aerial pollutants in swine buildings: a review of their...

Aerial Pollutants in Swine Buildings: A Review of TheirCharacterization and Methods to Reduce ThemLomig Hamon,* Yves Andres, and Eric Dumont

Laboratoire de GEnie des Procedes - Environnement - Agroalimentaire (GEPEA), UMR CNRS 6144, Ecole des Mines de Nantes, 4rue Alfred Kastler BP 20722, 44307 Nantes Cedex 3, France

*S Supporting Information

ABSTRACT: The swine industry follows a large increase ofmeat production since the 1950s causing the development ofbigger swine buildings which involves a raise of pollutantsemissions. Due to recent anthropological pressures concerningthe animal welfare, the limitation of neighborhood disturbancesand atmospheric pollutions limitations, the livestock farminghas to adapt their management methods to reduce or treat theaerial pollutants emissions. Through the diversity of livestockbarns configurations, their climatic location, their size, and theirmanagement, we thus propose hereafter a critical review of thecharacterizations of these aerial pollutants. This is realized bydistinguishing both solids and gaseous emissions and by referencing the measurements methods mainly used to analyze andquantify airborne particles, odorants, and gaseous compounds in the atmosphere of swine buildings. The origins of thesepollutants are focused and the sturdiest techniques for concentration measurements are highlighted. Finally, we discuss pollutantsabatement techniques criticizing their implementation in swine buildings and emphasizing the use of biological ways such asbiofiltration for gases and odors treatment.

■ INTRODUCTION

In 2009, the world production of pork meat represented 106million tons and the stocks were 942 million heads.1 For thelast 50 years, this production has increased by a factor of 4,especially under the influence of China which is currently themain producer (Figure 1). The production of pork meat islinked to its consumption which is mainly located in NorthAmerica, Western Europe, Russia, and Eastern Asia (Figure 2).However, problems linked to swine production differ from

one country to another because of the swine density, thenumber of heads of live animals per inhabitant and the

geographical location of swine buildings. The latter results inclimate and weather variations leading to different config-urations of livestock management and different ways ofcontrolling effluents and pollutants. Consequently, a numberof countries are involved in the treatment or abatement ofnuisances related to pork meat production, especially thetreatment of manure and gaseous emissions. Girard et al.2

recently published a review on the environmental problems ofmanaging manure to limit its impact. More generally, Figure 3summarizes the network involved to treat the liquid and solidpollutants from pigs and piggeries but does not consider gaspollutant emissions. Our aim here, therefore, is not to followthe same approach but to focus on the problems linked to theemissions of gases and airborne dust particles.Usually, different livestock management methods induce

different treatments of gaseous and airborne pollutants. Theemissions of gases, odorants, and dust are strongly dependenton the configuration of the swine building, that is, on the layoutof the livestock. Three main categories can be described inswine farming (Figure 4): (i) outdoor, (ii) indoor on litter, and(iii) indoor on a slatted floor. Outdoor farming generally occursin fields where the swine are protected from bad weather byhuts. Compared to the other two configurations, outdoor

Received: February 15, 2012Revised: October 26, 2012Accepted: November 5, 2012Published: November 5, 2012

Figure 1. World swine production as a function of time.1.

Critical Review

pubs.acs.org/est

© 2012 American Chemical Society 12287 dx.doi.org/10.1021/es3025758 | Environ. Sci. Technol. 2012, 46, 12287−12301

pubs.acs.org/est

Figure 2.World distribution of swine production in 2009 (largest circle for China corresponding to a production of 49.9 million tons; countries witha production of less than 10 000 tons are not shown).1.

Figure 3. General overview of the treatment network of liquid and solid pollutants from piggeries, adapted from FSA Environmental.3.

Figure 4. Examples of the three main types of livestock management: (a) outdoor livestock farming; (b) indoor farming on litter; (c) indoor farmingon a slatted floor.4.

Environmental Science & Technology Critical Review

dx.doi.org/10.1021/es3025758 | Environ. Sci. Technol. 2012, 46, 12287−1230112288

farming is not common in North America and Europe. Farmingon litter is used more because it allows a greater swine density;it generally takes place in a barn with a floor covered with strawor sawdust. Finally, farming on a slatted floor is the most usedmethod especially in intensive livestock management. The slatsin the floor allow the waste to fall directly into a pit. Thesethree configurations present advantages and disadvantages sotheir use depends on constraints linked to the swine farmer(savoir-faire) and the geographical location of the piggery(climate). Some combinations of these three configurationsalso exist, for example, births in the open air, weaning on a fullyslatted floor, and fattening on a partially slatted floor combinedwith litter. A major advantage of farming on a fully slatted flooris the reduced workload for farmers because the waste fallsdirectly into the pit and the litter is not handled. Nevertheless,this configuration greatly reduces the activity of swine, whereasfarming on litter keeps swine active as they play with the litter,which contributes to their welfare.Gaseous pollutants from swine buildings can be divided into

two classes: (i) odor pollution and (ii) environmentalpollution.5,6 These two aspects are necessarily linked but wechose to distinguish them by considering odor pollution only ahuman disturbance and health problem whereas environmentalpollution has an impact on nature. This discrimination into twoparts is very useful to separate the different compounds foundin swine-building air because their abundances do notnecessarily influence odors or pollutants in the same way: forexample, whereas ammonia is very concentrated in the air andis thus a strong environmental pollutant, the presence of lowconcentrations of sulfur compounds could hide the ammoniasmell.7 Thus, human perception is not necessarily the bestmeasurement method for the evaluation of environmentalpollutant concentrations. For instance, several pollutantcompounds, such as carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane(CH4), are odorless but have a marked impact on theenvironment. For this reason, in addition to human measure-ments, the “mapping” of all the compounds present and themeasurement of those at the highest concentrations must becarried out in order to choose or develop the best way toremove these odorous and pollutant compounds.Odorants and gases are often just considered nuisances in

spite of their potential hazard at high concentrations. Thepresence of dust in piggeries must also be taken into account.Dust can cause lung diseases depending on (i) the dust size, (ii)

its concentration, and (iii) the exposure time, and is thus highlydangerous especially for farm workers and pigs. Moreover, itshould be noted that odorants and gases can be fixed in or ontodust.In order to address the main problem of removing these

pollutants from the atmosphere of swine buildings (only indoorfarming is studied here), this review reports the main origins ofpollutants such as gases, odorants, and dust. To establish theirtypical concentrations, measurement techniques and methodsare discussed. These elements are of major importance toestablish an overview of pollutant concentrations and finally todetermine the optimal methods for pollutant removal.

■ CHARACTERIZATION OF AERIAL POLLUTANTS INSWINE BUILDINGS

Odors and Gases. The distinction between gases and odorscan be blurred. In fact, odors can be defined as emanationsdetected by human olfactory perception which are present inthe vapor state or dust-borne, while gases can be defined as freemolecules in the atmosphere. However, gases such as ammoniaand hydrogen sulfide are odorant. Compared to odorants, gasesrepresent the greatest abundance in terms of molar (or mass)concentrations. Gases such as ammonia (NH3), CO2, CH4, andsulfur compounds (e.g. hydrogen sulfide and mercaptans) arethe most abundant gaseous compounds in the air of swinebuildings but the measurement of their concentration is notsimple.

Gas Concentration Measurements. Gas concentrationmeasurements are not straightforward because of inconsisten-cies between the methods used. In fact, the measuringequipment is not adapted to the specific conditions of swinebuildings (temperature, relative humidity, swine activity, dust).The main methods used for gas concentration measurementsare summarized in Table 1 and subsequently explained in detail.

Olfactometry. The main aim of olfactometry is to establishcorrelations between human sensory thresholds and concen-tration (and intensity) levels of odorant products. Thecharacterization of odor based on human measurements givesinformation on intensity, character, hedonics, detectability, andadaptability.8 Thus, physiological parameters have to beconsidered in such studies; the odor detection thresholds forindividuals, their variability and their changes over time aregenerally processed via statistics. The introduction of standards,recommendations and guidelines for measurements began in

Table 1. Main Techniques for Gas Concentration Measurements in Swine Buildings

method analyzed gases range of concentrations accuracy

olfactometry odorants from ppbv up to several thousandsof ppmv

depends on analyzed compoundsand panelists

electronic noses odorants from ppbv up to several thousandsof ppmv

depends on analyzed compounds

reactant containing tubes all compounds from ppbv up to several thousandsof ppmv


colorimetry all compounds soluble in aqueous solutions from ppbv up to several thousandsof ppmv


gas chromatography depends on detectors from ppbv up to 100% depends on detectors usedphotoacoustic detection all compounds from ppbv up to several thousands

of ppmv∼1 ppbv, ∼0.1 ppmv forcommercial apparatus

FTIR spectroscopy NH3, CH4, CO2, N2O from 3 ppbv up to several tens ofppmv

∼10 ppbv

proton transfer reaction-massspectroscopy (PTRMS)

molecules with affinity to protons greater thanthose of water

from 1 ppbv up to 10 ppmv ∼1 ppbv

chemiluminescence NO analyzer NOx and NH3 from 0.2 ppmv up to severalhundreds of ppmv

0.2 ppmv



the 1980s and has continued to develop, for example, aEuropean olfactometry standard in 1996.9,10 Developments andinterlaboratory comparisons have been reviewed by vanHarreveld et al.11 The unit used is the Odor Unit (OU)which is based on the detectability of thresholds in dynamicdilution olfactometry.Electronic Nose. The development of electronic noses is

based on a biomimetic approach consisting of combiningchemical receptors for the detection of volatile chemicalcompounds. Electronic noses contain an array of sensors:organic semiconductors, sintered metal-oxides, catalytic metals,conducting polymers.12,13 These sensors respond to a range ofchemical compounds by changing their resistance in thepresence of chemical vapors. In the presence of a volatilecompound, the change in resistance of one sensor from itsinitial resistance produces a pattern of resistance changes acrossthe array of sensors; an electronic computing processor thenidentifies and quantifies the volatile compounds. The outputsignal is generated as a change in resistance at the sensorysurface, which is fast and temporary. Data are computed torecognize the pattern of the compound mixture and todiscriminate it. Statistical analysis and a database are used toreveal the composition and concentration of the volatilecompounds.Reactant Containing Tubes. Colorimetric tubes are very

useful to evaluate gas and odorant concentrations approx-imately. Historically, they were developed to replace canariesused as sensors in coal mining.14,15 These tubes are vialscontaining chemical mixtures which react with chemical agentscontained in air by changing color (e.g., bromophenol bluesodium salt reacts with NH3 changing color from yellow toblue). A known volume of air containing the compounds to bemeasured is injected into the tube; the change of color and aprinted scale enable the concentration in air of the studiedcompound to be assessed giving a “semi-quantitative”indication. Because the line of color is partially diffused, thereading cannot be precise. Moreover, the reactants contained inthe tube are sensitive to the humidity of air so the measurementis not very accurate (in comparison with measurementtechniques such as gas chromatography). In general, the useof tubes is practical for occasional measurements or the fast andlow-cost evaluation of the presence of compounds in air butthese concentration measurements do not appear to be veryaccurate compared to other methods.

Colorimetry. Colorimetric measurements are used foroccasional measurements to measure a specific compoundconcentration quantitatively. This method is based on thesolubilization of the gaseous compound in an aqueous solution(e.g., the solubilization of NH3 in an acidic solution such ashydrochloric acid): the bubbling of a known volume of aircontaining the pollutant allows the absorption of the pollutant.The pollutant is fixed in aqueous solution by adjusting the pH.By measuring the volume of air passed through the bubblingsystem, a titration with a coloring agent can determine thecompound concentration using a spectrophotometer. Thecoloring agents are commercially available. The accuracy ofsuch a method depends on the calibration of the spectropho-tometer with reference solutions. The accuracy of colorimetry isestimated at around 0.5 mg m−3 for either NH3 or hydrogensulfide (H2S) concentration measurements.

Gas Chromatography. Gas chromatography (GC) is one ofthe most popular and precise methods for both quantificationdetection and quantitative analysis. The literature associatedwith this measurement technique is thus very abundant (forexample, see Baugh,16 Karasek,17 or Grob and Barry18).Whereas the human nose can detect and discriminate odorsat concentrations even lower than those detected by gaschromatography,6 without matching chemical concentrationmeasurements with olfactometric measurements, gas chroma-tography appears to be one of the most popular techniques toseparate and identify gaseous odorant compounds. Thesesystems allow pseudocontinuous assessments, but the choice ofthe detectors is the main problem to be solved, particularly ifthe gas mixture to be analyzed is totally unknown. Note thatsome of the detectors described below (Table 2) can be usedwithout gas chromatography to enable continuous measure-ments.

Photoacoustic Detection. Photoacoustic detectors, alsocalled infrared photoacoustic detectors, enable continuousmeasurement and are currently one of the main techniquesused to measure the major gas concentrations in swinebuildings.32−38 This technique is based on the absorption bygas molecules of electromagnetic energy coming from aninfrared source. The absorption of energy induces a thermalexpansion of molecules leading to pressure waves that can bedetected via an acoustic detector. Filters enable the infraredfrequency to be adapted to obtain the highest harmonicabsorption wavelength depending on the analyzed molecules.

Table 2. Characteristics of the Main Gas Detectors in the Literature

detector principle analyzed gases, limitationsauthors using the

detectorsa

thermalconductivitydetector (TCD)

differential measurement of resistive variation of two filaments induced by thermalvariation

all gases, simple and sturdy 19

flame photometricdetector (FPD)

a blue ray for sulfur compounds or a green ray for phosphorus compounds is emitted whengas passes through a hydrogen flame; the intensity of the ray is measured via aninterferential filter and photomultiplier

specific for sulfur andphosphorus compounds

19−23

flame ionizationdetector (FID)

a hydrogen flame ionizes molecules; an electric field allows ions to be collected organic compounds, not forpermanent gas

19,20,24−27

electron capturedetector (ECD)

vector gas is ionized by β-particles; electronegative molecules lead to a fall in polarizationcurrent which is amplified

electronegative moleculessuch as halogenatedcompounds or N2O

27

mass spectrometry(MS)

gas molecules are ionized and then separated according to their m/z ratio; a detectorconverts ion current into electric signals

all compounds 19,21,24,26,28,29

ionchromatography(IC)

separation of ions and polar molecules based on their charges 30 31

aThe cited studies used these detectors for swine-building air analysis. The list is not exhaustive.



The accuracy level of such apparatus is approximately 95% witha detection limit of around 0.1 ppm for the most common gasesin swine buildings.FTIR Spectroscopy. Unlike infrared spectroscopy, which is

based on the absorption of a monochromatic light beam bymolecules, Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy involves theabsorption of a polychromatic light beam. The absorbancesignal is then deconvoluted to calculate the original absorbancespectrum as a function of the absorbance wavelength. Becauseof the fast data acquisition of spectra, FTIR can be coupled withGC. In swine buildings, FTIR spectroscopy is used to measureconcentrations of simple molecules such as NH3, CH4, CO2, ornitrous oxide (N2O).

39,40 Note that Open-Path FTIR isadapted to measure gas concentrations over relatively longpaths for atmospheric analyses.40

Proton Transfer Reaction-Mass Spectrometry. Protontransfer reaction-mass spectrometry (PTR-MS) is based onthe protonation of gas molecules and their counting with amass spectrometer. H3O

+ ions are formed by ionizing waterand by ion−molecule reactions in a drift tube.41,42 The reactionbetween gas molecules and H3O

+ ions gives a proton transferthus charging the gas molecules to be analyzed by an MS. Thissystem allows a continuous measurement of gases with a protonaffinity higher than that of water. Whereas the detection limit ofsuch an apparatus is smaller than ppb, the maximumconcentrations cannot exceed 10 ppm because the formationof protonated molecules supposes that the decrease in primaryions is negligible. Note that not all the molecules are detectable:the proton affinity with gas molecules has to be higher thanwater. This system appears to be suitable for continuous andreal-time gas concentration measurements in swine buildings.43

Chemiluminescence NO Analyzer. This technique, used toanalyze NOx-containing gas, is based on a reduction of all theNOx compounds into nitric oxide (NO) over a heated catalyst.Then, the reaction of NO with added ozone gives nitrogendioxide (NO2); this ozone reaction produces a photon which iscounted by a photomultiplier. NH3 analysis is also possible by aprimary thermal conversion of NH3 into NO by oxidation withO2. The accuracy of such commercially available apparatus isaround 0.2 ppm of NOx in air.Gas and Odor Sampling. Odor sampling has to be carried

out carefully because of the potential influence of the samplingsystem on the composition of the gas sample.44,45 Severaltechniques for gas concentration measurements can be useddirectly in swine buildings without sampling systems. Fornonmobile analyzers or for analytical techniques needingmeasurements in the laboratory, various sampling methodsare available. Condensable gases and odorants can be liquefiedand stored in cold trap collectors46 or absorbed in aqueoussolution depending on their pH.47,48 Sorption in polymers isalso commonly used: for example, activated carbon (desorptionby heating),25,49 Chromosorb (expanded form of styrene-divinylbenzene copolymer),50 Poropak or Tenax,21,26 andTedlar bags especially for olfactometry analysis.21 However,Tedlar bags can bias air samples for olfactory analysis becauseof parasite sorption causing a variation in the concentrations ofsome compounds.51 After collection on a porous polymer,samples can be concentrated by eluting with dimethyl ether orsolvent mixtures containing ether.52 The sampling methoddepends not only on the technique used to measure gas andodor concentrations but also on the chemical class of theanalyzed compounds: for example, Tenax GC appears to be

suitable for phenolic compound sampling.49 A discussion of thesampling methods is provided by Koziel et al.53

The measurement techniques referred to here presentadvantages and disadvantages, especially for the analysis ofswine-building air. For example, although gas chromatographyis very accurate and enables almost all the compounds presentto be detected, the analysis is difficult to carry out in terms ofgas chromatograph parameter optimization and these apparatusare generally nontransportable so sampling bags must be used.To the best of our knowledge, for the quantification of the mostabundant compounds (such as NH3, CO2, and CH4),photoacoustic detection, FTIR spectroscopy, and colorimetryare the most suitable methods. Although calibrations areneeded, these methods appear to be robust in terms of accuracyand stability. Colorimetry is very suitable for occasionalmeasurements while photoacoustic detection and FTIR aremore appropriate for continuous measurements. Moreover,these systems are portable and thus can be used in the field forswine buildings.

Origins of Odors and Gases. The sources of gaseous andodorous compounds are similar and arise mainly from bacterialactivities. In the case of ammonia, the two main sources offormation are urine puddles and slurry. Ammonia from urinepuddles comes from the hydrolysis of urea to ammoniacatalyzed by the enzyme urease, and carbamic acid which ishydrolyzed to form carbonic acid and ammonia.54 In thisammonia production, nitrates and amino acid deamination areinvolved55 while the decarboxylation of amino acids also causesthe emission of NH3 implicating Streptococcus, Peptostreptococ-cus, and Bacteroides.56 The formation of ammonia in a slurry pitcould be linked to the degradation of fresh urine at the surfaceor in the top layers of slurry along with anaerobic digestion inthe bottom layers of the slurry. This degradation of urea beginsas soon as it is in contact with feces containing urease: all theurea is hydrolyzed in one day.57 Note that, because dietarycrude proteins are the primary sources of nitrogen, their levelinfluences ammonia emissions.27 A reduction in dietary crudeprotein decreases the concentration of nitrogen contents infecal excretion, and especially in urine excretion, thus limitingNH3 emissions.

58 From the degradation of manure, many othergases are produced (CH4, CO2, CO, or H2S) by bacterial actionon animal wastes stored in manure pits under the buildingwhere they undergo anaerobic decomposition.59,60 H2S cansoar to acute toxic levels when the manure is agitated tofacilitate emptying of manure pits.61 Note that emission sourcesof NH3 depend on pig inventory, pig mass and phase ofproduction, house type and management, manure storage andtreatment, land application, feed nitrogen content, nitrogenexcretion rates per pig, and environmental conditions.62,63 Thefeed nitrogen content, which is one of the primary sources ofnitrogen, is one of the main parameters influencing NH3 andodor emissions.64,65

Although NH3 and H2S are abundant odorants in terms ofconcentrations in the air of piggeries, approximately 400different odorous compounds can be listed from the literature(see Supporting Information (SI) for a complete list of thereferenced compounds).19,21,24−26,28,29,40,43,46−50,66−71 In addi-tion, among the most abundant are the odorless greenhousegases (GHG) CH4 and CO2. The emission rates of gases suchas GHG or NH3 and H2S depend on the seasonal conditions,the local climate and the housing system. Consequently, theevaluation of the range of emissions rates is difficult. Forinstance, NH3 emissions range from 146 mg of NH3 h

−1 pig−1



for swine on litter up to 381 mg of NH3 h−1 pig−1 for swine on

a fully slatted floor.72,73

Typical Odor and Gas Concentrations. A literature reviewof the odorous compound emissions has been carried out byO’Neill and Phillips7 and a review of the models of ammoniaemissions is provided by Ni.74 Table 3 shows the concentration

ranges of the main gaseous compounds found in theatmosphere of swine buildings. The table is not organized asa function of the different swine-building configurationsbecause some referenced studies do not give concentrationdata. They give emission rates determined by using ventilationrates, often not indicated. Moreover, it could be difficult todetermine the gas concentrations for outdoor farming becauseof the choice of the sampling point.The range of concentrations varies from one study to

another or, more precisely, from one barn configuration toanother. Moreover, the age of swine and the climatic conditionsboth influence the concentrations and the emission rates. Thusit appears that the rationalization of such concentration data isimpossible. Nevertheless, some trends are apparent:

• The emission rates of ammonia and greenhouse gases(GHG) are linked to the configuration of the barn: forexample, whereas farming on litter is appreciated as agood image for swine welfare, the emissions of ammoniaand GHG are higher than those from farming on a fullyslatted floor (5.0 ± 0.8 g pig−1 day−1 on a slatted floor,from 12.1 ± 0.6 to 13.3 ± 3.5 g pig−1 day−1 on strawlitter)35,36 but the emissions of odors are lower (olfactoryanalysis: odorant intensity of 7.2 ± 1.2 for fattening pigson a slatted floor and 4.6 ± 1.6 for fattening pigs onstraw or sawdust litter);75

• The emission rates of gases and odorants are stronglydependent on the external conditions, that is, theemission rates depend on the seasonal and climaticparameters (ammonia emissions 56% higher during thesummer period than in other seasons, from Aarnink etal.);76

• Pig activity modifies the concentrations of pollutants:there is an emission peak in the morning for youngswine, whereas for fattening pigs a peak is observedduring the afternoon, these peaks corresponding toactivity periods.76 However, a large area allowing activitydoes not increase the emission rates per swine.77

Dust. Like other pollutants in and from swine buildings, dustrepresents the solid part of aerial emissions but its definition issometimes confused. For several authors,78,79 dust comes fromsolid particles resulting from the mechanical fracture of primarysolids so, from this point of view, dust settles under the actionof gravity. However, the term particulate matter (PM), whichrefers to solids or liquids in suspension in air, is generally used

to describe airborne particles. This term is especially used in thefields of air quality and atmospheric sciences (PM is thusequivalent to aerosol). In this literature review, the generic termof dust describes both PM (or aerosol) and sedimentary dust.We thus assume a global analysis by minimizing the complexityof the aerosol and dust studies but, by adopting the genericterm of dust, our action comes within the context of a completecharacterization of dust and its removal from the atmosphere ofswine buildings.

Dust Characterization. Reviews of the sampling equipmentused for analyzing agricultural dust have already been providedby Donham,59 Ashman80 and Carpenter.81 These have recentlybeen updated by Cambra-Lo pez et al.79 The types ofequipment mainly used in swine buildings for dust character-ization are shown in Table 4.

This table summarizes the various techniques used tocharacterize dust. Details and references are presented in thepaper by Donham.59 The concentration ranges and theaccuracy of each type of equipment are reported by Kulkarniet al.82 Other discussions on dust measurement methods can befound in Phillips et al.39 and Razote et al.83 Let us note thatmass sampling, which involves weighing a filter, can be largelymarred by uncertainties due to the small mass variation.39

Moreover, sampling operations, that is, suction flow andvelocity, strongly affect the theoretical upper size limit of thecollected particles:66 respecting the isokinetic conditionsappears to be a key factor in dust sampling.

Origins of Dust. The origins of dust are varied and theirquantity as well as their size distribution is linked to the natureof the local environment. The size of dust is generally less than50 μm with D50 less than 18 μm. The major part of dust isorganic,84 comprised of skin, hair, dried feces, urine, dandler,serum, skin squames, bacteria, yeasts, fungi, and beddingparticles.64 It also includes components from feed59,81,85 andfrom mold, pollen, grain mites, insect parts and mineral ash. Itis generally admitted that dust levels are linked tofeed.59,64,79,85−92 According to Donham,59 dust particlescontain 25% protein coming from feed. Swine also emit dust,especially bacteria.93 Although the composition of dustcertainly depends on the barn configuration and many otherparameters, Aarnink et al.84 analyzed its chemical composition,

Table 3. Concentrations of the Main Pollutant Compoundsin Swine Buildings

compounds concentrations

common name formula CAS number (mg m−3) (ppm)

ammonia NH3 7664−41−7 0−18 0−40carbon dioxide CO2 124−38−9 629−5220 350−2900methane CH4 74−82−8 1.3−24.4 2.0−37.3hydrogen sulfide H2S 7783−06−4 0.004−2.4 0.003−1.7nitrous oxide N2O 10024−97−2 0.5−0.6 0.28−0.33 Table 4. Main Equipment for the Analysis of Dust (by

Donham 1986).59

mass sampling all dusts use of paper fiber or glass fiber filtersseparation by size cyclone

cascade impactorvertical elutrior

particle counting light scatteringbeta attenuationlaser light microscopyscanning electron microscopy

Electrostatic Precipitationchemical analysis endotoxin

proteaseaflatoxinprotein analysis

Antigenic Analysismicrobial analysis andersen sampling

nucleopore filter analysisslit sampling



as summarized in Table 5, and showed it to be similar for bothairborne and settled dusts.Generally, dust concentrations can also be linked to swine

activity.94 Hence, they are higher in nurseries because thetemperature there is higher than in finishing barns and becauseyoung swine activity leads to high levels of dust.66 Somemodels95,96 have been developed to characterize the dustemission rates taking into account parameters such as livestockconfiguration, and seasonal and diurnal variations. Thesemodels show that the presence or absence of swine does notseem to influence significantly the distribution of concen-trations, which appears to contradict the experimental results.To sum up, dust emission rates mainly depend on swine

activity and barn management tasks (weighing, cleaning) aswell as feed, which is largely made up of organic matter(Dawson cited by Robertson).64,86 The dust emission frombuildings (building materials) is negligible.Let us note that a part of or all gases and odorants may be

fixed onto dust.46,59,90,97,98 Hammond et al.67 also claimed thatodorants are adsorbed onto dust as opposed to existing in thegas phase: 2% in weight of the dust mass is attributed toodorants and dust is odorless after methanol extraction.Dust Concentrations. Mass concentrations of dust listed in

the literature range between 2 and 20 mg m−3. However, likefor odorant compounds, they mainly depend (ascending orderof importance) on swine activity, inside and outside temper-atures, relative humidity, feeding quantities, feeding method,swine mass, and ventilation rate.88 Swine activity is generallylinked to swine density in the barn, that is, to the lack of space,the combination of different groups of animals, and thetechniques of manipulation used by the farmer.64 After a periodof high activity, a reduction in dust concentration can beachieved by ventilation.86 Feeding also affects the dustconcentrations99 because, for example, feeding directly ontothe floor twice a day is less emitting than self-feeding but thesedimentary dust emissions are higher for feeding on thefloor.88 The concentration of dust returns to its normal level in100 min after a feeding operation.86 Measurements of dustemission rates show that they are greater during the day than atnight.100 Several authors have reported that there is nocorrelation between the age of swine and dust concen-trations.101 The results vary: some authors suggest that thedust concentrations are lower in fattening rooms than in birthrooms or nurseries102 while others claim that concentrationscould be higher in fattening rooms than in nurseries.103

Nevertheless, the literature mainly reports that dust concen-trations are lower in barns with a fully slatted floor than inthose with a nonslatted floor.The analysis of the dust size distribution is of major

importance to evaluate the impact on farmer and animal health,and to design dust abatement systems. Particles with a diameterless than 5 μm are thus estimated at 70% in number,88 whereasthose with a diameter less than 2.6 μm make up 50%.87

Maghirang et al.104 showed that the size distribution functionfollows a log-normal distribution with a median diameter of 13μm. Particles with a diameter between 0.1 and 10 μm do notcontain many microorganisms105 but smaller ones presenthigher concentrations of endotoxins than larger particlessuggesting that the smallest contain a large amount of fecalmatter.103 Between 28% and 31% of the particles allowing theformation of bacterial colonies have a size less than 4.7 μm.106

Impact of Pollutants on Human and Swine Health.Finally, the impact on human health is one of the firstpreoccupations of pig farmers. Odor nuisance can be defined asthe FIDO:107 frequency, intensity, duration, and offensive-ness.5,7 Threshold regulations are now discussed.11,108−110

Table 6 shows the exposure limits of the most abundant

gaseous compounds in the U.S., France, and Germany. Majorsignificant differences are observed for NH3, H2S, and N2Othresholds between these countries. These limits are stronglydependent on the local legislation, when it exists. Two limitsare highlighted: (i) the short-term exposure limit (STEL)corresponds to a maximum of 15 min exposure, (ii) the time-weighted average (TWA) corresponds to an exposure of 8 h.Beyond these exposure times, the worker’s health could beaffected. These values are sometimes exceeded in intensivelivestock farming.

Table 5. Chemical Composition of Dust from Different Sources.84

dry matter ash N P K Cl Na

sources (mg g−1) (mg g−1) (mg g−1) (mg g−1) (mg g−1) (mg g−1) (mg g−1)

airborne dust 921 150 67.0 14.7 27.8 7.83 8.18settled dust 910 120 59.0 11.4 24.4 7.32 6.60feed dust 903 26 21.8 3.4 10.2 7.12 3.58feces dust 915 149 40.8 20.5 12.7 1.10 3.83skin particle dust 922 114 67.8 10.7 33.2 15.50 13.00

Table 6. Main Gases in the Atmosphere of Swine Buildingsand Exposure Limits

USA France Germany

ACGIHb NIOSHc

25 ppm TWA 25 ppm TWA 10 ppm TWA 20 ppm TWA35 ppm STEL 35 ppm STEL 20 ppm STEL5000 ppm TWA 5000 ppm TWA 5000 ppm

TWA30 000 ppmSTEL

30 000 ppmSTEL

1000 ppm TWA10 ppm TWA 10 ppm ceiling

(10 min)5 ppm TWA 5 ppm TWA

15 ppm STEL 10 ppm STEL50 ppm TWA 25 ppm TWA 50 ppm TWA 100 ppm TWA

compounds

common name formula CAS number OSHAa

ammonia NH3 7664−41−7 50 ppm TWAcarbon dioxide CO2 124−38−9 5000 ppm TWAmethane CH4 74−82−8hydrogen sulfide H2S 7783−06−4 20 ppm ceilingnitrous oxide N2O 10024−97−2

aOSHA: Occupational Safety and Health Administration. bACGIH:American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists.cNIOSH: National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.



Considering dust, the main proportion of respirable particleshas a diameter less than 5 μm.91 Indeed, particles can beclassified according to where they are deposited:81

- >10 μm: nasal passage;- 5−10 μm: upper respiratory tract;- <5 μm: lungs.

Several authors have assessed the respirable particles to be7% of the total dust amount,111 whereas others have estimatedthese amounts at between 9% and 13%.91 This presence ofaerosols can lead to the development of pathologies by pigfarmers and especially by young workers (respiratory diseasesand loss of respiratory capacities)112 and the time of exposureto the swine-building atmosphere can be linked to changes inrespiratory capacities, especially expiratory capacities.113 Thesepathologies are also coupled to the presence of allergens, suchas aero-allergens, which are found in swine feed.114 Respiratorydiseases are possibly linked to the level of endotoxins but not tothe concentrations of dust.115

■ TREATMENT OF GASES, ODORS, AND DUSTAfter describing their methods of measurement, their origins,and their typical concentrations, the treatment of both gaseous-odorant and dust pollutants is now considered. It concernstheir removal or at least their reduction. Two approaches canbe highlighted: (i) the avoidance of pollutant formation has tobe preferred but (ii) the abatement of pollutants is oftenrequired. Treatment process designs need to consider bothconcentrations and pollutant flow rates.Ventilation Rate Measurements. To determine the

emitted pollutant amounts in a swine building, measurementsof the ventilation rates are needed. These are generally between10 and 100 m3 h−1 pig−1 (fattening pigs of 100 kg)116 but theyalso strongly depend on the swine building configuration andthe ventilation rate is regulated in order to keep a constanttemperature inside the swine building. It is thus dependent onthe outside temperature and seasonal and climatic parameters,making it a key issue for pollutant removal. Because thetemperature in livestock buildings is generally regulated byadjusting the ventilation rate, dust levels are high (from 2 to 20mg m−3) with loads increasing during winter.59 The airregeneration rate is lower than during summer and this causesan increase in the dust concentration.To carry out the regulation, calibrated anemometers are

generally fixed at the inlet or outlet of the ventilation casingsafter checking that the flow profile is uniform without anyvorticity.33

The measurement techniques presented in a literature review(fan operation monitoring, impeller anemometers, CO2balance, heat balance, monitoring of wind velocity)117 arerelatively easy to implement at the laboratory scale butdifficulties appear when performing measurements in swinebuildings. Indeed, because of the high humidity rates, theelectronic apparatus is affected. Moreover, strongly acidic orbasic gases corrode metallic surfaces and high dust concen-trations can lead to blockages. Swine activity can also damageequipment.A complete international study concerning the assessment of

atmospheric pollution from swine buildings (pollutant andventilation rate measurements) was carried out under thesupervision of Phillips and Wathes: this study described acomplete methodology for the measurement techniques in aninternational context.33,39,73,89,100,116,118−121

Dust Abatement. Dust emissions can be limited by theprevention of their formation.93 The use of additives, thecleaning of surfaces, oil or water spraying and the control ofventilation rates by ventilation case cleaning can all restrict dustemissions.122 Some recommendations that have been given64,86

include

• using feed additives such as animal fat or vegetable oil(e.g., soybean oil 123)

• changing the shape of the feed and its mode of issue124

• paying attention to the feed delivery method as thisstrongly generates dust

• studying the kind of feed, which is generally driedgranules;

• having smooth rather than rough internal surfaces inbarns;

• spraying oil and soap mixtures into the air for shortperiods, several times a day. Oil or water spraying is alsoan abatement technique which is widely used in swinebuildings but, whereas water spraying seems to beinefficient, the spraying of oil and water mixturescombined with a feed enhanced by fat significantlydecreases dust concentrations.125−131 Although oilspraying is effective for several hours,132 this techniquecan affect human respiratory capacities.133 It is thusrecommended to use vegetable oils, not mineral ones.134

The animal production performances are not modifiedafter spraying an oil and water mixture;135

• sucking up dust is tedious work and its efficiency fordecreasing dust concentration has not been proven.

The use of fiber filters, wet scrubbers, and electrostaticimpactors also decreases dust concentrations.122 Filtrationappears to be the best way to achieve dust concentrationreduction in terms of cost and removal efficiency (up to 99%efficiency).136,137 It is a good compromise between the cost ofthe operation and the fall in concentrations.81 Nevertheless,when filtering using glass or paper fiber filters, cleaning has tobe regular and consistent, whereas for electrostatic impactors orwet scrubbers the frequency of maintenance is less important.Electrostatic impactors, which are relatively simple systems todesign,138 can halve the respirable amounts of dust in birthbarns and reduce them by 33% in nurseries. The wet scrubbingmethod is currently being rapidly developed. It is described byLemay et al.139 and Guingand.140

Odor and Gas Treatments. Like dust emission limitation,gas and odorant emission can be restricted at source or usingpalliative methods.

Modification of Feed. The main origins of odors and gasesare fecal material and urine thus modifying feed can affect theemanations. Even though a decrease in proteins does notchange the emission of GHG such as CO2 or CH4, the amountof NH3 emitted is greatly reduced. Hence, for each percentreduction of crude protein in feed, the emission rate of NH3decreases by 9.5%.27 Feed additives include clay minerals,zeolites, algae, bacteria, enzymes, or chemical products such asacids.

Slurry Additives. Additives can be added to slurry ormanure.141,142 H2S emissions are decreased by adding nitritesor molybdates involving a mechanism of inhibition of sulfate-reducing bacteria and a mechanism of oxidation of sulfide.22

Peroxides decrease the generation of odorant compounds143

such as phenolics by a mechanism of oxidation by peroxidaseand peroxide used as an electron acceptor.144 However, the



efficiency of such additives varies from one livestock barn toanother. By increasing the pH of the manure (the optimalgrowth pH is between 6 and 8), the growth of odor-producingbacteria can be reduced.56

Separation of Liquid and Solid Phases of Manure. Asalready seen previously, NH3 emission comes mainly from thecatalytic effect of urease, contained in feces, on urine. Inlivestock barns where manure is stored in pits under a fullyslatted floor, regular emptying significantly decreases theemission of NH3 and odorant compounds.145 To limit handlingoperations, the separation of fecal material and urine can reduceodorant emissions.146 The separation of liquid and solid phasescan be achieved using scraping systems147 (Figure 5) orconveyors.148 This separation does not affect the CO2 and CH4emissions but halves the NH3 emissions.149

Modification of Litter. Another way to control gaseous andodorant emissions is to modify the type of litter. For 60 years,using a fully slatted floor for intensive livestock farming hasbecome standard practice but using litter seems a better optionfor swine welfare and leads to a decrease in olfactory nuisance.The literature on litter management is very abundant and twomain litter types are distinguished: straw and sawdust. The useof straw litter generates more NH3 than that of sawdust butdust emissions are lower with straw.151 Moreover, N2Oemissions are higher with sawdust;152 these litters also emitnitrous oxides.153 The thickness of the litter is a key factor forthe optimization of barn management and it also influences thegaseous emissions.154 For some authors, NH3 emissions arehigher when using litter (12.1 ± 0.6 g of NH3 pig

−1 day−1) thanwith a fully slatted floor (5.0 ± 0.8 g of NH3 pig

−1 day−1),155

whereas for others NH3 emissions are lower156 or unchanged34

using a slatted floor. It seems that NH3 emissions are greaterwhen using a partially slatted floor.157

Essential Oil Spraying. The use of essential oils or artificialodorants has been studied. This application reduces the odorintensity and causes a decrease in the concentration of sulfur-containing compounds. Moreover, essential oils do not onlyhide odorants but are also antimicrobial agents.23

Ozone Treatment. Ozone treatment has an effect onodorant organic molecules with double chemical bonds,conjugated rings or heteroatoms.158 The commercial systemsshow a 49−62% decrease in fatty acids159 as well as a decreasein NH3 concentrations but olfactometric analysis detects higherodorant levels.160

Manure Storage Covering. Manure storage pits are oftenoutdoors and cause strong odor nuisances. It is thus feasible tocover them to reduce odorant emissions161,162 and especiallyNH3 and H2S emissions by using biocovers.163

Wet Scrubbers. Wet scrubbers, already mentioned in thisreview for dust abatement, are relatively easy to set up withinthe framework of ultimate treatments, that is, after methods tolimit the generation of odorants and gases have been installed.Scrubbers are compact and the control of temperature and pHis easy. The transfer from the gas phase to the liquid phase isprovided by the solid phase of the scrubber which constitutesthe core of such an apparatus.164 The efficiency for NH3removal is between 60% and 100% for an acid wet scrubbertreating between 4000 and 5000 m3 h−1 of air. A bibliographicreview by Lemay et al.139 describes the technological progressof such systems. These techniques require a post-treatment ofthe aqueous solution and are very selective for acidic or basiccompounds if the aqueous solution is basic or acidic,respectively.

Bioscrubbers and Biofilters. Bioscrubbers are derived fromwet scrubbers: their function is the same but a bioreactorenables the post-treatment of the aqueous solution after gassolubilization (Figure 7). The performances of such a systemare comparable to those of wet scrubbers. Compared to wetand bioscrubbers, biofilters (Figure 8) have the advantage ofnot being selective for only acidic or only basic compounds: allthe compounds, even GHG such as CH4, can be treated in thesame biofilter column.2,166 Indeed, the biofilter is made of afilling which allows the growth of microorganisms participatingin the reduction of pollutants. The filling can be seeded or notas the microbial development is natural. The filling is generallya natural material such as wood shavings or peat. The humidityrate is kept constant by preliminary moistening or byintermittent watering. The biological action of microorganismsis based on their capacity to use the substrate of organic andmineral molecules to achieve their metabolism in aerobiosis. Itis important to maintain the operating conditions by addingwater, carbon and nitrogen sources, energy by keeping anadequate temperature, and mineral elements. A recent andthorough review has been provided by Chen and Hoff.167

The first aim of the swine farmer is to rear swine. Theproblem of pollutant abatement could be seen as a secondary

Figure 5. Example of a scraping system.150.

Figure 6. Example of an air scrubber, adapted from Melse andOgink.165.



issue. Thus, the main constraints in the choice of dust, gas andodor abatement techniques could be summed up as theinvestment cost, the working cost, and the maintenance time.To respect these criteria, one of the first solutions is to adaptthe design of the swine building from its construction, forexample, planning a separation of solid and liquid phases ofmanure. Moreover, dust pollution could be decreased bycombining both dust generation reduction (e.g., feed additives,feed delivery method optimization) and dust emissionreduction using cyclones. Like for dust, odor and gas emissionscould be limited by adding additives to the feed; emissionscould also be reduced by modifying the litter. The use ofbiofiltration appears to be the most suitable technique for active

Figure 7. Example of a bioscrubber, adapted from Kennes et al.168.

Figure 8. Example of the biofiltering principle, adapted from Nicolaiand Janny.169.

Table 7. Description of Biological Processes for Gas and Odor Treatments, Adapted from Jorio and Heitz170 and Melse andOgink.165

process principles advantages and ranges of work disadvantages and limitations

chemicalscrubber

continuous transfer of pollutants from the gas phase to the liquidacidic phase

good control of pH use of large volume of acid solution

inert filling continuously sprayed in closed loop removal efficiency: 90−99% electricity consumption: 50 kWh per growingfinishing pig place per year

fraction of trickling water recirculated; fraction of waterdischarged and replaced by fresh water

loading volume: <75 000 m3 h−1 large amounts of water to treatconcentration: <0.5 g m−3 high working costs

bioscrubber continuous transfer of pollutants and oxygen from the gas phaseto the fixed liquid biofilm

concentration: <0.5 g m−3 low surface area for the gas−liquid exchange

inert filling continuously sprayed by liquid in closed loop targeted pollutants: low Henryconstant (H < 1)

difficult to start up, no break possible

degradation of pollutants by microorganisms fixed onto thefilling

good control of nutrients and pH production of liquid wastes

removal of excess biomass by sedimentation not difficult to keepmicroorganisms active

high working costs

biofiltration transfer of pollutants and oxygen from the gas phase to thebiofilm fixed onto the filling

concentration: <1 g m−3 large area for high concentrated emissions

porous and wet filling removal efficiency: 80−99% difficult to maintain operating conditions(temperature, pH, humidity)

biological waste-based filling loading volume: <100 000 m3 h−1

degradation of pollutants by microorganisms fixed onto thefilling

easy start-uplow working costsupgrading biological wastefew secondary wastespossible discontinuous operations



abatement of gases and odors in terms of investment andmaintenance costs.170 The biofiltering solution is also easy tomaintain because of its significant autonomy compared to theother referenced techniques which need a regular upkeep.Nevertheless, the optimization of the biofiltering solution has tobe compared to other biological methods of pollutant removal,such as those presented in Table 7. It thus appears that,according to the constraints of the rearing, biofilters are a goodcompromise for the removal of pollutants in terms of theinvestment and working costs and the maintenance time.Some recommendations could be made to improve the

design of biofilters used in the treatment of gases and odorsfrom swine buildings.167 The “ideal” biofilter medium is amixture of compost and wood chips, but wood chips alone aresufficient assuming bacteria and nutrients are present in the airof swine buildings. The recommended depth of medium isbetween 0.25 and 0.50 m. In these conditions, the pressuredrop should be limited to 50 Pa. Empty bed residence times(EBRTs) between 4 and 10 s are sufficient to control odors andVOCs at temperatures between 20 and 40 °C (the optimal is35 °C). The lifetime of the medium is estimated at five years.In comparison with other treatment methods, biofiltration

appears to be the sturdiest and least expensive technique. Inaddition, the environment of swine buildings seems to beappropriate for biofilter operation because of the high humiditylevel and constant temperature at the outlet of the ventilationcasings after the pathway above the manure storage pit.171 Asan example, a biofilter filled with wood shavings, without dustremoval, with a humidifier, and for an inlet air flow between923 and 1,898 m3(air) m−3(filling) h−1 allows a 64−69%decrease in NH3 and an 85−92.5% reduction in odorants.172

Although strong fluctuations in efficiency can be observeddepending on the seasonal conditions,169 biofiltration is themost cost-effective technology for treating the ventilationexhaust air.

■ CONCLUSIONSThis literature review describes the complexity of pollutantremoval from the atmosphere of swine buildings. The diversityof livestock barn configurations, their climatic location, theirsize, and their management are so varied that the rationalizationof the experimental data of the pollutant abatement methods isdifficult, such as the simulation of such a system working in acomplex environment with the aim of generalizing a givenabatement method.This review shows that the main gaseous pollutants are NH3

(up to 18 mg m−3), CO2 (up to 5220 mg m−3), CH4 (24.4 mgm−3), and sulfur compounds (up to 2.4 mg m−3 for H2S). Fordust, the concentrations range from 2 to 20 mg m−3. Forventilation rates, the flows are generally between 10 and 100 m3

h−1 pig−1.The large increase in swine production has led to an

intensification of livestock management and thus an increase inpollutant emissions. If the production of such pollutants cannotbe avoided, then solutions for their reduction have to beforeseen. In terms of efficiency, low cost, and low maintenanceoperations, biofiltering techniques seem to be appropriate foraerial pollutant abatement.Through this literature review, we thus demonstrate that the

problems of odor and gas treatment are intrinsically linked tothe problems of dust removal because some gaseouscompounds can be fixed onto dust and some treatmentmethods are common to both pollutants.

■ ASSOCIATED CONTENT

*S Supporting InformationList of the 414 odors and gases referenced in the atmosphere ofswine buildings. This material is available free of charge via theInternet at http://pubs.acs.org.

■ AUTHOR INFORMATION

Corresponding Author*Phone: +33-251-858-665; fax: +33-251-858-199; e-mail:[email protected].

NotesThe authors declare no competing financial interest.

■ ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We thank the French Environment and Energy ManagementAgency for financial support (project No. 0974C0229).

■ REFERENCES(1) Statistics from the Food and Agriculture Organization of theUnited Nations. http://faostat.fao.org (accessed November 7, 2012).(2) Girard, M.; Nikiema, J.; Brzezinski, R.; Buelna, G.; Heitz, M. Areview of environmental pollution originating from the piggeryindustry and of the available mitigation technologies: towards thesimultaneous biofiltration of swine slurry and methane. Can. J. Civ.Eng. 2009, 36, 1946−1957.(3) Alternative Systems for Piggery Effluent Treatment, Pig WasteReportFinal20000407 5492/1; Queensland FSA Environmental:Toowoomba, Australia, 2000; http://www.epa.sa.gov.au/xstd_files/Industry/Report/piggery01.pdf (accessed November 7, 2012).(4) Kruger, I.; Taylor, G.; Roese, G.; Payne, H. Deep-litter housingfor pigs. Primefacts, Profitable & Sustainable Primary Industries NSWDPI 2006, 68, 1−9.(5) Mackie, R. I.; Stroot, P. G.; Varel, V. H. Biochemicalidentification and biological origin of key odor components inlivestock waste. J. Anim. Sci. 1998, 76, 1331−1342.(6) Sucker, K.; Both, R.; Winneke, G. Adverse effects ofenvironmental odours: reviewing studies on annoyance responsesand symptom reporting. Water Sci. Technol. 2001, 44, 43−51.(7) O’Neill, D. H.; Phillips, V. R. A review of the control of odournuisance from livestock buildings: Part 3, properties of the odoroussubstances which have been identified in livestock wastes or in the airaround them. J. Agric. Eng. Res. 1992, 53, 23−50.(8) Shukla, N. P. Air pollution by odour: Sources, identification andcontrol. Rev. Environ. Health 1991, 9, 239−244.(9) Air Qualitydetermination of Odour Concentration by DynamicOlfactometry; VDI guideline: DIN EN 13725, 2003.(10) McGinley, M. A.; McGinley, C. M. The new Europeanolfactometry standard: implementation, expertise, and perspectives. Airand Waste Management Association 94th Annual Meeting and Exhibition;Orlando, FL, 2001.(11) Harreveld, A. P.; van; Heeres, P.; Harssema, H. A review of 20years of standardization of odor concentration measurement bydynamic olfactometry in Europe. J. Air Waste Manag Assoc 1999, 49,705−715.(12) Persaud, K. C.; Khaffaf, S. M.; Hobbs, P. J.; Sneath, R. W.Assessment of conducting polymer odour sensors for agriculturalmalodour measurements. Chem. Senses 1996, 21, 495−505.(13) James, D.; Scott, S. M.; Ali, Z.; O’Hare, W. T. Chemical sensorsfor electronic nose systems. Microchim. Acta 2005, 149, 1−17.(14) Lamb, A. B.; Hoover, C. R. Adsorbent, U.S. Patent 1,321,061,1919.(15) Lamb, A. B.; Hoover, C. R. Gas detector, U.S. Patent 1,321,062,1919.(16) Baugh, P. J. Gas Chromatography: A Practical Approach; OxfordUniversity Press: Oxford, U.K., 1993.



http://pubs.acs.org

mailto:[email protected]

http://faostat.fao.org

http://www.epa.sa.gov.au/xstd_files/Industry/Report/piggery01.pdf

http://www.epa.sa.gov.au/xstd_files/Industry/Report/piggery01.pdf

(17) Karasek, F. W. Basic Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry:Principles and Techniques; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands,1988.(18) Grob, R. L.; Barry, E. F. Modern Practice of Gas Chromatography,4th ed.; Wiley-Interscience: Hoboken, N.J., 2004.(19) Zahn, J. A.; Hatfield, J. L.; Laird, D. A.; Hart, T. T.; Do, Y. S.;DiSpirito, A. A. Functional classification of swine manure managementsystems based on effluent and gas emission characteristics. J. Environ.Qual. 2001, 30, 635−647.(20) Banwart, W. L.; Bremmer, J. M. Identification of sulfur gasesevolved from animal manures. J. Environ. Qual. 1975, 4, 363−366.(21) Schiffman, S. S.; Bennett, J. L.; Raymer, J. H. Quantification ofodors and odorants from swine operations in North Carolina. Agric.For. Meteorol. 2001, 108, 213−240.(22) Predicala, B.; Nemati, M.; Stade, S.; Lague, C. Control of H2Semission from swine manure using Na-nitrite and Na-molybdate. J.Hazard. Mater. 2008, 154, 300−309.(23) Kim, K.-Y.; Koh, H.-J.; Kim, H.-T.; Kim, Y.-S.; Roh, Y.-M.; Lee,C.-M.; Kim, C.-N. Odor reduction rate in the confinement pig buildingby spraying various additives. Bioresour. Technol. 2008, 99, 8464−8469.(24) Miner, J. R.; Kelly, M. D.; Anderson, A. W. Identification andmeasurement of volatile compounds within a swine building andmeasurement of ammonia evolution rates from manure-coveredsurfaces. In American Society of Agricultural Engineers, 1975; pp351−353.(25) Lunn, F.; Vyver, J. van de Sampling and analysis of air in pighouses. Agric. Environ. 1977, 3, 159−169.(26) Zahn, J. A.; Hatfield, J. L.; Do, Y. S.; DiSpirito, A. A.; Laird, D.A.; Pfeiffer, R. L. Characterization of volatile organic emissions andwastes from a swine production facility. J. Environ. Qual. 1997, 26,1687−1696.(27) Le, P. D.; Aarnink, A. J. A.; Jongbloed, A. W. Odour andammonia emission from pig manure as affected by dietary crudeprotein level. Livest. Sci. 2009, 121, 267−274.(28) Wright, D. W.; Eaton, D. K.; Nielsen, L. T.; Kuhrt, F. W.;Koziel, J. A.; Spinhirne, J. P.; Parker, D. B. Multidimensional gaschromatography-olfactometry for the identification and prioritizationof malodors from confined animal feeding operations. J. Agric. FoodChem. 2005, 53, 8663−8672.(29) Blanes-Vidal, V.; Hansen, M. N.; Adamsen, A. P. S.; Feilberg, A.;Petersen, S. O.; Jensen, B. B. Characterization of odor released duringhandling of swine slurry: Part I. Relationship between odorants andperceived odor concentrations. Atmos. Environ. 2009, 43, 2997−3005.(30) Haddad, P. R.; Jackson, P. E. Ion Chromatography: Principles andApplications; Elsevier: New York, 1990.(31) Kim, K. Y.; Ko, H. J.; Lee, K. J.; Park, J. B.; Kim, C. N. Temporaland spatial distributions of aerial contaminants in an enclosed pigbuilding in winter. Environ. Res. 2005, 99, 150−157.(32) Rom, H. B. Evaluation of photo-acoustic ammonia detection inlivestock buildings, In Proceedings of Ageng International Conference onAgricultural Engineering; Milano, Italy, 1994; pp.238−239.(33) Hinz, T.; Linke, S. A Comprehensive Experimental study ofaerial pollutants in and emissions from livestock buildings. Part 1:Methods. J. Agric. Eng. Res. 1998, 70, 111−118.(34) Nicks, B.; Laitat, M.; Farnir, F.; Vandenheede, M.; Desiron, A.;Verhaeghe, C.; Canart, B. Gaseous emissions from deep-litter penswith straw or sawdust for fattening pigs. Anim. Sci. 2004, 78, 99−107.(35) Philippe, F.-X.; Laitat, M.; Canart, B.; Vandenheede, M.; Nicks,B. Gaseous emissions during the fattening of pigs kept either on fullyslatted floors or on straw flow. Animal 2007, 1, 1515−1523.(36) Philippe, F.-X.; Laitat, M.; Canart, B.; Vandenheede, M.; Nicks,B. Comparison of ammonia and greenhouse gas emissions during thefattening of pigs, kept either on fully slatted floor or on deep litter.Livest. Sci. 2007, 111, 144−152.(37) Costa, A.; Guarino, M. Definition of yearly emission factor ofdust and greenhouse gases through continuous measurements in swinehusbandry. Atmos. Environ. 2009, 43, 1548−1556.(38) Lovanh, N.; Warren, J.; Sistani, K. Determination of ammoniaand greenhouse gas emissions from land application of swine slurry: A

comparison of three application methods. Bioresour. Technol. 2010,101, 1662−1667.(39) Phillips, V. R.; Holden, M. R.; Sneath, R. W.; Short, J. L.; White,R. P.; Hartung, J.; Seedorf, J.; Schroder, M.; Linkert, K. H.; Pedersen,S.; Takai, H.; Johnsen, J. O.; Koerkamp, P. W. G. G.; Uenk, G. H.;Scholtens, R.; Metz, J. H. M.; Wathes, C. M. The development ofrobust methods for measuring concentrations and emission rates ofgaseous and particulate air pollutants in livestock buildings. J. Agric.Eng. Res. 1998, 70, 11−24.(40) Childers, J. W.; Thompson, E. L.; Harris, D. B.; Kirchgessner, D.A.; Clayton, M.; Natschke, D. F.; Phillips, W. J. Multi-pollutantconcentration measurements around a concentrated swine productionfacility using open-path FTIR spectrometry. Atmos. Environ. 2001, 35,1923−1936.(41) Lagg, A.; Taucher, J.; Hansel, A.; Lindinger, W. Applications ofproton transfer reactions to gas analysis. Int. J. Mass Spectrom. IonProcess 1994, 134, 55−66.(42) Hansel, A.; Jordan, A.; Holzinger, R.; Prazeller, P.; Vogel, W.;Lindinger, W. Proton transfer reaction mass spectrometry: on-linetrace gas analysis at the ppb level. Int. J. Mass Spectrom. Ion Process1995, 149−150, 609−619.(43) Feilberg, A.; Liu, D. Z.; Adamsen, A. P. S.; Hansen, M. J.;Jonassen, K. E. N. Odorant emissions from intensive pig productionmeasured by online proton-transfer-reaction mass spectrometry.Environ. Sci. Technol. 2010, 44, 5894−5900.(44) Hudson, N.; Ayoko, G. A. Odour sampling 1: Physical chemistryconsiderations. Bioresour. Technol. 2008, 99, 3982−3992.(45) Hudson, N.; Ayoko, G. A. Odour sampling. 2. Comparison ofphysical and aerodynamic characteristics of sampling devices: A review.Bioresour. Technol. 2008, 99, 3993−4007.(46) Day, D. L.; Hansen, E. L.; Anderson, S. Gases and odors inconfinement swine building. Trans. ASAE 1965, 8, 118−121.(47) Miner, J. R.; Hazen, T. E. Ammonia and amines. Componentsof swine-building odor. Trans. ASAE 1969, 12, 772−774.(48) Martensson, L.; Magnusson, M.; Shen, Y.; Jonsson, J. Å. Airconcentrations of volatile organic acids in confined animal buildings−determination with ion chromatography. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 1999,75, 101−108.(49) Hartung, L. D. Hilliger, H. G. Odour characterisation in animalhouses by gas chromatographic analysis on the basis of lowtemperature sorption. In Effluents from Livestock; Gasser, J. K. R.,Ed; Applied Science, London, 1980; pp 561−578.(50) Hammond, E. G.; Junk, G.; Kuczala, P.; Koziel, J. A.Constituents of swine house odors. In Proceedings of the InternationalLivestock Environment Symposium, American Society Of AgriculturalEngineers; St Joseph, MI, 1974; pp. 364−372.(51) Keener, K. M.; Zhang, J.; Bottcher, R. W.; Munilla, R. D.Evaluation of thermal desorption for the measurement of artificialswine odorants in the vapor phase. Trans. ASAE 2002, 45, 1579−1584.(52) Hammond, E. G.; Smith, R. J. Survey of some molecularlydispersed odorous constituents in swine-house. Iowa State J. Res. 1981,55, 393−399.(53) Koziel, J. A.; Spinhirne, J. P.; Lloyd, J. D.; Parker, D. B.; Wright,D. W.; Kuhrt, F. W. Evaluation of sample recovery of malodorouslivestock gases from air sampling bags, solid-phase microextractionfibers, Tenax TA sorbent tubes, and sampling canisters. J. Air WasteManage. Assoc. 2005, 55, 1147−1157.(54) Mobley, H. L. T.; Hausinger, R. P. Microbial urease:significance, regulation, and molecular characterization. Microbiol.Rev. 1989, 53, 85−108.(55) Spoelstra, S. F. Origin of objectionable odorous components inpiggery wastes and the possibility of applying indicator componentsfor studying odor development. Agric. Environ. 1980, 5, 241−260.(56) Zhu, J. A review of microbiology in swine manure odor control.Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2000, 78, 93−106.(57) Zhang, R. H.; Day, D. L.; Christianson, L. L.; Jepson, W. P. Acomputer model predicting ammonia release rate from swine manurepits. J. Agric. Eng. Res. 1994, 58, 223−229.



(58) Portejoie, S.; Dourmad, J. Y.; Martinez, J.; Lebreton, Y. Effect oflowering dietary crude protein on nitrogen excretion, manurecomposition and ammonia emission from fattening pigs. Livest. Prod.Sci. 2004, 91, 45−55.(59) Donham, K. J. Hazardous agent in agricultural dusts andmethods of evaluation. Am. J. Ind. Med. 1986, 10, 205−220.(60) Pedersen, S.; Blanes-Vidal, V.; Joergensen, H.; Chwalibog, A.;Haeussermann, A.; Heetkamp, M. J. W.; Aarnink, A. J. A. Carbondioxide production in animal houses: A literature review. InAgricultural Engineering International: CIGR Ejournal, Manuscript BC08 008, vol. X, 2008.(61) Donham, K. J.; Knapp, L. W.; Monson, R.; Gustafsson, K. E.Acute toxic exposure to gases from liquid manure. J. Occup. Med. 1982,24, 142−145.(62) Leneman, H.; Oudendag, D. A.; Hoek, K. W.; van der; Janssen,P. H. M. Focus on emissions factors: a sensitivity analysis of ammoniaemission modelling in the Netherlands. Environ. Pollut. 1998, 102,205−210.(63) Arogo, J.; Westerman, P. W.; Heber, A. J. A review of ammoniaemissions from confined swine feeding operations. Trans. ASAE 2003,46, 805−817.(64) Robertson, J. F. Ammonia, dust and air quality: quantifying theproblem. Pig J. 1994, 23, 113−125.(65) Gralapp, A. K.; Powers, W. J.; Faust, M. A.; Bundy, D. S. Effectsof dietary ingredients on manure characteristics and odorous emissionsfrom swine. J. Anim. Sci. 2002, 80, 1512−1519.(66) Attwood, P.; Brouwer, R.; Ruigewaard, P.; Versloot, P.; Dewit,R.; Heederik, D.; Boleij, J. S. M. A study of the relationship betweenairborne contaminants and environmental-factors in Dutch swineconfinement buildings. Am. Ind. Hyg. Assoc. J. 1987, 48, 745−751.(67) Hammond, E. G.; Fedler, C.; Smith, R. J. Analysis of particle-borne swine house odors. Agric. Environ. 1981, 6, 395−401.(68) Hartung, L. D.; Hammond, E. G.; Miner, J. R. Identification ofcarbonyl compounds in a swine building atmosphere. In LivestockWaste Management and Pollution Abatement, Proc. of the InternationalSymposium on Livestock Wastes; Colombus, OH, 1971; pp. 105−106.(69) Hilliger, H. G.; Hartung, J. Geruchsbewertung im Stall durVerknuffung von sensorischen and analytischen methoden. Org.Verunreinig. Umwelt: Erkennen, Bewerten, Vermindern, [Tag.] 1978,475−482.(70) Schaefer, J. Sampling, characterization and analysis ofmalodorous. Agr. Environ. 1977, 3, 121−128.(71) Schaefer, J.; Bemelmans, J. M. H.; Ten Oever de Brauw, M. C.Onderzoek naar de voor de stank van varkensmesterijen verantwoor-delijke componenten. Landbouwkd. Tijdschr. 1974, 86, 228−232.(72) Dong, H.; Zhu, Z.; Shang, B.; Zhu, H.; Xin, H. Greenhouse gasemissions from swine barns of various production stages in suburbanBeijing, China. Atmos. Environ. 2007, 41, 2391−2399.(73) Koerkamp, P. W. G. G.; Metz, J. H. M.; Uenk, G. H.; Phillips, V.R.; Holden, M. R.; Sneath, R. W.; Short, J. L.; White, R. P. P.; Hartung,J.; Seedorf, J.; Schroder, M.; Linkert, K. H.; Pedersen, S.; Takai, H.;Johnsen, J. O.; Wathes, C. M. Concentrations and emissions ofammonia in livestock buildings in Northern Europe. J. Agric. Eng. Res.1998, 70, 79−95.(74) Ni, J. Mechanistic models of ammonia release from liquidmanure: a review. J. Agric. Eng. Res. 1999, 72, 1−17.(75) Begnaud, F.; Peres, C.; Murat, C.; Lebost, J.; Berdague, J.-L.Mise en place de nouvelles methodes de caracterisation desatmospheres de porcherie. Journ. Rech. Porcine Fr., [C. R.] 2004, 36,39−46.(76) Aarnink, A. J. A.; Keen, A.; Metz, J. H. M.; Speelman, L.;Verstegen, M. W. A. Ammonia emission patterns during the growingperiods of pigs housed on partially slatted floors. J. Agric. Eng. Res.1995, 62, 105−116.(77) Groenestein, C. M.; Hol, J. M. G.; Vermeer, H. M.; Hartog, L.A. D.; Metz, J. H. M. Ammonia emission from individual- and group-housing systems for sows. Neth. J. Agric. Sci. 2001, 49, 313−322.(78) Zhang, Y. Indoor air quality engineering; CRC Press Inc: BocaRaton, FL, 2004.

(79) Cambra-Lopez, M.; Aarnink, A. J. A.; Zhao, Y.; Calvet, S.;Torres, A. G. Airborne particulate matter from livestock productionsystems: A review of an air pollution problem. Environ. Pollut. 2010,158, 1−17.(80) Ashman, R. A practical guide to industrial dust control. J. Inst.Heat. Vent. Eng. 1971, 38, 272−282.(81) Carpenter, G. A. Dust in livestock buildings - Review of someaspects. J. Agric. Eng. Res. 1986, 33, 227−241.(82) Kulkarni, P.; Baron, P. A.; Willeke, K. Aerosol Measurement:Principles, Techniques, and Applications; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken,NJ, 2011.(83) Razote, E. B.; Maghirang, R. G.; Sitz, L. M.; Jeon, I. J.Characterization of volatile organic compounds on airborne dust in aswine finishing barn. Trans. ASAE 2004, 47, 1231−1238.(84) Aarnink, A. J. A.; Roelofs, P. F. M. M.; Ellen, H.; Gunnink, H.Dust sources in animal houses. In Proceedings of the InternationalSymposium on Dust Control in Animal Production Facilities; Aarhus,Denmark, 1999; pp. 34−40.(85) Harry, E. G. Air pollution in farm buildings and method ofcontrol: a review. Avian Pathol. 1978, 7, 441−454.(86) Dawson, J. R. Minimizing dust in livestock buildings: possiblealternatives to mechanical separation. J. Agric. Eng. Res. 1990, 47, 235−248.(87) Heber, A. J.; Stroik, M.; Faubion, J. M.; Willard, L. H. Sizedistribution and identification of aerial dust particles in swine finishingbuildings. Trans. ASAE 1988, 31, 882−887.(88) Honey, L. F.; McQuitty, J. B. Some physical factors affectingdust concentrations in a pig facility. Can. Agric. Eng. 1979, 21, 9−14.(89) Takai, H.; Pedersen, S.; Johnsen, J. O.; Metz, J. H. M.;Koerkamp, P. W. G. G.; Uenk, G. H.; Phillips, V. R.; Holden, M. R.;Sneath, R. W.; Short, J. L.; White, R. P.; Hartung, J.; Seedorf, J.;Schroder, M.; Linkert, K. H.; Wathes, C. M. Concentrations andemissions of airborne dust in livestock buildings in Northern Europe. J.Agric. Eng. Res. 1998, 70, 59−77.(90) Curtis, S. E.; Drummond, J. G.; Grunloh, D. J.; Lynch, P. B.;Jensen, A. H. Relative and qualitative aspects of aerial bacteria and dustin swine houses. J. Anim. Sci. 1975, 41, 1512−1520.(91) Gustafsson, G. Factors affecting the release and concentration ofdust in pig houses. J. Agric. Eng. Res. 1999, 74, 379−390.(92) Aarnink, A. J. A.; Ellen, H. H. Processes and factors affectingdust emissions from livestock production. In DustConf 2007, How toImprove Air Quality; Maastricht, The Netherlands, 2007; pp 1−12.(93) Martin, W. T.; Zhang, Y.; Willson, P.; Archer, T. P.; Kinahan,C.; Barber, E. M. Bacterial and fungal flora of dust deposits in a pigbuilding. Occup. Environ. Med. 1996, 53, 484−487.(94) Kim, K. Y.; Ko, H. J.; Kim, H. T.; Kim, C. N.; Byeon, S. H.Association between pig activity and environmental factors in pigconfinement buildings. Aust. J. Exp. Agric. 2008, 48, 680−686.(95) Puma, M. C.; Maghirang, R. G.; Hosni, M. H.; Hagen, L. J.Modeling dust concentration distribution in a swine house underisothermal conditions. Trans. ASAE 1999, 42, 1811−1821.(96) Puma, M. C.; Maghirang, R. G.; Hosni, M. H.; Hagen, L. J.Modeling of dust concentration distribution in a simulated swine roomunder non-isothermal conditions. Trans. ASAE 1999, 42, 1823−1832.(97) Janni, K. A.; Redig, P. T.; Newman, J.; Mulhausen, J. Respirableaerosol concentrations in turkey grower buildings. In PaperAmerican Society of Agricultural Engineers; United State Departmentof Agriculture, National Agricultural Library: Beltsville, MD, 1984;Paper No. 84-4522.(98) Bundy, D. S.; Hazen, T. E. Particle-size characterization of dustswine confinement systems. Am. Soc. Agric. Eng. Paper No. 73−501,1973.(99) Bundy, D. S.; Hazen, T. E. Dust levels in swine confinementsystems associated with different feeding methods. Trans. ASAE 1975,18, 138−144.(100) Hinz, T.; Linke, S. A comprehensive experimental study ofaerial pollutants in and emissions from livestock buildings. Part 2:Results. J. Agric. Eng. Res. 1998, 70, 119−129.



(101) Jansen, A.; Feddes, J. J. R. Effect of airborne dust on health andperformance of growing pigs. Can. Agric. Eng. 1995, 37, 211−216.(102) Donham, K. J.; Scallon, L. J.; Popendorf, W. Characterizationof dust collected from swine confinement buildings. Am. Ind. Hyg.Assoc. J. 1986, 47, 404−410.(103) Pickrell, J. A.; Heber, A. J.; Murphy, J. P.; Henry, S. C.; May,M. M.; Nolan, D.; Oehme, F. W.; Gillepsie, J. R.; Schoneweis, D.Characterization of particles, ammonia and endotoxin in swineconfinement operations. Vet. Hum. Toxicol. 1993, 35, 421−428.(104) Maghirang, R. G.; Puma, M. C.; Liu, Y.; Clark, P. Dustconcentrations and particle size distribution in an enclosed swinenursery. Trans. ASAE 1997, 40, 749−754.(105) Butera, M.; Smith, J. H.; Morrison, W. D.; Hacker, R. R.; Kains,F. A.; Ogilvie, J. R. Concentration of respirable dust and bioaerosolsand identification of certain microbial types in a hog-growing facility.Can. J. Anim. Sci. 1991, 71, 271−277.(106) Curtis, S. E.; Drummond, J. G.; Kelley, K. W.; Grunloh, D. J.;Meares, V. J.; Norton, H. W.; Jensen, A. H. Diurnal and annualfluctuations of aerial bacterial and dust levels in enclosed swine houses.J. Anim. Sci. 1975, 41, 1512−1519.(107) Rappert, S.; Muller, R. Odor compounds in waste gasemissions from agricultural operations and food industries. WasteManag 2005, 25, 887−907.(108) Kamigawara, K. Odor regulation and odor measurement inJapan. Odor measurement review, Ministry of the Environment Govern-ment of Japan 2003, 48−53.(109) Mahin, T. Measurement and regulation of odors in the USA. InOdor Measurement Review; Ministry of the Environment Governmentof Japan, 2003; pp 62−68(110) Park, S. J. The regulation and measurement of odor in Korea.In Odor Measurement Review; Ministry of the Environment Govern-ment of Japan, 2003; pp 69−74(111) Donham, K. J. Studies on environmental exposures, swinehealth and engineering design in swine confinement buildings insouthern Sweden. Am. J. Ind. Med. 1986, 10, 205−220.(112) Zejda, J. E.; Hurst, T. S.; Rhodes, C. S.; Barber, E. M.;McDuffie, H. H.; Dosman, J. A. Respiratory health of swineproducersFocus on young workers. Chest 1993, 103, 702−709.(113) Donham, K. J.; Haglind, P.; Peterson, Y.; Rylander, R.; Belin, L.Environmental and health studies of farm-workers in swedish swineconfinement buildings. Br. J. Ind. Med. 1989, 46, 31−37.(114) Crook, B.; Robertson, J. F.; Glass, S. A. T.; Botheroyd, E. M.;Lacey, J.; Topping, M. D. Airborne dust, ammonia, microorganisms,and antigens in pig confinement houses and the respiratory health ofexposed farm workers. Am. Ind. Hyg. Assoc. J. 1991, 52, 271−279.(115) Zejda, J. E.; Barber, E.; Dosman, J. A.; Olenchock, S. A.;McDuffie, H. H.; Rhodes, C.; Hurst, T. Respiratory health-status inswine producers relates to endotoxin exposure in the presence of lowdust levels. J. Occup. Environ. Med. 1994, 36, 49−56.(116) Seedorf, J.; Hartung, J.; Schroder, M.; Linkert, K. H.; Pedersen,S.; Takai, H.; Johnsen, J. O.; Metz, J. H. M.; Koerkamp, P. W. G. G.;Uenk, G. H.; Phillips, V. R.; Holden, M. R.; Sneath, R. W.; Short, J. L.L.; White, R. P.; Wathes, C. M. A survey of ventilation rates inlivestock buildings in Northern Europe. J. Agric. Eng. Res. 1998, 70,39−47.(117) Heber, A. J.; Ni, J. Q.; Haymore, B. L.; Duggirala, R. K.;Keener, K. M. Air quality and emission measurement methodology atswine finishing building. Trans. ASAE 2001, 44, 1765−1778.(118) Wathes, C. M.; Phillips, V. R.; Holden, M. R.; Sneath, R. W.;Short, J. L.; White, R. P. P.; Hartung, J.; Seedorf, J.; Schroder, M.;Linkert, K. H.; Pedersen, S.; Takai, H.; Johnsen, J. O.; Koerkamp, P.W. G. G.; Uenk, G. H.; Metz, J. H. M.; Hinz, T.; Caspary, V.; Linke, S.Emissions of aerial pollutants in livestock buildings in NorthernEurope: Overview of a multinational project. J. Agric. Eng. Res. 1998,70, 3−9.(119) Pedersen, S.; Takai, H.; Johnsen, J. O.; Metz, J. H. M.;Koerkamp, P. W. G. G.; Uenk, G. H.; Phillips, V. R.; Holden, M. R.;Sneath, R. W.; Short, J. L.; White, R. P.; Hartung, J.; Seedorf, J.;Schroder, M.; Linkert, K. H. H.; Wathes, C. M. A comparison of three

balance methods for calculating ventilation rates in livestock buildings.J. Agric. Eng. Res. 1998, 70, 25−37.(120) Seedorf, J.; Hartung, J.; Schroder, M.; Linkert, K. H.; Pedersen,S.; Takai, H.; Johnsen, J. O.; Metz, J. H. M.; Koerkamp, P. W. G. G.;Uenk, G. H.; Phillips, V. R.; Holden, M. R.; Sneath, R. W.; Short, J. L.;White, R. P.; Wathes, C. M. Temperature and moisture conditions inlivestock buildings in Northern Europe. J. Agric. Eng. Res. 1998, 70,49−57.(121) Seedorf, J.; Hartung, J.; Schroder, M.; Linkert, K. H.; Phillips,V. R.; Holden, M. R.; Sneath, R. W.; Short, J. L.; White, R. P.;Pedersen, S.; Takai, H.; Johnsen, J. O.; Metz, J. H. M.; Koerkamp, P.W. G. G.; Uenk, G. H.; Wathes, C. M. Concentrations and emissionsof airborne endotoxins and microorganisms in livestock buildings inNorthern Europe. J. Agric . Eng. Res. 1998, 70, 97−109.(122) Maghirang, R. G.; Riskowski, G. L.; Christianson, L. L.;Manbeck, H. B. Dust control strategies for livestock buildingsAreview. ASHRAE Trans. 1995, 101, 1161−1168.(123) Guarino, M.; Jacobson, L. D.; Janni, K. A. Dust reduction fromoil-based feed additives. Appl. Eng. Agric. 2007, 23, 329−332.(124) Pearson, C. C.; Sharples, T. J. Airborne dust concentrations inlivestock buildings and the effect of feed. J. Agric. Eng. Res. 1995, 60,145−154.(125) Pedersen, S.; Nonnenmann, M.; Rautiainen, R.; Demmers, T.G. M.; Banhazi, T.; Lyngbye, M. Dust in pigs buildings. J. Agric. Saf.Health 2000, 6, 261−274.(126) Takai, H.; Pedersen, S. A comparison study of different dustcontrol methods in pig buildings. Appl. Eng. Agric. 2000, 16, 269−277.(127) Barber, E. M.; Dosman, J. A.; Senthilselvan, A.; Kirychuk, S. P.;Willson, P.; Rhodes, C.; Lemay, S.; Hurst, T. Comparison of twostrategies for reducing exposure of swine barn workers to dust. InProceedings of Dust Control in Animal Facilities; Aarhus, Denmark,1999; pp. 157−163.(128) Guarino, M.; Navarotto, P. Dustiness in piggery: A new systemto reduce airborne particles. In Proc. of Dust Control in AnimalFacilities; Aarhus, Denmark, 1999; pp. 343−349.(129) Kirychuk, S.; Donham, K.; Reynolds, S.; Burmeister, L.; Barber,E.; Thorne, P.; Senthilselvan, A.; Rautiainen, R. Oil/water interventionin swine building. In Proceedings of Dust Control in Animal Facilities;Aarhus, Denmark, 1999; pp. 335−342.(130) Seedorf, J.; Hartung, J.; Ross, A.; Steffens, G. Bioaerosolreduction efficiencies of biofilters and bioscrubbers. In Proceedings ofDust Control in Animal Facilities; Aarhus, Denmark, 1999; pp. 322−328.(131) Zhang, Y. Engineering control of dust in animal facilities. InProceedings of Dust Control in Animal Facilities; Aarhus, Denmark,1999; pp. 22−29.(132) Zhang, Y.; Nijsen, L.; Barber, E. M.; Feddes, J. J. R.; Sheridan,M. Sprinkling mineral oil to reduce dust concentration in swinebuildings. ASHRAE Transactions 1994, 100, 1043−1050.(133) Zhang, Y.; Tanaka, A.; Dosman, J. A.; Senthilselvan, A.; Barber,E. M.; Kirychuk, S. P.; Holfeld, L. E.; Hurst, T. S. Acute respiratoryresponses of human subjects to air quality in a swine building. J. Agric.Eng. Res. 1998, 70, 367−373.(134) Zhang, Y.; Barber, E. M.; Patience, J. F.; Feddes, J. J. R.Identification of oils to be sprinkled in livestock buildings to reducedust. ASHRAE Trans. 1995, 101, 1179−1191.(135) Takai, H.; Møller, F.; Iversen, M.; Jorsal, S. E.; Bille-Hanser, V.Dust control in pig houses by spraying rapeseed oil. Transactions of theASAE 1995, 38, 1513−1518.(136) Owen, J. E. DustThe problem and possibilities. Farm Build.Progr. 1982, 67, 3−6.(137) Owen, J. E. DustFiltration solutions and their cost. FarmBuild. Progr. 1982, 68, 19−23.(138) Rosentrater, K. Performance of an electrostatic dust collectionsystem in swine facilities. CIGR J. 2003, 5, Manuscript BC 03 003.(139) Lemay, S. P.; Belzile, M.; Zegan, D.; Feddes, J. J. R.; Godbout,S.; Martel, M. Revue systematique de la litterature sur lesperformances techniques des systemes de traitement de l’air vicie emis par les batiments porcins. Agrosolutions 2008, 19, 51−62.



(140) Guingand, N. Le lavage d’air en elevages porcins. TechniPorc2008, 31, 23−27.(141) Lemay, S. P. Barn management and control of odours. Adv.Pork Prod. 1999, 10, 81−91.(142) Guingand, N.; Noulestreau, A.-L.; Juin, S.; Maupertuis, F.Utilisation d’additifs en porcherie. Effet sur l’emission d’odeurs etd’ammoniac en engraissement. TechniPorc 2004, 27, 25−32.(143) Ye, F. X.; Zhu, R. F.; Li, Y. Deodorization of swine manureslurry using horseradish peroxidase and peroxides. J. Hazard. Mater.2009, 167, 148−153.(144) Govere, E. M.; Tonegawa, M.; Bruns, M. A.; Wheeler, E. F.;Heinemann, P. H.; Kephart, K. B.; Dec, J. Deodorization of swinemanure using minced horseradish roots and peroxides. J. Agric. FoodChem. 2005, 53, 4880−4889.(145) Guingand, N. Influence de la vidange des prefosses surl’emissions d’ammoniac et d’odeurs par les porcheries d’engraissement.Resultats preliminaires. Journ. Rech. Porcine Fr., [C. R.] 2000, 32, 83−88.(146) O’Neill, D. H.; Phillips, V. R. A review of the control of odournuisance from livestock buildings: Part 1, influence of the techniquesfor managing waste within the building. J. Agric. Eng. Res. 1991, 50, 1−10.(147) Landrain, B.; Ramonet, Y.; Quillien, J.-P.; Robin, P. Incidencede la mise en place d’un systeme de raclage en “V” en prefosse dansune porcherie d’engraissement sur caillebotis integral sur lesperformances zootechniques et les emissions d’ammoniac et deprotoxyde d’azote. Journ. Rech. Porcine Fr., [C. R.] 2009, 41, 259−264.(148) Lemay, S. P. Un nouvel enclos porcin sans lattes pour separerles dejections a la source et reduire les emissions. In Colloque Sur LaProduction Porcine; Drummondville, QC, Canada, 2006; pp. 1−19.(149) Lavoie, J.; Beaudet, Y.; Letourneau, C.; Godbout, S.; Lemay, S.;Belzile, M.; Lachance, I.; Pouliot, F. Evaluation de la qualite de l’air dansles porcheries equipees d’un systeme de separation liquide-solide desdejections; IRSST, report R-460; Montreal, QC, Canada, 2006. http://www.irsst.qc.ca/media/documents/PubIRSST/R-460.pdf (accessedNovember 7, 2012).(150) Solid separation systems for the pig industryCase study 14 - Dryscraping; Queensland FSA Environmental: Toowoomba, Australia,2002. http://www.fsaconsulting.net/pdfs/Case Study 14 - DryScraping.pdf (accessed November 7, 2012).(151) Nicks, B.; Desiron, A.; Canart, B. Bilan environnemental etzootechnique de l’engraissement de 4 lots de porcs sur litierebiomaitrisee. Journ. Rech. Porcine Fr., [C. R.] 1995, 27, 337−342.(152) Nicks, B.; Laitat, M.; DeSiron, A.; Vandenheede, M.; Canart, B.Emissions d’ammoniac, de protoxyde d’azote, de methane, de gazcarbonique et de vapeur d’eau lors de l’elevage de porcs charcutiers surlitieres accumulees de paille et de sciure. Journ. Rech. Porcine Fr., [C. R.]2003, 35, 7−14.(153) Nicks, B.; DeSiron, A.; Canart, B. Comparaison de l’utilisationde sciure ou d’un melange paille-sciure comme materiau de litiereaccumulee pour porcs charcutiers. Ann. Zootech. 1998, 47, 107−116.(154) Kaufmann, R. Litiere biomaitrisee pour porcs a l’engrais.Amelioration de la technique et valorisation de donnees importantespour l’environnement. Journ. Rech. Porcine Fr., [C. R.] 1997, 29, 311−318.(155) Philippe, F.-X.; Laitat, M.; Canart, B.; Vandenheede, M.; Nicks,B. Emissions d’ammoniac lors de l’engraissement de porcs surcaillebotis, litiere de paille accumulee et litiere a pente paillee. Journ.Rech. Porcine Fr., [C. R.] 2007, 39, 61−62.(156) Kermarrec, C. Bilan et transformations de l’azote en elevageintensif de porcs sur litiere. Ph.D. Dissertation, Universite de Rennes,Rennes, France, 1999.(157) Guingand, N. Influence de la mise en place de caillebotispartiel et de la taille de la case sur les emissions d’ammoniac etd’odeurs en engraissement. Journ. Rech. Porcine Fr., [C. R.] 2003, 35,15−20.(158) Fitamant, D.; Guingand, N.; Laplanche, A.; Delzescaux, D.Etude d’un procede de desodorisation des emissions des batiments parl’ozone. Journ. Rech. Porcine Fr., [C. R.] 2000, 32, 67−75.

(159) Oehrl, L. L.; Keener, K. M.; Bottcher, R. W.; Munilla, R. D.;Connelly, K. M. Characterization of odor components from swinehousing dust using gas chromatography. Appl. Eng. Agric. 2001, 17,659−661.(160) Keener, K. M.; Bottcher, R. W.; Munilla, R.; Parbst, K. E.; vanWicklen, G. L. Field evaluation of an indoor ozonation system for odorcontrol. In ASAE/CSAE SCGR Annual International Meeting; Toronto,ON, Canada, 1999; pp 1−14.(161) Hudson, N.; Duperouzel, D.; Melvin, S. Assessment ofpermeable covers for odour reduction in piggery effluent ponds. 1.Laboratory-scale trials. Bioresour. Technol. 2006, 97, 2002−2014.(162) Hudson, N.; Gies, A.; Duperouzel, D. Assessment of permeablecovers for odour reduction in piggery effluent ponds. 2. Field-scaletrials. Bioresour. Technol. 2006, 97, 2015−2023.(163) Zahn, J. A.; Tung, A. E.; Roberts, B. A.; Hatfield, J. L.Abatement of ammonia and hydrogen sulfide emissions from a swinelagoon using polymer biocover. J. Air Waste Manag. Assoc. 2001, 51,562−573.(164) Devinny, J. S.; Deshusses, M. A.; Webster, T. S. Biofiltration forair pollution control; Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL, 1999.(165) Melse, R. W.; Ogink, N. W. M. Air scrubbing techniques forammonia and odor reduction at livestock operations: review of on-farm research in the Netherlands. Trans. ASAE 2005, 48, 2303−2313.(166) Girard, M.; Ramirez, A. A.; Buelna, G.; Heitz, M. Biofiltrationof methane at low concentrations representative of the piggeryindustry-Influence of the methane and nitrogen concentrations. Chem.Eng. J. 2011, 168, 151−158.(167) Chen, L.; Hoff, S. J. Mitigating odors from agriculturalfacilities: A review of literature concerning biofilters. Appl. Eng. Agric.2009, 25, 751−766.(168) Kennes, C.; Rene, E. R.; Veiga, M. C. Bioprocesses for airpollution control. J. Chem. Tech. Biotechnol. 2009, 84, 1419−1436.(169) Nicolai, R. E.; Janni, K. A. Development of a low cost biofilterfor swine production facilities. In Proceedings of the ASAE AnnualMeeting; St. Joseph, MI, 1997; paper No. 974040.(170) Jorio, H.; Heitz, M. Traitement de l’air par biofiltration. Can. J.Civ. Eng. 1999, 26, 402−424.(171) Jacobson, L.; Hetchler, B.; Schmidt, D. Reducing H2S, NH3,PM and odor emissions from deep-pit pig finishing facilities bymanaging pit ventilation. In Proceedings of Mitigating Air Emissions fromAnimal Feeding Operations Conference; Des Moines, IA, 2008; pp 1−3.(172) Sheridan, B.; Curran, T.; Dodd, V.; Colligan, J. Biofiltration ofodour and ammonia from a pig unitA pilot-scale study. BiosystemsEng. 2002, 82, 441−453.



http://www.irsst.qc.ca/media/documents/PubIRSST/R-460.pdf

http://www.irsst.qc.ca/media/documents/PubIRSST/R-460.pdf

http://www.fsaconsulting.net/pdfs/Case Study 14 - Dry Scraping.pdf

http://www.fsaconsulting.net/pdfs/Case Study 14 - Dry Scraping.pdf

aerial pollutants in swine buildings: a review of their...

Documents