Electrolyzed water and its application in animal houses

Zheng, Weichao; Ni, Li; Li, Baoming

doi:10.15302/j-fase-2016109

Cited by 5 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 100 publications

(107 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Electrolyzed water (EW) was an effective disinfectant, which could be produced by electrolysis of a dilute salt solution. Three types of EW, electrolyzed water (AEW; pH < 2.7), slightly acidic electrolyzed water (SAEW; pH 5.0-6.5), and neutral electrolyzed water (NEW, pH 6.5-8.5), were considered as alternative disinfectants compared with common chemical sanitizer in food and egg industries (Hricova, Stephan, and Zweifel 2008;Huang et al 2008;Rahman, Khan, and Oh 2016;Zheng et al, 2016b). The combination of antiseptic effect of the disinfectant and washing effect of the scrubber achieved high removal efficiency of microorganisms (Aarnink et al 2011).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Optimization of a wet scrubber with electrolyzed water spray—Part I: Ammonia removal

Zheng

et al. 2019

Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Electrolyzed water (EW) is an effective disinfectant with a wide range of pH. EW in acid range was proved to be an ammonia absorbent which make it valuable for wet scrubbers used in animal feeding operations (AFOs). This study aimed to optimize the design and operating parameters of a wet scrubber with EW spray for ammonia removal, based on the size distribution of droplets, the property of EW and the reduction efficiency of ammonia. The optimized parameters included droplet size, nozzle flow rates, pH and available chlorine concentration (ACC) of EW, nozzle number at single stage, stage number, initial ammonia concentration and air speed in the duct. The ammonia removal efficiency increased with the decrease of droplet size and the increase of flow rate. The pH values of EW showed significant influence on ammonia removal efficiency (P ˂ 0.05), while ACC of the EW showed no significant influence (P > 0.05). For inlet ammonia concentration of 70 ppm with one and three spray stages, the wet scrubber with EW (pH = 1.35) spray was able to reduce 55.8 ± 4.3 % and 97.2 ± 3.0 % of ammonia, respectively, when the nozzles with 0.9 mm orifice diameter operated at a flow rate of 1.20 L min-1. Response surface analysis showed that orifice diameter, nozzle flow rate, and their combination were all significant factors impacting ammonia removal efficiency for both pH =1.35 and 5.50 at a 95% confidence level. Optimal ammonia removal efficiency was obtained at orifice diameter 0.9 mm and flow rate 1.20 L min-1 within the selected range. The results of this study demonstrated that wet scrubber with EW spray could be a very effective and feasible ammonia mitigation technology for animal feeding operation. Implications: It is difficult to effectively reduce ammonia emitted from the animal feeding operations (AFOs). Both the acidity and disinfection effects of electrolyzed water (EW) make it a potential absorbent used for spray in wet scrubber to reduce the ammonia and microorganisms. Based on some preliminary field test results, lab tests were conducted to optimize the design and operation parameters of a wet scrubber with EW spray to improve the ammonia removal efficiency. A better understanding of the application and influence factors of the wet scrubber with EW spray can contribute to effective mitigation of ammonia emission from animal houses and improve the atmosphere air quality.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Optimization of a wet scrubber with electrolyzed water spray—Part I: Ammonia removal

Zheng

et al. 2019

Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Electrolyzed water (EW) with wide pH range has been regarded as an alternative sanitizer in recent years, and spraying slightly acidic electrolyzed water (SAEW; pH 5.0-6.5) or neutral electrolyzed water (NEW; 6.5-8.5) has been introduced to lower the microbial concentrations in animal houses, mainly for surface and air disinfection (Zheng et al 2016c). The cell envelope and dehydrogenase of microbials can be damaged by the main ingredients (HOCl and ClO − ) of EW, when the contact between EW droplets and microbials occurs (Nan et al 2010;Zeng et al 2010).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Optimization of a wet scrubber with electrolyzed water spray—Part II: Airborne culturable bacteria removal

Zheng

et al. 2019

Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Airborne microorganisms, especially the pathogenic microorganisms, emitted from animal feeding operations (AFOs) may harm the environment and public health and threaten the biosecurity of the farm and surrounding environment. Electrolyzed water (EW), which was considered to be an environmentally friendly disinfectant, may be a potential spraying medium of wet scrubber for airborne microorganism emission reduction. A laboratory test was conducted to investigate the airborne bacteria (CB) removal efficiency of the wet scrubber by EW spray with different designs and operating parameters. Both the available choline (AC) initial loss rate and AC traveling loss rate of acidic electrolyzed water (AEW; pH = 1.35) were much higher than those of slightly acidic electrolyzed water (SAEW; pH = 5.50). Using one spraying stage with 4 m sec −1 air speed in the duct, the no detect lines (NDLs) of SAEW (pH = 5.50) for airborne Escherichia coli, Staphylococcus aureus, and Salmonella enteritidis removal were all 50 mg L −1 , whereas the NDLs of AEW (pH = 1.35) for airborne E. coli, S. aureus, and S. enteritidis removal increased to 70, 90, and 90 mg L −1 , respectively. The NDLs of SAEW (pH = 5.50) for airborne E. coli, S. aureus, and S. enteritidis were lower than those of AEW (pH = 1.35) at single spraying stage. Increase in the number of stages lowered the NDLs of both SAEW (pH = 5.50) and AEW (pH = 1.35) for airborne E. coli, S. aureus, and S. enteritidis. EW with a higher available chlorine concentration (ACC) was needed at air speed of 6 m sec −1 to reach the same airborne CB removal efficiency as that at air speed of 4 m sec −1. The results of this study demonstrated that EW spray wet scrubbers could be a very effective and feasible airborne CB mitigation technology for AFOs. Implications: It is difficult to effectively reduce airborne bacteria emitted from animal feeding operations (AFOs). Electrolyzed water (EW) with disinfection effect and acidity is a potential absorbent for spray in wet scrubber to remove microorganisms and ammonia. Based on the field test results, a laboratory experiment we conducted this time was to optimize the design and operation parameters to improve the airborne bacteria removal efficiency. A better understanding of the EW application in the wet scrubber can contribute to the mitigation of airborne bacteria from animal houses and improve the atmosphere air quality.

show abstract

Application of Electrolyzed Water on Livestock

Rahman

Murshed

2019

Electrolyzed Water in Food: Fundamentals and Applications

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Electrolyzed water and its application in animal houses

Cited by 5 publications

References 100 publications

Optimization of a wet scrubber with electrolyzed water spray—Part I: Ammonia removal

Optimization of a wet scrubber with electrolyzed water spray—Part I: Ammonia removal

Optimization of a wet scrubber with electrolyzed water spray—Part II: Airborne culturable bacteria removal

Application of Electrolyzed Water on Livestock

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About