Aerial Pollutants Emissions from Confined Animal Buildings

Larry D. Jacobson, Albert J. Heber, Steven J. Hoff, Yuanhui Zhang, David B. Beasley, Jacek A. Koziel, and Brian P. Hetchler University of Minnesota, Biosystems & Agricultural Engineering Department, St. Paul, MN 55108, USA; Purdue University, Agricultural and Biological Engineering, West Lafayette, IN 47907, USA; Iowa State University, Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering Department, Ames, IA 50011, USA; University of Illinois, Agricultural and Biological Engineering Department, Urbana, IL 61801, USA; North Carolina State University, Biological & Agricultural Engineering Department, Raleigh, NC 27695, USA; Agricultural Research and Extension Center, Texas A&M University System, Amarillo, TX 79106, USA (current affiliation: Agricultural & Biosystems Eng. Dept, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011, USA) Abstract A multi-state project entitled “Air Pollutants Emissions from Confined Animal Buildings” (APECAB) measured baseline emission rates of odor, ammonia (NH3), hydrogen sulfide (H2S), carbon dioxide (CO2) and particulate matter (including total suspended particulate (TSP) and PM10) from six types of animal confinement buildings (2 barns from each type) located in different states. The following types of animal housing systems were studied: swine farrowing with pull-plug gutters (IL), sow gestation with pull-plug gutters (MN), swine finishing with deep pits (IA), swine finishing with pull-plug gutters (TX), conventional high-rise laying hen houses (IN), and broiler houses on floor litter (NC). Air sampling from two adjacent identical buildings for each type was conducted from winter 2003 through spring 2004. Measurements were semi-continuous for NH3, H2S, and CO2, continuous for PM10, and discrete for odor and TSP. Quality assurance and control (QAQC) procedures for data collection and analysis and protocol consistency between states were emphasized. Ammonia levels in the finishing barns were twice as high in the deep pit barns (20 ppm) compared to the pull plug (9 ppm) facility but H2S concentrations were similar in both types of barns, varying from 0.4 to 0.6 ppm. NH3 emissions from the deep pit finishing barns were also higher (50 to 60 g NH3/d-AU) than from the pull plug building (35 to 40 g NH3/d-AU) but H2S emissions were somewhat similar, 3.0 to 4.0 and 4.0 to 4.5 g H2S/d-AU for the pull-plug and deep-pit barns respectively. The pull plug finishing barns experienced higher PM10 concentrations (450 to 500 vs. 150 to 170 g PM10/m) and emissions (3.0 vs. 0.75 g PM10/d-AU) than the deep pit finishing barns. However, the deep-pit barns had higher odor concentrations (1350 to 1650 vs. 600 to 750 OU/m) and emissions (87 to 93 vs. 66 to 80 OU/s-AU) than the pull-plug finishing buildings. Although not specifically reported in this paper, the laying hen buildings monitored in the project had much higher ammonia concentrations and emissions (by an order of magnitude) than the pig barns monitored but had very low hydrogen sulfide concentrations and emissions when compared to pig facilities. Also, some short term spikes in gas/PM/odor concentrations and emissions were found that typically were caused by some weather or manure management event and which could have ramifications when dealing with meeting the EPA’s CERCLA and EPCRA reporting requirements. As a general rule, the magnitude of the gas and dust emissions measured in this study, did not vary much over the year, however the concentrations of these parameters were quite seasonal with high levels in the winter during times of low air exchange rates and low levels in the summer when high rates of ventilation air was provided.