HYDROGEN SULFIDE AND AMMONIA RECEPTOR …...Ammonia, Hydrogen sulfide, ATSDR, Minimum risk levels....

Applied Engineering in Agriculture

Vol. 24(6): 839‐851 � 2008 American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers ISSN 0883-8542 839

HYDROGEN SULFIDE AND AMMONIA RECEPTORCONCENTRATIONS IN A COMMUNITY OF MULTIPLE SWINE

EMISSION SOURCES: PRELIMINARY STUDY

S. J. Hoff, J. D. Harmon, D. S. Bundy, B. C. Zelle

ABSTRACT. A Mobile Ambient Laboratory (MAL) was placed at a residence in a community with two swine‐barn emissionsites and one land application area to observe real‐time atmospheric stability, ammonia (NH3) and hydrogen sulfide (H2S)concentrations surrounding and within the residence during a 12‐week period. Significant differences in NH3 and H2Sconcentrations with atmospheric stability were found. For NH3, significantly higher concentrations were measured inside theresidence compared to ambient NH3 concentrations, and these levels were not correlated with outside ambient conditions.For H2S, significantly higher levels were measured outside the residence for downwind occurrences during low wind (�0.45m s‐1) and low solar (365 dayscontinuous) MRL is given as 1700 parts‐per‐billion (ppb) and100 ppb, respectively. For H2S, an acute and intermediate(15‐365 days continuous) MRL is given as 70 and 20 ppb,respectively (ATSDR, 2007). These MRLs are highlyprotective dose guidelines with significant safety factors and

Submitted for review in February 2008 as manuscript number SE 7410;approved for publication by the Structures & Environment Division ofASABE in June 2008.

The authors are Steven J. Hoff, ASABE Member Engineer, Professor,Jay D. Harmon, ASABE Member Engineer, Professor, Dwaine S.Bundy, ASABE Member Engineer, Professor, and Brian C. Zelle,Research Associate; Agricultural and Biosystems EngineeringDepartment, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa. Corresponding author:Steven J. Hoff, 212 Davidson Hall, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011;phone: 515‐294‐6180; fax: 515‐294‐2255; e‐mail: [email protected].

provide an excellent resource to compare field‐collected datawhen investigating the impact of animal agriculture oncommunity residents.

LITERATURE REVIEWLiterature exists that quantifies gas emissions, in

particular NH3 and H2S, from animal production systems. Avery limited amount of data exists correlating these sourceemissions with receptor dose levels that might beexperienced by receptors in the community of animalagriculture. The literature review that follows summarizessome of the available research, focusing mainly on pigproduction. A more extensive review of the literature can befound in Hoff et al. (2002).

SWINE HOUSING AMMONIA EMISSIONSAarnink et al. (1995) studied the ammonia emission

patterns of nursery and finishing pigs raised on partiallyslatted flooring. They reported an average daily increase of16 mg NH3 day‐1 pig‐1 and 85 mg NH3 day‐1 pig‐1 for nurseryand finishing pigs, respectively, with an overall studyaverage between 0.70 and 1.20 g NH3 day‐1 pig‐1 (19‐33 gNH3 day‐1 AU‐1) for nursery pigs and between 5.7 and 5.9 gNH3 day‐1 pig‐1 (42‐43 g NH3 day‐1 AU‐1) for finishing pigs(1 AU = animal unit = 500 kg). They found an increase inammonia emission during the summer months for nurserypigs due to higher ventilation rates but this same trend was notfound for finishing pigs.

Demmers et al. (1999) investigated the ammoniaconcentration and emission rates from mechanicallyventilated swine buildings and reported concentrations andemissions for finishing pigs of 12‐30 mg NH3 m‐3 and 46.9 kgNH3 year‐1 AU‐1 (160 g NH3 day‐1AU‐1), respectively.

S

840 APPLIED ENGINEERING IN AGRICULTURE

Burton and Beauchamp (1986) studied the relationshipbetween outside temperature, ventilation system response,in‐house ammonia concentration, and the resulting emissionof ammonia from the barn ventilation air. They reported aninverse relationship between barn ammonia concentrationand outside temperature and a direct relationship betweenammonia emission and outside temperature. This trend wasattributed to the increased ventilation rates required duringthe summer to control the inside climate.

Ni et al. (2000) investigated the concentration andemission rate of ammonia from a deep‐pit swine finishingbuilding with and without the presence of animals and withpits that were roughly half full (130‐cm manure depth;240‐cm depth capacity). Without the presence of animals,they measured ammonia concentrations between 6 and15 ppm with emission rates between 40 and 58 mg NH3 h‐1m‐2 (5‐8 g NH3 day‐1 AU‐1). When the buildings werere‐stocked with pigs, exhaust air concentrations of ammoniawere on average 15 ppm with corresponding emission ratesof 233 mg NH3 h‐1 m‐2 (40‐50 g NH3 day‐1 AU‐1).

Groot Koerkamp et al. (1998) conducted an extensivestudy of ammonia emissions from swine housing facilities.Ammonia concentrations varied between 5 and 18 ppm, withaverage emission rates between 649 and 3751 mg NH3h‐1AU‐1 (16‐90 g NH3 day‐1AU‐1).

Hinz and Linke (1998) investigated the indoorconcentration and emission of ammonia from a mechanicallyventilated swine finishing facility during a grow‐out periodwhere pigs ranged between 25 and 100 kg. Ammoniaconcentration during the grow‐out varied from 10 to 35 ppmand these were inversely proportional to outside temperature.Emission rate of ammonia varied from 70 g NH3 h‐1 (38 kgaverage pig weight) to 210 g NH3 h‐1 (83 kg average pigweight) resulting in an average ammonia emission rate of66 g NH3 day‐1AU‐1.

Zahn et al. (2001) studied the ammonia emission rate fromboth deep‐pit and pull‐plug swine finishing facilities duringsummer periods. He found similar ammonia emission ratesfor these two facility types and grouped the emission data intoan overall average of 66 ng NH3 s‐1cm‐2 (311 g NH3day‐1AU‐1).

Zhu et al. (2000) studied the daily variations in ammoniaemissions from various mechanically and naturallyventilated swine housing systems. For a mechanicallyventilated swine gestation facility, they measured ammoniaconcentrations between 9 and 15 ppm, with emission ratesconsistent at about 5 ug NH3 s‐1 m‐2 (2.2 g NH3 day‐1 AU‐1).For a mechanically ventilated swine farrowing facility, theymeasured ammonia concentrations between 3 and 5 ppm,with emission rates ranging between 20 and 55 ug NH3 s‐1 m‐2(15‐42 g NH3 day‐1 AU‐1). For a mechanically ventilatedswine nursery facility, they measured ammoniaconcentrations between 2 and 5 ppm, with emission ratesranging between 20 and 140 ug NH3 s‐1 m‐2 (23‐160 g NH3day‐1 AU‐1). For a mechanically ventilated swine finishingfacility, they measured ammonia concentrations between 4and 8 ppm, with emission rates ranging between 20 and 55 ugNH3 s‐1 m‐2 (10‐26 g NH3 day‐1 AU‐1). For a naturallyventilated finishing facility with pit exhaust fans, theymeasured internal ammonia concentrations between 7 and15 ppm, with emission rates ranging between 60 and170 ug NH3 s‐1 m‐2 (28‐80 g NH3 day‐1 AU‐1).

Osada et al. (1998) investigated ammonia emission froma swine finisher over an 8‐week period comparingunder‐floor stored manure (reference) and under‐floormanure removed weekly (treatment). They reported onlyslight differences in ammonia emission rates with thereference at 11.8 kg NH3 year‐1 AU‐1 (32 g NH3 day‐1 AU‐1)and the treatment at 11.0 kg NH3 year‐1 AU‐1 (30 g NH3 day‐1AU‐1).

Jacobson et al. (2005) reported emissions of ammoniafrom a dry sow gestation and breeding building in Minnesotawith a daily mean of 15.5±6.8 g day‐1 AU‐1 and 22.1±5.9 g day‐1 AU‐1 , respectively. Hoff et al. (2005) reportedemissions of ammonia from two deep‐pit swine finishers inIowa that averaged 50.2±21.3 g day ‐1 AU‐1 (7.15±3.80 gday ‐1 pig ‐1) and 60.6±27.4 g day‐1 AU‐1 (7.71±4.31 g day‐1pig‐1) for each barn monitored.Koziel et al. (2005) reportedammonia emissions from a shallow‐pit pull‐plug swinefinisher in Texas with an average of 37.5±13.2 g day‐1 AU‐1and 38.5±20.0 g day‐1 AU‐1 for ammonia. Jerez et al. (2005)studied the ammonia emissions from a farrowing facility inIllinois and reported an average daily emission of 12.3±5.1 g day‐1 AU‐1 and 11.7±6.7 g day‐1 AU‐1 for ammonia.

SWINE HOUSING HYDROGEN SULFIDE EMISSIONSThe Ni et al. (2000) study measured the concentration and

emission rate of hydrogen sulfide in addition to ammonia.They measured hydrogen sulfide concentrations rangingfrom 221 to 1492 ppb with corresponding emission ratesbetween 1.6 and 3.8 mg H2S h‐1 m‐2 (0.22‐0.49 g H2S day‐1AU‐1). When the buildings were re‐stocked with pigs,exhaust air concentration of hydrogen sulfide averaged423 ppb with a corresponding emission rate of 9.4 mg H2S h‐1m‐2 (1.25 g H2S day‐1 AU‐1).

Zahn et al. (2001) studied the hydrogen sulfide emissionrate from both deep‐pit and pull‐plug swine finishingfacilities during summer periods and found little differencesbetween facilities grouping the emission data into an overallaverage of 0.37 ng H2S s‐1 cm‐2 (1.7 g H2S day‐1 AU‐1).

Zhu et al. (2000) studied the daily variations in hydrogensulfide emissions from various mechanically and naturallyventilated swine housing systems. For a mechanicallyventilated swine gestation facility, they measured internalhydrogen sulfide concentrations between 500 and 1200 ppb,with emission rates consistent at about 2 ug H2S s‐1 m‐2(1 g H2S day‐1 AU‐1). For a mechanically ventilated swinefarrowing facility, they measured internal hydrogen sulfideconcentrations between 200 and 500 ppb, with emission ratesconsistent at about 5 ug H2S s‐1 m‐2 (4 g H2S day‐1 AU‐1). Fora mechanically ventilated swine finishing facility, theymeasured hydrogen sulfide concentrations between 300 and600 ppb, with emission rates consistent at about 10 ug H2S s‐1m‐2 (5 g H2S day‐1AU‐1).

Jacobson et al. (2005) reported emissions of hydrogensulfide from a dry sow gestation and breeding building inMinnesota with a daily mean of 1.40±0.76 g day‐1 AU‐1 and1.55±0.66 g day‐1 AU ‐1 for the gestation and breeding barn,respectively. Hoff et al. (2005) reported emissions ofhydrogen sulfide from two deep‐pit swine finishers in Iowathat averaged 2.7±2.5 g day‐1 AU‐1 (0.40±0.46 g day‐1 pig‐1)and 4.0±3.5 g day‐1 AU‐1 (0.49±0.39 g day‐1 pig‐1) for eachbarn monitored. Koziel et al. (2005) reported hydrogensulfide emissions from a shallow‐pit pull‐plug swine finisher

841Vol. 24(6): 839‐851

in Texas with an average of 3.95±2.80 g day‐1 AU‐1 and4.45±2.84 g day‐1 AU ‐1 for hydrogen sulfide. Jerez et al.(2005) studied the hydrogen sulfide emissions from afarrowing facility in Illinois and reported an average dailyemission of 1.5±0.7 g day‐1 AU‐1 and 1.5±0.7 g day‐1 AU‐1for hydrogen sulfide.

AMMONIA EMISSIONS DURING LAND APPLICATION OFLIVESTOCK MANURE

Svensson (1994) investigated the factors that affectammonia volatilization and thus emission from landapplication of swine and cattle manure and identifiedmeteorological factors, soil/manure characteristics, andapplication technique as important. Of the meteorologicalfactors, wind speed, air temperature, and thermalstratification near the soil surface were most important.Regarding soil/manure characteristics, soil temperature, soilpH, soil porosity, and soil water content were most important.Application technique was found to have a large impact onammonia emission rates. Svensson (1994) conducted a seriesof controlled experiments to quantify the influence of thesefactors by recording the equilibrium ammonia concentrationabove the soil after a land application event. This equilibriumammonia concentration was then used to determine therelative potential of ammonia emission rates from landapplication of both cattle and pig slurry. Soil temperature wasfound to be a critical factor. At soil temperatures of 24°C, theequilibrium ammonia concentration was over three timesthat of soil temperatures at 14°C (18 vs. 5 ppm ammonia).Manure solids content was also found to be an importantcontributor to ammonia emission. Pig slurry of 5.4% solidshad an equilibrium ammonia concentration of about 4 ppm,and this increased to 23 ppm for pig slurry at 14.4% solids.Application technique had the largest effect on equilibriumammonia concentration above the soil surface afterspreading. If the slurry was injected, the average equilibriumammonia concentration 1 h after land application was lessthan 1 ppm. If this same slurry was surface‐applied with nosoil coverage, the equilibrium ammonia concentration 1 hafter land application rose to 39 ppm. Svensson (1994)further investigated the influence of land applicationtechnique using pig urine only. If urine was broadcast spreadwith no follow‐up cover, ammonia was emitted at about700 g NH3 h‐1 ha‐1 during the first 4 h. If this same slurry wasbroadcast spread with immediate covering via harrowing,ammonia emission reduced to about 120 g NH3 h‐1 ha‐1 overthe same time period, representing an 83% reduction. Hannaet al. (2000) compared odor, NH3 and H2S concentrationsnear the surface of broadcast and injected swine manure andreported a 20% to 90% reduction in concentration near thesoil surface if injected.

AMBIENT AMMONIA AND HYDROGEN SULFIDECONCENTRATIONS IN THE VICINITY OF ANIMALAGRICULTURE

Koziel et al.(2004) studied the seasonal variations inambient ammonia and hydrogen sulfide at a fence‐lineadjacent to a 50,000‐head cattle feed yard in Texas. Theyreported average hourly fall, winter, and spring ammoniaconcentrations of 429, 475, and 712 ppb, respectively, with

average hourly hydrogen sulfide concentrations of 7.73,0.73, and 2.45 ppb, respectively. The highest hourly averageammonia and hydrogen sulfide concentrations measuredwere 5,270 and 34.9 ppb, respectively. The lowestconcentrations were always measured during the night mostlikely the result of lowered volatilization.

McGinn et al.(2003) studied ammonia and selectedvolatile fatty acids adjacent to a 6,000‐, 12,000‐, and25,000‐head beef feedlot and reported 2‐ to 3‐day averagedownwind ammonia concentrations of 130, 813, and 459 �gNH 3‐N m‐3, respectively. The highest average concentrationfor the 12,000‐head feedlot was associated with the mostdensely populated feedlot of the three studied (13.3 m2animal‐1 vs. 20.0 m2 animal‐1 and 25.6 m2 animal‐1 for the6,000‐ and 25,000‐head feedlots, respectively).

SUMMARYThe literature cited indicated large variations in reported

NH3 and H2S emissions with an expected range of ammoniaemissions that varies from approximately 2 g NH3 day‐1 AU‐1(gestation) to 311 g NH3 day‐1 AU‐1 (deep‐pit or pull‐plugfinishing) and an expected range of hydrogen sulfideemissions that vary from approximately 1 g NH3 day‐1 AU‐1(gestation) to 5 g NH3 day‐1 AU‐1 (deep‐pit or pull‐plugfinishing). From land application events, less information isknown but the expected NH3 emission reported was from amaximum of 700 g NH3 h‐1 ha‐1 immediately after surfaceapplying urine to the soil and as low as 120 g NH3 h‐1 ha‐1 ifthe slurry was broadcast spread with immediate covering viaharrowing. We were unable to find information on theassociated ambient concentrations of NH3 and H2S at staticreceptor locations with simultaneous source emissionmeasurements.

PROJECT OBJECTIVESThe objectives of this research were to (1) quantify the

downwind occurrences between a single static receptor as afunction of two swine finishing facilities and one large landapplication area, (2) compare the ammonia and hydrogensulfide concentrations inside and outside of the staticreceptor 's residence as a function of downwind andnon‐downwind events, and, (3) provide correlations thatsignify atmospheric downwind events that result in thehighest ammonia and hydrogen sulfide concentrationsmeasured at the receptor.

MATERIALS AND METHODSThis research project was conducted near and within a

residence in Hamilton County, Iowa, where the potential forgas emissions from multiple agricultural operations existed.Hamilton County, Iowa is an area with 467,000 pigs(310 pigs/km2), ranked fifth in Iowa and twelfth nationally(USDA, 2007). The specific residence monitored waslocated in an area with 9,600 finishing pigs within 805 m(4717 pigs/km2). The residence occupants were non‐smokers, central air‐conditioning was used, and there wasone inside pet (feline) with a litter box located in thebasement. The residence monitored, relative to thesurrounding sources, is shown in figure 1.


1610 m

North Barn (NB)

East Barn (EB)

Land Application Area (LA)

Residence

N

Figure 1. Aerial view of monitoring site (Hamilton County, Iowa). Aerialpicture taken before swine building sources were built. Blocks shownrepresenting building sources and scaled accordingly.

A Mobile Ambient Laboratory (MAL) was positioned inthe driveway of the residence with one gas sampling tubepositioned outside the home (i.e., ambient, AB) and twosampling tubes located inside the home. The home samplingpoints were the basement (BS) and living room (LR). The BSsample location was within 7 m of the feline litter box at aheight of 2 m. The LR sample location was located on themain floor of the two‐story home 7.5 m from all cookingutilities, was within 3 m of the linoleum kitchen floor, andwas at a sample height of approximately 0.5 m. The AB andBS locations were sampled from 2 August 2003 to7 November 2003 with the LR location sampled between6 September 2003 and 7 November 2003. Figure 2 outlinesthe arrangement used at this residence.

Teflon tubing (9.5‐mm outside diameter) was used tosample all air and was fitted with a 0.45‐micron particulatefilter at the tube entrance. The sampling lines were not heatedbut checked twice daily for condensation with nocondensation reported. Air was sampled in a sequence of 120,30, and 30 min for the AB, BS, and LR locations,respectively, using a series of solenoids arranged in a bypasspumping arrangement similar to the procedure specified inHeber et al. (2002) and Jacobson et al. (2003). A series ofstabilization runs were conducted where it was determinedthat a 20‐min stabilization time was required for switchingstability. The final 100, 10, and 10 min were subsequentlyused as acceptable data for the AB, BS, and LR samplingevents, respectively. Bypass pumping through each inactivesample line was done at a rate of 1.8 L min‐1, with samplingof the active sample point at 4.2 L min‐1. Bypass pumpingwas used to ensure that each sample line had a representativeconcentration of sample air when the solenoid for eachsample point was activated, decreasing the response time ofthe analyzers.

The 1‐min averages were stored from 2 August 2003 to7 November 2003. A total of 788 2‐h measurements werecollected at the AB sampling point, 786 30‐minmeasurements at the BS sampling point, and 482 30‐minmeasurements at the LR sampling point.

N

Moile Ambient Laboratory (MAL)

ABBS

LR

LR

BS

Figure 2. Arrangement for ambient and residence air sampling.

The MAL was designed as a self‐contained laboratorycomplete with all required HVAC equipment, dataacquisition/computer needs, and all required samplinghardware. Ammonia was measured with achemiluminescence‐based analyzer (Model 17C; ThermoScientific, Inc., Waltham, Mass.) and hydrogen sulfide wasmeasured with a pulsed‐fluorescence‐based analyzer (Model45C; Thermo Scientific, Inc.). All data were collected inreal‐time (Field Point Model 1600; National Instruments,Inc., Austin, Tex.) using customized software. Two‐pointcalibrations were conducted for ammonia at 0 and 800 ppbwith hydrogen sulfide calibrated at 0 and 200 ppb using a gasdilution system (Models 700/701; Teledyne, Inc., ThousandOaks, Calif.). All calibration gases used weredouble‐certified EPA‐Protocol (Matheson Gas, Inc., Irving,Tex.). Calibrations were conducted at approximately 3‐weekintervals.

Meteorological data were measured with an on‐siteweather station (MET) positioned at a height of 1.5 m abovethe ground, at a location with no obstructions within 40 m,and a clear line‐of‐sight to all three emission sources. Thislocation and height was selected to best representatmospheric conditions present near the receptor duringsampling. Variables measured included temperature andrelative humidity (Model HMP45C; Vaisala, Inc., Woburn,

843Vol. 24(6): 839‐851

Mass.), solar radiation (sun+sky; Model LI200X; LI‐COR,Inc., Lincoln, Nebr.), and wind speed/direction (ModelCS800; Climatronics, Inc.). All data were collected at 1‐sintervals, with the 1‐min average stored for analysis.

THE EMISSION SOURCESThree primary swine emission sources were present near

the residence (fig. 1). These sources were identified as NorthBarn (NB), East Barn (EB), and Land Application (LA). TheNB (1998 built) and SB (1999 built) sources were deep‐pitswine finishing barns with each site consisting of four1200‐pig capacity barns, 15 m wide × 61 m long, and a 20‐mseparation between barns. All barns used one year,below‐floor manure storage (i.e. deep‐pit) and were all tunnelventilated. All manure was injected during land applicationusing a disc‐based tool bar (J Houle & Fils, Inc.,Drummondville, Quebec, Canada). The nearest line‐of‐sightdistance from each emission source to the residence was699 m (NB), 670 m (EB), and 92 m (LA). The wind directionscausing the residence to be downwind from these threeprimary sources were between 338° and 346° (NB), between76° and 84° (EB), and between 116° and 225° (LA). Landapplication of swine manure occurred between 11 and30 September 2003. No specific measurements werecollected at any of the emission sources.

RESULTSGENERAL ATMOSPHERIC CONDITIONS

Wind speed (WS) data were grouped by calm (WS �0.45 m s‐1), low (0.45 < WS � 2 m s‐1), and high (WS >2 m s‐1) levels for this study. During this three‐monthsampling period the WS was calm 6.8% of the time (table 1).Wind speeds were low 56.4% of the time with 66.1% of thesewind speeds occurring during low solar conditions, definedfor this study as being 0.05) comparing downwind/notdownwind events.

Based on solar conditions, no significant differences werefound (p > 0.08) between low solar ( 0.10)were found for the BS or LR sampling locations comparingcalm versus non‐calm (WS > 0.45 m s‐1) wind speeds.Significant differences were found (p < 0.01) in the AB NH3concentration during calm (35 ppb) and non‐calm (21 ppb)conditions.

Figures 3a and 4 summarize specific atmosphericconditions and the resulting ambient ammoniaconcentration. Figure 3a is a plot of the valid AB ammoniadata collected with figures 4a to 4d summarizing ABammonia for all (a) downwind building events (NB or EB)with non‐calm wind speeds (WS > 0.45 m s‐1), (b) alldownwind land application area events (LA) with non‐calmwind speeds, (c) all calm (WS � 0.45 m s‐1) and low solar(solar < 10 W m‐2) events, and (d) all measurements collectedwith non‐downwind events with non‐calm wind speeds (WS> 0.45 m s‐1). As shown in figures 3a and 4c, the AB ammonia

Table 1. General atmospheric conditions experienced during the monitoring period in percent time.Wind Speed Solar Radiation (W m‐2)[a][b]

(m s‐1) (mph)


Table 2. Atmospheric conditions of solar radiation and wind speed for all downwind events grouped by gas emission source (percent time).Atmospheric stability class (see table 1) given for north barn data with east barn and land application data following similarly.

North Barn Data

Wind Speed Solar Radiation (W m‐2)

(m s‐1) (mph)

845Vol. 24(6): 839‐851

concentrations measured during calm and low solarconditions accounted for much of the elevated AB ammoniameasurements. If a cut‐off of 50 ppb NH3 is used to detect adownwind event during measurements with a non‐calm windspeed (WS > 0.45 m s‐1), then the AB location experienced820 min at this level from either building source and 137 minat this level from the LA area during LA periods (11 to30 September 2003). During calm WS conditions, 690 minof NH3 > 50ppb were measured at AB. In total, the ABlocation experienced an NH3 concentration greater than50 ppb for 2.9% of the time.

HYDROGEN SULFIDE CONCENTRATION RESULTSH2S concentration averaged 0.4, 0.0, and 0.1 ppb for the

AB, BS, and LR sample locations, respectively (table 4), andthese differences were not significantly different (p > 0.10).The maximum H2S concentration ranged from 3.5 ppb for theBS location to 32.8 ppb for the AB sample location. When theresidence was downwind of either building source (NB orEB), the H2S concentration averaged 0.6, 0.0, and 0.0 ppb forthe AB, BS, and LR sample locations, respectively. Whensamples were collected during those times when theresidence was not downwind of any of the three sources, theH2S concentration averaged 0.2, 0.0, and 0.0 ppb for the AB,BS, and LR sample locations, respectively. These differenceswere significant (p < 0.01) for the AB location but not for theBS or LR locations (p > 0.30). When the residence wasdownwind during land application events (LA), the H2Sconcentration averaged 0.0, 0.0, and 0.0 ppb for the AB, BS,and LR sample locations, respectively.

Based on solar conditions, no significant differences werefound (p > 0.30) between low solar ( 0.30)were found for the BS and LR sampling locations comparingcalm (WS � 0.45 m s‐1) versus non‐calm (WS > 0.45 m s‐1)wind speeds. Significant differences were found (p < 0.01) inthe AB H2S concentration with significantly higherconcentrations measured during low wind (1.1 ppb) ascompared to high wind conditions (0.1 ppb).

Figures 3b and 5 summarize specific atmosphericconditions and the resulting ambient hydrogen sulfideconcentration. Figure 3b summarizes all of the AB hydrogensulfide data collected with figures 5a to 5d summarizing ABhydrogen sulfide for all (a) downwind building events (NB orEB) with non‐calm wind speeds (WS > 0.45 m s‐1), (b) alldownwind land application area events (LA) with non‐calmwind speeds, (c) all calm (WS � 0.45 m s‐1) and low solar(solar < 10 W m‐2) events, and (d) all measurements collectedwith non‐downwind events with non‐calm wind speeds (WS> 0.45 m s‐1). As shown in figures 3b and 5c, as with ABammonia, the AB hydrogen sulfide concentrations measuredduring calm and low solar conditions accounted for much ofthe elevated AB hydrogen sulfide measurements. If a cut‐offof 3 ppb H2S is used to detect a downwind event duringmeasurements with a non‐calm wind speed (WS > 0.45 ms‐1), then the AB location experienced 594 min at this levelfrom either building source and 16 min at this level from theLA area during LA periods (11 to 30 September 2003).During calm WS conditions, 384 min of H2S > 3ppb weremeasured at AB. In total, the AB location experienced an H2Sconcentration greater than 3 ppb for 1.8% of the time.

DISCUSSIONThe highest concentrations of H2S in the ambient air near

the residence (AB) occurred for combinations of low solar

Table 4. H2S measurements for the ambient (AB), basement (BS), and living room (LR). Table values summarized according to low solar (LS;


050

100150200250300350400450500

18-Jul-2003 7-Aug-2003 27-Aug-2003 16-Sep-2003 6-Oct-2003 26-Oct-2003 15-Nov-2003

Am

mo

nia

, pp

b

(a)

05

10

1520253035

404550


Hyd

rog

en S

ulfi

de,

pp

b

(b)

Figure 3. Ambient (AB) sampling location results for (a) ammonia and (b) hydrogen sulfide.

and calm wind speeds (table 5 and fig. 5c). Table 5summarizes this trend by compiling the average solar andwind speed conditions that resulted in different levels ofascending concentrations of H2S (and NH3). As shown intable 5, there is a very clear trend in the solar and wind speedconditions that resulted in higher AB concentrations ofhydrogen sulfide at the residence location. For AB H2S levelsabove 1 ppb, the average solar radiation was 9 W m‐2 with amaximum of 565 W m‐2. The wind speed conditions onaverage were low at 0.8 m s‐1 with a maximum of 4 m s‐1. Forthe entire 55,979 min of monitoring, 14‐min of ABmeasurements were at or above 20 ppb (ATSDR MRLconcentration for intermediate exposure) with 100% of thesereadings occurring at night (0 W m‐2). During these 14‐min,the average wind speed was 0.54 m s‐1 with a maximum of2.8 m s‐1. When AB measurements exceeded 30 ppb (2 outof 55,979 min), the average wind speed was calm (0.1 m s‐1).The trends were the same for AB ammonia as shown intable 5 and figure 4c. The average solar level for ABammonia concentrations >25, >100, >150, and >300 ppbwere 163, 85, 0, and 0 W m‐2, respectively. The average windspeed for these three concentration ranges was 1.4, 1.1, 0.6,and 0.4 m s‐1, respectively.

The indoor H2S concentrations (BS and LR) were verylow with no observable correlation to outside weatherconditions. The ambient H2S concentration was significantlyhigher (p20 ppb with the

847Vol. 24(6): 839‐851

(a)

050

100150200250300350400450500


Am

mo

nia

, pp

b

(b)

050

100150200250

300350400450500


Am

mo

nia

, pp

b

050

100150

200250300

350400450500


Am

mo

nia

, pp

b

(c)

050

100150200250

300350400450500


Am

mo

nia

, pp

b

(d)

Figure 4. Ambient (AB) sampling location results for ammonia with data separated by (a) downwind building events (NB and EB) with WS>0.45m s‐1,(b) downwind land application area events with WS>0.45m s‐1, (c) events with combined WS


05

10152025

3035404550


Hyd

rog

en S

ulfi

de,

pp

b

(a)

05

1015

202530

35404550


Hyd

rog

en S

ulfi

de,

pp

b

(b)

05

1015202530354045

50


Hyd

rog

en S

ulfi

de,

pp

b

(c)

05

10

1520253035

404550


Hyd

rog

en S

ulfi

de,

pp

b

(d)

Figure 5. Ambient (AB) sampling location results for hydrogen sulfide with data separated by (a) downwind building events (NB and EB) withWS>0.45m s‐1, (b) downwind land application area events with WS>0.45m s‐1, (c) events with combined WS

849Vol. 24(6): 839‐851

Table 5. Summary of solar radiation (W m‐2) and wind speed (m s‐1) levels recorded during various ranges of hydrogen sulfide and ammonia measurements for the AB sample location.

ConcentrationLevel (ppb)

Solar Conditions (W m‐2) Wind Speed Levels (m s‐1)

Ave SD Max Min Ave SD Max Min Minutes

H2S>1 9 55 565 0 0.76 0.54 4.02 0.13 2,752

H2S>15 0 0 0 0 0.45 0.63 2.86 0.13 56

H2S>20 0 0 0 0 0.54 0.80 2.80 0.13 14

H2S>70 --------No 1‐min readings recorded------ 0

NH3>25 163 242 1,091 0 1.43 1.03 7.96 0.13 15,055

NH3>100 85 183 542 0 1.12 1.12 4.38 0.13 329

NH3>150 0 0 0 0 0.58 0.31 1.34 0.13 110

NH3>300 0 0 0 0 0.40 0.22 0.94 0.13 32

NH3>500 ------No 1‐min readings recorded------- 0

maximum at 32.8 ppb. Although these 14 readings exceededthe intermediate level, the time exceeded did not constitutean intermediate exposure. None of the 1‐min H2S readingsapproached the 70 ppb acute exposure MRL concentration.

ATSDR recommends that the acute exposure MRL(continuous exposure from 1 to 14 days) to NH3 be set at1700 ppb and the chronic MRL (continuous exposure for 365days or more) be set at 100 ppb. For the monitoring periodsummarized, none of the 1‐min NH3 readings exceeded1700 ppb. Thirty‐two 1‐min readings at the AB samplinglocation were >300 ppb, with the maximum at 445 ppb.

The NH3 concentration measured at the BS samplinglocation exceeded the ATSDR recommended long‐termMRL concentration (100 ppb) 11.7% of the time. The acuteconcentration MRL concentration of 1700 ppb was exceededat the BS sampling location 2.1% of the time (329 out of15,513 min). No concentrations were measured for the LRsample location above the acute MRL concentration for NH3and H2S. The data suggests that the concentration trendsclearly do not represent the continuous exposures implicit inthe use of an MRL.

CONCLUSIONSA monitoring effort was conducted to determine the

influence that multiple swine emission sources would haveon the quality of ambient and inside home air quality for onecommunity residence. The results from this monitoring effortindicate:� Indoor concentrations of NH3 are substantially

independent of ambient NH3 concentrations but areaffected dramatically by a combination of the residents'emissions, domestic animal emissions, and recirculationof air through the central AC system.

� Indoor, residential concentrations of H2S within 92 m ofa nearby land application area and within 699 m of swinehousing units were substantially independent of emissionsfrom, and ambient concentrations associated with, thosesources.

� Based on conservative, continuous‐exposure thresholdsrecommended by ATSDR, emissions of NH3 and H2Sfrom swine buildings and land‐application areas studied inthis research do not appear to produce downwind, ambientconcentrations that would have human‐healthimplications for residents nearby.

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1,000

6-Sep 16-Sep 26-Sep 6-Oct 16-Oct 26-Oct 5-Nov

AB

Am

mo

nia

, pp

b

-6,000

-4,000

-2,000

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

BS

Am

mo

nia

, pp

b

AB BS

(a)


0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1,000


AB

Am

mo

nia

, pp

b

-2,500

-2,000

-1,500

-1,000

-500

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

LR

Am

mo

nia

, pp

b

AB LR

(b)

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

4,500

5,000


LR

Am

mo

nia

, pp

b

-6,000

-5,000

-4,000

-3,000

-2,000

-1,000

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

BS

Am

mo

nia

, pp

b

LR BS

(c)

Figure 6. Comparison between (a) AB and BS, (b) AB and LR, and (c) LR and BS ammonia concentrations.

� Significantly higher (p < 0.01) ambient hydrogen sulfideconcentration was found under either low solar (

851Vol. 24(6): 839‐851

ATSDR (Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry). 2007.Minimum Risk Levels (MRLs) for Hazardous Substances. U.S.Department of Health and Human Services. Available athttp://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/mrls/index.html.

Beychok, M. R. 1994. Fundamentals of Stack Gas Dispersion.Irvine, Calif.: Milton R. Beychok.

Burton, D. L., and E. G. Beauchamp. 1986. Nitrogen losses fromswine housings. Agricultural Wastes 15(1): 59‐74.

Demmers, T. G. M., L. R. Burgess, J. L. Short, V. R. Phillips, J. A.Clark, and C. M. Wathes. 1999. Ammonia emissions from twomechanically ventilated UK livestock buildings. Atmos. Environ.33(2): 217‐227.

Groot Koerkamp, P. W. G., J. H. M. Metz, G. H. Uenk, V. R.Phillips, M. R. Holden, R. W. Sneath, J. L. Short, R. P White, J.Hartung, J. Seedorf, M. Schroeder, K. H. Linkert, S. Pedersen,H. Takai, J. O. Johnsen, and C. M. Wathes. 1998. Concentrationsand emissions of ammonia in livestock buildings in NorthernEurope. J. Agric. Eng Res. 70(1): 79‐95.

Hanna, H. M, D. S. Bundy, J. C. Lorimor, S. K. Mickelson, S. W.Melvin, and D. C. Erbach. 2000. Manure incorporationequipment effects on odor, residue cover, and crop yield.Applied Engineering in Agriculture 16(6): 621‐627.

Heber, A. J., J. Q. Ni, T. T. Lim, P. C. Tao, A. M. Millmier, L. D.Jacobson, R. E. Nicolai, J. A. Koziel, S. J. Hoff, Y. Zhang, andD. B. Beasley. 2002. Quality assured measurements of animalbuilding emissions: Part 1. Gas concentrations. Symposium onAir Quality Measurement Methods and Technology. SanFransisco, Calif.: Air and Waste Management Association.

Hinz, T., and S. Linke. 1998. A comprehensive experimental studyof aerial pollutants in and emissions from livestock buildings.Part 2: Results. J. Agric. Eng Res. 70(1): 119‐129.

Hoff, S. J., K. C. Hornbuckle, P. S. Thorne, D. S. Bundy, and P. T.O'Shaughnessy. 2002. Emissions and Community Exposuresfrom CAFOs, Chapter 4. Iowa Concentrated Animal FeedingOperations Air Quality Study. Iowa State University and theUniversity of Iowa. Available athttp://www.public‐health.uiowa.edu/ehsrc/CAFOstudy.htm.

Hoff, S. J., B. C. Zelle, M. A. Huebner, A. K. Gralapp, D. S. Bundy,Y. Zhang, L. D. Jacobson, A. J. Heber, J. A. Koziel, and D.Beasley. 2005. NH3, H2S, CO2, PM, and odor animal emissiondata from the six‐state (APECAB) project: Swine deep‐pitfinishing buildings in Iowa. Paper No. 648. In Proc. of the 2005AWMA Annual Meeting and Exhibition. Minneapolis, Minn.:AWMA.

Jacobson, L. D., A. J. Heber, Y. Zhang, J. Sweeten, J. A. Koziel, S.J. Hoff, D. S. Bundy, D. B. Beasley, and G. R. Baughman. 2003.Air pollutant emissions from confined animal buildings in theU.S. In Proc. of the International Symposium on Gaseous andOdour Emissions from Animal Production Facilities, 194‐202.Horsens, Denmark: CIGR.

Jacobson, L. D., B. P. Hetchler, V. J. Johnson, D. R. Schmidt, R. E.Nicolai, A. J. Heber, J. Ni, J. A. Koziel, S. J. Hoff, Y. Zhang, andD. Beasley. 2005. Aerial pollutants emissions from confinedanimal buildings (APECAB) project: Dry sow buildings inminnesota. Paper no. 53. In Proc. of the 2005 AWMA AnnualMeeting and Exhibition. Minneapolis, Minn.: AWMA.

Jerez, S. B., Y. Zhang, J. W. McClure, A. J. Heber, J. Ni, J. A.Koziel, S. J. Hoff, L. D. Jacobson, and D. Beasley. 2005. Aerialpollutant concentration and emission rate measurements from aswine farrowing building in Illinois. Paper no. 1026. In Proc. ofthe 2005 AWMA Annual Meeting and Exhibition. Minneapolis,Minn.: AWMA.

Koziel, J. A., B. H. Baek, J. P. Spinhirne, and D. B. Parker. 2004.Ambient ammonia and hydrogen sulfide concentrations at a beefcattle feedlot in Texas. ASAE/CSAE Meeting Paper No.044112. St. Joseph, Mich.: ASAE.

Koziel, J. A., B. H. Baek, C. L. Bayley, K. J. Bush, P. J. Spinhirne,A. Balota, and J. M. Sweeten. 2005. NH3, H2S, CO2, PM, andodor animal building emission data from the six‐state(APECAB) project: Swine finisher buildings in Texas. PaperNo. 1043. In Proc. of the 2005 AWMA Annual Meeting andExhibition. Minneapolis, Minn.: AWMA.

McGinn, S. M., H. H. Janzen, and T. Coates. 2003. Atmosphericammonia, volatile fatty acids, and other odorants near beeffeedlots. J. Environ. Qual. 32: 1173‐1182.

Ni, J. Q., A. J. Heber, C. A. Diehl, and T. L. Lim. 2000. Ammonia,hydrogen sulfide and carbon dioxide release from pig manure inunder‐floor deep pits. J. Agric. Eng. Res. 77(1): 53‐66.

O'Neill, D. H., and V. R. Phillips. 1992. A review of the control ofodor nuisance from livestock buildings: Properties of theodorous substances which have been identified in livestockwastes in the air around them. J. Agric. Eng. Res. 53(1): 23‐50.

Osada, T., H. B. Rom, and P. Dahl. 1998. Continuous measurementof nitrous oxide and methane emission in pig units by infraredphotoacoustic detection. Transactions of the ASAE 41(4):1109‐1114.

Svensson, L. 1994. Ammonia volatilization following applicationof livestock manure to arable land. J. Agric. Eng Res. 58(4):241‐260.

USDA. 2007. The Census of Agriculture, National AgricultureStatistics Service. Washington, D.C.: USDA.

Zahn, J. A., J. L. Hatfield, D. A. Laird, T. T. Hart, Y. S. Do, and A.A. Dispirito. 2001. Functional classification of swine manuremanagement systems based on effluent and gas emissioncharacteristics. J. Environ. Quality 30: 635‐647.

Zhu, J., L. Jacobson, D. Schmidt, and R. Nicolai. 2000. Dailyvariations in odor and gas emissions from animal facilities.Applied Engineering in Agriculture 16(2): 153‐158.

Date post:	03-Mar-2021
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	4 times
Download:	0 times

HYDROGEN SULFIDE AND AMMONIA RECEPTOR …...Ammonia, Hydrogen sulfide, ATSDR, Minimum risk levels....

Documents