Annual Odor Emission Rate From Different Types of Swine Production Buildings

Guo, Huiqing; Dehod, W.; Agnew, J.; Laguë, C.; Feddes, J. R.; Pang, Siyu

doi:10.13031/2013.20406

Cited by 18 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It ranged from 131 to 1842 ou E •m -3 . Guo et al (2006) The mean values of the momentary odor emission factors related to the pig and kg of body mass were 179.5±78.7 ou E •s -1 •pig -1 and 2.27±1.71 ou E •s -1 •kg b.m. -1 , respectively.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 89%

“…Wang et al (2011), conducting Wang et al (2011) and Wei et al (2010) also noted mean values of 67.5 and 67.52 ou E •m -3 during research in deep--litter piggery. Also, for non-litter fattening houses, Heber et al (2008), Guo et al (2006) and Zhou and Zang (2003) measured variable values. Heber et al (2008) who studied odor emission from piggery, where the floor was sprayed with oil to reduce odor volatilization, observed low odor concentrations, on average 292±129 ou E •m -3 .…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Archives of Environmental Protection

Mielcarek-Bocheńska,

Rzeźnik

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Livestock production is the basis of global food production and it is a serious threat to the environment. Significant environmental pollutants are odors and ammonia (NH 3 ) emitted from livestock buildings. The aim of the study was to determine the concentration and emission factors of ammonia and odors, in the summer season, from a deep-litter fattening house. The research was carried out during summer in a mechanically ventilated fattening piggery located in the Greater Poland Voivodeship. Ammonia concentrations were measured using photoacoustic spectrometer Multi Gas Monitor Innova 1312, and odor concentrations were determined by dynamic olfactometry according to EN 13725:2003 using a TO 8 olfactometer. The NH 3 emission factors from the studied piggery, in summer, ranged from 8.53 to 21.71 g•day -1 •pig -1 , (mean value 12.54±4.89 g•day -1 •pig -1 ). Factors related to kg of body mass were from 0.11 to 0.23 g•day -1 •kg b.m. -1 (mean value 0.17±0.06 g•day -1 •kg b.m. -1 ). Odor concentrations in the studied piggery were from 755 to 11775 ouE•m -3 and they were diversified (coefficient of variation 43.8%). The mean value of the momentary odor emission factors was 179.5±78.7 ouE•s -1 •pig -1 . Factor related to kg of body mass was 2.27±1.71 ou E •s -1 •kg b.m. -1 . In Poland and many other countries, the litter systems of pigs housing are still very popular. Therefore, there is a need to monitor the pollutant emissions from such buildings to identify the factors influencing the amount of this emission. Another important issue is to verify whether the reduction techniques, giving a measurable effect in laboratory research, bring the same reduction effect in production buildings.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 89%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Archives of Environmental Protection

Mielcarek-Bocheńska,

Rzeźnik

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The Pork Production Reference Guide (2000) by the Prairie Swine Centre has recommended ventilation rates from as low as 0.8 CFM (cubic feet per minute) per pig in the winter to 305.1 CFM per pig in the summer (variation in ventilation linked to outside environment (temperature and relative humidity), building, and pig weight) (rates converted to CFM). Rates determined from a study of a swine building in Saskatchewan (Canada) were 182.0 CFM per pig in the beginning of summer and 19.4 CFM per pig in winter (rates converted to CFM) (outdoor temperatures ranged from −22.3 • C to 23.3 • C) [27]. These changes in ventilation rates have previously been found to affect the airborne bacterial amounts within swine buildings which result in a statistical difference of concentrations associated with winter and summer [6].…”

Section: Potential Costs Of Disease and Mitigationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reduction of Bioaerosols Emitted from a Swine Confinement Building by a Percolating Biofilter During a 10-Month Period

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The release of pathogens into the air from swine confinement buildings are mitigated through preventative measures, such as outgoing air filtration, to reduce the risk of spread to nearby barns and communities. The present study aims to characterize the effectiveness of a percolating biofilter developed by the Research and Development Institute for the Agri-environment (IRDA) to capture airborne contaminants, such as bacteria and viruses emitted from a swine finishing room. Over a 10-month period (summer, fall, and winter), air was sampled upwind and downwind of the biofilter using two wet walled cyclonic samplers. Culture-dependent and molecular biology analyses were used to track changes in microbial concentrations and populations both captured and emitted by the percolating biofilter. Results revealed a minor reduction (median reduction efficiency 14.4%) in culturable bacteria. There was a decrease in total bacteria (qPCR) (75.0%) and other qPCR targeted organisms: archaea (42.1%), coliphages (25.6%), Enterococcus (76.1%), and Escherichia coli (40.9%). The community analyses showed similar bacterial diversity in the air upwind and downwind of the biofilter although more Proteobacteria were present downwind of the unit, likely attributable to the Proteobacteria-rich nutritive solution. Evidence is provided for bioaerosols reduction by a percolating biofilter treating air from a swine fattening-finishing room.

show abstract

“…In order to simplify the sensitivity analysis, a simple point source with a stack height of 2 m, a stack diameter of 3 m, an exit velocity of 0.5 m/s, and an exit temperature of 22°C were utilized to represent the livestock odour source. The emission rate of a typical swine barn in Saskatchewan varied from 219,693 OU/s to 967,556 OU/s during the warm season (May to Oct.) (Guo et al 2006), therefore the base emission rate in the simulation was set to be 500,000 OU/s. The base of surface parameters was selected for grassland in summer season (USEPA 2004).…”

Section: Sensitivity Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Usually, the means or geometric means of the limited measured odor emission rates for each type of odor sources were used as representative values in odor dispersion and setback modeling without considering the diurnal and seasonal variations Jacobson et al 2000;Lim et al 2000). However, large variations in annual and diurnal odor emission rates have been found (Guo et al 2006;Wang 2007;Sun et al 2008). It was suggested that multiple measurements should be taken from an odor source to obtain the mean, maximum, and minimum odor emission rates for air dispersion modeling purposes.…”

Section: Surface Roughness Albedo and Bowen Ratiomentioning

confidence: 99%

Sensitivity analysis of a livestock odour dispersion model (LODM) to input parameters: Part I, source parameters and surface parameters

Yu¹,

Guo²,

Laguë³

2013

Can. Biosyst. Eng.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Yu, Z., H. Guo and C. Laguë. 2013. Sensitivity analysis of a livestock odour dispersion model (LODM) to input parameters, Part 1: Source parameters and surface parametersl. Canadian Biosystems Engineering/Le génie des biosystèmes au Canada 55: 6.1-6.11. Sensitivity analysis was conducted to evaluate a livestock odour dispersion model (LODM) with respect to its input source parameters including: stack height, stack diameter, exit velocity, exit temperature, and emission rate and surface parameters (surface roughness, albedo, and Bowen ratio). An elasticity value was calculated together with the average change of odour concentration and frequency to indicate the model sensitivity to its input parameters. Results showed that the source parameters have the similar medium impact on model predicted hourly odour concentrations and hourly odour frequencies. The sensitivity of emission rate is lower to odour frequencies than odour concentrations. Among the three surface parameters, LODM has low sensitive to surface roughness while its sensitivity to albedo and Bowen ratio is negligible. In practice, in order to reduce the odour impact from livestock operation, the most effective way is to reduce the emission rate. Keywords: Livestock odour dispersion model, sensitivity analysis, odour emission rate, surface roughness Une analyse de sensibilité a été faite pour évaluer un modèle de dispersion d'odeur provenant d'élevage (LODM) prenant en compte ses intrants qui incluent: la hauteur de sortie de ventilation, le diamètre de sortie de ventilation, la vitesse de sortie, la température à la sortie, le taux d'émission et les paramètres du surface (rugosité de surface, albedo et ratio Bowen). Une valeur d'élasticité a été calculée ainsi que la moyenne des changements de concentration et fréquence d'odeur pour indiquer la sensibilité du modèle en relation aux intrants. Les résultats ont montré que les intrants ont un impact moyen similaire sur la prédiction horaire des concentrations et des fréquences d'odeur obtenue par le modèle. La sensibilité du taux d'émission est plus faible pour les fréquences d'odeur que pour les concentrations d'odeur. Pour ce qui est des trois paramètres de surface, LODM a une sensibilité faible à la rugosité de surface et sa sensibilité est négligeable à l'albedo et au ratio Bowen. En pratique, de manière à réduire l'impact des odeurs d'élevage, le moyen le plus efficace est de réduire le taux d'émission. Mots clés: modèle de dispersion des odeurs d'élevage, analyse de sensibilité, taux d'émission d'odeur, rugosité de surface

show abstract

Annual Odor Emission Rate From Different Types of Swine Production Buildings

Cited by 18 publications

References 0 publications

Archives of Environmental Protection

Archives of Environmental Protection

Reduction of Bioaerosols Emitted from a Swine Confinement Building by a Percolating Biofilter During a 10-Month Period

Sensitivity analysis of a livestock odour dispersion model (LODM) to input parameters: Part I, source parameters and surface parameters

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About