Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Litter Generated Ammonia Captured by Activated Carbon Derived from Broiler Litter


Published on In 2011, the production rate of broilers was 8.6 billion with a value of $23.2 billion (USDA 2012). Both CERCLA and EPCRA have reporting requirements for ammonia (NH3) of 100 lb of NH3/d or 18.3 tons/yr, a level that may affect large animal production facilities (NRC 2003). Although USEPA (2009) has provided an exemption for animal waste producing farms under CERCLA for reporting hazardous air emissions, it is expected that this exemption will be revoked once valid methodologies are established for monitoring. Two of the 24 sites in the NAEMS monitoring study reported similar NH3 emissions of 3.6 – 5.3 tons of NH3 per house per year (Burns et al. 2009, Heber 2010). Emissions of this level indicate a need for developing technologies that can reduce the NH3 levels produced by broiler operations. This research is focused on the use of broiler litter as activated carbon (BAC) to reduce aerial NH3 generated by litter, an opportunity to not only reuse the manure, but also treat the emissions from or within broiler houses. The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of BAC to remove NH3 volatilized from litter samples in a laboratory acid-trap system. Preliminary studies using NH3/air mixture indicated that the BAC capacity to adsorb NH3 was approximately double that of Vapure 612, a commercial carbon. In the litter emission study, the BAC and Vapure performance was comparable. Breakthrough for both carbons occurred within 14 hours of the test start. At the end of the 3 day test, the NH3 emission for BAC was 75% of the litter only control, whereas, the Vapure emission was 64% of the control. The results of the study demonstrate the potential for a cyclical waste utilization strategy in using broiler litter activated carbon to capture NH3 volatilized from litter.

Published in: Education, Technology, Business
  • Be the first to comment

Litter Generated Ammonia Captured by Activated Carbon Derived from Broiler Litter

  1. 1. LITTER GENERATEDAMMONIA CAPTURED BYACTIVATED CARBONDERIVED FROM BROILERLITTERKari Fitzmorris Brisolara, ScD, MSPHLouisiana State University,Health Sciences CenterDana M. Miles, PhD and Isabel M. Lima, PhDUSDA Agricultural Research Service
  2. 2. RESEARCH OBJECTIVES Analyze waste sources for their potential as activatedcarbons Create activated carbons and char from broiler litterusing steam activation to minimize cost and wasteproduction. Assess the physical properties of the carbons Determine the efficacy of the activated carbon andchar with regard to ammonia adsorption usinglaboratory-based direct-measurement experimentsfollowed by manure emissions studies.
  4. 4. CARBON
  5. 5. ACTIVATEDCARBONSPoultry Cake Carbon 2500x Poultry Litter Carbon 250x
  6. 6. COST OF SOURCE MATERIAL FORACTIVATED CARBONBiosolid cost $3 to 10 / ton plus binder - pelletized.Bituminous coal $60 to 80 / ton plus binder -pelletized. (2010 average $60.88/ton)Saving of >6 times in source material for activatedcarbon
  7. 7. ACTIVATED CARBON MARKETIt is anticipated world demand for virgin activated carbon will rise 9.9 -17 percent yearly through 2014.The global market for activated carbon is forecast to reach a marketsize of 2.3 million metric tons by the year 2017One of the main drivers of growth is mercury control technology forindustrial air purification applications to meet new emissionsstandardsThe primary uses are currently water treatment and air purification3 largest players in the industry – Calgon, Norit & MeadWestvaco.Calgon reported cost of products sold increased 8.4% to $95.5 million in the thirdquarter of 2011.There are NO carbons with good metals adsorbing propertiescurrently on the market.Current value for a high quality carbon is about $1.50+/lb.
  8. 8. COMMON SOURCES FOR ACTIVATEDCARBONBituminous coalCoconut shellsAlternative Sources Nut shells (pecan, walnut) Sugarcane bagasse Soybean hulls
  9. 9. ACTIVATED CARBON FROM WASTEBiosolids Most studies only examined pyrolyzed municipalwastes – no activationOther wastes Tires Paper mill waste
  10. 10. COMPARISON WITH OTHERCARBONSSample Sample DescriptionOur carbons Made from pelletized manure, steam activated under N2Coal, coconutshell or woodbasedPUR RF Replacement Filter, coal derived, 10x20 mesh, originally in block forCalgon F300 Filtrasorb 300, GAC by Calgon Carbon for removal of organicpollutants from munic/indust wastewaters. Made frombituminous coal.Made from pelletized coal, ground coconutshells/sawdust, steam activated under N2Norit Darco Hg Powdered (<45 μm)activated carbon madefrom lignite coal.
  11. 11. ACTIVATED CARBONSources Poultry Litter Mississippi State University Includes bedding material (pine shavings) Pre-windrowed Poultry Litter North Louisiana private farm Includes bedding material (rice hulls)
  12. 12. ACTIVATED CARBON RESULTSPyrolysis and ActivationChemical and Physical PropertiesAmmonia:Preliminary StudyRecent Results
  13. 13. CARBON CHARACTERIZATIONPhysical properties• Carbon yields, surface area, attrition resistance, bulkdensity, particle size distribution, SEM characterizationChemical properties Total surfacecharge, pH, compositionalanalysis, ash content, X-rayanalysis, NMRAdsorptive properties Adsorption isotherms, kinetic studies, batch and column modes, for severalcompounds
  14. 14. Pellet Mill FurnacePelletized Manure
  15. 15. PYROLYSIS AND ACTIVATION700oC under nitrogen gas for 1 hrSteam activation Flow rate 3 mL/min800oC for 45 minAcid washed (1hr 0.1M HCl)Ground to 18 x 40 mesh
  16. 16. PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL PROPERTIESPercent yieldBulk densitySurface areaSurface chargeElementalanalysisCarbonNitrogenPhosphorusSulfur
  17. 17. PHYSICAL/CHEMICALPROPERTIESOF MANUREANDRESULTINGACTIVATEDCARBONS.MSLitterLALitter% Yield (%) 22.2 20.0BET Surface Area (m2/g) 461.2 523.8Element mg/gCalcium Raw 23.3 37.3ActivatedCarbon62.8 114Copper Raw 0.47 0.56ActivatedCarbon2.20 3.06Iron Raw 1.98 2.09ActivatedCarbon7.42 12.3Magnesium Raw 6.39 14.5ActivatedCarbon15.3 47.4PhosphorusRaw 13.9 12.1ActivatedCarbon34.8 48.2Sulfur Raw 7.73 19.1Activated 13.7 49.0
  18. 18. CARBON PHYSICALPROPERTIESYield Surface Area Attrition% m2/ g %Broiler Litter 22.7 441 17.9Broiler Cake 11.0 395 24.0Turkey Litter 21.1 414 20.0Turkey Cake 16.4 394 25.8PUR RF - 474 32.0Coal 70.0 0 13.8Coconut Shell 22.7 843 22.3Wood 17.9 849 15.6Swine 17.0 419 20.6Dairy 26.8 318 22.1pH7.
  19. 19. PRELIMINARY AMMONIA STUDY Preliminary studies show the carbon from broiler litter (BAC)performed better than the commercial carbon with regard to NH3adsorption The broiler litter carbon resisted breakthrough 21% longer thanthe Vapure 612, the commercial carbon. The concentration of the NH3 gas was 7.05 mg N/min for thebroiler litter assessment and 6.87 mg N/min for the Vapure trial. The removal rates were 0.98 mg N/min for the BAC which wasthe maximum allowed by the experimental flow rates for 20minutes. The rate of adsorption of the Vapure carbon at 0.42 mg N/min wasless than half of that of the BAC.
  20. 20. PRELIMINARY AMMONIA RESULTSSample ID TotalAdsorption(mg N)mg NAdsorbed/gramCarbonBreakthroughTime(seconds)BAC 19.6 2.07 63Vapure 8.3 1.02 50
  23. 23. PRE-WINDROW CARBON ADSORPTIONPERFORMANCE WITH 1000 PPMAMMONIA01002003004005006007008009001,0000 50 100 150 200Ammonia(ppm)Time (minutes)10g 5g 2g 1g
  24. 24. CONCLUSIONSWaste sources tested result in carbons withlow surface areas and low percent yields ascompared to commercial grade carbonsActivated carbon made from broiler litter isefficacious for NH3 adsorption originating fromlitterBroiler activated carbon performed better thancommercial Vapure carbon in preliminarytests, but was comparable to the commercialcarbon in the litter emission studyThe BAC represents the re-use of a wastematerial, deriving inherent value not only fromits role as a carbon, but also as a disposalmechanism for the poultry waste itself
  25. 25. RECOMMENDATIONSAnalysis of the surface properties of thecarbonsSurface functional groupsEqualize the driving force for accuratecomparisonAssessment of the feasibility of the use ofthe carbons in granular form Adsorption Regeneration/attrition