AIR QUALITY POWERFUL IMPACT powerpoint.pptx

1. 1

2. 2
Outline
• Executive Summary
• Overview of Agricultural Pollutants concentration and Sources
• Technological Processes in Agriculture
• Livestock air pollutant
• NH3 emission in Canada
• Reactive reduction control methods
• Biotechnologies for air pollutant
• Conclusion
• References

3. 3
Executive Summary
Agriculture is one of the oldest professions perhaps the earliest means of sustenance.
The trade is practiced both on a subsistent and commercial level.
The value chain of the agricultural sector is growing every year because of the huge demand
for food and meat from the world's growing population
This exponential growth in population resulted in the rise of rapid production and the use of
fertilizers to yield agricultural production.
This leads to more animal and crop straw waste production.
Manure generation, management became the huge precursor to prevalence of greenhouse
gas (GHG) methane () and nitrous oxide () release
Our presentation chronicles global efforts made to recycle precursor agents - Manure -
back into production, through technological innovations, and Control Emission through
Elimination, Reduction, and other control strategies.

4. Overview of Agricultural Pollutants
4
Agricultural Waste
Soil
Livestock
Slurry includes
urine, wnaff,
water,
Solid Waste
includes
Feaces and
Beddings of
Animals,
deadstock
Organi
c
Matter
Inorganic
Matter
Mechanization

5. 5
Livestock Waste
• Animal Dungs are the Primary sources of Waste in Agriculture
Pollutants released from animal waste are
• Organic Ammonia
• Residual Pesticides
• Gases from waste storage facilities and waste disposal
activities Greenhouse—(CO2, N2O), toxic (NH3, H2S), Odors—
H2S, mercaptans, indoles, org-sulfides.

6. 6
Atmospheric Interaction with Sources[42]
Agricultural outflow of Ammonia directly affects
freshwater ecosystems through direct, interaction
with animals which affect toxicity.
Ammonia is a major cause of nitrogen
contamination next to nitrogen oxides.
Ammonia contamination also affects the soil type
composition, leave direct toxic damage and plant
frost, drought and susceptibility to pathogens
Excessive use of fertilizers and pesticides causes
nitrogen, phosphorus, and other chemical
minerals to be carried into surrounding surface
waterways by rain or irrigation, causing
eutrophication of bodies of water by encouraging
algal growth.
and emissions are also influenced by how
livestock manure is treated. Manure treatment
and storage procedures have an impact on the
amount of emissions released.
CO2 from liming and ammonia use, from rice
production, and smoking crop leftovers, which
creates both and , are all lesser contributors of
agrarian releases
Atmospheric emissions, transport, transformation, and deposition of trace gases

7. Emission of the Main Air Pollutants[8]
7
Ammonia Emission almost constant
for 3 decades
Volatile Organic Chemicals took a
downward trend from 25000tonnes
in 1990 to about 5000tonne
Oxides of Nitrogen has uniformly
decreased over the years
Particulate Matter has globally
been on a decelerating trends for
the 3decades
Oxides of Sulphur illustrates a fall
in emission level over the years

8. 8
Main Air Pollutants in U.S and Europe [8]
and emissions are also influenced by how livestock manure is treated. Manure treatment and
storage procedures have an impact on the amount of emissions released. In the United States,
there are zero countrywide surveillance systems for greenhouse gases (GHGs, e.g., N2O, CH4,
etc.), NOx, decreased sulphur compounds, VOCs, or NH3. On the other hand, a huge
infrastructure has been established to analyze the variations in atmospheric composition caused by
burning coal. Nevertheless, the following estimates have been produced based on atmospheric
chemistry

9. 9
Emission of the Main Air Pollutants (N2O)[8]
kt/yr Direct
Emissions
Total
Agric
% from manure
management
Animal
house and
manure
storage
Manure
spreading
N fix
crops
Crop
Residue
Grazing
Emissions
Fert.
Emissions
Othera
Emissions
N deptn. N.
Leach.
Austria 2.83 2.05 0.44 0.79 0.72 1.96 0.03 0.56 3 12.38 39.4
Australia 5.14 2.22 1.82 2.41 12.65 9.27 0 11.53 8.44 53.53 13.7
Canada 15.45 7.25 0 16.85 12.56 22.79 0.28 9.02 25.29 109.69 20.7
Denmark 1.9 3.71 0.68 1.03 0.66 3.75 0.29 1.44 6.31 20.13 27.9
Japan 15.68 3.4 0.27 2.14 0.04 4.64 0 4.21 5.39 36.13 52.8
Portugal 1.85 1.09 0.05 0.48 2.43 0.96 0.01 0.6 2.42 9.89 29.7
Spain 9.61 8.74 3.68 2.21 5.23 17.54 0.74 3.45 22.07 73.27 25
UK 5.43 7.51 0.41 7.19 13.77 19.41 0.56 4.92 20.83 80.52 16.1
Indirect Emissions
a
Austria - sewage sludge spreading: Denmark - industrial waste and sewage; Portugal- not specified; Spain - domestic wastewater sludge and municipal solid waste compost; and UK - N fixed
improved grassland.

10. 10
Nitrogen and
Ammonia Emission
remains the major
air pollutants to be
addressed in the
Agricultural Sector.
To address this,
there are two
pathways noted
• lowering raw
material while
simultaneously
boosting
utilization, and
• lowering releases
via technological
means [43].
However, The
technological means
offers broader
generalized
possibilities.
In the US. There
has been
remarkable
outcome of
lowering ammonia
in pig manure
using Engineering
processes.
74 percent drop in
ammonia emissions,
releases according to
Szogi [45].
•Vanotti [46]
discovered that
greenhouse gas
emissions
significantly
decreased by 97.8%,
•
•Additional income
of $9,200 to
$28,500/year (about.
$0.910/finished pig)
was produced as
proceed from the
sales
Technological Processes in Agriculture[43]

11. 11
Technological Processes in Agriculture[15]
Set up for Anaerobic Treatment and Biogas Plant [15]
Operating Conditions
• The digesters were run at 35°C for 29
or 56 days with a HRT of 29 or 56
days.
• Digesters were fed controlled manure
12 times daily, and the processed
material was extracted on a regular
basis.
• The biogas production and
concentration was regularly
monitored.
• Digesters were maintained at fixed
operating parameters for a minimum
of one HRT well prior to feedstock
being recovered for outdoor trials.

12. 12
Technological Processes in Agriculture[15]
Discussion on Technology Process
The fermentation investigations revealed that additives can boost production of biogas significantly see Table 2, but there was
also a rise in emissions which was encountered when the sludge was being digested. See Table 3.
Fermentation had little effect on substrate properties, resulting in increased overall GHG emissions following field
application See Table 5.
The use of active ingredients, which are commonly utilized to boost biogas digester revenue, should always be
done with caution to ensure that Environmental impacts in preservation are kept to a minimum.
The use of sustainable substrates like starch, maize, farm trash and other agricultural materials rather than city
trash reduces the likelihood of metal pollution.
During storage, raw slurry gave up more than digestible sludge.
In anaerobic digestion, organic matter is converted to and CO2, leading in a remnant with a decreased yield and
hence a reduced propensity for generation

13. 13
NH3 emission in Canada
Livestock & fertilizer NH3 emission by Canadian province 2002[2].
Provinces of Canada Livestock NH3 emission ( Fertilizer NH3 emission ( Share of
emissions (%)
Total farm area
(km2
)
NH3 emission densities
(kg.km-2
.yr-1
)
Newfoundland 509 30 0.1 406 1328
Prince Edward Island 2299 882 0.8 2615 1217
Nova Scotia 3260 313 0.9 4070 878
New Brunswick 2798 580 0.8 3881 870
Quebec 57,312 9460 16 34,170 1954
Ontario 67,486 17,629 20.4 54,662 1557
Manitoba 32,755 16,040 11.7 76,018 642
Saskatchewan 40,044 38,626 18.9 262,656 300
Alberta 86,170 25,579 26.8 210,675 530
British Columbia 13,599 1296 3.6 25,871 576
Canada 306,232 110,435 100 675,024 617

14. 14
NH3 emission in Canada & United States
Livestock NH3 emission and intensity for Canada and United State 2002[3].
NH3 emission/ Intensity Indicator Canada United States
Beef emissions ( 162,606 616,553
Kg/Mt of meat production 126 50
Dairy emissions ( 51,766 495,765
Kg/hectoliter of milk production 1 1
Swine emission ( 72,879 348,530
Kg/Mt of meat production 39 39
Beef emission ( 18,981 498,622
Kg/Mt of meat production 17 29

15. 15
Reactive reduction control methods
Oil Spraying methods (Reduce dust)[4].
Reduce Respirable dust around 80%.
Reduce Inhalable dust around 85%.
Electrostatic Precipitator (ESP) [5].
Parameters Industrial ESP Improved ESP
Gas velocity (m/s) 1.5-2.5 1.7
Reynolds number (Re) 5,000-25,000 45,000-68,000
Resident Time (s) 1-20 0.0015
Collecting area (m2
) 460-7,000 (per section) 1.332
Specific collection area
(m2
(m3
/min))
0.25-2.1 0.2
Corona power ratio
(W(m3
/min))
1.75-17.5 0.01-0.27
Corona power ratio (µA/m2
) 50-750 28-140

16. 16
Biotechnologies for air pollutant
Bio filters (BFs) [6].
Max EC
(g NH3/m3
.h)
Max
RE(%)
EBRT(s) Packing Material Time
(Days)
Inoculum
86 100 20-36 Coconut 795 NA
37.5 99 14 Commercial 125 NA
53.5 87 21-42 Compost 118 NA
134 >85 20-47 Fuyolite 61 Vibrio
alginolyticu
13.44 >95 32-80 (Compost + Activate Carbon)
(Compost + Activated Sludge +
Granular Activated Carbon)
>240 Activated
Sludge
61.3 98.8 86 Compost 60 NA
61 100 13-60 Peat
Rockwool
Fuyolite
Ceramic
60 Night- Soil
Sludge

17. 17
Biotechnologies for air pollutant
Bio Trickling Filter (BTF) [7]. Max EC
(g NH3/m3
.h)
Max
RE(%)
EBRT(s) Packing Material Time
(Days)
Inoculum
124 99 2-46 PUF 232 Nitrifying
Sludge
54.6 100 2-10 PUF 240 Nitrifying
Sludge
131 98 4-60 Exhausted Carbon 30 Enriched
Culture
328 100 5-150 PUF >30 Nitrosomon
as europaea
120 100 13.5 Cattle Bone Composite
Ceramic
46 Activated
Sludge
118 100 8 Coal Slag >270 Activated
Sludge
140 99.9 6.7-10.8 Coal Slag NA Enriched
Culture
112 100 24 Rasching Ring 240 Enriched
Culture
78 99 96 Fiber 47 Activated
Sludge

18. 18
Biotechnologies for air pollutant
Bio scrubbing [8].
Packing Materials
Rasching Rings
Pall Rings
Saddles

19. 19
Conclusion
• The use of anaerobic digestion to reduce GHG emissions from cattle slurry has a lot of potentials.
• There is a need for improvement in capturing of point and area sources data of agricultural air
pollutants
• Co-digestion of slurry with additives such as waste starch yields a considerably increased gas
yield
• In this study, GHG emissions from untreated and digested slurry after field application were
relatively low and not significantly different
• Biogas production is a very efficient way to reduce the GHG emissions both through production
of renewable energy and through avoidance of uncontrolled GHG emissions into the atmosphere
during manure management
• Bio Filters NH3 abatement around 65%, Organic Packing Material.
• Bio Trickling Filters inorganic, and Max elimination capacity range from 120 – 140 g NH3/m3
.h

20. 20
References
• [1] Z. Mengqi, A. Shi, M. Ajmal, L. Ye, and M. Awais, “Comprehensive review on agricultural waste utilization and high-temperature
fermentation and composting,” Biomass Conversion and Biorefinery 2021, pp. 1–24, Mar. 2021, doi: 10.1007/S13399-021-01438-5.
• [2] Y. Yao et al., “Anaerobic digestion of livestock manure in cold regions: Technological advancements and global impacts,”
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 119, p. 109494, Mar. 2020, doi: 10.1016/J.RSER.2019.109494.
• [3] “Nitrogen Dynamics | UNL Water.” https://water.unl.edu/article/animal-manure-management/nitrogen-dynamics (accessed Mar.
25, 2022).
• [4] “World Greenhouse Gas Emissions: 2005 | World Resources Institute.” https://www.wri.org/data/world-greenhouse-gas-emissions-
2005 (accessed Mar. 25, 2022).
• [5] S. E. Bauer, K. Tsigaridis, and R. Miller, “Significant atmospheric aerosol pollution caused by world food cultivation,”
Geophysical Research Letters, vol. 43, no. 10, pp. 5394–5400, 2016, doi: 10.1002/2016GL068354/ABSTRACT.
• [6] “Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions | US EPA.” https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions
(accessed Mar. 29, 2022).
• [7] D. Chadwick et al., “Manure management: Implications for greenhouse gas emissions,” Animal Feed Science and Technology, vol.
166–167, pp. 514–531, Jun. 2011, doi: 10.1016/J.ANIFEEDSCI.2011.04.036.

21. 21
References
• Arogo J., Westerman, P. W., Heber, A. J., Robarge, W. P., Classen J. J. (2006). Ammonia emissions from animal feeding operations. In: Animal Agriculture and the
Environment: National Center for Manure and Animal Waste Management White Papers (J. M. Rice, D. F. Caldwell, F. J. Humenik, eds.), pp 41–88, ASABE, St. Joseph, MI.
• [15] Banhazi TM (2009) User-friendly air quality monitoring system. Applied Engineering in Agriculture 25, 281-290.
• [16] Nimmermark, S. (2004). Odor impact: Odor release, dispersion and influence on human well-being with specific focus on animal production. Available from
http://diss-epsilon.slu.se/archive/00000692/.
• [17] ASCC, (2009) Hazardous Substances Information System: Exposure Limits. In: Exposure Standards, Vol. 2009, Australian Safety and Compensation Council Sydney,
Australia: Australian Government, viewed online 8 November 2009, <http://hsis.ascc.gov.au/SearchES.aspx>.
• [18] Zhao, Z., Bai, Z., Winiwarter, W., Kiesewetter, G., Heyes, C., Ma, L., 2017. Mitigating ammonia emission from agriculture reduces PM2.5 pollution in the Hai River
Basin in China. Sci. Total Environ. 609, 1152–1160.
• [19] Statistics Canada, 2009a. Table 1.5. Agriculture overview, Canada and the provincesland use, census years 2006 and 2001.
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/95-629-x/1/4123822-eng.htm (accessed 20.05.09).
• [20] FAO, 2009. http://faostat.fao.org (accessed 15.12.09).
• [21] Choiniere Y, M. J. (1993) Farm workers health problems related to air quality inside livestock barns. Ministry of Agriculture and Food Factsheet, 4, 3.
• [22] Banhazi TM, Black JL (2009) Precision livestock farming: a suite of electronic systems to ensure the application of best practice management on livestock farms.
Australian Journal of Multi-disciplinary Engineering 7, 1-14.
• [23] Bønløkke, J. H., Mériaux, A., Duchaine, C., Godbout, S. & Cormier, Y. (2009) Seasonal variations in work-related health effects in swine farm workers. Annals of
Agricultural and

22. 22
• Ndegwa, P. M., Hristov, A. N., Arogo, J. & Sheffield, R. E. 2008. A review of ammonia emission mitigation techniques for concentrated animal feeding
operations. Biosystems Engineering, 100, 453-469.
• [25] Zhang, Y. (1998) Sprinkling Oil to Reduce Dust. Agricultural Engineers Digest, 42.
• [26] Banhazi, T. M., Seedorf, J., Rutley, D. L. & Pitchford, W. S. 2008b, Identification of risk factors for suboptimal housing conditions in Australian
piggeries – Part II: Airborne pollutants, Journal of Agricultural Safety and Health, Vol. 14, No. 1, pp. 21-39.
• [27] Takai, H. (2007) Factors influencing dust reduction efficiency of spraying of oil-water mixtures in pig buildings. DustConf 2007 - How to improve
air quality. Maastricht, Netherlands.
• [28] Kim, K.-Y., Ko, H.-J., Kim, H.-T., Kim, Y.-S., Roh, Y.-M., Lee, C.-M. & Kim, C.-N. (2008) Odor reduction rate in the confinement pig building by
spraying various additives. Bioresource Technology, 99, 8464-8469.
• [29] Chai, M., Lu, M., Keener, T., Khang, S.-J., Chaiwatpongsakorn, C. & Tisch, J. (2009) Using an improved electrostatic precipitator for poultry dust
removal. Journal of Electrostatics, In Press, Corrected Proof.
• [30] Barbusinski, K., Kalemba, K., Kasperczyk, D., Urbaniec, K., Kozik, V., 2017. Biological methods for odor treatment e a review. J. Clean. Prod. 152,
223e241.
• [31] Kim, N.-J., Hirai, M., Shoda, M., 2000a. Comparison of organic and inorganic packing materials in the removal of ammonia gas in biofilters. J.
Hazard Mater. 72, 77e90.
• [32] Dorado, A.D., Lafuente, J., Gabriel, D., Gamisans, X., 2010a. A comparative study based on physical characteristics of suitable packing materials in
biofiltration. Environ. Technol. 31, 193e204.

23. 23
• ] Devinny, J.S., Deshusses, M.A., Webster, T.S., 1998. Biofiltration for Air Pollution Control. Environmental engineering air pollution.
• [34] Yasuda, T., Kuroda, K., Fukumoto, Y., Hanajima, D., Suzuki, K., 2009. Evaluation of full-scale biofilter with rockwool mixture treating ammonia gas from livestock manure composting. Bioresour. Technol. 100,
1568e1572.
• [35] Yang, L., Kent, A.D.,Wang, X., Funk, T.L., Gates, R.S., Zhang, Y., 2014a. Moisture effects on gas-phase biofilter ammonia removal efficiency, nitrous oxide generation, and microbial communities. J. Hazard
Mater. 271, 292e301.
• [36] Nicolai, R.E., Clanton, C.J., Janni, K.A., Malzer, G.L., 2006. Ammonia removal during biofiltration as affected by inlet air temperature and media moisture content. Trans. ASABE (Am. Soc. Agric. Biol. Eng.) 49,
1125e1138.
• [37] Barbusinski, K., Kalemba, K., Kasperczyk, D., Urbaniec, K., Kozik, V., 2017. Biological methods for odor treatment e a review. J. Clean. Prod. 152, 223e241.
• [38] Kawase, Y., Hirata, A., Kojima, T., Ohmori, S., Akutagawa, H., Uehara, K., Iwata, K., Nakajima, T., Yamamoto, K., 2014. Improvement of biodegradation in compact co-current biotrickling filter by high recycle
liquid flow rate: performance and biodegradation kinetics of ammonia removal. Process Biochem. 49, 1733e1740.
• [39] Melse, R.W., Ploegaert, J.P.M., Ogink, N.W.M., 2012. Biotrickling filter for the treatment of exhaust air from a pig rearing building: ammonia removal performance and its fluctuations. Biosyst. Eng. 113, 242e252
• [40] Ndegwa, P. M., Hristov, A. N., Arogo, J. & Sheffield, R. E. 2008. A review of ammonia emission mitigation techniques for concentrated animal feeding operations. Biosystems Engineering, 100, 453-469.
• [41] Serpil Savci, 2012. An Agricultural Pollutant: Chemical Fertilizer. International Journal of Environmental Science and Development, Vol. 3, No. 1, February 2012,
• [42] “Effects of Agriculture upon the Air Quality and Climate: Research, Policy, and Regulations”, doi: 10.1021/es8024403.
• [43] Erisman, J. W.; Domburg, N.; de Vries, W.; Kros, H.; de Haan,B.; Sanders, K. The Dutch N-cascade in the European perspec-tive.Sci. China2005,48, 827–842
• [44] Aneja, V. P.; Arya, S. P.; Rumsey, I. C.; Kim, D.-S.; Bajwa, K. S.;Williams, C. M. Characterizing ammonia emissions from swinefarms in eastern North Carolina: Reduction of emissions fromwater-holding
structures at two candidate superior technologiesfor waste treatment.Atmos. Environ.2008,42, 3291–3300.
• [45] Szo gi, A. Reduction of ammonia emissions from swine lagoonsusing alternative wastewater technologies.The Workshop onAgricultural Air Quality: State of Science, 4 June 2006; TheEcological Society
̈
of America, 2006; pp 1155-1160.