effect of air quality on animal health , production and on the health of farm workers and how we can manage the air quality in animal house and reduce their adverse effect on both animal and workers .

1. Effect of air quality on animal health, production and
on health of workers
NATIONAL DAIRY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
Karnal, Haryana, Pin 132001
Atul S. Rajput
M.V.Sc.– 1st Year,
Livestock Production Management

2. What is air quality?
 Air quality define as the degree of pollution of clean air. Air quality can be
determined by measuring the concentration of pollutants in the air.
Zhang et. at.,2005
 Air pollutants are compounds or materials that, when suspended in or mixed
with air, degrade air quality and impair its utility for any of a wide range of
purposes.
Auvermann et. al., 2006
 Gases and odors are generated from livestock and poultry manure
decomposition (1) shortly after it is produced, (2) during storage and treatment,
and (3) during land application.
 Livestock and poultry buildings may contain concentrations of contaminants
that negatively affect human and animal health.
Casey et. at., 2014

3. Emission
 Emission refers to the rate at which gases or
particulates are released into ambient air,
generally expressed in mass per unit time.
 Air emission from animal production is
complex process with multitude and variety of
individual sources responsible for these
emissions.
 Emission rates are determined by multiplying
the concentration of a component by the
volumetric flow rate at which a component at
a given concentration is being emitted.
Singh et. al.,2014

4. Emission sources
• Barns
• Feedlot surfaces
• Manure storage and treatment units
• Silage piles
• Dead animal compost structures
• Manure applied cropland
• A variety of other smaller emissions sources
Casey et. al., 2008

5. FACTOR AFFECTING EMISSION
• Time of year and day
• Temperature
• Humidity
• Wind speed
• Solar intensity and other weather conditions
• Ventilation rates
• Housing type
• Manure properties or characteristics
• Animal species
• Stocking density and age

6. EMISSION MEASUREMENT
• Emission expressed in terms of animal unit(AU) is often
referred to as the emission factor.
• where one AU is equal to 500 kg of animal live weight
 Methods of measurement
• Ventilation Rates Simmons et. al.,1998
• Flux Chamber Phillips et. al.,2000
• Micrometeorological Method Harper et. al.,2000
• Fourier Transform Infrared Spectrometry (FTIR) Piccot et. al.,1996

7. Advantages of improving air quality in livestock building
Welfare
Safety
Emission
Complaints
Air
Quality
Production
Life building
Performance
Health
Energy saving

8. AMMONIA
(NH3)
HYDROGEN
SULPHIDE
(H2S)
A
I
R
Q
U
A
L
I
T
Y

9. Various pollutants in livestock building & their impact on peoples,
animals, ecology & effect at local, regional and global level
Substance/
Compound
Impact on
peoples
Impact on
animals
Impact on
ecology
Local Regional Global and
national
Ammonia
NH3
Indoors
irritant
High
irritant
High
nutrients
Minor Major Major
Hydrogen
sulphide
H2S
Indoors
toxic
Indoors
toxic
no Significant Insignificant Insignificant
Dust/Partic
ulate
matter
allergy health low Significant Insignificant Insignificant
Odour nuisance no no Major Insignificant Insignificant
Volatile
organic
compounds
no no no minor Insignificant Insignificant
(NRC, 2004)

10. Time-weighted average exposure values (TWAEV), short-term
exposure values (STEV) and ceiling exposure values (CEV)
Agent TWAEV STEV Agricultural operations with concentrations
exceeding TWAEV
Ammonia (ppm) 25 35 Poultry, swine and dairy calves
Hydrogen Sulphide
(ppm)
10 15 During manure agitation for swine, dairy and
poultry
Carbon Monoxide
(ppm)
35
40
400
400
Poultry and swine facilities when unwanted fuel
fired heaters
are maladjusted
Carbon Dioxide
(ppm)
5000 30,000 Swine, poultry
Nitrogen Dioxide
(ppm)
3 5 Inside silos after filling
Grain Dust (mg/m ) 4 - Livestock feed rooms and grain centres
Total Dust (mg/m ) 10 - Most barns after animal feeding
Respirable Dust
(mg/m3)
5 1 -
(Occupational Health and Safety Act, Ontario, 1996)

11. Ammonia emission from livestock production
Sources of ammonia (NH3)
emission in livestock farming
Building
itself
Manure
storage
facilities
 Colourless gas
 Lighter than air
 Strong, penetrating odour
 Dissolves in water and
ionizes to form an
ammonium ions.
 solubility influenced by
atmospheric pressure,
temperature and dissolved
materials
 Oliver et al., (2008) total
annual global NH3
emissions at 74 M tonnes
NH3-N.
 Globally, livestock
production is responsible
for about 50% of NH3
emissions
(Atia and Amrani, 2004)
Manure
applicati
on to
soils
Floor
Open feedlots
Surface storage facilities Manure handling
Manure treatment

12. Ammonia
emission
factors
Numbers of
animals Type of
animals
Age of
animals
Housing
design and
management
Type of
manure
storage and
treatment
Land
application
techniques
N excretion
rate per
animal
Manure pH
Type of floor
Bedding
material
used
Manure
handling
Manure
treatment
Weight of
animals
(Arogo et al., 2001)

13. Ammonia generation-
 Ammonia is generated because of nitrogen in the faeces and urine
 Ammonia is form from the biological and chemical breakdown of
manure protein, uric acid and urea during manure storage and
decomposition.
Aerobic decomposition of uric acid:
C5H4O5N4 + 1.5 O2 + 4 H2O 5CO2 + 4NH3
Urea hydrolysis:
CO(NH2)2 + H2O CO2 + 2NH3
Mineralization:
undigested protein (bacterial degradation) NH3
Koerkamp et. al.,1998
urease

14. Global sources of Ammonia from domestic animals
Source Ammonia Emissions
(106 tonnes Nitrogen yr-1)
%
Dairy cattle 4.3 8
Non-dairy cattle 8.6 16
Buffalo 1.2 2
Swine 3.4 6
Poultry 1.9 4
Sheep/Goats 1.5 3
Other animals 0.7 1
Total 21.6 40
Asman et. at., 1992

15. Different levels of ammonia in livestock building
Condition Ammonia level concentration
Well ventilated 10-20 ppm
Liquid manure 50 ppm
Solid manure >50 ppm
Not well ventilated 100-200 ppm
Koerkamp et. al., 1998

16. Health and environmental impacts due to ammonia
emissions from manure
NH3+So2 and
No2=Particulate
matter (PM-2.5)
respiratory problems
Nitrate
contamination of
drinking water
Eutrophication of
surface water bodies-
Harmful algal blooms
and water quality
Ecosystem vegetation
change- Higher conc.
N
Health hazard-
Pathogens,
endotoxins and
allergens
Climatic changes
associated with increase
in nitrous oxide
N saturation of forest
soil
Soil acidification via
nitrification and
leaching

17. Effects of NH3 exposure on human (Acute effects)
Concentration (mg/m3) Exposure period Effect on human health
3480 30 minutes Death
350 30 minutes per day Nasal and throat irritation
70 6 hours per day Transient irritation eyes,
nose and throat
56 2 hours per day Coughing, eyes and nose
irritation
35 2 hours per day No adverse effect
10 5 hours per day Inflammatory response,
acute respiratory syndrome

18. Effects of NH3 on human (Chronic effects)
Concentration
(mg/m3)
Exposure period Effect on human
health
>50 >1 year Decrease in
pulmonary function of
exposed workers,
sneezing, dyspnea
>8 9.7 years 3% decrease in forced
respiratory volume
>6 12 years
12.2 years
No effect on lung
function

19. Measurement techniques for ammonia
Passive diffusion device (Van’t Klooster et al. 1996; Sommer et
al. 1996; Philips et al. 2000;Welch et al. 2001; Flint et al. 2000).
Dynamic chamber techniques
(Aneja et al. 2000, 2001).
Chemiluminescence NO2 analyzers
(Philips et al. 1998).
Mass balance techniques.
Each of these techniques
varies in its sensitivity,
selectivity, speed and cost.
Measuring ammonia is
expensive, extensive and time
consuming (Aneja 1997;
Harper and Sharpe 1998).
Continuous flow denuders (Mennen et. al., 1996).
Packed bed detector tubes (Sweeten et. al.,1991).

20. Ammonia emission from cattle production
Livestock category Flooring type Average (mg/AU-h) Reference
Beef Straw 0.34 Demmers et al.,2001
Beef Straw 0.81 Demmers et al., 1998
Beef Litter 0.43-0.48 Koerkamp et al., 1998
Bee Slats 0.37-0.9 Koerkamp et al., 1998
Calves Litter 0.32-1.04 Koerkamp et al., 1998
Calves SF 1.15-1.80 Koerkamp et al., 1998
Dairy Litter 0.26-0.89 Koerkamp et al., 1998
Dairy Straw 1.02 Demmers et al., 2001
Dairy FSF 0.95 Van’t Klooster 1994
Dairy Cubicles 0.84-1.77 Koerkamp et al., 1998
Dairy 0.14 0.14 Phillips et al., 1998
Dairy Straw 0.25 Phillips et al.,1998
Dairy Slat 31-48.6 g NH3/d/cow Kroodsma et al., 1993
Dairy Straw 1.32 Demmers et al., 1998
(Arogo et al.,2001)

21. Ammonia emission control strategies
Manure storage covers
Biocovers
a) Permeable b) Impermeable
Diet manipulation
Floor modification
Biofiltration
Oil sprinkling
Temperature control
Bioscrubbing
Ozonation
Injection
Incorporation
Trailing shoes

22. Chadwick et al.,2000

23. Hydrogen sulphide emission from livestock production
Sources of hydrogen sulphide
emission in livestock farming
Shallow
barn
gutters
Outdoor
holding
storage
tanks
 Soluble in water
 Heavier than air
 Rotten egg like odour
 H2S conc. In swine building
very low under 5 ppm.
 Level of H2S higher for
swine manure because of
high protein
 The WHO recommends that
exposure to H2S at 5 parts
per billion not exceed 30
minutes
 A Jerome Meter®- ppb
(Atia and Amrani, 2004)
Earthen
manure
storage

24. Hydrogen
sulphide
emissions
factors
Temperature
Ventilation
Outside air
Ratio of pit
area to
building area
Daily dietary
Sulphur
intake
Liquid
manure
temperature
Agitation of
manure
Manure
handling
Wind speed
( >29km/hr)

25. Levels of hydrogen sulphide (H2S) and health response
Concentration (ppm) Health response
0.01-0.7 Least detectable odour
3-5 Offensive odour
10 Eye irritation
20 Irritation to mucus membrane and lungs
50-100 Irritation of respiratory tract
150 Nerve paralysis
200 Headache, dizziness
500-600 Nausia, excitement, unconsciousness
>700 Fatal
(Field et. al., 1996)

26. Hydrogen sulphide emissions rate from animal housing
Species Management Ventilation Converted
emissions rate
(μg/m2 s-1)
References
Dairy Cows Natural 0.18-0.97 Zhu et al. 2000
Poultry Broiler Mechanical 0.08-0.30 Zhu et al. 2000
Swine Gestation Mechanical 0.8-9.1 Zhu et al. 2000
Furrowing Mechanical 3.09-7.86 Zhu et al. 2000
Nursery Mechanical 19.8-144 Zhu et al. 2000
Growing finishing Mechanical 3.68-17.9 Zhu et al. 2000
Growing finishing Natural 4.60-17.9 Zhu et al. 2000
Growing finishing Mechanical 1.9-26.9 Ni et al. 1998
Growing finishing Natural 0.2-8.2 Heber et al. 1997
(Wood et al., 2001)

27. Hydrogen sulphide emissions rate from manure storage
Storage type Emissions factors References
Deep Pit, pull plug 0.32 g m-2 day-1 Zahn et al., 2001
Earthen, concrete-lined,
steel tank
0.95 g m-2 day-1 Zahn et al., 2001
Lagoon without
photosynthetic bloom
0.28 g m-2 day-1 Zahn et al., 2001
Lagoon with
photosynthetic bloom
0.21 g m-2 day-1 Zahn et al., 2001
Pit storage 0.01-5.4 lb yr-1 AU-1 Jacobson et al., (2000); Ni
et al.,
(1999); Pederson et al.,
(2001)
Zhu et al., (2000)
Anaerobic lagoon 0.8-9.8 lb yr-1 AU-1 Grelinger and Page (1999)
Liquid land application 0.6 lb yr-1 AU-1 Grelinger and Page (1999)

28. Hydrogen sulphide emission control strategies
Suppression
methods
Manure storage covers
Manure management
Inhibition
methods
Manure additives
Diet manipulation
Capture and
control methods
Oil sprinkling
Biofiltration
Bioscrubbing
Activated carbon
Ozone

29. Hydrogen sulphide and safety considerations
 H2S could be produced in a short period of time in livestock
buildings.
 Plug pulling could generate high concentrations of H2S, in some
cases the maximum recorded in some events monitored reached
1,000 ppm, the threshold limit value (TLV) or maximum allowable
concentration for humans is only 10 ppm.
 Three deaths in swine confinement workers have been reported
from exposure to H2S in Alberta from 1996–2000.
 High levels of H2S can negatively affect animal health, reported that
swine living under the condition of 20 ppm of H2S could
demonstrate fear of light and loss of appetite.
Chapin et.al.,1998

30. Particulate matter or dust
 Small solid particles conventionally taken as those particles below 75 μm in
diameter which settle out under their own weight but may remain suspended
for sometime.
ISO (1995)
 Particles—PM10 and especially PM2.5 have been linked to health effects
 PM is not a single well-defined entity such as NH3 or H2S, The actual
constituents vary, as do particle sizes, depending on geographical location and
meteorological conditions.
 PM10 is the particulate matter with an aerodynamic equivalent diameter (AED)
of 10 μm, PM2.5 is similarly defined particles with AED of 2.5 μm.
(Schwartz, 1994)

31. Health impact particulate matter
 Particulate matter reduces the air quality within the livestock buildings
compromising the health of farmers and animals
(Hinz et al., 2007)
 High concentrations of airborne particles could affect the external
environment, production efficiency, health and welfare of humans and animals
(Banhazi and Seedorf, 2007)
 Livestock farmers are exposed to dust concentrations inside their animal
houses that are a factor of 10 to 200 times higher than those of the outside air
(Aarnink and Ellen, 2007)
 Dust may facilitate the spread of these VOCs
(Razote et al., 2004)
 Facilitate spread of Infectious agents
(Pedersen et al., 2000; Vansickle, 2013)
 Farmers in animal houses are exposed to gases and a complex aerosol of
bacteria, fungi, endotoxin and organic dust, which are linked to the
development of respiratory diseases in farmers’ lungs
(Takai et al., 2002)

32.  Dust categories- (PM)
Inhalable (PM100), Thoracic (PM10), or Respirable (PM5)
 Respirable dust is most hazardous because it reaches the level of
gas exchange within the lungs
(Watt et al., 2010)
 87% of pigs found to have pneumonia at the time of slaughter
originated from buildings with high dust levels
(Pedersen et al., 2000)
 Dust above 5.1 mg/m3 may reduce pig performance
 Exposure to poor air quality decreased live weight (P = 0.04) and
tended to decrease feed intake (P =0.12).
 The effects of ammonia levels on pigs were directly related to the
level of airborne dust
(Wathes et al., 2002)
Continued….

33. Factors affecting dust concentration and emission
 Housing type, season of year and day or night time
 The inhalable and respirable dust concentrations in poultry
buildings were higher in winter than in summer season
(Takai et al., 1998)
 The low level of dust concentration in warmer seasons was
related to the high humidity and high exhausted ventilation
(Zhu et al., 2005)
 The mean inhalable dust emission rates were higher in summer
season than in winter season.
 The highest concentration of the total dust and respirable
fraction in the laying hens houses were during June.

34. Sources of dust and particulate matter in livestock
building
Source of Dust Type of Dust Cause of Dust
Grain moulds, actinomycetes storage problem
Hay moulds, actinomycetes poor conservation
Straw moulds, actinomycetes combining/poor conservation
Silage moulds poor conservation
Animal Debris faeces, urine, hair, skin, feathers,
fungi,
bacteria
animal activity, barn cleanliness,
ventilation, etc.
Feeds numerous particles feed distribution/poor
ventilation
(Occupational Health and Safety Act, Ontario, 1996)

35. Particle penetrability according to size
Particle size Region to which penetration can occur
> 11 μm Captured in the nostrils, do not penetrate into the lower respiratory
tract.
7-11μm Nasal passage
4.7-7 μm Larynx region
3.3-4.7 μm Trachea and primary bronchial region
2.1-3.3 μm Secondary bronchial section
1.1-2.1 μm Terminal bronchial section
0.65-1.1 μm Bronchioles
0.43-0.65 μm Alveolar
(Ghio et al., 1999)

36. Efficacy of dust mitigation techniques
(Pedersen et al., 2000)

37. Odours
 Olfaction, the sense of smell, is the least understood of the five senses,
this makes the task of reducing livestock odours a considerable
challenge.
 An odorant is a substance capable of eliciting an olfactory response
 Odour is the sensation resulting from stimulation of the olfactory
organs.
 Odours play an important part in our everyday life, from appetite
stimulation to serving as warning signals for disease detection.
 A number of diseases have characteristic odours including gangrene,
diabetes, leukemia, and schizophrenia. Odours have been implicated in
depression and nausea as well.
 Detectable odours can have a significant impact on people by affecting
moods as well as having physiological impacts on the olfactory system.

38. Odour control technologies used and producer satisfaction level
Technologies Using or
used %
Satisfied
%
Indifferent
%
Unsatisfied
%
Quit
%
Building
Biofilter 1.6 25 37.5 37.5 11.1
Windbreak 38.1 63.6 35.4 0.9 0.9
Oil sprinkling 1.6 33.3 44.4 22.2 55.6
Bedded system 36.1 34.1 34.1 6.9 15.8
Storage
Biocover 9.8 68.9 24.4 6.7 16.4
Impermeable plastic 1.1 33.3 33.3 33.3 66.7
Permeable plastic 0.9 20.0 20 60.0 40.0
Deep pit 77 76.6 20.5 2.9 1.4
Other type cover 3.7 84.2 15.8 0.0 4.8
Aeration 5.9 55.6 22.2 22.2 21.2
Lagoon 8.5 45.2 41.9 12.9 4.2
Solids separation 4.1 60.0 35.0 5.0 8.7
Composting, pigs 49.8 75.5 20.2 4.3 5.7
Composting, manure 20.3 65.7 26.5 7.8 13.2
Other 2.8 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

39. Technologies Using or
previously
used %
Satisfied
%
Indifferent
%
Unsatisfied
%
Quit
%
Feed
modification
Manure
additives
42.7 23.4 44.4 32.2 54.2
Feed additives 27.0 38.0. 43.8 18.2 0.9
Low protein
diet
7.6 37.1 48.6 14.3 18.6
Other 1.4 71.4 28.6 0.0 0.0
Land
application
Do not agitate 19.7 54.3 28.3 17.4 20.7
Immediate
incorporation
52.3 7 71.2 22.8 6.0 14.6
Soil injection 69.4 88.3 0.8 0.8 7.2
Other 10.0 70.8 20.8 8.3 5.4
(Lowa state univrsity, 2004
Continued…

40. Volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
 VOCs are organic chemicals that have a high vapour pressure at
ordinary room temperature, Their high vapour pressure results
from a low boiling point, which causes large numbers of molecules
to evaporate or sublimate from the liquid or solid form of the
compound and enter the surrounding air.
 The main VOCs emitted from animal feeding operation includes
carboxylic acid, alcohols, carbonyls, phenolic compound ,sulfur and
nitrogen containing species.
 Alcohol and carboxylic acid are dominate VOC concentration, sulfur
containing and phenolic species are more important in term of
odor.

41. Health impacts of volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
 How much is in the air, how long and how often a person
breathes it in.
 Breathing low levels of VOCs for long periods of time may
increase some people’s risk of health problems.
 VOCs may make symptoms worse in people who have asthma
or are particularly sensitive to chemicals,
 VOCs refer to a group of chemicals, each chemical has its own
toxicity and potential for causing different health effects.

42. Short-Term (Acute) as hours to days to high
levels of VOCs
Long-Term (Chronic) as years to even lifetime to
high levels of VOCs
Eye, Nose And Throat Irritation Central Nervous System damage
Conjunctival Irritation Kidney damage
Headaches Cancer
Nausea / Vomiting Liver damage
Dizziness
Worsening Of Asthma Symptoms
Allergic Skin Reaction
Dyspnea
Declines In Serum Cholinesterase Levels
Emesis
Common symptoms of exposure to VOCs include
(United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2016)

43. Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) emission control
strategies
(Borwankar et al, 2012)

44. Conclusions
 The use of confinement system for raising animals has brought not
only large increase in productivity but also resulted in potential
physical, chemical and biological health hazards to both farm
workers and animals.
 The air in livestock buildings contains a large variety of gases, and
considerable amount of dust.
 Employing specific practices can reduce ammonia, hydrogen
sulphide and odour emissions.
 Careful consideration and selection will help ensure that you
achieve the desired results.