can Changing Pig Diets Reduce Odor Emissions?

The pork industry has undergone a rapid change in the past two decades, with a decrease in farm numbers and an increase in farm size. These changes magnify the stress of the compatibility of pork production with neighbors in rural America. Concerns of the potential impact of the swine operation on water and air quality and health are also raised due to numerous compounds often produced from anaerobic degradation of animal manures, such as, sulfurous compounds, volatile fatty acids (VFAs), and ammonia (NH3). Since the pig is the point source of excreted nutrients resulting in gas and odor emissions, diet modification has the potential to reduce nutrient output and improve air quality.

Our hypothesis is that by utilizing a low nutrient excretion diet formulation and an alternative manure management strategy, the amount of nutrient output and gas/odor emissions will be reduced over the wean-finish period.

Activities

A total of 1, 920 pigs (initial BW = 5.29 kg) were used in a 2 x 2 factorial, wean-finish experiment to determine the effects of diet (control, CTL vs. low nutrient excretion, LNE) and manure management (6 mo. deep-pit, DP vs. monthly pull plug-recharge, PP) on growth performance, nutrient output, and air quality. Pigs were housed in a 12-room environmental building.

Pigs were split-sex and phase-fed to meet or exceed their nutrient requirements (NRC, 1998) at different stages of growth. The CTL and LNE diets were corn-soybean meal based and formulated to an equal Lysine:calorie. The LNE diet formulation had reduced CP and P, increased synthetic amino acids, phytase, non-sulfur trace mineral premix and added fat. Improvements in pig performance were observed over the wean-finish period.

Did Lysine Affect Performance or Odorous Emissions?

Pigs fed the LNE diets were 4.3 kg heavier (131.2 vs. 126.9 kg) at market, gain was increased by 0.03 kg/d (0.83 vs. 0.80 kg/d), feed intake was reduced by 0.16 kg/d (1.95 vs. 2.11 kg/d), and overall feed efficiency was increased by 11.6% (0.43 vs. 0.38) compared to CTL fed pigs (P<0.01). In addition, manure generation was reduced by 0.39 L/pig/d when the LNE diets were fed vs. the CTL diets (4.05 vs. 4.44 L/pig/d, P<0.008).

Excretion of total N, P, and K was reduced (P<0.001) by 27.5, 42.5, and 20.4%, respectively, from LNE fed pigs. Pigs fed the LNE diets had a 25.5, 23.8, 32.3, 18.5, 35.8, and 26.7% reduction (P<0.05) in manure acetate, iso-butyrate, iso-valerate, valerate, and total VFA production, respectively, compared to CTL fed pigs. Using the PP manure strategy reduced manure ammonium N and VFA production by 10.3 % (16.5 vs. 18.4 g/pig/d; P<0.002) and 20.5% (26.0 vs. 32.7 mM/pig/d; P<0.001), respectively, compared to DP strategy. Pigs fed LNE diets had a 13.6% (P<0.001) reduction in aerial NH3 emissions over the wean-finish period compared to pigs fed CTL diets. Aerial H2S and SO2 emissions and odor were not different (P>0.10) between dietary treatments.

Why is This Important?

Feeding LNE diet formulations are effective in reducing environmental impacts of pork production while maintaining growth performance. In addition, utilizing a monthly pull plug-recharge manure management strategy can improve air quality parameters, however can be more labor intensive.

For More Information

Contact us at jradclif@purdue.edu or (765)496-7718.

By Scott Radcliffe, Brian Richert, Danielle Sholly, Ken Foster, Brandon Hollas, Teng Lim, Jiqin Ni, Al Heber, Alan Sutton – Purdue University

This report was prepared for the 2008 annual meeting of the regional research committee, S-1032 “Animal Manure and Waste Utilization, Treatment and Nuisance Avoidance for a Sustainable Agriculture”. This report is not peer-reviewed and the author has sole responsibility for the content.

Posted on

Air Emission and Energy Usage Impacts of No Pit Fans in a Wean to Finish Deep Pit Pig Facility

What Is Being Measured?

The objectives of this research project are to monitor the indoor air quality of a deep-pit; wean-to-finish pig building over one pig-growth cycle (six months) by semi-continuously measuring concentrations of ammonia (NH3), hydrogen sulfide (H2S), carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and intermittently measuring particulate matter (PM10) and odor. The project will also monitor semi-continuous emissions of NH3, H2S, CO2, CH4, and VOCs plus intermittent sampling of odor emissions from the barn’s pit and wall exhaust streams over the six month growth period. Energy usage, both electrical and LP gas usage will be measured for both pit and non-pit ventilated rooms over the pig growth, along with pig performance (daily gain, feed efficiency, and death loss) between the rooms.

Current Activities

A cooperating pork producer is being located in southern Minnesota with a tentative starting date of July 1, 2008 for data collection.

Does the Use of Pit Fans Make a Difference in Air Emissions from Deep-Pit Pig Barns?

Air emissions from tunnel ventilated pig finishing barns have been monitored and partitioned between pit and wall fans during the past two years in Minnesota. The results showed that a disproportionate amount of hydrogen sulfide (H2S) and ammonia (NH3) emissions were emitted from the deep pit finishing barn through pit fans even though it was concluded that “pit” ventilation has little effect on the barn’s indoor air quality (figure 1). Thus producers might be able to reduce emissions of these hazardous gases and the associated odor of these gases simply by limiting or not using pit ventilation fans. Such a strategy would save electrical energy use since larger more efficient wall fans could replace the less efficient pit fans.

Figure 1. Hydrogen Sulfide Emissions from a 1200 head pig finishing barn with varying pit ventilation rates during a winter (January 26 to March 4, 2006) period. Contributed to eXtension CC2.5

Why is This Important?

Data collected from the deep pit facility will be used to determine the benefit of pit fans to indoor air quality in swine wean to finish buildings and what impact the use of pit fans has on energy usage and gas, odor, and particulate matter emissions from this stage of pork production buildings .

For More Information

Jacobson, L.D., B.P. Hetchler, and D.R. Schmidt. 2007. Sampling pit and wall emission for H2S, NH3, CO2, PM, & odor from deep-pit pig finishing facilities. Presented at the International Symposium on Air Quality and Waste Management for Agriculture. Sept 15-19, 2007. Broomfield, CO. St. Joseph, Mich.: ASABE

Authors: Larry D. Jacobson, David Schmidt and Brian Hetchler, University of Minnesota

This report was prepared for the 2008 annual meeting of the regional research committee, S-1032 “Animal Manure and Waste Utilization, Treatment and Nuisance Avoidance for a Sustainable Agriculture”. This report is not peer-reviewed and the author has sole responsibility for the content.

Posted on

Odor Emissions and Chemical Analysis of Odorous Compounds from Animal Buildings

Why Study Odor Emissions from Animal Housing?

  • To determine odor emission characteristics by using common protocols and standardized olfactometry, from four mechanically-ventilated National Air Emissions Monitoring Study (NAEMS) sites, two dairy and two swine.
  • To develop a comprehensive chemical library that delineates the most significant odorants, and correlate this library with olfactometry results.
  • To disseminate information to stakeholders including producers, agencies, regulators, researchers, local government officials, consultants, and neighbors of animal operations.

Current Activities

Data is being collected from the four NAEMS sites (dairy sites in Wisconsin and Indiana and pig sites in Iowa and Indiana). Data collection is about ¼ completed (first 13 week cycle completed in April, 2008 and second cycle started in May, 2008) Raw data compilation in a U of MN website based spreadsheets for this first round is nearly completed. Olfactometry data is being done at the U of MN, Iowa State, and Purdue labs while GC-MS data is analyzed at West Texas State University and GC-MS-O data is processed at Iowa State University.

What We Have Learned

Sorbent tubes for both GC-MS data and GC-MS-O data have been successfully used to trap VOC in the emissions streams from the four barns without “breakouts” occurring. Approximately 15 to 20 compounds are being identified and with airflow data, actual emission data of these compounds should be able to be calculated.

instrumentation trailer making air quality measurements and air flow rates as part of the NAEMS study


Why is This Important?

This study is supplementing the National Air Emissions Monitoring Study (NAEMS) with comprehensive measurements of odor emissions. The NAEMS will help livestock and poultry producers comply with EPA regulations concerning regulated gases and particulate matter by monitoring these pollutants continuously for 24 months, in order to determine which types of farms are likely to emit threshold levels of contaminants under the current regulations. Although odor plagues the animal industry with the greatest overall challenge, it is not included in the NAEMS, because the EPA does not regulate it and therefore did not include it in the Air Consent Agreement.

This project adds odor emission measurements at four NAEMS sites during 12 months of the study. Both standard human sensory measurements (using dynamic forced-choice olfactometry), and a novel chemical analysis technique (GC-MS-O) for odorous compounds found in these emissions is being done in this study. The sensory and chemical methods would be correlated to gain both quantitative and qualitative understanding of odor emissions from animal buildings.

For More Information

Contact Larry D Jacobson, University of Minnesota, BBE Department, 1390 Eckles Ave, St. Paul, MN 55108. email: jacob007@umn.edu or phone 612-625-8288.

Larry D. Jacobson, Ipek Celen and Brian Hetchler, University of Minnesota

This report was prepared for the 2008 annual meeting of the regional research committee, S-1032 “Animal Manure and Waste Utilization, Treatment and Nuisance Avoidance for a Sustainable Agriculture”. This report is not peer-reviewed and the author has sole responsibility for the content.

Posted on

Protocol for Determining the Cost/Benefit of a Manure Storage Lagoon Cover

Do Manure Storage Covers Pay?

A protocol was developed to determine the cost/benefit of installing a cover over a manure storage structure. Included are a discussion on the cost and selection of the cover, a procedure to determine the feasibility of biogas production and capture, the technique to estimate the dilution of the slurry resulting from precipitation, and tools to estimate ammonia emissions, thereby predict the increase in nitrogen content and the savings from reduced fertilizer hauling. By considering the combination of all of these factors, the payback period can be calculated.

Current Activity

The protocol has been developed and a case study was performed. A manuscript is in preparation.

What We Have Learned

Techniques to identify the items that determine the cost and benefit have been researched and refined for the protocol. Based on a sensitivity analysis a crucial benefit is the savings associated with keeping precipitation out of the manure thus avoiding extra hauling costs. As a result, relatively short payback periods can be realized.

Why is This Important

One of the most common practices to store manure is the use of open storage structures. Numerous problems for farmers are created by the open structure including ammonia loss, methane emissions, odor complaints, and increased hauling of manure slurry. Covering a lagoon offers substantial environmental benefits and can save farmers money.

a lagoon cover recently installed on a dairy farm

For More Information

Steve Safferman
Michigan State University
Biosystems Engineering
202 Farrall Hall
East Lansing, MI 48824

This report was prepared for the annual meeting of the regional research committee, S-1032 “Animal Manure and Waste Utilization, Treatment and Nuisance Avoidance for a Sustainable Agriculture”. This report is not peer-reviewed and the author has sole responsibility for the content.

Posted on

Odor Mitigation Using Vegetative Environmental Buffers Research Summary

Why Study Trees for Controlling Odors from Livestock and Poultry Buildings?

The objective of this research is to evaluate the bio-physical, economic and social efficacy of the use of Vegetative Environmental Buffers (VEBs) – purposefully planted linear arrangements of trees and shrubs – to incrementally mitigate livestock and poultry odor. Our research has demonstrated that tree barriers can help impede, alter, absorb, and/or dissipate livestock odor plumes and other emissions prior to contact with people. As air moves across vegetative surfaces, leaves and other aerial plant surfaces remove some of the dust, gas, and microbial constituents of airstreams. Trees and other woody vegetation also enhance localized air dispersion by increasing mechanical turbulence. Our research program into the efficacy of VEBs involves a multi-disciplinary, multi-species and multi-analytic perspective. Related: Archived webcast on “Trees, Shelterbelts, and Windbreaks for Mitigating Livestock and Poultry Odors“

Activities

The efficacy of VEBs in mitigating livestock and poultry odor is being examined from a three- pronged perspective measuring efficacy in:

  1. field measured bio-physical terms (e.g. physical reductions in downwind movement of particulates, odor and ammonia and long-term tree health)
  2. financial feasibility terms at the farm-level (e.g. total costs of VEB establishment and maintenance vs. producer willingness to pay), and
  3. in terms of social approval of the use of VEBs (e.g. evaluation of the impact of VEBs on production site aesthetics and consumer willingness to pay for environmentally friendly meat products).

The quantification of physical odor mitigation via the use of VEBs is approached with field trials using full size VEB systems (multiple rows of trees) at working poultry and swine facilities as well as using scale models of these facilities for wind tunnel examinations and advanced computer simulation.

Custom rate financial data has been collected and applied to a range of livestock facilities (e.g. differing VEB designs, production scale, etc.) to calculate typical upfront and long-term costs. Producer willingness to pay has been determined via multi-state producer surveys. Social opinion data was collected via multi-state consumer focus groups (utilizing photo elicitation techniques) and a series of integrated social surveys.

Can Trees Reduce Odor Movement?

Baseline physical data suggests that VEBs can contribute up to a 10% reduction in the movement of odor downwind. The technology broadly applied at the farm level seems to be financially feasible to most swine producers – with total costs ranging from $0.01 to $0.33 per pig produced; these costs by and large being well below maximum producer willingness to pay for the use of VEBs. And social surveys in IA and NC show strong social support and appreciation of the use of trees for air quality purposes with strong social agreement that VEBs improve the aesthetics of confinement production.

Why is This Important?

Affordable, tertiary odor mitigation technology with the added benefit of being socially acceptable is a strong compliment to any comprehensive manure management program at production sites .

For More Information

Author: John Tyndall, Iowa State University

Visit the Iowa State University vegetative environmental buffers website.

Read the following article: Tyndall, J.C. and J.P. Colletti. 2007. Mitigating Swine Odor with Strategically Designed Shelterbelt Systems: A Review. Agroforestry Systems. Volume 69, Number 1/January, 2007.

This report was prepared for the 2008 annual meeting of the regional research committee, S-1032 “Animal Manure and Waste Utilization, Treatment and Nuisance Avoidance for a Sustainable Agriculture”. This report is not peer-reviewed and the author has sole responsibility for the content.

Posted on

Orienting Buildings Perpendicular to Prevailing Winds May Reduce Odors

Scientists from USDA’s Agricultural Research Service (ARS) are taking a sideways look at odors, literally.

As anyone that has evaluated potential sites for swine facilities knows, many factors–such as wind speed, direction, topography, vegetation, and more–influence the potential impacts on downwind neighbors. In an effort to understand how air currents interact with the building site–and therefore pick up odors, dust, and other emissions–Tom Sauer and Jerry Hatfield, with the National Soil Tilth Laboratory in Ames, Iowa, built a model swine farm in a wind tunnel.

Research Activities

Air flow velocities and turbulence intensities were measured with a sensor that measured how quickly the winds carried heat away at 83 points behind the building models. They also took pictures of smoke patterns, generated by dry ice, to capture airflow patterns around the model structures and measured evaporation rates from the model storage tanks and lagoons. They reconfigured the model farm in different ways and repeated their measurements.

What Did They Learn?

Buildings situated perpendicular to airflow disrupted downwind airflow to a greater extent than buildings parallel to airflow. “These studies show how much the placement of animal housing units and manure-storage facilities can work in combination with prevailing winds and site conditions to affect the distance that potential agricultural air emissions can travel,” says Sauer. “They strongly indicate that we should be able to reduce the downwind air-quality impacts from animal production by modifying the layout of a production facility.”

Using model farm buildings, silos, and trees (wire mesh coils serve as trees), agronomist Guillermo Hernandez (left) and soil scientist Tom Sauer evaluate the effect of model arrangements on airflow. Hernandez makes an adjustment to one of the highly sensitive probes as Sauer monitors the real-time data signal. Photo courtesy of the USDA Ag Research Service.

Additional Information

  • “Tunnel Vision” Tracks Emission Dispersal was published in the September 2008 issue of Agricultural Research magazine.
  • This research is part of Air Quality, an ARS national program (#203).
  • Thomas J. Sauer and Jerry Hatfield are with the USDA-ARS National Soil Tilth Laboratory, 2110 University Blvd., Ames, IA 50011-3120; phone (515) 294-3416 [Sauer], (515) 294-5723 [Hatfield].

October, 2008 Newsletter Articles

  • EPA Releases “Report on the Environment 2008”
  • Poultry Waste Management Symposium To Be Held October 21-23
  • US Geological Survey National and Regional Trends in Ground-Water Quality

This summary was adapated from materials provided by the USDA ARS. It has not been peer reviewed and represents the newsletter editor’s summary of the research.

Posted on

Simultaneous Treatment of Odor, Volatile Organic Compounds, Hydrogen Sulfide, Ammonia, and Pathogens With Ultraviolet Light

Printer friendly version of this summary.

Is It Feasible to Treat or Reduce Several Air Emissions from Pig Barns at Once?

The simultaneous treatment of odors, gases, airborne pathogens using novel ultraviolet (UV) treatment project addresses a critical need of the control of odor and pathogens generated in commercial swine production. The same technology could potentially be used for other species (e.g., poultry) that are housed in mechanically-ventilated barns. This study will test the potential for using currently available technology for the simultaneous degradation of most offensive odorants, ammonia (NH3), and model pathogens (SIV, BVDV). Such UV light-based technology is suitable for application for ventilation air and could be applied to exhaust air (to treat emissions) and inlet air (to prevent the spread of infectious diseases) for new and existing operations.

The long-term goal is to develop a cost-effective technology for the simultaneous treatment of odor and pathogens in swine and possibly poultry housing in order to limit their impact on air quality and health (both human and animal).

Activities

A standard gas/odor system for generating and measuring gases is being used for lab-scale experiments. The system generates 13 odorous gases including hydrogen sulfide (H2S), mercaptans, volatile fatty acids (VFAs), and phenolic compounds responsible for swine odor. NH3 gas and its removal is included. Odor measurement with a standard ASTM method are conducted by the Olfactometry Lab.

Did UV Light Reduce Pathogens and Odorants?

We measured the effectiveness of odor treatment and pathogen inactivation in laboratory scale. Almost 100% removal was achieved for all the compounds tested except H2S and dimethylsulfide using only 1 sec irradiation. Removals of H2S and dimethylsulfide are also significant. Longer UV irradiation times resulted in complete percent reduction of target compounds and odor. Of specific interest is very efficient removal of p-cresol which has been recognized as priority odorant responsible for the characteristic livestock odor. Treatment cost of $0.25 per pig and continuous operation during growing cycle was estimated when the lab-scale results were extrapolated to typical ventilation rates and electricity cost at a swine finish operation in rural Iowa.

Why is This Important?

Comprehensive solutions to swine aerial emissions are expected to be even more urgent in the future. Thus, the proposed study addresses several critically important issues confronting pork and poultry producers, but also has a broader applicability to homeland security, human/animal health, indoor air quality and hazardous waste treatment.

For More Information

Authors: Jacek Koziel, Jeff Zimmerman, Steven Hoff, Hans van Leeuwen, William Jenks, Iowa State University

Read the following articles or visit the Iowa State University odor research website.

Yang, X., Koziel, J.A., Cai L., Hoff, S. et al. Novel treatment of VOCs and odor using photolysis. ASABE Annual International Meeting, 2007, Minneapolis, MN, paper No. 074139.

Koziel, J.A., X. Yang, T. Cutler, S. Zhang, J. Zimmerman, S. J. Hoff, W. Jenks, Y. Laor, U. Ravid, R. Armon, J.H. van Leeuwen. 2008. Mitigation of odor and pathogens from CAFAs with UV/TiO2: exploring cost effectiveness. In the proceedings of the Mitigating Air Emissions From Animal Feeding Operations Conference. Des Moines, May, 2008.

This report was prepared for the 2008 annual meeting of the regional research committee, S-1032 “Animal Manure and Waste Utilization, Treatment and Nuisance Avoidance for a Sustainable Agriculture”. This report is not peer-reviewed and the author has sole responsibility for the content.

Proudly powered by WordPress