Efficacy of Vegetative Environmental Buffers to Mitigate Emissions from Tunnel-Ventilated Poultry Houses

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 (Broiler and Turkey)
Use Area: Animal Housing
Technology Category: Environmental Barriers
Air Mitigated Pollutants: Dust, Ammonia, Odor

System Summary

Emissions of dust, gases and odor from poultry facilities pose major challenges for the poultry industry worldwide. Cost-effective technologies to abate emissions from modern tunnel-ventilated poultry houses are limited. In 2002 a three-row planting of trees was installed opposite two, 1.2 meter (4 ft) diameter tunnel fans to evaluate vegetative environmental buffers (VEB) as a means of mitigating emissions from the poultry house. The first row, 9.1 meters (30 ft) from the fans was 4.8 meter (16 ft) high bald cypress, followed by 4.3 meter (14 ft) high Leyland cypress and the outer most row of 2.4 meter (8 ft) high Eastern red cedar. Over the next six years the efficacy of these trees to reduce total dust, ammonia and odor was determined. Measurements were taken at 1.2 meter (4 ft) height on 47 days during peak fan operation with market-age broilers. The relative change in concentration across this 6.7 meter (22 ft) wide vegetative buffer found the VEB significantly reduced total dust, ammonia and odor by 56%, 54% and 26%, respectively. Meteorological conditions and the type of crop next to the VEB appeared to influence the efficacy of vegetation to reduce odor. Dust and ammonia concentration was influenced by these factors to a lesser degree. This suggests the use of trees as vegetative filters may offer a long-term, cost-effective means of partially abating emissions from houses. The local poultry industry trade association for the Delmarva Peninsula has hired a coordinator to implement tree plantings around farms to help abate emissions and to be proactive in addressing increasing neighbor-relations concerns.

Applicability and Mitigating Mechanism

  • Certain plants have the ability to absorb ammonia and capture particulates
  • Vegetation also acts as a sink for chemical constituents of odor
  • A properly designed windbreak aids in dispersion and dilutions of odors as well as reducing wind speed
  • A VEB planting has multiple goals; abate emissions, improve neighbor-relations, and provide shade and shelter of the house

Limitations

  • Growers need technical assistance on the proper design, implementation and care of VEB that is tailored to the unique features of each operation
  • Retrofitting a farm with VEB to capture emissions from all fans is difficult.
  • Species of tree and proper implementation influences time required for VEB to become effective in reducing emissions
  • VEB is a practical and multi-purpose BMP to partially abate emissions.

 

Cost

Average cost for implementing a VEB on an existing broiler farm is ~$5,500. Cost range from $1,500 for a limited one-row planting to provide a visual screen of the farm, and up to $12,000 for multi-row plantings around the outside perimeter of the poultry houses. There is limited information on design and efficacy of VEB plantings between houses. Locally, cost-share programs have provided support to cover most of the costs associated with implementing this program. Plantings to address neighbor-relations have been a driving factor in VEB establishment. An estimated 1/3 of all poultry farms have established VEB on the Delmarva Peninsula. A VEB is also a requirement for a new house loan from one of the major lending institutions.

Authors

George Malone1, Gary VanWicklen1, Stephan Collier1
1University of Delaware
Point of Contact:
George Malone, malone@udel.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.

Odorgon: Overhead Spray System to Neutralize Odors

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
Technology Category: Chemical Amendment
Air Mitigated Pollutants: Ammonia, Hydrogen Sulfide, Odors

System Summary

Odorgon is a water based formulation that is applied in confined animal feeding operations through a high pressure mist system. Odorgon is sprayed on an automated timer basis from the ceilings through high pressure nylon lines and nozzles to neutralize malodors.

Applicability and Mitigating Mechanism

  • Unique class of cationic surfactants
  • Atomized solution sprayed at 600 psi
  • Buffer resulting in non volatile organic salts
  • Greatly reduces ammonia & hydrogen sulfide
  • Creates better environment for animals to thrive in resulting in lower mortality, less culls and less days to finish.
  • Better conditions for workers/employees
  • Mitigates neighbor/social issues

Limitations

  • Water based, subject to freezing
  • Summer use may be curtailed in

open buildings during windy conditions

Cost

Equipment cost for a 42 by 200 foot finishing building with all components installed is approximately $4900. Annual usage for this facility would average $2100 of Odorgon concentrate or .73 per animal unit but could vary with region/climate. Nursery cost for swine is .19 per animal unit. Odorgon is mixed with water at a rate of 50 parts water to 1 part concentrate resulting in a cost of $1.50 per gallon diluted. Cost also varies based on building dimensions and desired results.

Authors

Steve Opheim, VP Klean Air Inc.
Point of Contact:
Ron Hamilton, rrhamilto@aol.com

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.

Atomization Treatment to Improve Air Quality in a Swine Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO)

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: Swine
Use Area: Animal Housing
Technology Category: Other Treatment
Air Mitigated Pollutants: Particulate Matter (PM), Viable Bacteria, Ammonia

System Summary

Juergens Environmental Control Systems are designed to reduce particulate matter (PM), viable bacteria and ammonia and utilizes a high pressure atomization solution. Treatment consists of a formulation comprising proprietary proportions of corn oil, citric acid, ethyl alcohol, eucalyptus, vanilla and water. The formulation was developed to reduce airborne PM and ammonia through short- and long-term mechanisms. The short-term mechanisms include oil encapsulation through electrostatic attraction and coagulation. Long-term reductions occur through the suppression of dust re-suspension. Citric acid is added to neutralize gaseous ammonia. Alcohol helps dry the atomized aerosol and serves as an adjuvant so that formulation components are in complete suspension. Vanilla is added providing a deception for the olfactory senses, and eucalyptus for its respiratory medicinal property. Final formulation is atomized for 5 seconds, six times a day at a pressure of 235 psi (1620 kPa) and a rate of 45 mL/m2. The nozzles are located on the ceiling at 5 or 10 foot centers for complete coverage of the treated area and were designed to produce an aerosol 1-10 ímin diameter under conditions of this formulation and pressure.

Applicability and Mitigating Mechanism

  • Atomization treatment is effective at swine housing systems, such as in finishing, breeding and gestation production systems.
  • The oil is in a water formulation that includes alcohol, citric acid, vanilla and eucalyptus to dry and help mix the atomization solution, neutralize gaseous ammonia, and provide a pleasant odor, respectively.
  • The oil formulation is applied under high pressure, yielding micron-sized charged particles that efficiently remove PM through electrostatic attraction and coagulation.

Limitations

  • Atomization treatment is effective at swine housing systems, such as in finishing, breeding and gestation production systems.
  • The oil is in a water formulation that includes alcohol, citric acid, vanilla and eucalyptus to dry and help mix the atomization solution, neutralize gaseous ammonia, and provide a pleasant odor, respectively.
  • The oil formulation is applied under high pressure, yielding micron-sized charged particles that efficiently remove PM through electrostatic attraction and coagulation.

Cost

Field application of the atomization system and solutions are subject to change. The fixed cost of the system for 1000 – 8000-pig finishing operation averages $1.96 – $7.79 per pig per 3 year term (shipping and installation labor not included). The cost of atomization operating averages $ 0.01 per pig per day over one year. The fixed cost of the system for 500-5000-sow operation averages $9.00 – $16.00 per sow per 3 year term (shipping and installation labor not included). The cost of atomization averages $.01 per sow per day over one year.

Authors

Peter E. Juergens1, Gary L. Rapp11Juergens Environmental Control
Point of Contact:
Gary Rapp, garyrapp@westianet.net

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.

Dietary manipulations to lower ammonia emission from laying-hen manure

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

This Technology is Applicable To:

Species: Poultry (Layers)
Use Area: Animal Housing
Technology Category: Ration Manipulation
Air Mitigated Pollutants: Ammonia

System Summary

Dietary manipulation has been shown to lower ammonia emission from laying-hen manure. Dietary amendments include lowering the protein content of the diet, including high-fiber ingredients such as corn distiller’s dried grains with solubles (DDGS), or including EcoCalTM—a proprietary mixture of calcium sulfate and zeolite. Liang et al. (2005) showed that a 1% lower crude protein diet caused a 10% decrease in ammonia emission from laying hens housed in high-rise houses. Roberts et al. (2007) found 40% lower ammonia emission from manure of hens fed 10% DDGS, 38% lower emission when hens were fed 7.3% wheat middlings, and 26% lower emission when hens were fed 4.8% soybean hulls compared to a standard diet. Field research from our group indicates that 3.5% dietary EcoCal lowers ammonia emission by 23%. Research has also evaluated the egg production from hens fed each of the adjusted diets and demonstrated that, when diets are properly formulated, egg production will be similar to that from hens fed a standard control diet.

Applicability and Mitigating Mechanism

  • Ammonia volatilization from laying-hen manure is affected by manure pH, content and chemical form of nitrogen, moisture content, and physical handling of manure
  • Low protein diets lower nitrogen content of the manure
  • High-fiber diets lower manure pH
  • In EcoCal, calcium sulfate lowers manure pH and zeolite binds ammonia, preventing or reducing volatilization

Limitations

  • High-fiber ingredients may not be suitable for nutrient-dense diets
  • Amino acid requirements of hens must be precisely known in order to formulate low-protein diets and maintain egg production
  • EcoCal adds cost to the diet with little nutrient addition
  • Diet cost and ammonia reduction must be evaluated for each individual egg production situation

Cost

The cost of diet modifications must be determined for each individual egg production situation. Feed ingredients are often priced according to private contracts and proximity to the supplier. Feed ingredients can only be added to the diet in exchange for other ingredients (mainly corn and soybean meal), making the evaluation of price amongst ingredients difficult. This exchange of one ingredient for another should be analyzed as the total diet cost of a nutritionally balanced diet, considering all ingredients together. Least-cost diet formulations consider the cost of an ingredient with regards to nutrient content. High-fiber ingredients are typically going to have a relatively low energy content and varying contents of digestible amino acids and minerals, which can be valued in the diet formulation. Low-crude protein diets are formulated by adding crystalline amino acids to the diet, replacing soybean meal and increasing corn. These diets may be cost-effective if the price of amino acids is favorable. EcoCal contributes some calcium to the diet, partially replacing limestone, a relatively inexpensive diet component.

Authors

S.A. Roberts1, H.Xin1, H. Li1, R.T. Burns1, K. Bregendahl1, E.C. Hale III3
1Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa, 2 Rose Acre Farms, Seymore, Indiana
Point of Contact:
hxin@iastate.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.

Ozone Application for Mitigating Ammonia Emission from Poultry Manure: Field and Laboratory Evaluations

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
Use Area: Animal Housing
Technology Category: Other Treatment
Air Mitigated Pollutants: Ammonia

System Summary

House ozonation is a controversial technique that has been used in the literature for broiler house cleaning and in-house air contaminant control. Field evaluation in this reported study suggests that ozonation cannot effectively remove ammonia from air inside the broiler houses. Moreover, it caused a negative effect on feed conversion in two of the five flocks evaluated and in the average of five flocks. The laboratory study on this technique indicates that zone does not reaction with NH3 in days even at ozone concentration above 1 ppm, which was more than 10 times higher than the health safety limit set by OSHA. The laboratory tests also show significantly higher level of fine/ultra fine particles / aerosols in the ozone treated environment as compared with the environment without ozone treatment. The direct application of ozonation technique for ammonia mitigation in the animal facilities is not recommended.

Applicability and Mitigating Mechanism

  • Ammonia may be oxidized by ozone.
  • The direct application of ozonation technique for ammonia mitigation in the animal facilities is not recommended.

Limitations

  • In-house ozonation at the threshold limits for public health standards is not effective at mitigating ammonia concentration inside the broiler houses
  • Ozone treatment had positive effects on broiler performance in two broiler flocks and adverse impact in two flocks
  • Higher level of fine / ultra fine particles / aerosols was observed in ozone treated environment.

Cost

In-house ozone application caused a negative effect on feed conversion in two of the five flocks evaluated and in the average of five flocks. After 5 flocks the ozonation treatment resulted in an economical loss of $345. Taking in consideration that installation costs are close to $20,000 for two houses, it is very unlikely that the use of ozonation is economically feasible to be used in the poultry industry

Authors

Lingjuan Wang1, Edgar O. Oviedo-Rondon2, John Small2, Qianfeng Li1, Zifei Liu11Department of Biological and Agricultural Engineering, 2 Department of Poultry Science, North Carolina State University
Point of Contact:
Lingjuan Wang, lwang5@ncsu.edu or edgar_oviedo@ncsu.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.

Dietary Manipulation to Reduce Ammonia Emission from High-Rise Layer Houses

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

This Technology is Applicable To:

Species: Poultry (Layers)
Use Area: Animal Housing
Technology Category: Ration Manipulation
Air Mitigated Pollutants: Ammonia

System Summary

Ammonia (NH3) generation from poultry production is a result of microbial decomposition of uric acid and undigested nitrogen in bird feces. Ammonia emission is associated with nitrogen (N) content of the feces, which is influenced by feed composition and feed conversion efficiency of the bird. To reduce N content in feces, ration may be formulated with reduced dietary crude protein (CP) and supplemented with limiting amino acids (AA) to match bird dietary requirements, thereby improving digestive conversion efficiency. Utilization of lower CP diets with supplemented essential amino acids is a source reduction method to mitigate ammonia emission from layer hen production facilities. Lower N excretion in the bird feces due to lower total N intake can result in lower NH3 emission from the system. The lower CP diet used in this study had 0.4 to 1.2% less CP than the standard or control diet during various feeding phases. The lower CP diet resulted in about 10% ammonia emission reduction. Formulation based on nutritional requirement at different feeding phases is required to achieve emission reduction without affecting bird performance, i.e. egg production and case weight. The cost of low CP diet is about 1% lower than that of the standard dietary formulation (2008 prices).

 

Applicability and Mitigating Mechanism

  • Lower CP diet can have 0.4 to 1.2% lower CP than a standard diet during the various feeding phases.
  • Soy content is reduced in lower CP diets, and crystalline AA DL-methionine, L-lysine.HCL and L-threonine is supplemented to maintain the same essential AA levels in both diets for a given feeding phase.
  • Tryptophan and isoleucine in the lower CP diet may be slightly lower (from 0.02% to 0.06%) than those in the standard diets without affecting bird performance.

 

Limitations

  • Crude protein in the diet can only be reduced to certain level to avoid negatively impacting bird performance.

Cost

The cost for the lower CP diet with supplemented crystalline AA DL-methionine, L-lysine.HCL and L-threonine is about 1% lower than that for the standard diet. The cost advantage is better now with the current higher grain costs than in year 2003 when the study was conducted.

Authors

Y. Liang1, H. Xin2, R.S. Gates3, E.F. Wheeler4, K.D. Casey5, B.R.Behrends6, D.J.Burnham7
1University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR, 2Iowa State University,Ames, IA, 3University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, 4Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, 5Texas AgriLife Research, Amarillo, TX, 6Agri-Tech, a Sparboe Company, Litchfield, MN, 7Aviagen, Huntsville, AL
Point of Contact:
Hongwei Xin, hxin@iastate.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.

Dust and Ammonia Control in Poultry Production Facilities Using an Electrostatic Space Charge System

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
Use Area: Animal Housing
Technology Category: Other Treatment
Air Mitigated Pollutants: Particulate Matter, Ammonia

System Summary

Air quality within poultry production housing has been a major concern for years, particularly with regard to poultry health. The search for strategies to reduce particulate matter and ammonia emissions from animal housing has led to considerable interest in the poultry industry for practical systems to reduce these air emissions. An electrostatic space charge system (ESCS) was designed to reduce aerial dust and ammonia concentrations within a commercial broiler production house. A study was conducted within a commercial broiler house to evaluate the effectiveness of an ESCS for reducing dust and ammonia concentrations over a period of seven flocks. Results of this study indicate the ESCS significantly reduced airborne dust by an average of 43 percent and reduced ammonia by an average of 13 percent. Commercial application of this technology within the production house has the potential to improve in-house air quality and reduce emissions. Electrostatic fields have not been shown to produce adverse health effects in animals or humans. No differences in bird activity were observed in the form of decreased water consumption or increased mortality. No adverse effects of the continuous charge were observed in the form of stray voltage or static discharge at the feeder and water lines.

View the video full screen by clicking the icon second from right at the bottom.
Download a copy of this segment

Applicability and Mitigating Mechanism

  • An Electrostatic Space Charge System transfers a strong negative charge to airborne dust particles
  • The negatively charged particles precipitate out of the air to grounded surfaces.
  • Nitrogen compounds attached to the dust will also precipitate out of the air.
  • Application of an electrostatic space charge can be effective in reducing poultry house dust and ammonia concentrations in floor-raised meat-bird housing.
  • The system has the potential for use as an emissions control device exterior to animal housing.

 

Limitations

  • The incidences of static discharge to workers were minimal. The intensity of a discharge from direct contact with an ESCS ionizer was similar to touching a spark plug wire on a gasoline engine.

Cost

The cost of materials and installation of the experimental ESCS unit was approximately $4,000. Power consumption of the entire system was less than 100 watts during operation. It is reasonable to assume that a commercially available product would have a reduced capital outlay and quicker return on investment than the experimental prototype used within this study.

Authors

C.W. Ritz1, B.W. Mitchell2, B.D. Fairchild1, M. Czarick1, J.W. Worley11University of Georgia, 2 USDA Agricultural Research Service
Point of Contact:
Casey W. Ritz, critz@uga.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.

Mitigation of Odor and Pathogens from CAFOs with UV/TIO2: Exploring Cost Effectiveness

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

This Technology is Applicable To:

Species: Swine, Poultry
Use Area: Animal Housing
Technology Category: Air Treatment (UV Photocatalysis)
Air Mitigated Pollutants: Volatile Organic Compounds, Odor, Pathogens

System Summary

Odor and target VOCs responsible for livestock odor are mitigated by UV-185 nm (‘deep’ UV) in presence of TiO2 as a catalyst into less odorous or odorless products such as CO2 and H2O. Percent removals from 80 to 99% were measured in lab-scale experiments involving simulated livestock VOCs/odorants and 1 sec irradiation with a low wattage 5.5 W lamp. Selected VOCs simulating livestock odor included p-cresol, sulfur-containing VOCs, and volatile fatty acids. 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. The long-term goal is to develop cost-effective technology for the simultaneous treatment of odor and pathogens in livestock housing through logical progression of testing from lab-scale, through pilot-scale and finally at commercial scale. Such treatment would be applicable to both the inflow (for airborne pathogen control) and outflow air (for odor and pathogen control) at typical existing and new mechanically-ventilated barns.

Applicability and Mitigating Mechanism

  • Removal of VOCs and responsible for livestock odor in simulated barn air exhaust with UV light and advanced oxidation.
  • Research continues to move this technology from lab to commercial applications.
  • Potentially applicable to both the inflow (for airborne pathogen control) and outflow air (for odor and pathogen control) at typical existing and new mechanically-ventilated barns
  • On-demand, intermittent operation.

Limitations

  • This technology is still under development
  • Cost estimates are extrapolated from lab-scale experiments
  • Effects of particulate matter on UV treatment needs to be investigated
  • Effectiveness and costs associated long-term full-scale operation are not known at this time.

Cost

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. This cost could be further reduced for intermittent, on-demand operation. The capital costs would be mainly cost of ‘on-the-shelf’ deep’ UV lamps (currently at $90 for 10W lamp) and the cost of retrofitting of barn exhaust.

Authors

Jacek A. Koziel1,Xiuyan Yang1, Tim Cutler1, Shicheng Zhang1, Jeffrey Zimmerman1, Steven J. Hoff1, William Jenks1, Hans Van Leeuwen1, Yael Laor2, Uzi Ravid3, Robert Armon31Iowa State University, 2’Ya’ar Research Center, Agricultural Research Organization, Israel, 3Faculty of Civil and Environmental Engineering Technion, Haifa, Israel
Point of Contact:
Jacek Koziel, koziel@iastate.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.

Effects of Waste Management Techniques to Reduce Dairy Emissions from Freestall Housing

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: Dairy
Use Area: Animal Housing
Technology Category: Management
Air Mitigated Pollutants: Volatile Organic Compounds, Ethanol & Methanol

System Summary

Recent dairy emission research has identified alcohols (methanol and ethanol) as the major volatile organic compound (VOC) group originating from fresh waste (Shaw et al., 2007; Sun et al., 2008). Effective control of these alcohols from dairies will help the dairy industry meet regulatory standards, satisfy public concerns, and improve local and regional air quality. Enhancing industry typical freestall waste management practices, which currently are predominant practices like flushing and scraping of fresh waste, may provide a large impact on mitigation of oxygenated VOC emissions in a cost effective manner.

Our research has shown that flushing is more effective than scraping in reducing methanol (MeOH) and ethanol (EtOH) emissions from barns. Flushing three times daily versus scraping three times daily yields an emission reduction efficiency of 50% for both MeOH and EtOH. Furthermore, flushing frequency by itself significantly reduces emissions. A comparison of 3 times versus 6 times flushing daily showed decreased emissions by 79% for MeOH and 63% for EtOH.

Applicability and Mitigating Mechanism

  • Oxygenated VOC (e.g., alcohols MeOH and EtOH) are produced by fermenting microbes present in fresh waste
  • Frequent waste removal effectively mitigates MeOH and EtOH emissions from fresh waste
  • VOC alcohols are water-soluble and become effectively trapped in water when flushed
  • Flushing is more effective than scraping, and increasing flushing frequency further decreases VOC emissions

Limitations

  • Scraping methods leave a thin film of manure on concrete ground that continues to produce emissions

Cost

There is no cost associated with increasing the flushing frequency of a liquid manure handling system. Essentially, flushing frequency is increased, while the amount of water per flushing event is decreased. Since the water used to flush barns is recycled water from the lagoons, there is no cost to re-circulate lagoon water through the barn alleys.

Authors

M. Calvo, K. Stackhouse, Y. Zhao, Y. Pan, Ts Armitage, and F. Mitloehner, University of California, Davis
Point of Contact:
Frank Mitloehner, fmmitloehner@ucdavis.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.

Multi-pollutant Scrubbers for Removal of Ammonia, Odor, and Particulate Matter from Animal House Exhaust Air

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: Swine, Poultry
Use Area: Animal Housing
Technology Category: Scrubber
Air Mitigated Pollutants: Ammonia, Odor, Particulate Matter

System Summary

In The Netherlands, Germany and Denmark packed-bed biotrickling filters and acid scrubbers for removal of ammonia from exhaust air of animal houses are off-the-shelf techniques for ammonia removal (70 – 95% average removal). At the moment a new generation of so-called “multi-pollutant scrubbers” is being developed and tested that not only removes ammonia but also aims for significant removal of odor and particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) from the air. Recently a 3-year research program has started that monitors and aims to improve the performance of five farm-scale multi-pollutant scrubber from different manufacturers. The preliminary results show that the average ammonia removal is relatively high (83%, n = 7) but that the average removal of odor (40%, n = 8) and particulate matter (PM10: 43%, n = 2; PM2.5: 42%, n = 2) needs to be improved further.

Applicability and Mitigating Mechanism

  • Ammonia scrubbers consist of two types: either acid scrubbers or biotrickling filters
  • Multi-pollutant air scrubbers usually consist of two or more scrubbing stages where subsequent removal of coarse dust, ammonia and odor takes place
  • Scrubber are mainly applied in pig housings with central ventilation ducts; application in poultry housings are scarce because of high dust concentrations
  • Already 10% of all exhaust air from pig houses The Netherlands is treated; this equals a treatment capacity of 79 million m3/hour

Limitations

  • Odor and dust removal is less effective than ammonia removal, at least for now
  • High concentrations of coarse dust result in blockage of packing material and increased energy use (pressure drop)
  • Costs are considered high, but multi-pollutant scrubbers provide an option for large scale livestock operations to remain in operation in areas nearby residential areas and sensitive ecosystems

Cost

Investment and operational cost of scrubbers for newly built production facilities in € / animal space.
Acid Scrubber Biotrickling Filter Multi-pollutant scrubber (3-stage water/acid/biotrickling)
Investment Costs 32.8 43.5 50.3
Operational Costs (year^1):
Depreciation (10%) 2.6 3.4 4.2
Maintenance (3%) 1.5 1.8 2.0
Interest (6%) 0.8 1.0 1.2
Electricity use ((€ 0.11 kWh^-1) 3.3 3.8 3.7
Water use (€ 1.0 m^-3) 0.6 1.7 0.6
Chemical use (€ 0.6 L^-1 H2SO4, 98%) 1.4 n/a 0.7
Water discharge [b 0.6 2.5 1.0
Total operational costs (year^-1) 10.8 14.3 13.5

[a] The investment costs are based on a maximum ventilation capacity of 60 m3 animal place-1 h-1.
[b] Water disposal costs are assumed of € 10/m3 for discharge from acid scrubbing and € 2/m3 for discharge from biotrickling or water scrubbing. For the multi-pollutant scrubber, discharge water from the biotrickling or water scrubbing step is reused in the acid scrubbing step. The systems do not include a denitrification unit which might significantly decrease water discharge costs.
[c] n/a = not applicable.

Authors

Roland W. Melse, Nico W.M. Ogink, Bert J.J. Bosma; Animal Sciences Group, Wageningen University and Research centre, The Netherlands
Point of Contact:
Roland W. Melse, roland.melse@wur.nl

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.