Air Quality and Livestock Farming

VetBooks.
ir
AIR QUALITY AND LIVESTOCK FARMING
VetBooks.ir
VetBooks.ir
Sustainable Energy Developments
VetBooks.ir
Series editor
Jochen Bundschuh
University of Southern Queensland (USQ), Toowoomba, Australia
Royal Institute of Technology (KTH), Stockholm, Sweden
Volume 15
VetBooks.ir
VetBooks.ir
Geothermal,
Air Wind
Quality and and Solar Energy
Livestock
Applications in Agriculture
Farming
and Aquaculture
Editors
Editors
Thomas Banhazi
University of Southern Queensland, Toowoomba, Queensland, Australia
Jochen Bundschuh
Andres Alandof Technology (KTH), Stockholm, Sweden
Royal Institute
Estonian University of Life Sciences, Tartu, Estonia
Guangnan Chen
Jörg Hartung
University of Veterinary Medicine, Hannover, Germany
D. Chandrasekharam
Indian Institute of Technology Hyderabad, Hyderabad, India
Janusz Piechocki
University of Warmia and Mazury, Olsztyn, Poland
VetBooks.ir
CRC Press/Balkema is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business
© 2018 Taylor & Francis Group, London, UK
Typeset by Apex CoVantage, LLC
All rights reserved. No part of this publication or the information contained herein may be
reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic,
mechanical, by photocopying, recording or otherwise, without written prior permission from the
publishers.
Although all care is taken to ensure integrity and the quality of this publication and the
information herein, no responsibility is assumed by the publishers nor the author for any
damage to the property or persons as a result of operation or use of this publication and/or the
information contained herein.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Names: Banhazi, Thomas, editor. | Aland, A. (Andres), editor. | Hartung, Jorg, editor.
Title: Air quality and livestock farming / editors: Thomas Banhazi, Andres Aland, Jorg Hartung.
Description: Boca Raton : CRC Press/Balkema, 2018. | Series: Sustainable energy
developments ; Volume 15 | Includes bibliographical references and index.
Identifiers: LCCN 2018008186 (print) | LCCN 2018022011 (ebook) |
ISBN 9781315738338 (ebook) | ISBN 9781138027039 (hardcover : alk. paper)
Subjects: LCSH: Livestock—Climatic factors. | Agricultural pollution.
Classification: LCC SF140.C57 (ebook) | LCC SF140.C57 A37 2018 (print) |
DDC 338.1/4—dc23
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2018008186
Published by: CRC Press/Balkema
Schipholweg 107C, 2316 XC Leiden, The Netherlands
e-mail: Pub.NL@taylorandfrancis.com
www.crcpress.com – www.taylorandfrancis.com
ISBN: 978-1-138-02703-9 (Hbk)
ISBN: 978-1-315-73833-8 (eBook)
About the book series
VetBooks.ir
Renewable energy sources and sustainable policies, including the promotion of energy efficiency
and energy conservation, offer substantial long-term benefits to industrialized, developing, and
transitional countries. They provide access to clean and domestically available energy and lead
to a decreased dependence on fossil fuel imports and a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.
Replacing fossil fuels with renewable resources affords a solution to the increased scarcity
and price of fossil fuels. Additionally, it helps to reduce anthropogenic emission of greenhouse
gases and their impacts on climate. In the energy sector, fossil fuels can be replaced by renewable
energy sources. In the chemistry sector, petroleum chemistry can be replaced by sustainable or
green chemistry. In agriculture, sustainable methods can be used to enable soils to act as car-
bon dioxide sinks. In the construction sector, sustainable building practices and green construc-
tion can be used, replacing, for example, steel-enforced concrete by textile-reinforced concrete.
Research and development and capital investments in all these sectors will not only contribute
to climate protection but will also stimulate economic growth and create millions of new jobs.
This book series will serve as a multidisciplinary resource. It links the use of renewable energy
and renewable raw materials, such as sustainably grown plants, with the needs of human soci-
ety. The series addresses the rapidly growing worldwide interest in sustainable solutions. These
solutions foster development and economic growth while providing a secure supply of energy.
They make society less dependent on petroleum by substituting alternative compounds for fossil-
fuel-based goods. All these contribute to minimize our impacts on climate. The series covers all
fields of renewable energy sources and materials. It addresses possible applications not only from
a technical point of view, but also from economic, financial, social, and political viewpoints.
Legislative and regulatory aspects, key issues for implementing sustainable measures, are of par-
ticular interest.
This book series aims to become a state-of-the-art resource for a broad group of readers includ-
ing a diversity of stakeholders and professionals. Readers will include members of governmental
and non-governmental organizations, international funding agencies, universities, public energy
institutions, the renewable industry sector, the green chemistry sector, organic farmers and farm-
ing industry, public health and other relevant institutions, and the broader public. It is designed
to increase awareness and understanding of renewable energy sources and the use of sustainable
materials. It also aims to accelerate their development and deployment worldwide, bringing their
use into the mainstream over the next few decades while systematically replacing fossil and
nuclear fuels.
The objective of this book series is to focus on practical solutions in the implementation of
sustainable energy and climate protection projects. Not moving forward with these efforts could
have serious social and economic impacts. This book series will help to consolidate international
findings on sustainable solutions. It includes books authored and edited by world-renowned sci-
entists and engineers and by leading authorities in economics and politics. It will provide a valu-
able reference work to help surmount our existing global challenges.
Jochen Bundschuh
(Series Editor)
vii
VetBooks.ir
Editorial board
VetBooks.ir
Morgan Bazilian Lead Energy Specialist, The World Bank, Washington DC, USA
Robert K. Dixon Director, Strategic Programs, US Department of Energy, Washington,
DC, USA
Maria da Graça Former Member of the European Parliament, Brussels, Professor at
Carvalho Instituto Superior Técnico, Technical University of Lisbon, Portugal,
presently Advisor European Commission, Brussels, Belgium
Rainer Vice President of the European Renewable Energies Federation (EREF),
Hinrichs-Rahlwes Brussels, Belgium; Board Member & Chairperson of the European and
International Affairs Working Group of the German Renewable Energy
Federation (BEE), Berlin, Germany
Eric Martinot School of Management and Economics, Beijing Institute of Technology &
Center for Energy and Environmental Policy Research, Beijing, China &
Institute for Sustainable Energy Policies, Tokyo, Japan
Veena Joshi, Former Senior Advisor-Energy, Section Climate Change and
Development, Embassy of Switzerland (New Delhi); Pune, India
Christine Milne Former Leader of the Australian Greens Party; former Senator for
Tasmania; Patron of the Australian Solar Council; Ambassador for
the 100% Renewable Energy Campaign of the World Future Council
(Hamburg, Germany); Member of Energy Watch Group; Board Member
of Climate Accountability (USA); Ambassador for the Global Greens,
Sandy Bay, TAS, Australia
ADVISORY EDITORIAL BOARD
ALBANIA
Bashkim Mal Lushaj (environmental impact assessment; strategic environmental assessment
and environmental legislation), Department of Water Resources and Renewable Energies
(DWRRE), Institute of Geosciences & Energy, Water & Environment (IGEWE); Department
of Environmental Engineering (DEE), Faculty of Civil Engineering (FCE), Polytechnic
University of Tirana (PUT), Tirana
ALGERIA
Hacene Mahmoudi (renewable energy for desalination and water treatment; membrane
technologies), Faculty of Technology, Hassiba Ben Bouali University of Chlef (UHBC),
Chlef
ARGENTINA
Marta Irene Litter (advanced oxidation technologies, heterogeneous photocatalysis),
Remediation Technologies Division, Environmental Chemistry Department, Chemistry
Management, National Atomic Energy Commission (CNEA), Buenos Aires; National
Scientific and Technique Research Council (CONICET); Institute of Research and
ix
x Editorial board
Environmental Engineering, National University of General San Martín (UNSAM), San

VetBooks.ir
Martin
AUSTRALIA
Aliakbar Akbarzadeh (renewable energy and energy conservation), Leader, Energy
Conservation and Renewable Energy (CARE) Group, School of Aerospace, Mechanical and
Manufacturing Engineering, RMIT University, Melbourne, VIC
Peter Ashman [high-efficiency generation of electricity via integrated gasification combined
cycle (IGCC); low-rank coals and other solids fuels, including biomass and waste fuels; coal-
to-liquids; thermal processing (combustion and gasification) of winery biomass residues,
and gasification of algae biomass, algae/coal blends and algae/wood blends; commercial
exploitation of microalgae for the production of renewable biofuels; production of synthetic
transport fuels using solar gasification with both coal and biomass feedstocks; solar
simulator], Director, South Australian Coal Research Laboratory (SACRL); Head, School of
Chemical Engineering, School of Chemical Engineering’s Microalgae Engineering Research
Group (MERG), University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA
Thomas Banhazi (biological agriculture; sustainable farming, agriculture sustainable energy
solutions), National Centre of Engineering in Agriculture (NCEA) and Faculty of Health,
Engineering and Science, University of Southern Queensland (USQ), Toowoomba, QLD
Andrew Blakers (solar energy, solar cell photovoltaic technology), Director, Centre for
Sustainable Energy Systems and Director, ARC Centre for Solar Energy Systems, Australian
National University (UNU), Canberra, ACT
John Boland (energy meteorology), School of ITMS and Barbara Hardy Institute, University
of South Australia (UniSA), Adelaide, SA
Dan Cass (climate and energy policy and politics, role of business), Strategist, The Australia
Institute; Honorary Associate, Sydney Business School; Advisory Board Member, Solar
Head of State; Melbourne, VIC
Guangnan Chen (sustainable energy applications in agriculture), Faculty of Health,
Engineering and Sciences, & National Centre for Engineering in Agriculture (NCEA),
University of Southern Queensland (USQ), Toowoomba, QLD
Peter Droege (renewable energy autonomy and cities, urban energy transition), Institute
of Architecture and Planning, University of Liechtenstein; Founding Director, eurisd.org,
the Institute for Strategic Development, Vaduz, Liechtenstein & Faculty of Engineering,
University of Newcastle (UON), Newcastle, NSW
Maria Forsyth (charge transport at metal/electrolyte interfaces and within novel electrolyte
materials: novel ionic liquids, polymer electrolytes and plastic crystals; NMR techniques;
NMR imaging of electrochemical processes; lithium and sodium battery technologies;
design of new materials and processes to control and optimize corrosion and electrochemical
devices), Australian Laureate Fellow, Associate Director in the ARC Centre of Excellence in
Electromaterials Science (ACES) and Deputy Director of the Institute for Frontier Materials
(IFM), Deakin University, Burwood, VIC
Barry A. Goldstein (geothermal energy: regulation and investment attraction for exploration/
production), Executive Director, Energy Resources – Department of State Development
for Manufacturing, Innovation, Trade, Resources and Energy, State Government of South
Australia, Adelaide, SA
Hal Gurgenci (enhanced geothermal systems; power generation; concentrating solar thermal
power), School of Mechanical and Mining Engineering, The University of Queensland (UQ),
Brisbane, QLD
Editorial board xi
Wasim Saman (sustainable energy; solar thermal electricity generation and storage;
VetBooks.ir
developing and implementing sustainable systems and technologies including solar and
energy-efficient heating, cooling and storage systems; methodologies for evaluating and
reducing energy use in new housing developments; energy rating tools for housings;
integrated solar system for the provision of hot water heating and cooling, integrating solar
generation into roofing systems; air-conditioning; low carbon living), Director of the Barbara
Hardy Institute; Research Leader in the CRC for Low Carbon Living and Node Co-Leader
in the Australian Solar Thermal Research Initiative Division of Information Technology;
Engineering and the Environment, School of Engineering, University of South Australia
(UniSA), Adelaide, SA
Talal Yusaf (alternative fuels for IC engines, microorganism treatment, microalgae fuel-
production and applications), Faculty of Health, Engineering and Sciences, University of
Southern Queensland (USQ), Toowoomba, QLD
AUSTRIA
Roland Dimai (electromobility: intersection green power generation automotive industry;
needs of human sustainable e-mobility), REFFCON GmbH, Dornbirn
BOLIVIA
Hernan Guido Vera Ruiz (radiochemistry and chemical kinetics; production of radionuclides
with nuclear research reactors and cyclotrons, kinetics related to the destruction of the ozone
layer by FCCs, atmospheric and planetary chemistry, climate change and conventional
renewable energies), Bolivian focal point for energy in the InterAmerican Network of
Academies of Sciences (IANAS), La Paz
BRAZIL
Luis Cortez (biorefinery, biofuels and engines: science and technology of biofuels and
bioelectricity; sugarcane bioethanol sustainability and productivity; roadmap on sustainable
biofuels for aviation; sugarcane residue pyrolysis), Faculty of Agricultural Engineering &
Vice President of International Affairs, University of Campinas (UNICAMP); Brazilian
focal point for energy in the InterAmerican Network of Academies of Sciences (IANAS),
Campinas, SP
Gilberto De Martino Jannuzzi (energy for sustainable development), Center for Energy
Studies (NIPE), University of Campinas (UNICAMP), Campinas, SP
José Goldemberg (biofuels), University of São Paulo (USP), São Paulo, SP
Edson Nakagawa (geothermal energy exploitation; technology for offshore under-balanced
drilling; well control programs in deepwater scenarios), Pré-sal Petróleo S.A., Rio de Janeiro, RJ
Roberto Schaeffer (energy efficiency, renewable energy and global climate change), Federal
University of Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ), Rio de Janeiro, RJ
Geraldo Lúcio Tiago Filho (sustainable hydropower, renewable energy in general),
National Reference Center for Small Hydropower, Federal University of Itajubá (UNIFEI),
Itajubá, MG
CANADA
Xianguo Li (fuel cells, energy and exergy analysis, energy efficiency), Department of
Mechanical Engineering, University of Waterloo (UW), Waterloo, ON
Marc A. Rosen (modeling of energy systems, exergy, district energy, thermal energy storage),
Faculty of Engineering and Applied Science, University of Ontario Institute of Technology
(UOIT), Oshawa, ON
xii Editorial board
Erik J. Spek (electric cars, batteries/energy storage), TÜV SÜD Canada, Newmarket, ON
VetBooks.ir
Sheldon S. Williamson (electric and hybrid electric vehicles, automotive power electronics
and motor drives), Department of Electrical, Computer, and Software Engineering, Faculty of
Engineering and Applied Science, University of Ontario – Institute of Technology, Oshawa,
ON
Laurence T. Yang [green(ing) computing], Department of Computer Science, St. Francis
Xavier University (StFX), Antigonish, NS
CHINA
Ma Jiming (sustainable hydropower), Department of Hydraulic Engineering, Tsinghua
University, Beijing
COLOMBIA
José María Rincón Martínez (energy efficiency and renewable energies; biofuels;
carbones; petrochemistry), National University of Colombia (retired), Board of Directors
CORPOEMA; Colombian focal point for energy in the InterAmerican Network of Academies
of Sciences (IANAS), Bogota
CROATIA
Neven Duić (integration of electricity, heating/cooling, transport, water systems, energy
policy, energy planning, mitigation of climate change; energy management and economics;
sustainable development policy and resource planning; climate change mitigation;
combustion engineering and modeling; research and innovation policy), Chair, Department
of Energy, Power Engineering and Environment, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering and
Naval Architecture, University of Zagreb; President of the International Centre of Sustainable
Development of Energy, Water and Environment Systems; Editor Energy Conversion and
Management, Zagreb
CYPRUS
Soteris Kalogirou (solar energy and desalination), Department of Mechanical Engineering
and Materials Sciences and Engineering, Cyprus University of Technology (CUT), Limasol
DENMARK
Poul Alberg Østergaard (energy system analysis of large-scale integration of fluctuating
renewable energy sources; optimization criteria of energy systems analyses; analyses of
grid impacts of renewable energy development scenarios; sustainable energy plans for local
areas), Department of Development and Planning, Aalborg University, Aalborg
Søren Linderoth (fuel cells and hydrogen technologies), Head of Department, Department of
Energy Conversion and Storage, Technical University of Denmark (DTU), Roskilde
Kim Nielsen (ocean energy), Ramboll, Copenhagen
ECUADOR
Melio Saenz Echeverria (models in environmental engineering; mathematical modeling of
fluid mechanics; general systems theory; decision theory and planning), Program for the
Management of Water and Soil (PROMAS-University of Cuenca); Ecuadorian focal point for
energy in the InterAmerican Network of Academies of Sciences (IANAS), Quito
FIJI ISLANDS
Thomas Lynge Jensen (sustainable energy for small islands), UNDP Pacific Centre (PC),
Suva
Editorial board xiii
FRANCE
VetBooks.ir
Bruno Francois (renewable energy based electrical generators, smart grids), Lille Laboratory
of Electrical Engineering and Power Electronics (L2EP), Lille University of Science and
Technology, Lille
Sébastien Martinet (batteries for electric and hybrid vehicles), Department of Electricity and
Hydrogen for Transportation (DEHT), CEA – LITEN/DEHT, Grenoble
Jérôme Perrin (electric vehicles), VP Scientific Director at Renault, Guyancourt
GERMANY
Ramchandra Bhandari (rural electrification and development; environmental life cycle
assessment of energy technologies; sustainability assessment of energy systems; renewable
energy economics and efficiency), Institute for Technology and Resources Management in
the Tropics and Subtropics (ITT), TH Köln – University of Applied Sciences, Köln
Holger Dau (bio-inspired solar fuel production/water splitting/solar H2), Department of
Physics, Free Universität Berlin, Berlin
Claus Doll (hybrid electric vehicles; electric vehicles and mobility concepts; adapting
transport to climate change), Coordinator of Business Area Mobility, Fraunhofer Institute for
Systems and Innovation Research (ISI), Karlsruhe
Hans-Josef Fell (solar and renewable energy), President, Energy Watch Group (EWG);
Member of the German Parliament (1998–2013), Spokesperson on energy for the Alliance
90/The Greens parliamentary group in the German Parliament (2005–2013), Berlin
Jan Hoinkis (renewable energy for water treatment), Institute of Applied Research, Karlsruhe
University of Applied Sciences (HsKA), Karlsruhe
Ernst Huenges (geothermal reservoir technologies), Helmholtz Centre Potsdam GFZ German
Research Centre for Geosciences, Potsdam
Rainer Janssen (bioenergy, biofuels, RE strategies and policies, capacity building and
communication strategies), WIP Renewable Energies, München
Claudia Kemfert (energy economics, RE strategies), Department of Energy, Transportation
and Environment, German Institute for Economic Research (DIW) & Hertie School of
Governance, Berlin
Harry Lehmann (sustainability strategies and instruments, climate protection), General
Director, Division I Environmental Planning and Sustainability Strategies, Federal
Environment Agency of Germany, Dessau
Wolfgang Lubitz (bio-inspired solar fuel production/solar H2), Max Planck Institute for
Chemical Energy Conversion, Mülheim an der Ruhr
Thomas Ludwig [green(-ing) computing, energy-efficient high-performance computing],
Department of Informatics, University of Hamburg, Hamburg
Dietrich Schmidt (pre-industrial developments for sustainable buildings, energy efficiency),
Head, Department Energy Efficiency and Indoor Climate, Fraunhofer Institute for Building
Physics (IBP), Branch Kassel, Kassel
Frank Scholwin (biogas/biomethane), CEO, Institute for Biogas, Waste Management &
Energy, Weimar; The University of Rostock, Rostock
Wolfgang Winkler (fuel cells, applied thermodynamics), Ret. Director of Institute for Energy
Systems and Fuel Cell Technology, Hamburg University of Applied Sciences, Hamburg,
Secretary of IEC TC 105 “Fuel Cell Technologies,” Hamburg
xiv Editorial board
GREECE
VetBooks.ir
George Papadakis (renewable energy technologies for freshwater production; heat and mass
transport processes), Renewable Energy Technologies, Department of Natural Resources and
Agricultural Engineering, Agricultural University of Athens (AUA), Athens, Greece
Eftihia Tzen (water desalination, desalination with renewable energy sources), Wind Energy
Department, Centre for Renewable Energy Sources & Saving (CRES), Pikermi
GUATEMALA
Iván Azurdia Bravo (rural development with emphasis on renewable energy technologies:
small and medium size hydroelectricity, solar PV, solar thermal, wind, geothermal; biomass
utilization, biogas and energy efficiency; use of indigenous natural resources to create local
employment; adaptive resilience & technological syncretism based on Maya traditional
knowledge and renewable energy technology), Executive Director, AMSCLAE, Panajachel,
Sololá
HONDURAS
Wilfredo Flores (energy policy; energy markets; regulatory framework of electricity power
markets; social inclusion in energy sector; energy efficiency; renewable energy; analysis of
power systems using PSS/E; energy planning and use of Type-2 Fuzzy Logic Systems for
diagnosis of power transformers and elicitation of expert opinion in artificial intelligence
area), Central American Technological University (UNITEC); Hondurenean focal point for
energy in the InterAmerican Network of Academies of Sciences (IANAS)
HONG KONG
Dennis Y.C. Leung (energy conversion and conservation), Department of Mechanical
Engineering, The University of Hong Kong (HKU), Hong Kong
INDIA
Rangan Banerjee (energy systems modeling, energy efficiency, renewable energy),
Department of Energy Science and Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology – Bombay
(IITB), Mumbai
D. Chandrashekharam (geothermal resources in developing countries), Indian Institute of
Technology Hyderabad (IIT-H), Hyderabad
Sudipta De (sustainable energy engineering), Mechanical Engineering Department, Jadavpur
University (JU), Kolkata
Arun Kumar (sustainable hydropower), Alternate Hydro Energy Centre, Indian Institute of
Technology – Roorkee (IITR), Roorkee, Uttarakhand
Naveen Kumar (alternative fuels with special emphasis on biofuels), Mechanical
Engineering, Delhi Technological University (DTU), Delhi
Jayant K. Nayak (passive solar architecture, energy conscious building), Indian Institute of
Technology – Bombay (IITB), Mumbai
Ambuj D. Sagar (bioenergy, rural electrification), Vipula and Mahesh Chaturvedi Chair
in Policy Studies, Department of Humanities and Social Sciences, Indian Institute of
Technology – Delhi (IITD), New Delhi
IRELAND
Eoin Sweeney (ocean energy), Ocean Energy Development Unit, Sustainable Energy
Authority of Ireland (SEAI), Dublin
Editorial board xv
ISLAND
VetBooks.ir
Guðni Jóhannesson (geothermal powered buildings; low energy systems in buildings),

Director General, Orkustofnun – National Energy Authority (NEA), Reykjavík
ISRAEL
Abraham Kribus (solar energy: photonic, thermal and thermionic conversion; energy
storage; thermodynamics; heat transfer; solar photo-thermionic conversion; photon-enhanced
thermionic electron emission; energy conversion in porous media; thermo-electrochemical
storage), School of Mechanical Engineering, University of Tel Aviv, Tel Aviv
ITALY
Ruggero Bertani (geothermal power generation), Geothermal Center of Excellence, Enel
Green Power, Rome
Stefano Bracco (distributed generation, smart power grids and microgrids; energy
production, transmission and distribution; simulation and optimization of power systems;
engineering and economics of power systems; dynamic simulation and optimization of
energy systems; integration of renewable sources into power delivery systems; gas turbines,
combined cycle power plants and steam power plants), Department of Electrical, Electronics,
Telecommunication Engineering and Naval Architecture (DITEN), University of Genova,
Savona University Campus, Savona
Francesco Calise (fuel cells, solar energy, polygeneration systems, solar cooling, Organic
Rankine Cycle, geothermal energy, solar thermal, solar heating and cooling, photovoltaic/
thermal collectors, building dynamic simulations, HVAC systems, cogeneration, energy
efficiency, desalination), Department of Industrial Engineering, University of Naples
Federico II, Naples
Massimo Dentice d’Accadia (thermodynamics and thermoeconomic analysis of advanced
energy systems; energy saving; renewable energy sources), Department of Industrial
Engineering (DII), Polytechnic School of the University of Naples Federico II, Naples
Alessandro Flammini (technologies and policies relative to sustainable energy solutions;
agriculture; food chain; climate mitigation and adaptation; sustainable development),
Investment Centre Division, Technical Cooperation Department, Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Rome
Gianfranco Pistoia (Li and Li-ion batteries, electric vehicles), Consultant, Rome
Massimo Santarelli (thermoeconomic analysis and optimization of energy systems, in
particular to the environomics sector; fuel cells and hydrogen, and their integration with
renewable sources), Department of Energy, Polytechnic University of Turin, Turin
JAPAN
Yoichi Hori (electric vehicles, motion control), Electromagnetic Energy System Laboratory,
University of Tokyo, Tokyo
Tetsunari Iida (sustainable energy policies, financing schemes), Executive Director, Institute
for Sustainable Energy Policies (ISEP), Nakano, Tokyo
Bidyut Baran Saha (thermally powered sorption systems, heat and mass transfer analysis, and
energy efficiency assessment), International Institute for Carbon-Neutral Energy Research,
Kyushu University, Kyushu University Advanced Graduate Program in Global Strategy for
Green Asia, Green Asia Education Center, Kyushu University, Fukuoka; Editor-in-Chief of
Evergreen
xvi Editorial board
JORDAN
VetBooks.ir
Moh’d Ahmad Al-Nimr (heat exchangers; heat & mass transfer; convection; renewable
energy and environment protection, solar energy), Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Jordan University of Science and Technology (JUST), Irbid; Editor-in-Chief Energy
Conversion and Management
KOREA (SOUTH)
Wonyong Choi (semiconductor photocatalysis for environmental and energy applications),
School of Environmental Science and Engineering, Pohang University of Science and
Technology (POSTECH), Pohang; Editor, Journal of Hazardous Materials
MACEDONIA
Natasa Markovska (energy and climate change; strategic energy planning; sustainable energy
development), Research Center for Energy and Sustainable Development, Macedonian
Academy of Sciences and Arts, Skopje
MAURITIUS
Geeta Somaroo (life cycle analysis of environmental & energy processes; degradability/
biodegradability of polymers; composting and anaerobic digestion processes), Chemical &
Environmental Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering, University of Mauritius
(UoM), Réduit, Moka
MEXICO
Sergio M. Alcocer (renewable energy), Institute of Engineering, National Autonomous
University of Mexico (UNAM), Mexico City, DF
Omar Masera (bioenergy, energy in agriculture), Institute for Ecosystems and Sustainability
Research (IIES), National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM), Morelia, Michoacán
Mario-César Suarez-Arriaga (geothermal reservoirs, numerical modeling of complex
systems), Private Consultant, Thermomechanics of Porous Rocks, Morelia, Michoacán
NIGERIA
Adeola Ijeoma Eleri (biogas, sustainable energy solutions), Renewable Energy Department,
Energy Commission of Nigeria (ECN), Abuja
NORWAY
Einar Hope (energy economics), Norwegian School of Economics & Business
Administration (NHH), Bergen
Ånund Killingtveit (sustainable hydropower), Department of Hydraulic and Environmental
Engineering, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Trondheim
PARAGUAY
Wolfgang F. Lutz (sustainable energy policies, energy efficiency, renewable energy), Energy
Strategies for Sustainable Development, Ter Aar, The Netherlands/ESENERG, Asunción
POLAND
Antoni Szumanowski (drives for electric and hybrid vehicles), Faculty of Automotive
and Construction Machinery Engineering, Warsaw University of Technology (WUT),
Warsaw
Editorial board xvii
SAUDI ARABIA
VetBooks.ir
Peter Birkle (geochemistry of geothermal and petroleum reservoirs), Saudi Aramco,

Exploration and Petroleum Engineering Center – Advanced Research Center (EXPEC ARC),
Geology Technology Team (GTT), Dhahran
Noreddine Ghaffour (renewable energy for desalination and water treatment), Water
Desalination and Reuse Research Center, King Abdullah University of Science and
Technology (KAUST), Thuwal
SINGAPORE
Siaw Kiang Chou (energy performance of buildings; energy and thermal processes and
performance of buildings), Executive Director, Energy Studies Institute (ESI) & Department
of Mechanical Engineering, National University of Singapore (NUS), Singapore
SOUTH AFRICA
Ramesh Bansal (wind, PV, hybrid systems), Group Head (Power), Department of Electrical,
Electronic and Computer Engineering, University of Pretoria, Pretoria
SPAIN
Alberto Coronas (polygeneration; absorption technology for industrial refrigeration and
air-conditioning applications; energy management; heat transfer; thermophysical properties
of new working fluids for absorption heat pumps and refrigeration systems), Head, Research
Group on Applied Thermal Engineering (CREVER), Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Rovira i Virgili University (URV), Tarragona
Javier Ordóñez García (sustainable buildings and cities; building design; clean renewable
energy, photovoltaic systems; environmental engineering; project management), Deputy
Director, Center of Initiative to Cooperation for Development, University of Granada,
Granada
Guillermo Zaragoza (solar energy and desalination), Solar Platform of Almería (PSA-
CIEMAT), Almería
SWEDEN
Prosun Bhattacharya (sustainable energy and water), Coordinator, KTH-International
Groundwater Arsenic Research Group, Department of Sustainable Development,
Environmental Science and Engineering, Royal Institute of Technology (KTH), Stockholm
Erik Dahlquist (biomass/bioenergy, biomass combustion), Energy Engineering, School of
Business, Society & Engineering, Malardalen University, Västerås
Thomas B Johansson (energy for sustainable development), International Institute for
Industrial Environmental Economics, Lund University, Lund
Andrew Martin (membrane distillation for desalination and water purification; biomass and
municipal solid waste; polygeneration), Department of Energy Technology, Royal Institute of
Technology (KTH), Stockholm
Semida Silveira (sustainable energy solutions for development, infrastructure systems,
policies and entrepreneurship for sustainable development), Department of Energy
Technology, Royal Institute of Technology (KTH), Stockholm
Maria Wall (energy-efficient buildings), Energy and Building Design, Department of
Architecture and Built Environment, Lund University, Lund
xviii Editorial board
Ramon Wyss (innovations for sustainable energy systems), Vice President International
VetBooks.ir
Affairs, Royal Institute of Technology (KTH); Stockholm

Jinyue Yan (clean energy systems), School of Chemical Science and Engineering, Royal
Institute of Technology (KTH), Stockholm & School of Business, Society & Engineering,
Malardalen University, Västerås; Editor-in-Chief of Applied Energy
SWITZERLAND
François Avellan (hydropower and hydraulic turbomachines), Laboratory of Hydraulic
Machines (LMH), Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Lausanne (EPFL), Lausanne
Urs Muntwyler (photovoltaics system technology, electric and hybrid vehicles), Photovoltaic
Laboratory, Engineering and Information Technology, Bern University of Applied Sciences,
Burgdorf
Ladislaus Rybach (geothermal energy, heat pumps, EGS), Geowatt AG, Zürich
Robert Stüssi (transport policy; sustainable mobility; electric vehicles), Owner of Perform
Energia and Robert.Stussi.Mobil (consulting firms), Portuguese Electric Vehicle Association
(Vice President) and Past President of the European and World Electric Vehicle Associations
(AVERE and WEVA), Lisbon/Portugal and Zug/Switzerland
TAIWAN
Shih Hung Chan (fuel cells, hydrogen technologies), Fuel Cell Center, Yuan Ze University
(YZU), TaipeiS.K. Jason Chang (sustainable public transportation: planning, policy,
economy, operation), Department of Civil Engineering, National Taiwan University (NTU),
Taipei
Falin Chen (fuel cells, hydrogen technologies), Director, Energy Research Centre, National
Taiwan University (NTU), Taipei
THE NETHERLANDS
Jaco Appelman (nature-based sustainability approaches), Department of Biology, Science
Faculty, Utrecht University, Utrecht
Frances Brazier (green computing), Systems Engineering Section, Faculty of Technology
Policy and Management, Delft University of Technology, Delft
Rafid al Khoury (geothermal and geological CO2 sequestration modeling), Faculty of Civil
Engineering and Geosciences, Delft University of Technology, Delft
Rob Kool (energy efficiency), RVO.nl, Utrecht; Board Member of the European Council for
an Energy Efficient Economy (ECEEE) and Chair of IEA DSM & IEA EGRD
TUNISIA
Thameur Chaibi (geothermal water desalination), National Institute for Research in Rural
Engineering Water and Forestry (INRGREF), Tunis
TURKEY
Alper Baba (geothermal energy; groundwater contamination; hydrogeology), Geothermal
Energy Research and Application Center, Izmir Institute of Technology, Izmir
UAE
Khaled A. Al-Sallal (low energy architecture), Department of Architectural Engineering,
Faculty of Engineering, UAE University, Al-Ain
Editorial board xix
UK
VetBooks.ir
AbuBakr S. Bahaj (ocean energy), Head, Energy and Climate Change Division, School of
Civil Engineering and the Environment, University of Southampton, Southampton
Stefan Bouzarovski (energy vulnerability, domestic energy services, residential retrofit, urban
transitions, social resilience, fuel poverty, geopolitics of energy, politics of infrastructure
networks), Director, Centre for Urban Resilience and Energy, University of Manchester,
Manchester
Philip A. Davies (renewable and efficient energy systems and their application for water
treatment and agriculture), Sustainable Environment Research Group, School of Engineering
and Applied Science, Aston University, Birmingham
Amelia Hadfield (European energy governance; energy security; EU-Russia, Energy Charter
Treaty), Director, Energy & Governance Group, Politics and International Relations,
Canterbury Christ Church University, Canterbury, Kent
Douglas J.P. Prentice (climate change economics, sustainability economics; renewable
energy and energy efficiency finance, resource and energy-efficient technologies and
projects; renewable, efficient and low emissions technologies; local air pollution reduction
and greenhouse gas emissions reductions), University of Granada, Spain; CEO, GeoCapita,
London, UK; Napier University
Marian Scott (application of statistical methods to environmental sciences: water and
air quality, design of monitoring networks, development of environmental indicators,
quantifying the state of the environment; water quality and climate change; radionuclides),
School of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Glasgow, Glasgow
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Suresh K. Aggarwal (combustion simulations, renewable fuels), Department of Mechanical
and Industrial Engineering, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL
Ishfaq Ahmad (green computing), Computer Science and Engineering Department,
University of Texas at Arlington, Arlington, TX
Said Al-Hallaj (hybrid hydrogen systems, solar water desalination), Chairman/CEO AllCell
Technologies, LLC, & Department of Chemical Engineering, University of Illinois at
Chicago, Chicago, IL
Joel R. Anstrom (hybrid and hydrogen vehicles), Director, Hybrid and Hydrogen Vehicle
Research Laboratory, Larson Transportation Institute, University Park, PA
Harry R. Beller (environmental engineering and microbiology; renewable fuels and
chemicals; design and engineering of novel biofuel pathways in bacteria; biological
treatment of contaminated groundwater; physiology and biochemistry of anaerobic bacteria;
biodegradation and biotransformation of organic and inorganic contaminants (environmental
biogeochemistry); development of mass spectrometric and biomolecular techniques
to document in situ metabolism; hydraulic fracturing and water quality; water-energy
nexus), Director of Biofuels Pathways in DOE’s Joint BioEnergy Institute (JBEI); Earth &
Environmental Sciences Area (EESA), Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL),
Berkeley, CA
Gary W. Brudvig (bio-inspired solar fuel production/water splitting), Department of
Chemistry, Yale University, New Haven, CT
Daniel Cohn (alternative fuel engine technologies), MIT Energy Initiative, Massachusetts
Institute of Technology (MIT), Cambridge, MA
xx Editorial board
Kristin Deason (energy and sustainability, renewable energy potentials, renewable energy
VetBooks.ir
project management, international cooperation, hydrogen and fuel cells), International

Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA), Abu Dhabi, UAE and Booz Allen Hamilton,
Washington, DC
Gregory Dolan (methanol fuels), CEO, Methanol Institute, Alexandria, VA
Steven D. Erdahl (oilfield water solutions; frack fluids & water treatment; geothermal
energy from oil & gas wells; renewable energy; mergers & acquisitions; financial analysis),
Founder & CEO at GreenTech Renewables LLC, Lakewood, CO
Andrew A. Frank (plug-in hybrid electric vehicles), Department of Mechanical and
Aerospace Engineering, University of California, Davis, CA, and CTO of Efficient
Drivetrains Inc.
Vasilis Fthenakis (energy & sustainability, solar energy, renewable energy penetration in
the grid, CAES), PV Environmental Research Center, Brookhaven National Laboratory and
Center of Life Cycle Analysis, Columbia University, New York, NY
Chris Gearhart (fuel cells for transportation), Center Director – Transportation & Hydrogen
Systems Center, National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), Golden, CO
John H. Golbeck (bio-inspired solar fuel production), Department of Biochemistry and
Molecular Biology, and Department of Chemistry, Pennsylvania State University, University
Park, PA
Barbara Goodman (advanced transportation, buildings technologies and wind energy),
Associate Laboratory Director for Mechanical and Thermal Systems Engineering, National
Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), Golden, CO
Allan R. Hoffman (renewable energy technologies), former Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Utility Technologies, former Director Country Studies Program, and former Senior Analyst –
all in the US Department of Energy’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
(retired 2012); Author of the blog Thoughts of a Lapsed Physicist (www.lapsedphysicist.org);
Reston, VA
Gerald W. Huttrer (geothermal energy), Geothermal Management Company, Inc., Frisco, CO
Lawrence L. Kazmerski (solar, photovoltaic), Science and Technology Partnerships, National
Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), Golden, CO
Israel Koren (green computing), Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering,
University of Massachusetts (UMass), Amherst, MA
Chung K. Law (hydrogen combustion), Department of Mechanical and Aerospace
Engineering, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ
Hongtan Liu (solar energy and hydrogen energy technology, fuel cells), Clean Energy
Research Institute, Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, University of
Miami (UM), Miami, FL
Chang Mei (wave power), Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering, Massachusetts
Institute of Technology (MIT), Cambridge, MA
James F. Miller (batteries, fuel cells, hydrogen, and electric vehicle technologies), Deputy
Director, Energy Systems Division, Argonne National Laboratory (ANL), Argonne, IL
Daniel Mosse (green computing/sustainable computing), Department of Computer Science,
University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA
Emily Nelson (biofuels, green aviation, numerical modeling), Fluid Physics and Transport
Processes Branch, NASA Glenn Research Center, Cleveland, OH
Editorial board xxi
Arthur Nozik (photoelectrochemistry; solid state physics; semiconductor nanoscience;

VetBooks.ir
hot carrier effects; third generation solar photon conversion), National Renewable Energy
Laboratory (emeritus); Chemistry Department, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO
Kaushik Rajashekara (power electronics & drives and fuel cell power conversion), School of
Engineering and Computer Science, University of Texas at Dallas, Dallas, TX
Sanjay Ranka (green and energy-efficient computing), Department of Computer Science,
University of Florida (UF), Gainesville, FL
Athena Ronquillo-Ballesteros (international climate policy: climate finance, sustainable
energy and reform), World Resources Institute (WRI), Washington, DC
Subhash C. Singhal (fuel cells), Director, Fuel Cells, Energy and Environment Directorate,
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL), Richland, WA
Gregory Stephanopoulos (renewable fuels), W.H. Dow Professor of Chemical Engineering
and Biotechnology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Cambridge, MA
Timothy J. Strathmann (environmental engineering chemistry: research focused on
developing innovative technologies for waste valorization, water and wastewater purification,
and bio-renewable energy; hydrothermal and catalytic platforms for waste organic and wet
biomass conversion to fuels and valuable chemicals; nutrient recovery from biomass and
waste organics; catalysts for treatment of aquatic micropollutants of emerging concern),
Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering, Colorado School of Mines, Golden, CO
and Collaborative Researcher Appointment at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory
(NREL), Golden, CO
Jefferson W. Tester (energy/resource related problems: advanced drilling technology
using thermal spallation and fusion, heat mining processes for geothermal energy
extraction, geothermal heat pumps and reservoir engineering, biomass conversion in
hydrothermal environments, energy technology assessments and life cycle analysis,
applied thermodynamics, transport, and chemical kinetics in supercritical fluids for thermal
energy storage and mineral recovery, environmental: destruction of hazardous chemicals
in supercritical water, aquifer contamination from migration of wastes), Croll Professor
of Sustainable Energy Systems, Department of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering,
Director, Cornell Energy Institute and Fellow, Atkinson Center for a Sustainable Future,
Cornell University, Ithaca, NY
Peter F. Varadi [solar energy (PV)], P/V Enterprises, Inc., Chevy Chase, MD
YEMEN
Hussain Al-Towaie (solar power for seawater desalination; thermal desalination), Owner &
CEO at Engineering Office “CE&SD” (Clean Environment & Sustainable Development),
Aden
VetBooks.ir
Table of contents
VetBooks.ir
About the book series vii

Editorial board ix
Advisory editorial board ix
Contributorsxxxi
Editor’s preface xxxiii
About the editors xxxv
Acknowledgmentsxxxix
SECTION I: Characteristics and sources of different airborne pollutants 1

1. Airborne dust in livestock buildings 3
Steven J. Hoff
1.1 Introduction 3
1.2 Particulate sources and fractional characteristics 3
1.3 Indoor particulate matter concentrations 4
1.4 Summary of comprehensive animal and poultry housing PM studies 8
1.5 Conclusion 9
2. Lagoon characteristics and ambient hydrogen sulfide concentrations at a swine

feeding facility 13
Albert J. Heber
2.1 Introduction 13
2.2 Literature review 14
2.3 Methodology 14
2.3.1 Description of swine facility and emission abatement methods 14
2.3.2 Total reduced sulfur monitor at southeast corner 16
2.3.3 Chemcassette method at northwest corner 16
2.3.4 Other measurements and analyses 17
2.3.5 Statistical methods 17
2.4 Results and discussion 18
2.4.1 Slurry characteristics 18
2.4.2 Ambient hydrogen sulfide concentrations 21
2.4.3 Effect of time of day 23
2.4.4 Effect of wind speed 23
2.4.5 Effect of abatement methods 24
2.5 Summary and conclusions 26
3. Ammonia and hydrogen sulfide in swine production 29

Ji-Qin Ni, Albert J. Heber and Teng-Teeh Lim
3.1 Introduction 29
xxiii
xxiv Table of contents
3.2 Ammonia in swine production 29

VetBooks.ir
3.2.1 Research on ammonia in swine production 29

3.2.2 Ammonia concentrations at swine production facilities 30
3.2.3 Ammonia concentration measurement instruments and sensors 31
3.2.4 Ammonia emissions from swine production 33
3.2.5 Ammonia emission factors adopted in Europe and the United States 33
3.2.6 Ammonia emission rates from field monitoring in North America 34
3.3 Hydrogen sulfide in swine production 37
3.3.1 Hydrogen sulfide concentrations in swine buildings 37
3.3.2 Characteristics and danger of hydrogen sulfide release 38
3.3.3 Hydrogen sulfide measurement sensors and instruments 39
3.3.4 Hydrogen sulfide emissions from swine buildings 39
3.4 Discussion and conclusions 41
4. Pollutants in livestock buildings: Ammonia and dust interplay with

the respiratory tract 49
Annamaria Costa and Cinzia Domeneghini
4.1 Ammonia in piggeries: concentrations and effects on animal’s health
and performance 49
4.2 Particulate matter: origin, classification, deposition in the respiratory system
and effects on animal health and production 51
4.2.1 Particulate matter in animal confinements 51
4.2.2 Chemical properties of the particles 51
4.2.3 Size of particle and site of particle deposition in the respiratory system 53
4.2.4 Principal mechanisms of particle deposition in the respiratory system 53
4.2.5 Ultrafine particles: from the lungs to the body districts through the
blood stream 54
4.3 Concept of secondary particulate matter: from gases to PM formation 55
SECTION II: Measurement issues 61

5. Gaseous emissions of bedded pack barns with wood chips and compost as
bedding material 63
Hendrik Jan van Dooren, Francis Sanderink, Annemieke Hol and Paul Galama
5.1 Introduction 63
5.2 Materials and methods 64
5.2.1 Farms 64
5.2.2 Flux chamber measurements 65
5.2.3 Barn measurements 66
5.3 Results 68
5.3.1 General 68
5.3.2.1 Ammonia 68
5.3.2.2 Greenhouse gases 68
5.4 Discussion 70
5.4.1.1 Effect of bedding material 70
5.4.1.2 Nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions 71
5.4.1.3 Methane (CH4) emissions 71
5.4.2.1 Ammonia emissions 72
Table of contents xxv
5.4.2.2 Greenhouse gas emissions 72

VetBooks.ir
5.4.2.3 Nitrogen loss 73

5.5 Conclusions 74
6. Seasonal variability of the PM and ammonia concentrations in uninsulated

loose-housing cowshed 77
Marek Maasikmets, Erik Teinemaa, Allan Kaasik and Veljo Kimmel
6.1 Introduction 77
6.4 Conclusions 83
7. Air quality and factors related to sub-optimal pig housing conditions in nursery
and finishing rooms: A field study in 143 French herds 87
Christelle Fablet, Fabrice Bidan, Virginie Dorenlor, Florent Eono, Eric Eveno,
Nicolas Rose and François Madec
7.1 Introduction 87
7.2 Material and methods 88
7.2.1 Study sample 88
7.2.2 Sampling scheme 89
7.2.2.1 Herd, management and housing conditions 89
7.2.2.2 Measurement of climatic conditions 89
7.2.3 Statistical analyses 90
7.2.3.1 Relationships between climatic parameters and
determinations of air quality levels 90
7.2.3.2 Definition of the outcomes: air quality in nursery and
finishing rooms 91
7.2.3.3 Factors associated with air quality levels in nursery and
finishing rooms 91
7.3 Results 92
7.3.1 Features of the study population 92
7.3.2 Description of the aerial environment in nursery and
finishing rooms 93
7.3.3 Relationships between climatic parameters and definition of air quality
levels93
7.3.3.1 Nursery rooms 93
7.3.3.2 Finishing rooms 95
7.3.4 Factors associated with air quality levels 97
7.3.4.1 Nursery rooms 97
7.3.4.2 Finishing rooms 98
7.4 Discussion 100
7.4.1 Study design and measurement methods 100
7.4.2 Mean values 101
7.4.3 Indoor parameter correlations 102
7.4.4 Factors associated with air quality levels 102
7.4.4.1 Outdoor climate 102
7.4.4.2 Building management 103
7.4.4.3 Building design and engineering 104
7.4.5 Influence of climatic conditions on pig respiratory health 105
7.5 Conclusions 105
xxvi Table of contents
SECTION III: Pollutant levels encountered in livestock buildings 111

VetBooks.ir
8. Temperature, relative humidity, noise, dust and odor levels recorded on free-range
piggery sites in three states of Australia 113
Thomas Banhazi
8.1 Introduction 113
8.2.1 Description of the survey 114
8.2.2 Description of farms 114
8.2.3 Measurement of outdoor climate (temperature and humidity) 116
8.2.4 Measurement of noise levels 116
8.2.5 Measurement of dust levels 117
8.2.6 Measurement of odor 118
8.2.7 Measurement of dung cover at the sampling sites 120
8.2.8 Statistical analyses 121
8.3.1 Temperature and humidity measurements 121
8.3.2 Noise measurements 123
8.3.3 Association between humidity, temperature and noise levels 125
8.3.4 Dust measurements 126
8.3.5 Gravimetric measurements 127
8.3.6 Association between humidity, temperature and dust concentrations 128
8.3.7 Odor measurements 129
8.3.8 Association between dung cover on the ground and odor concentrations 134
8.3.9 Association between temperature, humidity and odor concentrations 135
8.4 Conclusions 136
9. Airborne pollutant concentrations within and emission rates from Australian

piggery buildings 141
Thomas Banhazi
9.2 Material and methods 142
9.3 Results 142
9.3.1 Inhalable and respirable particle concentrations 142
9.3.2 Inhalable and respirable particle emission rates 142
9.3.3 Ammonia concentrations 144
9.3.4 Ammonia emission rates 144
9.3.5 Airborne microorganism concentrations 144
9.3.6 Airborne microorganism emission rates 146
9.3.7 Airborne endotoxin concentrations 147
9.3.8 Airborne endotoxin emission rates 147
9.4 Discussion 148
9.5 Conclusions 150
10. Microclimate and air quality in uninsulated loose-housing cowsheds in temperate

climate conditions 153
Allan Kaasik and Marek Maasikmets
10.3.1 Air temperature and relative humidity 154
10.3.2 Gases (ammonia and carbon dioxide) 156
10.3.3 Particulate matter (PM) 157
10.4 Conclusions 158
Table of contents xxvii
SECTION IV: Effects of sub-optimal air quality on workers, animals and the

VetBooks.ir
environment161
11. Intensive livestock housing: a review: Preventing occupational respiratory
hazards for workers 163
Kelley J. Donham
11.2 Which hazardous dusts and gases are found in ILHs? 163
11.3 Who is exposed to these dusts and gases, and when? 165
11.4 How commonly does excessive exposure occur? 166
11.5 Respiratory effects of inhaling ILH dusts and gases 167
11.6 Diagnosis 170
11.7 Treatment 170
12. The effect of air quality in livestock buildings on the occupational health of
farm workers 175
Thomas Banhazi and Dino Pisaniello
12.3 Results 176
12.3.1 Relationships between human health and shed environment 176
12.3.2 Associations between air quality parameters and sick days and
employee resignations 177
12.4 Discussion 178
12.5 Recommendations 180
13 Dust dispersion modeling of fugitive emissions from piggeries 183

Thomas Banhazi
13.2 Methodology 183
13.2.1 Dust measurement method and average values used 183
13.2.2 Dispersion model and meteorology data used 183
13.2.3 Hypothetical farm configuration 184
13.2.4 Modeling parameters 185
14 The effects of atmospheric ammonia during export of livestock 193

Yu Zhang and Clive J.C. Phillips
14.2 Source of atmospheric ammonia during live export 193
14.3 Atmospheric ammonia levels during live export 194
14.4 Effects of ammonia on livestock during live export 195
14.4.1 Effects of ammonia on growth and production performance 195
14.4.2 Effects of ammonia on health 195
14.4.2.1 Respiratory dysfunction 196
14.4.2.2 Ocular disease 196
14.4.2.3 Susceptibility to disease 197
14.4.2.4 Other physiological parameters 197
14.4.3 Behavioral responses 198
14.4.4 Olfactory perception and acclimatization to ammonia 199
14.5 Threshold levels of atmospheric ammonia for humans 199
14.6 Threshold levels of atmospheric ammonia for animals 200
xxviii Table of contents
15 Hygiene and cleanliness in pig buildings as preventive medicine to ensure

VetBooks.ir
healthier animals 205

Christelle Fablet
15.2 Influence of hygiene and cleanliness on pig health 205
15.2.1 Breeding stock 206
15.2.1.1 Reproductive and urinary tract disorders 206
15.2.1.2 Lameness and leg disorders 207
15.2.2 Growing pigs 207
15.2.2.1 Digestive disorders 207
15.2.2.2 Respiratory diseases 208
15.3 Hygiene to ensure food safety and quality 209
15.3.1 Foodborne diseases 209
15.3.2 Boar taint 210
15.4 Hygiene, health and air quality in buildings 210
15.5 Current means to attain hygiene in pig production and the need to implement
better hygiene 211
15.5.1 Building design 211
15.5.2 Building usage and herd management practices 213
15.6 Cleaning and disinfection procedures in pig buildings 215
15.6.1 How to proceed 215
15.6.2 How to assess efficacy 216
SECTION V: Reduction methods Controlling internal concentrations and emissions

from the animal buildings 225
16 Controlling the internal concentrations of gases and odor within and emissions
from animal buildings 227
Jens Seedorf
16.1 A general view on airborne pollutants – an introduction 227
16.2 A brief description of relevant gases and odor 228
16.3 Control and reduction measures 230
16.3.1 Ventilation 230
16.3.2 Improvement of air quality 231
16.3.2.1 Ammonia 231
16.3.2.1.1 Nutrition 231
16.3.2.1.2 Fecal technology 233
16.3.2.1.3 Additives 234
16.3.2.1.4 Physical measures 237
16.3.2.2 Hydrogen sulfide 237
16.3.2.2.1 Nutrition 237
16.3.2.2.2 Manure treatment 238
16.3.2.3 Carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide 238
16.3.2.4 Methane and nitrous oxide 239
16.3.2.5 Odor 239
16.3.2.5.1 Nutrition 241
16.3.2.5.2 Hygiene and fecal technology 242
16.3.2.5.3 Additives 244
16.3.2.5.4 Physical and chemical measures 245
16.4 Final remarks 246
Table of contents xxix
17 Controlling the internal concentrations of particulate matter within and emissions from
VetBooks.ir
animal buildings 265

Jens Seedorf
17.1 The characteristics of airborne particles at a glance 265
17.2 Control and reduction measures 267
17.2.1 Ventilation 267
17.2.2 Threshold limit values 268
17.2.3 Attempt for a holistic control and abatement strategy 268
17.2.4 Overview of basic dust reduction measures indoors 271
17.2.5 Specification of selected dust prevention and removal measures 272
17.2.5.1 Management of the feed, manure and bedding material 272
17.2.5.2 Application of dust-binding and microbiocide acting liquids 274
17.2.5.3 Physical treatment 277
17.2.5.3.1 Dry and wet particle reduction techniques 277
17.2.5.3.2 Ionization and electrically powered
add-on techniques 280
17.3 Final remarks 284
18 Emission reduction from livestock buildings using a filtration device 299

Thomas Banhazi
18.2.1 Facilities and the filter 299
18.2.2 Sampling procedure 300
18.2.3 Measurement methods 300
18.2.3.1 Dust and airborne particles 300
18.2.3.2 Ammonia and carbon dioxide 301
18.2.3.3 Temperature and humidity 301
18.2.3.4 Continuous dust monitoring 302
19 Effect of electrostatic precipitation on particulate matter emissions from a high-rise

layer house 307
Teng-Teeh Lim, Chaoyuan Wang, Albert J. Heber, Ji-Qin Ni and Lingying Zhao
19.1 Introduction and objective 307
19.2 Methods and procedures 308
19.2.1 Description of laying house 308
19.2.2 Description of electrostatic space charge system 309
19.3 Experimental design 310
19.3.1 Particulate matter concentration 311
19.3.2 Pressure measurement 311
19.3.3 Ventilation and environmental variables 311
19.3.4 Data acquisition and processing 311
19.3.5 Statistical analysis 312
19.4.1 PM10 concentrations 314
19.4.2 TSP measurement 317
19.4.3 Costs associated with the EP 319
xxx Table of contents
SECTION VI: Reduction methods and technologies for controlling

VetBooks.ir
airborne pollutants 323

20 Oil-spraying technologies to be used for dust reduction in livestock buildings 325
Hisamitsu Takai and Thomas Banhazi
20.2 Fundamentals for designing oil-spraying for dust control 325
20.2.1 Duration of the dust-binding effect of a vegetable oil 325
20.2.2 Selection of vegetable oil 326
20.2.3 Distribution of oil over a large surface area 326
20.2.4 Droplet size 327
20.2.5 Oil concentration in water 328
20.2.6 Effect of the sprayed water on the humidity 328
20.3 Strategy of the oil-spraying operation 329
20.3.1 Spray rate 329
20.3.2 Frequency and timing of oil-spraying 330
20.4 Different types of oil-spraying systems 330
20.4.1 Manual spraying 330
20.4.2 Low-pressure spraying system 331
20.4.3 High-pressure sprayer controlled by animal activity sensor 332
20.5 Review of studies reported previously 334
20.6 Recommendations for future studies 336
20.6.1 Plugging of spray system 336
20.6.2 Effect of oil on the microflora 336
20.6.3 Odor and dust 336
21 Housing index development for a holistic air quality evaluation: A preliminary

framework 341
Jens Seedorf
21.2 The concepts of air quality indices 341
21.2.1 Selected index principles in air hygiene 342
21.2.2 The Livestock Burden Index 343
22 Computer-based management of air quality data: Development of a software system 349

Thomas Banhazi
22.2 General description of the software 349
22.3 Description of the main functionalities of the BASE-Q software 350
22.3.1 Quick data search “contact” and “facility” functions 350
22.3.2 Temperature, humidity and gas measurements 351
22.3.3 Dust and bacteria measurements 351
22.3.4 Archives and reports 354
22.4 Description of the main functionalities of the Pocket BASE-Q program 354
22.4.1 Farm and shed menu 355
22.5 Conclusion 360
Index 363
Book series page 371
List of contributors
VetBooks.ir
Thomas Banhazi National Centre for Engineering in Agriculture (NCEA) and

Faculty of Health, Engineering and Science, University of
Southern Queensland (USQ), Toowoomba QLD
Fabrice Bidan Anses, Unité Epidémiologie et Bien-Etre du Porc, Ploufragan,
France
Annamaria Costa Department of Health, Animal Science and Food Safety,
Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Università degli Studi di
Milano, Milan, Italy
Virginie Dorenlor Anses, Unité Epidémiologie et Bien-Etre du Porc, Ploufragan,
France
Cinzia Domeneghini Department of Health, Animal Science and Food Safety,
Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Università degli Studi di
Milano, Milan, Italy
Kelley J. Donham Professor Emeritus of Agricultural Medicine, College of
Public Health, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa, USA
Hendrik Jan van Dooren Wageningen UR Livestock Research, Wageningen, The
Netherlands
Florent Eono Anses, Unité Epidémiologie et Bien-Etre du Porc, Ploufragan,
France
Eric Eveno Anses, Unité Epidémiologie et Bien-Etre du Porc, Ploufragan,
France
Christelle Fablet ANSES, Unit of Epidemiology and Welfare in Pigs,
Ploufragan, France
Paul Galama Wageningen UR Livestock Research, Wageningen, The
Netherlands
Albert J. Heber Agricultural and Biological Engineering, Purdue University,
Indiana, USA
Steven J. Hoff Department of Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering, Iowa
State University, Ames, Iowa, USA
Annemieke Hol Wageningen UR Livestock Research, Wageningen, The
Netherlands
Allan Kaasik Institute of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Sciences, Estonian
University of Life Sciences, Tartu, Estonia
Veljo Kimmel Institute of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, Estonian
Teng-Teeh Lim Food Systems and Bioengineering, University of Missouri,
Missouri, USA
Marek Maasikmets Institute of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, Estonian
xxxi
xxxii List of contributors
François Madec Anses, Unité Epidémiologie et Bien-Etre du Porc, Ploufragan,

VetBooks.ir
France
Ji-Qin Ni Agricultural and Biological Engineering, Purdue University,
Indiana, USA
Clive J.C. Phillips Centre for Animal Welfare and Ethics, School of Veterinary
Science, University of Queensland, Gatton, QLD, Australia
Dino Pisaniello Occupational and Environmental Hygiene Laboratory, School
of Public Health, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA
Nicolas Rose Anses, Unité Epidémiologie et Bien-Etre du Porc, Ploufragan,
France
Francis Sanderink Farm Technology Group, Wageningen University,
Wageningen, The Netherlands
Jens Seedorf Unit of Animal Hygiene and Food Safety, University of
Applied Sciences, Osnabrück, Germany
Hisamitsu Takai Department of Engineering, Engineering Center Bygholm,
Aarhus University, Horsens, Denmark
Erik Teinemaa Estonian Environmental Research Centre, Tallinn, Estonia
Chaoyuan Wang Department of Agricultural Structure and Bioenvironmental
Engineering, China Agricultural University, Beijing, China
Lingying Zhao Department of Food, Agricultural and Biological Engineering,
Ohio State University, Food Systems and Bioengineering,
University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri, USA
Yu Zhang Centre for Animal Welfare and Ethics, School of Veterinary
Science, University of Queensland, Gatton, QLD, Australia
Editor’s preface
VetBooks.ir
Air quality has a direct influence on the health, welfare and performance of animals as well as
on the health of farm workers undertaking different tasks in livestock buildings. Furthermore, air
pollutants emitted from livestock buildings can reduce air, water and soil quality and potentially
undermine the health of nearby residents. There is ample evidence that the respiratory health of
various livestock species can be compromised by poor air quality. High concentrations of nox-
ious gases, dust and airborne microorganisms might reduce production efficiency and the general
welfare of farm animals. In some herds, a large portion of the lungs of slaughter pigs may show
signs of acute or chronic pneumonia, pleuritis or other respiratory diseases. In broilers, birds with
lung lesions account for about 30% of all rejections at meat inspection.
Farm workers can be exposed to a range of noxious gases in animal buildings and above slurry
pits, causing illness and, in some exceptional cases, mortality through suffocation or poisoning
during agitation of slurry that can release toxic hydrogen sulfide gas. Long-term exposure to
particulates in pig and poultry buildings might affect the respiratory health of farm workers.
Dust in animal buildings contains many biologically active substances such as bacteria, fungi,
endotoxins and residues of antibiotics (as a result of veterinary treatments) that are suspected to
be hazardous to human health. Epidemiological studies have demonstrated that working in pig
confinement buildings is associated with symptoms of chronic bronchitis (cough and phlegm),
asthma-like symptoms such as wheezing and shortness of breath during work. Exposure to dust in
piggery buildings causes an immediate inflammation of the airways in many individuals. Long-
term studies indicate that work inside pig buildings doubles or triples the incidence of respiratory
symptoms.
Residents living close to livestock buildings can be exposed to dust and bacteria, which might
produce negative health effects. It is well-documented (within and outside of this book) that
livestock farming is a source of many different emissions. Airborne emissions include ammonia,
methane, nitrous oxide, and particulates such as dust and microorganisms. In addition, other
potentially harmful substances such as heavy metals, antibiotic residues and components of dis-
infectants might be emitted from livestock building via air ventilation, slurry and/or solid manure.
The impacts of these emissions are potentially damaging to ecosystems, even at considerable
distances away from the farms. Livestock farming also contributes significantly to total anthro-
pogenic greenhouse gas emissions, which are thought by many to influence climate, and many
countries have now undertaken steps to reduce these emissions.
This book concentrates on the nature and amounts of aerial pollutants arising from livestock
production and their impacts on the health and welfare of farm animals, and the workforce, as well
as on the environment. We hope that this book will be useful for farming professionals, academics,
students, policy makers, business leaders, regulatory bodies and agricultural consultants.
Thomas Banhazi
Andres Aland
Jörg Hartung
(editors)
January 2018
xxxiii
VetBooks.ir
About the editors
VetBooks.ir
Thomas Banhazi completed his PhD studies at the University of Adelaide in South Australia, study-
ing the engineering aspects of livestock buildings and their impact on indoor environmental qual-
ity. He worked as a research scientist at the South Australian Research and Development Institute
for 17 years before joining the University of Southern Queensland (USQ) in 2010 as an associate
professor. He is currently a lecturer and principal scientist at USQ, responsible for the delivery of
a number of agriculture-related courses in addition to supervising a large number of post-graduate
students. Associate Professor Banhazi has published in excess of 200 book chapters, journal and
international conference papers, in addition to the large number of scientific reports, extension arti-
cles and seminar papers. He serves on the editorial board of the International Journal of Agricultural
and Biological Engineering, the Journal of Information Processing in Agriculture and the Journal
of Agricultural Informatics. He was the guest editor for the special journal issues of the Australian
Journal of Multidisciplinary Engineering for a number of years and for the Elsevier-published Bio-
systems Engineering in 2013. He has successfully patented a number of innovative technologies in
the United States, Australia and Europe, and he is actively engaged in the commercialization of the
patented inventions via his commercialization companies. Associate Professor Banhazi has been
involved in approximately 40 research projects both in Europe and Australia, funded by various
government agencies and farmer organizations. His expertise is mainly related to precision livestock
farming applications and environmental assessment methods. However, his research interests also
include thermal and aerial environment of livestock buildings, the effect of airborne pollutants on the
health of animals and workers, emission abatement and livestock waste management technologies.
He is past Chair and current Honorary Chair of the CIGR (International Commission of Agricultural
and Biosystems Engineering) “Structures and Environment” expert group, as well as the past pres-
ident and current vice president of the Australian Society for Engineering in Agricultural (SEAg).
He is one of the directors of the China-based International Research Center for Animal Environment
and Welfare (IRCAEW) and has additional visiting professor positions in Europe and Asia. Associ-
ate Professor Banhazi has been the recipient of the South Australian Pig and Poultry Industry Award
in 1999, the Best Agricultural Engineering Innovation Award in 2009 and the South Australian Pri-
mary Industry – Breakthrough Innovation of the year award in 2010 in recognition for his work with
the Australian livestock industries. He has been frequently invited as the keynote speaker for various
international conferences to share his expertise with the wider scientific community. In his spare
time, Thomas runs the University’s Arthouse film club and the town’s only aikido club.
xxxv
xxxvi About the editors
VetBooks.ir
Andres Aland initially worked as a field veterinarian for 5.5 years after completing his undergrad-
uate studies, so he has a strong understanding of the practical issues involved in the administra-
tion of farm-based veterinary services. He started his academic career by moving to the Swedish
University of Agricultural Sciences for his master studies, and then he completed his PhD stud-
ies at the Estonian Agricultural University in Tartu studying veterinary medicine. He joined the
Estonian University of Life Sciences as an assistant/junior researcher in 1994. His career at the
university’s Institute of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Sciences involves 5.5 years’ service as a
director of the Institute in 2011–2016. He is currently a lecturer in animal health, which involves
both teaching and scientific activities in the Chair of Veterinary Bio- and Population Medicine.
He is the principal teacher of the animal hygiene course for both the Estonian and English study
groups. He is also engaged in teaching various other animal health- and welfare-related courses
in both languages. Associate Professor Aland has supervised a number of post-graduate students
and published a large number of book chapters, journal and international conference papers.
He serves on the editorial board of The Estonian Veterinary Review. He was the co-editor of
two textbooks published by Wageningen Academic Publishers: Sustainable animal production:
The challenges and potential developments for professional farming (2009, with F. Madec), and
Livestock housing: Modern management to ensure optimal health and welfare of farm animals
(2013, with T.M. Banhazi). Associate Professor Aland has been involved in approximately 10
large research projects both in Estonia and Europe, funded by various governmental or European
agencies. His expertise is mainly related to the areas of animal welfare and herd health moni-
toring in different production systems; environmental risks in production animal housing; and
preventive veterinary medicine. He is Standing Vice President of the ISAH (International Soci-
ety for Animal Hygiene) and has organized the Society’s 13th International Congress in Tartu,
Estonia in 2007. He is a member of numerous academic bodies nationally and internationally.
Most recently, he became the manager of the University-based Risk Assessment Unit, providing
mainly the Estonian Ministry of Rural Affairs with relevant risk assessment expertise in the area
of animal welfare. Associate Professor Aland has been the recipient of several national awards
for his work as researcher, lecturer and post-graduate supervisor. In his spare time, Andres likes
to spend time with his family visiting cultural events, and he also enjoys riding his bicycle to
maintain his fitness.
About the editors xxxvii
VetBooks.ir
Jörg Hartung studied veterinary medicine at Free University of Berlin, completed his first (Dr.
med. vet.) and second (Dr. med. vet. habil.) doctorates at the University of Veterinary Medi-
cine, Hannover, studying health, welfare and hygiene in farm animals and the impact of modern
livestock production on the workforce and the environment. From 1991 to 1993, he was head
of the “Environment Group” of the “Welfare Science Division” at the Silsoe Research Insti-
tute (BBSRC), England where he was able to combine his expertise in veterinary medicine and
agricultural engineering. Since 1993, he is Full Professor for Animal Hygiene, Welfare Science
and Husbandry, and he has served for 20 years as director of the Institute for Animal Hygiene,
Animal Welfare and Farm Animal Behaviour at the University of Veterinary Medicine Hannover.
He is currently an emeritus professor at the same university and still actively involved in research
and PhD student supervision. His extensive academic experiences include 40 years of teaching
veterinary medicine and undertaking research in the areas of 1) animal hygiene and animal pro-
duction, 2) animal welfare and health, 3) environmental protection in regard to farm animals and
4) occupational health aspects of animal farming. He managed numerous European, national and
international research projects on the above topics. He is currently President of the International
Society for Animal Hygiene (ISAH), Chairman of the Federal Committee for Animal Welfare
(BMEL), Germany, member of the committee “Effects of Air Pollutants on Farm Animals and
food” (German Engineers Association, VDI) and member of a working group for “Biological
Risks at the Workplace.” For 9 years, he served in the expert panel (six years as vice president)
for Animal Health and Welfare of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). Since 2014, he is
a guest professor at the Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University Sao Paulo, Brazil. Professor
Hartung published more than 220 refereed journal papers and 60 book chapters, co-authored
about 60 EFSA (European Food safety Authority) reports and further produced 290 conference
articles. He serves on the editorial board of journal Animal, and he has successfully patented inno-
vative technologies in relation to bioaerosol sampling. He has extensive consultancy experience
with animal husbandry systems (e.g., ventilation, air quality) and with issues related to animal
welfare in during transport, stunning and slaughter. He has been the recipient of the Dr. Wilma
von Düring Research Award of the Society of Veterinary Medicine of the Free University of Ber-
lin for novel research in animal welfare and the Badge of Honor of the Association of German
Engineers (VDI). In 2010, the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU) awarded him
an Honorary Doctorate (Dr. h. c.) for his scientific contribution to the understanding of environ-
mental impact of animal farming, animal welfare and the effects of air pollutant on animal, man
and the environment. In his spare time he performs in a literature club, and he is still an active
soccer player.
VetBooks.ir
Acknowledgments
VetBooks.ir
The editors thank the reviewers of the individual chapters for their valuable comments that sig-
nificantly contributed to the quality of the book. The editors and authors thank also the technical
people of the Taylor & Francis Group for their cooperation and the excellent typesetting of the
manuscript.
xxxix
VetBooks.ir
VetBooks.ir
SECTION I
Characteristics and sources of different
airborne pollutants
VetBooks.ir
CHAPTER 1
VetBooks.ir
Airborne dust in livestock buildings
Steven J. Hoff
1.1 INTRODUCTION
Animal and poultry housing systems have, for the most part, developed into highly sophisti-
cated, environmentally controlled and automated systems. The housing system to support this
climate-controlled environment is crucial to successful operation. Dry heat, water vapor, gas and
dust generation and the subsequent entrainment into the airspace dictate fresh air exchange rates.
Depending upon the season, occupant density and climate desired, these fresh air exchange rates
are established to control one variable, sacrificing control of the others and sometimes at dele-
terious levels. In cold weather conditions, it is known that for most animal and poultry housing
systems, moisture and gas control dictate fresh air exchange rates at levels above that required for
temperature control necessitating the use of supplemental heating systems. Simultaneous control
of moisture, gases, and dust (hereafter particulate matter, PM) is not possible with ventilation
air alone and thus, two of the three variables will potentially be outside preferred levels and, in
some cases, far in excess of desired levels if not controlled by alternative methods. In the heat of
the summer, however, temperature control is essential, and every effort is made to accommodate
this need. The elevated rates required for temperature control by default will most always control
moisture, gas and PM levels below levels of occupational concern, but not necessarily below
levels of ambient concern.
The literature is rich with extensive investigations on PM levels in animal and poultry housing
systems, and the results from this extensive database of knowledge will not be reproduced in this
article. Instead, substantial multi-state, multi-country, and/or multi-species studies will be lever-
aged to assess the historical progression of PM concentrations experienced in animal and poultry
housing systems across the globe, as well as factors affecting PM entrainment into the airspace.
Ambient PM concentrations, although quickly drawing attention worldwide, will not be covered
in this article. The author apologizes to all prominent engineers and scientists who have studied
and presented their work on animal and poultry house PM monitoring who are not cited in this
present article. The interested reader is encouraged to obtain the very comprehensive literature
review regarding poultry and pig housing PM characteristics, concentrations, and mitigation pro-
vided by Cambra-López (2010).
1.2 PARTICULATE SOURCES AND FRACTIONAL CHARACTERISTICS
Although some ambient particulate matter will be present in fresh intake air to an animal facil-
ity, the particulates of interest to the internal climate originate from either the feed, bedding/
manure/litter, or the animal itself (Seedorf and Hartung, 2000). Particles are globally classified
as coarse (>2.5 µm in diameter) and fine (<2.5 µm in diameter), with those between 0.50 and 5
3
4 Steven J. Hoff
µm considered especially damaging to the lungs (Hinds, 1982). Entrainment of particulates into
VetBooks.ir
animal and human occupied zones originates primarily from animal activity. In poultry housing,
particulates that could eventually be entrained into the airspace originate from feathers (up to
43% of fine PM, up to 35% coarse PM) and litter/bedding (up to 85% fine PM, up to 94% coarse
PM). In pig housing, dried manure is responsible for up to 98% of fine PM and up to 94% of the
coarse PM (Cambra-López, 2010).
Particulate sampling is traditionally organized into specific size categories, and manufactur-
ers of sampling equipment accommodate these sizes. Unfortunately, the terminology used to
describe particulate sizing has not always consistently matched actual sizes implied. For exam-
ple, the USEPA describes “inhalable coarse particles” as those with diameters larger than 2.5 μm
and smaller than 10 μm and “fine particles” as those with diameters that are 2.5 μm and smaller
(EPA, 2016). The research community has traditionally defined inhalable particulates as those
with diameters less than 100 μm and respirable particles as those with diameters less than 10 μm
(Hinds, 1982). The partitioning levels, which have been established based on human health con-
cerns and the propensity of particles to reach the lung damaging alveolar region where toxicity
with the gas exchange process, are a concern. Research and regulatory communities have adopted
categorical representations of particulates as inhalable, thoracic, respirable, and high-risk respira-
ble (Cambra-López et al., 2010; ISO, 1995; Zhang, 2005). Inhalable particles are generally con-
sidered to be all particles less than 100 µm in aerodynamic equivalent diameter (AED). In some
studies, this category would be reported as total suspended particulates (TSP). Samplers targeting
the inhalable category will typically have a 50% cutoff at 100 µm. The thoracic category contains
all particles below 30 µm in AED, and samplers targeting the thoracic category will aspire to
have a 50% cut-point with particles at 10 µm in AED. Respirable particles are assumed to be all
particles with an AED less than 10 µm, and samplers targeting the respirable category will gener-
ally have a 50% cut-point at particles with an AED of 4 µm (i.e., PM10 samplers). The high-risk
respirable category includes all particles less than about 7 µm in AED. Samplers targeting the
high-risk respirable category will design for a 50% cut-point at 2.5 µm (i.e., PM2.5 samplers).
Additional PM categories of great concern include the ultrafine category, and samplers targeting
this category would have 50% cut-points less than 1 µm in AED. Cambra-López et al. (2010) and
Zhang (2005) provide an excellent overview of PM size categories and the subsequent misinter-
pretations that exist in the PM sampling arena. The tradition in animal and poultry production
systems is to measure and report inhalable and respirable PM concentrations. In this document,
inhalable and respirable PM categories were used as listed in any research article reviewed. If a
study reported PM10 concentrations, the results were placed in the respirable category. Studies
that reported TSP were placed in the inhalable category.
1.3 INDOOR PARTICULATE MATTER CONCENTRATIONS
Table 1.1 summarizes the regulated human occupational PM concentrations allowed by region

(BGIA, 2009; CIGR, 1994; HSE, 2007; OSHA, 2015; SWA, 2012). Inhalable PM concentration
limits vary between 5–15 mg m−3 for an 8-hour time-weighted average (TWA) and 10–20 mg
m−3 for 15-min short-term exposure limits (STEL). Based on worker health data, Donham et al.
(2002) recommended that pig and poultry farm workers should be limited to 2.5 and 0.23 mg
m−3 for TWA inhalable and respirable PM concentrations, respectively; in both cases significant
reductions from regulated occupational standards.
Particulate levels in animal and poultry housing systems have been measured comprehen-
sively in all types of barns, occupant density, season and barn hygiene levels. To capture all of
this information in one document is futile. Therefore, a summary of PM concentrations experi-
enced across the globe will instead be the focus here. A few key multi-state, multinational, and/
or multi-production system studies have been conducted since the mid-1990s that will be used to
shed light on the expected PM concentrations in animal and poultry housing systems.
Airborne dust in livestock buildings 5
Table 1.1. Regulated occupational PM concentrations allowed.

VetBooks.ir
PM category and concentration (mg m−3)
Region Inhalable1) Respirable (PM10)1)
Australia 10 22)
Austria 15 6
Belgium 10 5
Finland 5
10 (STEL)
France 10 5
Germany 10 (STEL) 3 (STEL)
Netherlands 10 5
Norway 5
United Kingdom 10 4
20 (STEL)
United States 10 5
1) 8-hour time-weighted average unless noted as STEL; 15-min short-term exposure limit.
2) Fumed silica. No respirable limit given for nuisance dust.
Hinz and Linke (1998) reviewed PM concentrations in a naturally ventilated pig finishing
facility and reported a range of inhalable PM concentrations between 0.1 and 5.5 mg m−3, with
the largest levels always measured during daytime pig activity periods. During feeding periods,
inhalable PM concentrations exceeded 10 mg m−3, with a duration consistent with short feeding
times. For a naturally ventilated broiler facility with full litter flooring, average daily inhalable
PM concentrations ranged from 0.10 to 15 mg m−3 as days in barn increased, indicating an influ-
ence with not only bird activity but total mass of birds in the barn, a finding similar to pig rearing
facilities (Nonnenmann et al., 1999). Takai et al. (1998) conducted one of the first truly multina-
tional, multi-production systemic studies focused on PM concentrations. This study summarized
the extensive PM monitoring conducted in Northern Europe as part of a larger effort investigating
gas and PM concentrations and emissions from animal and poultry housing systems (Wathes
et al., 1998). Takai et al. (1998) reported significant differences in both inhalable and respirable
PM concentrations between the various housing types and species. The average inhalable and
respirable PM concentrations measured were 0.38 and 0.07 mg m−3 in cattle facilities, 2.19 and
0.23 mg m−3 in pig facilities, and 3.60 and 0.45 mg m−3 for poultry facilities, respectively. Within
each species, several variations in the housing system were investigated over multiple seasons
and animal/bird mass density. Table 1.2 includes the PM concentrations registered by facility type
within species from Takai et al. (1998). Clearly, birds (broilers or layers) with direct access to
litter/bedding exceed all others.
Guingand (1999) studied particulate matter concentrations in several pig rearing facilities in
France and found wintertime minimum ventilation periods to exceed hot weather periods, in
some cases by a factor of two. The average range of inhalable PM concentrations ranged from
2.5 mg m−3 for farrowing units to 6.3 mg m−3 for nursery facilities, with overall inhalable PM
concentrations ranging from 0.1 mg m−3 to 14.1 mg m−3 for farrowing and nursery facilities,
respectively. Banhazi et al. (2008a) reported on a comprehensive 159-barn study conducted in the
late 1990s reviewing inhalable and respirable PM concentrations in pig housing systems. They
reported overall average inhalable and respirable PM concentrations of 1.74 and 0.26 mg m−3,
respectively, with overall ranges that varied between 0.12 and 10.07 mg m−3 and 0.01 and 2.13 mg
m−3, respectively. They reported that building design, pen hygiene, ventilation rate by season and
barn temperature and humidity levels were all significant factors in the respirable concentrations
measured. Pedersen et al. (2000) summarized the state of particulate matter in pig facilities and
Table 1.2. Historical and global perspective on particulate concentrations measured for various species and housing
systems.
Maturity level/ Inhalable Respirable Fine Country
Species housing1) (µg m−3) (µg m−3) (µg m−3) Reference
VetBooks.ir
Pigs Sows 630–3490 90–460 Northern Europe Takai et al. (1998)

Sows 100–7600 France Guingand (1999)
Sows 267 US Jacobson et al. (2006)
Sows 545 US Jacobson et al. (2006)
Sows 180–300 The Netherlands Lai et al. (2012)
Sows 726–1969 415–486 37–53 The Netherlands Winkel et al. (2015)
Nursery 500–79000 Cermak (1976)3)
Nursery 2800–5500 150–430 Northern Europe Takai et al. (1998)
Nursery 800–14100 France Guingand (1999)
Nursery 1150 The Netherlands Lai et al. (2012)
Nursery 2913–4674 988–1091 39–51 The Netherlands Winkel et al. (2015)
Finishing 1600–2740 Canada Barber et al. (1991)
Finishing 1230 Canada Butera et al. (1991)
Finishing 100–5500 Germany Hinz and Linke (1998)
Finishing 1210–2670 100–290 Northern Europe Takai et al. (1998)
Finishing 300–7000 France Guingand (1999)
Finishing 98–2664 33–738 US Heber et al. (2006)
Finishing 158–467 US Jacobson et al. (2006)
Finishing 470–870 The Netherlands Lai et al. (2012)
Finishing 614–4623 662–963 41–52 The Netherlands Winkel et al. (2015)
All grouped 120–10070 10–2130 Australia Banhazi et al. (2008a)
Poultry Layers/cages 1000–3600 300–1300 Sweden Martensson and Pehrson (1997)2)
Layers/cages 1700 310 Northern Europe Wathes et al. (1997)
Layers/cages 750–1640 30–230 Northern Europe Takai et al. (1998)
Layers/cages 1580 320 Italy Guarino et al. (1999)2)
Layers/cages 1440 553 33 US Heber et al. (2006)
Layers/cages 2370 565 US Lim et al. (2007)
Layers/cages 1600–2800 Croatia Vucemilo et al. (2007)2)
Layers/cages 90–1387 11–168 US Li et al. (2011)
Layers/cages 590 US Zhao et al. (2015)
Layers/OTC 2800–8100 500–2200 Sweden Martensson and Pehrson (1997)
Layers/OTC 2800 460 Northern Europe Wathes et al. (1997)
Layers/OTC 2190–8780 350–1260 Northern Europe Takai et al. (1998)
Layers/OTC 3780 The Netherlands Lai et al. (2012)
Layers/OTC 2810 The Netherlands Lai et al. (2012)
Layers/OTC 900–3400 250–400 US Hayes et al. (2013)
Layers/OTC 1198–10951 54–866 The Netherlands Winkel et al. (2015)
Layers/OTC 3633–14307 1216–7315 41–423 The Netherlands Winkel et al. (2015)
Layers/OTC 3950 US Zhao et al. (2015)
Layers/OTC 440 US Zhao et al. (2015)
Broilers 1300–16800 England Moulsey et al. (1981)3)
Broilers 100–15000 Germany Hinz and Linke (1998)
Broilers 3830–10400 420–1140 Northern Europe Takai et al. (1998)
Broilers 8200–9000 1400–1900 US Ellen et al. (1999)
Broilers 300–1800 Australia Banhazi et al. (2008b)
Broilers 1420 The Netherlands Lai et al. (2012)
Turkeys 1870 Lai et al. (2012)
Broilers 913–2737 45–205 The Netherlands Winkel et al. (2015)
Broilers 998–7882 486–3784 28–495 The Netherlands Winkel et al. (2015)
Turkeys 483–2515 54–947 The Netherlands Winkel et al. (2015)
Cattle Full slats/litter/ 100–1220 30–170 Northern Europe Takai et al. (1998)
bedding
Traditional/full slats 68–580 14–95 4–25 The Netherlands Winkel et al. (2015)
Traditional/full slats 70 The Netherlands Lai et al. (2012)
1) Sow category includes results from gestation and farrowing in bedding and full slat housing systems. Nursery and
finishing categories include results from partial and full slat housing systems. Other than cage (OTC) includes aviary
and enriched layer housing. Broiler category includes results from partial and full litter/bedding access. Turkey category
includes full litter/bedding access only. 2) From Li et al. (2011). 3) From Carpenter (1986).
showed a positive relationship between daytime pig activity and the concentration of inhalable
VetBooks.ir
PM in the barn, clearly showing that the entrainment action was affected by the animal. Banhazi
et al. (2008b) reported on a comprehensive study conducted in 17 Australian broiler facilities and
measured inhalable and respirable mean PM concentrations of 4.32 and 0.84 mg m−3 with ranges
that varied between 2.27 and 8.58 mg m−3 and 0.30 and 1.80 mg m−3, respectively.
In the United States, the first multi-state, multi-species, and multi-production system studies
monitoring PM and gas concentrations and emissions were undertaken in the early 2000s and
summarized in Jacobson et al. (2006, 2011). From this study (2011), the average respirable PM
concentrations for the finishing barns studied varied from a low of 0.16 (±0.10) mg m−3 for deep-
pit finishing to 0.47 (±0.24) mg m−3 for the pull-plug finisher studied. The farrowing and gestation
facilities monitored averaged 0.27 (±0.18) mg m−3and 0.55 (±0.24) mg m−3, respectively. Heber et
al. (2006), as part of the overall effort summarized in Jacobson et al. (2011), monitored multiple
caged layer facilities and reported the average inhalable, respirable and fine PM concentration to
be 1.44 (±0.18) mg m−3, 0.55 (±0.08) mg m−3, and 0.033 (±0.075) mg m−3, respectively. For the
swine finisher monitored, the inhalable particulate concentration was 1.14 (±0.62) mg m−3.
A series of three seminal long-term emission studies were conducted in the United States
investigating conventional cage, aviary and enriched colony layer facilities. Li et al. (2011) con-
tinually monitored PM concentrations in a conventional caged layer facility and reported average
respirable and fine PM concentrations of 0.4 (±0.3) mg m−3 and 0.04 (±0.04) mg m−3, respec-
tively. As expected, a large seasonal effect was found, with the highest concentrations recorded
during minimum ventilation periods. Hayes et al. (2013) continually monitored an aviary layer
house and reported respirable and fine PM concentrations that averaged 2.3 (±1.6) mg m−3 and
0.25 (±0.26 mg m−3), respectively. Again, as expected, PM concentrations were highest during
minimum ventilation periods where the respirable and fine PM concentrations average 3.3 and
0.4 mg m−3, respectively. Zhao et al. (2015) conducted a comparison of a conventional cage,
aviary, and enriched layer housing systems and reported significant differences in both respirable
and fine PM concentrations between these three systems. The 95% confidence band reported for
respirable and fine PM concentrations, respectively, was 0.57 and 0.61 mg m−3 and 0.033 and
0.037 mg m−3 for the conventional cage system, 3.61 and 4.29 mg m−3 and 0.374 and 0.446 mg
m−3 for the aviary system, and 0.42 and 0.46 mg m−3 and 0.054 and 0.059 mg m−3 for the enriched
colony system.
Lai et al. (2012) reported on an extensive study investigating particulate matter size and mass
distributions in broiler, turkey, layer, pig and cattle facilities. For layers that allowed full floor
access, the average respirable PM concentration was highest at 3.78 mg m−3 and for layers in
aviary housing, the average respirable PM concentration was 2.81 mg m−3. For turkey and broiler
housing, the average respirable PM concentration was 1.87 and 1.42 mg m−3, respectively. Respi-
rable PM concentration in the pig housing facilities, representing a wide variety of maturity levels
and housing systems, ranged from 0.18 to 1.15 mg m−3. The cattle housing was lowest, at 0.07
mg m−3. Their study highlighted the mass fraction of particulates, indicating that particulate sizes
greater than 2.5 µm dominated the distribution, with 50% of the particles in the 2.5 to 10 µm
range and 47% in the 10–32 µm range. Only 2.5% of the particles were below 2.5 µm in diameter.
As has been found in many other studies investigating PM concentrations in animal and poultry
facilities, significant variation existed between species and housing configuration and between
farms with the same species and housing configuration, a finding that agrees with many others,
including Martin et al. (1996).
Winkel et al. (2015) provided an excellent state of PM concentrations in The Netherlands,
where a total of 36 pig, poultry and dairy facilities were extensively monitored for emissions
quantification. Inhalable, respirable and fine PM concentrations were measured to support their
overall goal of determining emission rates. They reported daily mean inhalable PM concentration
between 4.4 and 8.2 mg m−3 for poultry, 1.2 and 3.6 mg m−3 for pigs, and 0.3 mg m−3 for dairy.
Respirable PM concentration varied between 1.3 and 3.4 mg m−3 for poultry, 0.4 and 1.1 mg m−3
for pigs, and 0.04 mg m−3 for dairy. Fine PM concentration varied between 0.14 and 0.35 mg m−3
8 Steven J. Hoff
for poultry, 0.04 and 0.05 mg m−3 for pigs, and 0.014 mg m−3 for dairy. Significant layer house
VetBooks.ir
diurnal patterns were measured in response to barn lighting strategy, a similar finding to other
studies (Zhao et al., 2015). The results from the Winkel et al. (2015) study, conducted several
years after Takai et al. (1998), were consistent with conclusion and PM concentration levels
measured.
1.4 SUMMARY OF COMPREHENSIVE ANIMAL AND

POULTRY HOUSING PM STUDIES
Table 1.2 summarizes a collection of studies conducted where inhalable, respirable, and/or fine
PM concentrations were monitored, providing a small fraction of the PM concentration studies
investigating pig, poultry and cattle facilities. This table of results focuses mainly on the multi-
state/country, multi-species, and/or multi-housing system studies from this article, although sev-
eral other studies are provided as well. Figure 1.1 summarizes the respirable PM concentrations
from the information presented in Table 1.2, organized by overall respirable concentration mea-
sured regardless of housing system or species (Fig. 1.1a), by country(ies) of study (Fig. 1.1b),
(a)
Respirable concentration
3500
3000
2500
(µg m–3)
2000
1500
1000
500
0
Publication Year_Species&Type_Country
(b)
3500
3000
2500
(µg m–3)
2000
1500
1000
500
0
Figure 1.1. (a) Range of overall average (or mean of low/high reported) respirable in-house PM concen-
trations measured across species and housing system, (b) separated by poultry and pigs respec-
tively, and (c) separated by country (AUStralia, CANada, ITaLy, NOrthern Europe, SWEden,
The Netherlands, LC = layers caged, LO = layers other than caged, BL = broilers on litter/
bedding, PN = pig nursery, PF = pig finisher, PS = pig sow).
(c)
VetBooks.ir
3500
3000
2500
(µg m–3)
2000
1500
1000
500
0
Figure 1.1 (Continued)
and by poultry and pig system studies (Fig. 1.1c). The pig studies summarized fell below the
respirable PM concentrations reported for over half of the poultry-related studies. Layers not in
conventional cage housing exceeded the majority of other poultry and pig housing systems, with
the top four respirable concentrations reported from our most recent studies conducted in the
United States and Netherlands. The caged layer housing studies conducted were all on-par with
the respirable PM concentrations measured from the wide array of pig housing systems reported.
The comprehensive studies summarized, where multiple species or multiple houses were investi-
gated in various locations across the globe, support the following observations:
• Allowing housed animals and poultry to come in direct contact with litter and bedding results
in substantially higher PM concentrations.
• Substantial variations exist in PM concentrations within a given barn both diurnally, season-
ally, and as animal mass increases.
• Substantial variations exist in PM concentrations within a given species and similar production
facility at a different geographical location.
• Repeated studies with a significant passing of time investigating similar production styles for
various species indicates similar levels of categorical PM concentrations.
• Source reduction studies will be of premium future value, simultaneously benefitting workers,
animals and the surrounding community. Studies only focused on PM monitoring will hold
little value moving forward.
• Mitigation in poultry housing systems involving litter/bedding direct access scenarios needs to
be the focus of future research, where most technology developed for this environment should
cross over to our remaining production systems.
1.5 CONCLUSION
This article did not attempt to perform the function of a literature review on particulate mat-
ter monitoring in animal and poultry production systems. The literature is rich with many
such informative studies. Instead, this article focused on some of the larger multi-species or
multi-production system studies that have been conducted across the globe since the early 1990s.
From an engineering perspective, mitigation must be the focus of future research efforts. Stud-
ies that purely quantify particulate matter concentrations and/or emissions will only add to the
scatter in data that we have already amassed in this research area. Concentration and/or emission
quantification with and without mitigation will be very valuable in future studies, especially those
devoted to litter/bedding access poultry production systems.
10 Steven J. Hoff
REFERENCES
VetBooks.ir
Banhazi, T.M., Seedorf, J., Rutley, D.L. & Pitchford, W.S. (2008a) Identification of risk factors for sub-
optimal housing conditions in Australian piggeries: part 2. Airborne pollutants. Journal of Agricultural
Safety and Health, 14(1), 21–39.
Banhazi, T.M., Seedorf, J., Laffrique, M. & Rutley, D.L. (2008b) Identification of risk factors for high air-
borne particle concentrations in broiler buildings using statistical modelling. Biosystems Engineering,
101(1), 100–110.
Barber, E.M., Dawson, J.R., Battams, V.A. & Nicol, R.A.C. (1991) Spatial variability of airborne and settled
dust in a piggery. Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research, 50, 107–127.
BGIA Institute for Occupational Safety. (2009) GESTIS-database on Hazardous Substances. Institut für
Arbeitsschutz der Deutschen Gesetzlichen Unfallversicherung (IFA, Institute for Occupational Safety
and Health of the German Social Accident Insurance). Division 1, Sankt Augustin, Germany.
Butera, M., Smith, J.H., Morrison, W.D., Hacker, R.R., Kains, F.A. & Ogilvie, J.R. (1991) Concentration
of respirable dust and bioaerosols and identification of certain microbial types in a hog-growing facility.
Canadian Journal of Animal Science, 71, 271–277.
Cambra-López, M. (2010) Control of Particulate Matter Emissions from Poultry and Pig Houses. PhD the-
sis, Universidad Politecnica De Valencia, Departamento De Ciencia Animal, Valencia, Spain.
Cambra-López, M., Aarnink, A.J.A., Zhao, Y., Calvet, S. & Torres, A.G. (2010) Airborne particulate matter
from livestock production systems: a review of an air pollution problem. Environmental Pollution, 156,
1–17.
Carpenter, G.A. (1986) Dust in livestock buildings-review of some aspects. Journal of Agricultural Engi-
neering Research, 33(4), 227–241.
Cermak, J.P. (1976) The stockman’s work. Pig Housing Supplement, Pig Farming, 75–81.
CIGR (1994) Aerial Environment in Animal Housing. Concentrations in and Emissions from Farm Build-
ings. Working group report series number 94.1. CEMAGREF, Groupement de Rennes, Rennes Cedex-
France. ISBN 2-85362-377-7.
Donham, K.J., Thorne, P.S., Breuer, G.M., Powers, W., Marquez, S. & Reynolds, S.J. (2002) Iowa Concen-
trated Animal Feeding Operation Air Quality Study, Table 7, pp. 175. Available from: http://www.public-
health.uiowa.edu/ehsrc/CAFOstudy.htm [accessed January 2018].
Ellen, H., Doleghs, B. & Zoons, J. (1999) Influence of air humidity on dust concentration in broiler houses.
International Symposium on Dust Control in Animal Production Facilities, 30 May–2 June 1999, Aarhus,
Denmark, Danish Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Aarhus, Denmark. pp. 41–47.
EPA (2016) Particulate Matter (PM) Basics. Available from: https://www.epa.gov/pm-pollution/particu
late-matter-pm-basics#PM [accessed January 2018]. United States Environmental Protection Agency.
Guarino, M., Caroli, A. & Navarotto, P. (1999) Dust concentration and mortality distribution in an enclosed
laying house. Transactions of the ASAE, 42(4), 1127–1133.
Guingand, N. (1999) Dust concentrations in piggeries: Influence of season, age of pigs, type of floor and feed
presentation in farrowing, post-weaning and finishing rooms. International Symposium on Dust Control
in Animal Production Facilities, 30 May–2 June 1999, Aarhus, Denmark, Danish Institute of Agricultural
Sciences, Aarhus, Denmark. pp. 69–75.
Hayes, M.D., Xin, H., Li, H., Shepherd, T.A., Zhao, Y. & Stinn, J.P. (2013) Ammonia, greenhouse gas, and
particulate matter emissions of aviary layer houses in the Midwestern U.S. Transactions of the ASABE,
56(5), 1921–1932.
Heber, A.J., Lim, T.T., Ni, J.Q., Tao, P.C., Schmidt, A.M., Koziel, J.A., Hoff, S.J., Jacobson, L.D., Zhang,
Y. & Baughman, G.B. (2006) Quality-assured measurements of animal building emissions: particulate
matter concentrations. Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association, 56, 1642–1648.
Hinds, W.C. (1982) Aerosol Technology. John Wiley & Sons, New York.
Hinz, T. & Linke, S. (1998) A comprehensive experimental study of aerial pollutants in and emissions from
livestock buildings. Part 2: results. Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research, 70, 119–129.
HSE (2007) List of Approved Workplace Exposure Limits. Health & Safety Executive, United Kingdom.
ISO (1995) International Organization for Standardization. ISO 7708: Air Quality-Particle Size Fraction
Definitions for Health-Related Sampling.
Jacobson, L.D., Heber, A.J., Hoff, S.J., Zhang, Y., Beasley, D.B., Koziel, J.A. & Hetchler, B.P. (2006) Aerial
pollutant emissions from confined animal buildings. Workshop on Agricultural Air Quality, 5–8 June
2006, Washington, DC.
Jacobson, L.D., Hetchler, B.P., Akdeniz, N., Hoff, S., Heber, A.J., Ni, J.Q., Zhang, Y. & Koziel, J.A. (2011)
VetBooks.ir
Air Pollutant Emissions from Confined Animal Buildings (APECAB) Project Summary. ASABE, St.
Joseph, MI; ISBN 1-892769-80-8.
Lai, H.T.L., Aarnink, A.J.A., Cambra-López, M., Huynh, T.T.T., Parmentier, H.K. & Groot Koerkamp,
P.W.G. (2012) Airborne Particles in Animal Houses. Paper Number ILES 12–1769. ASABE.
Li, S., Li, H., Xin, H. & Burns, R.T. (2011) Particulate matter concentrations and emissions of a high-rise
layer house in Iowa. Transactions of the ASABE, 54(3), 1093–1101.
Lim, T.T., Sun, H., Ni, J.Q., Zhao, L., Diehl, C.A., Heber, A.J. & Hanni, S.M. (2007) Field tests of a par-
ticulate impaction curtain on emissions from a high-rise layer barn. Transactions of the ASABE, 50(5),
1795–1805.
Martensson, L. & Pehrson, C. (1997) Air quality in a multiple tier rearing system for layer type pullets.
Journal of Agricultural Safety and Health, 3(4), 217–228.
Martin, W.T., Zhang, Y., Willson, P., Archer, T.P., Kinahan, C. & Barber, E.M. (1996) Bacterial and fungal
flora of dust deposits in a pig building. Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 53(7), 484–487.
Moulsey, L.J. (1981) Preliminary trial of an air filter system in a broiler house. Division Note DN/1081,
National Institute of Agricultural Engineering, Silsoe.
Nonnenmann, M.W., Rautiainen, R.H., Donham, K.J., Kirychuk, S.P., Reynolds, S.J., O’Shaughnessy,
P.T. & Thorne, P.S. (1999) Vegetable oil sprinkling as a dust reduction method in a swine confinement.
International Symposium on Dust Control in Animal Production Facilities, 30 May–2 June 1999, Danish
Institute of Agricultural Sciences; Aarhus, Denmark. pp. 271–285.
OSHA (2015) Occupational Safety and Health Administration. OSHA Annotated Table Z-1. Available from:
http://www.osha.gov/dsg/annotated-pels/tablez-1.html [accessed January 2018].
Pedersen, S., Nonnenmann, M., Rautiainen, R., Demmers, T.G.M., Banhazi, T. & Lyngbye, M. (2000) Dust
in pig buildings. Journal of Agricultural Safety and Health, 6(4), 261–274.
Seedorf, J. & Hartung, J. (2000) Emission of airborne particulates from animal production. Workshop 4 on
Sustainable Animal Production, 28 September 2000, Hannover, Germany.
SWA: Safe Work Australia. Guidance on the interpretation of workplace exposure standards for airborne
contaminants; April 2012. ISBN 978-0-642-33396-4.
Takai, H., Pedersen, S., Johnsen, J.O., Metz, J.H.M., Groot Koerkamp, P.W.G., Uenk, G.H., Phillips, V.R.,
Holden, M.R., Sneath, R.W., Short, J.L., White, R.P., Hartung, J., Seedorf, J., Schröeder, M., Linkert,
K.H. & Wathes, C.M. (1998) Concentrations and emissions of airborne dust in livestock buildings in
northern Europe. Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research, 70, 59–77.
Vucemilo, M., Katkovic, K., Vinkovic, B., Jaksic, S., Granic, K. & Mas, N. (2007) The effect of animal
age on air pollutant concentration in a broiler house. Czech Journal of Animal Science, 52(6), 170–174.
Wathes, C.M., Holden, M.R., Sneath, R.W., White, R.P. & Phillips, V.R. (1997) Concentrations and emission
rates of aerial ammonia, nitrous oxide, methane, carbon dioxide, dust and endotoxin in UK broiler and
later houses. British Poultry Science, 38(1), 14–28.
Wathes, C.M., Phillips, V.R., Holden, M.R., Sneath, R.W., Short, J.L., White, R.P., Hartung, J., Seedorf, J.,
Schröeder, M., Linkert, K.H., Pedersen, S., Takai, H., Johnsen, J.O., Groot Koerkamp, P.W.G., Uenk,
G.H., Metz, J.H.M., Hinz, T., Caspary, V. & Linke, S. (1998) Emissions of aerial pollutants in livestock
buildings in Northern Europe: overview of multinational project. Journal of Agricultural Engineering
Research, 70, 3–9.
Winkel, A., Mosquero, J., Groot Koerkamp, P.W.G., Ogink, N.W.M. & Aarnink, A.J.A. (2015) Emissions
of particulate matter from animal houses in The Netherlands. Atmospheric Environment, 111, 202–212.
Zhang, Y. (2005) Indoor Air Quality Engineering. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
Zhao, Y., Shepherd, T.A., Li, H. & Xin, H. (2015) Environmental assessment of three egg production
systems-Part I: monitoring system and indoor air quality. Poultry Science, 94, 518–533.
VetBooks.ir
CHAPTER 2
VetBooks.ir
Lagoon characteristics and ambient hydrogen sulfide

concentrations at a swine feeding facility
Albert J. Heber
2.1 INTRODUCTION
Livestock odor nuisance is often assessed by measuring ambient hydrogen sulfide (H2S) con-
centrations, because H2S is a dominant odorant with a low detection threshold and appropriate
instrumentation is readily available to measure it. Over 20 states have implemented ambient H2S
limits at facility property lines with thresholds ranging from 0.5 to 20,000 ppb and averaging
intervals ranging from 1 min to one year (Jacobson et al., 2001; Thorne et al., 2009). The Min-
nesota ambient air quality standards (Minn. R. 7009.0080 State Ambient Air Quality Standard)
define half-hour H2S concentration limits of 30 and 50 parts per billion (ppb) for the property line
of emitting facilities, including swine production. The 50-ppb limit must not be exceeded more
than twice per year, and the 30-ppb limit must not be exceeded more than twice during any five
consecutive days. The MPCA allows a 14 d exemption for manure storage agitation and land
application (Bicudo et al., 2002)
The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) implemented an extensive monitoring pro-
gram for ambient H2S concentrations around livestock feeding facilities (MPCA, 1999). In this
program, the MPCA performed spot measurements at the property line with portable H2S meters
(Jerome Model 631-X, Arizona Instrument, Phoenix, AZ) in their first responses to odor com-
plaints from neighbors. If these data indicate potential exceedance of the 30 ppb threshold, then
multi-week continuous H2S measurements were conducted with more accurate H2S analyzers
(e.g., MDA Single Point Monitor, MDA Scientific, Zellweger Analytics, Lincolnshire, IL) at fixed
locations on the farm property line. It was extremely rare for the MPCA to observe exceedances
of the 30-ppb limit using this approach.
As part of the MPCA monitoring program, over six months of continuous data beginning in
April 1998 were collected near a 15,360-head wean-to-finish swine production facility, along
with simultaneous wind speed and direction in response to citizen complaints (MDH, 2003). In an
effort to comply with the MPCA air quality standard, several control measures were implemented
by the swine producer before and during this period of data collection including a bacterial pit
additive (Pit Remedy, B&S Research, Embarrass, MN) hereafter referred to as PR, limited aera-
tion, and a porous geotextile/straw cover (Minnesota Department of Health, 2003).
The specific objectives of this chapter describing a field test at a swine facility were to:
1. Characterize long-term ambient H2S concentrations measured at a wean-to-finish swine
facility.
2. Correlate ambient H2S concentrations with wind speed and direction, and time of day.
3. Provide preliminary data on apparent potential individual and combined effects of abatement
methods applied to the first-stage lagoon coupled with increasing summer temperatures and
time since spring thaw on ambient H2S concentrations and slurry characteristics.
13
14 Albert J. Heber
2.2 LITERATURE REVIEW
VetBooks.ir
Hydrogen sulfide (H2S) is generated from anaerobic fermentation of manure and is emitted by
swine confinement facilities into the atmosphere. Concentrations of H2S less than 30 ppb con-
tribute significantly to odor (Bicudo et al., 2002), and H2S and odor emitted from swine facili-
ties were significantly correlated (Zhou, 2001). Average H2S concentrations in the exhaust air of
mechanically ventilated swine buildings typically range from 100 to 400 ppb (Heber et al., 1997;
Ni et al., 2002a, Ni et al., 2002b, Thorne et al., 2009), unless manure stored under the slatted
floor is agitated or disturbed (Chenard et al., 2003). The mean H2S concentration in two naturally
ventilated swine houses was 166 ppb over a 63-d period (Heber et al., 1997). The emission rate
of H2S directly affects downwind concentrations. Ni et al. (2002b) reported the average H2S
emission per animal unit (AU = 500 kg animal mass) of 6.3 g d−1 AU−1 for two mechanically
ventilated swine finishing buildings with deep pits.
Previous lagoon studies have reported mean BOD concentrations ranging from 290 to 1650 mg
L−1 (Heber and Ni, 1999; Payne et al., 1980; Willrich, 1966). According to Williams (1984), the
odor unacceptability threshold for BOD is 680 mg L−1.
Some studies reported lagoon pH ranging from 6.7 to 8.0 (Loehr, 1968; Payne et al., 1980;
Willrich, 1966).
The average TSS concentration of swine lagoons in Missouri was 3091 mg L−1 (Fulhage, 1980),
and a four-year average of 2520 mg L−1 was reported by Sutton et al. (1980) for one swine lagoon.
Swine manure management systems were classified based on their effluent characteristics. For
example, an earthen basin would typically have a phosphorus (P) concentration of 153 ± 12.1 mg
L−1 and solids content of 13,400 ± 600 mg L−1, whereas a typical anaerobic lagoon system would
have a P concentration of 65 ± 4.5 mg L−1 and solids content of 3800 ± 400 mg L−1, respectively.
The average outside H2S concentration in communities with no livestock was 1.3 ppb in a
study conducted in Canada (Godbout et al., 2009) and 0.4 ppb in a study conducted in Iowa (Hoff
et al., 2009). Ambient H2S concentrations at distances of 4.6 to 35 m away from swine facilities
in Minnesota were measured continuously in a study conducted from 1999 to 2001 (Bicudo et al.,
2002). Mean H2S concentrations at these distances ranged from 1.7 to 10.9 ppb, and individual
readings exceeded 30 ppb from 0% to 75%, depending on the location. It was concluded that
straw covers and natural crusts can minimum H2S emissions and that concentrations follow a
distinct diurnal pattern, with higher concentrations at night and lower concentrations during the
day. The average H2S concentration at the perimeter of nine swine operations in Iowa ranged from
1.9 ± 2.7 ppb to 26.3 ± 32.3 ppb (Hoff et al., 2009).
2.3 METHODOLOGY
2.3.1 Description of swine facility and emission abatement methods

The swine finishing facility consisted of a nursery building and eight finishing barns with 0.6-m
deep pits that were gravity drained into the first-stage of a two-stage anaerobic treatment system
every four weeks (Fig. 2.1). Thus, by staggering flushing between buildings, four manure pits were
flushed into the lagoon each week. The total number of pigs at the site during the tests was approx-
imately 14,600, and the average pig mass was estimated at 61 kg. The dimensions of the first-
and second-stage lagoons were 209 m × 132 m and 199 m × 71 m, respectively. Lagoon depths
were 4.7 m, including 0.61 m freeboards. The first-stage lagoon volume was 94,600 m3, and the
second-stage lagoon volume was 28,400 m3. The liquid surface areas of the first and second cells
were 24,300 and 12,900 m2, respectively. The volatile solids (VS) loading rate into the first-stage
lagoon was estimated at 3960 kg per day, or 70 kg of VS per 1000 m3 of lagoon volume per day.
The dosage rate for PR was 1.9 L month−1 per 1000 nursery pigs and 3.8 L month−1 per 1000
finishing pigs. It was added to the pits at a rate of 45 L per month beginning 6 May and ending
28 July. Each liter of PR was mixed with 1 L of catalyst for a total of 91 L of mixed product.
Lagoon characteristics 15
Specifically, the PR was added at the rate of 7.6 L per finishing room and 3.8 L per nursery in the
VetBooks.ir
pull-plug pits. It flowed by gravity with the manure into the first-stage lagoon when the individual
pits filled up (every four weeks). About 300 and 75 L of PR were added directly to the first- and
second-stage lagoons, respectively, on 26 March, followed by 150 L to the first-stage lagoon on
15 April, 6 May, 5 June and 9 July, for a total of 908 L (Table 2.1). Thus, an overall total of 1272
L of PR was added over the course of this study.
Three flexible rubber membrane air diffusers (Environmental Dynamics, Columbia, MO) were
installed on the bottom floor of the lagoon near the manure inlet (Fig. 2.1). The fine bubble
aeration system was operated from 7 July to 18 August (Table 2.1). About 150 m3 h−1 of airflow
were supplied to each diffuser by a 3.7 kW air compressor. The aeration system was installed to
increase the effectiveness of the additive in the first-stage lagoon by mixing and resuspending
settled solids.
A geotextile and straw cover was installed on the first-stage lagoon on 8 September, and
remained there until data collection stopped on 31 October (Table 2.1). The geotextile cover
consisted of a permeable synthetic fabric (Bio-CapTM, Baumgartner Environics, Olivia, MN)
Property boundary
(305 x 518 m)
NW monitor
(SPM)
First-stage lagoon
(209 x 132 m)
N
Middle
Historical wind rose A3
Diffusers
A2
A1 Manure
inlet
Exhaust fans
Nursery
barn
2nd-stage
lagoon
(199 x 71 m)
Finishing barns
SE monitor (TRSM)
Figure 2.1. Layout of the swine facility. Historical wind rose was obtained from www.meteoblue.com.
16 Albert J. Heber
Table 2.1. Abatement and monitoring schedule in 1998.

VetBooks.ir
Quantity of PR added, L
Date Activity Barn pits 1st stage 2nd stage
26 March Added PR - 300 75

6 April Started SPM
15 April Added PR - 150 -
23 April Started TRSM
23 April Started wind monitoring
6 May Added PR 45 150 -
5 June Added PR 45 150 -
7 July Started aeration - - -
8 July Stopped TRSM
9 July Added PR 45 150 -
28 July Last addition of PR 45 - -
18 August Stopped aeration - - -
8 September Installed cover - - -
31 October Stopped all monitoring
that floated on the liquid and supported about 10 cm of straw that was blown onto the top of the
fabric (Haggerty, 1999).
2.3.2 Total reduced sulfur monitor at southeast corner

The total reduced sulfur monitoring system (Model 8850 Fluorescent SO2 Analyzer, Monitor
Labs/Lear Siegler, Englewood, CO) converted reduced sulfur gases to sulfur dioxide (SO2) with
a thermal oxidizer (Automated Equivalent Method EQSA-0779-039). The thermal oxidizer con-
verted H2S to SO2 with an efficiency of ≥98%. A scrubber upstream of the thermal oxidizer
removed at least 98% of the ambient SO2 in the sample stream without affecting the H2S concen-
tration. Since the total reduced sulfur monitor (TRSM) did not separate H2S from other TRS gases
that may be present, other TRS gases in addition to H2S were also measured. However, because
of the relatively low boiling point (−60℃), H2S is the most predominant TRS gas in ambient air,
and it was expected that the TRS method detected mostly H2S (MPCA, 1999).
A TRSM with a 500-ppb upper limit was located in a trailer on the property boundary near
the southeast (SE) corner of the facility (Fig. 2.1) and was operated from 23 April to 8 July 1998
(Table 2.1). The average distances to the TRSM were 241 m from the nearest edge of the buildings
and 377 and 150 m from the nearest edges of the first and second-stage lagoons, respectively. The
range of directions for wind blowing across any point of the facility toward the TRSM were 279° to
322° for the buildings, 289° to 352° for the first-stage lagoon, and 326° to 356° for the second-stage
lagoon. The northwest and south-southeast winds most frequently occurred, based on historical data.
2.3.3 Chemcassette method at northwest corner

The continuous Chemcassette detection technique (MDA Single Point Monitor, Honeywell Ana-
lytics, Lincolnshire, IL, USA) was utilized to measure ambient H2S concentration. A sensitized
paper tape was used to monitor H2S by a color change reaction. This method was sensitive to the
moisture content of ambient air and to minor production variations in the paper tape. The accu-
racy was within 20% (Bicudo et al., 2002), compared with 10% assured by the TRS method. The
0–90 ppb single point monitor (SPM) recorded 15-min averages.
The SPM was located at the property boundary near the northwest (NW) corner of the facility
and was operated from 6 April through 31 October. The average distances to the SPM were 372 m
from the nearest edge of the buildings and 245 and 393 m from the nearest edges of the first and
VetBooks.ir
second-stage lagoons, respectively. The ranges of directions for wind blowing across any point of
the facility toward the SPM were 154–178° for the buildings, 132–159° for the first-stage lagoon
and 91–153° for the second-stage lagoon.
2.3.4 Other measurements and analyses

Wind speed and direction were measured by the MPCA with a cup anemometer system near the
TRSM between 23 April and 9 July, at a second site (29 km away) between 9 July and 11 August,
and at a third site (29 km away) between 17 August and 9 November.
Hydrogen sulfide concentrations about 25 cm above the liquid surface near the aeration dif-
fusers and in the middle of the lagoon were measured with a portable H2S meter (Jerome Model
631-X, Arizona Instrument, Phoenix, AZ), which had a lower limit of detection of 5 ppb. The
measurements were taken from a paddle boat.
Liquid samples were collected 17 times using a Coliwasa Sampler (New Pig, Inc., Tipton,
PA) from 22 April to 2 September 1998 from the first-stage lagoon by Baumgartner Environics
(Olivia, MN). On each sampling day, the lagoon was sampled at approximately the same places
and in the same manner, unless there was severe crusting that interfered with obtaining a repre-
sentative sample. The short and long sides of the lagoons were divided into thirds and quarters,
and samples were collected at the center of each division. The sampler tube was extended diago-
nally into the liquid surface from the berm as far as the operator could reach. A composite sample
was created by mixing individual samples in a bucket. The pH of the composite sample was
measured using a calibrated pH probe. The samples were put on ice immediately upon collection
and transported to the analytical laboratories.
Samples were analyzed for concentrations of ammoniacal nitrogen (NH3–N), sulfide, sulfate,
volatile fatty acids (VFA), and phenols by Baumgartner Environics (Olivia, MN) using a col-
orimeter (Hach DR/700 Colorimeter, ALS Environmental, Houston, TX). Ammoniacal nitrogen,
sulfide, sulfate, VFA and phenols were analyzed using Hach Methods 8038, 8131, 8051, 8196
and 8047, respectively.
Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), total suspended solids (TSS), ammonia nitrogen (NH3-
N), total phosphorus (P), total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN), and aerobic plate count (APC) were
analyzed by MVTL Laboratories (New Ulm, MN). The methods used for BOD, TSS, NH3-N, P
and TKN were EPA Methods 405.1, 160.2, 351.3, 365.3, and 351.3, respectively. The APC was
determined according to the FDA BAM method (BAM, 1992).
2.3.5 Statistical methods
The effect of time of day on wind-exposed H2S concentrations measured by the fixed monitors
was determined by comparing the means of concentrations measured during four-hour intervals
starting from midnight. The effect of wind speed was evaluated by comparing the means of
concentrations measured during 8 km h−1 intervals of wind speed from 0 to 48 km h−1. The last
two intervals were combined into one 32 to 48 km h−1 interval. The effect of time of year was
evaluated by comparing the means of 10 to 14 d intervals (10.6 d average) from 23 April to 31
October. The effect of covering the first-stage lagoon was evaluated by comparing the concen-
tration means before (23 April to 7 September) and after (9 September to 31 October) installing
the lagoon cover. The daily means of H2S concentrations taken at the aerators were calculated
assuming the three measurements were replicates.
The data analysis using linear mixed models and least squares means was generated with
statistical software (SAS/STAT Version 9.4, SAS Institute, 2013). The Tukey-Kramer’s multiple
comparison adjustment was used to compare means after accounting for potential correlation
among observations within a day.
18 Albert J. Heber
The least squares means procedure in SAS was used to compare the means of BOD and VFA
VetBooks.ir
before (22 April to 1 July) and during (8 July to 12 August) aeration and the daily means of H2S
concentrations taken at the aerators.
Linear mixed models accounted for correlation among observations within a day as well as
within a time period. Means were compared after accounting for that correlation. It was assumed
that all observations were independent. Statistical analyses of H2S concentrations consisted of
linear mixed models that accounted for variance of slurry parameters as a function of time. The
differences between means of H2S concentrations were evaluated by comparing the 95% confi-
dence intervals associated with each mean.
2.4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
2.4.1 Slurry characteristics
The results of laboratory analyses of 17 lagoon slurry samples taken from 22 April through 26
August are shown in Table 2.2. Lagoon pH ranged from 7.3 to 8.9 and averaged 8.0, similar to the
reports by Sutton et al. (1980) and Booram et al. (1975).
The compounds usually associated with odor emissions (BOD, VFA) decreased substantially
from April to August. The BOD concentration in the first-stage lagoon decreased from between
1300 and 6000 mg L−1 in April, May, and June to less than 500 mg L−1 by the end of July, after
some aeration (Fig. 2.2). Odor acceptability (Williams, 1984) was reached by 29 July. The means
(±standard error) of BOD before and during the aeration period of 3386 ± 519 and 1054 ± 614 mg
L−1, respectively, were statistically significant (p < 0.05).
Volatile fatty acids decreased gradually from over 1000 mg L−1 in May to 631 mg L−1 in late
June (Fig. 2.2) to 32 mg L−1 in August. The odor unacceptability threshold of 520 mg L−1 (Wil-
liams et al., 1989) was not reached. However, after the installation of air diffusers, the odor
acceptability threshold for VFA of 230 mg L−1 (Williams et al., 1989) was achieved by 8 July,
when VFA was 191 mg L−1. It decreased further to 32 mg L−1 following the 41-d aeration period.
Table 2.2. Slurry characteristics of the first-stage lagoon.

Liquid temperature, ℃ pH BOD1 VFA2
Date mg L−1 mg L−1
22 April - - 3200 1035

14 May - 8.0 - 1593
27 May 23.2 7.9 2420 -
5 June - 7.9 - 1193
10 June 20.9 8.0 4550 724
17 June 16 7.9 6040 957
24 June 23 7.7 1310 631
1 July 27 8.0 2050 847
8 July 27 7.3 2490 191
15 July 29 8.0 841 121
22 July 26 7.8 1010 123
29 July 26 8.6 483 105
5 August 24 8.9 446 105
12 August 26 8.2 - 128
26 August 27 8.2 - 32
2 September - - 401 -
1
BOD = biochemical oxygen demand, 2 VFA = volatile fatty acids.
7000 100000
VetBooks.ir
BOD and VFA concentration (mg L–1) BOD

6000 PR added
10000
Aeration
TSS concentration, mg L–1

5000 VFA
TSS 1000
4000
3000
100
2000
10
1000
0 1
3/1 4/1 5/1 6/1 7/1 8/1 9/1 10/1
Date (month/day)
Figure 2.2. Concentrations of BOD, VFA and TSS in the first-stage lagoon.
The means (±standard error) of VFA before and during the aeration period of 997 ± 91 and 129 ±
98 mg L−1, respectively, were statistically significant (p < 0.05).
The TSS concentration increased from about 3000 mg L−1 in April and May to over 8000
mg L−1 at the end of July (Fig. 2.2). This may have been due to increased solids suspended in
the liquid from sludge breakdown by the product or by naturally increased microbial activity
during hot weather in the summer. The average TSS concentation of 11 measurements was
5807 mg L−1.
No clear trends of sulfides, phenol (Fig. 2.3) or ammoniacal nitrogen (Fig. 2.4) concentrations
were observed in the first-stage lagoon. Ammoniacal N ranged from 763 to 1114 mg L−1 L and
averaged 937 mg L−1. Other research reported NH3–N concentrations of 124 to 848 mg L−1 (Ful-
hage, 1980; Payne et al., 1980; Sutton et al., 1980).
The average TKN concentration was about 1056 mg L−1 (Fig. 2.4), compared with concen-
trations of 135 to 952 mg L−1 reported by Sutton et al. (1980), Booram et al. (1975), Willrich
(1966), Payne et al. (1980), and Fulhage (1980). Booram et al. (1975) reported a concentration
of 3580 mg L−1.
Phosphorus concentration averaged 167 mg L−1 but varied between 4 and 668 mg L−1 (Fig.
2.3). Sutton et al. (1980) and Fulhage (1980) reported average phosphorus concentrations of 98
and 70 mg L−1, respectively.
Concentrations of H2S taken from the boat in the middle of the first-stage lagoon decreased
from 700 to 120 ppb between 14 July and 12 August (Table 2.2). The only significant difference
between mean H2S concentrations taken at 0.25 m above the lagoon surface at the aeration dif-
fusers was between the mean of 2133 ppb on 14 July and the mean of 320 ppb on 24 August. The
concentrations continued to decrease after aeration was stopped. It is possible, therefore, that H2S
release naturally decreases throughout the summer. Without an untreated lagoon, it is impossible
to separate the influencing factors of aeration, manure additive and temperature.
This lagoon initially had similar or higher levels of nutrients and organic compounds com-
pared with typical lagoons reported in the literature. The decreased BOD and VFA in the lagoon
and lower H2S at the surface may have been due to increased biological activity and manure
decomposition in the lagoon due to the combined effects of manure additive, increased tempera-
ture, and/or aeration.
Table 2.3. Hydrogen sulfide measurements (ppb) in air 0.2 m above first-stage lagoon surface.
Location of measurement1 Middle2
Date A1 A2 A3 Average3
VetBooks.ir
14 July 3200 1900 1300 2133(B) 700

15 July 1870 1100 800 1256(B) 500
12 August 230 650 1300 727(AB) 260
24 August 530 250 180 320(A) 120
1
A1, A2, and A3 refer to aerators 1, 2, and 3, with A1 nearest the manure inlet to the lagoon.
2
Middle of the lagoon.
3
Averages with the same letter are not significantly different.
1800
NH3-N
1600
PR added
1400 Aeration
Phosphorus
Concentration (mg L–1)
1200
TKN
1000
800
600
400
200
0
3/1 4/1 5/1 6/1 7/1 8/1 9/1 10/1
Date (month/day)
Figure 2.3. Concentrations of total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN), ammoniacal nitrogen (NH3–N), and phospho-
rus in the first-stage lagoon.
1.4 18
16
1.2
Phenol concentration (mg L–1)
Sulfide concentration (mg L–1)
14
1.0
12
0.8 Sulfide 10
PR added
0.6 Aeration 8
Phenol
6
0.4
4
0.2
2
0.0 0
3/1 4/1 5/1 6/1 7/1 8/1 9/1 10/1
Date (month/day)
Figure 2.4. Concentrations of total sulfide and phenol in the first-stage lagoon.
2.4.2 Ambient hydrogen sulfide concentrations

VetBooks.ir
The arithmetic (±SD) mean concentration of 7412 H2S readings taken with the SPM between
6 April and 8 September was 5.3 ± 10.4 ppb (Fig. 2.5). The instrument’s upper limit of 90 ppb
was reached 14 times during this period. The MPCA thresholds of 30 and 50 ppb were exceeded
261 and 46 times (3.5% and 0.6% of the readings), respectively. The average number of consec-
utive exceedances of 30 and 50 ppb were 2.5 and 1.6, and the maximum number of consecutive
exceedances were 10 and 5, respectively.
The TRSM recorded 3593 readings of H2S concentrations between 23 April and 8 July
(Fig. 2.6). The arithmetic mean (±SD) concentration of these readings was 2.3 ± 5.2 ppb.
The MPCA thresholds of 30 and 50 ppb were exceeded 20 and three times (0.6% and 0.1%
of the time), respectively. The average number of consecutive readings that exceeded 30 ppb
was 1.5.
Wind direction had an apparent influence on H2S concentration at the fixed locations of the
property line monitors, based on a visual plot of concentration versus wind direction (Fig. 2.7).
Hydrogen sulfide concentration collected only when the wind direction was from the facility, or
wind-exposed concentration, were analyzed separately.
The arithmetic average of 1957 wind-exposed readings taken by the SPM between 23 April and
8 September was 13.6 ± 14.6 ppb or 2.5 times the overall average of 5.3 ppb. Exceedances of the
30 and 50 ppb thresholds occurred 247 and 37 times, respectively. The upper limit of 90 ppb was
reached nine times. The average concentration of 713 readings taken by the wind-exposed TRSM
between 23 April and 9 July was 8.9 ± 7.2 ppb. Thresholds of 30 and 50 ppb were exceeded 15
and three times, respectively.
Several relatively high concentrations (including exceedances) were detected by each monitor
when not wind-exposed to the facility (Fig. 2.7). Instrument error, unstable wind direction and
off-property sources of H2S may have contributed to these apparent outliers.
95
85
75
65
Concentration, ppb
55
45
35
25
15
-5
1/4 1/5 1/6 1/7 1/8 1/9 1/10 1/11
Date of 1998 (dd/mm)
Figure 2.5. Ambient concentrations of H2S at the SPM when the wind blew from any place on the facility
toward the monitor. Dashed lines indicate MPCA thresholds.
VetBooks.ir
65
55
45
Concentration, ppb
35
25
15
-5
1/4 1/5 1/6 1/7 1/8
Date of 1998 (dd/mm)
Figure 2.6. Ambient concentrations of H2S at the TRSM when the wind blew from any place on the facility
toward the monitor. Dashed lines indicate MPCA thresholds.
Figure 2.7. Influence of wind direction on ambient H2S concentrations at the SPM (23 April to 31 October)
and the TRSM (23 April to 9 July). SPM and TRSM data are shown as filled circles and open
squares, respectively. Dashed lines indicate MPCA thresholds.
2.4.3 Effect of time of day

VetBooks.ir
At the SPM, the 4-h nighttime least squares means (± standard error) were 13.6 ± 1.4, 14.2 ± 1.4,
and 15.1 ± 1.4 ppb from 20:00 to 8:00, which were significantly greater (p < 0.05) than the 4-h
daytime means of 7.3 ± 1.5 and 8.2 ± 1.6 ppb from 12:00 to 20:00 (Fig. 2.8).
At the TRSM, the highest (p < 0.05) 4-h mean concentration of 14.2 ± 1.4 ppb occurred from
20:00 to 24:00. Greater atmospheric stability (less vertical motion) is the most probable cause for
higher concentrations at night.
2.4.4 Effect of wind speed

The overall effect of wind speed on wind-exposed H2S concentration was significant (p < 0.05)
at both downwind monitors. The apparent trend at the SPM is described by higher concentrations
during calmer winds (14.1 ppb at 0–8 km h−1) that decreased with wind speeds up to 24 km h−1
(Fig. 2.9) and increased again to 16.5 ppb (n = 107) at winds above 32 km h−1 (Fig. 2.9). The
differences between wind interval means at the SPM were statistically insignificant (p > 0.05) due
to high variance in the concentrations. However, the trend observed in Figure 2.9 makes physical
sense because of the opposite effects of wind speed on emissions and concentrations.
First, greater H2S emissions from the lagoon surface are expected to occur at higher wind
speeds. The influencing factors are increased turbulent conditions at the air/liquid interface and
the introduction of low concentration air that reduces the partial pressure of H2S above the liquid.
Second, higher wind speeds will decrease downwind H2S concentrations at given emission
rates by diluting emitted gases with low concentration air. Up to 24 km h−1, the diluting effect on
concentration was greater than the increase in emissions, due to higher surface velocities. At wind
speeds above 24 km h−1, a different phenomenon may have occurred.
It is hypothesized that deeper mixing and disturbance of settled solids in the lagoon (Michi-
gan, 2010) at very high winds caused a greater H2S release than can be explained by only higher
20
18 C
C
NW (SPM) BC
16
SE (TRSM)
14
Concentration, ppb
ABC C
12
A
10 A
B
8
AB AB
6 A
A
4
0
0-4 4-8 8-12 12-16 16-20 20-24
Time of day (hh-hh)
Figure 2.8. Arithmetic means of H2S concentrations as influenced by time of day for the SPM (23 April to
8 Sept) and TRSM (23 April to 9 July). Means with different letters (per plot) are significantly
different (p < 0.05).
24 Albert J. Heber
18
VetBooks.ir
107
16
689
NW (SPM)
14
12 536
Concentration, ppb
188
10 83 355
SE (TRSM)
270
8 114
191
36
6
0
0-8 8-16 16-24 24-32 32-48
Wind speed (km h–1)
Figure 2.9. Least squares means of ambient H2S concentrations as influenced by wind speed. Numbers of
downwind readings for each interval of wind speeds are indicated.
surface air velocities. This wind action on the lagoon was apparently dominating the concentra-
tion curve at very high wind speeds (Fig. 2.9).
A similar trend was observed at the TRSM as the least squares mean H2S concentrations ranged
from 11.0 ppb at the lowest wind speeds to 7.4 ppb at the highest wind speeds (Fig. 2.9). The
difference between the 11.0 ppb mean at 0 to 8 km h−1 and 7.9 ppb mean at 16–24 km h−1 was
significant (p < 0.05). The phenomenon of wind action mixing up the depths of the first-stage
lagoon apparently had less impact on the TRSM because of its greater distance from the lagoon
and a shorter distance to the buildings.
Wind speed is expected to have a mostly diluting effect on the concentrations at the TRSM,
because building emissions had a greater influence at the TRSM location due to proximity. Addi-
tionally, building emissions are independent of wind speed, which generally does not affect the
air speeds across the emitting surfaces inside mechanically ventilated buildings.
2.4.5 Effect of abatement methods

Arithmetic means (Table 2.4) and least squares means (Fig. 2.10) of wind-exposed H2S concen-
trations measured by the TRSM were calculated for successive 10- to 14-d intervals. The mean
H2S concentrations at the TRSM decreased (p < 0.05) from 14.1 to 6.0 ppb between the first and
fifth periods (Fig. 2.10). All other differences between intervals were insignificant (Fig. 2.10).
During the same period prior to aeration, the interval means at the SPM were also similar
(p < 0.05) as shown in Figure 2.10. The means during subsequent intervals beginning with the
aeration installation and ending with the cover installation were 23.1, 16.8, 14.6, 13.9, 9.5 and
5.8 ppb (Table 2.4), with no statistically significant differences between any of the intervals (Fig.
2.10). The last 50 ppb exceedance occurred during the last 10-d interval before aeration was
stopped. The last 30 ppb exceedance occurred during the first 10-d interval following aeration.
These results exhibited a trend toward lower emissions of H2S with time during the summer.
Visual observations indicated that the lagoon turned black between 8 July and 22 July and then
turned blue-green.
30
VetBooks.ir
AB
25 B
20 AB
AB
AB
Concentraion, ppb
15 AB
AB
A
10
-5
-10
Averaging interval (dd-dd/mm)
Figure 2.10. Least squares mean ambient H2S concentrations at TRSM. Error bars indicate 95% confidence
intervals. Means with the same letters are not statistically different (p < 0.05).
Figure 2.11. Least squares mean ambient H2S concentrations at the SPM. Error bars indicate the 95% confi-
dence interval of the mean. Means with the same letters are not statistically different (p < 0.05).
The attempts to eliminate the violations of the MPCA’s 30 ppb property line threshold by PR
and aeration were unsuccessful, because the percentage of time that 30 ppb was exceeded was
still 11% after three weeks of aeration and 2.1% in the 10 d after aeration was stopped.
The mean concentrations during five 10-d intervals following the installation of the geotex-
tile and straw cover were 0.2, 0.8, 1.4, 1.8, and 2.2 ppb (Table 2.4). No exceedances of 30 ppb
26 Albert J. Heber
Table 2.4. Ambient wind-exposed H2S concentrations; means ± S.D.

VetBooks.ir
Dates SE (TRSM) NW (SPM) Comments
ppb (n) ppb (n)
26/4–6/5 14.1 ± 13.0 (91) 10.1 ± 16.5 (237)

7–16/5 11.7 ± 8.0 (56) 15.2 ± 13.9 ((174) Started PR to barn pits
17–26/5 14.3 ± 7.5 (37) 11.6 ± 8.9 (125) Crust on north quarter
27/5–5/6 8.0 ± 4.4 (187) 19.2 ± 13.3 (47) Crust on north quarter
6–15/6 6.0 ± 3.7 (152) 14.2 ± 10.8 (147) Crust on north quarter
16–25/6 5.8 ± 4.1 (68) 20.2 ± 12.9 (163) Less crust
26/6–6/7 7.3 ± 3.5 (89) 21.6 ± 12.6 (119) Crusting & bubbling
8–17/7 11.8 ± 9.7 (17) 19.4 ± 23.1 (135) Aeration
18/7–27/7 17.8 ± 16.8 (73) Aeration
28/7–6/8 10.7 ± 14.7 (303) Aeration, stopped PR
7–17/8 9.0 ± 13.9 (78) Aeration
19–28/8 11.0 ± 9.5 (177) Post-aeration
29/8–8/9 4.2 ± 5.8 (112) Post-aeration
11–20/9 0.2 ± 0.6 (203) Lagoon cover
21–30/9 0.8 ± 0.9 (121) Lagoon cover
1–10/10 1.4 ± 0.6 (42) Lagoon cover
11–20/10 1.8 ± 0.6 (105) Lagoon cover
21–30/10 2.2 ± 0.7 (107) Lagoon cover
occurred after the cover was installed. The arithmetic mean (±standard error) of wind-exposed H2S
concentration for seven weeks with the cover was 1.2 ± 1.0 ppb or 8.5% (p < 0.05) of the mean
concentration of 13.6 ± 7.2 ppb over the 19.6 prior weeks (Table 2.4). Thus, the cover provided
significant reductions in ambient H2S concentrations by providing a barrier between the liquid sur-
face and the atmosphere and by providing more sites for aerobic decomposition of H2S molecules.
Several factors could have contributed to observed decreases in H2S concentrations, in addition
to potential mitigation by the abatement strategies applied to the facility. These factors included
warmer temperatures, greater amounts of solar radiation, and time since winter buildup of nutri-
ents. The study of abatement technologies in this test would therefore have benefited from at least
one unabated facility to serve as an experimental control.
2.5 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Ambient H2S concentrations were monitored at the property line of a wean-to-finish swine pro-
duction facility from April through October 1998. The apparent influences of wind speed and
time of day on downwind concentrations were evaluated. The data were also analyzed to evaluate
the apparent potential effectiveness of a manure additive, limited aeration, and a geotextile/straw
cover in reducing odorous compounds in the lagoon and in reducing downwind H2S concentra-
tions at the property line. The evaluation of abatement technologies was compromised by the lack
of an unabated control lagoon and confounding factors of increasing temperature and time since
spring thaw on lagoon characteristics. Specific conclusions were as follows:
1. Hydrogen sulfide concentrations at night were up to 1.8 times higher (p < 0.05) than those
during the day.
2. Concentrations of VFA and BOD in the first-stage lagoon decreased (p < 0.05) over the period
of product application and aeration.
3. Mean ambient H2S concentrations for seven weeks following installation of the geotextile/
straw cover were only 8.5% (p < 0.05) of the mean concentrations before the cover was
installed.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
VetBooks.ir
The author acknowledges the financial contribution of B&S Research in support of this study.
The collection of samples and field data were conducted by Matt Heyne (Direct Biologicals, Inc.,
Crofton, NE, USA), John Baumgartner (Baumgartner Environics, Inc., Olivia, MN, USA), and
the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. The assistance with statistical analysis provided by Dr.
Bruce Craig (Statistical Consulting Service, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA) was
appreciated.
REFERENCES
BAM (1992) Bacteriological Analytical Manual. 7th ed. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Gaithersburg,
MD.
Bicudo, J.R., Tengman, C.L., Schmidt, D.R. & Jacobson, L.D. (2002) Ambient H2S concentrations near
swine barns and manure storages. Paper 024059, ASAE Annual International Meeting, 28–31 July 2002,
Chicago, IL, American Society of Agricultural Engineers, St. Joseph, MI.
Booram, C.V., Hazen, T.E. & Smith, R.J. (1975) Trends and variations in an anaerobic lagoon with recycling.
Proceedings of the Third International Symposium on Livestock Wastes, 21–24 April 1975, Urbana-Cham
paign, IL, American Society of Agricultural Engineers. pp. 537–540.
Chénard, L., Lemay, S.P. & Laguë, C. (2003) Hydrogen sulfide assessment in shallow-pit swine housing and
outside manure storage. Journal of Agricultural Safety and Health, 9(4), 285–302.
Fulhage, C.D. (1980) Performance of anaerobic lagoons as swine waste storage and treatment facilities in
Missouri. Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium on Livestock Wastes, 15–17 April 1980,
Amarillo, TX, American Society of Agricultural Engineers. pp. 225–227.
Godbout, S., Leman, S.P., Duchaine, C., Pelletier, F., Larouche, J.-P., Belile, M. & Feddes, J.J.R. (2009)
Swine production impact on residential ambient air quality. Journal of Agromedicine, 14, 291–298.
Haggerty, K. (1999) Judge a lagoon by its cover. National Hog Farmer, 1 July 1999. Available from: http://
www.nationalhogfarmer.com/mag/farming_judge_lagoon_cover [accessed December 2017].
Heber, A.J. & Ni, J.-Q. (1999) Odor emission from a swine finishing facility with a surface-aerated lagoon.
ASAE Paper No. 994129, ASAE, St. Joseph, MI.
Heber, A.J., Duggirala, R.K., Ni, J.-Q., Spence, M.L., Haymore, B.L., Adamchuk, V.I., Bundy, D.S. Sutton,
A.L., Kelly, D.T. & Keener, K.M. (1997) Manure treatment to reduce gas emissions from large swine
houses. International Symposium on Ammonia and Odour Control from Animal Production Facilities,
6–10 October 1997, Vinkeloord, The Netherlands. pp. 449–457.
Hoff, S.J., Harmon, J.D., Bundy, D.S. & Zelle, B.C. (2009) Source and receptor ammonia and hydrogen sul-
fide concentrations in communities with and without swine emission sources: follow-up study. Applied
Engineering in Agriculture, 25(6), 975–986.
Jacobson, L.D., Wood, S.L., Schmidt, D.R., Heber, A.J., Bicudo, J.R. & Moon, R.D. (2001) Site selection of
animal operations using air quality criteria – white paper. National Center for Manure and Animal Waste
Management, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC.
Loehr, R.C. (1968) Anaerobic lagoons: considerations in design and application. Transactions of the ASAE,
11, 320–322, 330.
MDH (2003) ValAdCo livestock feeding operation. Minnesota Department of Health, Minneapolis, MN.
Available from: http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/eh/hazardous/sites/renville/valadco/#site [accessed
December 2017].
Michigan: Training manual for operators of wastewater stabilization lagoons. Department of Natural
Resources & Environment, Lansing, MI (2010). Available from: http://www.michigan.gov/documents/
deq/wrd-ot-lagoon-manual_426356_7.pdf [accessed December 2017].
Minnesota Department of Health (2003) Public health assessment of the ValAdCo confined livestock opera-
tion. Minnesota Department of Health, Minneapolis, MN.
MPCA (1999) Feedlot air quality summary: data collection, enforcement and program development. Minne-
sota Pollution Control Agency, Minneapolis, MN.
Ni, J.-Q., Heber, A.J., Diehl, C.A., Lim, T.-T., Duggirala, R.K. & Haymore, B.L. (2002a) Characteristics
of hydrogen sulfide concentrations in mechanically ventilated swine buildings. Canadian Biosystems
Engineering, 44(6), 11–19.
28 Albert J. Heber
Ni, J.Q., Heber, A.J., Lim, T.-T., Diehl, C.A., Duggirala, R.K. & Haymore, B.L. (2002b) Hydrogen sulfide
VetBooks.ir
emission from two large pig finishing buildings with long term high frequency measurements. Journal of
Agricultural Science, 138(2), 227–236.
Payne, V.W.E., Jr., Shipp, Jr., J.W., & Miller III, F.A. (1980) Supernatant characteristics of three animal waste
lagoons in North America. Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium on Livestock Wastes,
15–17 April 1980, Amarillo, TX, American Society of Agricultural Engineers. pp. 240–243.
SAS Institute, Inc. (2013) SAS/ACCESS® 9.4 Interface to ADABAS: Reference. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC.
Sutton, A.L., Mayrose, V.B., Moeller, N.J., Underwood, L.B., Brown, C.M. & Kelly, D.T. (1980) Nutrient
and biological changes in single-stage dairy and swine lagoons – two case studies. Proceedings of the
Fourth International Symposium on Livestock Wastes, 15–17 April 1980, Amarillo, TX, American Soci-
ety of Agricultural Engineers. pp. 252–256.
Thorne, P.S., Ansley, A.C. & Perry, S.S. (2009) Concentrations of bioaerosols, odors, and hydrogen sulfide
inside and downwind from two types of livestock operations. Journal of Occupational and Environmen-
tal Hygiene, 6(4), 211–220.
Williams, A.G. (1984) Indicators of piggery slurry odour offensiveness. Agricultural Wastes, 10, 15–36.
Williams, A.G., Shaw, M., Selviah, C.M. & Cumby, R.J. (1989) The oxygen requirements for deodoriz-
ing and stabilizing pig slurry by aerobic treatment. Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research, 43,
291–311.
Willrich, T.L. (1966) Primary treatment of swine wastes by lagooning. Proceedings of National Symposium
on Animal Waste Management, ASAE Paper No. SP-0366, ASAE, St. Joseph, MI. pp. 70–74.
Zhou, X. (2001) Odour Emissions from Swine Operations in Manitoba. M.S. Thesis, The University of
Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada.
CHAPTER 3
VetBooks.ir
Ammonia and hydrogen sulfide in swine production
Ji-Qin Ni, Albert J. Heber and Teng-Teeh Lim
3.1 INTRODUCTION
Swine was listed among the top five live animals produced in the world (FAO, 2015). Modern
swine production is a significant source of pollution gases. Ammonia (NH3) and hydrogen sulfide
(H2S) are among the most environmentally significant gases that have received a relatively longer
history of research compared with other pollutants at animal facilities.
Ammonia is a common substance that plays an important role in the nitrogen cycle. It is one
of the agricultural aerial pollutants generated in animal manure and was studied at swine facili-
ties as early as 1963 (Day et al., 1965). Since the 1980s, agricultural NH3 emission has attracted
increasing attention from the scientific community, government regulators, and the general public,
because excessive emissions of NH3 from agriculture was found affecting the ecosystem directly
and indirectly, in some regions with intensive animal production (e.g., van Breemen et al., 1982),
and atmospheric ammonia-nitrogen (NH3–N) was believed a critical soil acidification input (Bini
and Bresolin, 1998).
Hydrogen sulfide is also generated from decomposition of animal manure. It is considered the
most dangerous gas in animal buildings and manure storage and has been responsible for many
animal, as well as human, deaths in animal facilities (e.g., Oesterhelweg and Puschel, 2008;
Riedel and Field, 2013). Hydrogen sulfide also contributes significantly to odor, even at very low
concentrations.
Remarkable progress has been made in scientific research to gain insights into the facts or evi-
dences, causes, effects and solutions associated with NH3 and H2S at swine facilities in the past
five decades. Numerous scientific publications, in the forms of peer-reviewed articles, conference
papers, research project reports, and agricultural extension handouts, are now available in the
literature. This chapter attempts to provide a brief summary focusing on these two pollutants in
swine production. The scope of this chapter is limited mainly to present some scientific facts and
evidence obtained from field studies.
3.2 AMMONIA IN SWINE PRODUCTION
3.2.1 Research on ammonia in swine production

Although the first published study on detecting the presence of NH3 in swine buildings was con-
ducted in the 1960s in the United States (Day et al., 1965), field research to quantify NH3 using
modern techniques, characterized by employing advanced NH3 analytical instruments, ventila-
tion monitoring and other computerized equipment, did not start until the mid-1980s in Canada
(Clark and McQuitty, 1988). More intensive investigations at swine facilities were conducted in
29
30 Ji-Qin Ni et al.
some European countries in the 1990s (e.g., Aarnink et al., 1995; Berckmans et al., 1998; Hinz
VetBooks.ir
and Linke, 1998).

The earliest comprehensive research on NH3 emission from swine facilities and its mitigation
in the United States was performed from 1997 to 1998 for six months of continuous monitoring
in eight swine finishing buildings (Heber et al., 1997). More air quality research projects, which
included a component of NH3 at swine facilities, followed in the 21st century, notably some
national multi-institution research projects (e.g., Heber et al., 2011b; Jacobson et al., 2011).
Research with field monitoring on NH3 emissions were also reported in other countries in the
21st century, such as Australia (e.g., Banhazi et al., 2008a, 2008b, 2008c), Canada (e.g., Sun
et al., 2008), China (e.g., Dong et al., 2009; Wang et al., 2011), South Korea (e.g., Kim et al.,
2008) and Taiwan (e.g., Chang et al., 2001).
Based on primary or secondary sources of research data, many NH3 review papers have been
published on modeling (e.g., Bjerg et al., 2013; Montes et al., 2009; Ni, 1999), sampling and
measurement (e.g., Ni and Heber, 2008), emission mitigation (e.g., Ndegwa et al., 2008; Ni,
2015), and emission factors (e.g., Arogo et al., 2003; Battye et al., 2003; Faulkner and Shaw,
2008; Hutchings et al., 2009; Wood et al., 2015).
3.2.2 Ammonia concentrations at swine production facilities

Compared with other major livestock and poultry species, NH3 concentrations at swine facilities
are usually higher than those at dairy and beef facilities but lower than those at poultry facilities.
Among different swine buildings for sows, weaners, growers and finishers, the highest indoor
NH3 concentrations are generally found in the finishing buildings (Groot Koerkamp et al., 1998).
The typical range of NH3 concentrations inside swine finishing buildings is from 0 to 40 ppm
(parts per million) (Heber et al., 2005).
Indoor NH3 concentrations in swine buildings can vary greatly. They are related to building
and manure storage structure, building and manure management, animal age and activity, animal
density, outdoor temperature, ventilation control, time of day, season and weather conditions.
Outdoor NH3 concentrations are much lower and can be greatly affected by wind speed and wind
direction. They could range from 38.4 μg m−3 (~0.021 ppm) at a distance of 10 m to 14.0 μg m−3
(~0.008 ppm) at a distance of 650 m from a swine farm (Xu et al., 2014).
Patterns of diurnal and seasonal variations show higher NH3 concentrations in swine buildings
at night and in winter, respectively, when the building ventilation rates are relatively low due to
lower outdoor temperatures. Inverse relationships of indoor NH3 concentrations with outdoor
temperatures have often been reported.
High concentrations of NH3 inside animal buildings represent potential health hazards to
humans and animals and were linked to chronic respiratory diseases of swine production facility
workers (e.g., Donham et al., 1995). The health effects depend on the levels of NH3 concentra-
tions to which workers and animals may be exposed to (Table 3.1) and the exposure duration.
Ammonia exposure thresholds (exposure concentration and duration) have been defined and
implemented by different organizations and government agencies in different countries. Most of
these thresholds were developed to protect worker’s health. There are also a few countries, such
as Sweden and China, where NH3 thresholds were published for farm animals, including swine.
More direct knowledge about the NH3 effects on swine were obtained from a number of
experiments in which pigs were exposed to known concentrations of NH3 and observed for their
behaviors, health, and productivities (Table 3.2). However, although the negative effects of high
NH3 concentrations have been generally recognized, the experimental results have not been all
consistent. For example, conclusions were different between the experiments of Hamilton et al.
(1998) and Cheng (2014) on pig health although both tested pigs at 20 ppm NH3 concentrations.
Some experiments were conducted at extremely high NH3 concentrations. An example is a
widely cited publication of Drummond et al. (1980), who concluded that pig growth decreased
by 12, 30 and 29% at NH3 concentrations of 50, 100 and 150 ppm, respectively. These concentra-
tions do not appear to be representative in normally operated swine buildings.
Gases in swine production 31
Table 3.1. Reaction of humans and animals to different levels of ammonia concentrations.
VetBooks.ir
Ammonia concentration (ppm) Symptoms
10 Some negative effects at long-term exposure

15 Smell threshold for human beings
20 Eye irritation for broilers
20–40 Increase of respiratory diseases
25–35 Stockmen feel uncomfortable
50 Disturbance of productive capacity; water flows from the eyes
50–150 Decrease of young pig growth by 12–29%
70 Reduced daily gain and poor feed conversion
100–200 Irritation and anorexia
5000 Deadly within a few minutes
Sources: CIGR (1992) and Busse (1993).
Table 3.2. Summary of some reported experiments on the effects of ammonia at different concentrations on
pig health and productivity.
Pigs Ammonia Findings Reference
Young pigs 50, 100, and Growth decreased by 12, 30 and 29%, Drummond et al.
150 ppm respectively. (1980)
2-week-old 0, 5, 10, 15, 25, Exposure to >5 ppm resulted in a Hamilton et al.
piglets 35 or 50 ppm significant increase in the severity of (1996)
turbinate atrophy induced by Pasteurella
multocida.
Pigs 0, 10, 20 and 40 Pigs tended to avoid areas with high NH3 Jones et al. (1996)
ppm for 14 d concentrations and consume more feed
in the fresh air areas.
Weaned 20 ppm for the Potential importance of NH3 as an Hamilton et al.
3-week-old first 2 weeks exacerbating factor in respiratory disease (1998)
piglets of intensively reared livestock.
Pigs 40 or 100 ppm Acute exposure to NH3 at the peak Jones et al. (1998)
concentrations did not influence the
overall amount of feed consumed.
Two groups of 50 and <5 ppm Average daily weight gain was lower Andreasen et al.
5 pigs for exposed pigs. Ammonia at 50 ppm (1999)
is unlikely to predispose growing pigs
to pulmonary infection with toxigenic P.
multocida.
Pigs from 4 5 or 20 ppm for Ammonia at 20 ppm did not pose a Cheng et al. (2014)
weeks of age 15 weeks significant material risk to the health or
metabolism of the pigs.
3.2.3 Ammonia concentration measurement instruments and sensors

The earliest study on NH3 in a swine building was conducted using infrared and ultraviolet spec-
troscopy and paper chromatography to detect NH3 (Day et al., 1965). Measurement of NH3 con-
centrations later by other researchers employed wet chemistry that relies on collecting gaseous
NH3 into an acid solution (acid trap or scrubber, most commonly with boric acid, orthophosphoric
acid, nitric acid, or sulfuric acid) and then performing concentration determination in the labora-
tory using techniques of colorimetry, conductimetry or titrimetry. With the advancement of sensor
and analytical technologies, more instruments and devices were developed. To date, a variety of
technologies have been available although not all have been used at swine facilities (Fig. 3.1).
32 Ji-Qin Ni et al.
VetBooks.ir
Figure 3.1. Reported technologies and measurement devices applied to ammonia concentration determina-
tion at animal facilities. Adapted from Ni and Heber (2008). Used with permission.
Except for the wet chemistry, other NH3 measurement methods do not need collection medium,
making the measurement process simpler and faster. Measurement devices can be active or pas-
sive. An active measurement device is equipped with or requires a pump to provide controlled
sample air flowing to the device. A passive measurement device, for example, a passive gas
detection tube, does not require a pump. Instead, it allows air to diffuse into the device.
Some high-end, and also the most expensive devices, for example, photo-acoustic infrared
analyzers and chemiluminescence analyzers, have high sensitivities and are capable of discrim-
inating concentrations at ppb levels. Sometimes high sensitivity techniques are called analytical
techniques, which provide quantitative data and low sensitivity ones are called detection tech-
niques, which provide qualitative or semi-quantitative data.
High-end techniques also offer direct readouts that provide an immediate visual display of NH3
concentration right after the measurement is completed. Additionally, they have a fast response at
several minutes to reach from 0 to 90% (t90) at zero to span differences in gas concentrations. As
a comparison, the response of passive diffusion sampling can take as long as 8 to 24 h to provide
a concentration reading.
The advent of NH3 analytical instruments has revolutionized research of NH3 from animal
VetBooks.ir
p roduction. Most of the world’s comprehensive research projects employed analytical measure-
ment instruments in NH3 concentration and emission studies.
3.2.4 Ammonia emissions from swine production

Ammonia emissions from animal manure cause losses of nitrogen as fertilizers. The percentage of
nitrogen loss as NH3 from swine production was estimated at 56%, including 30% from housing,
15% from manure management, and 11% from land application (USEPA, 2005). The estimated
total NH3 emission from US animal agricultural operations was 2.27 Tg in 2002 (USEPA, 2005).
Most NH3 emissions in Canada were from farm animals, and a 21% increase in NH3 emission
from animal husbandry in Canada from 1990 to 1995 was estimated (Kurvits and Marta, 1998).
Approximately 50% of the NH3 emissions in Denmark, France, and The Netherlands were from
pig housing and slurry storage (van der Peet-Schwering et al., 1999). Ammonia emissions have
significantly increased in many countries. The national emissions of NH3 in China in 2005 were
estimated to be 16.6 Mt and the critical load for nitrogen (N, combining effects of eutrophication
and acidification) was predicted to double from 2005 to 2020 due to increased NOx and NH3
emissions (Zhao et al., 2009).
Ammonia emissions from swine buildings can vary diurnally (Sun et al., 2008). These vari-
ations are usually affected by diurnal variations in pig activities and indoor temperatures, hence
ventilation rates. In mechanically ventilated swine buildings, ventilation is controlled to regulate
indoor temperatures. However, in naturally ventilated buildings, the diurnal variation in NH3
concentration is less obvious (Banhazi, 2013).
Ammonia emissions also depend on seasons of the year. The degree of seasonal variation
is associated with geographic regions, meteorological conditions, animal sectors, and type of
animal production practices (USEPA, 2005). However, results about seasonal variations in NH3
emissions are mixed. For instance, Harper et al. (2004) observed that the summertime finishing
housing emissions were 3.2 times as high as wintertime when compared on an animal unit (AU)
basis (1 AU = 500 kg) in North Carolina. Exactly the opposite was found in another study in
North Carolina by Blunden et al. (2008), who reported that the normalized NH3–N emission rates
were the highest in winter and spring (33.6 and 30.6 g N d−1AU−1, respectively) and the lowest
during summer and fall (24.3 and 11.8 g N d−1AU−1, respectively).
Management of swine buildings affects NH3 emissions. Aarnink et al. (1995) observed that
removing the under-floor stored slurry reduced NH3 emission by about 20% for a period of
10 hours, after which the pre-removal NH3 emission level was restored.
Emissions in the literature appear with inconsistent units, which make a comparison difficult.
In addition to emission of NH3, there are also reports of the emission of atmospheric NH3–N,
which is 14/17 times the mass of NH3 (Blunden et al., 2008). The most common units include
NH3 emission per head of animal (Heber et al., 2011a), per AU (Groot Koerkamp et al., 1998;
Heber et al., 2000; Lim et al., 2004), per 1000 kg (Aneja et al., 2008a), and per animal place
(Battye et al., 2003; Faulkner and Shaw, 2008; USEPA, 2005), with different integration times,
which are usually per hour, per day, or per year. Emissions per animal place include emissions
from the buildings when they are empty between growing cycles.
In a publication by the European Environment Agency, the unit of emission factors is in kg
NH3 AAP−1 yr−1 (Hutchings et al., 2009). The Tier 1 method entails multiplying the average
annual population (AAP) in each animal class by a single default emission factor, which includes
emissions during grazing for ruminant livestock and emissions following spreading of manures
for all animal categories.
3.2.5 Ammonia emission factors adopted in Europe and the United States

An emission factor is the simplest and easiest to use model (a linear model of which the intercept
is set to zero) to calculate total pollutant emissions. Ammonia emission factors obtained from
34 Ji-Qin Ni et al.
European studies have been widely used by many researchers (e.g., Battye et al., 2003; Arogo
VetBooks.ir
et al., 2006; Faulkner and Shaw, 2008) and government agencies (USEPA, 2005) in the United
States (Table 3.3). The US EPA (2005) developed emission factors based on swine manure man-
agement systems and assigned 2.7 and 3.4 kg NH3 hd−1 yr−1 to swine housed in facilities with
lagoons and with deep pits, respectively. According to Faulkner et al. (2008), whose review of
swine NH3 emission was based on 12 European and five US reports, the emission factors for far-
rowing facilities ranged from 5.2 to 16.6 kg hd−1 yr−1. The emissions from nurseries ranged from
0.32 to 6.98 kg hd−1 yr−1, and those from finishing facilities ranged from 1.3 to 11.6 kg hd−1 yr−1.
Faulkner et al. (2008) recommended a composite emission factor of 5.8 kg NH3 hd−1 yr−1 for the
US swine industry, based on facility capacity.
Studies of NH3 emission factors for the swine industry in the United States remained relatively
limited before 2010. In the review by Arogo et al. (2003), there were only five publications
from three US institutions for swine buildings and six publications from four US institutions
for anaerobic swine lagoons. Among 26 studies reported by Griffing et al. (2007), seven were
from three US institutions, and the other 19 were conducted in Europe. Of 16 publications that
Faulkner et al. (2008) reviewed, only five were related to swine emissions in the United States. In
addition, 75% of the publications themselves were review papers. Whereas a number of emission
factors have been proposed for developing NH3 emissions inventories for the United States, most
are based on European research, with little discussion of their applicability to the United States
(Faulkner and Shaw, 2008).
The updated emission factors published by the European Environment Agency (Hutchings et
al., 2009) includes those for finishing pigs and sows and are based on manure systems (Table 3.4).
These emission factors include emissions during swine manure spreading.
3.2.6 Ammonia emission rates from field monitoring in North America

Collecting NH3 emission data directly from swine facilities with field monitoring technologies in
North America started in the 1980s (Burton and Beauchamp, 1986; Clark and McQuitty, 1988).
Table 3.3. Ammonia emission factors proposed by different reviewers and adopted in the United States.
Region1) Emission factors (kg head−1 yr−1) Reference
Sow/ Nursery Finishing Boar Composite

farrowing
Europe – – – 5.4 Asman (1992)

Europe 16.1 – 6.982) 113) 9.21 Battye et al. (1994)
W. Europe – – – 4.3 ECETOC (1994)
UK – – – 4.3 Sutton et al.(1995)
Europe 16.6 – 6.5 – McInnes (1996)
Europe – – – 4.9 Bouwman et al. (1997)
The – 0.32 1.3–2.5 – Groot Koerkamp et al. (1998)
Netherlands
Europe 16 – 6.4 – Van der Hoek (1998)
Europe 5.2 – 4.8 – Misselbrook et al. (2000)
Europe – – – 7 Chitjian et al. (2003)
US/Europe 16.4 6.4 Battye et al. (2003)
US/Europe – – – 5.8 USEPA (2005)
US/Europe 16.13 6.98 114) 5.69 Arogo et al. (2006)
US/Europe 5.85) Faulkner et al. (2008)
Adapted from Ni et al. (2012); 1) for literature reviews, region of primary or secondary sources are cited;
2)
for finishing pigs under 54.0 kg; 3) for mature boars from 54.1 kg; 4) from Battye et al. (1994); and 5) recom-
mendation based on review of 12 European and 5 US reports.
More work was done in the 21st century. Most monitoring was conducted in finishing buildings
VetBooks.ir
of different manure handling systems (Table 3.5). During the decades of research, various mea-
surement protocols were developed and applied. They differed in technologies and methodolo-
gies to determine NH3 concentrations and ventilation rates; locations, time and frequencies to
take air samples; durations to monitor emissions; and methods to calculate emissions. These and
many other important and interrelated factors, some of which are still unknown, contributed to
Table 3.4. European Environment Agency ammonia emission factors for swine facilities.
Pig type Manure type Emission factor (kg AAP−1 yr−1)
Fattening pig Slurry 6.7

Fattening pig Solid 6.5
Sow Slurry 15.8
Sow Solid 18.2
Sow Outdoor 7.3
Source: Hutchings et al. (2009); AAP = average annual population
Table 3.5. Selected ammonia emission rates obtained from field monitoring in North America with different
protocols, instrumentation and monitoring durations.
Facility type 1) State/ province Manure Vent. 2) Emission, Reference
collection (g d−1AU−1)3)
Sow N. Carolina Flushed M 2.09 Harper et al. (2004)

Gestation Minnesota Deep pit M 2.2 Zhu et al. (2000)
Gestation Minnesota Shallow pit M 15.5 Jacobson et al. (2005)
Breeding Minnesota Shallow pit M 22.1 Jacobson et al. (2005)
Farrowing Alberta Deep pit M 33.9–72.1 Clark et al. (1988)
Farrowing Minnesota Deep pit M 15–42 Zhu et al. (2000)
Farrowing N. Carolina Flushed M 170 Aneja et al. (2008b)
Farrowing Illinois Shallow pit M 12.3 Jerez et al. (2005)
Farrowing Illinois Shallow pit M 11.7 Jerez et al. (2005)
Wean-to-finish Ontario Deep pit M 15.3–54.9 Burton et al. (1986)
Nursery Minnesota Deep pit M 23–160 Zhu et al. (2000)
Finishing Indiana Deep pit N 33.3 Heber et al. (1997)
Finishing Minnesota Deep pit M 10–26 Zhu et al. (2000)
Finishing Illinois Deep pit M 65.2–146.7 Heber et al. (2000)
Finishing Minnesota Deep pit N 28–80 Zhu et al. (2000)
Finishing Minnesota Deep pit M 6.5 Schmidt et al. (2002)
Finishing Minnesota Deep pit N 66 Schmidt et al. (2002)
Finishing Saskatchewan Deep pit M 40.5–154.7 Sun et al. (2008)
Finishing N. Carolina Pit recharge M 62.1–210.4 Harris et al. (2001)
Finishing N. Carolina Pit recharge M 14.3–40.8 Blunden et al. (2008)
Finishing N. Carolina Pit recharge M 308.8–364.3 Aneja et al. (2008a)
Finishing Missouri Pit flushing M 55 Heber et al. (2004)
Finishing N. Carolina Pit flushing M 197.8–447.6 Aneja et al. (2008b)
Finishing N. Carolina Pit flushing N 2.8–260.2 Aneja et al. (2008b)
Finishing Indiana Pull-plug M 10–27 Lim et al. (2004)
Finishing N. Carolina Pull-plug M 18.1–58.9 Harper et al. (2004)
1)
Emission rates were obtained with various measurement durations, from 12 hours to 6 months;
2)
ventilation system: M = mechanically ventilated, N = naturally ventilated; and 3) some data were converted
from other emission units.
36 Ji-Qin Ni et al.
the huge discrepancies among the reported emission rates shown in Table 3.5. Because of the lack
VetBooks.ir
of standardized methods and procedures, it has been difficult to assess the relative accuracies and
reliabilities of the monitoring results from different sources.
Moreover, although seasonal and diurnal variations in NH3 emissions are accepted as a fact,
only a small proportion of the field studies have been conducted long enough to cover seasonal
variations and continuous enough to cover diurnal and dynamic emission variations. Because
of technological and financial limitations, most field studies produced data that only observed a
fraction of the overall picture of NH3 emissions.
There have also been discrepancies between field monitoring data and data adopted by gov-
ernmental agencies. Based on a review of 26 publications discussing NH3 data from monitoring,
Griffing et al. (2007) concluded that several countrywide NH3 emission inventories based on
NH3–N emissions from pig buildings were approximately 15% of excreted total Kjeldahl nitro-
gen (TKN). On the other hand, reports commissioned by both the US EPA and the United Nations
Economic Commission for Europe recommended using emission factors from pig buildings of
30% of excreted TKN, twice that indicated by field data.
However, a large portion of the data from the most recent and comprehensive research has
not yet been used in national or regional emission factor development, partly because some of
the data were not obtained or published until recently. This includes unpublished data from the
National Air Emissions Monitoring Study (NAEMS) that has been reported to the National Pork
Board (Heber et al., 2011a).
The NAEMS monitored emissions of NH3, H2S, particulate matter (PM), and volatile organic
compounds (VOC) from selected animal feeding operations (AFOs) in nine states over two years
from 2007 to 2009. The study was funded by the AFO industry and overseen by the US EPA,
because it was required by a 2005 voluntary air compliance agreement (Heber et al., 2008). There
were four states where NH3 emissions from swine facilities were monitored (Fig. 3.2).
In the NAEMS, consensus standard monitoring protocols were developed and applied. To
the extent possible, all monitoring sites used the same methodology, equipment and software
in sampling and measurement, and methodology and software in data processing and emission
Figure 3.2. National Air Emission Monitoring Study locations showing swine sites in four states with two
years of continuous aerial pollutant emission measurement (Source: http://www.epa.gov/sites/
production/files/2016-06/ag-map.gif).
calculation. The US EPA will use the NAEMS data along with data from other quality-controlled
VetBooks.ir
studies to develop emission estimating methodologies for the AFO sectors.
3.3 HYDROGEN SULFIDE IN SWINE PRODUCTION
3.3.1 Hydrogen sulfide concentrations in swine buildings

Research on H2S in swine buildings also started in the 1960s (Day et al., 1965). Concentrations
of H2S have been found much lower in general compared with other gaseous pollutants such as
NH3 and carbon dioxide (CO2) in swine buildings. Usually, concentrations of H2S are between
one and two orders of magnitude lower than NH3. Different scientists reported that H2S concen-
trations in swine buildings during normal operations are often in the ppb (parts per billion) range
(e.g., Avery et al., 1975; Kim et al., 2007; Lim et al., 2004; Ni et al., 2002a; Zhu et al., 2000).
In normally ventilated buildings without manure agitation, H2S concentrations are usually below
2000 ppb (Heber et al., 1997; Muehling, 1970; Ni et al., 2002c). The mean H2S concentration in
two naturally ventilated pig buildings was about 280 ppb over a 63-d period (Heber et al., 1997).
In an emptied swine finishing building between pig cycles with manure stored in under-floor pit,
the measured H2S ranged from 221 to 1492 ppb (Ni et al., 2000a).
Outdoor H2S concentrations close to swine facilities can range from 0 to 50 ppb. Heber and
Heyne (1999) analyzed five months of ambient gas concentration data collected at the property
line of a large pig facility and reported 10-d mean H2S concentrations (during downwind condi-
tions only) between 6 and 31 μg m−3 (approximately 4 and 22 ppb). Thorne et al. (2009) assessed
airborne toxicants upwind, in buildings, and downwind and evaluated determinants of exposure
in Central Iowa on 10 occasions over two years. Significant differences in H2S were observed
between hoops and confinement buildings and across seasons. For hoops and confinements,
respectively, geometric mean in-building H2S concentrations were 19.6 and 146 ppb. Hoops are
open to the environment and use a composted bedding system rather than housing pigs on slatted
floors over pits holding manure slurry, as in conventional confinements.
Diurnal H2S concentration variations were related to swine building ventilation rates (Ni et al.,
2002a; Zhu et al., 2000). Distinct diurnal patterns of H2S concentrations were identified and
associated with outdoor weather conditions by Ni et al. (2002a). The maximum and minimum
concentrations during fair weather occurred between 3:00–6:00 and 12:00–18:00, respectively
(Fig. 3.3). Spatial concentration variations were also observed as the daily mean concentration
Figure 3.3. Diurnal variations (mean ±95% confidence interval) of hydrogen sulfide concentrations at wall
fans of a finishing swine building and the associated building ventilation rates. Left: during fair
weather days. Right: during cloudy weather days (Ni et al., 2002a. Used with permission).
38 Ji-Qin Ni et al.
differences between any two sampling locations at pit fans, wall fans, and pit headspace ranged
VetBooks.ir
from 20 to 132 ppb (Ni et al., 2002a).

Seasonal variations in H2S concentrations have been reported. In a study by Blunden et al.
(2008), the measured H2S concentrations in a finishing swine confinement house were 673, 429,
47 and 304 ppb in winter, spring, summer and fall, respectively.
Critically high concentrations of H2S in confined pig facilities were observed and related to
agitation of manure during storage emptying when large quantities of H2S were released (Hoff
et al., 2006; Patni and Clarke, 1991b) or when insufficient ventilation was provided for the build-
ings. Concentrations of H2S were also observed to rise as the manure accumulated under the floor,
then spiked sharply as the manure was flushed/agitated, increased from an average of less than
0.1 ppm to more than 20 ppm during daily manure pit flushing in two pig finishing buildings, and
then dropped back to about 20–30 ppb before beginning to rise again as new manure accumulated
(Lim et al., 2004). Concentrations of H2S were found to rise sharply to more than 100 ppm (about
1000 times greater than normal) when the slurry in deep pits was agitated in normally ventilated
pig buildings (Patni and Clarke, 1991a).
3.3.2 Characteristics and danger of hydrogen sulfide release

High H2S concentrations are toxic and acutely dangerous to humans and animals at concentra-
tions greater than 200 ppm. Concentrations approximating 50–100 ppm, 100–1000 ppm and 1000
ppm are usually required to cause chronic, sub-acute, and acute intoxication, respectively (Smith
et al., 1979). The US Occupational Safety and Health Administration set a 10 ppm (14 mg m−3)
8-h time-weighted average, supplemented by a 15 ppm (21 mg m−3) short-term exposure limit
(OSHA, 1999).
Critically high H2S concentrations have been related to many deaths of animals as well as peo-
ple at animal facilities (e.g., Oesterhelweg and Puschel, 2008; Riedel and Field, 2013). This has
made H2S one of the most dangerous gases in animal buildings and manure storage. Occurrences
of these incidents are linked to the special characteristics of the production and release of this gas.
Hydrogen sulfide production and release in swine buildings behaves differently from other
major gases, such as NH3 and CO2. The total quantities of H2S emission can be related to sulfur
sources. In a laboratory study, Arogo et al. (2000) investigated the influence of sulfate concen-
tration in water supply on the H2S emissions from under-floor stored swine manure. They found
a positive correlation between these two parameters in controlled condition. This was confirmed
in the NAEMS multiple-farm monitoring, in which it was found that the total quantities of H2S
emissions from different farms were correlated to the sulfur concentrations in the water used in
the buildings (Heber et al., 2011a).
The mechanism of H2S release from liquid swine manure to free air streams at manure storage
is also special. A “Burst-release” phenomenon of H2S was discovered in pig buildings (Ni et al.,
2000b). Later, Chénard et al. (2003) also reported that the release of H2S in pig houses did not
follow a predictable pattern. Kim et al. (2005) found that, compared with NH3 and odor, H2S had
smaller correlation coefficients with environmental variables in confined swine buildings. These
studies suggested that more influencing factors, some still unknown, played important roles in the
process of H2S releases from liquid manure.
In a more recent investigation on mechanisms of gas releases, a “Bubble-release” model was
developed to explain the dynamic behavior of H2S release (Ni et al., 2009). Unlike NH3 release
from liquid manure, which is dominated by convective mass transfer, a special mechanism of the
reservoir effect and bubble release is involved in H2S release from liquid swine manure. Because
of low solubility, gaseous H2S generated inside liquid manure tends to exist as micro air bubbles,
and the liquid manure serves as a reservoir for these bubbles. When the reservoir is saturated,
larger bubbles will form by collision and agglomeration and will release from the manure irregu-
larly. Agitation of the manure that is full of these bubbles accelerates agglomeration and sudden
release of H2S (Fig. 3.4).
VetBooks.ir
Figure 3.4. Mechanism of hydrogen sulfide formation and Bubble-release in liquid swine manure (Ni et al.,
2009. Used with permission). Note: Cg,∞, gas concentration in free air stream; Cg,0, gas concen-
tration in the free air stream above liquid surface; Cg,b, gas concentration in bubbles; qr, flux of
gas release; Vb, volume of bubble; Sb, speed of ascending bubble movement; Sx, speed of bubble
movement relative to liquid caused by disturbance.
These characteristics explained the sudden increases of H2S concentrations in confined spaces
when swine manure is flushed or mixed (Hoff et al., 2006; Lim et al., 2004). They are also related
to the fact that H2S monitoring concentrations are more irregular and less predictable than other
gases in swine facilities, such as NH3 and CO2.
3.3.3 Hydrogen sulfide measurement sensors and instruments

There are fewer instruments available for H2S concentration measurement in swine buildings
compared with NH3 concentration measurement, for which 31 sensors and instruments were
reported (Ni and Heber, 2008). Xin (2005) summarized four H2S measurement instruments and
sensors, including gas tubes, Chemcassette monitors, Jerometers, and sulfur dioxide analyzers
(Table 3.6). All four can be used indoors and outdoors. However, because the normal H2S con-
centrations at swine facilities are at ppb levels, the sensitivity or detection limit of colorimetric
gas tubes usually cannot meet the measurement requirement.
In addition to the instruments listed in Table 3.6, Avery (1975) used the wet chemistry method
to determine H2S concentration in an early experimental study. With the wet method, sample air
was bubbled through a mixture of an alkaline suspension of cadmium hydroxide followed by
laboratory analysis using the methylene blue method. The H2S concentration was determined in
the ppb range. However, this measurement technique has a slow time response and was rarely
used in recent studies. Other methods reported H2S concentration measurements with gas chro-
matographs (Louhelainen et al., 2001), Drager Pac III, based on the electrochemical principle
(Chénard et al., 2003), and ion chromatography (e.g., Kim et al., 2008).
3.3.4 Hydrogen sulfide emissions from swine buildings

Emissions of H2S are needed to evaluate its potential environmental impact and to predict down-
wind concentrations using atmospheric dispersion models. Because of the lack of reliable data,
40 Ji-Qin Ni et al.
Table 3.6. Four examples of sensors and instruments for hydrogen sulfide concentration measurements.
VetBooks.ir
Sensor or instrument
Specifications Gas tube Chemcassette Jerometer SO2 analyzer
Detection principle Colorimetric Colorimetric Electrochemical Pulsed fluorescence

Detection limit 1) 0.5 ppm 3 ppb 3 ppb 0.06–0.75 ppb 2)
Uncertainty 3) 20–25% of reading 20–25% of reading 1–2% full scale larger of 1% reading
or 1 ppb
Response time 4) < 2 min 15 min < 30 s 80–320 s
Data type Snapshot or time Real time, Snapshot or real Real time,
integrated continuous time, continuous continuous
Degree of N/A Moderate Moderate Moderate
maintenance
Portability Portable, easy to Portable Portable, easy to Not portable
use use
Power required None 12 VDC, 110 VAC 12 VDC, 110 VAC 110 VAC
Vulnerability or Vulnerable to Immune to moisture
immunity moisture interference interference
Approximate cost Tube: US$5–10, SPM: US$7,000 5), US$8,000 US$17,000
Pump: US$300 Tape: US$60–80
each
Adapted from Xin (2005). 1) Detection limit refers to the lowest level that the instrument is able to measure
with the specified uncertainty; 2) depending on operating mode; 3) uncertainty refers to the deviation of the
measured value from the true value; 4) response time generally refers to the time needed for the instrument to
register 90% or higher of the equilibrium value; and 5) single point monitor.
some early attempts to study H2S emission rates were based on assumed H2S concentrations and
building ventilation rates. For example, Hartung (1988) estimated H2S emission on a national
scale in Germany and calculated the average H2S emission from pig houses as 0.62 g h−1 per
AU. The assumed H2S concentration was 4 μg m−3 (3 ppb), and the assumed ventilation rate was
150 m3 h−1 AU−1.
Long-term and high frequency measurements are needed because of diurnal and seasonal vari-
ations in H2S emissions that occur in swine buildings. However, only a limited number of direct
measurements of H2S production in swine houses with detailed explanation of measurement pro-
cedures have been reported. Based on available literature and combining short-term and long-
term field monitoring results, the H2S emissions from swine production ranged from 0.16 to 91
g d−1 AU−1 (Table 3.7).
The first H2S emission monitoring in swine buildings was performed by Avery et al. (1975),
who presented the results of 80 samples taken in six swine units, where daily production of H2S
was calculated as the average daily concentration multiplied by the total daily ventilation, and
ranged from 0.4 to 14.8 g d−1AU−1.
Heber et al. (1997) reported H2S emission from four naturally ventilated, 1000-head, finishing
buildings of 0.86 g d−1AU−1 in Indiana, United States. The ventilation rate was estimated using
a heat balance. In a study with 12-h sampling in different swine buildings, Zhu et al. (2000)
obtained H2S emission rates from 1 g d−1AU−1 for mechanically ventilated gestation building to
15–91 g d−1AU−1 for mechanically ventilated nursery buildings.
Emissions of H2S varied in a pull-plug mechanically ventilated finishing house in Indiana
(Lim et al., 2004). With different days of manure accumulation in the building, the H2S emission
rates ranged from 0.27 to 1.42 g d−1 AU−1. Emissions of H2S from two mechanically ventilated
finishing buildings in Illinois, United States averaged 6.3 g d−1 AU−1, based on a total of 193 valid
building-days of data (Ni et al., 2002b).
Table 3.7. Selected hydrogen sulfide emission rates from swine facilities with different protocols and mon-
VetBooks.ir
itoring durations.
Phase Notes 1) Emission 2) Reference
(g d−1 AU−1)
Finishing MV 0.4–14.8 Avery et al. (1975)

Finishing NV, 63-d measurement 0.86 Heber et al. (1997)
Gestation MV, 12-h measurement 1 Zhu et al. (2000)
Farrowing MV, 12-h measurement 4 Zhu et al. (2000)
Nursery MV, 12-h measurement 15–91 Zhu et al. (2000)
Finishing MV, 12-h measurement 4 Zhu et al. (2000)
Finishing NV, pit fans, 12-h measurement 5 Zhu et al. (2000)
Finishing MV, deep pit (193 d) 6.3 Ni et al. (2002b)
Finishing MV, Pull-Plug (1 d Accum.) 0.4 Lim et al. (2004)
Finishing MV, Pull-Plug (7 d Accum. Recharge) 0.16 Lim et al. (2004)
Finishing MV, Pull-Plug (14 d Accum. 0.34 Lim et al. (2004)
Recharge)
Finishing MV, Pull-Plug (42 d Accum. 1.42 Lim et al. (2004)
Recharge)
Finishing MV, pit flushing (129 d) 0.72 Heber et al. (2004)
Gestation MV, shallow pit (301 d) 1.40 Jacobson et al. (2005)
Breeding MV, shallow pit (301 d) 1.55 Jacobson et al. (2005)
Farrowing MV, shallow pit (150 d) 1.5 Jerez et al. (2005)
Farrowing MV, shallow pit (150 d) 1.4 Jerez et al. (2005)
Finishing MV, 22–27 Feb. 4.2 Blunden et al. (2008)
Grow/finishing 60 MV and 90 NV (8 h) 0.99–30.72 Kim et al. (2008)
Finishing MV, 07–14 Apr. 3.3 Blunden et al. (2008)
Finishing MV, 19–24 Jun. 1.2 Blunden et al. (2008)
Finishing MV, 26–31 Oct. 1.7 Blunden et al. (2008)
1)
MV = mechanically ventilated; NV = naturally ventilated; and 2) emission rates were converted when nec-
essary from different original units.
In 60 mechanically ventilated and 90 naturally ventilated grow-finish houses in South Korea,

the average H2S emission during day time (between 9 am and 5 pm) ranged from 0.99 to 30.72 g
d−1AU−1 (Kim et al., 2008). Seasonal variations in H2S emission during the one week per season
study showed H2S emission rates between 1.2 and 4.2 g d−1AU−1 (Blunden et al., 2008).
Manure agitation during building flushing (Lim et al., 2004) and manure removal (Hoff et al.,
2006) can dramatically increase temporary H2S emissions. Results showed that H2S emissions,
measured in commercial pig buildings during four independent slurry removal events over two
years, increased by an average of 62 times relative to prior levels (Hoff et al., 2006).
3.4 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
When studying air pollution from animal production, one of the most important objectives is to
gain a new understanding of the quantities and characteristics of the pollutant concentrations and
emissions. Compared with laboratory-scale experiments and computer simulations, conducting
measurement at swine facilities under field conditions can generate data that are directly from and
closely related to the commercial swine production reality.
Over the past five decades, a large amount of such data has been collected for NH3 and H2S in
swine production. They have helped to draw an outline that depicts the concentrations, emissions,
42 Ji-Qin Ni et al.
health effects and dangers of these two gases in swine production. However, the facts and phe-
VetBooks.ir
nomena that have been collected and observed are still very limited compared with the scale and
diversity of the global swine production. Therefore, much still remains unknown, unexplained,
or uncertain, including the characteristics of concentrations and emissions and emission factors,
which are the most useful data to develop emission inventories. This has been mainly reflected in
the large discrepancies in measurement data and the inconsistencies in some research conclusions.
The trustworthiness of measured gas concentration data depends on sampling procedure (e.g.,
sampling location, time, duration, and frequency), equipment (e.g., type of instrument or sen-
sor), measurement process (e.g., on-site or off-site; discrete or continuous), and data processing
method. Obtaining gas emission data is subject to more potential errors, because emissions also
require measured air exchange rates, which need to be addressed elsewhere, to calculate them.
Due to the fact that there are no international standards yet for the gas concentration and air
exchange rate measurements at animal facilities, the comparability of reported NH3 and H2S con-
centration and emission data is also limited. International standards are also needed for NH3 and
H2S emission reporting units. The diversified emission units that are currently in use have reduced
data usability and systematic comparisons in the national and international scopes.
Moreover, although temporal and spatial variations in NH3 and H2S concentrations and emis-
sions are well-known, most of the reported field studies have only been able to provide limited
coverage of these variations. Technological and financial limitations are believed to be the critical
constraints to these efforts. Additional challenges for research in this area also include building
structure, ventilation type, geographical location, production process, and insufficient number of
experienced researchers.
Unlike the other sectors, such as urban, transportation and industries, there have been no perma-
nent monitoring facilities reported for aerial emissions from swine production so that long-term
annual variations under different weather conditions and changing swine production practices
could be studied. To date, all field research has been unable to support long-term (>3 years) or
permanent source monitoring. It is important that future emission studies cover long monitoring
periods, utilize reliable instruments and sensors, and standardize monitoring methodologies and
data processing to ensure data quality and consistency and allow systematic comparisons. Thus,
appropriate statistical treatment of the collected data is very important.
Ammonia and H2S pollution from swine production is a very complex research area. In addi-
tion to some “facts” and “evidences” from field studies that this chapter has reviewed, there are
other critical research topics (such as sources, transport, sinks, environmental impacts, and mit-
igation) that also deserve evaluation to help understand the bigger pictures of air pollution from
swine production.
REFERENCES
Aarnink, A.J.A., Keen, A., Metz, J.H.M., Speelman, L. & Verstegen, M.W.A. (1995) Ammonia emission
patterns during the growing periods of pigs housed on partially slatted floors. Journal of Agricultural
Engineering Research, 62, 105–116.
Andreasen, M., Baekbo, P. & Nielsen, J.P. (1999) Effect of aerial ammonia on porcine infection of the respi-
ratory tract with toxigenic Pasteurella multocida. Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica, 40(3), 197–203.
Aneja, V.P., Arya, S.P., Kim, D.S., Rumsey, I.C., Arkinson, H.L., Semunegus, H., Bajwa, K.S., Dickey, D.A.,
Stefanski, L.A., Todd, L., Mottus, K., Robarge, W.P. & Williams, C.M. (2008a) Characterizing ammonia
emissions from swine farms in eastern North Carolina: part 1 – conventional lagoon and spray technology
for waste treatment. Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association, 58(9), 1130–1144.
Aneja, V.P., Arya, S.P., Rumsey, I.C., Kim, D.S., Bajwa, K., Arkinson, H.L., Semunegus, H., Dickey, D.A.,
Stefanski, L.A., Todd, L., Mottus, K., Robarge, W.P. & Williams, C.M. (2008b) Characterizing ammonia
emissions from swine farms in eastern North Carolina: part 2 – Potential environmentally superior tech-
nologies for waste treatment. Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association, 58(9), 1145–1157.
Arogo, J., Zhang, R.H., Riskowski, G.L. & Day, D.L. (2000) Hydrogen sulfide production from stored liquid
swine manure: a laboratory study. Transactions of the ASAE, 43(5), 1241–1245.
Arogo, J., Westerman, P.W. & Heber, A.J. (2003) A review of ammonia emissions from confined swine feed-
VetBooks.ir
ing operations. Transactions of the ASAE, 46(3), 805–817.

Arogo, J., Westerman, P.W., Heber, A.J., Robarge, W.P. & Classen, J.J. (2006) Ammonia emissions from
animal feeding operations. In: Rice, J.M., Caldwell, D.F. & Humenik, F.J. (eds) Animal Agriculture and
the Environment: National Center for Manure and Animal Waste Management White Papers. ASABE,
St. Joseph, MI. pp. 41–88.
Asman, W.A.H. (1992) Ammonia Emissions in Europe: Updated Emission and Emission Variations. National
Institute of Public Health and Environmental Protection, Bilthoven, The Netherlands.
Avery, G.L., Merva, G.E. & Gerrish, J.B. (1975) Hydrogen sulfide production in swine confinement units.
Transactions of the ASAE, 18, 149–151.
Banhazi, T. (2013) Seasonal, diurnal and spatial variations of environmental variables in Australian livestock
buildings. Australian Journal of Multi-Disciplinary Engineering, 10(1), 60–69.
Banhazi, T., Rutley, D. & Pitchford, W. (2008a) Identification of risk factors for sub-optimal housing con-
ditions in Australian piggeries: part 4. Emission factors and study recommendations. Journal of Agricul-
tural Safety and Health, 14(1), 53–69.
Banhazi, T.M., Seedorf, J., Rutley, D.L. & Pitchford, W.S. (2008b) Identification of risk factors for sub-
optimal housing conditions in Australian piggeries – Part I: study justification and design. Journal of
Agricultural Safety and Health, 14(1), 5–20.
Banhazi, T.M., Seedorf, J., Rutley, D.L. & Pitchford, W.S. (2008c) Identification of risk factors for sub-
optimal housing conditions in Australian piggeries – Part II: airborne pollutants. Journal of Agricultural
Battye, R., Battye, W., Overcash, C. & Fudge, S. (1994) Development and Selection of Ammonia Emission
Factors. US EPA, Research Triangle Park, NC.
Battye, W., Aneja, V.P. & Roelle, P.A. (2003) Evaluation and improvement of ammonia emissions invento-
ries. Atmospheric Environment, 37(27), 3873–3883.
Berckmans, D., Vinckier, C., Hendriks, J., Ni, J.-Q., Gustin, P., Urbain, B. & Ansay, M. (1998) Ammonia
Emission and Impact at Pig Farms. Ministry of Middle Classes and Agriculture, Brussels, Belgium.
Bini, C. & Bresolin, F. (1998) Soil acidification by acid rain in forest ecosystems: a case study in northern
Italy. Science of the Total Environment, 222(1–2), 1–15.
Bjerg, B., Norton, T., Banhazi, T., Zhang, G., Bartzanas, T., Liberati, P., Cascone, G., Lee, I.B. & Marucci, A.
(2013) Modelling of ammonia emissions from naturally ventilated livestock buildings. Part 1: ammonia
release modelling. Biosystems Engineering, 116(3), 232–245.
Blunden, J., Aneja, V.P. & Westerman, P.W. (2008) Measurement and analysis of ammonia and hydrogen
sulfide emissions from a mechanically ventilated swine confinement building in North Carolina. Atmo-
spheric Environment, 42(14), 3315–3331.
Bouwman, A.F. & Van der Hoek, K.W. (1997) Scenarios of animal waste production and fertilizer use
and associated ammonia emission for the developing countries. Atmospheric Environment, 31(24),
4095–4102.
Burton, D.L. & Beauchamp, E.G. (1986) Nitrogen losses from swine housings. Agricultural Wastes, 15(1), 59–74.
Busse, F.-W. (1993) Comparison measurements of the house climate in swine stables with and without
respiratory diseases or cannibalism. In: Collins, E. & Boon, C. (eds) Livestock Environment. Fourth
International Symposium. pp. 904–908.
Chang, C.W., Chung, H., Huang, C.F. & Su, H.J.J. (2001) Exposure assessment to airborne endotoxin, dust,
ammonia, hydrogen sulfide and carbon dioxide in open style swine houses. Annals of Occupational
Hygiene, 45(6), 457–465.
Chénard, L., Lemay, S.P. & Laguë, C. (2003) Hydrogen sulfide assessment in shallow – pit swine housing
and outside manure storage. Journal of Agricultural Safety and Health, 9(4), 285–302.
Cheng, Z., O’Connor, E.A., Jia, Q., Demmers, T.G.M., Wathes, C.M. & Wathes, D.C. (2014) Chronic ammo-
nia exposure does not influence hepatic gene expression in growing pigs. Animal, 8(2), 331–337.
Chitjian, M., Tonnesen, G. & Mansell, G. (2003) An Improved Ammonia Inventory for the Wrap Domain
Technical Description of the Modeling System. University of California Riverside, Riverside, CA.
CIGR (1992) Climatization of Animal Houses. 2nd ed. Commission Internationale du Génie Rurale, Faculty
of Agricultural Sciences, State University of Gent, Gent, Belgium.
Clark, P.C. & McQuitty, J.B. (1988) Air-quality in farrowing barns. Canadian Agricultural Engineering,
30(1), 173–178.
Day, D.L., Hansen, E.L. & Anderson, S. (1965) Gases and odors in confinement swine buildings. Transac-
tions of the ASAE, 8(1), 118–121.
44 Ji-Qin Ni et al.
Dong, H., Kang, G., Zhu, Z., Tao, X., Chen, Y., Xin, H. & Harmon, J.D. (2009) Ammonia, methane, and
VetBooks.ir
carbon dioxide concentrations and emissions of a hoop grower-finisher swine barn. Transactions of the
ASAE, 52(5), 1741–1747.
Donham, K.J., Reynolds, S.J., Whitten, P., Merchant, J.A., Burmeister, L. & Popendorf, W.J. (1995) Respi-
ratory dysfunction in swine production facility workers-dose-response relationships of environmental
exposures and pulmonary-function. American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 27(3), 405–418.
Drummond, J.G., Curtis, S.E., Simon, J. & Norton, H.W. (1980) Effects of aerial ammonia on growth and
health of young pigs. Journal of Animal Science, 50(6), 1085–1091.
ECETOC (1994) Ammonia Emissions to Air in Western Europe. European Centre for Ecotoxicology and
Toxicology of Chemicals, Brussels, Belgium.
FAO (2015) FAO Statistical Pocketbook. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome,
Italy.
Faulkner, W.B. & Shaw, B.W. (2008) Review of ammonia emission factors for United States animal agricul-
ture. Atmospheric Environment, 42(27), 6567–6574.
Griffing, E.M., Overcash, M. & Westerman, P. (2007) A review of gaseous ammonia emissions from slurry
pits in pig production systems. Biosystems Engineering, 97(3), 295–312.
Groot Koerkamp, P.W.G., Metz, J.H.M., 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., Pedersen, S., Takai, H., Johnsen,
J.O. & Wathes, C.M. (1998) Concentrations and emissions of ammonia in livestock buildings in Northern
Europe. Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research, 70(1), 79–95.
Hamilton, T.D.C., Roe, J.M. & Webster, A.J.F. (1996) Synergistic role of gaseous ammonia in etiology
of Pasteurella multocida-induced atrophic rhinitis in swine. Journal of Clinical Microbiology, 34(9),
2185–2190.
Hamilton, T.D.C., Roe, J.M., Hayes, C.M. & Webster, A.J.F. (1998) Effects of ammonia inhalation and acetic
acid pretreatment on colonization kinetics of toxigenic Pasteurella multocida within upper respiratory
tracts of swine. Journal of Clinical Microbiology, 36(5), 1260–1265.
Harper, L.A., Sharpe, R.R. & Simmons, J.D. (2004) Ammonia emissions from swine houses in the southeast-
ern United States. Journal of Environmental Quality, 33(2), 449–457.
Harris, D.B., Shores, R.C. & Jones, L.G. (2001) Ammonia emission factors from swine finishing operations.
10th Annual International Emission Inventory Conference, One Atmosphere, One Inventory, Many Chal-
lenges, 1–3 May 2001, Denver, CO, US EPA. pp. 6.
Hartung, J. (1988) Tentative calculations of gaseous emissions from pig houses by way of the exhaust air. In:
Nielsen, V.C., Voorburg, J. & L’Hermite, P. (eds) Volatile Emissions from Livestock Farming and Sewage
Operations. Elsevier Applied Science, London. pp. 54–58.
Heber, A.J. & Heyne, M.J. (1999) Outdoor hydrogen sulfide concentrations near a swine feeding facility. ASAE/
CSAE-SCGR Annual International Meeting, 18–21 July 1999, Toronto, Canada. St. Joseph, MI, ASAE. p. 23.
Heber, A.J., Duggirala, R.K., Ni, J.-Q., Spence, M.L., Haymore, B.L., Adamchuk, V.I., Bundy, D.S., Sutton,
A.L., Kelly, D.T. & Keener, K.M. (1997) Manure treatment to reduce gas emissions from large swine
houses. In: Voermans, J.A.M. & Monteny, G.J. (eds) International Symposium on Ammonia and Odour
Control from Animal Production Facilities, 6–10 October 1997, Vinkeloord, The Netherlands, Vol. II.
pp. 449–458.
Heber, A.J., Ni, J.-Q., Lim, T.-T., Diehl, C.A., Sutton, A.L., Duggirala, R.K., Haymore, B.L., Kelly, D.T. &
Adamchuk, V.I. (2000) Effect of a manure additive on ammonia emission from swine finishing buildings.
Transactions of the ASAE, 43(6), 1895–1902.
Heber, A.J., Lim, T.-T., Tao, P.C., Ni, J.-Q. & Schmidt, A.M. (2004) Control of air emissions from swine fin-
ishing buildings flushed with recycled lagoon effluent. ASAE Annual International Meeting, 1–4 August
2004, Ottawa, ON, Canada, ASAE Paper No. 044156. ASAE, St. Joseph, MI. p. 13.
Heber, A.J., Tao, P.-C., Ni, J.-Q., Lim, T.-T. & Schmidt, A.M. (2005) Air emissions from two swine finishing
building with flushing: ammonia characteristics. Seventh International Livestock Environment Sympo-
sium, 18–20 May 2005, Beijing, China. pp. 436–443.
Heber, A.J., Bogan, B.W., Ni, J.-Q., Lim, T.-T., Cortus, E.L., Ramirez-Dorronsoro, J.C., Diehl, C.A., Hanni,
S.M., Xiao, C., Casey, K.D., Gooch, C.A., Jacobson, L.D., Koziel, J.A., Mitloehner, F.M., Ndegwa, P.M.,
Robarge, W.P., Wang, L. & Zhang, R. (2008) The National air emissions monitoring study: Overview of
barn sources. The Eighth International Livestock Environment Symposium (ILES VIII), 1–5 September
2008, Iguassu Falls, Brazil, ASABE, St. Joseph, MI. pp. 199–205.
Heber, A.J., Grant, R., Boehm, M., Cortus, E.L., Bogan, B.W., Lim, T.-T., Ni, J.-Q., Chai, L., Robarge, W.,
Casey, K., Koziel, J. & Wang, K. (2011a) Evaluation and Analysis of NAEMS Pork Data. Final Report to
the National Pork Board. Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN. p. 536.
Heber, A.J., Ni, J.-Q., Cortus, E.L., Lim, T.-T. & Bogan, B.W. (2011b) National study of livestock air
VetBooks.ir
quality in USA.Proceedings of International Symposium on Health Environment and Animal Welfare

(ISHEAW-2011), 19–22 October 2011, Chongqing, China, Chinese Society of Agricultural Engineering,
Beijing, China. pp. 42–66.
livestock buildings. Part 2: results. Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research, 70(1), 119–129.
Hoff, S.J., Bundy, D.S., Nelson, M.A., Zelle, B.C., Jacobson, L.D., Heber, A.J., Ni, J.-Q., Zhang, Y.H.,
Koziel, J.A. & Beasley, D.B. (2006) Emissions of ammonia, hydrogen sulfide, and odor before, during
and after slurry removal from a deep-pit swine finisher. Journal of the Air & Waste Management Associ-
ation, 56(5), 581–590.
Hutchings, N., Amon, B., Dämmgen, U. & Webb, J. (2009) Animal husbandry and manure management.
EMEP/EEA Air Pollutant Emission Inventory Guidebook. European Environment Agency, Copenhagen,
Denmark.
Jacobson, L.D., Hetchler, B.P., Johnson, V.J., Schmidt, D.R., Nicolai, R.E., Heber, A.J., Ni, J.Q., Koziel,
J.A., Sweeten, J.M., Hoff, S.J., Bundy, D.S., Zhang, Y. & Beasley, D.B. (2005) Air pollutant emissions
from confined animal buildings-dry sow buildings in Minnesota. Air & Waste Management Association
Meeting, 21–24 June 2005, Minneapolis, MN. Paper # 53. Pittsburgh, PA: Air and Waste Management
Association. p. 14.
Jacobson, L.D., Hetchler, B.P., Akdeniz, N., Hoff, S., Heber, A., Ni, J.-Q., Zhang, Y. & Koziel, J. (2011)
Air Pollutants Emissions from Confined Animal Buildings (APECAB) Project Summary. ASABE, St.
Joseph, MI. p. 14.
Jerez, S.B., Zhang, Y., McClure, J.W., Heber, A.J., Ni, J., Koziel, J.A., Hoff, S.J., Jacobson, L.D. & Beasley,
D. (2005) Aerial pollutant concentration and emission rate measurements from a swine farrowing build-
ing in Illinois. A&WMA’s 98th Annual Conference & Exhibition, 21–24 June 2005, Minneapolis, MN.
Paper # 1026. A&WMA, Pittsburgh, PA. p. 15.
Jones, J.B., Burgess, L.R., Webster, A.J.F. & Wathes, C.M. (1996) Behavioural responses of pigs to atmo-
spheric ammonia in a chronic choice test. Animal Science, 63, 437–445.
Jones, J.B., Wathes, C.M. & Webster, A.J.F. (1998) Operant responses of pigs to atmospheric ammonia.
Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 58(1–2), 35–47.
Kim, K.Y., Ko, H.J., Lee, K.J., Park, J.B. & Kim, C.N. (2005) Temporal and spatial distributions of aerial
contaminants in an enclosed pig building in winter. Environmental Research, 99(2), 150–157.
Kim, K.Y., Ko, H.J., Kim, H.T., Kim, Y.S., Roh, Y.M., Lee, C.M. & Kim, C.N. (2007) Monitoring of aerial pol-
lutants emitted from swine houses in Korea. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 133(1–3), 255–266.
Kim, K.Y., Ko, H.J., Kim, H.T., Kim, Y.S., Roh, Y.M., Lee, C.M. & Kim, C.N. (2008) Quantification of
ammonia and hydrogen sulfide emitted from pig buildings in Korea. Journal of Environmental Manage-
ment, 88(2), 195–202.
Kurvits, T. & Marta, T. (1998) Agricultural NH3 and NOx emissions in Canada. Environmental Pollution,
102, 187–194.
Lim, T.-T., Heber, A.J., Ni, J.-Q., Kendall, D. & Richert, B.T. (2004) Effects of manure removal strategies on
odor and gas emission from swine finishing. Transactions of the ASAE, 47(6), 2041–2050.
Louhelainen, K., Kangas, J., Veijanen, A. & Viilos, P. (2001) Effect of in situ composting on reducing offen-
sive odors and volatile organic compounds in swineries. American Industrial Hygiene Association Jour-
nal, 62(2), 159–167.
McInnes, G. (ed) (1996) Joint EMEP/CORINAIR Atmospheric Emission Inventory Guidebook, Vol. 1. Euro-
pean Environment Agency, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Misselbrook, T.H., Van der Weerden, T.J., Pain, B.F., Jarvis, S.C., Chambers, B.J., Smith, K.A., Phillips,
V.R. & Demmers, T.G.M. (2000) Ammonia emission factors for UK agriculture. Atmospheric Environ-
ment, 34(6), 871–880.
Montes, F., Rotz, C.A. & Chaoui, H. (2009) Process modeling of ammonia volatilization from ammonium
solution and manure surfaces: a review with recommended models. Transactions of the ASAE, 52(5),
1707–1719.
Muehling, A.J. (1970) Gases and odors from stored swine waste. Journal of Animal Science, 30, 526–530.
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(4), 453–469.
Ni, J.-Q. (1999) Mechanistic models of ammonia release from liquid manure, a review. Journal of Agricul-
tural Engineering Research, 72(1), 1–17.
Ni, J.-Q. (2015) Research and demonstration to improve air quality for the U.S. animal feeding operations in
the 21st century – a critical review. Environmental Pollution, 200(1), 105–119.
46 Ji-Qin Ni et al.
Ni, J.-Q. & Heber, A.J. (2008) Sampling and measurement of ammonia at animal facilities. Advances in
VetBooks.ir
Agronomy, 98, 201–269.

Ni, J.-Q., Heber, A.J., Diehl, C.A. & Lim, T.-T. (2000a) Ammonia, hydrogen sulphide and carbon dioxide
from pig manure in under-floor deep pits. Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research, 77(1), 53–66.
Ni, J.-Q., Heber, A.J., Diehl, C.A., Lim, T.-T., Duggirala, R.K. & Haymore, B.L. (2000b) Burst releases of
hydrogen sulfide in mechanically ventilated swine buildings.Conference Proceedings Odors and VOC
Emissions 2000. 16–19 April 2000, Cincinnati, OH. Water Environment Federation. p. 11.
Ni, J.-Q., Heber, A.J., Diehl, C.A., Lim, T.-T., Duggirala, R.K. & Haymore, B.L. (2002a) Characteristics
of hydrogen sulphide concentrations in mechanically ventilated swine buildings. Canadian Biosystems
Ni, J.-Q., Heber, A.J., Lim, T.-T., Diehl, C.A., Duggirala, R.K. & Haymore, B.L. (2002b) Hydrogen sulfide
emission from two large pig-finishing buildings with long-term high-frequency measurements. Journal
of Agricultural Science, 138(2), 227–236.
Ni, J.-Q., Heber, A.J., Lim, T.-T., Diehl, C.A., Duggirala, R.K. & Haymore, B.L. (2002c) Summertime
concentrations and emissions of hydrogen sulfide at a mechanically-ventilated swine finishing building.
Ni, J.-Q., Heber, A.J., Sutton, A.L. & Kelly, D.T. (2009) Mechanisms of gas releases from swine wastes.
Ni, J.-Q., Heber, A.J., Cortus, E.L., Lim, T.-T., Bogan, B.W., Grant, R.H. & Boehm, M.T. (2012) Ammonia
emissions from swine facilities in the U.S. – Application of knowledge from experimental research. Envi-
ronmental Science & Policy, 22, 25–35.
Oesterhelweg, L. & Puschel, K. (2008) “Death may come on like a stroke of lightning. . . ” – Phenomeno-
logical and morphological aspects of fatalities caused by manure gas. International Journal of Legal
Medicine, 122(2), 101–107.
OSHA (1999) VI. Health effects discussion and determination of final PEL. OSHA Preambles – Air Contam-
inants (29 CFR 1910.1000). Occupational Safety and Health Administration, US Department of Labor,
Washington, DC.
Patni, N.K. & Clarke, S.P. (1991a) Hydrogen sulfide and other gases in swine barns during slurry mixing.
CSAE at the Agricultural Institute of Canada Annual Conference, 29–31 July 1991, New Brunswick,
Canada. Paper # 91-227, p. 22.
Patni, N.K. & Clarke, S.P. (1991b) Transient hazardous conditions in animal buildings due to manure gas
released during slurry mixing. Applied Engineering in Agriculture, 7(4), 478–484.
Riedel, S.M. & Field, W.E. (2013) Summation of the frequency, severity, and primary causative factors asso-
ciated with injuries and fatalities involving confined spaces in agriculture. Journal of Agricultural Safety
and Health, 19(2), 83–100.
Schmidt, D.R., Jacobson, L.D. & Janni, K.A. (2002) Continuous monitoring of ammonia, hydrogen sulfide
and dust emissions from swine, dairy and poultry barns. ASAE Annual International Meeting/CIGR XVth
World Congress, 28–31 July 2002, Chicago, IL. ASAE Paper No. 024060. ASAE, St. Joseph, MI. p. 14.
Smith, R.P., Cooper, R.C., Engen, T., Hendrickson, E.R., Katz, M., Milby, T.H., Mudd, J.B., Rossano, A.T. &
Remond Jr., J. (1979) Hydrogen Sulfide. University Park Press, Baltimore.
Sun, G., Guo, H.Q., Peterson, J., Predicala, B. & Lague, C. (2008) Diurnal odor, ammonia, hydrogen sulfide,
and carbon dioxide emission profiles of confined swine grower/finisher rooms. Journal of the Air & Waste
Management Association, 58(11), 1434–1448.
Sutton, M.A., Place, C.J., Eager, M., Fowler, D. & Smith, R.I. (1995) Assessment of the magnitude of ammo-
nia emissions in the United Kingdom. Atmospheric Environment, 29(12), 1393–1411.
Thorne, P.S., Ansley, A.C. & Perry, S.S. (2009) Concentrations of bioaerosols, odors, and hydrogen sulfide
inside and downwind from two types of swine livestock operations. Journal of Occupational and Envi-
ronmental Hygiene, 6(4), 211–220.
USEPA (2005) National Emission Inventory – Ammonia Emissions from Animal Agricultural Operations.
US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. p. 212.
van Breemen, N., Burrough, P.A., Velthorst, E.J., van Dobben, H.F., Toke de Wit, Ridder, T.B. & Reijnders,
H.F.R. (1982) Soil acidification from atmospheric ammonium sulphate in forest canopy throughfall.
Nature, 299(20), 548–550.
Van der Hoek, K.W. (1998) Estimating ammonia emission factors in Europe: summary of the work of the
UNECE ammonia expert panel. Atmospheric Environment, 32(3), 315–316.
van der Peet-Schwering, C.M.C., Aarnink, A.J.A., Rom, H.B. & Dourmad, J.Y. (1999) Ammonia emissions
from pig houses in The Netherlands, Denmark and France. Livestock Production Science, 58(3), 265–269.
Wang, K.Y., Wei, B., Zhu, S.M. & Ye, Z.Y. (2011) Ammonia and odour emitted from deep litter and fully
VetBooks.ir
slatted floor systems for growing-finishing pigs. Biosystems Engineering, 109(3), 203–210.
Wood, D., Cowherd, S. & Van Heyst, B. (2015) A summary of ammonia emission factors and quality criteria
for commercial poultry production in North America. Atmospheric Environment, 115, 236–245.
Xin, H. (2005) Instruments for Measuring Concentrations and Emission Rates of Gases and Particulates
from Animal Feeding Operations. Iowa State University, University Extension, Ames, Iowa. p. 6.
Xu, W., Zheng, K., Liu, X.J., Meng, L.M., Huaitalla, R.M., Shen, J.L., Hartung, E., Gallmann, E., Roelcke,
M. & Zhang, F.S. (2014) Atmospheric NH3 dynamics at a typical pig farm in China and their implica-
tions. Atmospheric Pollution Research, 5(3), 455–463.
Zhao, Y., Duan, L., Xing, J., Larssen, T., Nielsen, C.P. & Hao, J.M. (2009) Soil acidification in China: is
controlling SO2 emissions enough? Environmental Science & Technology, 43(21), 8021–8026.
Zhu, J., Jacobson, L., Schmidt, D. & Nicolai, R. (2000) Daily variations in odor and gas emissions from
animal facilities. Applied Engineering in Agriculture, 16(2), 153–158.
VetBooks.ir
CHAPTER 4
VetBooks.ir
Pollutants in livestock buildings

Ammonia and dust interplay with the respiratory tract
Annamaria Costa and Cinzia Domeneghini
4.1 AMMONIA IN PIGGERIES: CONCENTRATIONS AND EFFECTS ON ANIMAL’S

HEALTH AND PERFORMANCE
Especially in swine and poultry houses, animals and workers are exposed to a wide range of
airborne contaminants, in particular, to dust and ammonia that can induce respiratory and cardio-
vascular diseases (Radon et al., 2001).
Gaseous NH3 is a predominant pollutant in animal systems, and it is generated by the enzymatic
decomposition of uric acid or urea in mammals. Ammonia is responsible of negative responses
in animal performance and welfare and in workers’ health. In addition, ammonia emission is of
great environmental concern, because it contributes to soil acidification and increased nitrogen
deposition in ecosystems (Pain et al, 1998).
From the first experimental studies, it was demonstrated that pigs reared in enclosed facilities with
under-floor waste pits have depressed rates of gain (Day et al., 1965) and that the incidence and sever-
ity of pneumonic lesions in pigs have been related to the air pollutant levels (Kovacs et al., 1967).
Drummond et al. (1980) found that aerial ammonia decreased young pigs’ (8 weeks of age)
growth, with percentage reductions from controls in average daily gain at 12%, 30% and 29%
for groups exposed to 50, 100 and 150 ppm (or 35, 70 and 105 mg m−3), respectively. In a recent
study, pigs housed during the three months of the finishing phase in similar facilities, with differ-
ent ammonia concentrations (7.45 vs. 5.31 mg m−3) gained less live weight 740 g versus 793 g,
probably for the higher percentage of fouled floor (Costa, 2017).
In 1978, Morisse et al. published one of the first surveys about ammonia inhalation in labora-
tory animals, highlighting that even moderate ammonia concentration (30 ppm or 21 mg m−3) for
a period of two weeks can induce an exacerbation of Pastorella multocida infection in rabbits,
therefore demonstrating a further negative immunological effect.
Ferrari et al. in 2011 produced a long-term study about the relation between environmental
pollution in swine husbandry and respiratory diseases, finding that fattening pigs reared in envi-
ronments with ammonia concentration higher than 15 ppm (10 mg m−3) when associated with
PM10 concentration higher than 50 μg m−3 are more affected by respiratory diseases.
The mechanism inducing growth depression in pigs triggered by ammonia could be related to
a consequent reduced amount of feed intake or to a less efficiency in nutrients utilization due to a
state of general discomfort or sickness.
The values measured in most experimental studies exceeded the 7 ppm (5 mg m−3) value rec-
ommended by Donham (1991, 1995) and by Gustin et al. (1994). NIOSH (National Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health, 2002) recommends that the level in workroom air be limited to
50 ppm (35 mg m−3) for 5 minutes of exposure.
Workers exposed to ammonia for several years, as might occur in swine confinements, present
a shift-related decrease of forced expiratory volume, and several studies show that ammonia
49
50 Annamaria Costa and Cinzia Domeneghini
at the total lung volume (20 ppm or 14 mg m−3) inconstantly causes severe cough. Zejda et al.
VetBooks.ir
(1994) reported on the incidence of chronic respiratory symptoms between exposure to high con-
centrations of ammonia and the prevalence of chronic cough and bronchitis; many authors found
that ammonia is a cofactor in the genesis of atrophic rhinitis and enzootic bronchopneumonia in
pigs (Donham, 1991).
Many studies showed the decrease in animal productive performance according to high ammo-
nia levels (Gustafsson et al., 2013). Ammonia exert deleterious effects on the behavior, physi-
ology, incidence of pathologies and productivity of the animals (Jones et al., 2001), producing
detrimental effects in a remarkable way on animals devoted to reproduction, such as gilts or
barrows. Ammonia produces negative effects on the olfactory systems of animals: gilts usually
exposed to ammonia at a concentration of 20 ppm (14 mg m−3) showed delayed puberty, even
after exposure to a boar, extended anoestrus after their first litter had been weaned, and irregular
oestrus cycles (Malayer et al., 1988).
The mechanism at the basis of this reproductive failure induced by gaseous ammonia seems to be
linked to the ammonia interference with the reception and recognition of pheromones, such as andro-
stenone or metiltestosterone (Malayer et al., 1988), even if field studies about the potential effect of
ammonia on the olfactory acuity of intensively housed animals have not been directly performed.
Jones et al. (2001) indicated that olfactory perception can be modified in various ways by
gaseous ammonia:
• Ammonia can inflame and cause pathological damage to olfactory mucosa in the upper respi-
ratory tract (e.g., Curtis et al., 1975). Inflammation of sensory epithelium can lead to the initial
replacement with non-sensory squamous epithelium or ciliated respiratory epithelium before
sensory epithelium regrows (Jafek et al., 1990). An excessive mucus secretion, triggered by
defensive aims, may interfere with the transport of odorants to sensory receptors.
• Ammonia is water-soluble and could react with other odorants before they reach receptor sites
thereby changing their structure or forming new compounds (Morrison and Boyd, 1987).
Figure 4.1. Puddles of slurry and urine on the full floor in piggeries (photo by Annamaria Costa).
Pollutants in livestock buildings 51
• Ammonia can cause a reflexive engorgement of the olfactory tissue through the excessive stimulation
VetBooks.ir
of the trigeminal nerve (Cain, 1974), increased mucus secretion, and decreased respiration rate (e.g.,
Tucker, 1971), limiting the volume of air and, hence, odorants reaching the olfactory receptors.
• Ammonia gas may either preferentially occupy receptor sites or alter the frequency and firing
pattern of the receptors when other odorants are present (Kurahashi et al., 1994).
• Constant stimulation of some olfactory neurons by an odorant can also lead to functional
changes or degeneration in other less stimulated sensory cells and thereby alter olfactory acuity
(Laing and Panhuber, 1978).
• The possible consequent respiratory diseases are likely linked to an accumulation of mucus,
following high ammonia levels exposure, that increases susceptibility to infection by reducing
the rate of bacterial clearance from the respiratory tract (Stombaugh et al., 1969), thereby lead-
ing to pneumonia and atrophic rhinitis (Gustin et al., 1994).
• The described potential symptoms, because many of the conductive and sensorineural effects
of ammonia, are transient and as olfactory neurons regenerate, much of the pathological dam-
age and inflammation may regress following cessation of ammonia exposure, thereby leading
to the recovery of olfactory acuity (Slotnick and Gutman, 1977).
4.2 PARTICULATE MATTER: ORIGIN, CLASSIFICATION, DEPOSITION

IN THE RESPIRATORY SYSTEM AND EFFECTS ON ANIMAL HEALTH
AND PRODUCTION
In the last years, limited attention has been given to the evaluation of concentration and charac-
terization of particulate matter and the related adverse effects on men’s health and on animals
reared in enclosed buildings, showing a close relationship between PM air pollution, respiratory
and cardiovascular disease incidence, and mortality rates (Pope et al., 2002).
Dust particles can vary widely in composition and size, influencing particulate matter aerody-
namic behavior and transport (Lai et al., 2012) and determining impacts on human and animal
health (Lippmann et al., 1980).
4.2.1 Particulate matter in animal confinements

Studies performed in the last two decades on airborne dust concentrations have mainly focused
on small particle sizes, such as particulate matter smaller than 10 µm and particulate matter
smaller than 2.5 µm. Particulate matter inhalation appears linked to heart and respiratory diseases
in many epidemiological studies in human medicine (Schwartz and Dockery, 1992). In general,
particles from this range of sizes form the majority of particles presence in animal houses, both
in mass (>50%) and in counts (>99%).
These studies highlight the existence of a potentially dangerous working environment for human
beings and animals, in which airborne particle concentrations are remarkably depending on cli-
matic conditions and ventilation rates (Wang et al., 2000), air distribution (Maghirang et al., 1997),
feeding type (Costa et al., 2007), and the activity level of reared animals (Costa et al., 2009).
The potential adverse effects of dust are linked to chemical properties of the particle, the size
of the particle, and the site of particles deposition mechanism in three different regions of the
respiratory system:
• Head (nose and mouth)

• Thoracic region: upper respiratory tract
• Thoracic region: pulmonary compartment particle clearance path/destination
4.2.2 Chemical properties of the particles

Regarding the chemical properties of dust, while disregarding classical toxic agents, studies have
confirmed that coarse and fine particulate matter in livestock houses can be either inorganic or
organic, including feathers, skin feed, manure, particles from the outside environment, and wood
VetBooks.ir
Figure 4.2. Dry wet feeding can assist in lowering coarse PM in piggeries (photo by Annamaria Costa).
shavings, which are the greatest contributors to dust in swine and poultry farms (Cambra-Lopez
et al., 2011; Heber et al., 1988).
These aerial pollutants can combine with other compounds, gases, bacteria and active endo-
toxins, becoming potentially hazardous agents (Hartung, 2002), acting like carriers of spread air-
borne diseases, such as the Newcastle disease in poultry flocks, or Aujeszky and PRRS in swine
husbandry (Stark, 1999).
Important constituents of fine dust found in animal houses are formed by microbes, exfoli-
ated skin cells (Collins and Algers, 1986), and pathogen-associated molecular patterns that are
either airborne or derived from microbes in feed or feces. These compounds can bind to specific
innate toll-like receptors expressed by antigen presenting cells that in mammals, and in poultry,
skew specific immune responses toward T-helper-mediated antibodies or TH1-mediated cellular
inflammatory responses (Kapsenberg, 2003) or to TH17 responses (Bettelli et al., 2007) via the
release of cytokines (Lai et al., 2012).
This mechanism occurs in a remarkable way in very young animals: Lai et al. (2012) demon-
strated that airborne dust particles given intratracheally in poultry can negatively affect immune
responsiveness and body weight gain at three weeks of age, but they may positively affect
immune responsiveness at seven weeks of age, demonstrating that the effects of dust constituents
(i.e., hygienic status) are related to the defensive apparatus maturation or adaptation to the envi-
ronmental conditions of the animals.
In a recent study performed by Costa et al. (2012), piglets lodged in a unit with a lower PM10
concentration compared to a reference unit, showed a significantly better feed conversion ratio
of 2.18 versus 2.44 (p < 0.001), while the piglets average daily gain of was unaffected by the
different air quality in the room (424 g vs. 414).
In studies conducted by Wang et al. (2008) it was demonstrated that particulate matter inhaled
in animal houses can affect the plasmatic concentration of β-interleukin, altering the respiratory
functions in human.
4.2.3 Size of particle and site of particle deposition in the respiratory system

VetBooks.ir
Generally speaking, not all dust particles are equally injurious, since the smaller the particle
diameter, the deeper the particles are deposited in the respiratory tract (ISO, 1995), reaching the
alveoli. Small particles deposit deeper in the respiratory tract; however, the final location also
depends on the shape and density of the particles and the deepness of animal’s breathing.
Respirable particles (smaller than 4.0 µm in diameter, i.e., similar to tobacco particles smoke)
are mainly responsible for health problems, because these small particles can travel deep into the
lungs (Collins and Algers, 1986).
Particles included in the 5 to 10 μm range (thoracic fraction) only reach the upper respiratory
tract, while those larger than 10 μm are usually stopped in the nasal passages, as reported in Fig-
ure 4.3. As written before, the most dangerous fraction is the one composed of particles smaller
than 5 μm (respirable fraction), since particles of this size are rarely expelled once they have
penetrated the lungs, causing allergic reactions (Rylander, 1986) and inflammatory processes in
the pulmonary system (Thelin et al., 1984).
4.2.4 Principal mechanisms of particle deposition in the respiratory system

Inertial impaction: particles ranging from 5 to 10 µm, depending on their velocity and mass.
Generally, most particles greater than 10 µm (aerodynamic diameter) are deposited in the nose or
throat and cannot penetrate the subsequent respiratory apparatus: in general, these particles are
deposited in the nasopharyngeal region (upper airway passages, such as nostrils, nasal cavities
and throat), largely by impaction. This mechanism is prominent because of the high air speed of
the inspiratory act and the many turns in the nasopharyngeal airway. Changes in airflow direction
cause many particles to hit the walls of the air passage, so that particles deposit or settle in this
region. This mechanism is highly dependent on the aerodynamic diameter of the particles and
on the presence of a ciliated mucosal epithelium that is potentially able to entrap particles and
impede further progress.
Sedimentation: particles larger than 0.5 µm but smaller than 5 µm, depending on particle
velocity and mass. Sedimentation occurs when particles in this size range settle in the bronchiolar
and alveolar compartments, where airflow is low and airway structure dimensions are small. The
rate of sedimentation depends on the terminal settling velocity of the particles, as well as their
chemical nature. Hygroscopic particles may grow in size as they pass through warm, humid air
passages, thus increasing the probability of deposition by sedimentation, which is the most com-
mon method, because at this point, the air has slowed enough for particles to “settle” out. Sedi-
mentation is not an important factor when the aerodynamic diameter of the particle is less than
0.5 µm; as particles travel through air, gravitational forces and air resistance eventually overcome
their buoyancy (the tendency for the particle to stay airborne).
Interception: particular type of sedimentation depending on particle diameter. In interception,
a particle is intercepted or deposited when it travels so close to a surface of the airway passages
that an edge of the particle touches the surface. This method of deposition is typical for fibers
such as asbestos, for which the fiber length determines where the particle will be intercepted.
For example, fibers with a diameter of 1 µm and a length of 200 µm would be deposited in the
bronchial tree.
Brownian diffusion: deposition for particles with aerodynamic diameter smaller than 0.5 µm,
depending on concentration, velocity and distance. The random motion of particles is similar to
that of gas molecules in the air, when particles are smaller than 0.5 µm. When particles are in
random motion, they deposit on the lung walls mostly by chance. This movement is also known
as the “Brownian motion.” The smaller the particle size, the more vigorous the movement. Dif-
fusion is the most important mechanism for deposition in the bronchiolar and alveolar compart-
ments, and it requires an aquatic surface film.
VetBooks.ir
Figure 4.3. Mechanisms influencing particle size deposition in the respiratory tract: sedimentation (9%),
impaction (90%), and diffusion (1%).
Table 4.1. Particulate matter in the human respiratory apparatus.

Deposition of dust particles in the body districts Dust particles size (µm)
Head 9.00–10.00
Nose 5.80–9.00
Pharunx 4.70–5.80
Trachea and primary bronchial tubes 3.3–4–7
Secondary bronchial tubes 2.1–3.3
Terminal bronchial tubes 1.1–2.1
Alveoli 0.65–1.1
Final alveoli 0.43–0.65
4.2.5 Ultrafine particles: from the lungs to the body districts through the blood stream
Particles with aerodynamic size lower than 100 nm are captured by the blood stream in the zone
of gas exchange in the alveoli.
Ultrafine particles (UFP, i.e., particles with aerodynamic diameter smaller than 0.1 µm), owing
their small sizes, usually escape the phagocytosis exerted by alveolar macrophages and may thus
initiate the formation of ROS (reactive oxygen species) (Risom et al., 2007). The overproduc-
tion or chronic production of reactive oxygen species can, in turn, cause inflammatory reactions,
tissue changes and DNA, protein and lipid damages. Additionally, nanoparticles are able to pen-
etrate deeply into the respiratory tract.
Once deposited in the alveolar region (the gas exchange zone), they may translocate to the
blood and consequently to sites distant from their portal of entry (Elder and Oberdoster, 2006).
In particular, it has been observed that UFPs can traffic rapidly from the lungs to mediastinum
lymph nodes and the bloodstream (Choi et al., 2010); as a consequence, undesirable UFP may
rapidly be distributed throughout the body.
Some of these UFPs have been shown to display important toxic effects. A special feature of
UFPs is that their toxicity seems to be linked to their surface characteristics. UFP and/or nanopar-
ticles are so tiny that small quantities (expressed in terms of mass) can have remarkable toxic
effects, because they have relatively large surface areas: several studies show much greater toxic
effects for the same mass of UFPs compared to particles with the same mas and a larger particle
diameter.
VetBooks.ir
Figure 4.4. Ultrafine particle entry mechanism into the blood stream through alveolar zone, passing the
macrophages barrier. In the alveoli in the gas exchange zone, the ultrafine particles penetrate in
the bloodstream by escaping the macrophages “cleaning action”.
4.3 CONCEPT OF SECONDARY PARTICULATE MATTER: FROM GASES

TO PM FORMATION
In recent years, toxicological literature suggested that ultrafine particles (d < 0.1 μm) may play an
important role in explaining the underlying biological mechanisms for the adverse health effects
of PM2.5 or finer particulate matter. Scientists have attributed the greater pulmonary effects of
ultrafine particles, compared to larger submicrometer particles, as stated before, to their larger
total surface area, their greater interstitial access, and their altered biopersistence (Oberdorster
et al., 2005).
Despite tremendous progress over the last few years, in terms of revealing biological mecha-
nisms of PM, very few studies have evaluated the formation, concentration, or characterization
of ultrafine particulate matter and the related adverse effects on animal and workers in livestock
houses.
Airborne particles, typical of livestock confinements, include both organic and inorganic com-
ponents and are formed from a variety of sources, including combustion, dust and particle forma-
tion from oxidation of precursor gases. Major components include sulfate, nitrate, ammonium,
trace elements, and organic material usually identified in swine and poultry farms: ultrafine par-
ticles (<0.1 μm) are formed by gas-to-particle conversion mechanisms. Due to phase transfor-
mation processes that become more enhanced as particle size decreases, ultrafine particle sizes
change continuously (Pandis and Pilinis, 1995). New particle formation (NPF) in the atmosphere
is frequently observed (ultrafine particles usually form by nucleation), but despite the importance
of ultrafines to climate and human health, the exact mechanisms governing NPF are still poorly
VetBooks.ir
Figure 4.5. Formation of secondary particulate matter can derive from gases.
understood (Kulmala et al., 2004; Pennington et al., 2013). The formation of new particles was
traditionally linked to the presence of sulfuric acid as a key component in aerosol formation
and growth (Kulmala and Laaksonen, 1990), but in the last decade, other chemical compounds
were determined to often participate in the formation and growth of new particles (Kulmala et
al., 2004). Several studies exploring the chemical composition of ambient ultrafine particles in
both urban and rural settings have been reported. Cass et al. (2000) reported results from mea-
surements of ultrafine particle mass concentration made in seven southern Californian cities: the
chemical composition of these ultrafine particle samples averaged 50% organic compounds, 14%
trace metal oxides, 8.7% elemental carbon, 8.2% sulfate, 6.8% nitrate, and 3.7% ammonium ions.
With respect to human health, NPF (Pennington et al., 2013) produces a large number of
ultrafine and nanoparticles, and because of their small size, they can be deposited throughout the
respiratory tract or enter the bloodstream (Oberdörster et al., 2005).
Numerous epidemiological studies have associated exposure to secondary ultrafines with lung
cancer, heart disease, asthma, and/or increased mortality (Kreyling et al., 2010). Various in vitro
and in vivo studies show that free radical formation can be triggered by ultrafine or nanoparticles
(Oberdorster et al., 2005; Yiyi et al., 2010).
Exposure to elevated ultrafine particles concentrations is associated with higher incidences of
adverse cardiopulmonary effects (Knibbs et al., 2011). In urban environments, nanoparticles arising
from secondary sources can account for over 50% of ultrafine concentration (Klems et al., 2011).
In the recent past, ammonia, amines, iodine, and organics have been suggested as potential
candidates in different environments (Erupe et al., 2011), but due to instrumentation limitations,
the composition of the fresh nuclei remained unknown. A more recent study performed by Pikri-
das et al. (2012) showed that ammonia, together with an increase of ambient relative humidity,
plays an important role in the formation and growth of new ultrafine particles.
These considerations are important for livestock confinements, with consistent ammonia con-
centrations and imply a need to better understand the effect of ultrafine particles in intensively
reared animals, depending on climatic conditions and management practices.
REFERENCES
Bettelli, E., Korn, T. & Kuchroo, V.K. (2007) Th17: the third member of the effector T cell trilogy. Current
Opinion in Immunology, 19, 652–657.
Cain, W.S. (1974) Contribution of the trigeminal nerve to perceived odour magnitude. Annals of the New
York Academy of Sciences, 237, 28–34.
Cambra-López, M., Hermosilla, T., Lai, H.T., Aarnink, A.J.A. & Ogink, N.W.M. (2011) Particulate mat-
ter emitted from livestock houses: on-farm source identification and quantification. Transactions of the
ASABE, 54, 629–642.
Cass, G.R., Hughes, L.A., Bhave, P., Kleeman, M.J., Allen, J.O. & Salmon, L.G. (2000) The chemical com-
VetBooks.ir
position of atmospheric ultrafine particles. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London
Series A, 358, 2581–2592.
Choi, H.S., Ashitate, Y., Lee, J.H., Kim, H., S.H., Matsui, A., Insin, N., Bawendi, M.G, Semmler-Behnke,
M., Frangioni, J.V. & Tsuda, A. (2010) Rapid translocation of nanoparticles from the lung airspaces to the
body. Nature Biotechnology, 28, 1300–1303.
Collins, M. & Algers, B. (1986) Effects of stable dust on farm animals – a review. Veterinary Research
Communications, 10(6), 415–428.
Costa, A. (2017) Ammonia concentrations and emissions from finishing pigs reared in different growing
rooms. Journal of Environmental Quality, 46, 255–260.
Costa, A., Guarino, M., Navarotto, P., Savoini, G. & Berckmans, D. (2007) Effects of corn milling type on
physical characteristics and on dustiness of swine diets. Transactions of the ASABE, 50(5), 1759–1764.
Costa, A., Borgonovo, F., Leroy, T., Berckmans, D. & Guarino, M. (2009) Dust concentration variation in a
pig barn in relation to on-line monitored animal activity. Biosystems Engineering, 104, 118–124.
Costa, A., Chiarello, G.L., Selli, E. & Guarino, M. (2012) Effects of TiO2 based photocatalytic paint on
concentrations and emissions of pollutants and on animal performance in a swine weaning unit. Journal
of Environmental Management, 96(1), 86–90.
Curtis, S.E., Anderson, C.R., Simon, J., Jensen, A.H., Day, D.L. & Kelley, K.W. (1975) Effects of aerial
ammonia, hydrogen sulphide and swine-house dust on the rate of gain and respiratory tract structure in
swine. Journal of Animal Science, 41, 735–739.
Day, D.L., Hasen, E.L. & Anderson, S. (1965) Gases and odors in swine confinement buildings. Transactions
of the ASAE, 8(1), 118–121.
Donham, K.J. (1991) Association of environmental air contaminants with disease and productivity in swine.
American Journal of Veterinary Research, 52, 1723–1730.
Donham, K.J. (1995) A review: The effects of environmental conditions inside swine housing on worker and
pig health. In: Jennessy, D.P. & Cranwell, P.D. (eds) Manipulating Pig Production V. Werribee, Victoria,
Australia, Australasian Pig Science Association. pp. 203–221.
Elder, A. & Oberdorster, G. (2006) Translocation and effects of ultrafine particles outside of the lung. Clinics
in Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 5(4), 785–796.
Erupe, M.E., Viggiano, A.A. & Lee, S.H. (2011) The effect of trimethylamine on atmospheric nucleation
involving H2SO4. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 11, 4767–4775.
Ferrari S., Costa A., Guarino M., Sala V., Gusmara C. & Piccinini R. (2011) Valutazione bioacustica
dello stato respiratorio come indicatore di sanità e benessere delle produzioni del bovino e del suino
[Bioacustic evaluation of respiratory status as a health and welfare indicator in swine and cattle pro-
duction]. Quaderni della Ricerca n. 138. Sperimentazione condotta nell’ambito del progetto di ricerca
n. 1368 “Valutazione bioacustica dello stato respiratorio come indicatore di sanità e benessere delle
produzioni del bovino e del suino” (D.g.r. 30/3/2009 n. VIII/9182 – Piano per la ricerca e lo sviluppo
2009).
Gustafsson, G., Nimmermark S., Jeppsson, K.H. (2013) Control of emission from livestock buildings and the
impact on health, welfare and performance of animals – a review. In: Aland, A. & Banhazi, T. (eds) Live-
stock Housing: Modern Management to Ensure Optimal Health and Welfare of Farm Animals. Wagenin-
gen Academic Publishers, The Netherlands, pp. 261–280.
Gustin, P., Urbain, B., Prouvost, J.F. & Ansay, M. (1994) Effects of atmospheric ammonia on pulmonary
hemodynamics and vascular permeability in pigs: interaction with endotoxins. Toxicology and Applied
Pharmacology, 125(1), 17–26.
Hamilton, T.D.C., Roe, J.M. & Webster, A.J.F. (1996) Synergistic role of gaseous ammonia in the aetiology
of Pasteurella multocida-induced atrophic rhinitis in swine. American Journal of Clinical Microbiology,
34, 2185–2190.
Hartung, J. (2002) Effects of bioaerosol related particulate matter on animal health. Proceedings PM in and
from Agriculture, 3–4 June 2002, Braunschweig, Germany. pp. 119–123.
Heber, A.J., Stroik, M., Faubion, J.M. & Willard, L.H. (1988a) Size distribution and identification of aerial
dust particles in swine finishing buildings. Transactions of the ASAE, 31(3), 882–887.
ISO (1995) Air quality - Particle size fraction definitions for health-related sampling. ISO Standard 7708.
International Organization for Standardization (ISO), Geneva.
Jafek, B.W., Hartman, D., Eller, P.M., Johnson, E.W., Strahan, R.C. & Moran, D.T. (1990) Postviral olfactory
VetBooks.ir
dysfunction. The American Journal of Rhinology, 4, 91–100.

Jones, J.B., Wathes, C.M., Persaud, K.C., White, R.P. & Bryan Jones, R. (2001) Acute and chronic exposure
to ammonia and olfactory acuity for n-butanol in the pig. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 71, 13–28.
Kapsenberg, M.L. (2003) Dendritic-cell control of pathogen-driven T-cell polarization. Nature Reviews
Immunology, 3, 984–993.
Klems, J.P., Ross Pennington, M., Zordan,C.A., McFadden, L. & Johnston, M.V. (2011) Apportionment of
motor vehicle emissions from fast changes in number concentration and chemical composition of ultra-
fine particles near a roadway intersection. Environmental Science & Technology, 45(13), 5637–5643.
Knibbs, L.D., Cole-Hunter, T. & Morawska, L. (2011) A review of commuter exposure to ultrafine particles
and its health effects. Atmospheric Environment, 45, 2611–2622.
Kovacs, F., Nagy, A. & Sallai, J.N. (1967) The effect of certain environmental factors on the health and pro-
duction of pigs 2: data on dust and living germ content as well as on the chemical contamination of the air
in pig houses of closed system. Hungarian Veterinary Journal, 22(11), 496–505.
Kreyling, W.G., Hirn, S. & Schleh, C. (2010) Nanoparticles in the lung. Nature Biotechnology, 28, 1275–1276.
Kulmala, M. & Laaksonen, A. (1990) Binary nucleation of water-sulfuric acid system: comparison of classi-
cal theories with different H2SO4 saturation vapour pressures. Journal of Chemical Physics, 93, 696–701.
Kulmala, M., Vehkamäki, H., Petaja, T., Dal Maso, M., Lauri, A., Kerminen, V.M., Birmili, W. & McMurry,
P.H. (2004) Formation and growth rates of ultrafine atmospheric particles: a review of observations.
Journal of Aerosol Science, 35, 143–176.
Kurahashi, T., Lowe, G. & Gold, G.H. (1994) Suppression of odourant responses by odorants in olfactory
receptor cells. Science, 265, 118–120.
Lai, H.T.L., Aarnink, A.J.A., Cambra-López, M., Huynh, T.T.T., Parmentier, H.K. & Groot Koerkamp, P.W.G.
(2012) Airborne particles in animal houses. ASABE Paper No. ILES121769. ASABE, St. Joseph, MI.
Laing, D.G. & Panhuber, H. (1978) Neural and behavioural changes in rats following continuous exposure
to an odour. Journal of Comparative Physiology A, 124(1978), 259–265.
Lippmann, M., Yeates, D.B. & Albert, R.E. (1980) Deposition, retention, and clearance of inhaled particles.
British Journal of Industrial Medicine, 37, 337–362.
Maghirang, R.G., Puma, M.C., Liu, Y. & Clark, P. (1997) Dust concentrations and particle size distribution
in an enclosed swine nursery. Transactions of the ASAE, 40, 749–754.
Malayer, J.R., Brandt, K.E., Green, M.L., Kelly, D.T., Sutton, A.L. & Diekman, M.A. (1988) Influence of
manure gases on the onset of puberty in replacement gilts. Animal Production, 46, 277–282.
Morisse, J.P. (1979) Action of an irritant (NH3) on the pathogeny of a respiratory disease induced experimen-
tally by Pasteurella multocida in the rabbit. Annales de Zootechnie, 28(1), 139–139.
Morrison, R.T. & Boyd, R.N. (1987) Organic Chemistry. Allyn & Bacon, London.
NIOSH (2002) Ammonia and ammonium chloride fume. NIOSH Pocket Guide to Chemical Hazards.
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. Available from: http://wysiwyg://92/www.cdc.
gov/niosh/npg/npg.html [accessed December 2017].
Oberdorster, G., Oberdorster, E. & Oberdorster, J. (2005) Nanotoxicology: an emerging discipline evolving
from studies of ultrafine particles. Environmental Health Perspectives, 113(7), 823–839.
Pain, B.F., Weerden, T.J., Chambers, B.J., Phillips, V.R. & Jarvis, S.C. (1998) A new inventory for ammonia
emissions from U.K. agriculture (Ammonia Special Issue). Atmospheric Environment, 32, 309–313.
Pandis, S. N., & Pilinis, C. (1995) In Situ Particle Formation/Reaction Mechanisms. Airborne Particulate
Matter. The Handbook of Environmental Chemistry, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. pp. 35–67.
Pennington, M.R., Bzdek, B.R., DePalma, J.W., Smith, J.N., Kortelainen, A.M., Hildebrandt Ruiz, L., Petäjä,
T., Kulmala, M., Worsnop, D.R. & Johnston, M.V. (2013) Identification and quantification of particle
growth channels during new particle formation. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 13, 10,215–10,225.
Pikridas, M., Riipinen, I., Hildebrandt, L., Kostenidou, E., Manninen, H., Mihalopoulos, N., Kalivitis, N.,
Bukhart, J.F., Stohl, A., Kulmala, M.N. & Pandis, S.N. (2012) New particle formation at a remote site in
the eastern Mediterranean. Journal of Geophysical Research, 117(D12205), 1–14.
Pope, C.A., Burnett, R.T., Thun, M.J., Calle, E.E., Krewski, D., Ito, K. & Thurston, G.D. (2002) Lung can-
cer, cardiopulmonary mortality, and long-term exposure to fine particulate air pollution. JAMA, 287(9),
1132–1141.
Radon, K.C., Weber, M., Iversen, B., Danuser, S., Pedersen, S. & Nowak, D. (2001) Exposure assessment
and lung function in pig and poultry farmers. Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 58(6), 405–410.
Risom, L., Lundby, C., Thomsen, J.J., Mikkelsen, L., Loft, S., Friis, G. & Moller, P. (2007) Acute hypoxia
and reoxygenation-induced DNA oxidation in human mononuclear blood cells. Mutation Research,
625(1–2), 125–133.
Rylander, R. (1986) Lung diseases caused by organic dusts in the farm environment. American Journal of
VetBooks.ir
Industrial Medicine, 10(3), 221–227.

Schwartz, J. & Dockery, D.W. (1992) Particulate air pollution and daily mortality in Steubenville, Ohio.
American Journal of Epidemiology, 135(1), 12–24.
Slotnick, B.M. & Gutman, L.A. (1977) Evaluation of intranasal zinc sulphate treatment on olfactory discrim-
ination in rats. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 91, 942–950.
Stark, K.D.C. (1977) The role of infectious aerosols in disease transmission in pigs. The Veterinary Journal,
158(3), 164–181.
Stombaugh, D.P., Teague, H.S. & Roller, W.L. (1969) Effects of atmospheric ammonia on pigs. Journal of
Animal Science, 28(1969), 844–847.
Thelin, A., Tegler, O. & Rylander, R. (1984) Lung reactions during poultry handling related to dust and bac-
terial endotoxin levels. European Journal of Respiratory Diseases, 65(4), 266–271.
Tucker, D. (1971) Nonolfactory responses from the nasal cavity. Jacobson’s organ and the trigeminal nerve.
In: Biedler, L.M. (ed) Handbook of Sensory Physiology IV, Chemical Senses Part I, Olfaction. Springer,
New York. pp. 151–181.
Wang, T., Moreno-Vinasco, L., Huang, Y., Lang, G.D., Linares, J.D. & Goonewardena, S.N. (2008) Murine
lung responses to ambient particulate matter: genomic analysis and influence on airway hyperresponsive-
ness. Environmental Health Perspectives, 116, 1500–1508.
Wang, X., Zhang, Y., Zhao, L.Y. & Riskowski, G.L. (2000) Effect of ventilation rate on dust spatial distribu-
tion in a mechanically ventilated airspace. Transactions of the ASAE, 43(6), 1877–1884.
Yiyi, Y., Jianwen, L., Mingcang, C., Lijuan, S. & Minbo, L. (2010) In vitro toxicity of silica nanoparticles in
myocardial cells. Environmental Toxicology and Pharmacology, 29, 131–137.
Zejda, J.E., Barber, E., Dosman, J.A., Olenchock, S.A., McDuffie, H.H., Rhodes, C. & Hurst, T. (1994)
Respiratory health status in swine producers relates to endotoxin exposure in the presence of low dust
levels. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 36(1), 49–56.
VetBooks.ir
VetBooks.ir
SECTION II
Measurement issues
VetBooks.ir
CHAPTER 5
VetBooks.ir
Gaseous emissions of bedded pack barns with wood chips

and compost as bedding material
Hendrik Jan van Dooren, Francis Sanderink, Annemieke Hol and Paul Galama
5.1 INTRODUCTION
The majority of Dutch dairy cows are currently housed in cubicle barns. Many studies have
shown that cubicle barns, although they provide animals with freedom to move, which is an
important improvement compared to tie stalls, also have considerable disadvantages with regard
to animal health and welfare (Klaas et al., 2010; Ouweltjes et al., 2003). The floors in cubicle
barns are often too hard, and the walking surface can be wet and slippery. This results in an
increased risk of claw problems and less ability to show oestrus behavior. The cubicles in older
barns are frequently too small for today’s cows, creating little lying comfort and making it diffi-
cult for cows to stand up and lie down in a normal way. In addition, the walkways are too small,
making it difficult for cows to avoid other cows that are more dominant.
In 2007, a group of Dutch dairy farmers started looking for a new type of housing in which
cows had a softer bed and walking surface and had more space to express their natural behavior.
The straw yard deep litter system has been used for many years already and has no lying and
walking restrictions like in a cubicle barn. However, this type of housing is not considered a
suitable alternative for dairy cows because of high risks of mastitis (Leso et al., 2013) and the
large amounts of straw used (Ouweltjes et al., 2003). Bedded pack barns, where bedding is culti-
vated daily to reduce the amount of bedding material required, have similar potential advantages
for lying comfort. Practical experience in Italy (Leso et al., 2013) has shown that udder health
improved compared to straw yards.
Bedded pack barns in The Netherlands can be divided into two groups. One group uses organic
material, mostly compost, as a bedding material. Urine is absorbed in the material, and feces are
mixed by daily tillage of the top layer with a cultivator or similar device. The other group also
uses organic material but with the aim to start a composting process in the bedding. This process
should produce enough heat to keep the top layer of the bedding dry. Wood chips are the most
used material, and urine is partially absorbed and partially evaporated. Feces are also mixed with
the litter but the tillage of the top layer also has the aim to aerate that layer and stimulate the
composting processes. In most cases, a tractor driven device is used, which has a more intensive
effect. Some farmers installed an additional aeration system at the bottom of the bedded pack.
Some use this to blow outside air upwards through the bedding material, while others use it as
a suction system to create a downwards airflow through the bedding and concentrate the air at a
single emission point. Temperatures in these composting bedded pack barns can rise to more than
60°C. Bedded pack barns can be distinguished from deep litter barns by the processing of the bed-
ding material (tillage and aeration) and a higher available area per cow in the bedded pack barns.
In a study by Galama et al. (2015), the impact of bedded pack barns on farm economy, animal
health and welfare, milk quality and environment was reported. One of the aspects of the envi-
ronmental impact of bedded pack barns is the gaseous emissions of C- and N-compounds. These
63
64 Hendrik Jan van Dooren et al.
can emit in different forms, depending on the processes that take place and circumstances that
VetBooks.ir
occur. Most important gases with environmental impact are ammonia (NH3), which leads to acid-
ification and eutrophication, and nitrous oxide (N2O), carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4),
which are greenhouse gases. In addition, N2 might be emitted, but it has no negative impact on
the environment and only represents a loss of valuable nitrogen.
Because a bedded pack barn has a higher available area per cow, the area of dirty and emitting
surface is higher compared to a cubicle system with concrete slatted floor (reference housing
system) and concequently the total emissions. However, gaseous emissions of bedded pack barns
have not been measured extensively before. Emissions of deep litter systems for cows and pigs
and other type of litter-based systems for dairy and beef cows have been researched. In addition,
emissions during composting are reported frequently. The combination of composting processes
with a constant input of feces and urine from the cows walking and lying in these bedded pack
barns and a frequent tillage of the upper layer, sometimes combined with an aeration system,
probably influence nutrient losses through gaseous emissions, requiring an assessment of these
types of barns. The aim of this research was to measure the gaseous emissions of different types
of bedded pack barns and compare these with each other and with known emissions from a ref-
erence barn.
5.2 MATERIALS AND METHODS
To measure the gaseous emissions, two methods were used: flux chamber measurements and
barn measurements. Flux chamber measurements were used to measure the local emissions of
different bedded pack barns and compare them with each other and a known reference (a concrete
slatted floor). Gaseous emissions from the bedding were measured at nine different bedded pack
barns in The Netherlands. Of these nine farms, the total barn emission was measured at three
farms to get insight in the absolute emission on barn level.
5.2.1 Farms
The characteristics of the measured farms and bedding types are summarized in Table 5.1. The
numbering of these farms in Table 5.1 is used throughout the report. The numbers 1 to 5 represent
beddings consisting of wood chips. The wood chips are composted in the barn and the heat of the
composting process helps to evaporate moisture and keeps the top layer dry. Two of these five
wood chips farms control the composting process by blowing air and two others by sucking air
through the bedding. One farm does not use an aerating system. However, as on the other farms
the top layer of the bedded pack is tilled daily, which also results in insertion of oxygen in the
bedding and mixing of the manure with the bedding material. The numbers 6 to 9 are beddings
Table 5.1. Summary of important farm characteristics.

Lying area Walking area
Farm number Material Aeration (m2 cow–1) Material (m2 cow–1)
1 Wood chips (WC) Blowing 12.5 Concrete slats 5.0

2 Wood chips (WC) Blowing 15.0 Concrete slats 4.0
3 Wood chips (WC) Sucking 15.0 Concrete slats 4.0
4 Wood chips (WC) Sucking 16.0 Solid asphalt 3.0
5 Wood chips (WC) No 8.5 Concrete slats 1.5
6 Compost (C) No 18.0 Concrete slats 4.0
7 Compost (C) No 22.0 None 0.0
Emissions from bedded pack barns 65
consisting of green waste compost. The top layer is dried by absorption of moisture by the green
VetBooks.ir
waste compost. The top layer of these bedded packs is also tilled daily.
5.2.2 Flux chamber measurements

The flux chamber used had a square measuring area of 1.21 m2 and a cross-sectional height of
0.4 m, resulting in a cross-sectional area of 0.44 m2 (Figs. 5.1 and 5.2). On both sides of the flux
chamber, a triangle shaped duct was mounted to guide the air over the measuring area. Air was
coming in and going out through a round flexible tube with a diameter of 0.35 m (VP-super, Pan-
flex, Ede). A ventilator (Fancom FMS 35) with a ventilation control unit (Fancom FCTA) was
used to pull the air through the flux chamber and over the measuring area. The ventilator had a
maximum capacity of 3000 m3 h–1. The ventilation rate was set at a constant value of 30% of the
maximum capacity resulting in an average air velocity across the emitting surface of 0.57 m s−1.
The flux chamber was used as an open flux chamber to measure ammonia fluxes. The ventila-
tor created a constant airflow through the flux chamber. Incoming air was taken from above the
bedding at a distance of around 5 m from the flux chamber. The exhaust point of the outgoing
air was also around 5 m away at the other side of the flux chamber. The ventilation rate was
measured using a fan wheel anemometer placed before the ventilator in the outgoing airflow.
Both incoming and outgoing air were sampled using a PE sampling line. The concentration of
ammonia in incoming and outgoing air was measured during 30 minutes using two photo-acous-
tic multi-gas monitors (Innova 1312). During the last 15 minutes, the concentration of ammonia
of both incoming and outgoing air was also measured by leading an air sample with a restricted
flow of around 1000 mL min–1 through two glass impingers placed in serial and both put in 100
ml of 0.5 M sulfuric acid. The ammonia emission in mg m2 h–1 is calculated by multiplying the
difference of average ammonia concentration in the last 15 min between ingoing and outgoing air
according to Mosquera et al. (2010a).
The flux chamber was used as a closed flux chamber to measure fluxes of methane (CH4),
nitrous oxide (N2O) and carbon dioxide (CO2). To close the flux chamber, both ends of the flex-
ible tubes were connected. The ventilator created a constant airflow through the flux chamber.
Two photo-acoustic multi-gas monitors (Innova 1312) were used to measure the concentrations
of CH4, N2O and CO2 using filters UA0987, UA0985, and UA0983 respectively. As the filter used
to measure the N2O is also sensitive to CO2, (influencing the N2O reading) for one photo-acoustic
multi-gas monitor the CO2 was filtered from the sampled air using soda lime in granular form.
Emissions were calculated using the method described by Mosquera et al. (2010a).
In addition to the emission per m2 from available bedding, the results are also presented related
to the emission from a reference floor and as emission per cow for the complete housing system,
as related to the reference housing system.
The reference floor is defined as a concrete slatted floor with slurry storage in a pit underneath
the floor, which is the most common floor system in Dutch housing for dairy cattle. An average
emission based on flux chamber measurements was reported earlier by Dooren et al. (2012),
based on several measurements. This average emission of 1200 mg NH3 m−2 h−1 is used as refer-
ence for the measured emissions from the different bedding materials.
The most common housing system for dairy cattle in The Netherlands is a system with cubicles
combined with a concrete slatted floor with pits for slurry storage. Based on the average emission
from the concrete slatted floor (1200 mg NH3 m–2 h–1) and assuming that the emitting area is 4 m2
per cow, the calculated emission per cow of this system can be compared with the emission per
cow from the compost bedded pack system. Only farm 4 used a solid floor with another material
than a concrete slatted floor. This floor was separately measured using the flux chamber.
Comparison with the official emission factor published in the Regeling ammoniak en veehoud-
erij (Rav) is not possible because flux chamber measurements are not suitable to determine an
emission factor for a housing system. Measurement methods differ, and the circumstances during
the flux chamber measurement are static and do not represent the dynamic circumstances that
occur in the barn over longer times.
VetBooks.ir
Figure 5.1. Flux chamber in bedded pack barn.
Figure 5.2. Overview of flux chamber.
5.2.3 Barn measurements
To gain insight into the absolute emission levels of three of the bedded pack barns, the emissions
were also measured at the barn level. For two barns (farm 1 and 8), the emission were measured
using SF6 and naturally produced CO2 as tracer gases. For the third barn (farm 9), only CO2 was
used as a tracer. In addition to emissions of ammonia, the emissions of greenhouse gases (N2O
and CH4) were measured at farm 1 and 8.
The tracer gas SF6 was injected at a constant and known rate through 10 points that were
VetBooks.ir
evenly divided over two injection lines, one at the air inlet just above the bedding and one in the
middle of the barn at a height of around 2 m above the feeding rack. The airflow of each injection
point was restricted to guarantee an even distribution of the tracer gas over the whole length of
the barn.
The concentration of SF6 in outgoing air was measured at 10 points that were evenly divided
over two sampling lines, one at the ridge and one at the sidewall acting as an outlet. The concen-
trations in the incoming air were measured using a same type sampling line with five sampling
points outside the barn at the sidewall acting as air inlet. The airflow of each sampling point was
restricted to guarantee an even distribution of the sampled air over the whole length of the barn.
Tracer gas (SF6) concentrations of incomming and outgoing air were determined using a gas
chromatograph (Compact GC, Interscience).
The concentrations of CO2 and NH3 were continuously measured over the whole length of the
barn at the sidewall acting as an air outlet using an open path laser for each gas (GasFinderFC, Boreal
Laser Inc.) and semi-continuously through sampling lines with five sampling points in the ridge and
the sidewall acting as an air inlet using two photo-acoustic multi-gas monitors (Innova 1312). At
single points at 1/3 and 2/3 of the length of the barn in ridge and outlet and at 1/2 of the length of
the barn at inlet, the ammonia concentration was measured as a 24-hour average using impingers.
The concentrations of N2O, CH4, CO2 and SF6 were (also) measured in five 24-hour samples
using the lung method described by Mosquera et al. (2002). Samples were taken at the same
points as the 24-hour ammonia samples and then analyzed in the lab using a GC (GC8000,
Interscience). An overview of all methods and the locations of gas measurements used is given
in Figure 5.3 and Table 5.2.
Figure 5.3. Schematic layout of sampling points at naturally ventilated bedded pack barns.
Table 5.2. Overview of methods and locations of gas measurements in naturally ventilated bedded pack
VetBooks.ir
barns.
Gas Inlet side wall Outlet ridge Outlet side wall
NH3 Sampling line (Innova) Sampling line (Innova) Laser

Impingers at 1/2 Impingers at 1/3 and 2/3 Impingers at 1/3 and 2/3
CO2 Sampling line (Innova) Sampling line (Innova) Laser
Lung method at 1/2 Lung method at 1/3 and 2/3 Lung method at 1/3 and 2/3
CH4/N2O Lung method at 1/2 Lung method at 1/3 and 2/3 Lung method at 1/3 and 2/3
SF6 Sampling line (GC) Sampling line (GC) Sampling line (GC)
Lung method at 1/2 Lung method at 1/3 and 2/3 Lung method at 1/3 and 2/3
At the third farm (9), only CO2 was used as a tracer to calculate the ventilation rate. This
method uses the measured CO2 concentration of incoming and outgoing air, together with the
calculated and measured CO2 production in the barn. The CO2 production from the animals was
calculated using the CIGR rules (CIGR, 2002 and Pedersen et al., 2008). As the possible CO2 pro-
duction in the compost bedding can be considerable, its contribution to the total CO2 production
cannot be ignored. Therefore, the CO2 production of the bedding was measured using the closed
flux chamber method described in section 5.2.2. This provided a CO2 production per m2 of bed-
ding area that was added to the production per cow. The CO2 concentration in the flux chamber
was measured every 5 min for at least 15 min using a photo-acoustic multi-gas monitor (Innova
1312). The average CO2 emission from the bedding was based on at least 20 measurements on the
day after the barn measurements took place using the calculated ammonia emission according to
Mosquera et al. (2010a) and converted to emission per animal using the available bedding area
per cow from Table 5.1. The ventilation rate (m3 per day) was calculated according to Ogink et
al. (2013). This method was also been applied to farms 1 and 8 using the CO2 emission from the
bedding measured with the flux chamber method described in section 5.2.2.
5.3 RESULTS
5.3.1 General
The flux chamber measurements took place on nine farms during 21 days between March 2011
and November 2013. In total, 92 spots were measured.
The barn measurements took place on three farms (1, 8 and 9) during 6 days between July 2012
and November 2013.

5.3.2.1 Ammonia
The emissions in mg NH3 m–2 h–1 from the bedding are presented in Table 5.3.
To compare the emission from the bedded pack barns with the reference cubicle system with
concrete slatted floor, the results in Table 5.3 were converted to emission per animal using the
available lying area per animal from Table 5.1. This emission was added to the emission per
animal from the concrete slatted walking floor (when available) using the 1200 mg NH3 m−2 h−1
rate measured earlier (Dooren et al., 2012) and the available walking area from Table 5.1. Farm
4 has, instead of the concrete slatted floor, a solid floor with a measured emission of 473 mg NH3
m−2 h−1. The relative emission per animal from the bedded pack barn compared with the emission
from the reference system both based on flux chamber measurements is given in Figure 5.4.
5.3.2.2 Greenhouse gases
The results of the N2O and CH4 emission are presented in Table 5.4.
Table 5.3. Results of NH3 emission from bedding.
VetBooks.ir
Farm n1) NH3 emission (Innova) SE2) NH3 emission (impingers) SE2)
(mg m−2 h−1) (mg m−2 h−1)
1 16 190.4 42.9 154.2 83.8

2 9 177.6 26.6 163.8 38.4
3 9 216.2 33.1 207.6 39.7
4 16 358.4 76.9 346.5 65.7
5 7 246.7 18.1 59.6 28.0
6 10 512.9 88.1 356.2 105.7
7 10 593.6 151.1 837.8 152.7
8 5 70.5 23.1 319.1 80.1
9 10 119.2 38.3 123.2 63.2
1)
Number of measurements; 2) standard error.
Figure 5.4. Relative emission per animal from bedded pack barns based on flux chamber measurements
and compared to the reference system (cubicle system with concrete slatted floor = 100%)
(WC = wood chips; C = compost).
Table 5.4. Results of the N2O and CH4 emission from the bedding.
Farm n N2O emission SE n CH4 emission SE
(mg m−2 h−1) (mg m−2 h−1)
1 13 7.3 1.9 13 82.1 32.5

2 4 8.3 3.6 4 37.7 13.9
3 6 25.4 9.2 4 242.8 66.3
4 7 23.6 5.9 6 162.3 78.2
5 2 29.6 28.1 5 147.3 55.4
6 7 27.5 7.0 2 6.1 4.3
7 1 1.4 - 4 161.0 56.5
8 5 22.1 7.2 5 1795.9 472.8
9 8 5.2 1.9 2 34.8 32.9
VetBooks.ir
Measurement 1 Measurement 2 Average

60.0
50.0
(Kg NH3.animal–1.year–1)
50.0
Ammonia emission
42.4
40.0
34.8
30.0
20.6
20.0 16.5
12.3 14.0
7.5 10.8
10.0
0.0
1 (WC) 8 (C) 9 (C)
Farm
Figure 5.5. Absolute ammonia emission based on barn level measurement of farms 1, 8 and 9. Emission
calculated with SF6 (farms 1 and 8) and CO2 (farm 9) as tracers (WC = wood chips; C = compost).
Table 5.5. Results of NH3, N2O and CH4 emission.

Farm NH3 emission SE N2O emission SE CH4 emission SE
(kg animal−1 y−1) (kg animal−1 y−1) (kg animal−1 y−1)
1 16.5 4.2 2.7 0.6 55.2 2.6

8 42.4 7.6 2.6 2.2 102.1 15.8
9 10.8 2.6
The ammonia emission measured on barn level in three farms (1, 8 and 9) is presented in Fig-
ure 5.5. As described in section 5.2.3, the ventilation rate of farms 1 and 8 was measured using
SF6 as a tracer gas. For farm 9, CO2 produced by animals and bedding was used as a tracer gas.
Table 5.5 gives the results of nitrous oxide and methane emissions.
5.4 DISCUSSION
All farms have changed bedding management with growing knowledge and experience.

Averaged over all farms, the ammonia concentration measured with the multi-gas monitor or with
impingers did not differ significantly.
5.4.1.1 Effect of bedding material

Averaged per type of bedding material (see Table 5.6), the emission per m2 from the wood chip
bedding was lower than the emission from the compost bedding, but not significantly (p = 0.26).
Both differed significantly from the emission per m2 of the reference (1200 mg NH3 per m2 per
h) (pwc = <0.001; pc = 0.04).
The relative emission per animal based on flux chamber measurements of the wood chips bed-
ding was significantly lower than of the compost bedding (p = 0.03).
The relative ammonia emission of wood chips did not differ significantly from the emission
VetBooks.ir
of the reference system (= 100%). The relative emission of compost was significantly higher
(p = 0.03) than the emission from the reference system.
The ammonia emissions per m2 of bedding did not differ significantly between compost and
wood chips and were both significantly lower than the emission per m2 from the reference system.
The relative emissions of all materials were higher than the reference. This means that both the
m2 per cow and the emission from the (concrete) walking area have an important role in the total
emission from the barn (based on flux chamber measurements). To reduce ammonia emissions
from a bedded pack barn, one can therefor either try to influence the emission from the bedding
or from the (concrete) walking area.
5.4.1.2 Nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions

Nitrous oxide is a strong greenhouse gas (298 times stronger than CO2) that can be formed during
biological processes in the bedding, especially when both aerobic and anaerobic circumstances
are available. Ammonia is transformed to nitrogen gas (N2) in two processes called nitrification
and denitrification. N2O is an intermediate product that can be emitted. Temperature, pH and
oxygen availability also play an important role in these processes. The emission of nitrous oxide
(laughing gas) from a cubicle system with concrete slatted floor and pits for slurry storage has not
been measured before using a flux chamber. Mosquera and Hol (2012) calculated the emission
factors for this reference system to be 0.23 kg N2O per animal per year. Compared with this fac-
tor, the relative emission from the different farms is given in Table 5.7. The farms produced more
N2O than the reference system, up to almost 10 times more.
5.4.1.3 Methane (CH4) emissions

Methane is a strong greenhouse gas (25 times stronger than CO2). It can be formed during bio-
logical processes in the bedding under anaerobic circumstances. It is produced in several steps
from volatile solids available in the bedding or slurry. The intermediate products are volatile
fatty acids, and they can be formed and emitted during the complex process. Temperature, pH
and oxygen availability also play important roles. However, a more important source of methane
is the enteric processes in the rumen of cattle. Roughly 75% of the total methane emission from
a dairy barn comes from the rumen. The emission of methane from a cubicle system with con-
crete slatted floor and pits for slurry storage has not been measured before using a flux chamber.
Table 5.6. Ammonia emission from the bedding per type of bedding material based on innova measurements.
Bedding Number of Bedding area NH3 emission SE NH3 emission SE
material farms (m2 cow−1) (mg m−2 h−1) (%)
Wood chips 5 13.4 237.9a) 32.4 145.6a) 17

Compost 4 17.9 324.1a) 133.7 227.0a) 33
Total 9 15.4 276.2 15.4 181.8 22
Averages in a column with a superscript letter differ significantly (p = 0.05).

a)
Table 5.7. N2O and CH4 emissions.

Bedding Number of N2O emission SE Relative N2O CH4 emission SE Relative CH4
material farms (mg m−2 h−1) emission (mg m−2 h−1) emission
Wood chips 5 18.8 4.6 984% 134.4 35.2 61%

Compost 4 14.0 6.4 859% 499.5 433.4 83%
Total 9 16.7 3.7 296.7 189.1
Mosquera and Hol (2012) calculated emission factors for this reference system. This emission
VetBooks.ir
factor is 141.7 kg CH4 per animal per year. Compared with this factor, the relative emission from
the different farms is given in Table 5.7. All farms produced less CH4 than the reference, except
for farm 8, which produced around five times more than the other farms. When averaged over all
bedding materials, compost had three times higher emissions than wood chips. These results only
reflect the emission from the bedding and slurry storage. In all cases, the methane from enteric
fermentation should be added to obtain a comparable emission factor per animal per year.
5.4.2.1 Ammonia emissions
The results of barn measurements of ammonia emission from wood chips at farm 1 and compost
at farm 8 were similar to the results of the flux chamber measurements. The ammonia emission
from compost was higher than that from wood chips, and both were higher than the emissions
from of the reference barn (13 kg NH3 per animal place per year). The ammonia emission of farm
9 with compost was considerably lower than the ammonia emission of farm 8 with compost, and
it was even lower than the ammonia emission of farm 1 with wood chips. A possible reason for
this lower ammonia emission at farm 9 is the fact that only low-producing cows with an aver-
age milk urea (15 mg per 100 mg milk) on days of measurement were housed on the bedding.
Another reason for the differences could be that two methods for ventilation calculations that
were used.
The measurements at farm 9 were based on the use of carbon dioxide as tracer. The contribu-
tion of the bedding to the total CO2 production was considerable (9.2 and 5.3 g CO2 per m2 per h
for measurements 1 and 2, respectively). Expressed as production per cow, it was 1.1 and 0.5 m3
CO2 per h, that is, 32% and 21% of the total CO2 production from cows and bedding during that
measurement. This production was measured one day after the emission measurement of the
barn. When the CO2 production from the bedding of farms 1 and 8 was measured with the flux
chamber measurements, the total production was 3.0 and 2.8 m3 CO2 per h for farms 1 and 8,
respectively. Considering the total CO2 production of cows and bedding, this value was 13% for
farm 1 and 10% for farm 8. These measurement of the CO2 production from the bedding had,
however, no close relationship in time with the emission measurements at the barn level and are
based on five to six places, where the results of the dedicated CO2 measurements are based on 23
measurements. The estimation of the CO2 production from the bedding is, therefore, more accu-
rate at farm 9 than at farms 1 and 8. When the ammonia emissions of farm 1 and 8 were calculated
using CO2 as a tracer gas the ammonia emission of both farm 1 and 8 was lower than those when
using SF6 as a tracer (compare Fig. 5.6 with Fig. 5.5).
5.4.2.2 Greenhouse gas emissions

Mosquera et al. (2010b) reports an emission of methane emission of 141.7 kg CH4 per animal
place per year (zero grazing) and a nitrous oxide (N2O) emission of 0.23 kg N2O per animal place
per year. Measured methane emission for wood chips (farm 1) and compost (farm 8) were con-
siderably lower than what would be expected (55.2 and 102.1 kg CH4 per animal per year, respec-
tively). Unless large amounts of methane are oxidized, including part of the enteric produced
methane, which is not very likely, the measured values should be considered to be inaccurate.
The emission of nitrous oxide was 11 to 12 times higher than from the reference system and
did not differ much between farms 8 (compost) and farm 1 (wood chips), although the variation
between the measurements was higher at farm 8. This was not surprising, as the emission of
nitrous oxide is related to nitrification and denitrification processes that take place in both aerobic
and anaerobic circumstances. Due to more porous bedding compared to liquid storage of slurry,
the aeration at farm 1 and the frequent tillage of the bedding in both farm 1 and farm 8, it is likely
that nitrification and denitrification can occur in the bedding, although not constant in time and
throughout the bedding (Fig. 5.7).
VetBooks.ir
27.9
30.0
23.8
(kg NH3.animal–1.year–1)
25.0
Ammonia emission
19.6
20.0
14.0
15.0
9.6 10.8
10.0 8.0
6.5 7.5
5.0
0.0
1 (WC) 8 (C) 9 (C)
Farm
Figure 5.6. Absolute ammonia emission based on barn level measurements of farms 1, 8 and 9. Emissions
calculated with CO2 as a tracers (WC = wood chips; C = compost).
6.0
4.8
kg N2O.animal–1.year–1)
5.0
4.0
3.4
2.7 2.6
3.0
2.1
2.0
1.0
0.5
0.0
1 (WC) 8 (C)
Farm
Figure 5.7. Absolute nitrous oxide emission based on barn level measurements of farms 1 and 8 using SF6
as tracer.
5.4.2.3 Nitrogen loss
The emission of ammonia and nitrous oxide can both be expressed as loss of nitrogen. Based on
the two emission measurements on both farms, Table 5.8 summarizes the nitrogen loss through
emission of ammonia and nitrous oxide and compares these figures with the losses from a refer-
ence system.
The total loss of nitrogen for both compost and wood chips is higher than in the reference sys-
tem, and the loss of nitrogen from compost is more than twice as high as the nitrogen loss from
the wood chips. The relative loss of nitrogen through nitrous oxide emission is higher for the
wooden chips farm. This could be explained by the nature of the bedding, where composting is
a deliberate purpose to evaporate moisture from urine and manure. The changes of nitrous oxide
production and emission are more favorable than in the compost bedding.
It should be emphasized that the emission results are only based on two measurements per farm.
Table 5.8. Losses of NH3-N and N2O-N emission of farm 1 and 8.

VetBooks.ir
Farm NH3-N % of total per N2O-N % of total per Total-N % of reference

(kg animal−1 y−1) farm (kg animal−1 y−1) farm (kg animal−1 y−1)
1 13.6 89% 1.7 11% 15.3 166%

8 34.9 95% 1.7 5% 36.6 397%
Ref. 9.1 98% 0.1 2% 9.2 100%
5.5 CONCLUSIONS

• The ammonia emission per m2 bedding area available for cows based on flux chamber mea-
surements from wood chips bedding was 238 mg NH3 per m2 per h, and that from compost
bedding was 324 mg NH3 per m2 per h, but they did not differ significantly.
• For both wood chips and compost bedding, the emission per m2 per h was lower than the emis-
sion of ammonia from a reference system.
• The higher available area per cow leads to a higher ammonia emission per cow from farms
using wood chips and compost: 146% and 227%, respectively, compared to the reference sys-
tem (= 100%).
• The nitrous oxide emissions were eight to nine times higher than the reference system.
• The methane emissions were considerably lower than what could be expected from the refer-
ence system.
• The average ammonia emission from the farm using wood chips as the bedding material (farm
1) was 16.5 kg NH3 per animal per year when SF6 was used as a tracer gas.
• The average ammonia emissions from farms using compost as the bedding material was 8.9
(farm 9) and 42.4 (farm 8) kg NH3 per animal per year using CO2 and SF6 as a tracer gases,
respectively.
• The emissions of nitrous oxide from farm 1 (wood chips) and farm 8 (compost) were 2.7 and
2.6 kg N2O per animal per year, which was more than 10 times higher than emission from the
reference system (0.23 kg N2O per animal per year).
• The loss of nitrogen through the emission of ammonia and nitrous oxide was more than two
times higher for farm 8 (compost) compared to farm 1 (wood chips) and ranged from 166% to
397% of the emission from the reference system for farms 1 and 8, respectively.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We hereby acknowledge the cooperation of the farmers and the work done by Klaas Blanken.
REFERENCES
CIGR (2002) 4th Report of Working Group on Climatization of Animal Houses. Heat and Moisture Produc-
tion at Animal and House Levels. Pedersen, S. & Sällvik, K. (eds) International Commission of Agricul-
tural and Biosystems Engineering (CIGR), Danish Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Horsens, Denmark.
Dooren, H.J.C. van, Galama, P.J., Smits, M.C.J., Ouweltjes, W., Driehuis. F. & Bokma, S. (2012) Bodems
voor vrijloopstallen. Onderzoek en ervaringen op proef- en praktijkbedrijven [Bedding materials in
loose-housing stystems for dairy cattle], Rapport 411, Wageningen UR Livestock Research, Lelystad.
Galama, P.J., Boer, H.C., de, Dooren, H.J.C., van, Ouweltjes, W. & Driehuis, F. (2015) Sustainability aspects
of ten bedded pack dairy barns in The Netherlands. Report 873, Wageningen UR Livestock Research,
Wageningen.
Klaas, I.C., Bjerg, B.S., Friedmann, S. & Bar, D. (2010) Cultivated barns for dairy cows: an option to pro-
VetBooks.ir
mote cattle welfare and environmental protection in Denmark? Dansk Veterinærtidsskrift, 93(9), 20–29.
Leso, L., Uberti, M., Morshed, W. & Barbari, M. (2013) A survey of Italian compost dairy barns. Journal of
Agricultural Engineering, 44(3), 120–124.
Mosquera, J. & Hol, J.M.G. (2012) Emissiefactoren methaan, lachgas en PM2.5 voor stalsystemen, inclusief
toelichting (Emission factors for methane, nitrous oxide and PM2.5 for livestock housing, including
explanation). Rapport 496, Wageningen UR Livestock Research, Lelystad.
Mosquera, J., Hofschreuder, P., Erisman, J.W., Mulder, E., Klooster, C.E., van ‘t, Ogink, N.W.M., Swierstra,
D. & Verdoes, N. (2002) Meetmethoden gasvormige emissies uit de veehouderij [Measuring methods of
gaseous emissions from livestock farming]. Rapport 2002–12, IMAG, Wageningen.
Mosquera, J., Kasper, G.J., Blanken, K., Dousma, F. & Aarnink, A.J.A. (2010a) Ontwikkeling snelle meet-
methode ter bepaling van ammoniakemissiereductie van vloergebonden maatregelen [Development of a
fast measurement method for the determination of ammonia emission reduction from floor related mea-
sures]. Rapport 291, Wageningen UR Livestock Research, Lelystad.
Mosquera, J., Hol, J.M.G., Winkel, A., Huis in ‘t Veld, J.W.H., Gerrits, F.A., Ogink, N.W.M. & Aarnink,
A.J.A. (2010b) Fijnstofemissie uit stallen: Melkvee [Dust emission from animal houses: dairy cattle].
Rapport 296, Wageningen UR Livestock Research, Lelystad.
Ogink, N.W.M., Mosquera, J., Calvet, S. & Zhang, G. (2013) Methods for measuring gas emissions from
naturally ventilated livestock buildings: developments over the last decade and perspectives for improve-
ment. Biosystems Engineering, 116(3), 297–308.
Ouweltjes, W., Dooren, H.J.C. van, Ruis-Heutinck, L.F.M., Dijk, G.J. & Meijering, A. (2003) Housing of
dairy cattle: Bottlenecks from an animal welfare point of view. Praktijk Rapport Rundvee 21, Prakti-
jkonderzoek Veehouderij Wageningen UR, Lelystad.
Pedersen, S., Blanes-Vidal, V., Heetkamp, M.J.W. & Aarnink, A.J.A. (2008) Carbon dioxide production in
animal houses: a literature review. Agricultural Engineering International: CIGR Journal. Manuscript
BC 08 008.
VetBooks.ir
CHAPTER 6
VetBooks.ir
easonal variability of the PM and ammonia concentrations

S
in uninsulated loose-housing cowshed
Marek Maasikmets, Erik Teinemaa, Allan Kaasik and Veljo Kimmel
6.1 INTRODUCTION
Air pollution is part of the impact that agricultural activity has on the environment. The large
number of animals raised in concentrated animal feeding operations can affect air quality by
emissions of odor, volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and other gases, and particulate matter
(PM) (NRCNA, 2003). Livestock production is a major contributor to ammonia emissions (Groot
Koerkamp et al., 1998; Steinfeld et al., 2006). Ammonia released from near-surface sources into
the atmosphere generally has a relatively short lifetime of 1–5 days and may deposit near the
source through dry or wet deposition processes. However, ammonia can also participate in atmo-
spheric reactions (e.g., gas-to-particle conversion) once airborne, forming ammonium aerosols
such as ammonium sulfate, ammonium nitrate and ammonium chloride, which tend to have lon-
ger atmospheric residence lifetimes (1–15 days) due to a decrease in dry deposition velocity
(Aneja et al., 2001) and may, therefore, be transported and deposited further downwind from
the source (Blunden et al., 2008). Gaseous ammonia emissions from livestock production are
deemed responsible for the acidification of several ecosystems and for the formation of secondary
particulate matter (PM2.5) (Bluteau et al., 2009). The presence of ammonium sulfate in the air
is an important mitigation impact for ammonia because particles can stay in the air for several
days and cause decrease visibility (USEPA, 2001). High concentrations of PM can threaten the
environment, as well as the health and welfare of humans and animals.
PM in livestock houses is mainly coarse, primary in origin and organic; it can adsorb and
contain gases, odorous compounds and microorganisms, which can enhance its biological effect
(Cambra-López et al., 2010). The air inside animal houses usually contains high levels of PM
(Takai et al., 1998). Emissions from pig and poultry houses represent around 30% and 55%,
respectively, agricultural PM emissions; the remainder is mainly produced by arable farming.
Livestock housing is estimated to produce between 9% and 35% of total emissions as PM10
(EEA, 2013).
Mechanical and natural ventilation systems are used in these houses to remove the heat, mois-
ture, ammonia and carbon dioxide produced by the animals. As a result, large quantities of PM
are released into the atmosphere (Winkel et al., 2015), which may have negative impacts on
human health, as shown in many other studies (Delfino et al., 2005; Orru et al., 2011; Pope and
Dockery, 2006; Pope et al., 2002). Fine particulates, especially very fine particulates (PM2.5 and
smaller), are particularly risky to human health, causing various respiratory and cardiovascular
diseases, even lung cancer (Delfino et al., 2005; Pope et al., 2002), but to date, the knowledge
about the specific impacts of the livestock PM on the people and animal health has been poorly
researched. Andersen et al. (2004) finds that the most relevant health hazards of PM inside live-
stock houses are related to respiratory diseases. Swine operation workers have a high prevalence
of wheezing and symptoms of chronic bronchitis and an acute decrease in the lung function (Cai
77
78 Marek Maasikmets et al.
et al., 2006). Wathes et al. (1983) found that for animals, PM of 5 µm was the critical size below
VetBooks.ir
which the lungs are penetrated and emphasized that the degree of hazard depends on the site of
deposition, retention time and the nature of the PM. Estimates of the health impacts attributable
to exposure to air pollution (including livestock farming) indicate that fine PM concentrations
in 2011 were responsible for about 458,000 premature deaths in Europe (over 40 countries),
and around 430,000 in the EU-28, originating from long-term exposure (European Environment
Agency, 2014).
PM is not a single pollutant but a mixture of many types of pollutants. A particle can be defined
as a small, discrete object and PM includes materials with particle-like properties. The term PM
is often used for air quality applications to refer to fine solid or liquid particles suspended in a
gaseous medium. This definition is also true for the term aerosol, although this term is more
commonly used in atmospheric science (Cambra-López et al., 2010). Relatively higher energy
processes, such as combustion, produce finer particles, while lower energy processes, for instance
crushing or grinding, produce coarser particles. PM from animal feeding operations (AFOs)
therefore includes both fine particles, from the engine exhaust of farm vehicles, and influences
from ambient air and coarse particles, from hoof action on dry manure and soil or feed grinding.
In contrast to PM in urban areas, however, coarse PM dominate AFO emissions because most are
generated by lower energy mechanical processes (Auvermann et al., 2006).
Evaluations of PM concentrations at AFOs, therefore, are important for assessing the quality
of air with respect to both human and animal health (Joo et al., 2013).
We have to distinguish primary and secondary PM emissions from livestock farming, because
the formation pathways and probably also the effects on human and animal health are different.
It is necessary on the one hand, to obtain data on three fundamental particle properties: parti-
cle morphology, primarily size and composition, to understand how PM is formed in livestock
houses (Cambra-López et al., 2010). The main source of primary PM emission is from livestock
housing buildings, although outdoor yard areas may also be significant sources. These emissions
originate mainly from feed, which accounts for 80% to 90% of total PM emissions. Bedding
materials such as straw, peat or wood shavings can also give rise to airborne particulates. Animal
activity may also lead to resuspension of previously settled dust into the atmosphere of the live-
stock building (re-entrainment) (EEA, 2013). PM from housed livestock contains a much greater
proportion of particles of biological origin and/or activity, usually referred to as bioaerosols,
compared with urban or industrial PM (Cox and Wathes, 1995). On the other hand, secondary
particles are fine, falling normally in the PM2.5 size range, and are generated from chemical
reactions between gases and particles in the atmosphere. Some particles in the PM2.5 size range,
however, can also be primary in origin, like particles emitted from combustion processes, rich
in elemental carbon. Secondary PM is rich in sulfates (SO42−), nitrates (NO3−), and ammonium
(NH+4 ). Gas-to-particle conversion processes can occur to form secondary inorganic particles
in the presence of certain precursor gases such as NH3, nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulfur diox-
ide (SO2), and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) (Cambra-López et al., 2010). For example,
NH3 can react at high relative humidity (RH) and low temperature with the nitric acid (HNO3)
and form particulate ammonium nitrate (NH4NO3), which is discussed in more detail by Gupta
et al. (2003). As NOx are present inside the cowshed due the influence of the vehicle emissions,
HNO3 can be formed; thus, secondary particles can be formed as well. NH4NO3 formation is a
reversible reaction, with an equilibrium constant dependent on temperature and relative humid-
ity. In the absence of sufficient ammonia to fully neutralize sulfate, the formation of particulate
ammonium nitrate is not favored. If excess ammonia is available, however, ammonium nitrate
can form. (Lee et al., 2004).
Although knowledge about PM source profiles and chemical compositions is essential for
source identification and the development of source-specific PM mitigation techniques, the
study of AFO PM source apportionment and chemical speciation is very much limited (Wang-Li,
2015). Chemical compositions of PM in animal houses varied with animal species, housing type,
and waste management systems (e.g., dry or wet systems, with or without bedding materials,
Seasonal variability of PM and ammonia 79
housecleaning methods). According to Aarnink et al. (1999), every kilogram of inhalable PM in

VetBooks.ir
swine houses contained 920 g of dry matter, 149.5 g ash, 67 g N, 14.7 g P, 27.8 g K, 7.8 g Cl, and
8.2 g Na; every kilogram of inhalable PM in broiler houses contained 911 g of dry matter, 97.4 g
ash, 169 g N, 6.4 g P, 40.3 g K, 4.2 g Cl, and 3.2 g Na. Cambra-López et al. (2011) used particle
morphological and chemical speciation data to identify and quantify the contributions of vari-
ous sources to primary PM2.5 and PMcoarse (i.e., PM10–2.5) in poultry and swine production
houses. They discovered that feather and manure are two major sources of PM in poultry houses,
and skin and manure are major sources of PM in swine houses. Contribution from feed to both
fine and coarse PM was insignificant.
PM emissions from livestock housings vary with the type of housing and livestock. To assess
the impact on PM levels and the contribution to secondary PM, suitable emission factors (EF) are
necessary to identify NH3 levels in a cowshed. The aim of the current study was to create EF and
an emission database for loose-housing uninsulated cowsheds, because this is the dominant type
of housing used nowadays in Europe.
Microclimate parameters (temperature, °C; relative humidity, %); carbon dioxide (CO2) and
ammonia (NH3) concentration, in ppm, as well as the fractional distribution of particulate matter
(PM) mass (µg m−3) and number (1 cm−3) concentrations (size classes with aerodynamic diam-
eters less than 10.00, 8.17, 5.18, 3.12, 1.97, 1.24, 0.77, 0.49, 0.32, 0.20, 0.12, 0.07, or 0.04 µm)
were measured in an uninsulated loose-housing cowshed in Märja, Estonia (Fig. 6.1). The CO2
concentration inside the cowshed was measured to estimate the ventilation rate (m3 h–1). Measure-
ment campaigns were carried out from 10 January 2010 until 12 February 2010 (represents winter
period); 18 March 2011 until 2 May 2011 (represents spring period); and 1 February 2013 until 27
Figure 6.1. Location of the Märja cowshed.

August 2013 (represents winter, spring and summer period). Those periods were chosen to gen-
VetBooks.ir
erate representative data for the cold and warm periods, as the concentrations of PM and NH3 can
vary depending on the seasonality. The total mixed ration (TMR) feeding technology was used on
the farm, and the manure scraper and milking robot were used for manure removal and milking,
respectively. During the measurements, the cowshed had 114 milking cows, which represented
114 livestock units (LU). The 1 min average concentrations for PM and CO2 and the 3 s average
concentrations for NH3 were measured continuously at 2.5-m above the floor inside the barn. An
electrical low-pressure impactor (ELPI, Dekati) with aa sampling rate of 29.25 L min–1 was used to
measure mass and number concentration of the PM fractions. For the PM mass calculations, the
particle average density of 1.68 g cm−3 was assumed, according to Cambra-López et al. (2011).
The particles are first charged to a known charge level in the corona charger. After charging, the
particles enter a cascade low-pressure impactor with electrically insulated collection stages. The
particles are collected in the different impactor stages depending on their aerodynamic diameter,
and the electric charge carried by particles into each impactor stage is measured in real time by
sensitive electrometers. This measured current signal is directly proportional to particle number
concentration and size, thus, the ELPI provides particle concentration and size distribution in real
time (ELPI, 2013). At the particle inlet, the Dekati Dryer DD-600, and for removing larger par-
ticles than 10 μm (aerodynamic size) DIGITEL Low Volume Inlet DPM1003 (1.8 m3 h−1), were
used. The Dekati Dryer DD-600 is a particle dryer designed to remove water in real time from
an aerosol sample in air quality measurements. Since most ambient air particles are hygroscopic,
they grow as the ambient humidity increases. Traditionally, this water has been removed from
the particle sample after gravimetric collection by equilibration or heating of the sample. Both of
these methods may also result in a loss of other volatile components from the sample, whereas
the Dekati Dryer only removes water. The operation of the Dekati Dryer is based on a co-polymer
Nafion tube for removing humidity from the sample (ELPI, 2013). For NH3, the Picarro G2103
(Picarro) analyzer was used, which uses the Wavelength-Scanned Cavity Ringdown Spectros-
copy (WS-CRDS), with the range from 1 ppb to 50 ppm, for NH3 detection. For the CO2 mea-
surements, the CARBOCAP GMT 222 (Vaisala Oy) with the infrared (IR) sensor was used,
with the range of 1 to 10,000 ppm. The temperature and relative humidity were determined at
1-min intervals with a HUMICAP HMT 130 data logger (Vaisala Oy). For data collection and
management, the Hydromet MAWS 110 (Vaisala Oy) system was used. The background ambient
air concentrations of PM10 and PM2.5 and the meteorological parameters were measured at the
Saarejärve (58°43′39.44″, 26°30′15.56″) rural ambient air monitoring station (about 33 km north
of the Märja cowshed), which is operated by the Estonian Environmental Research Centre. For
the ambient PM10 and PM2.5 measurements, BAM 1020 (Met One Instruments Inc.) was used,
which measures ambient particulate concentration using beta ray attenuation with 1 h resolution
from 1 μg m–3 to 1000 μg m–3.
From the measured CO2 concentration, the ventilation rate (V) was calculated. The CO2 bal-
ance equation is based on the conservation of mass in the building, under steady-state conditions.
The CO2 balance can be expressed by the following equation (Pedersen et al., 1998):
C
V= (6.1)
∆C × 10−6
where C is the carbon dioxide production (m3 h–1) and ΔC is the difference in carbon dioxide
content between indoor and outdoor air (ppm).
The ventilation rate was calculated from Equation (6.1) assuming a carbon dioxide produc-
tion per HPU (heat producing unit) of 0.185 m3 h–1 (Pedersen et al., 1998). The ventilation rate
was calculated for every 30-min data point, and the mean value with the standard deviation was
found. For the EF calculation, the following equation was used:
EF = V × ∆conc (6.2)
VetBooks.ir
Figure 6.2. PM ionic composition during different seasons.
where Δconc is the difference in measured concentration of pollutants (µg m−3) inside the barn
and in ambient air.
For the NH3 background concentration, the value from Maasikmets (2007) of 1.92 μg m–3 was
used, which was measured within 1 month during the summer period in the rural background
near Tartu.
Statistical variation between the data was analyzed by using the statistical software SPSS Sta-
tistics 17.0 (IBM SPSS Statistics), where the Bivariate Correlation procedure was used to calcu-
late Spearman Correlation Coefficient (Spearman’s rho ρ, nonparametric correlations algorithm).
As fresh air to the loose-housing cowshed is flowing through the openings and, therefore, the
ambient air levels influence the indoor air, it is always important to take into account the ambi-
ent air levels of PM and other pollutants, if indoor PM levels from the loose-housing cowshed
are measured. The Märja cowshed is situated approximately 5 km southwest of the town Tartu
(about 100,000 inhabitants). The main wind direction (blowing from) is southwest, south and
during winter, mainly east, northeast (Fig. 6.1). The wind direction analysis showed that high
concentrations of PM occurred mainly if the wind was blowing from east and northeast, which
shows that within some periods (mainly in winter during the heating season) the cowshed was
also influenced by the urban PM emissions. Episodes that were mainly caused by the high urban
PM levels were extracted from the dataset. For the PM background concentrations, the Saarejärve
monitoring station data was used, as the station is situated in the rural background area and the
measured PM levels are representative of the PM background levels in a larger area. The Saare-
järve background PM concentrations are comparable to other Estonian rural background sta-
tions like Vilsandi (58°22′34.34″, 21°50′40.69″) and Lahemaa (59°30′1.43″, 25°56′9.87″), which
confirms that those stations are mainly influenced by transboundary air pollution, as important
pollution sources near stations are absent. On average, around 88% of PM10 and 83% of PM2.5
VetBooks.ir
originates from the cowshed, and the rest is considered to be ambient background.
The measured concentrations and calculated EF are given in Table 6.1. The mean level of
NH3 for the whole period was 3042.98 ± 1433.93 µg m−3. Teye (2008) has found that NH3 levels
remained mostly below 7000 µg m−3 in Finnish and Estonian dairy buildings. In the Märja cow-
shed, the highest NH3 concentrations occurred during the winter period, when the concentrations
were in the range 4085.25 ± 1689.08 µg m−3. During winter period, the ventilation rate was the
lowest and this was the main reason for the high NH3 concentrations. During the winter period,
there was a significant correlation between measured NH3 and CO2 concentrations (ρ = 0.556**)
and between NH3 and RH (ρ = 0.199**). During the spring period, there was a significant cor-
relation between NH3 and PM2.5 (ρ = 0.563**), PM10 (ρ = 0.498**), and CO2 (ρ = 0.639**).
A similar tendency was also observed by Takai et al. (2002), Kaasik and Maasikmets (2013).
There was significant correlation between PM2.5 and PM10 and relative humidity (respectively,
ρ = 0.324**, ρ = 0.336**) and CO2 (respectively, ρ = 0.425**, ρ = 0.419**). This indicates that
the NH3 and PM concentrations are directly influenced by the ventilation rate. The temperature
during all campaigns was relatively stable, on average, 16.11°C ± 2.87, and during the win-
ter, the cowshed indoor temperature stayed around 10.10 ± 3.22°C, while ambient temperatures
averaged −4.68 ± 4.81°C. PM10 and PM2.5 mass concentrations were highest during the winter
period, where the ventilation rate was low. The measured mean PM2.5 mass concentrations are
comparable to values from Takai et al. (1998), where the PM2.5 concentrations in the range of
40 to 150 µg m−3 were measured. Mean PM10 mass concentrations are about six times lower
compared to Takai et al. (1998). The reasons for lower PM10 concentrations could be that a dif-
ferent measurement technique was used, especially the use of Dekati Dryer DD-600 before inlet,
which keeps the moisture in constant level. The background concentrations of PM and NH3 were
taken into account, which was not the case in the compared literature data. An important factor
influencing the results can also be that in the Märja cowshed, a minimal amount of bedding is
used. The measured PM10 and PM2.5 concentrations are generally comparable with Kaasik and
Maasikmets (2013), Schrade et al. (2014) and Winkel et al. (2015). According to Joo et al. (2013),
PM10 concentrations in the barns were lowest (22–29 μg m−3) in winter but averaged between 64
and 240 μg m−3 in the other seasons.
The mean PM2.5 and PM10 emissions (g LU−1 d−1) were 0.192 ± 0.33 and 0.359 ± 0.481,
respectively. PM emissions were higher during the winter period and lowest for PM2.5 during the
summer and for PM10 during the spring period. Schrade et al. (2014) observed PM10 emissions
in the range of 0.02 and 2.1 g LU−1 d−1, which is generally comparable to our results. During the
spring period, the highest PM2.5 and PM10 background values were observed, which is nor-
mal in Estonia because the heating season is still ongoing, and additionally after snow smelting
because PM emissions from resuspension are occurring.
The PM ionic composition from ELPI filters was analyzed (Fig. 6.1). PM levels in the cowshed
were more influenced during the winter and spring season by the other sources, like residential
wood combustion (elevated K+) and regional pollution (elevated SO2– 4
levels). Elevated NH4+ levels
during winter can be caused by the local farm itself or by regional pollution. The formation of par-
ticulate ammonium nitrate is not favored thermodynamically during warmer periods. During the
winter period, the ionic composition is the highest in the size range of 1 µm, while during the sum-
mer, the highest peak is around 0.5 µm. This indicates that during the winter period, particles inside
the cowshed are more aged, which is caused by the regional pollution or due to lower ventilation
rate, which causes the formation of larger particles due to longer residence time in the cowshed.
On average, the ventilation rate was 260.63 ± 12.12 m3 h−1 per LU, and the highest ventilation
rate occurred during the spring time. According to the survey of Seedorf et al. (1998) across
Northern Europe, the mean ventilation rate was 341 m3 h−1 for cattle, which is comparable to
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)

Table 6.1. Mean values with standard deviation (SD) for measured and calculated values.
VetBooks.ir
Winter, SD Spring, SD Summer, SD Mean SD

mean mean mean
CO2, mg m−3 3087.78 961.95 1797.08 529.52 1972.26 415.24 2285.71 635.56
RH % (indoor) 66.94 10.35 60.46 11.91 70.08 10.67 58.95 11.82
Temperature, °C 10.10 3.22 17.86 3.08 20.36 2.31 16.11 2.87
(indoor)
NH3, ug m−3 4085.25 1689.08 4008.23 2274.38 1035.44 338.33 3042.98 1433.93
PM2.5, µg m−3 94.62 157.81 15.55 32.29 14.8 22.63 41.66 70.91
PM10, µg m−3 129.91 169.22 23.03 41.47 59.22 69.68 70.72 93.46
PM2.5 background, % 8.73 5.65 24.02 14.41 17.18 10.31 16.64 10.13
PM10 background, % 7.6 5.12 22.01 13.2 6.17 3.7 11.92 7.34
Ventilation rate, m3 h−1 152.69 20.4 338.62 8.7 290.59 7.25 260.63 12.12
per LU
NH3 emission, g day−1 14.99 0.62 32.51 1.84 7.18 0.23 18.23 0.9
per LU
PM2.5 emission, g 0.347 0.58 0.126 0.26 0.103 0.16 0.192 0.33
day−1 per LU
PM10 emission, g 0.476 0.62 0.187 0.337 0.413 0.486 0.359 0.481
day−1 per LU
our result. According to Winkel et al. (2015) the mean ventilation rate for dairy cattle farm was
698 m3 h−1 per LU, which is more than two times higher than our results, which is probably caused
by the cowshed constructional differences.
According to the Estonian national emission inventory, 100,000 dairy cows are emitting 3.33
(with manure storage), 0.023, and 0.035 kilotons (kt) of NH3, PM2.5, and PM10 per year, respec-
tively. The calculated yearly emissions according to the average EF are given in Table 6.1: yearly
emissions of NH3 (without manure storage), PM2.5 and PM10 are 1.82, 0.019 and 0.036 kt,
respectively, which is the same order of magnitude reported by the official inventory using default
EF from EEA (2013). Dairy NH3, PM2.5, and PM10 yearly emissions contributed, respectively,
around 16%, 0.1%, and 0.14% to the total Estonian yearly emissions, which shows that direct PM
emissions from the dairy cowsheds are negligible, but NH3 emissions are important because NH3
is affecting ecosystems and contributing to secondary particle formation.
6.4 CONCLUSIONS
The objective of this paper was to compare common EF for the dairy loose-house farming with
the EF, which were obtained by the measurements. Microclimate parameters (temperature, °C;
relative humidity, %), CO2 and NH3 concentrations (ppm), and particulate matter (PM10 and
PM2.5) mass (µg m−3) concentrations were measured in an uninsulated loose-housing cowshed
in Märja, Estonia. The measurements showed that livestock housing is mainly contributing to a
coarser fraction of PM. The indoor concentrations of PM2.5 were more influenced by ambient
air concentrations. On average, around 88% of PM10 and 83% of PM2.5 originates from the
cowshed, and the rest is considered ambient background. The NH3 and PM concentrations were
also strongly influenced by the ventilation rate: during low ventilation rates, higher concentra-
tions were observed. The measured concentrations are generally comparable to literature values,
although few papers about PM2.5 and PM10 emissions from cattle farming are available. PM
ionic composition analysis showed that the cowshed indoor air was more influenced by other
sources during the winter and spring season, especially by residential wood combustion (ele-
vated K+) and from regional pollution (elevated SO2–4
levels). The measured concentrations in the
Märja cowshed are representative of the cold and warm period. Calculating the emissions based
VetBooks.ir
on EF from this study, we found that, in general, yearly emissions are comparable to the offi-
cial emission report. PM emissions from the dairy cowsheds are negligible, but NH3 emissions
are important because they are affecting ecosystems and contributing to the secondary particle
formation.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We would like to acknowledge Estonia’s Ministry of Education for providing resources to V.

Kimmel and M. Maasikmets with targeted financing project SF1090050s07. The authors would
also like to thank the staff from the Märja cowshed and the people from the Institute of Veterinary
Medicine and Animal Sciences of the Estonian University of Life Sciences.
REFERENCES
Aarnink, A.J.A., Roelofs, P.F.M.M., Ellen, H. & Gunnink, H. (1999) Dust sources in animal houses. Pro-
ceedings of the International Symposium on Dust Control in Animal Production Facilities, 30 May–02
June 1999, Aarhus, Denmark. pp. 34–40.
Andersen, C.I., Von Essen, S.G., Smith, L.M., Spencer, J., Jolie, R. & Donham, K.J. (2004) Respiratory
symptoms and airway obstruction in swine veterinarians: a persistent problem. American Journal of
Industrial Medicine, 46, 386–392.
Aneja, V.P., Roelle, P.A., Murray, G.C., Southerland, J., Erisman, J.W., Fowler, D., Asman, W.A. and Patni,
N., 2001. Atmospheric nitrogen compounds II: emissions, transport, transformation, deposition and
assessment. Atmospheric Environment, 35(11), pp.1903–1911.
Auvermann, B.W., Bottcher, R., Heber, A.J., Meyer, D., Parnell Jr., C.B., Shaw, B.W. & Worley, J. (2006).
Particulate Matter Emissions from Animal Feeding Operations, Animal Agriculture and the Environ-
ment: National Center for Manure and Animal Waste Management White Papers. American Society of
Agricultural and Biological Engineering, St. Joseph, MI. pp. 435–468.
Blunden, J., Aneja, V.P. & Westerman, P.W. (2008) Measurement and analysis of ammonia and hydrogen
sulfide emissions from a mechanically ventilated swine confinement building in North Carolina. Atmo-
spheric Environment, 42, 3315–3331.
Bluteau, C.V., Massé, D.I. & Leduc, R. (2009) Ammonia emission rates from dairy livestock buildings in
Eastern Canada. Biosystems Engineering, 103, 480–488.
Cai, L., Koziel, J.A., Lo, Y.C. & Hoff, S.J. (2006) Characterization of volatile organic compounds and odor-
ants associated with swine barn particulate matter using solid-phase microextraction and gas chromatog
raphy-mass spectrometry-olfactometry. Journal of Chromatography A, 1102, 60–72.
Cambra-López, M., Aarnink, A.J.A., Zhao, Y., Calvet, S. & Torres, A.G. (2010) Airborne particulate matter
from livestock production systems: a review of an air pollution problem. Environmental Pollution, 158,
1–17.
Cambra-López, M., Torres, A.G., Aarnink, A.J.A. & Ogink, N.W.M. (2011) Source analysis of fine and
coarse particulate matter from livestock houses. Atmospheric Environment, 45, 694–707.
Cox, C.S. & Wathes, C. (1995) Bioaerosols Handbook. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
Delfino, R.J., Sioutas, C. & Malik, S. (2005) Potential role of ultrafine particles in associations between
airborne particle mass and cardiovascular health. Environmental Health Perspectives, 113, 934–946.
EEA (2013) EMEP/EEA air pollutant emission inventory guidebook – 2013. European Environment Agency
(ed), Technical Report No 12/2013. European Environment Agency. Available from: http://www.eea.
europa.eu/publications/emep-eea-guidebook-2013 [accessed January 2018].
ELPI (2013) ELPI operating principle. Dekati. Available from http://dekati.com/products/Fine%20
Particle%20Measurement/ELPI%2B%E2%84%A2.
European Environment Agency (2014) Air quality in Europa – 2014 report. European Environment Agency,
EEA. Available from: http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/air-quality-in-europe-2014 [accessed
December 2017].
J.L., White, R.P.P., Hartung, J., Seedorf, J., Schröder, M., Linkert, K.H., Pedersen, S., Takai, H., Johnsen,
VetBooks.ir
Europe. Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research, 70, 79–95.

Gupta, A., Kumar, R., Kumari, K.M. & Srivastava, S.S. (2003) Measurement of NO2, HNO3, NH3 and SO2
and related particulate matter at a rural site in Rampur, India. Atmospheric Environment, 37, 4837–4846.
Joo, H.S., Ndegwa, P.M., Heber, A.J., Ni, J.Q., Bogan, B.W., Ramirez-Dorronsoro, J.C. & Cortus, E.L.
(2013) Particulate matter dynamics in naturally ventilated freestall dairy barns. Atmospheric Environ-
ment, 69, 182–190.
Kaasik, A. & Maasikmets, M. (2013) Concentrations of airborne particulate matter, ammonia and carbon
dioxide in large scale uninsulated loose-housing cowsheds in Estonia. Biosystems Engineering, 114,
223–231.
Lee, T., Kreidenweis, S.M. & Collett, J.L. (2004) Aerosol ion characteristics during the big bend regional
aerosol and visibility observational study. Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association, 54,
585–592.
Maasikmets, M. (2007) Ambient air quality assessment in cattle farming installation requiring an integrated
environmental permit [in Estonian, Summary in English]. Institute of Agricultural and Environmental
Sciences. Estonian University of Life Sciences, Tartu, Estonia.
NRCNA (2003) Air Emissions from Animal Feeding Operations, Current Knowledge, Future Needs. The
National Academies Press, Washington, DC.
Orru, H., Maasikmets, M., Lai, T., Tamm, T., Kaasik, M., Kimmel, V., Orru, K., Merisalu, E. & Forsberg, B.
(2011) Health impacts of particulate matter in five major Estonian towns: main sources of exposure and
local differences. Air Quality, Atmosphere & Health, 4, 247–258.
Pedersen, S., Takai, H., Johnsen, J.O., Metz, J.H.M., Groot Koerkamp, P.W.G., Uenk, G.H., Phillips, R.H.,
Holden, M.R., Sneath, R.W.J.L., Short, J.L.P.W.R., Hartung, J., Seedorf, J.M., Schröder, M., Linkert,
K.H. & Wathes, C.M. (1998) A comparison of free balance methods for calculating ventilation rates in
Livestock buildings. Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research, 70, 25–37.
Pope, C.A.I. & Dockery, D.W. (2006) Health effects of fine particulate air pollution: lines that connect. Air &
Waste Management Association, 56, 709–742.
Pope, C.A., Burnett, R.T., Thun, M.J., Calle, E.E., Krewski, D., Ito, K. & Thurston, G.D. (2002) Lung cancer,
cardiopulmonary mortality, and long-term exposure to fine particulate air pollution. JAMA: The Journal
of the American Medical Association, 287, 1132–1141.
Schrade, S., Keck, M., Zeyer, K. & Emmenegger, L. (2014) PM10 emission measurements in six Swiss dairy
cubicle housing systems with natural ventilation and an outdoor exercise area. International Conference
of Agricultural Engineering (AgEng), 6–10 July 2014, Zurich, Switzerland.
Seedorf, J., Hartung, J., Schröder, M., Linkert, K.H., Pedersen, S., Takai, H., Johnsen, J.O., Metz, J.H.M.,
Groot Koerkamp, P.W.G., Uenk, G.H., Phillips, V.R., Holden, M.R., Sneath, R.W.L.S.J., White, R.P. &
Wathes, C.M. (1998) A survey of ventilation rates in Livestock buildings in Northern Europe. Journal of
Agricultural Engineering Research, 70, 39–47.
Steinfeld, H., Gerber, P., Wassenaar, T., Castel, V., Rosales, M. & de Haan, C. (2006) Livestock’s long
shadow: Environmental issues and options. FAO, Rome, Italy.
Holden, M.R., Sneath, R.W., Short, J.L., White, R.P., Hartung, J., Seedorf, J., Schröder, M., Linkert,
Northern Europe. Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research, 70, 59–77.
Takai, H., Nekomoto, K., Dahl, P.J., Okamoto, E., Morita, S. & Hoshiba, S. (2002) Ammonia contents and
resorption from dusts collected in livestock buildings. Agricultural Engineering International: the CIGR
Journal of Scientific Research and Development. Manuscript BC 01 005 IV.
Teye, F.K. (2008) Microclimate and Gas Emissions in Dairy Buildings: Instrumentation, Theory and Mea-
surements. Department of Agrotechnology, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland. p. 65.
USEPA (2001) Emissions from animal feeding operations. EPA Contract No. 68-D6–0011Task Order 71.
Wang-Li, J. (2015) Insights to the formation of secondary inorganic PM2.5: current knowledge and future
needs. International Journal of Agricultural and Biological Engineering, 8(2), 1.
Wathes, C.M., Jones, C.D.R. & Webster, A.J.F. (1983) Ventilation, air hygiene and animal health. Veterinary
Record, 113, 554–559.
Winkel, A., Mosquera, J., Groot Koerkamp, P.W.G., Ogink, N.W.M. & Aarnink, A.J.A. (2015) Emissions
of particulate matter from animal houses in The Netherlands. Atmospheric Environment, 111, 202–212.
VetBooks.ir
CHAPTER 7
VetBooks.ir
Air quality and factors related to sub-optimal pig housing conditions

in nursery and finishing rooms
A field study in 143 French herds
Christelle Fablet, Fabrice Bidan, Virginie Dorenlor, Florent Eono, Eric Eveno, Nicolas Rose
and François Madec
7.1 INTRODUCTION
In most pig-producing countries, animals are housed in large groups in a closed environment. In
this situation, the climate inside the piggery is generally determined by building design and engi-
neering. The final aim of the system is to provide adequate environmental parameters (i.e., that
minimize pollutant concentrations while optimizing thermal comfort) to maximize production
efficiency. The microclimate encompasses several factors, including air temperature and mois-
ture, gases, dust and biological aerosols (including bacteria, virus, fungi and endotoxins), which
are closely related and interact in a complex way. In such confined housing conditions, the com-
position of the air differs from outside. Hence, airborne concentrations of compounds such as
CO2, NH3, particles and bioaerosols are frequently higher in pig buildings than outdoors (Banhazi
et al., 2008c, 2008b; Groot Koerkamp et al., 1998; Seedorf et al., 1998; Wathes, 2001).
Environmental factors influence not only animal health and productivity but also workers’
occupational health and safety. Numerous studies have shown that high concentrations of air-
borne pollutants and inadequate climatic conditions are involved in the development of both
human and animal diseases and may impair the welfare and production efficiency of livestock
(Banhazi et al., 2009). Indeed, the results of epidemiological studies indicate that high concentra-
tions of NH3 and CO2 and low air temperatures may have detrimental effects on pigs’ respiratory
tract (Awad-Masalmeh and Kofer, 1993; Fablet et al., 2012; Geers et al., 1989; Madec and Josse,
1984; Pointon et al., 1985; Stärk et al., 1998). Other studies carried out in different countries
have revealed a close correlation between the level of dust particles and enzootic pneumonia,
pleuritis and atrophic rhinitis (Donham, 1991; Kovacs et al., 1967; Robertson, 1993; Robertson
et al., 1990). Poor air quality characterized by high levels of gases, dust particles and airborne
microorganisms also affects production efficiency (Banhazi and Cargill, 1998). Lee et al. (2005)
found that pigs raised under sub-optimal air quality conditions had lower feed intake and growth
rates and increased cortisol concentrations than pigs housed in a cleaner environment.
Humans working in piggeries are therefore exposed to airborne pollutants. More respiratory
troubles have been reported in swine workers than non-agricultural workers (Donham, 2000;
Laitinen et al., 2001; Mackiewiez, 1998; Von Essen and Donham, 1999; Zejda et al., 1994). Stud-
ies have shown that extended exposure of workers to airborne pollutants in piggeries is primarily
associated with an increased risk of developing respiratory symptoms, decreased lung function
levels and increased airway reactions (Bongers et al., 1987; Dosman et al., 2004; Senthilselvan
et al., 2007). Among aerial compounds, particle matters are particularly harmful. Dust can carry
gases and microorganisms that are likely to be biologically active (Banhazi et al., 2009; Lai
et al., 2012). Since the finest particles penetrate deeply into the respiratory tract, these airborne
contaminants may trigger negative synergistic health effects in the lungs. It appears that repeated
87
88 Christelle Fablet et al.
exposure to gases and particles while working in animal buildings can cause respiratory compli-
VetBooks.ir
cations such as oedema and collagen deposits in the lung tissues (Asmar et al., 2001).
Improving air quality in pig buildings could therefore induce important benefits, including
enhanced animal health and welfare and, in turn, more efficient farm production and a better
working environment for swine farmers. Indoor air quality is influenced by building design as
well as by internal equipment and management (Banhazi et al., 2008a, 2009). Therefore, knowl-
edge of the factors interacting with air quality would help identify practical ways to combat
sub-optimal living conditions in current pig buildings. It could also contribute to the design of
innovative housing providing enhanced control of environmental conditions, offering a microcli-
mate better suited to the requirements of both pigs and workers.
Previous studies have been carried out to identify the effects of a small range of factors influenc-
ing a single or limited number of microclimate parameter(s) such as temperature, particle levels
or gas concentrations. However, under field conditions, internal climatic conditions encompass a
complex set of closely related and interacting compounds, which should be considered as a whole
because they determine the environmental quality in piggeries. Furthermore, a combination of
design and management housing factors may influence the climate inside a building (Banhazi
et al., 2008a). Considering the effect of just one factored individually is not only challenging but
also does not reflect the complexities of interactions (Banhazi et al., 2009). To date, only a com-
prehensive Australian study has identified important design and management factors influencing
internal conditions assessed through ventilation rates, temperature, humidity and airborne pollut-
ants inside pig buildings (Banhazi et al., 2008b, 2008c). However, outdoor climatic conditions
and piggery design and management are likely to vary across pig-producing areas, depending on
whether they are located in the northern or southern hemisphere.
The two major aims of this large-scale French study were first, to describe air quality through
five parameters (temperature, humidity, respirable dust concentration, CO2 and NH3 levels) in
two main production stages: nursery and finishing rooms, and second, to identify and quantify
the effect of factors related to building design, management practices and internal equipment
and those related to outside climatic conditions, all of which are likely to be associated with sub-
optimal air quality in nursery and finishing rooms.
7.2 MATERIAL AND METHODS
7.2.1 Study sample
Data from 143 farrow-to-finish herds involved in a cross-sectional study of respiratory diseases
in pigs were used. The details of the sampling scheme have been presented elsewhere (Fablet
et al., 2012). Briefly, the study was carried out from November 2006 to February 2008 in west-
ern France, where approximately 73% of French pigs are produced (Agreste, 2010). Eighteen
farmer organizations representing approximately 94% of the pigs produced in the area provided
a sampling base of 494 farrow-to-finish herds for which the respiratory health status for the
previous year was known (herds with moderate, severe or no respiratory problems). The stud-
ied herds were then selected using stratified random sampling based on two selection factors:
farm organization and respiratory status group [35% of herds selected from the group presumed
to be little affected by respiratory diseases (no clinical signs in growing pigs, pneumonia-like
gross lesions mean score < 1 and absence of pleuritis), 30% from the group presumed to be
moderately affected (few clinical signs, 1 < pneumonia-like gross lesions mean score≤3, <10%
of pleuritis and absence of extensive lesions of pleuritis) and 35% from the group presumed to
be severely affected (clinical signs in growing pigs, pneumonia-like gross lesions mean score
>3 or ≥10% of pleuritis with extensive lesions of pleuritis)]. The farm organization stratum was
considered to obtain a balanced sample according to affiliation. The presumed respiratory status
group assignment was used to ensure that a relevant spectrum of herd disease would be present
in the sample. The final sample was expected to contain herds with different types of housing
Air quality and sub-optimal pig housing 89
and climatic conditions. The sample size was calculated based on logistical and economic con-
VetBooks.ir
straints, to ensure a minimum of 125 herds. The minimum sample size was determined according
to sample size table for comparison between two groups (Lwanga and Lemeshow, 1991), in
order to have 80% chance of detecting an odds ratio of 3.5 significantly different from 1 at the
5% level. The hypothesis was that 40% of the herds would be exposed to the risk factor. Under
these conditions, at least 42 herds were needed in each group. It was assumed that three groups
with varying levels of respiratory diseases or air quality were compared, that is, three groups of
42 herds were therefore needed.
7.2.2 Sampling scheme
Each herd was visited once to collect information on climatic conditions in a nursery and a finish-
ing room and on likely factors potentially influencing air quality in the piggeries. The visit con-
sisted of a face-to-face interview with the farmer by one investigator, while another investigator
examined the buildings and installed the devices used to measure climatic conditions.
7.2.2.1 Herd, management and housing conditions

A standardized questionnaire was filled in with the farmer to provide the input data related to
general herd description, hygiene measures and management and feeding practices, together with
housing conditions in the nursery and finishing rooms selected for climatic condition measure-
ments (available upon request). At the same time, a specific investigator’s questionnaire was used
to record measurements and observations concerning the pigs and their housing (e.g., type of floor,
walls and pens, ventilation and heating systems, feed and feeding, number of pigs per pen and
room, pen and room surface areas) in the nursery and finishing sections (available upon request).
The contents and interpretation of these questionnaires had been pre-tested and assessed on three
herds. On-farm data collection involved previously trained investigators from our research team
given specific activities: two investigators for the farmer’s questionnaire, and two for the inves-
tigator’s questionnaire. Information bias due to the operator was reduced by clarifying all the
questions, measurements and operation procedures with all the investigators beforehand.
7.2.2.2 Measurement of climatic conditions

Climatic conditions were assessed in two rooms: a fattening room housing slaughter-aged pigs
(at least 22 weeks of age; 24 weeks old on average), and the nursery room from which they
came (for the purpose of the cross-sectional study on risk factors for respiratory diseases). The
nursery rooms have housed pigs for at least 2 weeks after weaning (pigs of 8 weeks of age on
average).
Ammonia concentrations were measured at the pig nose level between 08:00 and 09:30 am on
the day of the visit, using an electrochemical sensor device (SAFECHECK 100, Quest Technolo-
gies, ARELCO, Fontenay-sous-Bois, France) at three locations per room – front, middle and back
of the room – and three measurements per location. Self-contained, battery-operated multifunc-
tional instruments with built-in sensors (Testo 435–2, probe IAQ, Testo, Lenzkirch, Germany)
were used to measure and record inside temperature, relative humidity and CO2 concentrations
every 30 minutes. The outside temperature and humidity data were logged simultaneously. The
concentrations of respirable airborne particles (<5 µm) were determined gravimetrically using
a cyclone sampler (TSI, Marseille, France). The respirable dust was collected on pre-weighed
37-mm diameter glass fiber filters fixed in threaded holders (ARELCO, Fontenay-sous-Bois,
France). The samplers were connected to air pumps, which provided a constant airflow of 1.7
L min–1 (SP530, TSI, Marseille, France). All exposed filters were subsequently re-weighed to
the nearest 0.01 mg (AX 105, METTLER-TOLEDO, Viroflay, France). Before weighing and
re-weighing, all the filters were dried for 12 h. The results were related to the air volume that had
passed through, expressed in mg m−3. A ‘light-scattering’ instrument (AM510, TSI, Marseille,
France; (Banhazi et al., 2008b) was used to monitor respirable airborne particle distribution
during the monitoring period (every 5 min)).
The sampling devices were placed in a box attached to the ceiling or a beam using a wire cable.
VetBooks.ir
The box was lowered to a height of 1.40 m, which prevented the pigs from interfering with the
instruments, above a pen selected in the middle of the room presumed to represent the average
conditions of the room. The box was located in the middle of the pen.
Apart from ammonia concentration, all the parameters were continuously monitored over a
20-h period starting at 04:00 pm on the day of the farm visit. The air sampling equipment was
placed in the rooms in the morning during the visit. A built-in timer automatically started the
sampling routine at the scheduled time. The sampling time was selected in the light of previous
publications and aimed at sampling during both daytime and nighttime when the climate parame-
ters were likely to vary (Pedersen and Takai, 1999). The recorded data were downloaded from the
data-logging systems using the programs supplied with the individual instruments.
A 24-hour sampling period was not performed due to logistic and staff constraints and a tight
time schedule. Measurements were stopped at noon to enable investigators to take the air sam-
pling equipment back from the farm in the beginning of the afternoon, after having placed the
second set of instruments in another herd in the morning, so they could come back to the labora-
tory (most of the herds were not close to the laboratory), download the data, and disinfect (with
a rest period of 12 h) and program the instruments for a new wave of measures the next day.
Because the sampling of animals and data collection for the respiratory issues of the study took
the whole morning, the data-logging systems were programmed to start at a time after all inves-
tigators left the herds. Hence, potential bias due to the investigator actions (moving the pigs, for
instance) should have been avoided.
7.2.3 Statistical analyses
Two statistical analyses were performed for the rooms: one with the dataset collected from nurs-
ery facilities and a second one with data on the finishing houses. The same statistical process
was used whatever the type of room: the first step entailed assessing the relationships between
climatic parameters to identify the best combination describing indoor conditions in the rooms
and to set up air quality levels based on this combination of climatic parameters. The second
step consisted of a multivariable analysis to identify building design, management practices and
equipment factors associated with sub-optimal air quality.
7.2.3.1 Relationships between climatic parameters and determinations of air quality levels

Relationships between the climatic parameters were investigated by principal component anal-
ysis (PCA) (Decisia: SPAD v5.6). For each room, the minimum, maximum, standard deviation,
range, mean, median and quartiles of each climatic parameter measured were calculated. All
these variables were input into the PCA. The main objective in this analysis is to detect associ-
ations within a set of continuous variables in a limited number of dimensions and to provide a
low-dimensional (often two-dimensional) graphical representation of these associations (Joliffe,
2002). An arrow inside a correlation circle represents each variable. The longer the arrow, the
higher the variable’s contribution to the inertia. The angle between arrows indicates the degree
of correlation between the variables: the smaller the angle, the higher the positive correlation
between 0° and 90°. An angle of 90° indicates that the two variables are independent, and an
angle of 180° shows a negative correlation: the higher the angle the higher the negative correla-
tion between 90° and 180°. PCA was followed by hierarchical clustering (Decisia: SPAD v5.6).
This classification process leads to clusters of subjects (rooms in this study) based on the degree
of similarity between the individuals with regard to the variables. The most similar rooms are
grouped within the same cluster. The statistical process started with all 36 variables describing
the five parameters collected indoors (Table 7.1). The less discriminating variables with regard
to clustering were then successively removed until the most different air quality level groups
were formed.
Table 7.1. Variables describing indoor parameters used for the statistical process aiming at determining
VetBooks.ir
air quality levels in pig rooms (temperature, relative humidity, CO2 and NH3 concentrations and
respirable dust levels were measured over 20 h).
Description of the variable
Respirable dust concentration (by gravimetric method)

Mean respirable dust concentration (by light-scattering method)
Minimum respirable dust concentration (by light-scattering method)
Maximum respirable dust concentration (by light-scattering method)
Range of the respirable dust concentration values (by light-scattering method)
First quartile of respirable dust concentrations (by light-scattering method)
Median respirable dust concentration (by light-scattering method)
Third quartile of respirable dust concentrations (by light-scattering method)
Standard deviation of the respirable dust concentration (by light-scattering method)
Minimum indoor temperature
First quartile of indoor temperatures
Median indoor temperature
Third quartile of indoor temperatures
Maximum indoor temperature
Range of indoor temperature values
Mean indoor temperature
Standard deviation of indoor temperature
Minimum relative humidity
First quartile of relative humidity values
Median relative humidity
Third quartile of relative humidity values
Maximum relative humidity
Range of relative humidity values
Mean relative humidity
Standard deviation of relative humidity
Minimum CO2 concentration
First quartile of CO2 concentration values
Mean CO2 concentration
Median CO2 concentration
Third quartile of CO2 concentration values
Maximum CO2 concentration
Range of CO2 concentration values
Standard deviation of CO2 concentration
Minimum NH3 concentration
Maximum NH3 concentration
Mean NH3 concentration
7.2.3.2 Definition of the outcomes: air quality in nursery and finishing rooms

Three levels of air quality were identified by hierarchical clustering for nurseries and two for
finishing rooms. Each nursery and finishing room was thus allocated to an air quality level. These
air quality groups were then used as the outcome for further processing in the next statistical step,
designed to identify factors influencing air quality levels in nurseries and finishing rooms. Hence,
a three-level outcome was used for the nursery air quality analysis and a dichotomous dependent
variable for the finishing room air quality analysis.
7.2.3.3 Factors associated with air quality levels in nursery and finishing rooms
The average, quartiles and standard deviations were calculated for all the explanatory continu-
ous variables. All independent variables were grouped into two or more categories. The cutoff
points were determined according to the shape of the distribution of each variable (i.e., when
VetBooks.ir
abrupt changes in the distribution were seen and to ensure a minimal category frequency of 10%).
Explanatory variables where over 15% of the values were missing were excluded from the anal-
ysis. Otherwise, when there were less than 15% of values missing, the farmers were contacted
again to fill in the missing data where possible.
A two-step procedure was used to assess the relationships between the explanatory variables
(i.e., the building factors – design, management and equipment – and outdoor climatic conditions)
and the outcome. The first step was based on an univariable analysis relating the outcome vari-
able to each explanatory variable [PROC FREQ, (SAS, 2001)]. Only factors associated with the
dependent variable (likelihood ratio χ2-test, p < 0.25) were selected for the multivariable analy-
sis. All selected explanatory variables were checked for multicollinearity (χ2-test, p < 0.05), and
those most strongly associated with the outcome variable and biological relevance were retained.
The second step involved two methods: a multiple correspondence analysis and an ascending
hierarchical clustering. They included all factors that passed the first screening step. The clas-
sification is calculated to assist with the interpretation of the factorial maps resulting from the
correspondence analysis. The clusters of subjects are based on the degree of similarity of the indi-
viduals regarding the variables taken all together (i.e., the profile of the individuals). A sequence
of computations was performed. Only those explanatory variables that positively contributed to
discriminating the outcome [based on the relative contribution and quality of representation (cos²)]
were retained for the next computation. The sequence was stopped when no further improvement
as regards to the discrimination of the individuals (i.e., the rooms) could be achieved.
Finally, logistic regression models that included all the factors that had passed step 2 were
built to quantify the effects of the key explanatory variables (PROC LOGISTIC, (SAS, 2001)).
To identify potential confounding factors for which scientific evidence was available or which
were suspected to be confounders, changes in odds-ratio estimates were studied when they were
added to the model. If a change of more than 30% in the odds-ratio estimates was observed, the
factor was considered to be a confounder (Dohoo et al., 2003). All logistic regressions were
performed according to the method described by Hosmer and Lemeshow (1989). A backward
stepwise procedure was used to select the variables that were significantly (p < 0.05) associated
with the outcome variable. At each step, the variable with the highest p value was removed from
the model. This procedure was continued until all variables were significant (p < 0.05). Due to the
sample size, only the most probable potential interaction terms between significant explanatory
variables were tested and included if they were significant (p < 0.05). The odds ratio and 95%
confidence intervals were calculated from the final logistic model.
A multinomial logistic model was used for the air quality risk factors analysis in nursery rooms
because the dependent variable was multinomial (three levels) and because assumptions for a pro-
portional odds model did not hold (Allison, 1999). The reference category consisted of rooms from
Cluster 2 (optimal air quality in the sampled rooms). The model related the probability of being in
category one or three to the probability of being in the baseline category (i.e., two). Model adequacy
was assessed from the deviance, Pearson χ2 statistics and Hosmer–Lemeshow tests of the individual
ordinary models for paired comparisons (category one vs two and category three vs two) (Hosmer
and Lemeshow, 1989; Dohoo et al., 2003). A binary logistic model was developed in the second
stage of the finishing room analysis. Goodness-of-fit for the final model was assessed using the
Pearson χ2, deviance and Hosmer–Lemeshow goodness-of-fit tests (Hosmer and Lemeshow, 1989).
7.3 RESULTS
7.3.1 Features of the study population

Of the 143 herds, 88.1% were located in Brittany. The general technical characteristics of the
sampled herds were similar to those of typical herds in Brittany, except the herd size was higher
in the study sample (Table 7.2).
Data from 128 nursery and 144 finishing rooms were recorded from the sample of 143 herds
VetBooks.ir
(one herd with two different finishing rooms on separate sites). In the nursery rooms, 96.1% had
slatted floors [fully (97.6%) or partially (2.4%)] while 3.9% had a straw bedding system. Most
of the finishing rooms also had slatted floors (98.6%; 96.5% of them had fully slatted floor and
3.5% partially slatted floor) and very few in the sample used a straw bedding system (1.4%). On
average, 159 piglets [standard deviation (SD) = 65.9] were housed in the nursery rooms and 110
pigs (SD = 35.6) in the finishing facilities. The mean age of the nursery and finishing pigs was 54
(SD = 15) and 165 (SD = 13) days, respectively.
7.3.2 Description of the aerial environment in nursery and finishing rooms

The mean temperature, humidity, CO2, NH3 and respirable particle concentrations are presented
in Tables 7.3 and 7.4, together with minimum and maximum values for, respectively, all the nurs-
ery and finishing rooms examined.
7.3.3 Relationships between climatic parameters and definition of air quality levels

7.3.3.1 Nursery rooms
The PCA revealed that the variable describing the mean CO2 concentration was positively cor-
related with the variable describing the maximum NH3 concentration (Fig. 7.1). To a lesser extent,
these variables were lowly positively correlated with the mean respirable dust concentration
(dust concentration is not well represented in the map). This latter variable was also positively
correlated with the mean inside temperature. On the other hand, the mean inside temperature
Table 7.2. Technical characteristics of the 143 herds compared to a reference group.
Reference group
Survey sample (Brittany)*
Mean SD Mean SD
Number of sows per herd 238.6 159.3 200.8 127.5

Number of slaughter pigs produced per sow and year 22.4 2.5 21.4 2.2
Feed conversion ratio (8–115 kg) 2.61 0.13 2.61 0.14
Average daily weight gain (g day–1 from 8–115 kg) 675 34 674 37
% Mortality from weaning to slaughter 6.3 2.3 6.6 2.2
*
IFIP: Institut Français du Porc, 2007 (IFIP, 2007).
Table 7.3. Mean temperature, humidity, CO2, NH3 and respirable particle concentrations in 128 nursery rooms
(with minimum and maximum values – western France from November 2006 to February 2008).
Variable Unit Mean and SD* Mean minimum and Mean maximum and
(whole sample) SD* (1 herd) SD* (1 herd)
Temperature °C 25.7 2.7 14.2 0.9 30.7 1.0

Humidity % 63.3 7.3 45.4 3.9 94.3 7.9
CO2 ppm 2162 702.7 591 38.1 3732 287.8
concentration
NH3 ppm 5.2 5.7 0 0 35 4.1
concentration
Respirable dust mg m−3 0.13 0.10 0.01** - 0.53** -
concentration
*
SD: standard deviation; ** minimum and maximum value (no mean; only one measure per room).
Table 7.4. Mean temperature, humidity, CO2, NH3 and respirable particle concentrations in 144 finish-
VetBooks.ir
ing rooms (with minimum and maximum values – western France from November 2006 to
February 2008).
Variable Unit Mean and SD* Mean minimum and Mean maximum and
(whole sample) SD* (1 herd) SD* (1 herd)
Temperature °C 23.7 2.1 16.1 0.7 27.8 0.7

Humidity % 64.3 6.2 46.5 7.9 86.8 2.4
CO2 concentration ppm 1795 571 519 131 3146 379
NH3 concentration ppm 13.3 12.9 0 0 65 0
Respirable dust mg m−3 0.11 0.08 0** - 0.67** -
concentration
*
SD: standard deviation; ** minimum and maximum value (no mean; only one measure per room).
Figure 7.1. Results of the PCA describing associations between temperature, relative humidity, CO2 and
NH3 concentration and respirable dust levels in nursery rooms (western France, 2006–2008);
CO2mean: mean CO2 concentration (ppm); Dust: respirable dust level measured using the grav-
imetric method (mg.m−3); NH3max: highest NH3 level recorded in the room (ppm); %RHmean:
mean relative humidity (%); and T°Mean: mean temperature (°C).
is negatively correlated with the mean inside humidity (top left corner of the map). The mean
CO2 concentration was relatively independent from the mean temperature and relative humidity
(angles near 90°).
For the hierarchical clustering analysis, four herds with a particular feature (lowest temperatures
but with varying levels on the other parameters) were discarded from the analysis (used as illus-
trative data) because they limited the ability to discriminate clear and homogeneous clusters. The
hierarchical clustering used to identify air quality groups revealed three clusters among the 124
nursery rooms (Table 7.5). One cluster of 27 rooms was characterized by a low inside temperature,
VetBooks.ir
moderate humidity and a moderate CO2 level. Another cluster consisted of 55 rooms mainly char-
acterized by a high temperature, low humidity, low CO2 concentration and a low NH3 level. A third
cluster mainly comprised rooms with a high temperature and high CO2 and NH3 levels.
Cluster 2 included rooms with the lowest gas concentrations and a comfortable thermal envi-
ronment for nursery pigs, compared to Clusters 1 and 3. It was thereafter considered the reference
cluster, whereas Clusters 1 and 3 provided sub-optimal conditions. Cluster 1 had colder condi-
tions than the other two. Even though the thermal environment was adequate for nursery pigs, the
highest levels of CO2 and NH3 were recorded in Cluster 3.
7.3.3.2 Finishing rooms
PCA identified three main groups of associations between variables describing the climatic
parameters in finishing rooms (Fig. 7.2). One group of positively correlated variables (bottom
right corner of the map) comprised the mean CO2 concentration, the maximum NH3 level, the
respirable dust concentration (measured by the gravimetric method) and the range of dust parti-
cles (measured by a light-scattering method). The second group of positively correlated variables
located in the bottom right part of the map was related to the minimum and maximum indoor
temperatures. This group was relatively independent from the first one in the light of the angle
(around 90°) between the two groups of variables. This second group was negatively correlated
with mean relative humidity.
Hierarchical clustering revealed two clusters of rooms (Table 7.6). One cluster consisted of
73 rooms mainly characterized by low CO2, NH3 and respirable dust concentrations, with little
variation in dust levels over 20 hours and high temperatures. The second cluster comprised rooms
with high CO2, NH3 and dust concentrations and wide variations in dust. These rooms were also
characterized by low temperatures.
Of these two groups, Cluster 1 provided finishing pigs with lower gas and dust concentrations
and higher temperatures than Cluster 2. It is therefore considered the reference cluster in the fol-
lowing parts of the analysis, as the air quality was poorer in rooms from cluster 2.
Table 7.5. Description of variables related to indoor climatic parameters characterizing the three clus-
ters obtained by hierarchical clustering (124 nursery rooms from 143 herds, western France
2006–2008).
General sample Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3
124 rooms 27 rooms 55 rooms 42 rooms

(21.8%) (44.3%) (33.9%)
Variable Unit Mean SD* Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD
Mean inside °C 26 1.9 23.6 1.9 26.5 1.3 26.9 1.4

temperature
Mean inside % 62.8 6.7 68.5 7.7 59 5.2 -
humidity
Mean CO2 ppm 2182.6 697.2 1834.2 489.6 1782.5 435.8 2948.7 405
concentration
Maximum NH3 ppm 7.3 7.2 -** 4.3 3.3 11.2 9.7
concentration
Mean mg m−3 0.14 0.1 - - -
respirable dust
concentration
SD: standard deviation; ** variable did not characterize the cluster.

*
VetBooks.ir
Figure 7.2. Results of the PCA describing associations between temperature, relative humidity, CO2 and
NH3 concentrations and respirable dust levels in 144 finishing rooms (western France, 2006–
2008); CO2mean: mean CO2 concentration (ppm); Dust: respirable dust level measured using the
gravimetric method (mg m−3); Dust_range: range of respirable dust concentration over 20 hours
measured using the light-scattering method (mg m−3); NH3max: highest NH3 level recorded in
the room (ppm); %RHmean: mean relative humidity (%); T°max: highest temperature (°C); and
T°min: lowest temperature (°C).
Table 7.6. Description of the variables relating to indoor climatic parameters that characterized the two
clusters obtained by hierarchical clustering (144 fattening rooms from 143 herds, western France,
2006–2008).
General sample Cluster 1 Cluster 2
144 rooms 73 rooms (50.7%) 71 rooms (49.3%)
Variable Unit Mean SD* Mean SD Mean SD
Respirable dust mg m−3 0.11 0.08 0.09 0.05 0.14 0.1

concentration (gravimetric
method)
Respirable dust range mg m−3 0.16 0.09 0.12 0.06 0.21 0.1
over 20 h (light-scattering
device)
Minimum inside °C 22.6 2.3 23.7 1.5 21.6 2.4
temperature over 20 h
Maximum inside °C 25.6 2.7 26.4 1.8 23.9 1.9
temperature over 20 h
Mean humidity % 64.3 6.2 -** -
Mean CO2 concentration ppm 1794.8 570.6 1540.6 486.6 2059.9 529.7
Maximum NH3 ppm 17.6 15.2 8.7 6.5 27.4 16.1
concentration
SD: standard deviation; **variable did not characterize the cluster.

*
7.3.4 Factors associated with air quality levels

VetBooks.ir
7.3.4.1 Nursery rooms
Explanatory data from 34 rooms could not be recorded. Therefore, the analysis was carried out
using a sample of 94 nursery rooms. In the univariable analysis with the air quality level in nursery
rooms as the outcome, 25 variables had a p value less than 0.25. Table 7.7 shows the combination
of explanatory variables that gave, by multiple correspondence analysis and ascending hierarchi-
cal classification, the best discrimination between rooms according to the air quality level.
The cluster of rooms with a low temperature and moderate relative humidity and CO2 level
(Cluster 1) mainly consisted of rooms over 15 years old housing a relatively small number of pigs
(< 150 pigs) and providing at least 1.3 m3 per pig. In these rooms, the fresh air entered directly
from outside or from the corridor without being previously warmed. Following the decontami-
nation procedure of the nursery and before introducing a new batch of pigs, most of these rooms
were warmed for less than 12 hours. The set point temperature of the heating device in these
rooms was ≤ 28°C and that of the ventilation controller was below 25°C. The climatic conditions
outside also characterized this cluster: high humidity (≥ 90%) and a low median temperature (≤
9.5°C) were associated with cluster 1. The thermal fluctuation coefficient (indoor temperature
SD/outdoor temperature SD) was mostly higher than 30% in these nursery rooms.
The cluster of rooms with the best air quality as regards the dataset (Cluster 2) was mainly char-
acterized by a long heating period before introducing the pigs (≥ 20h) and a set point temperature
between 25°C and 26.5°C for the ventilation controller. In these rooms, the air volume per pig
Table 7.7. Description of the factors associated with different air quality levels in 94 nursery rooms (western
France, 2006–2008).
Air quality
Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3
“Cold climate” “Adequate” climate Sub-optimal climate

(high gas levels)
Building characteristics
Number of pigs per room < 150 -** ≥ 150
Air volume/pig (m3 per pig) ≥ 1.3 > 1.1 and < 1.3 ≤ 1.1
Air entry Outside or corridor Appropriate slotted
ceiling
Building age (years) ≥ 15 < 15
Building management
Heating time before < 12 ≥ 20 ≥ 12 and < 20
restocking with pigs (h)
Setpoint temperature of the ≤ 28 - > 28
heating device (°C)
Setpoint temperature of the < 25 ≥ 25 and < 26.5 ≥ 26.5
ventilation controller (°C)
Distance between slurry > 0.5 ≤ 0.5
surface and floor surface
(cm)
External climatic conditions
Mean outside relative ≥ 90 ≥ 80 and < 90 < 80
humidity (%)
Median outside temperature ≤ 9.5 ≥ 14.5 > 9.5 and < 14.5
(°C)
Thermal fluctuation > 0.3 ≤ 0.16 > 0.16 and ≤ 0.3
coefficient
**
variable did not characterize the cluster.
was between 1.1 and 1.3 m3, and the distance between slurry and the floor surface was over 50 cm.
VetBooks.ir
External climatic conditions were mild (median temperature ≥ 14.5°C and 80% ≤ mean humidity
≤ 90%). The temperature fluctuation coefficient was mostly low (< 16%) in these nursery rooms.
The cluster of rooms providing a good thermal environment but high gas concentrations (Clus-
ter 3) mainly comprised facilities housing a large number of pigs (≥ 150 pigs) with a small air
volume per pig (≤ 1.1 m3). These rooms were also characterized by the heating device’s high set
point temperature (> 28°C), the ventilation controller’s high set point temperature (> 26.5°C) and
a heating time before restocking the rooms of between 12 and 20 hours. The slurry was near the
floor surface in these nursery rooms (≤ 50 cm). The mean outside humidity (< 80%) and median
outside temperature (between 9.5°C and 14.5°C) are another two variables associated with this
air quality cluster. In these nursery rooms, which provide sub-optimal air quality, the temperature
fluctuation coefficient was moderate (16% to 30%).
Four factors were significantly associated with the air quality level in nursery rooms in the final
multivariable analysis (Table 7.8). The odds of a nursery room providing cold conditions were
greater when the distance between the slurry and the floor surface was below 50 cm and when
the set point temperature of the ventilation controller was low (<25°C). A wide thermal fluctu-
ation coefficient (≥ 30%) was significantly associated with cold conditions in nursery rooms.
A short distance between the slurry and the floor surface and a low outside temperature (median <
14.5°C) increased the odds that a room provided sub-optimal conditions (Cluster 3, characterized
by high gas levels). The Pearson χ2, deviance and Hosmer–Lemeshow goodness-of-fit tests for
the model comparing Cluster 1 and Cluster 2 (p = 0.74, p = 0.67 and p = 0.85, respectively) and
for the model comparing Cluster 3 and Cluster 2 (p = 0.97, p = 0.97 and p = 0.99, respectively)
indicated that both individual models fit the data well.
7.3.4.2 Finishing rooms
The analysis was performed on a sample of 131 rooms for which all data were available. Fol-
lowing the univariable analysis providing air quality level in finishing rooms as an outcome, 23
Table 7.8. Final multinomial logistic regression model of risk factors for a nursery room to provide sub-
optimal air quality [94 rooms, France, 2006–2008, odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval
(CI)].
Cluster Variable % rooms with sub- OR 95% CI p
optimal air per level
1: Cold environmenta,b
Distance between slurry and the floor surface (cm) 0.03
< 50 44.0 3.5 1.1–11.6
≥ 50 73.2 1 -
Set point temperature of the ventilation controller (°C) 0.02
< 25 39.1 4.7 1.4–15.9
≥ 25 74.4 1 -
Thermal fluctuation coefficient <0.01
≥ 30% 39.3 4.7 1.5–15.2
< 30% 78.9 1 -
3: High gas levelsa,c
Distance between slurry and the floor surface (cm) 0.03
< 50 59.3 3.5 1.2–10.4
≥ 50 28.6 1 -
Median outside temperature over 20 hours (°C) 0.03
< 14.5 53.5 4.8 1.5–15.6
≥ 14.5 19.2 1 -
a
reference category is Cluster 2, model deviance = 32.6 (22 df, p = 0.07); b intercept = −0.21 ; c intercept = −0.64.
variables had a p value less than 0.25. Table 7.9 shows the combination of explanatory variables
VetBooks.ir
that, by multiple correspondence analysis and ascending hierarchical classification, best discrim-
inated between the two clusters of air quality in finishing rooms.
The cluster of rooms providing sub-optimal air quality (Cluster 2) mainly consisted of facil-
ities housing a large number of pigs (>120 pigs per room), with large pens (pen surface area
>12 m²), and providing a low air volume per pig (≤ 2.5m3 per pig). The exhaust air is typically
extracted through a ridge fan outlet extracting the air 2–3 m above the housing floor, and the
rooms are mainly equipped with a dry feeding system. In this cluster, the rooms are not heated
prior to restocking, the set point temperature of the ventilation controller is low (≤ 24°C) and
there is a wide range of temperature values controlling the ventilation rate (> 5°C). This cluster
of finishing rooms is also characterized by cold outdoor conditions (mean temperature ≤ 13°C
and humidity > 90%).
Two factors were significantly associated with sub-optimal conditions in finishing houses
(Table 7.10). The odds for a room to provide sub-optimal air quality were greater when the
Table 7.9. Description of the factors associated with different air quality levels in 131 finishing rooms
(western France, 2006–2008).
Air quality level
Cluster 1 Cluster 2
“Adequate” climate Sub-optimal climate
Building characteristics
Number of pigs per room ≤ 120 > 120
Air volume/pig (m3 per pig) > 2.5 ≤ 2.5
Pen surface area (m²) ≤ 12 > 12
Air exhaust system Under the pit Through a ridge fan outlet
Feeding system Liquid Dry
Building management
Heating before introducing the pigs Yes No
Setpoint temperature of the ventilation controller (°C) > 24 ≤ 24
Range of temperature values for the ventilation rate ≤5 >5
control (°C)
External climatic conditions
Mean outside relative humidity (%) ≤ 90 > 90
Mean outside temperature (°C) > 13 ≤ 13
Table 7.10. Final logistic regression model for risk factors for a finishing room to provide sub-optimal air
quality [131 rooms, western France, 2006–2008, odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval
(CI)].
Variable* % rooms with OR 95% CI p
sub-optimal air
per level
Range of temperature values for the ventilation rate control (°C) 0.04
>5 59.7 2.8 1.1–7.5
≤5 42.2 1 -
Mean outside temperature (over a 20-h period, °C) < 0.01
≤ 13 83.6 27.7 10.5–73.5
> 13 17.2 1 -
*
Logistic regression model: intercept = −0.02, deviance = 0.16 with 1 df, p = 0.69.
range of temperature values controlling the ventilation rate was wide (> 5°C) and when the mean
VetBooks.ir
outside temperature was cold (≤ 13°C). The Pearson χ2 (p = 0.69), deviance (p = 0.69) and Hos-
mer–Lemeshow (p = 0.92) goodness-of-fit tests indicated a good fit between the model and the
observations.
7.4 DISCUSSION
It is crucial to provide an environment suited to pig requirements to ensure firstly animal health
and welfare and subsequently, avoid compromising the expected farm profitability. The microcli-
mate inside pig buildings is part of the environment driven by the farmer when indoor intensive
farming practices are used. It therefore needs to be properly considered to enhance the health of
both pigs and animal caretakers. This is the first study carried out on a large scale in France that
simultaneously considers numerous factors to gain insight into air quality and factors associated
with sub-optimal air quality in both nursery and finishing piggeries.
7.4.1 Study design and measurement methods

The herds included in the study were from a research project on risk factors for respiratory dis-
eases in pigs. They were not selected at random from the whole population of French pig herds.
The sampled herds may not therefore be fully representative of the French herd population. How-
ever, the characteristics of the herds included in the study were similar to the mean regional
values calculated (Brittany) except for the average herd size, which was higher than that of the
reference group. On the other hand, a wide range of housing types and farming practices was
found in the final sample thanks to the number of herds included in the study. Hence, the vari-
ability encountered in the sample allowed several air quality levels to be identified during the dif-
ferent rearing steps and related factors. It therefore gives preliminary clues for further analytical
studies specifically designed to seek factors influencing air quality levels in pig herds.
The instruments used for climate measurements in this study were chosen to be simple in
design, user-friendly, easy to use in pig buildings, and in line with recommendations on collect-
ing reliable data. As far as possible, continuous monitoring was performed and the measuring
period (20 h) should ensure reliable average concentrations and assess daytime and nighttime
variations in each room. This was important because variation over time is reportedly greater
that spatial variation for most airborne pollutants (Groot Koerkamp et al., 1998). Infrared rather
than electrochemical sensors were used to measure CO2 concentrations due to their stability,
robustness and reliability (Banhazi et al., 2008b). Respirable dust concentration was assessed by
two methods: the most frequently used gravimetric method with a cyclone pre-separator (Ban-
hazi et al., 2009) which gives a single result per room in addition to a real-time dust monitor.
Even though ‘light-scattering’ instruments did not provide consistently reliable concentration
data, they provide useful information on particle concentration over time (Banhazi et al., 2008b;
Cambra-López et al., 2012). NH3 concentrations were measured by an electrochemical sensor for
spot records. Low NH3 concentrations may have been slightly underestimated, as electrochem-
ical sensors are generally unpredictable when measuring very low NH3 concentrations (Hoy,
1995).However, high concentrations were of interest in terms of impact on both animal health and
welfare, and electrochemical ammonia sensors are deemed to be reliable at high concentrations
(Hoy, 1995), so high NH3 levels indicating sub-optimal conditions should have been detected.
The current study concentrated on air quality levels and the interaction between housing and
management features through a comprehensive integrative approach combining descriptive and
more complex multidimensional and modeling methods. Multifactorial methods are particularly
relevant to take into account multi-collinearity that often occurs in life sciences (Bougeard, 2007).
They could be used to describe relationships between many interacting variables, extract a sub-
set of the key variables and determine typologies (profiles) characterizing similarities (between
rooms in this case) (Ganière et al., 1991). The additional modeling approach then identified and
quantified the effects of the key factors influencing air quality. By assessing the strength of asso-
VetBooks.ir
ciation between explanatory variables and the outcome, the disadvantages of the multidimen-
sional approach are overcome by the modeling approach. This statistical approach thus allowed a
full description of air quality as a whole (through five simultaneous parameters) and the detailed
identification of key factors affecting internal climatic conditions in the different buildings.
7.4.2 Mean values
Average temperatures and CO2 concentrations were higher in nursery rooms than in finishing
facilities. High temperatures have to be maintained in nurseries to provide optimal thermal con-
ditions meeting piglet requirements (Gonyou et al., 2006). Hence, temperatures have to be higher
for weaners than for growers and even lower for finishers (Gonyou et al., 2006; Zulovich, 2012).
In this line, Banhazi et al. (2008c) recorded that the thermal environment in weaner buildings was
warmer than in the finishing stage or other production steps. The CO2 level was thus expected to
be higher in nursery buildings, which are less ventilated to maintain thermal requirements. What-
ever the type of room, average CO2 levels in the current study were above the recommended level
of 1540 ppm to ensure the respiratory health of pigs and humans (Done, 1991; Donham et al.,
2002). Interestingly, the average room concentration of the other gaseous compound measured in
our study – NH3 – was lower in nurseries than in finishing rooms.
Ammonia concentrations were on average within the range of values obtained in previous
studies (Banhazi et al., 2008c, 2009; Groot Koerkamp et al., 1998; Predicala et al., 2001; Wathes,
2001) and under the maximum concentration of 20 ppm in the pigs’ breathing zone usually rec-
ommended for pig health (Donham, 1991). Other authors advice 10 ppm as a long-term target
level for ammonia and 11 ppm as a maximum exposure threshold (Donham et al., 2002; Zulovich,
2012). As regards human health, the current recommended maximum exposure standards vary
from 7 to 25 ppm depending on the country and the exposure time (short-term [15 min] or work-
day [8–10 hours]) (Banhazi et al., 2009; Donham et al., 2002; INRS, 2012; Zulovich, 2012).
In the present study, finishing rooms are thus more likely to be above the limits suggested for
ammonia exposure.
Mean relative humidity in nursery and finishing rooms was similar and complied with the
recommended range of 40–70% humidity in pig buildings whatever the growing stage (Zulovich,
2012). A stricter target range of 60–70% or 60–80% for relative humidity has been suggested
during most weather conditions to preserve both pig health and balance between heating and
ventilation rates (Delbliquy et al., 1991; Zulovich, 2012). According to the results of a study
carried out on 192 pigs reared in four growing-finishing rooms maintained at 24°C, the pig health
and performance parameters were not affected within the range of 45 to 90% of relative humidity
(Granier and Massabie, 1996). However higher humidity levels result in higher bacterial concen-
trations. Relative humidity is expected to have little influence on the pig performance when the
temperature is kept below 30°C (Granier and Massabie, 1996).
Respirable dust particle concentrations were on average slightly below those of previously
published values in nursery and finishing phases (Takai et al., 1998; Wathes, 2001). Based on
the scientific literature on environmental exposures, Donham et al. (2002) suggested a maximum
threshold of 0.23 mg m−3 of respirable dust to prevent unwanted health effects on both workers
and animals, a limit that was not reached on average in the present study.
Behind these averages, the measurements were highly variable and in some buildings, high
concentrations were recorded for several parameters, confirming that sub-optimal air quality
occurred and that there is room for further improvement in the management and engineering
of these facilities. Taking all five recorded climatic parameters together, based on the clustering
analysis results, about half of rooms provided sub-optimal conditions both in the nursery and in
finishing stages. Previous studies have also indicated a lack of adequate environmental control in
pig buildings and the improvements that still need to be achieved (Banhazi et al., 2008c; Buddle
et al., 1994). The reference category (used as the best air quality obtained in the studied sample)
was determined in line with recommendations to promote pig health and welfare: a thermal envi-
VetBooks.ir
ronment meeting pig requirements according to age and the lowest concentration of aerial pollut-
ants possible (Banhazi et al., 2008c, 2009).
7.4.3 Indoor parameter correlations

Temperature and relative humidity were negatively correlated in both nursery and finishing
rooms: the higher the temperature, the lower the relative humidity in our sample of rooms. Rel-
ative humidity relates to the amount of moisture in the air compared to what the air can hold at a
given temperature. It is directly related to the amount of water vapor in the air. The more water
vapor there is in the air, the higher the relative humidity at a given temperature (Valsson and
Bharat, 2011). Temperature and relative humidity are therefore linked. The results of the current
study agree with the findings of other researchers. Indeed, a negative correlation trend between
relative humidity and temperature was previously found inside growing-finishing pig buildings
(Kim et al., 2005). During a 24-hour follow-up study in two pig buildings, Delbliquy et al. (1991)
showed that temperature and relative humidity are closely related, relative humidity decreasing
when temperature increases and vice versa.
A positive correlation was shown between CO2 and NH3 concentrations whatever the kind of
rooms. Both parameters were also positively related to dust levels in finishing facilities and to a
lesser extent in nursery rooms. The main source of CO2 in pig housing is animal respiration, while
NH3 is predominantly produced by the microbial degradation of manure (Banhazi et al., 2009).
Airborne dust in swine confinement buildings primarily originates from the pigs, their feed, their
bedding and their excreta (Heber et al., 1988). All these airborne gaseous and particulate pollut-
ants generated in a closed environment should be removed by the ventilation system through the
exhaust air. Therefore, the concentrations of these parameters may be expected to be linked to
enclosed housing systems. Barber et al. (1993) found a significant positive correlation between
CO2 levels and NH3 concentrations but respirable dust and CO2 levels were not always correlated.
In another study, total dust concentration was positively related to NH3 level in an enclosed pig
facility (Kim et al., 2005). Dust interacts with other aerial compounds by carrying gases and
microorganisms (Takai et al., 1998, 2002). A microclimate with a combination of high gas and
dust concentrations may thus be especially harmful.
7.4.4 Factors associated with air quality levels

Fifteen factors were associated with sub-optimal air quality in nursery and finishing rooms, six
being shared factors and nine being room-specific: four to the nurseries and five to the finishing
rooms. Such differences might be partly attributable to the type of pigs housed. Building engi-
neering characteristics and management vary according to the growing stages in order to provide
those environmental conditions that meet the pigs’ requirements in keeping with each grow-
ing phase. The effects of building type on airborne particle concentration, gas level and indoor
temperature have already been shown (Banhazi et al., 2008a, 2008c). Banhazi et al. (2008c)
suggested that certain building designs characteristically used for pig housing influence indoor
environmental conditions. An analysis of the current study’s dataset by type of room can therefore
identify specific factors related to room type that are associated with different air quality levels.
7.4.4.1 Outdoor climate
The study makes it clear that external conditions influence the indoor climatic environment,
whatever the type of building. A median outdoor temperature below 14.5°C and a mean outdoor
temperature below 13°C significantly increased the odds of providing sub-optimal air quality in
a nursery and a finishing room respectively. Rooms providing sub-optimal conditions also had
high external humidity measurements. These results agree with the findings of previous studies
in which external climatic conditions and season affect indoor air temperature, relative humid-
ity and dust concentration (Banhazi et al., 2008c; Predicala et al., 2001; Takai et al., 1998). In
mechanically ventilated pig buildings, the climate or season is intrinsically related to ventilation
VetBooks.ir
rates. Winter rates are usually lower than in summer to maintain thermal comfort, thus leading
to less exhausted air in winter than in summer. Sub-optimal conditions characterized by more
airborne pollutants are therefore likely to occur in colder seasons and climates. In the same vein,
a high thermal coefficient significantly increased the odds of a nursery room providing a cold
indoor climate. Such a coefficient indicates a temperature fluctuation inside the room over a
defined period during which the outside temperature varied. High temperature fluctuations inside
the room are much more prone to occur when the outside temperature varies, leading to a high
thermal coefficient, which is what determines the ability of the building and its equipment to
minimize outdoor effects (Nicks et al., 1993). Altogether, these results indicate the limited ability
of the current nursery and finishing buildings to reduce the effect of outdoor conditions even in a
temperate climate. Improvements in building materials and insulation may therefore be a prom-
ising way of improving the building’s ability to reduce the effect of outdoor climate on indoor
environmental conditions.
7.4.4.2 Building management
Several factors influencing air quality were related to building management, and particularly to
ventilation control. A low ventilation controller set point temperature significantly increased the
odds of a nursery room having sub-optimal air quality characterized by a cold microclimate. It
was similarly associated with inappropriate air quality in finishing rooms. A high set point tem-
perature may also be detrimental, because this was a recurring pattern in nursery rooms providing
a warm indoor climate but with excessive gas concentrations. In nursery rooms, we showed that
both low and high heating device set point temperatures were associated with sub-optimal con-
ditions. Both heating system and ventilation set point temperatures aim to control the indoor cli-
mate in a mechanically ventilated building. These results indicate that some farmers tend to want
a low temperature in their buildings while others want to maintain warm conditions. Epidemio-
logical studies indicate that exposure to low indoor air temperatures during the growing-finishing
phases is associated with respiratory diseases in pigs (Fablet et al., 2012; Madec and Josse,
1984; Stärk et al., 1998) and therefore not recommended to prevent the occurrence of disease.
On the other hand, the desire to protect pigs from cold conditions may have a negative effect
on air quality when the indoor climate is only controlled by the ventilation controller set point
temperature. When the latter is high, ventilation is likely to be kept to a minimum, thus reducing
the air exhaust and increasing airborne pollutant concentrations inside the room. To overcome
this inappropriate management practice, training sessions or more information may be provided
to farmers and their advisers to increase awareness on the optimal set point temperatures and
improve ventilation control.
In our study, the range of temperatures controlling the ventilation rate in the finishing room
was associated with sub-optimal environmental conditions. This parameter determines the pro-
gression of fan rotation speed from minimum to maximum as the room temperature increases.
High values indicate that the fan speed increases and decreases slowly. It may therefore take time
before airborne pollutants are removed in the exhaust air. High concentrations are thus likely.
Combined with the set point temperatures of the heating system and ventilation controllers, this
result indicates that manipulating the parameters of the ventilation and heating control systems
may be a practical way for farmers to enhance air quality in pig buildings. It also showed that the
configuration of parameters was inadequate in a non-negligible proportion of farms. The crucial
question of getting ventilation systems not only based on solely the temperature but also on other
parameters (e.g., CO2, NH3). In any case, a better education of the farmers as regards the use
and maintenance of the ventilation systems should be pushed forward. Knowledge of the factors
driving farmers to choose inappropriate values may be useful in order to propose and implement
corrective measures.
Our study revealed for the first time the influence of the lack or insufficient heating time before
restocking a room. Warming the building up prior to restocking helps to decrease the residual
humidity after cleaning and disinfection and to increase the room temperature. The effect of this
VetBooks.ir
management practice may be surprising because this happened several weeks before climatic
measurements were taken in nursery and finishing rooms, and is difficult to explain. There is a
greater likelihood of attaining then maintaining the desired indoor climate if the room equipment
and air are dried, removing the extra humidity due to cleaning and disinfection operations before
humidity and airborne contaminant levels rise due to the introduction of animals and their waste.
Further investigations are needed to clarify the effect of pre-heating a room on the air’s physical
parameters once animals have been introduced into it.
A short distance between the slurry stored in the pit below the pigs and the floor surface sig-
nificantly increased the odds of a nursery room providing sub-optimal air quality characterized
by high gas concentrations, particularly NH3. Ammonia is mainly generated by the biological
breakdown of animal excreta. The accumulation of manure on pen floors results in increased NH3
concentration and emissions (Aarnink et al., 1997; Ni et al., 1999). About 2/3 of the NH3 emis-
sion in a piggery with an under-floor manure pit was accounted for by the pit and 1/3 by the pen
floor (Hoeksma et al., 1992). Ni et al. (1999) showed that the manure surface area influenced the
release of NH3 more than the quantity of manure stored in the under-floor pit. In our study, most
of the rooms had under-floor manure storage. The NH3 level was measured in the pig’s breathing
zone, 30 to 50 cm above the floor. Hence, the shorter the distance from the manure surface to the
measurement area, the closer the NH3 emission surface. It thus increased the likelihood of being
exposed to high NH3 levels. Keeping the slurry surface as far from the floor surface as possible
in under-floor manure storage is considered helpful in reducing the concentration of NH3 at pig
nose level.
7.4.4.3 Building design and engineering

Seven factors influencing air quality in nursery and finishing rooms were related to building
design and engineering. Large rooms and a small air volume per pig are two parameters associ-
ated with sub-optimal air quality in both nursery and finishing rooms. In a similar vein, the pen
surface area was related to air quality in finishing rooms. In our study, pen surface area was pos-
itively correlated with the number of pigs per pen (data not shown) which was itself correlated
with room size. The effect of the number of pigs on airborne particulate levels has already been
shown in the literature. Indeed, Gustafsson (1999) found a linear relationship between the number
of pigs and the dust generated. In another study, the dust concentration increased along with the
number of pigs per room (Massabie et al., 2006). The number of animals in the same airspace
thus influences the level of airborne particles. The risk of transmitting suspended particles is
reported to rise exponentially in keeping with the increasing number of pigs sharing airspace
(Sorensen et al., 2006). However, to the best of our knowledge, the effect of air volume per pig
on air quality is described here for the first time. Airborne pollutants, mainly produced by the pigs
themselves, are much more likely to be concentrated in a small volume of air than a higher one,
where air compounds may be diluted.
Removing exhaust air through a ridge fan outlet as opposed to a pit ventilation system is asso-
ciated with impaired air quality in finishing rooms. These findings agree with those of previous
studies where a pit ventilation system was more effective in reducing NH3 concentrations in pig
buildings than above-floor exhaust systems (Gustafsson, 1987; Massabie et al., 1999; Wilhelm
and McKinney, 2001). Removing the air under the floor removes the ammonia at source (i.e.,
the biological breakdown of slurry), thus decreasing the ammonia released into the air above the
slatted floor and the negative effect on indoor conditions.
In our study, the feeding system influences air quality in finishing rooms. Although previous
results have not always been consistent, several studies have indicated that airborne particle con-
centrations are higher with dry feeding systems than liquid feeding systems (Banhazi et al., 2009;
Dawson, 1990; Takai and Pedersen, 2000). Feed is considered one of the main sources of par-
ticulate matter in pig buildings (Heber et al., 1988). However, the amount of dust particles from
the feed depends on the type of feed, its composition, the pelleting process and delivery method.
Pelleted feed was the most frequent type encountered in the current study in finishing rooms
VetBooks.ir
using a dry feeding system, but no information was collected on composition.

Interestingly, nursery rooms where cold conditions prevail had small rooms, a high air volume
per pig and a direct air inlet from outdoors or from the building’s corridor. This particular pattern
fitted well with old-fashioned facilities. This cluster of rooms is thus characterized as at least
15 years old. In old buildings such as these, the outside air enters the room without being previ-
ously heated up, increasing the occurrence of cold draughts and wide temperature fluctuations.
These buildings may also be less insulated than newer buildings. Banhazi et al. (2008c) showed
that wall insulation type influences air temperature and humidity. Buildings with no insulation
or old insulation material recorded lower mean temperatures and higher humidity. The results of
our study tend to support the need to upgrade old nursery buildings to enhance the environmental
conditions for both pigs and workers.
7.4.5 Influence of climatic conditions on pig respiratory health

Since the data used to describe air quality and their related factors came from a study on risk
factors for respiratory diseases in pigs, they were used to assess the effect of climatic conditions
on pig respiratory health. We found that among all parameters, a low mean inside temperature
and a high CO2 concentration were associated with an increased risk of pleuritis or extended
pneumonia-like lesions respectively (Fablet et al., 2012). Not only factors related to indoor cli-
mate but also parameters controlling the climatic conditions (to control the ventilation rate and
the heating) were found to be associated with lung lesions and with infection by two respira-
tory viruses (swine influenza A virus and porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus)
(Fablet et al., 2012, 2013, 2015). Altogether, these results emphasized the effect of climatic con-
ditions on the respiratory health of pigs reared in buildings.
7.5 CONCLUSIONS
The results of this study make it clear that in about half of herds, the microclimate provided in
nursery and finishing buildings does not reach the desired target to preserve human and animal
health. The microclimate encompasses several factors including air temperature and moisture,
gases, dust and bioaerosols that are closely related and interact in a complex way. All these param-
eters should be considered together when assessing and driving air quality. Different factors seem
to be associated with sub-optimal environmental conditions, and they may be grouped into three
main interacting areas: outside climate, building design and engineering and finally and most
importantly, building management practices. Factors related to building management are under
the farmer’s control and are, theoretically, the easiest to correct, but they are to some extent obvi-
ously dependent on the building design and the external conditions. Implementing efficient correc-
tive measures may require the support of the building advisers and needs a collaborative approach.
Other major factors involving building design and engineering are only manageable by building
engineers and manufacturers and will be effective for new buildings. The significant effect of the
outdoor climate on indoor climate underlines the need to further improve the building per se and
its control to reduce the negative effect of extreme weather conditions, as well as sudden climatic
changes on animal health, welfare and productivity. Considering that the ventilation system is usu-
ally monitored by just one factor – inside temperature – and that maintaining a high temperature
may be detrimental to other climatic parameters under certain outside conditions, other sensors
could potentially be added to optimize the internal traits. Such systems would not necessarily
require complicated and costly sensors, but some elements of building design probably need adap-
tation. This issue falls within the field of precision livestock farming, a technical domain gaining
ground. The innovations to come should enable simultaneous, and in real time, readjustment of
the internal air conditions, above all, making them meet or approach the requirements, which are
known to maintain animal health and welfare, leading to greater production efficiency.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
VetBooks.ir
The authors are grateful to the farmers and related farm organizations for their help. They
wish to thank Jean-François Robert for his technical assistance. They are also indebted to the
Regional Council of Brittany, the “Comité Régional Porcin” and Acemo, Anavelec, Celtys, I-Tek,
Rose-Eludis, Sodalec and Tuffigo for their financial support.
REFERENCES
Aarnink, A.J.A., Swierstra, D., van den Berg, A.J. & Speelman, L. (1997) Effect of type of slatted floor and
degree of fouling of solid floor on ammonia emission rates from fattening piggeries. Journal of Agricul-
tural Engineering Research, 66, 93–102.
Agreste (2010) La statistique, l’évaluation et la prospective agricole: données en ligne [Statistics, asses-
ment and forthcoming in Agriculture: on-line data]. Ministère de l’Alimentation, de l’Agriculture et de la
Pêche, Paris, France. Available from: http://www.agreste.agriculture.gouv.fr [accessed December 2017].
Allison, P.D. (1999) Logistic Regression Using SAS System: Theory and Application. SAS Institute and
Wiley Cary, NC.
Asmar, S., Pickrell, J.A. & Oehme, F.W. (2001) Pulmonary diseases caused by airborne contaminants in
swine confinement buildings. Veterinary and Human Toxicology, 43, 48–53.
Awad-Masalmeh, M., Kofer, J. (1993) Environmental factors, prevalence of pneumonia and lung lesions of
slaughter swine suffering from chronic respiratory disease. Livestock Environmental 4th Proceedings of
a Conference, 6–9 July 1993, Coventry, UK. pp. 915–921.
Banhazi, T. & Cargill, C. (1998) An assessment of the benefits of age-segregated rearing and all-in/all-
out management in respiratory disease-free herds. 15th International Pig Veterinary Congress, 5–9 July
1998, Birmingham, UK. p. 387.
Banhazi, T.M., Seedorf, J., Rutley, D.L. & Pitchford, W.S. (2008a) Identification of risk factors for sub-
optimal housing conditions in Australian piggeries: part 1. Study justification and design. Journal of
Agricultural Safety and Health, 14, 5–20.
Safety and Health, 14, 21–39.
optimal housing conditions in Australian piggeries: part 3. Environmental parameters. Journal of Agri-
cultural Safety and Health, 14, 41–52.
Banhazi, T., Currie, E., Reed, S., Lee, I.B. & Aarnink, A.J.A. (2009) Controlling the concentrations of air-
borne pollutants in piggery buildings. In: Aland, A. & Madec, F. (eds) Sustainable Animal Production.
Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, The Netherlands. pp. 285–311.
Barber, E.M., Dosman, J.A., Rhodes, C.S., Christison, G.I. & Hurst, T.S. (1993) Carbon dioxide as an indi-
cator of air quality in swine buildings. Livestock Environment IV, 6–9 July 1993, Coventry. pp. 626–635.
Bongers, P., Houthuijs, D., Remjin, B., Brower, R. & Biersteker, K. (1987) Lung function and respiratory
symptoms in pig farmers. British Journal of Industrial Medicine, 44, 819–823.
Bougeard, S. (2007) Description et prédiction à partir de données structurées en plusieurs tableaux. Applica-
tion en épidémiologie animale [Description and prediction from datasets structured in K-Tables: Applica-
tion in veterinary epidemiology]. Université de Rennes 2, Rennes, France.
Buddle, J.R., Mercy, A.R. & Skirrow, S.Z. (1994) The inability of pig sheds to provide ideal environments.
13th International Pig Veterinary Society Congress, 26–30 June 1994, Bangkok, Thailand. p. 431.
Cambra-López, M., Winkel, A., Mosquera, J., Ogink, N.W.M. & Aarnink, A.J.A. (2012) Comparison
between light-scattering and gravimetric devices for sampling PM10 mass concentration in livestock
houses. ASABE – 9th International Livestock Environment Symposium, ILES, 8–12 July, Valencia, Spain.
pp. 429–435.
Dawson, J.R. (1990) Minimizing dust in livestock buildings: possible alternatives to mechanical separation.
Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research, 47, 235–248.
Decisia: SPAD v5.6. Cohéris SA, Courbevoie, France.
Delbliquy, B., Nicks, B., Canart, B., Buzitu, S. & Dewaele, A. (1991) Caractéristiques hygrométriques et
niveau de pollution de l’air dans 9 locaux en porcherie d’élevage [Humidity and air pollution level in 9
pig buildings]. Annales De Médecine Vétérinaire, 135, 215–220.
Dohoo, I.R., Martin, W. & Stryhn, H. (2003) Veterinary Epidemiologic Research. Atlantic Veterinary Col-
VetBooks.ir
lege Inc., University of Prince Edward Island, Charlottetown Prince Edward Island, Canada.
Done, S.H. (1991) Environmental factors affecting the severity of pneumonia in pigs. Veterinary Record,
128, 582–586.
Donham, K.J. (2000) The concentration of swine production. Effects on swine health, productivity, human
health, and the environment. Veterinary Clinics of North America: Food Animal Practice, 16, 559–597.
Donham, K., Thorne, P.S., Breuer, G.M., Powers, W., Marquez, S. & Reynolds, S.J. (2002) Chapter 8: Expo-
sure limits related to air quality and risk assessment. In: Group, I.S.U.a.T.U.o.I.S. (ed) CAFO Air Quality
Study. Iowa, United States, pp. 164–183.
Dosman, J.A., Lawson, J.A., Kyrichuk, S.P., Cormier, Y., Biem, J. & Koehncke, N. (2004) Occupational
asthma in newly employed workers in intensive swine confinement facilities. The European Respiratory
Journal, 24, 698–702.
Fablet, C., Dorenlor, V., Eono, F., Eveno, E., Jolly, J.P., Portier, F., Bidan, F., Madec, F. & Rose, N. (2012)
Noninfectious factors associated with pneumonia and pleuritis in slaughtered pigs from 143 farrow-to-
finish pig farms. Preventive Veterinary Medicine, 104, 271–280.
Fablet, C., Simon, G., Dorenlor, V., Eono, F., Eveno, E., Gorin, S., Quéguiner, S., Madec, F. & Rose, N.
(2013) Different herd level factors associated with H1N1 or H1N2 influenza virus infections in fattening
pigs. Preventive Veterinary Medicine, 112, 257–265.
Fablet, C., Marois-Crehan, C., Dorenlor, V., Eono, F., Eveno, E., Tocqueville, V., Gorin, S., Queguiner, S.,
Bigault, L., Grasland, B., Simon, G. & Rose, N. (2015) Porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome
virus infection risk factors: a study in 109 farrow-to-finish herds. XVII International Congress on Animal
Hygiene (ISAH), 7–11 June 2015, Košice, Slovakia. pp. 152–153.
Ganière, J.P., André-Fontaine, G., Drouin, P., Faye, B., Madec, F., Rosner, G., Fourichon, C., Wang, B. &
Tillon, J.P. (1991) L’écopathologie: une méthode d’approche de la santé en élevage [Ecopathology: a
methodoligal approach in animal health]. Animal Production, 4, 247–256.
Geers, R., Dellaert, B., Goedseels, V., Hoogerbrugge, A., Vranken, E., Maes, F. & Berckmans, D. (1989)
An assessment of optimal air temperatures in pig houses by the quantification of behavioural and health
related problems. Animal Production, 48, 571–578.
Gonyou, H.W., Lemay, S.P. & Zhang, Y. (2006) Effects of the environment on productivity and disease. In:
Straw, B., Zimmermann, W., D’Allaire, S. & Taylor, D.J. (eds) Diseases of Swine, 9th ed. Iowa State
University Press, Ames, Iowa. pp. 1027–1038.
Granier, R. & Massabie, P. (1996) Influence du taux d’humidité relative de l’air ambiant sur l’état de santé
et les performances zootechniques du porc à l’engrais [Influence of humidity on the health and technical
performances of fattening pigs]. Journées de la Recherche Porcine, Paris. pp. 195–200.
Groot Koerkamp, P.W.G., Metz, J.H.M., Phillips, V.R., Holden, M.R., Sneath, R.W., Short, J.L., White, R.P.,
Hartung, J., Seedorf, J., Schröder, M., Linkert, K.H., Pedersen, S., Takai, H., Johnsen, J.O. & Wathes,
C.M. (1998) Concentrations and emissions of ammonia in livestock buldings in Northern Europe. Jour-
nal of Agricultural Engineering Research, 70, 79–95.
Gustafsson, G. (1987) Reduction of ammonia in swine houses. Latest developments in livestock housing. Seminar,
Second Technical Section, C.I.G.R ASABE, 22–26 June 1987, Urbana-Champaign, St. Joseph, MI. pp. 9–22.
Gustafsson, G. (1999) Factors affecting the release and concentration of dust in pig houses. Journal of Agri-
cultural Engineering Research, 74, 379–390.
Heber, A.J., Stroik, J.L., Faubion, J.M. & Willard, L.H. (1988) Size distribution and identification of aerial
dust particles in swine finishing buildings. Transactions of the ASAE, 31, 882–887.
Hoeksma, P., Verdoes, N., Oosthoek, J. & Voermans, J.A.M. (1992) Reduction of ammonia volatilization
from pig houses using aerated slurry as recirculation liquid. Livestock Production Science, 31, 121–132.
Hosmer, D.W. & Lemeshow, S. (1989) Applied Logistic Regression. Wiley, New York.
Hoy, S. (1995) Studies on the use of multi-gas monitoring in animal houses. Tierärztliche Umschau, 50,
115–123.
IFIP (2007) Le porc par les chiffres 2007 (Data on pig production in France in 2007). IFIP (ed). Paris.
INRS (2012) Valeurs limites d’exposition professionnelle aux agents chimiques en France [Limit values to
chemical agents in France]. Paris, France, ISBN 978-2-7389-2009-6.
Joliffe, I. (2002) Principal Component Analysis. 2nd ed. Springer, New York.
Kim, K.Y., Ko, H.J., Lee, K.J., Park, J.B. & Kim, C.N. (2005) Temporal and spatial distributions of aerial
contaminants in an enclosed pig building in winter. Environmental Research, 99, 150–157.
Kovacs, F., Nagy, A. & Sallai, J.N. (1967) The effect of certain environmental factors on the health and pro-
VetBooks.ir
duction of pigs. Data on dust and living germ content as well as on the chemical contamination of the air
in pig houses of closed system. Hungarian Veterinary Journal, 22, 496–505.
Lai, H.T.L., Aarnink, A.J.A., Cambra-López, M., Huynh, T.T.T., Parmentier, H.K. & Koerkamp, P.W.G.G.
(2012) Airborne particles in animal houses. ASABE – 9th International Livestock Environment Sympo-
sium, ILES, 8–12 July 2012, Valencia, Spain. pp. 659–665.
Laitinen, S., Kangas, J., Husman, K. & Susitaival, P. (2001) Evaluation of exposure to airborne bactrial
endotoxins and peptidoglycans in slected works envirnment. Annals of Agricultural and Environmental
Medicine, 8, 213–219.
Lee, C., Giles, L.R., Bryden, W.L., Downing, J.L., Owens, P.C., Kirby, A.C. & Wynn, P.C. (2005) Perfor-
mance and endocrine responses of group housed weaner pigs exposed to the air quality of a commercial
environment. Livestock Production Science, 93, 255–262.
Lwanga, S.K., Lemeshow, S. (1991) Sample Size Determination in Health Studies. World Health Organiza-
tion, Geneva, Switzerland.
Mackiewiez, B. (1998) Study on exposure of pig farm workers to bioaerosols, immunologic reactivity and
health effects. Annals of Agricultural and Environmental Medicine, 5, 169–175.
Madec, F. & Josse, J. (1984) The risk factors of respiratory diseases on fatteners in intensive breeding-finishing
units. 8th International Pig Veterinary Society Congress, 27–31 August 1984, Ghent, Belgium. p. 349.
Massabie, P., Granier, R. & Guingand, N. (1999) Incidence du système d’extraction et du débit de renou-
vellement d’air en porcherie d’engraissement sur les concentrations en ammoniac et les performances
des animaux [Influence of the exhaust ventilation system and ventilation rate of piggeries on ammonia
concentrations and animal performances]. Journées de la Rercherche Porcine, Paris, France, 139–144.
Massabie, P., Granier, R. & Larrère, V. (2006) Densité et température ambiante: incidence sur les perfor-
mances du porc à l’engrais [Swine density and buidling temperature: effect on the performances of fat-
teners]. Journées de la Recherche Porcine, Paris, France, 407–414.
Ni, J.Q., Vinckier, C., Coenegrachts, J. & Hendriks, J. (1999) Effect of manure on ammonia emission from a
fattening pig house with partly slatted floor. Livestock Production Science, 59, 25–31.
Nicks, B., Canart, B. & Vandenheede, M. (1993) Temperature, air humidity and air pollution levels in far-
rowing or weaner pig houses. Pig News and Information, 14, 77N–78N.
Pedersen, S. & Takai, H. (1999) Dust response to animal activity. In: Dust Control in Animal Production
Facilities, 30 May–2 June 1999, Scandinavian Congress Center, Proc. Congress in Aarhus, Denmark.
pp. 306–310.
Pointon, A., Heap, P. & McCloud, P. (1985) Enzootic pneumonia of pigs in South Australia-factors relating
to incidence of disease. Australian Veterinary Journal, 62, 98–100.
Predicala, B.Z., Maghirang, R.G., Jerez, S.B., Urban, J.E. & Goodband, R.D. (2001) Dust and bioaerosol
concentrations in two swine-finishing buildings in kansas. Transaction of the ASAE, 44, 1291–1298.
Robertson, J.F. (1993) Dust and ammonia concentrations in pig housing: the need to reduce maximum expo-
sure limits. Livestock Environment IV: Proc. 4th International Symposium of the ASAE, 6–9 July 1993,
Coventry, UK. pp. 694–700.
Robertson, J.F., Wilson, D. & Smith, W.J. (1990) Atrophic rhinits and the aerial environment. Animal Pro-
duction, 50, 173–182.
SAS (ed) (2001) SAS/STAT User’s Guide. Version 8, Cary, NC.
Seedorf, J., Hartung, J., Schröder, 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., Groot Koerkamp, P.W.G., Uenk,
G.H. & Wathes, C.M. (1998) Concentrations and emissions of airborne endotoxins and microorganisms
in livestock buildings in northern Europe. Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research, 70, 97–109.
Senthilselvan, A., Chénard, L., Ulmer, K., Gibson-Burlinguette, N., Leuschen, C. & Dosman, J.A. (2007)
Excess respiratory symptoms in full-time male and female workers in large-scale swine operations.
Chest, 131, 1197–1204.
Sorensen, V., Jorsal, S.E. & Mousing, J. (2006) Diseases of the respiratory system. In: Straw, B., Zimmer-
mann, W., D’Allaire, S. & Taylor, D.J. (eds) Diseases of Swine, 9th ed. Iowa State University Press,
Ames, Iowa. pp. 149–177.
Stärk, K.D.C., Pfeiffer, D.U. & Morris, R.S. (1998) Risk factors for respiratory diseases in New Zealand pig
herds. New Zealand Veterinary Journal, 46, 3–10.
Takai, H. & Pedersen, S. (2000) A comparison study of different dust control methods in pig buildings.
Applied Engineering in Agriculture, 16, 269–277.
VetBooks.ir

Takai, H., Nekomoto, K., Dahl, P.J., Okamoto, E., Morita, S. & Hoshiba, S. (2002) Ammonia contents and
desoprtion from dusts collected in livestock buildings. Agricultural Engineering International, IV, 1–11.
Valsson, S. & Bharat, A. (2011) Impact of air temperature on relative humidity – a study. Architecture – Time
Space and People, February, pp. 38–41.
Von Essen, S. & Donham, K.J. (1999) Illness and injury in animal confinement workers. Occupational
Medicine, 14, 337–350.
Wathes, C.M. (2001) Aerial pollutants from weaner production. In: Varley, M.A. & Wisem, J. (eds) The
Weaner Pig: Nutrition and Management. Cromwell Press, Trowbridge, UK. pp. 259–272.
Wilhelm, L.R. & McKinney, D.B. (2001) Environmental measurements in production swine facilities.
Applied Engineering in Agriculture, 17, 669–675.
Zejda, J.E., Barber, E.M., Dosman, J.A., Olenchock, S.A., McDuffie, H.H., Rhodes, C. & Hurst, T. (1994)
levels. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 36, 49–56.
Zulovich, J.M. (2012) Effect of the environment on health. In: Karriker, L., Ramirez, A., Schwartz, K.J. &
Stevenson, G.W. (eds) Diseases of Swine. John Wiley and Sons, Hoboken, NJ. pp. 60–66.
VetBooks.ir
VetBooks.ir
SECTION III
Pollutant levels encountered in
livestock buildings
VetBooks.ir
CHAPTER 8
VetBooks.ir
Temperature, relative humidity, noise, dust and odor levels recorded

on free-range piggery sites in three states of Australia
Thomas Banhazi
8.1 INTRODUCTION
Noise, dust and odor emission/pollution from outdoor piggeries has been acknowledged as a
potential issue for the free-range pig industry, especially during the planning stage. However, data
that can help the industry to assess the likely noise, dust and odor emission levels from free-range
piggery facilities are not available in Australia. Previous studies demonstrated that significant
amounts of dust could be emitted from some types of pig production facilities (Banhazi et al.,
2008a, 2008b, 2008c, 2008d). The expected level of odor emission from traditional pig produc-
tion sites is also well-documented (Banhazi et al., 2009a; Brose et al., 2001; Hayes et al., 2006;
Hudson and Ayoko, 2009; Hudson et al., 2007, 2008). Regulatory authorities and potentially
impacted neighbors may raise concerns in the future about the potential of free-range systems to
cause a significant emission problem. This is likely to be a major concern given the surge in pop-
ularity of free-range systems in Australia. Outdoor production systems are generally seen as envi-
ronmentally sustainable and welfare friendly production systems of the future, and such systems
are actively promoted, especially in some European countries (Edwards, 2005). There is no doubt
that extensive pig production systems allow animals to express a greater variety of behavior
when compared to traditional production systems. However, there is essentially no information
available about the potential level of noise, dust and odor emission levels from these facilities
that might potentially impact on neighboring human populations (Banhazi et al., 2011; Talling
et al., 1998). To enable the pig industry to remain competitive, producers must be able to assess
the housing systems that best suit their operation and that can best respond to market signals.
Currently, free-range products can attract significant premium at the wholesale and retail levels.
Quantifying noise (sound pressure), dust and odor levels on free-range piggeries are precursors
to the development of practical environmental management strategies for the free-range industry.
Thus, the main objective of the study was to quantify the generally encountered noise, dust and
odor emission levels from free-range pig farms by selecting representative farms and sampling
times for the measurements to be undertaken. It is expected that the industry will be able to use
these documented levels to promote the low environmental impact of the free-range pig industry.
Noise, dust and odor emission/pollution from outdoor piggeries has been acknowledged as a
potential issue for the free-range pig industry, especially during the planning stage. However, data
that can help the industry to assess the likely noise, dust and odor emission levels from free-range
piggery facilities are not available in Australia. Previous studies demonstrated that significant
amounts of dust could be emitted from some types of pig production facilities (Banhazi et al.,
113
114 Thomas Banhazi
2008a, 2008b, 2008c, 2008d). The expected level of odor emission from traditional pig produc-
VetBooks.ir
tion sites is also well-documented (Banhazi et al., 2009a; Brose et al., 2001; Hayes et al., 2006;
Hudson and Ayoko, 2009; Hudson et al., 2007, 2008). Regulatory authorities and potentially
impacted neighbors may raise concerns in the future about the potential of free-range systems
to cause a significant emission problem. This is likely to be a major concern given the surge in
popularity of free-range systems in Australia. Outdoor production systems are generally seen as
the environmentally sustainable and welfare friendly production systems of the future, and such
systems are actively promoted, especially in some European countries (Edwards, 2005). There
is no doubt that extensive pig production systems allow animals to express a greater variety of
behaviors when compared to traditional production systems. However, there is essentially no
information available about the potential level of noise, dust and odor emission levels from these
facilities that might potentially impact on neighboring human populations (Banhazi et al., 2011;
Talling et al., 1998). To enable the pig industry to remain competitive, producers must be able to
assess the housing systems that best suit their operation and can best respond to market signals.
Currently, free-range products can attract a significant premium at the wholesale and retail levels.
Quantifying noise (sound pressure), dust and odor levels on free-range piggeries are precursors
to the development of practical environmental management strategies for the free-range industry.
Thus, the main objective of the study was to quantify the generally encountered noise, dust and
odor emission levels from free-range pig farms by selecting representative farms and sampling
times for the measurements to be undertaken. It is expected that the industry will be able to use
these documented levels to promote the low environmental impact of the free-range pig industry.
8.2.1 Description of the survey

A well-targeted survey of sound pressure levels, as well as odor and dust concentrations, on repre-
sentative free-range piggeries in three different states over summer, winter and spring seasons was
executed. The variables were monitored for one or two days on farms situated in Queensland/New
South Wales (QLD/NSW), New South Wales (NSW) and Victoria (VIC). The summer sampling
was undertaken over two weeks in February 2012, and additional winter sampling was undertaken
in late July and early August 2012 to provide representative benchmarking data for the industry.
An additional spring monitoring was also undertaken in October 2012 to strengthen the reliability
of the odor emission data collected. During the study, approximately 14,000 individual data points
were logged that provided reliable and representative samples of the variables for analysis.
8.2.2 Description of farms
The farm situated in QLD/northern NSW was a truly outdoor production system with very little
management intervention and housing provided, except simple farrowing huts. Approximately
1200 Berkshire cross pigs of various sizes and classes were present on the property. The com-
bined area of the different paddocks made available for the pigs was approximately 370 acres
(approximate stocking rate of 1250 m2 per pig). Minimal management was implemented. Feeding
appeared to be ad-hoc floor feeding, and the majority of feed was obtained by the pigs by grazing
on the extensive paddocks. No health treatment plan was implemented, and the dominant soil
type was sandy soil with some clay patches.
The NSW free-range piggery consisted of breeder and “wean-to-finish” sites. The fencing
around each paddock consisted of two electric wires around the perimeter. Water was provided
throughout the breeder and wean-to-finish sites via underground water mains leading to troughs,
which were located next to the paddock boundary fences. The breeder site had three distinct
operational areas, namely the (1) farrowing, (2) mating and (3) gestation paddocks. Sows were
routinely moved into the farrowing paddocks approximately one week before farrowing and
remained there until the piglets were weaned at approximately 28 days of age. Farrowing sows
were provided with 4.3 m² farrowing huts, straw as nesting material (Fig. 8.1) and approximately
600 m² of grazing area per sow (Fig. 8.2).
VetBooks.ir
Figure 8.1. Farrowing huts are scattered around the paddock at the NSW farm site.
Figure 8.2. Good ground cover maintained on the paddock at the NSW farm site during winter.
116 Thomas Banhazi
The sows were kept in small groups of 4 to 8 animals per paddock to reduce inter-sow aggres-
VetBooks.ir
sion. Once the sows were weaned, they were moved into a mating paddock located adjacent to
the mating shed. The sows remained in these paddocks until pregnancy was confirmed at 4 to 5
weeks after mating. After confirmation of pregnancy, sows were moved into a larger gestation
paddock where they remained for the rest of their gestation period, approximately 10 to 11 weeks,
before returning to the farrowing paddocks. These groups vary from 22 to 30 depending on pro-
duction results. Gestating sows and gilts had access to 50 m² straw-based shelters [similar to hoop
structures used in the United States and Canada (Honeyman et al., 2001)] for protection and a
minimum paddock size of 500 m² per pig. The gestation, lactation and gilt developer feeds were
fed to pigs using a tractor and feed trailer. Gestating sows were on restricted feed to maintain
body condition, while unmated gilts and farrowed sows were fed ad lib.
At the VIC farm, only the breeding animals and pre-weaned piglets were housed outdoors, while
the Landrace/Large White cross growers/finisher pig were grown out in straw-based shelters. All
paddocks had wallows and huts provided (Fig. 8.3). Dry sow huts were provided with fresh straw
monthly, and the farrowing huts were refreshed three times per week, more often in wet weather.
The dominant soil type was volcanic clay. At the time of the visit, approximately 2500 sows, 350
gilts, 110 boars and 4000 suckling piglets were present on the farm. The stocking density was
similar for both farrowing and gestating sows (6–7 sows per acre). The standardized 1.6 hectares
(16,000 m2) paddocks housed approximately 20–25 gestating sows (approx. 650 m2 per pig), while
the 1 acre farrowing paddocks typically housed 5/6 sows (approximately 670 m2 per pig). Pigs on
this farm were marketed approximately at the age of 21 weeks with average sale weight of 95 kg.
Sows were artificially inseminated, and piglets weaned at 27 days of age. Mash sow feed manu-
factured on-farm was fed in concrete troughs, and these troughs were filled manually (to a specific
rate per sow) by hand daily. The pellets/cubed lactating sow feed was fed to ad lib by self-feeders.
8.2.3 Measurement of outdoor climate (temperature and humidity)

Self-contained, battery-operated data loggers with built-in sensors (Tinytalk-2, Hastings Dat-
aloggers Pty. Ltd., Port Macquarie, Australia) were used to measure temperature and relative
humidity on farms during data collection (Banhazi et al., 2008d). These sensors came with fac-
tory calibration. The range of the temperature sensors was −45°C to +75°C, with a documented
accuracy of ±0.5°C at 25°C. The humidity sensors had a range of 0% to 100%, with a docu-
mented accuracy of ±3% at 25°C. The sensors were placed close to the area where dust and odor
measurements were conducted.
8.2.4 Measurement of noise levels

In this study, a sound pressure meter (SoundPro, Quest Technologies, Oconomowoc, WI, US)
with recording capacity was used to collect representative sound pressure samples (Fig. 8.4). The
Figure 8.3. Dry sow huts utilized at the Victorian farm site.
Characteristics of free-range piggeries 117
instrumentation had a recent calibration certificate that was valid for the duration of the study.
VetBooks.ir
The instrumentation was placed on a tripod or a fence post at the height of approximately 1.5 m
to comply with the recording requirements of Environmental Protection Authority. Before mea-
surement, in-field calibration of the instrument was performed using the QC-10 Noise calibrator
(Quest Technologies, Oconomowoc, WI, US).
8.2.5 Measurement of dust levels

On all farms, a DustTrack light-scattering instrument (TSI Incorporated, Shoreview, MN, US) was
used to monitor intermitted dust concentrations over a 48/24 h period (Fig. 8.5). Light-scattering
instruments have been used previously in air quality studies (Kerker, 1997). The aerosol monitor
used in this project was a battery-operated instrument with data-logging capacity providing real-
time aerosol mass readings over time. The DustTrack instrument was supplied with the factory
calibration and was recalibrated annually by the supplier. In addition, before measurements, a
daily zero calibration was performed using the calibration instrument provided.
Gravimetric measurements were also undertaken to verify the results of the photo-optic mea-
surements. Concentrations of airborne particles were determined gravimetrically using cyclone
Figure 8.4. Noise monitor set up in the paddock on a tripod.
Figure 8.5. Dust monitoring inside the protective case (a) and without the outdoor protection (b). Please note
that on the top of the protective case, the gravimetric dust sampling instruments can be seen that
were used for validation.
118 Thomas Banhazi
VetBooks.ir
Figure 8.5. (Continued)
samplers for inhalable particles (SKC Inc., Eighty-Four, PA, US). These types of samplers are
used routinely in studies of personal particle exposure (Li et al., 2000; Vaughan et al., 1990).
The sampling rate was controlled at 2.20 L min−1 for respirable particles (Takai et al., 1998). The
samplers were connected to SKC AirChek XR5000 air pumps (SKC Inc., Eighty-Four, PA, US)
and were placed near the DustTrack instrument for a minimum of 4 h sampling time. After the
field measurements were complete, the concentrations of airborne particles were determined by
weighing the particle mass collected on conditioned filters in a controlled environment room.
During winter, sampling the built-in gravimetric measurements system was used to verify mea-
surements taken by the DustTrack instrument.
8.2.6 Measurement of odor
Odor testing was subcontracted to two commercial companies with NATA accreditation for odor
analysis and sampling according to relevant regulations. The companies selected also had exten-
sive experience in conducting odor surveys on livestock farms. It was important to standardize
the sampling methodology throughout the study to ensure that valid comparison can be made
between farms and seasons (Hudson and Ayoko, 2009). Differences in odor concentrations due to
sampling methods are well-documented in the literature (Hudson and Ayoko, 2009). The objec-
tive of the area source sampling was to collect representative odor samples from the ground. This
was undertaken using an isolation flux hood (IFH). All sampling with the IFH was carried out
according to the requirements of US and Australian Standards (AS/NZS 4323.4:2009). The IFH
used adhered to the design specifications, materials of construction and supporting equipment
that the relevant standards define. The IFH used had a diameter of 0.406 m, a surface area of
0.13 m2 and a volume of 30 L. The IFH is manufactured from acrylic resin to ensure it does not
contribute to the odor sample. All other surfaces in contact with the sample are made from Teflon
or stainless steel. The IFH system is designed to simulate the transfer of odorous pollutants by
the wind, resulting in a controlled and consistent sampling environment. This is achieved by the
flux of near pure nitrogen gas into the IFH. The nitrogen gas then transports the odor from the
surface in the same way the wind does, albeit at a very low sweep velocity. This odorous air is
then collected for analysis. Dry nitrogen was introduced to the IFH at a sweep rate of 5 L per
min (Lpm). Due to the constant 5 Lpm inflow of nitrogen gas, the sampling chamber remains
under positive pressure and produces a net outflow through the vent on top of the IFH, therefore,
VetBooks.ir
eliminating any chance of contamination of external air from the atmosphere. The IFH’s volume
of 30 L and the 5-Lpm nitrogen sweep rate results in a gas residence time of 6 min. The US EPA
method prescribes a minimum of four air changes to achieve optimum purging and equilibrium
in the hood; therefore, a total of 24 min is allowed before sampling commences. The sample is
then collected over a 10-min period to obtain a 20-L sample for analysis. The equipment used is
depicted in Figures 8.6 and 8.7.
The method used for collecting samples from standard point sources was the Australian Stan-
dard for odor measurement “Determination of odor concentration by dynamic olfactometry” (AS/
NZS 4323.3:2001) and involved drawing the sample gas through a PTFE sampling tube into a
single use, Nalophan sample bag. The bag was housed within a container (sampling drum) that
was evacuated with a vacuum pump, and the sample was collected by induced flow. The “lung
method,” by which this sampling procedure is known, allows the sample air to be collected with-
out coming into contact with any potentially odorous material. The balance of the gas flow was
vented to atmosphere.
The NATA-accredited odor laboratories operate by the Australian Standard for odor measure-
ment “Determination of odor concentration by dynamic olfactometry” (AS/NZS 4323.3:2001),
which prescribes a method for sample analysis that provides quality assurance/quality control
and ensures a high degree of confidence in the accuracy, repeatability and reproducibility of
results. The concentration of an odor can be measured using a technique known as forced-choice
dynamic olfactometry. Dynamic olfactometry involves the repeated presentation of both a diluted
odor sample and an odor-free air stream to a panel of qualified assessors through two adjacent
ports on the olfactometer. Four to six trained assessors (“panelists”) for sample analyses were
utilized with the results from four qualified panelists being the minimum allowed under the Aus-
tralian Standard AS/NZS 4323.3:2001. The method for odor concentration analysis involved the
odorous gas sample initially being diluted to the point where any member of the panel cannot
detect it. Each panelist stepped up to the olfactometer in turn to take a sniff from each port, and
then chose which port contains the odor and entered their response. At each stage of the testing
process, the concentration of the odorous gas was systematically increased (doubled) and then
re-presented to the panelists. A round was completed when all assessors correctly detected the
presence of the odor with certainty. The odor was presented to the panel for three rounds, and the
results were taken from the latter two rounds, as prescribed in AS/NZS 4323.3:2001. The samples
Figure 8.6. Isolation flux hood sampling train in operation (a = cylinder of nitrogen/neutral gas, b = isolation
flux hood, c = sampling drum, and d = sampling pump).
120 Thomas Banhazi
collected in this study at the VIC and NSW farms were tested on the day of their collection. The
VetBooks.ir
odor panels also characterized the odor samples and assessed the “hedonic tone.”
8.2.7 Measurement of dung cover at the sampling sites

Measurements of dung cover of the sampling area were undertaken. It was hypothesized that
dung cover measured by the number of dung pieces counted in a given area (3 m × 3 m) around
the sampling site would correlate positively with the odor concentration measured by olfactome-
try. This was undertaken as previous publications indicated, and there was a positive correlation
between dung cover of outdoor areas and corresponding ammonia measurements on Dutch pig
farms (Ivanova-Peneva et al., 2008). It was expected that perhaps the same level of correlation
could be established for odor concentration measurements as well. This would have resulted in
Figure 8.7. Isolation flux hood being used for sampling (a = inlet gas from gas cylinder, and b = outlet to
sample bag).
Figure 8.8. Heavy (a) and light (b) dung/dropping density on the ground around the sampling sites.
VetBooks.ir
the development of a practically useful odor assessment procedure. In Figure 8.8, the areas with
low and high dropping count are depicted.
8.2.8 Statistical analyses
The statistical analyses used (General Linear Model, GLM) sought to establish whether the
recorded variables (noise levels, dust concentrations and odor emission rates) were significantly
different between farms. The GLMs developed included temperature and humidity as covariates,
and the models were based on daily averages of the variables. In addition, the effects of climatic
variables (temperature and humidity) were also evaluated on the main variables (noise levels,
dust concentrations and odor emission rates) using regression analysis (StatSoft, 2001). Odor
concentrations were analyzed in relation to the recorded degree of fouling using regression anal-
ysis (StatSoft, 2001). For this regression analysis, only a limited number of data points were used
due to logistical limitations associated with assessing the degree of fouling.
8.3.1 Temperature and humidity measurements

Descriptive statistics of the temperature and humidity values recorded during the summer and
winter sampling periods for all farms are presented in Table 8.1, and Figure 8.9 shows the daily
temperature and humidity variations over the winter monitoring period on one of the study farms,
as an example.
Generally, temperatures were quite high during the summer monitoring days, except on 13
February (Table 8.1). Correspondingly, relatively low relative humidity values were recorded
during the summer experimental period. As expected, generally lower temperatures were recorded
in the mornings (Fig. 8.9b), which resulted in higher relative humidity values being observed
in the mornings and late afternoons (Fig. 8.9a). As temperatures stabilized during the day, rela-
tive humidity levels also stabilized. The high average temperatures recorded in February would
qualify this monitoring period to adequately represent typical summer conditions. Likewise, the
122 Thomas Banhazi
Table 8.1. Descriptive statistics of environmental parameters during the daily monitoring periods (summer
VetBooks.ir
& winter).
Variables/dates 09/02/12 10/02/12 13/02/12 14/02/12 16/02/12 17/02/12
Summer
Mean temperature (°C) 33.2 31.3 24.5 30.2 29.7 38.5
Median temperature (°C) 34.2 30.0 24.0 30.0 30.1 39.5
Minimum temperature (°C) 23.7 25.0 21.5 26.0 20.6 25.5
Maximum temperature (°C) 44.6 40.5 27.5 34.5 38.1 48.5
Mean relative humidity (%) 44.0 43.8 49.8 40.7 49.5 30.5
Median relative humidity (%) 47.6 42.6 49.9 41.3 49.7 30.7
Minimum relative humidity (%) 30.4 33.4 40.1 29.2 37.7 18.7
Maximum relative humidity (%) 55.0 57.6 57.9 52.2 63.3 44.3
Winter 3/08/12 7/08/12 9/08/12

Mean temperature (°C) 19.3 11.4 10.1
Median temperature (°C) 18.9 11.7 10.6
Minimum temperature (°C) 16.8 7.1 7.3
Maximum temperature (°C) 23.9 14.9 14.2
Mean relative humidity (%) 35.6 71.7 77.7
Median relative humidity (%) 37.6 71.3 77.2
Minimum relative humidity (%) 27.3 61.3 62.7
Maximum relative humidity (%) 41.5 84.2 99.4
Figure 8.9. (a) Humidity and (b) temperature variations during winter sampling periods on one of the study
farms.
average temperatures measured in August were quite low, and thus these recordings adequately
represented typical winter conditions. Temperatures were especially low at the farms situated in
VIC and NSW. The corresponding humidity values measured were quite high; indeed the maxi-
mum values measured at the farm situated in NSW were close to 100% during a rain event.
VetBooks.ir
8.3.2 Noise measurements
In Table 8.2 the average, minimum and maximum sound pressure levels (A-weighted sound
pressure levels) measured on all farms are presented. In Figure 8.10, examples of sound pressure
level variation over time are depicted.
Sound pressure levels did not vary significantly between different farms (p = 0.136), but the
QLD farm was a slightly quieter place (mean 33 dB) than the VIC (mean 38 dB) and NSW farms
(mean 41 dB). This is most likely to be related to greater level of management activity on the
VIC and NSW farms. Most of the sound pressure peaks were mainly related to machinery noise,
but casual observation indicated that bird and insect noise significantly contributed to the general
noise levels on the farms. Additional observations proved that wind and rain contributed up to
10–15 decibels (dB) to general noise levels. Very little vocalization by pigs was observed during
data recording. Even feeding times appeared to be relatively quiet periods. In general, the pigs
appeared to be contributing very little to general noise levels; all the previously mentioned factors
(machinery movement, bird and insect noise, rain and wind) appeared to be the dominant sources
of noise. Slightly lower noise measurements were obtained during the winter period (34 dB)
compared to the summer period (39 dB), and it is hypothesized that the reduced insect activity
during colder period might have contributed to this observed difference. Given the fact that 40 dB
is recognized as a quiet suburban environment, and 50 dB noise levels can be routinely measured
in a typical home (Trombetta Zannin et al., 2002); it can be said that extremely low levels of noise
were measured on all farms. Casual observation by research personnel indicated that free-range
piggeries are very quiet environments.
Very limited data has been published previously in the literature about sound pressure levels
on pig farms. Apart from a few well-known studies (Talling et al., 1998; Humann et al., 2005),
no other relevant information has been identified by the author of this article. Previous publica-
tions indicated that the average sound pressure level measured in mechanically ventilated pig
buildings is around 73 dB. The same publication demonstrated that in naturally ventilated piggery
buildings on average 10 dB less sound pressure levels were measured. According to the study,
pig vocalizations and machinery activity were significant sources of sound in these buildings
Table 8.2. Descriptive statistics of environmental parameters during the daily monitoring periods.
VetBooks.ir
Variables/dates 09/02/12 10/02/12 13/02/12 14/02/12 16/02/12 17/02/12
Summer
Mean sound pressure levels (dB) 37 30 38 42 46 39
Minimum sound pressure levels (dB) 31 21 29 31 37 35
Maximum sound pressure levels (dB) 49 44 67 61 61 65
Winter 3/08/12 7/08/12 9/08/12

Mean sound pressure levels (dB) 31 34 37
Minimum sound pressure levels (dB) 29 27 25
Maximum sound pressure levels (dB) 59 67 60
Figure 8.10. Examples of daily sound pressure levels variation on the study farms (A-weighted sound pres-
sure levels associated with weather events (a) and machinery movements (b)).
(Talling et al., 1998). An American study reported that greater than 90 decibels were measured
VetBooks.ir
on the A-scale (dBA) on all the employees monitored in a piggery facility, which exceeds the 85
dBA National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) (Humann et al., 2005). Our
study demonstrated that free-range piggeries on average are even quieter places when compared
to naturally ventilated piggery buildings, and they are certainly much quieter environments than
mechanically ventilated intensive pig buildings. Thus, it is highly unlikely that free-range pigger-
ies would significantly contribute to noise pollution levels of neighboring areas.
8.3.3 Association between humidity, temperature and noise levels

The associations between air temperature and sound pressure levels as well as between relative
humidity and sound pressure levels were investigated using regression analysis (Fig. 8.11). There
Figure 8.11. Relationship between (a) temperature, (b) humidity and noise levels (A-weighted sound pres-
sure level).
126 Thomas Banhazi
was a slightly positive association identified between sound pressure levels and air temperatures
VetBooks.ir
(p = 0.410), and relative humidity was slightly and negatively associated with sound pressure
levels (p = 0.921).
These results underpin the casual observation of the author that the winter monitoring period
appeared to be quieter than the summer period. It is not suggested by the author that noise levels
are directly related to temperature differences, but it is potentially related to increased activity
levels of bird and insect life in the warmer months. Some noise measured was also clearly asso-
ciated with machinery movements. In addition, wind bursts created significant noise levels, but
according to EPA practices, some of the identified wind noise could have been removed from the
data set, but due to practical considerations, it was not removed.
8.3.4 Dust measurements
In Table 8.3, the descriptive statistics associated with the daily dust concentrations are presented
for all farms, while in Figure 8.12 some of the variations in daily dust concentrations can be seen.
Overnight measurements undertaken at the QLD piggery yielded similar results to daytime
measurements (mean = 0.005 mg m–3, min = 0.001 mg m–3, max = 0.054 mg m–3). While very
low dust concentrations were measured on all farms, there were some differences observed in
concentrations between different farms (Fig. 8.12). The GLM analysis demonstrated that location
did have a significant effect (p = 0.049) on dust concentration, even when dust concentrations
were readjusted for environmental conditions (i.e., air temperature and relative humidity). The
farm situated in QLD recorded the lowest dust levels, which were significantly different to dust
levels recorded either on the VIC or on the NSW farms. This could be largely explained by the
minimalistic management approach adopted on the QLD farm and the remote location of the site.
Essentially, there was no (or very little) vehicle movement on the farm, which minimized dust
creation opportunities.
The measured dust concentrations were very low and particularly low when compared with
dust concentrations measured in traditional piggery buildings (Banhazi et al., 2008c; Banhazi
et al., 2009b; Banhazi, 2011). Observations also indicated that many of the peak concentrations
recorded on the VIC and NSW sites were related to factors not directly associated with pig activ-
ity. One of the most frequent causes of high peak concentrations measured was tractor/machinery
activities and occasionally, burst of air movement/wind. These high peak concentrations typically
lasted for a short period of time, and the dust stirred up by machinery movement obviously settled
down quickly (Fig. 8.13b).
Table 8.3. Descriptive statistics of dust concentrations measured during the daily monitoring periods.
Variables/dates 09/02/12 10/02/12 13/02/12 14/02/12 16/02/12 17/02/12
Summer
Mean dust concentrations (mg m–3) 0.006 0.004 0.006 0.018 0.019 0.029*
Median dust concentrations (mg m–3) 0.004 0.004 0.005 0.016 0.017 0.014
Minimum dust concentrations (mg m–3) 0.001 0.001 0.002 0.002 0.004 0.002
Maximum dust concentrations (mg m–3) 0.056 0.024 0.039 0.089 0.102 0.463
Winter 3/08/12 7/08/12 9/08/12

Mean dust concentrations (mg m–3) 0.007 0.008 0.025
Median dust concentrations (mg m–3) 0.007 0.008 0.018
Minimum dust concentrations (mg m–3) 0.001 0.003 0.006
Maximum dust concentrations (mg m–3) 0.046 0.024 0.106
tillage activity related data is included, without tillage activity: mean = 0.010, minimum = 0.002,
*
maximum = 0.117.
VetBooks.ir
Figure 8.12. Mean dust concentrations (±SE) measured at different locations.
At the NSW farm, on the morning of the 17 February 2012, some tillage activity took place
at a nearby paddock that resulted in unusually high dust concentrations (Fig. 8.13a). However,
shortly after the tillage activity stopped, the dust levels settled back again to normal/low values.
Traditional (housed) pig production usually associated with high dust concentrations that can
negatively influence the health and welfare of farm workers and pigs (Banhazi et al., 2009b;
Cambra-López et al., 2010; Donham, 1991; Iversen et al., 2000; Pedersen et al., 2001; Takai
et al., 1998; Thu, 2002; von-Borell et al., 2001; Von Essen and Romberger, 2003). Dust associ-
ated with livestock production is primary organic in nature and can absorb gases, odorous mate-
rial, and microorganisms, which can intensify its physiological effects on humans and livestock
(Lee and Zhang, 2008; Takai et al., 2002). The very low dust concentrations measured on all
free-range pig farms possibly explain the very low odor concentrations that were also measured
(Banhazi, 2013), as the low concentrations of airborne particles could not act as a significant car-
rier of odor compounds on these farms and thus did not magnify the odor affects (Bottcher, 2001;
Hammond et al., 1979; Hartung, 1986; Hoff et al., 1997; Williams, 1989).
8.3.5 Gravimetric measurements
Some gravimetric measurements were collected in conjunction with the continuous dust mea-
surements to verify the results obtained by the electro–optical instrumentation. All gravimetric
measurements were conducted near DustTrack instrumentation. In addition, the built-in gravi-
metric measurement option of the DustTrack instrumentation was also used during all monitoring
occasions. The results of the gravimetric measurements are presented in Table 8.4.
Gravimetric measurements using external instrumentation (dust pumps and filter heads) were
only undertaken at the QLD farm because of the limited availability of gravimetric instrumenta-
tion and the difficulties associated with transporting the gravimetric instrumentation interstate.
However, the built-in gravimetric function of the DustTrack™ instrumentation was used on all
farms visited. In essence, the appropriate portion of the continuous dust measurement results cor-
related well with the corresponding gravimetric measurements. The microbalance used was only
128 Thomas Banhazi
VetBooks.ir
Figure 8.13. Examples of daily variation in the measured dust concentrations associated with tillage work
(a) and machinery movements (b) on the farm.
Table 8.4. Results of independent gravimetric measurements undertaken externally or using the built-in
function of the DustTrack instrumentation and corresponding averages of the continuous
measurements.
Date Farm Type of Dust (mg m–3) Dust (mg m–3)
measurements gravimetric continuous
10/02/12 QLD External measurements 0.01 0.01

10/02/12 QLD Built-in function 0.01 0.01
13/02/12 VIC Built-in function 0.01 0.02
16/02/12 NSW Built-in function 0.02 0.02
03/08/12 QLD Built-in function 0.01 0.01
07/08/12 VIC Built-in function 0.01 0.01
09/08/12 NSW Built-in function 0.02 0.02
reliable (precise) to the hundredth position, but this level of precision was sufficient to verify the
appropriateness of the continuous measurement technique used.
8.3.6 Association between humidity, temperature and dust concentrations

The association between air temperature and dust concentrations, as well as between relative
humidity and dust concentrations, were investigated using regression analysis (Fig. 8.14). There
was no significant association identified between these variables, but relative humidity was
VetBooks.ir
non-significantly (p = 0.147) and negatively correlated with dust concentrations, while air tem-
perature was positively and non-significantly associated with dust concentration (p = 0.08).
These results were expected because the dust concentrations were very low, mainly back-
ground concentrations. In addition, it was observed that dust concentrations were, on many
instance, associated with machinery and wind movements, and these factors are not related to
temperature or humidity. Thus, it would have been a surprise if very strong associations were
identified between climatic factors and dust concentrations. However, it was interesting to see
that temperature had a strong effect on dust concentrations, approaching the level of significance
(p = 0.08). Despite the obvious association between dust and temperature, generally the domi-
nating effects of farm management practices probably dwarfed any possible influence of climatic
effects, such as air temperature or relative humidity.
8.3.7 Odor measurements

In Figure 8.15, the odor emissions measured at three different farms during the winter, summer
and spring monitoring periods are presented. Considerable variation can be observed between
the measurements taken on the VIC farm during the summer and spring monitoring periods.
While the majority of measurements were below 0.05 OU m–2 s–1; two higher odor measurements
were obtained on the VIC farm during summer. One higher odor measurement was obtained on
the same farm during the spring monitoring event. During the winter sampling period, not only
the mean odor concentrations were reduced (compared to the values obtained during summer
Figure 8.14. Relationship between temperature and dust (a), andhumidity and dust (b) concentrations.
130 Thomas Banhazi
sampling) but also the variation between different sampling sites was reduced (Fig. 8.15). On the
VetBooks.ir
NSW farm, measurements during both winter and summer monitoring periods were relatively
stable, and individual measurements never exceeded 0.072 OU m–2 s–1.
Higher measurements were associated with a standardized sampling site on the VIC site that
was close to a watering area and was, thus, muddy during the sampling times. This sampling site
was purposely selected to provide a worst-case scenario measurement. Given the known condition
of this particular sampling site (i.e., muddy area) and the disproportionally high concentration of
this sample compared to the average (more than three times of SD), this data point was removed
from the dataset as outlier. After this particular sample was removed, a different picture emerged, as
depicted in Table 8.5 and Figure 8.16b. The statistical analyses demonstrated that (StatSoft, 2001)
the measured odor emission rates were not significantly different between farms (all data included
p = 0.216; outlier removed p = 0.287). In Table 8.5, the average odor emission rates measured on the
study farms are presented during the different sampling periods, and in Figure 8.16 the mean odor
Figure 8.15. Odor measurements obtained on the different farms during the monitoring periods [(a) VIC
farm – winter, (b) VIC farm – summer, (c) VIC farm – spring, (d) QLD farm – summer; (e)
NSW farm – winter, and (f) NSW farm – summer; graphs are on the same scale for easy
comparison)
VetBooks.ir

132 Thomas Banhazi
VetBooks.ir
Table 8.5. Weighted mean (±SE) of odor emission rates (OU m–2 s–1) recorded on the three study farms.
Farm location Weighted mean odor Weighted mean odor
emission rates (±SE) (OU m–2 s–1) emission rates (±SE) (OU m–2 s–1)
all data outliers removed
Summer monitoring Summer monitoring

QLD 0.019 (±0.007) 0.019 (±0.007)
VIC 0.105 (±0.043) 0. 068 (±0.029)
NSW 0.056 (±0.007) 0.056 (±0.007)
Winter monitoring Winter monitoring
QLD N/A N/A
VIC* 0.023 (±0.005) 0.023 (±0.005)
NSW 0.032 (±0.001) 0.032 (±0.001)
Spring monitoring Spring monitoring
VIC 0.065 (±0.046) 0.019 (±0.002)
*
Additional odor measurements were undertaken during the spring period at the VIC farm, using funds that
were originally allocated for the QLD farm monitoring, as access to undertake odor measurements at the
QLD farm was not granted during winter period.
emission (±SE) rates are presented for all monitoring periods. In Table 8.6, the hedonic tone and odor
characteristics of the samples are presented for the summer and winter monitoring periods.
While the farms in VIC and NSW appear to have numerically higher odor emission rates (dif-
ferences between farms were not statistically significant), only one odor sample was classified as
having a “mildly unpleasant” hedonic tone. This indicated that all other odor samples taken at the
farms were unlikely to be associated with piggery odor.
Compared to mean odor emissions measured from similar area sources, such as dry (0.628
OU m–2 s–1) and wet feedlot (0.953 OU m–2 s–1) pens (Hudson et al., 2009), these emission rates
are very low. When the current study results are compared to odor emission rates reported from
piggery buildings in the United States (3.4–14.9 OU m–2 s–1); the Australian free-range piggery
results appear to be very low indeed (Gay et al., 2003). The personal observations of farm staff,
as well as individuals undertaking the farm measurements, confirmed that odor levels were gen-
erally very low, barely noticeable on the study farms.
(a)
VetBooks.ir
(b)
Figure 8.16. Mean odor emission rates (±SE) on the different farms during spring, winter and summer sam-
pling periods; (a) all data; (b) outliers removed.
Many options for emission reduction from traditional buildings and lagoons exist, but not
many options are available for free-range producers. For example, it has been demonstrated
that odor emission can be reduced from manure storage areas by preventing the development of
anaerobic conditions within the waste material (O’Neill and Phillips, 1991). Because bedding
materials generally facilitate the development of aerobic conditions, it has been demonstrated that
the use of bedding might also reduce odor (O’Neill and Phillips, 1991). Therefore, the generous
amount of bedding material used in farrowing huts on free-range farms (that might also dispersed
around the huts) could contribute to the reduction of odor emission from these farms. However,
based on the current results, the implementation of an odor reduction strategy on free-range pig
farms is not a priority, as the measured emission rates were low on all study farms. In addition,
it has to be said that the pigs’ natural preference to defecate outside of farrowing huts combined
134 Thomas Banhazi
Table 8.6. Hedonic tone and odor characteristics of samples

VetBooks.ir
Period Farm Hedonic tone Odor character
Winter NSW Neutral Earth, grass

Winter NSW Neutral Earth, grass
Winter NSW Neutral Earth, musty, grass
Winter NSW Neutral/mildly unpleasant Earth, musty, soil
Winter NSW Neutral/mildly unpleasant Earth, stale, soil
Winter VIC Neutral Earth
Summer NSW Pleasant, neutral Earth, cut grass
Summer NSW Pleasant, neutral Earth, cut grass
Summer NSW Neutral No discernible odor, earth
Summer NSW Neutral Earth
Summer NSW Neutral No discernible odor, earth
Summer VIC Neutral Earth
Summer VIC Neutral/mildly unpleasant Earth, sour
Summer VIC Neutral No discernible odor
Summer VIC Neutral Musty, stale milk, no
discernible odor
Summer VIC Mildly unpleasant Urine, sour, earth, rubbish
with the short occupancy time of these structures make farrowing huts an unlikely source of odor
emission.
8.3.8 Association between dung cover on the ground and odor concentrations

In Figure 8.17, the relationship between odor emissions measured and the dung cover of a given
area around the sampling sites is presented. Using regression analysis, the number of drop-
pings counted in a given area around the odor sampling site did not correlate significantly with
odor emission rates (p = 0.401). There was a non-significant and slightly positive correlation
observed between these two variables on the two farms where dropping numbers were success-
fully obtained (Fig. 8.17). There are a number of reasons for these results. First, it is clear from
the results associated with the hedonic tone of the samples taken on the farms (Table 8.6) that
not all odor samples were associated with piggery odor. Most samples (except three) evaluated
for hedonic tone/odor characteristics were classified as having pleasant, earthly or “grass” odor.
Thus, while the measured odors were noticeable, it is highly likely that many of the odor samples
were not directly related to pigs. Thus, it is not surprising that a reliable relationship could not be
established between dropping counts and odor emission rates. In addition, it is hypothesized that
the odor emission rates would ultimately related to the urine and fecal material leached from the
droppings into the ground. However, surface runoff would distribute the fecal material quite inde-
pendently from the actual deposition points of dung. The low number of odor samples obtained
(constrained by financial considerations) probably also contributed to non-significant relationship
being established between dung cover of the sampling area and odor concentrations.
Therefore, while it would have been useful to do so, a relationship between dung cover of the
VetBooks.ir
ground and odor emission rates could not be established at this time. Despite these conclusions,
it was interesting to see that after adding the winter data point to the dataset to be analyzed, the p
value slightly improved (from p = 0.507 to p = 0.401), indicating that the added data points did
not go against the previously identified trend.
8.3.9 Association between temperature, humidity and odor concentrations

The association between air temperature and odor concentrations, as well as between relative
humidity and odor concentrations, were investigated using regression analysis (Fig. 8.18). Ini-
tially there was no significant association identified between these variables, but when the outliers
were removed from the dataset, a clearer picture emerged. Relative humidity was significantly
Figure 8.17. Relationship between dropping count and odor emission (limited number of data points used
due to logistical limitations).
(a)
Figure 8.18. Relationship between air temperature odor emission (a) and, relative humidity and odor emis-
sion (b) (based on daily averages).
136 Thomas Banhazi
(b)
VetBooks.ir
(p = 0.002) and negatively correlated with odor concentrations, while air temperature was posi-
tively associated with odor concentration, but this association was not significant at the 5% level
(p = 0.064).
These results were significant findings of the study. It is hypostatized that air temperature was
positively associated with odor concentrations, as higher temperatures increased odor genera-
tion from the soil. It is very likely that most odor measurements were associated with the soil
(Table 8.4), and at higher temperatures, more odorous material will be generated via increased
microbial activity, as well as increased evaporation of odorous material from the soil. Lower
humidity levels are usually associated with higher temperatures; thus, higher odor concentrations
would be naturally associated with lower humidity levels. In addition, higher relative humidity
might “dilute” odor concentration in the air via absorption of odorous material in air moisture.
8.4 CONCLUSIONS
In this study, the generally encountered noise, dust and odor emission levels from a representative
sample of free-range pig farms were quantified. Sound pressure levels did not vary significantly
between farms (p = 0.136), but the farm in QLD appeared to be a quieter place than the two other
farms. Most of the noise peaks were probably machinery related noise, but casual observation
indicated that bird and insect noise contributed to the general noise levels on the farms too. In
general, the pigs appeared to be contributing very little to general noise levels on the selected
free-range pig farms. Very low sound pressure levels (study mean = 37 dB) were measured on all
free-range farms (when compared to previous publications), indicating that free-range piggeries
are very quiet environments. Thus, it is highly unlikely that free-range piggeries would signifi-
cantly contribute to noise pollution levels of neighboring areas.
While a significant difference (p = 0.049) was demonstrated in dust concentrations between
different farms, essentially very low dust concentrations were measured on all farms. These dust
concentrations are particularly low when compared with dust concentrations measured in tra-
ditional piggery buildings. Observations indicated that many of the peak concentrations were
related to factors not directly associated with pig activity. One of the most frequent causes of
high peak concentrations measured was tractor/machinery activities and occasionally burst of
air movement/wind. These high peak concentrations typically lasted for a short period of time,
and the dust stirred up by machinery movement obviously settled down quickly. There was a
VetBooks.ir
non-significant negative correlation identified between relative humidity and dust concentrations
(p = 0.147), while air temperature was positively and non-significantly associated with dust con-
centration (p = 0.08).
Generally stable and low odor emission rates were measured on all study farms. While the
majority of measurements were below 0.05 OU m–2 s–1; a few higher odor measurements were
obtained on the VIC farm at one specific sampling site. The statistical analysis demonstrated that
the measured odor emission rates were not significantly different between farms (p = 0.29). Only
one odor sample was classified as having a “mildly unpleasant” hedonic tone, and this indicated
that many of the odor samples taken at the farms were unlikely to be associated with piggery
odor. Compared to mean odor emissions measured from similar area sources or from traditional
piggeries, odor emission rates from free-range piggeries in Australia are very low. The personal
observations of farm staff, as well as individuals undertaking the on-farm measurements, con-
firmed that odor levels were generally very low, barely noticeable on the study farms. Relative
humidity was significantly (p = 0.002) and negatively correlated with odor concentrations, while
air temperature was positively associated with odor concentration, but this association was not
significant at the 5% level (p = 0.064). These results indicated that immediate implementation of
emission reduction strategies on free-range pig farms are not necessary at this stage, but regular
monitoring of these variables will be required in the future, as emission rates could change sig-
nificantly over time due to changed management methods.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The author would like to acknowledge the important contribution of the managers and staff of
collaborating farms, the technical/scientific assistance of Mr. Harry Braun (Emission Testing
Consultants), Mr. Steve Hayes (The Odor Unit Pty Ltd.), Mr. Stephen Munro (The Odor Unit
Pty Ltd.), Dr. Valeri Lenchine (Science and Assessment, EPA of SA), Dr. Neale Hudson (National
Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research Ltd), Mr. Mick O’Keefe (FSA Consulting) and Mr.
Mick Atzeni (Agri-Science Queensland, DEEDI). The financial assistance provided by the Aus-
tralian Pork Limited (APL) is also gratefully acknowledged.
REFERENCES
Banhazi, T. (2011) Spatial, diurnal and seasonal variations in the levels of environmental parameters in
Australian livestock buildings. In: Banhazi, T. & Saunders, C. (eds) The Bi-annual Conference of the
Australian Society of Engineering in Agriculture, Vol. 1, 29–30 September 2011, Gold Coast, Australia,
Australian Society of Engineering in Agriculture (SEAg). pp. 69–78.
Banhazi, T.M. (2013) Monitoring the potential environmental impact of free range piggeries in three states
of Australia, part 2: Odour emission rates. In: Saunders, C. & Banhazi, T.M. (eds) The Bi-annual Con-
ference of the Australian Society of Engineering in Agriculture (SEAg 2013), Vol. 1, CD 1–11, 22–25
September 2013, Perth, Australia Australian Society of Engineering in Agriculture.
Banhazi, T.M., Rutley, D.L. & Pitchford, W.S. (2008a) Identification of risk factors for sub-optimal housing
conditions in Australian piggeries – Part IV: emission factors and study recommendations. Journal of
Banhazi, T.M., Seedorf, J., Rutley, D.L. & Pitchford, W.S. (2008b). Identification of risk factors for sub-
Banhazi, T.M., Seedorf, J., Rutley, D.L. & Pitchford, W.S. (2008c). Identification of risk factors for sub-
Banhazi, T.M., Seedorf, J., Rutley, D.L. & Pitchford, W.S. (2008d). Identification of risk factors for sub-
optimal housing conditions in Australian piggeries – Part III: environmental parameters. Journal of Agri-
cultural Safety and Health, 14(1), 41–52.
138 Thomas Banhazi
Banhazi, T., Hudson, N., Dunlop, M., Dyson, C. & Thomas, R. (2009a) Development and testing of an eval-
VetBooks.ir
uation procedure for commercial manure additive products. Biosystems Engineering, 103(3), 321–328.
Banhazi, T.M., Currie, E., Reed, S., Lee, I.-B. & Aarnink, A.J.A. (2009b) Controlling the concentrations of
airborne pollutants in piggery buildings. In: Aland, A. & Madec, F. (eds) Sustainable Animal Production:
The Challenges and Potential Developments for Professional Farming, Vol. 1. Wageningen Academic
Publishers, Wageningen, The Netherlands. pp. 285–311.
Banhazi, T.M., Saunders, C., Nieuwe, N., Lu, V. & Banhazi, A. (2011) Oil-spraying as a air quality improve-
ment technique in livestock buildings: development and utilisation of a testing device. Australian Journal
of Multi-disciplinary Engineering, 8(2), 169–180.
Bottcher, R.W. (2001) An environmental nuisance: odor concentrated and transported by dust. Chemical
Senses, 26, 327–331.
Brose, G., Gallmann, E., Hartung, E. & Jungbluth, T. (2001) Detection of the dynamics of odour emissions
from pig farms using dynamic olfactometry and an electronic odour sensor. Water Science and Technol-
ogy, 44(9), 59–64.
Cambra-López, M., Aarnink, A.J.A., Zhao, Y., Calvet, S. & Torres, A.G. (2010) Airborne particulate mat-
ter from livestock production systems: a review of an air pollution problem. Environmental Pollution,
158(1), 1–17.
American Journal of Veterinary Research, 52(10), 1723–1730.
Edwards, S.A. (2005) Product quality attributes associated with outdoor pig production. Livestock Produc-
tion Science, 94(1–2), 5–14.
Gay, S.W., Schmidt, D.R., Clanton, C.J., Janni, K.A., Jacobson, L.D. & Weisberg, S. (2003) Odor, total
reduced sulfur, and ammonia emissions from animal housing facilities and manure storage units in Min-
nesota Applied Engineering in Agriculture, 19(3), 347–360.
Hammond, E.G., Fedler, C. & Junk, G. (1979) Identification of dust-borne odors in swine confinement facil-
ities. Transactions of the ASAE, 22(5), 1186–1189.
Hartung, J. (1986) Dust in livestock buildings as a carrier of odours. In: Nielsen, V.C., Voorburg, J.H. &
l’Hermite, P. (eds) Odour Prevention and Control of Organic Sludge and Livestock Farming, Vol. 1.
Elsevier Applied Science, New York, Silsoe, UK. pp. 321–332.
Hayes, E.T., Curran, T.P. & Dodd, V.A. (2006) Odour and ammonia emissions from intensive pig units in
Ireland. Bioresource Technology, 97(7), 940–948.
Hoff, S.J., Bundy, D.S. & Li, X.W. (1997) Dust effects on odour and odour compounds. In: Voermans,
J.A.M. & Monteny, G.J. (eds) Ammonia and Odour Emmissions from Animal Production Facilities, Vol.
1. Vinkeloord, The Netherlands. pp. 101–109.
Honeyman, M.S., Harmon, J.D., Kliebenstein, J.B. & Richard, T.L. (2001) Feasibility of hoop structures for
market swine in Iowa: pig performance, pig environment, and budget analysis. Applied Engineering in
Agriculture, 17(6), 869–874.
Hudson, N. & Ayoko, G.A. (2009) Comparison of emission rate values for odour and odorous chemicals
derived from two sampling devices. Atmospheric Environment, 43(20), 3175–3181.
Hudson, N., McGahan, E., Casey, K., Lowe, S., Galvin, G., Jeston, P. & Dunlop, M. (2007) Odour emissions
from anaerobic piggery ponds. 1. Results of a three season, 14-month survey. Bioresource Technology,
98(10), 1877–1887.
Hudson, N., Ayoko, G.A., Collman, G., Gallagher, E., Dunlop, M. & Duperouzel, D. (2008) Long-term
assessment of efficacy of permeable pond covers for odour reduction. Bioresource Technology, 99(14),
6409–6418.
Hudson, N., Ayoko, G.A., Dunlop, M., Duperouzel, D., Burrell, D., Bell, K., Gallagher, E., Nicholas, P. &
Heinrich, N. (2009) Comparison of odour emission rates measured from various sources using two sam-
pling devices. Bioresource Technology, 100(1), 118–124.
Humann, M.J., Donham, K.J., Jones, M.L., Achutan, C. & Smith, B.J. (2005) Occupational noise exposure
assessment in intensive swine farrowing systems. Journal of Agromedicine, 10(1), 23–37.
Ivanova-Peneva, S.G., Aarnink, A.J.A. & Verstegen, M.W.A. (2008) Ammonia emissions from organic hous-
ing systems with fattening pigs. Biosystems Engineering, 99(3), 412–422.
Iversen, M., Kirychuk, S., Drost, H. & Jacobson, L. (2000) Human health effects of dust exposure in animal
confinement building. Journal of Agricultural Safety and Health, 6(4), 283–288.
Kerker, M. (1997) Light-scattering instrumentation for aerosol studies: an historical overview. Aerosol Sci-
ence and Technology, 27(4), 522–540.
Lee, J. & Zhang, Y. (2008) Evaluation of gas emissions from animal building dusts using a cylindrical con-
VetBooks.ir
vective chamber. Biosystems Engineering, 99(3), 403–411.

Li, S.-N., Lundgren, D.A. & Rovell-Rixx, D. (2000) Evaluation of six inhalable aerosol samplers. American
Industrial Hygiene Association Journal, 61, 506–516.
O’Neill, D.H. & Phillips, V.R. (1991) A review of the control of odour nuisance from livestock buildings:
part 1, influence of the techniques for managing waste within the building. Journal of Agricultural Engi-
neering Research, 50, 1–10.
StatSoft, I. (2001) STATISTICA. Data Analysis Software System. StatSoft, Inc., Tulsa, OK.
Holden, M.R., Sneath, R.W., Short, J.L., White, R.P., Hartung, J., Seedorf, J., Schroder, M., Linkert,
K.H. & Wathes, C.M. (1998) Concentrations and emissions of airborne dust in Livestock buildings in
Northern Europe. Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research, 70(1), 59–77.
Takai, H., Nekomoto, K., Dahl, P., Okamoto, E., Morita, S. & Hoshiba, S. (2002) Ammonia contents and
desorption from dusts collected in livestock buildings. Agricultural Engineering International: the CIGR
Journal of Scientific Research and Development, 4.
Talling, J.C., Lines, J.A., Wathes, C.M. & Waran, N.K. (1998) The acoustic environment of the domestic pig.
Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research, 71(1), 1–12.
Thu, K.M. (2002) Public health concerns for neighbors of large – scale swine production operations. Journal
of Agricultural Safety and Health, 8(2), 175–184.
Trombetta Zannin, P.H., Belisário Diniz, F. & Alves Barbosa, W. (2002) Environmental noise pollution in the
city of Curitiba, Brazil. Applied Acoustics, 63(4), 351–358.
Vaughan, N.P., Chalmers, C.P. & Botham, R.A. (1990) Field comparison of personal samplers for inhalable
dust. Annals of Occupational Hygiene, 34(6), 553–573.
von Borell, E., Bockisch, F.-J., Buscher, W., Hoy, S., Krieter, J., Muller, C., Parvizi, N., Richter, T., Rudovsky,
A., Sundrum, A. & Van den Weghe, H. (2001) Critical control points for on-farm assessment of pig hous-
ing. Livestock Production Science, 72(1–2), 177–184.
Von Essen, S. & Romberger, D. (2003) The respiratory inflammatory response to the swine confinement
building environment: the adaptation to respiratory exposures in the chronically exposed worker. Journal
Williams, A.G. (1989) Dust and odour relationships in broiler house air. Journal of Agricultural Engineering
Research, 44, 175–190.
VetBooks.ir
CHAPTER 9
VetBooks.ir
Airborne pollutant concentrations within and emission rates

from Australian piggery buildings
Thomas Banhazi
9.1 INTRODUCTION
Generally, the airspace of intensive piggery buildings is filled with the mixture of different air-
borne pollutants, including dust, ammonia, microorganisms and bacterial products, such as endo-
toxins (Wathes et al., 1998). Airborne microorganisms are usually attached to airborne particles
and often referred to as “viable” airborne particles, as opposed to the ones that are not displaying
biological activity expected from a living organism (Seedorf et al., 1998b). The finer fraction of
the biologically active airborne material is often referred to as “bioaerosol,” which is a complex
mixture of different microorganisms, bacterial products (such as endotoxins), airborne particles
acting as carriers for the microbes and different gases absorbed in them (Seedorf et al., 1998b).
Endotoxins are a cell wall component of gram-negative bacteria and have been associated with
production problems in the livestock industries.
There are essentially three major areas of concern in relation to airborne dust, such as
(1) emission issues and (2) human and (3) animal health effects (Banhazi et al., 2008a, 2009).
High airborne dust concentrations are a concern for livestock managers because a number of
studies demonstrated the association between airborne particles and different lung-related dis-
eases in animals and humans (Crook et al., 1991; Donham et al., 1989). A number of studies have
also demonstrated significant effects of sub-optimal air quality on production efficiency (Urbain
et al., 1999). Airborne pollutant emission, negative human and animal health effects are asso-
ciated with aerial ammonia that can be found in the airspace of intensive piggery buildings
(Banhazi et al., 2008c, 2009, 2013). High ammonia concentrations are also a concern for live-
stock managers because a number of studies demonstrated the association between ammonia,
viable airborne particles and different lung-related diseases in animals and humans (Crook
et al., 1991; Donham et al., 1989; Lee et al., 2005; Murphy et al., 2012), as well as the significant
effects of sub-optimal air quality on production efficiency (Urbain et al., 1999). High airborne
microorganism and endotoxin concentrations are a concern for livestock managers, because a
number of studies demonstrated the association between viable airborne particles, endotoxins and
different lung-related diseases in animals and humans (Crook et al., 1991; Donham et al., 1989).
A number of studies have also demonstrated significant effects of sub-optimal air quality on pro-
duction efficiency (Urbain et al., 1999). The interaction between noxious gases found in piggery
buildings and the bacterial component of organic dust has also been implicated in respiratory
disorders of pigs (Curtis et al., 1975).
Therefore, the two main objectives of this study were to (1) document internal concentrations
of airborne dust, endotoxins, microorganisms and ammonia in different types of piggery build-
ings used in commercial production systems in Australia and to (2) calculate, using refereed
methodology, the emission levels of airborne dust, endotoxins, microorganisms and ammonia
from different types of piggery buildings in Australia.
141
142 Thomas Banhazi
9.2 MATERIAL AND METHODS

VetBooks.ir
In total, 160 piggery buildings were included in the study. Each herd received four two-day
visits during a period of one month with a different section of the farm monitored at each visit.
On each farm, dry sow, weaner, grower/finisher sheds and farrowing rooms, and on some farms,
straw-based shelters, were surveyed during the study (Banhazi et al., 2008c, 2008d). Details of
the techniques used for measurement of dust concentrations have been described by other articles
(Banhazi et al., 2008c, 2008d). A multi-gas monitoring (MGM) machine was used for ammonia
and carbon dioxide measurements, as described previously (Banhazi et al., 2008c, 2008d). Details
of the techniques used for the measurement of endotoxin and bacteria concentrations have been
described by other articles and are outlined here (Banhazi et al., 2008c, 2008d). The respirable
dust fraction was sampled for 8 h at 1.90 L min–1, and a commercially available endotoxin test kit
was used to determine the endotoxin concentrations in the dust samples. The endotoxin analysis
used was based on the Limulus Amoebocyte Lysate (LAL) test. The subsequent measurements
of endotoxin concentration were performed using a microplate method, as described previously
(Banhazi et al., 2008d). The results were expressed in endotoxin units (EU). The sampling of air-
borne microorganisms was carried out using a standard Anderson sampler or six-stage bacterial
impactor. Horse blood agar (HBA) was used for the determination of the total amount of bacte-
ria. The flow rate during sampling was 1.9 L min–1, and the sampling duration was 5 min, as in
previous studies (Banhazi et al., 2008d). The exposed HBA plates were incubated at 37oC under
aerobic conditions, as described previously (Banhazi et al., 2008d). The results were expressed
as colony-forming units per cubic meter (cfu m–3).
The estimate of emission rate was determined from the product of the ventilation rate, which
was based on the carbon dioxide balance method (Seedorf et al., 1998a). For predicting emis-
sion levels, the European ANIPRO (developed from the early version of “Stalkl”) program was
used. The Windows-based STATISTICA 6.0 (StatSoft Inc., 1996) software was used to conduct
basic statistical manipulation of the data, such as grouping and descriptive statistics. A detailed
model was later developed to test various interactions, and the results of the detailed analy-
sis have been published previously (Banhazi et al., 2008b, 2008d, 2008e). However, in this
paper grouping (one-way ANOVA) was used to report on average values recorded in different
buildings.
9.3 RESULTS
9.3.1 Inhalable and respirable particle concentrations

The results of internal concentrations of airborne dust measured in different types of piggery
buildings included in the study are shown in Table 9.1. The highest total airborne dust concen-
trations were detected in straw-based shelters and weaner buildings, with mean concentrations of
2.57 and 2.66 mg m–3, respectively. In contrast to the previously mentioned buildings, houses for
dry sows had the lowest concentrations of inhalable dust of 0.804 mg m–3.
The respirable dust concentrations in straw-based shelters were clearly very high, ranging
between 0.121 and 2.13 mg m–3, with the mean value of 0.642 mg m–3. This average value is almost
three times the recommended maximum level currently adopted in Australia as safe respirable
dust levels (0.23 mg m–3) in livestock buildings (Banhazi et al., 2008c). Dry sow (0.16 mg m–3)
and farrowing buildings (0.18 mg m–3) recorded the lowest means numerically, as well as the
lowest maximum concentrations (Table 9.1).
9.3.2 Inhalable and respirable particle emission rates

The mean inhalable dust emission was 1306.7 mg h–1 per 500 kg live weight (Table 9.2). Farrow-
ing (509.6 mg h–1 LSU–1) and dry sow (411.2 mg h–1 LSU–1) buildings had very low emission rates,
Table 9.1. Inhalable and respirable dust concentrations (mg m–3) inside the study buildings (summary table
VetBooks.ir
of means).
Building type Mean No of buildings Minimum Maximum
Inhalable dust
Grower 1.678 37 0.240 4.839
Finisher 1.674 27 0.389 4.291
Straw-based shelters 2.567 11 0.273 7.677
Dry sow 0.804 22 0.125 4.580
Farrowing 1.225 29 0.123 5.146
Weaner 2.657 33 0.145 10.072
All groups 1.738 159 0.123 10.072
Respirable dust
Grower 0.237 37 0.021 0.698
Finisher 0.305 27 0.034 1.190
Dry sow 0.161 22 0.033 0.397
Farrowing 0.179 29 0.014 0.468
Weaner 0.267 33 0.055 0.974
All groups 0.262 159 0.014 2.130
Table 9.2. Inhalable and respirable dust emission values per livestock units (LSU = 500 kg live weight) and
per animal from different piggery buildings (mg h–1).
Inhalable dust
Grower (LSU) 1041.3 28 20.3 2576.9
Finisher (LSU) 1031.1 19 212.4 2690.5
Straw-based shelters (LSU) 4925.1 8 543.6 26,747.0
Dry sow (LSU) 411.2 14 48.5 884.8
Farrowing (LSU) 509.6 18 122.4 1691.0
Weaner (LSU) 1788.6 22 260.8 8059.9
All groups (LSU) 1306.7 109 20.3 26,747.0
Grower (per animal) 94.4 28 2.0 221.7
Finisher (per animal) 154.2 19 35.3 471.5
Straw-based shelters (per animal) 787.0 8 44.0 5081.9
Dry sow (per animal) 131.7 14 17.0 309.7
Farrowing (per animal) 238.9 18 57.5 791.4
Weaner (per animal) 46.3 22 7.5 209.6
All groups (per animal) 174.6 109 2.0 5081.9
Respirable dust
Grower (LSU) 121.5 28 4.4 418.7
Finisher (LSU) 194.4 19 37.3 510.3
Straw-based shelters (LSU) 1771.7 8 67.9 12,150.0
Dry sow (LSU) 80.8 14 12.8 193.3
Farrowing (LSU) 60.4 18 9.8 293.7
Weaner (LSU) 194.5 22 23.0 1942.9
All groups (LSU) 254.8 109 4.4 12,150.0
144 Thomas Banhazi
while straw-based shelters had the highest inhalable dust emission rates calculated by far (4925.1
VetBooks.ir
mg h–1 LU–1). Straw-based shelters recorded the highest maximum emission rate of inhalable dust
as well, which was approximately 30 times higher than maximum emission from dry sow build-
ings. The mean respirable dust emission rates were again the lowest from the dry sow (80.8 mg
h–1 LU–1) and farrowing buildings (60.4 mg h–1 LU–1) and the highest from straw-based shelters
(1771.7 mg h–1 LU–1). Emission rates per animal are also presented in Table 9.2. Straw-based
shelters again recorded the highest emission rates per pigs (313.5 mg h–1 per animal). The overall
respirable dust emission rate was 40.1 mg h–1 per animal.
9.3.3 Ammonia concentrations
The results of internal concentrations of ammonia measured in different types of piggery build-
ings included in the study are shown in Table 9.3. Grower buildings had the highest ammonia
concentrations recorded (5.5 ppm), while the lowest ammonia concentrations were measured
inside straw-based shelters (1.1 ppm). The highest maximum concentration of ammonia was also
measured in grower buildings, indicating that this type of building had consistently higher ammo-
nia concentrations, compared to other types of buildings (Banhazi et al., 2008d, 2010). The mean
ammonia concentrations were the same in finisher (3.1 ppm) and dry sow (3.1 ppm) buildings.
9.3.4 Ammonia emission rates

The mean ammonia emission was 1442.5 mg h–1 LSU–1 (Table 9.4). Finisher, straw-based shel-
ters and weaner buildings all had relatively low emission rates (mean emission rates of 1123.2,
1146.7 and 1143.5 mg h–1 LSU–1, respectively), while grower buildings had the highest mean
emission rates calculated (2050.4 mg h–1 LSU–1). The maximum values for ammonia emission
rates were also compared (Table 9.4). In all buildings, the maximum emission rates were quite
similar, ranging between 9240.3 and 14,006.4 mg h–1 LSU–1. However, the maximum ammonia
emission rate was quite markedly lower from straw-based shelters (5880.2 mg h–1 LSU–1) than
from other buildings.
Emission rates per animal are also presented in Table 9.4, and when considering emission per
animals, dry sow (492.0 mg h–1 per animal) and farrowing buildings (614.1 mg h–1 per animal) are
the highest emitters, reflecting on the relatively small number of animals kept in these buildings
per unit space. Weaner buildings are considered to be low emitters (31.7 mg h–1 per animal), as
the overall emission rates are subdivided by a typically large number of animals kept in weaner
buildings, resulting in a low emission rate per weaner pigs.
9.3.5 Airborne microorganism concentrations

The results of internal concentrations of airborne microorganisms measured in different types of
piggery buildings included in the study are shown in Table 9.5 and Figure 9.1. The highest total
airborne microorganism concentrations were detected in straw-based shelters with mean concen-
trations of 3.27 × 105 cfu m–3. In contrast to straw-based shelters, houses for farrowing sows had
Table 9.3. Ammonia concentrations (ppm) inside the study buildings (summary table of means).
Grower 5.5 34 0.11 29.36

Finisher 3.1 21 0.15 20.10
Dry sow 3.1 21 0.06 22.71
Farrowing 4.1 27 0.08 20.00
Weaner 2.8 29 0.00 17.46
All groups 3.7 141 0.00 29.36
Table 9.4. Ammonia emission values per livestock units (LSU = 500 kg live weight) and per animal from
VetBooks.ir
different piggery buildings (mg h–1).

Grower (LSU) 2050.4 26 38.1 13,618.1

Finisher (LSU) 1123.2 15 50.6 10,434.5
Straw-based shelters (LSU) 1146.7 7 91.7 5880.2
Dry sow (LSU) 1424.2 13 16.6 13,356.3
Farrowing (LSU) 1307.3 18 15.5 14,006.4
Weaner (LSU) 1143.5 21 1.5 9240.3
All groups (LSU) 1442.5 100 1.5 14,006.4
Straw-based shelters (per 193.2 7 3.7 1117.2
animal)
Table 9.5. Bacteria concentrations (x 105 cfu m–3) inside the study buildings (summary table of means).
Grower 1.34 28 0.45 3.49

Finisher 0.96 26 0.36 3.13
Dry sow 0.76 15 0.25 1.96
Farrowing 0.69 19 0.17 1.35
Weaner 0.94 24 0.22 2.55
All groups 1.17 122 0.17 6.06
Figure 9.1. Distribution of airborne viable particle concentrations (cfu m–3) in Australian piggery buildings.
146 Thomas Banhazi
lowest concentrations of airborne microorganisms of 0.69 × 105 cfu m–3. The highest minimum
VetBooks.ir
and maximum concentrations of airborne microorganisms were also measured in straw-based

shelters, indicating (which was demonstrated in a previous study) that this type of buildings had
a significantly and consistently higher airborne microorganisms population, compared to tradi-
tional buildings (Banhazi et al., 2008d, 2010).
The mean airborne microorganism concentrations were very similar in weaner (0.94 × 105 cfu m–3)
and finisher (0.96 × 105 cfu m–3) buildings. Grower buildings had the second highest airborne micro-
organisms concentrations recorded (1.34 × 105 cfu m–3), while the second lowest airborne microor-
ganism concentrations were measured inside buildings housing dry sows (0.76 × 105 cfu m–3).
In Figure 9.1, the distribution of airborne microorganism concentrations measured in all build-
ings is presented. This graph is probably more useful demonstrating the extent of the problems
with bacteria concentrations in piggery buildings, than summarizing a table of means. It is gener-
ally reassuring that 62% of the measured bacteria concentrations in Australian piggery buildings
were between 0.50 and 1.50 × 105 cfu m–3. Nineteen percent of all measurements were below
0.50 × 105 cfu m–3, and the remaining 19% were above the 1.50 × 105 cfu m–3 cutoff point.
Because in Australia the maximum recommended concentration is 1.0 × 105 cfu m–3, 41% of all
sheds were above that concentration.
9.3.6 Airborne microorganism emission rates

The mean bacteria emission was 8.2 × 107 cfu h–1 (500 kg) live weight (Table 9.6). Emission
rates generally followed the order observed in the internal airborne microorganism concentra-
tions between different piggery buildings. Farrowing buildings had very low emission rates with
a mean emission rate of 2.82 × 107 cfu h–1 (500 kg) live weight, while straw-based shelters had
the highest emission rates calculated by far (44.15 × 107 cfu h–1 LU–1). Maximum values for air-
borne microorganisms emission rates were also compared (Table 9.6). In straw-based shelters,
the maximum emission rates of airborne microorganisms were approximately 15 times higher
than in farrowing buildings. The mean airborne microorganism emission rates were again very
similar in weaner (5.23 × 107 cfu h–1 LU–1) and finisher (5.80 × 107 cfu h–1 LU–1) buildings.
The second lowest mean airborne microorganism emission rates were calculated for buildings
housing dry sows (3.83 × 107 cfu h–1 LU–1), while on average grower buildings emitted the most
airborne microorganisms after straw-based shelters (7.61 × 107 cfu h–1 LU–1). Emission rates per
animal are also presented in Table 9.6. Straw-based shelters again recorded the highest emission
Table 9.6. Bacteria emission values per livestock units (LSU = 500 kg live weight) and per animal from
different piggery buildings (× 107 cfu h–1).
Grower (LSU) 7.61 28 1.18 31.29

Finisher (LSU) 5.80 19 1.97 17.82
Dry sow (LSU) 3.83 14 1.10 11.44
Farrowing (LSU) 2.82 18 0.41 8.64
Weaner (LSU) 5.23 22 1.00 15.69
All groups (LSU) 8.22 109 0.41 143.32
Airborne pollutants and piggeries 147
rates per pigs. The next highest emission rates per animal were recorded in dry and farrowing sow
VetBooks.ir
buildings, while weaner pigs had the lowest value recorded per animal.
9.3.7 Airborne endotoxin concentrations

The concentrations of airborne endotoxins results are summarized in Tables 9.7. The endotoxin
concentrations in straw-based shelters were clearly very high, ranging between 10.80 and 238.4
EU m–3. Straw-based shelters had the highest endotoxin concentrations, followed by grower and
finisher buildings. Endotoxin concentrations of traditional piggery buildings were quite similar.
Dry sow and farrowing buildings recorded the lowest means numerically as well as the lowest
maximum concentrations.
The frequency distribution of endotoxin concentrations in different classes of pig houses is
shown in Figure 9.2. Approximately 55% of the respirable endotoxin samples had concentrations
in the range of 0–20 EU m–3. A bit over 30% of all samples had concentrations between 20 and 60
EU m–3. The remaining 27% of all samples had concentrations above 60 EU m–3.
9.3.8 Airborne endotoxin emission rates

The mean respirable endotoxin emission rates calculated from different piggery buildings are
shown in Table 9.8. The results are expressed in two different ways, that is, per animal and per
livestock unit (500 kg live weight) basis. The overall emission rate was 20.15 × 103 EU h–1 (500
Table 9.7. Endotoxin concentrations (EU m–3) inside the study buildings (summary table of means).
Grower 32.48 36 6.39 126.88

Finisher 33.71 26 6.08 225.85
Dry sow 23.30 21 9.15 75.44
Farrowing 25.35 29 9.48 83.24
Weaner 30.60 31 0.00 108.80
All groups 33.13 153 0.00 238.38
Figure 9.2. Distribution of endotoxin concentrations (EU m–3) in Australian piggery buildings.
148 Thomas Banhazi
Table 9.8. Endotoxin emissions per livestock unit (LSU = 500 kg live weight) and per animal from different
VetBooks.ir
piggery buildings (× 103 EU h–1).

Grower (LSU) 16.10 27 0.66 51.42

Finisher (LSU) 15.93 18 3.97 39.17
Dry sow (LSU) 14.04 13 3.17 38.38
Farrowing (LSU) 13.37 17 3.07 40.28
Weaner (LSU) 19.08 20 2.07 59.21
All groups (LSU) 20.15 102 0.66 247.06
kg) live weight and 3.31 × 103 EU h–3 per animal for respirable endotoxins. Buildings with
bedding material had the highest endotoxin emissions, while all other buildings had very similar
emission levels per EU. Endotoxin emission rates in straw-based shelters ranged between 10.30
and 247.06 × 103 EU h–1. Endotoxin emissions from weaner buildings recorded the second high-
est levels numerically (19.08 × 103 EU h–1). Endotoxin emission per animal followed the pattern
of the airborne microorganism emissions. Here again, straw-based shelters had the highest emis-
sion levels, followed by dry sow and farrowing buildings.
9.4 DISCUSSION
Overall, the concentration of respirable dust, as well as emissions of inhalable and respira-
ble dust (as expressed per LSU or per animals) were the highest in straw-based shelters. The
current “safe” concentration recommendation in Australia for exposure of respirable dust is
0.23 mg m–3 and 2.4 mg m–3 for inhalable dust. The mean concentration of inhalable dust in
straw-based shelters was also a concern, as it exceeded recommended levels. In terms of respi-
rable and inhalable dust levels, Australian piggery buildings generally recorded comparable
or higher levels that previously published results (Takai et al., 1998). Differences observed
in the concentration between the published results from the European and Australian studies
might be due to the rate of dust generation within the buildings and/or the clearance by various
routes. The second highest respirable dust concentrations were measured in buildings housing
finisher pigs. Relatively high concentrations of respirable dust were measured in weaner build-
ings; however, this was not surprising. Weaner sheds are usually kept warm all year around and
ventilation levels in these buildings are typically low. Weaner pigs also tend to be fairly active,
creating turbulences and, therefore, high dust concentrations in buildings housing them. The
current recommendations for acceptable respirable dust concentrations in livestock buildings is
0.23 mg m–3 in Australia (Banhazi et al., 2008c). This recommendation is not enforced by leg-
islation, but it is recommended by most housing experts in Australia. From the results of the
research presented, it can be concluded that the average respirable dust concentrations mea-
sured in various piggery buildings in Australia are above the currently recommended accept-
able level. The potential effects of relatively high inhalable and respirable dust emissions from
piggery buildings on the rural environment need to be considered. The emissions of respirable
and inhalable dust per animal were extremely high for straw-based shelters. These very high
VetBooks.ir
emission rates provide reasons for further investigations.

The concentration of ammonia was the lowest in straw-based shelters. The current “safe” con-
centration recommendation in Australia for exposure of ammonia is 10 ppm in livestock build-
ings (Banhazi et al., 2008c). The concentration of ammonia is generally not a great concern in
Australian piggery buildings, since ammonia concentrations, on average, did not exceed recom-
mended levels. However, the recorded maximum levels did provide reasons for concern. Some
of the maximum levels approached 30 ppm in grower buildings, and these maximum levels were
measured over a 60 h period. Thus, exposure for such high concentrations of ammonia over a
period of one or two days can cause damage to the respiratory track, especially when it is com-
bined with high airborne bacteria levels (Murphy et al., 2012). The relatively low level of ammo-
nia could be related to the fact that in Australia, the design of piggery buildings is generally open
due to high temperatures throughout the year. Such open buildings provide high ventilation rates
that generally eliminate high ammonia concentrations. From the results of the research presented,
it can be concluded that the average ammonia concentrations measured in various piggery build-
ings in Australia is acceptable in most of the buildings.
However, the potential effects of high ammonia emissions from piggery buildings on the rural
environment need to be also considered. The emissions per animal were very high for farrowing
and dry sow sheds, because in these sheds are relatively small number of animals are housed,
compared to weaner, grower or finisher buildings. Therefore, when the overall emission is divided
the relatively small number of animals, the resulting figure is relatively large. On the other hand,
in weaner buildings, the emission per animal is always relatively small, due to the large number
of weaner pigs in these buildings. However, it does not necessarily mean that the overall emission
is in any way smaller when livestock units are compared, and it can be seen that weaner sheds
actually do contribute at similar levels as finisher buildings to the overall emission rates.
Overall, the concentration of airborne respirable endotoxin was the highest in straw-based
shelters. The current “safe” concentration recommendation in Australia for the exposure of respi-
rable endotoxin is 50 EU m–3. The concentrations of endotoxin in straw-based shelters are the
greatest concern, since they exceeded recommended levels. Endotoxins are the cell wall compo-
nents of gram-negative bacteria, and these compounds are released after the death of the bacteria.
In terms of respirable endotoxin levels, Australian piggery buildings generally recorded lower
levels that previously published results (Seedorf et al., 1998b). Differences observed in concen-
tration between the published results from the European and Australian studies might be due to
the rate of endotoxin generation within the buildings and/or the clearance by various routes.
The concentrations of airborne microorganisms measured in different traditional piggery
buildings are comparable with published results. The relatively low level of airborne microorgan-
isms could be because in the southern parts of Australia, where these measurements were taken,
the temperatures are high and humidity levels are low, and it is generally accepted that hot dry air
does not usually sustain high airborne bacteria populations. The second highest airborne microor-
ganism concentrations were measured in buildings housing grower/finisher pigs. Relatively high
concentrations of airborne microorganisms were measured in weaner buildings; however, this
was not surprising. Animal activity related turbulences often result in high dust concentrations
in weaner buildings. Weaner pigs also tend to be fairly active, creating turbulences and therefore
high dust concentrations in buildings housing them. It is generally accepted that airborne particles
tend to act as carriers for different microorganisms; therefore, the high particle concentrations in
the air create more opportunities for microorganisms to remain airborne as well.
The current recommendations for acceptable airborne microorganisms concentrations in live-
stock buildings is 1 × 105 in Australia (Banhazi et al., 2008c). While this is not required by law,
it is recommended by most housing experts in Australia. From the results of the research pre-
sented, the average viable microorganism concentrations measured in various piggery buildings
in Australia is acceptable in approximately 60% of the buildings, while approximately 40% of the
150 Thomas Banhazi
buildings (including all straw-based shelters) have recorded concentrations above the maximum
VetBooks.ir
recommended level. The potential effects of high endotoxin and bacteria emissions from piggery
buildings on the rural environment need to be considered. The emissions per animal were very
high for farrowing and dry sow sheds, because there is a relatively small number of animals
housed in these sheds compared to weaner, grower or finisher buildings. Therefore, when the
overall emission is divided by the relatively small number of animals, the resulting figure is rela-
tively large. On the other hand, in weaner buildings the emission per animal is always relatively
small, due to the large number of weaner pigs in these buildings. However, it does not necessarily
mean that the overall emission is in any way smaller indeed when livestock units are compared,
as it can be seen that weaner sheds actually do contribute significantly to the overall emission
rates.
9.5 CONCLUSIONS
Concentrations and emissions of both inhalable and respirable dust were investigates in 160 Aus-
tralian piggery buildings. Generally, straw-based shelters showed the highest concentrations of
respirable dust, with average values of 0.642 mg m–3. The highest emission rates of inhalable and
respirable dust (per LSU and per animal) were also observed in straw-based shelters. Given the
recorded concentration and emission values, dust concentrations and especially emissions need
to be further investigated in straw-based shelters.
An overall mean ammonia emission rate of 1442.5 mg h–1 per 500 kg live weight and a mean
internal building concentration of 3.7 ppm were measured in 160 piggery buildings. Straw-based
shelters had the lowest concentrations of ammonia, with average values of 1.1 ppm, while the
highest concentrations of ammonia (5.5 ppm) were recorded in grower buildings. The highest
emission rates of ammonia (per LSU) were also observed in grower buildings (2050.4 mg h–3
LSU–1). Given the concentrations, it is unlikely that the concentrations of ammonia in isolation
are affecting the health of stock or personnel working in piggery buildings in Australia. However,
the emission rates calculated from the study sheds were relatively high, due to high ventilation
rates recoded in the study buildings (Banhazi et al., 2008e).
The samples of dust from livestock buildings were analyzed for endotoxin content, and an
Anderson sampler was used to monitor the concentration of airborne bacteria in piggery houses.
Straw-based shelters showed the highest concentrations of airborne endotoxin, with average val-
ues of 84.98 EU m–3 for the inhalable fraction. The highest emission rates of airborne microbes
(per LSU) were also observed in straw-based shelters, in contrast to farrowing buildings which
had the lowest emission rates. The lowest concentration of total bacteria was measured in far-
rowing buildings, which also showed the lowest emission rates for total bacteria. Low bacteria
concentrations were observed inside approximately 60% of Australian piggery buildings. Given
the concentrations, it is unlikely that bacteria in isolation are affecting the health of stock or per-
sonnel working in piggery buildings in Australia. The emission rates calculated in the study sheds
were also highly varied, indicating the need to carefully interpret and use these figures to predict
emission rates from various types of piggery buildings in the future.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This study was part of a larger project funded by the Australian Pork Limited. It was also a collab-
orative effort between the South Australian Research and Development Institute (SARDI), Agri-
culture Western Australia, The Queensland based PigUnit and Agriculture Victoria, in addition
to contributions by many people. We wish to particularly acknowledge the contribution of pig
producers involved in the study, Dr. Colin Cargill for his professional advice and the assistance
of all technicians involved in the study.
REFERENCES
VetBooks.ir
Banhazi, T.M. (2013) Environmental and management effects associated with improved production effi-
ciency in a respiratory disease free pig herd in Australia. In: Aland, A. & Banhazi, T. (eds) Livestock
Housing, Vol. 1. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, The Netherlands. pp. 297–314.
Banhazi, T., Seedorf, J., Rutley, D.L. & Pitchford, W.S. (2008a) Identification of risk factors for sub-optimal
housing conditions in Australian piggeries: part 1. Study justification and design. Journal of Agricultural
Banhazi, T.M., Rutley, D.L. & Pitchford, W.S. (2008b) Identification of risk factors for sub-optimal housing
Banhazi, T.M., Seedorf, J., Rutley, D.L. & Pitchford, W.S. (2008d) Identification of risk factors for sub-
Banhazi, T.M., Seedorf, J., Rutley, D.L. & Pitchford, W.S. (2008e) Identification of risk factors for sub-
Banhazi, T.M., Currie, E., Reed, S., Lee, I.-B. & Aarnink, A.J.A. (2009) Controlling the concentrations of
Banhazi, T.M., Rutley, D.L. & Pitchford, W.S. (2010) Validation and fine-tuning of a predictive model for air
quality in livestock buildings. Biosystems Engineering, 105(3), 395–401.
Crook, B., Robertson, J.F., Glass, S.A., Botheroyd, E.M., Lacey, J. & Topping, M.D. (1991) Airborne dust,
ammonia, microorganisms, and antigens in pig confinement houses and the respiratory health of exposed
farm workers. American Industrial Hygiene Association Journal, 52(7), 271–279.
ammonia, hydrogen sulfide and swine-house dust on rate of gain and respiratory-tract structure in swine.
Journal of Animal Science, 41(3), 735–739.
Donham, K.J., Haglind, P., Peterson, Y., Rylander, R. & Belin, L. (1989) Environmental and health studies of
farm workers in Swedish swine confinement buildings. British Journal of Industrial Medicine, 46, 31–37.
environment. Livestock Production Science, 93(3), 255–262.
Murphy, T., Cargill, C., Rutley, D. & Stott, P. (2012) Pig-shed air polluted by α-haemolytic cocci and ammo-
nia causes subclinical disease and production losses. Veterinary Record, 171(5), 123. Published Online
First.
Seedorf, J., Hartung, J., Schroder, M., Linkert, K.H., Pedersen, S., Takai, H., Johnsen, J.O., Metz, J.H.M.,
Groot Koerkamp, P.W.G., Uenk, G.H., Phillips, V.R., Holden, M.R., Sneath, R.W., Short, J.L., White,
R.P. & Wathes, C.M. (1998a) A survey of ventilation rates in Livestock buildings in Northern Europe.
Seedorf, J., Hartung, J., Schroder, M., Linkert, K.H., Phillips, V.R., Holden, M.R., Sneath, R.W., Short,
G.H. & Wathes, C.M. (1998b) Concentrations and emissions of airborne endotoxins and microorganisms
in livestock buildings in Northern Europe. Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research, 70(1), 97–109.
StatSoft, I. (2001) STATISTICA. Data Analysis Software System. StatSoft, Inc., Tulsa, OK.
Urbain, B., Mast, J., Beerens, D., N’Guyen, T.Q., Goddeeris, B., Ansay, M. & Gustin, P. (1999) Effects of
inhalation of dust and endotoxin on respiratory tracts of pigs. American Journal of Veterinary Research,
60(9), 1055–1060.
152 Thomas Banhazi
Wathes, C.M., Phillips, V.R., Holden, M.R., Sneath, R.W., Short, J.L., White, R.P., Hartung, J., Seedorf,
VetBooks.ir
J., Schroder, M., Linkert, K.H., Pedersen, S., Takai, H., Johnsen, J.O., Groot Koerkamp, P.W.G., Uenk,
G.H., Metz, J.H.M., Hinz, T., Caspary, V. & Linke, S. (1998) Emission of aerial pollutants in livestock
buildings in Northern Europe: overview of a multinational project. Journal of Agricultural Engineering
Research, 70(1), 3–9.
CHAPTER 10
VetBooks.ir
Microclimate and air quality in uninsulated loose-housing cowsheds

in temperate climate conditions
Allan Kaasik and Marek Maasikmets
10.1 INTRODUCTION
Farm animals are surrounded by external factors that directly influence the occurrence of multi-
factorial diseases. There are many risk factors from many very different spheres. One of these is
the microclimate conditions in animal houses.
Keeping dairy cows and heifers in uninsulated loose-housing cowsheds is becoming more pop-
ular in the cold regions of the world. It has been claimed that keeping cattle in uninsulated cow-
sheds is possible and even beneficial when outdoor temperatures fall as low as −34°C (Andreson,
1997). The recommended optimum temperature conditions (comfortable zone) for dairy cows
is between 5°C and 15°C (MMM, 2002). Lower and upper critical temperatures proposed by
Finnish recommendations are from −15°C to −25°C and from 23°C to 27°C, respectively (MMM,
2002). Continuous high temperature causes a decrease in the level of production in dairy cows.
Low temperature increases, to some extent, the need for feed. Regarding relative humidity (RH),
the International Commission of Agricultural Engineering recommends maximum and minimum
values as a function of the indoor temperature, for example, an RH of 50–90% at 0°C and an RH
of 40–60% at 30°C (CIGR, 1984).
Recommendations for air quality (concentration of carbon dioxide, ammonia, hydrogen sulfide
and carbon monoxide) in dairy buildings are given in Table 10.1.
Particulate matter (dust) is one of the major airborne pollutants associated with intensive
livestock production and determines the quality of the environment within livestock buildings
(Banhazi et al., 2009a, 2009b; Banhazi, 2013). The major portion of dust in animal buildings
is organic (Cambra-Lopez et al., 2010). The recommended peak limit value for total PM in
animal houses is 5 mg m–3 (CIGR, 1984). Limit values for PM10, PM2.5 and PM1.0 in animal
buildings are not available. The annual average limit value for PM10 in outdoor air is 40 µm
m−3. A concentration of PM10 over 50 µm m−3 is not allowed on more than 35 days per year
(EC, 1996).
Estonia is in a temperate climate zone. The annual mean air temperature is 5°C. Commonly,
the coldest month is February, with a mean temperature of −5°C, and the warmest month is July,
with a mean temperature of 18°C. The absolute temperature variability is from −42.6 to 34.0°C
(EMHI, 2011), and the annual mean relative humidity is about 80–83%.
In the last decade, about 150 Estonian large-scale dairy farms have been built or renovated as
uninsulated (semi-insulated) buildings. The main feeding method is total mixed ration (TMR),
and manure is removed for storage in liquid form. The use of bedding materials is low, or they
are not used at all. Large-scale dairy farms, in the Estonian context, are farms with 300 or more
dairy cows (plus young stock). There are no regulations regarding emissions at the EU level for
intensive cattle rearing (dairy production), unlike pigs and poultry (IPPC, BREF, 2003).
153
154 Allan Kaasik and Marek Maasikmets
Table 10.1. Recommended gas concentrations in dairy buildings in Finland (MMM, 2002), CIGR (1984)
VetBooks.ir
and exposure limits to humans in Estonia (RTI, 2011).

Gases Concentration limits in dairy Limits of chemical risk factors for the
buildings (ppm/mg m−3) working environment (ppm/mg m−3)
Finland CIGR Average Limit of short-term

contact or maximum
limit
Carbon dioxide 3.000/3.879 3.000/3.879 5.000/6.465 -

Ammonia 10/12.9 20/25.9 20/25.9 50/64.6
Hydrogen sulfide 0.5/0.646 0.5/0.646 5/6.46 10/12.9
Carbon monoxide 5/6.46 10/12.9 35/45.3 100/129
Microclimate parameters (temperature, °C; relative humidity, %); CO2 and NH3 concentration
(ppm/mg m−3) and inhalable (PMtotal, PM10) and respirable (PM2.5, PM1.0) particulate matter
concentrations (µg m−3) were measured on nine large uninsulated loose-housing cowsheds on
five dairy production units in Estonia, once per month, over the period from September 2008
to August 2009. The buildings under investigation were all built during the last ten years. The
lengths of the barns varied from 132 m to 160 m, breadths from 30 m to 34 m, heights of the ridge
from 9.3 m to 14.2 m and heights of the surrounding walls from 3.2 m to 5.5 m. On all the farms,
similar feeding (TMR), manure removal and milking methods (milking parlor) were used. The
number of cows in the buildings varied between 300 and 600. The 1-min mean concentrations of
inhalable and respirable particles, CO2 and NH3 were measured at a 1-m height from the floor, at
8–13 locations, depending on the size of the building, for a period of 10 min per measuring point.
The total time period for sample collection ranged from 1.2 to 2.5 h per cowshed. The concentra-
tions of inhalable particles and their fine fractions were recorded at the same time. Measurements
were made in the daytime, while the cows were most active and while work routines (TMR feed-
ing, manure removal) were being carried out. The inside air CO2 concentration provided the basis
for indirect assessment of the effectiveness of the ventilation in the dairy buildings, that is, lower
CO2 emissions indicated a higher ventilation rate within the cow house (CIGR, 1984).
A Grimm 1.108 portable aerosol spectrometer, with a minimum detection limit for particles
with a diameter up to 0.23 µm (Grimm Aerosol Technik GmbH and Co, Ainring Germany), was
used for the measurements of the concentrations of airborne dust particles, and a Dräger X-am
7000 multi-gas detector, with a minimum detection limit for NH3 of 1 ppm (1.29 mg m−3) and for
CO2 300 ppm (388 mg m−3) (Drägerwerk AG, Lübeck, Germany), was used to record gas con-
centrations. In all the buildings, the temperature and relative humidity were constantly recorded
at intervals of 15 min throughout the period of the experiment, using a Rotronic HygroLog data
logger (Rotronic AG, Bassersdorf, Switzerland).
10.3.1 Air temperature and relative humidity

The indoor air temperature of an uninsulated cattle building is directly related to the external
temperature (Pajumägi et al., 2007). There was a clear seasonal variation between summer and
winter. The overall mean temperature (Fig. 10.1) was 9.6°C, with a monthly range from 2.0°C
to 20.4°C, and the overall mean relative humidity (Fig. 10.2) was 83%, with a monthly range
between 60% and 96%. The lowest month average outside temperature, – 4.6°C, was recorded
Microclimate and air quality in cowsheds 155
VetBooks.ir
Figure 10.1. Average indoor temperatures in nine large-scale uninsulated cowsheds.
Figure 10.2. Average relative humidity in nine large-scale uninsulated cowsheds.
in February 2009, and the highest, 17.7°C, was recorded in July 2009. The optimum temperature
condition for dairy cows is between 5°C and 15°C. Dairy cows are quite tolerant of temperature
change. The most uncomfortable condition for dairy cows is high temperature (over 25°C), when
milk production can decrease (Hahn, 1999). In higher temperature conditions, the transmission
of surplus heat arising from milk synthesis in the udder is blocked. Under low temperatures,
there is a slight increase in feed consumption. In the summer, when all ventilation openings
and doors were opened, the air temperature in the cowsheds was quite homogenous and similar
between housing units. In winter, the air temperature variance between single measuring points
was higher, mainly depending on the stocking density. Figure 10.1 shows that the indoor tem-
perature in the uninsulated cowsheds is comfortable for dairy cows in temperate climate zones.
There are also other research results stating that temperatures of −13.8°C to 28.7°C and a relative
humidity of 26%–99% does not affect lactating cows kept in uninsulated buildings (Zähner et al.,
VetBooks.ir
2004). Extreme outdoor temperatures result in problems with manure freezing in the winter and
in the summer, indoor temperatures exceeding critical values (Teye et al., 2008).
Optimal relative humidity conditions for dairy cows are between 50% and 80%. Dairy cows are
also quite tolerant to relative humidity change. Figure 10.2 shows the similarity between indoor
and outdoor relative humidity. In the period from September to March (autumn, winter), the
outdoor humidity concentration was typically (for the Estonian climate) high. This also caused
an increase in the relative humidity inside uninsulated cowsheds. However, the relative humidity
was acceptable for dairy cows. Nevertheless, a high outdoor moisture concentration for more
than six months per year can promote the growth of many potentially harmful microorganisms.
10.3.2 Gases (ammonia and carbon dioxide)

The carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration limit for dairy buildings is 3000 ppm (3879 mg m−3)
(MMM, 2002; CIGR, 1984).
Carbon dioxide is a respiration residue, a portion of which is formed in the barn from manure.
The CO2 concentration in the indoor air of the dairy buildings was directly affected by outdoor
environmental conditions. The indoor CO2 concentration estimates the ventilation efficiency. The
more frequently the curtain walls and other ventilation outlets were opened, the greater was
the volume of the air that passed through the building and the lower the concentration of CO2.
The mean CO2 concentration of the indoor air (Fig. 10.3) was 553 ppm (715 mg m−3), and the
monthly range was from 313 to 822 ppm (405 to 1078 mg m−3).
The ammonia (NH3) concentration limits in dairy buildings are 10 ppm (12.9 mg m−3) (MMM,
2002) and 20 ppm (25.9 mg m−3) (CIGR, 1984). Ammonia is formed in barns from manure, espe-
cially from urea in urine. Ammonia emissions from manure depend directly on the composition
of the feed ration and also on the balance of nutrients (the availability of protein and energy
for rumen microorganisms) (Swensson, 2007). Ammonia formation from manure is a microbial
process.
The mean NH3 concentration (Fig. 10.4) of the indoor air was 1.20 ppm (1.55 mg m−3), with
a monthly range of between 0.24 and 2.38 ppm (0.31 and 3.08 mg m−3). The concentration of
NH3 in the indoor air was affected primarily by the indoor temperature and the ventilation rate.
Figure 10.3. Average CO2 concentrations in nine large-scale uninsulated cowsheds.

VetBooks.ir
Figure 10.4. Average NH3 concentrations in nine large-scale uninsulated cowsheds.
Ammonia emissions are significantly lower in the colder period of year, when living conditions
for microorganisms are not optimal. Similar results have been reported in other investigations
(Burton et al., 2007; Ngwabie et al., 2011; Rong et al., 2014; Smits et al., 2007; Zhang et al.,
2007). The cause of the unexpectedly high average ammonia concentrations in December and
January are unclear. They could have been caused by changes in feed ration, which were not
investigated.
10.3.3 Particulate matter (PM)

Airborne dust is considered to be a potential risk factor for animal and human health, as the dust
may penetrate into the alveoli through the respiratory tract. Particulate matter is formed in barns
from many different sources, including feed, manure and bedding residues, sloughed off skin
and hair cells, solid particles from exhaust fumes and the influence of outdoor particulate matter
concentrations. The finer fractions of PM penetrates further into the respiratory tract. Particles
with a diameter of 10 μm and more can be inhaled through the nose and mouth and can penetrate
into the larynx. Particles with diameters from 2.5 μm to 10 μm travel further than the larynx and
penetrate into the unciliated respiratory system.
The mean particulate matter concentration (Fig. 10.5) in loose-housing dairy farms during the
measuring period was 205 µg m−3, but there was a wide monthly range from 130 to 313 µg m−3.
The PM total concentrations are quite similar with the results presented by Joo et al. (2013). The
mean inhalable airborne particle (PM10) concentration (Fig. 10.5) was 65 µg m−3, with a monthly
range of between 27 and 123 µg m−3. The mean respirable airborne particle (PM2.5) concentra-
tion (Fig. 10.5) was 18 µg m−3, with a monthly range of between 7 and 32 µg m−3, and the respi-
rable airborne particle fraction PM1.0 concentration (Fig. 10.5) was 10 µg m−3, with a monthly
range of between 3 and 20 µg m−3. PMtotal, PM10 and PM2.5 concentrations were higher in the
colder period of the year. This was probably due to the higher moisture content of the air in that
period. The uninsulated loose-housing large-scale farms had lower inhalable and respirable air-
borne particles concentrations compared with insulated farms with tied housing, 380 μg m−3 and
70 μg m−3, respectively (Takai et al., 1998; Wathes et al., 1998). This might be associated with
the different amounts of bedding used on the farms. In contrast to cattle buildings in which cows
are kept tethered, where substantial volumes of bedding material are used and renewed on a daily
VetBooks.ir
Figure 10.5.
Mean PMtotal, PM10, PM2.5 and PM1.0 concentrations in nine large-scale uninsulated
cowsheds.
basis, loose-housing on large-scale dairy farms operate with minimal litter, or with no bedding at
all. In addition, in large-scale uninsulated loose-housing farms, the distribution of litter is carried
out according to need, usually once a week.
10.4 CONCLUSIONS
Microclimates in uninsulated loose-housing cowsheds depend directly on the external climate.

Due to excellent ventilation, gases’ and particulate matter concentrations in the inside air of the
uninsulated loose-housing cowsheds were low. Concentrations were a little higher in the cold
season due to closure of the ventilation openings and the use of curtains. For employees, low
temperature and high relative humidity could occasionally be a problem in the cold season. For
animals, this is suitable.
REFERENCES
Anderson, N.G. (1997) Cold housing and open housing – effects on health, management and production
dairy cattle. Proceedings of the 9th International Congress in Animal Hygiene, 17–21 August 1997,
Helsinki, Finland. pp. 481–487.
Banhazi, T.M., Currie, E., Quartararo, M. & Aarnink, A.J.A. (2009a) Controlling the concentrations of air-
borne pollutants in broiler buildings. In: Aland, A. & Madec, F. (eds) Sustainable Animal Production: The
Challenges and Potential Developments for Professional Farming. Wageningen Academic Publishers,
Wageningen, The Netherlands. pp. 347–364.
The Challenges and Potential Developments for Professional Farming. Wageningen Academic Publish-
ers, Wageningen, The Netherlands. pp. 285–311.
Banhazi, T.M. (2013) Controlling the concentrations of airborne pollutants in three different livestock facil-
ities. In: Aland, A. & Banhazi, T.M. (eds) Livestock Housing. Modern Management to Ensure Optimal
Health and Welfare of Farm Animals. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, The Netherlands.
pp. 281–295.
Burton, C.H., Misselbrook, T.H., Welch, D.C. & Hampson, C. (2007) Monitoring ammonia emissions from
VetBooks.ir
cattle houses using Ferm tubes. In: Monteny, G.-J. & Hartung, E. (eds) Ammonia Emissions in Agricul-
ture. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, The Netherlands. pp. 124–125.
Cambra-Lopez, M., Aarnink, A.J.A., Zhao, Y., Calvet, S. & Torres, A.G. (2010) Airborne particulate mat-
ter from livestock production systems: a review of an air pollution problem. Environmental Pollution,
158(1), 1–17.
CIGR (International Commission of Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering) (1984) Climatization of Ani-
mal Houses. Report of Working Group on Climatization of Animal Houses. Aberdeen, Scotland, no 94.1.
EU Air Quality Directive, 1996/62/EC: Internet Site: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.
do?uri=CELEX:31996L0062:EN:HTML.
Hahn, G.L. (1999) Dynamic responses of cattle to thermal heat loads. Journal of Animal Science, 77(suppl.
2), 10–20.
IPPC, BREF. (2003) Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control. Reference Document on Best Available
Techniques for Intensive Rearing of Poultry and pigs. Available from: http://eippcb.jrc.es/reference/
BREF/irpp_bref_0703.pdf.
Joo, H.S., Ndegwa, P.M., Heber, A.J., Ni, J.-Q., Bogan, B.W., Ramirez-Dorronsoro, J.C. & Cortus, E.L.
(2013) Particulate matter dynamics in naturally ventilated free stall dairy barns. Atmospheric Environ-
ment, 69, 182–190.
MMM (Finnish Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry) (2002) Heating and ventilation of agricultural produc-
tion houses. MMM-RMO C2.2.
Ngwabie, N.M., Jeppsson, K.-H., Gustafsson, G. & Nimmermark, S. (2011) Effects of animal activity and
air temperature on methane and ammonia emissions from a naturally ventilated building for dairy cows.
Atmospheric Environment, 45, 6760–6768.
Pajumägi, A., Veermäe, I., Praks, J., Poikalainen, V. & Miljan, J. (2007) Spatial microclimate patterns in
reconstructed and new large uninsulated loose-housing cowsheds. Building and Environment, 42,
113–121.
Rong, L., Liu, D., Pedersen, E.F. & Zhang, G. (2014) Effect of climate parameters on air exchange rate and
ammonia and methane emissions from a hybrid ventilated dairy cow building. Energy and Buildings, 82,
632–643.
RTI (Regulation of Estonian Government) (2011) Limits of chemical risk factors for operating environment.
RTI, 30 November.
Smits, M.C.J. & Huis, J.W.H. (2007) Ammonia emission from cow houses within the Dutch “Cows & Oppor-
tunities” project. In: Monteny, G.-J. & Hartung, E. (eds) Ammonia Emissions in Agriculture.Wageningen
Academic Publishers, Wageningen, The Netherlands. pp. 119–120.
Swensson, C. (2007) Examples of dairy cows diets to high yielding dairy cows, fed for decreased ammonia
emission. In: Monteny, G.-J. & Hartung, E. (eds) Ammonia Emissions in Agriculture. Wageningen Aca-
demic Publishers, Wageningen, The Netherlands. pp. 99–101.
Takai, H., Pedersen, S., Johnsen, J. O., Metz, J. H. M., Groot Koerkamp, P. W. G., Uenk., G. H., et al. (1998)
Concentrations and emissions of airborne dust in livestock buildings in Northern Europe. Journal of
Agricultural Engineering Research, 70, 59–77.
Teye, F.K., Hautala, M., Pastell, M., Praks, J., Veermäe, I., Poikalainen, V., Pajumägi, A., Kivinen, T. &
Ahokas, J. (2008) Microclimate and ventilation in Estonian and Finnish dairy buildings. Energy and
Buildings, 40, 1194–1201.
Wathes, C. M., Phillips, V. R., Holden, M. R., Sneath, R. W., Short, J. L., White, R. P., et al. (1998) Emis-
sions of aerial pollutants in livestock buildings in Northern Europe: Overview of a multinational project.
Zähner, M., Schrader, L., Hauser, R., Keck, M., Langhans, W. & Wechsler, B. (2004) The influence of cli-
matic conditions on physiological and behavioural parameters in dairy cows kept in open stables. Animal
Science, 78, 139–147.
Zhang, G., Strom, J.S., Rom, H.B. & Kai, P. (2007) Measurements of ammonia emission from naturally ven-
tilated dairy cattle buildings. In: Monteny, G.-J. & Hartung, E. (eds) Ammonia Emissions in Agriculture.
VetBooks.ir
VetBooks.ir
SECTION IV
Effects of sub-optimal air quality on workers,
animals and the environment
VetBooks.ir
CHAPTER 11
VetBooks.ir
Intensive livestock housing: a review

Preventing occupational respiratory hazards for workers
Kelley J. Donham
11.1 INTRODUCTION
Silos, grain bins, root storage structures, and intensive livestock houses are common types of
spaces on farms where dusts and or gases may be concentrated that may have an adverse health
impact on workers. This chapter reviews issues of worker exposures in intensive livestock houses
(ILHs), which present work places with potential respiratory hazards
Defining ILH for the purpose of this chapter is similar to that for confined animal feeding
facilities (CAFO) by the US EPA and paraphrased by MacDonald and McBride as a “production
processes that concentrates large numbers of animals in relatively small and confined spaces and
substitutes structures and equipment – for land and labor” (2009). Other countries with devel-
oped agricultural economies have different, but similar, definitions and term for these types or
production systems. The term ILH used here is an attempt to be more generic, with less attached
negative perception.
The hazardous substances in ILH᾿s include both inhalable dusts, and gases. Agricultural dust
exposures in ILHs may be of two types, those of high dust concentration for short periods or
those with every day exposures of lower concentrations. Examples of occasional periodic high
exposures occur in three primary tasks: 1) moving and sorting market hogs (mentioned above),
2) load out of broilers, layers, and turkeys and input of new layers in cages, and 3) rototilling
(reconditioning) the litter in floor raised poultry. Examples of chronic or long-term exposures
to lower levels include 1) daily feeding and cleaning chores, 2) checking on the animals, and 3)
maintenance and repair of equipment within the building.
The gas exposures (primarily ammonia, hydrogen sulfide, and methaone) are products of
decomposing animal wastes, may cause either acute or chronic health effects. Ammonia com-
bined with dusts have a synergistic adverse health effect on the respratory tract. Different expo-
sure histories result in different patterns of respiratory conditions. These different exposure
histories, and resultant health conditions will be described below.
11.2 WHICH HAZARDOUS DUSTS AND GASES ARE FOUND IN ILHS?
Dust in livestock buildings is a complex mixture of potentially hazardous agents that are gener-
ated primarily from the animals (hair, dander, dried feces), and feed (see Table 11.1) (Donham and
Gustafson, 1982; Donham et al., 1985a; Nilsson, 1984). Dust particles in IHLs contain approxi-
mately 25% protein and range in size from less than 2 µm to 50 µm in diameter (Donham et al.,
1985a; Nilsson, 1984). One-third of the particles are within the inhalable size range (less than 10
µm in diameter) (Donham et al., 1985a; Nilsson, 1984). Fecal particles constitute the majority
of small (≤ 10 µm) particles and consist of high concentrations of gut flora and exfoliated gut
163
164 Kelley J. Donham
Table 11.1. Potentially hazardous particulate agents in dusts from livestock buildings (from Donham, 1986;
VetBooks.ir
Donham et al., 1985a).

Feed particlesa
Swine proteins (urine, dander, serum)
Swine fecesb
Mold
Pollen
Grain mites, insect parts, mineral ash
Gram-negative bacteria
Microbial by-products
Endotoxin
(1→3)-p-D-glucan
Microbial proteases
Mycotoxins
Histamine
Ammonia adsorbed to particles infectious agents, plant parts and by-products, tannins, plicatic acid
a
Grain dust, antibiotics, growth promotants
b
Gut, microbial flora, gut epithelium, undigested feed
epithelium. This component of the dust constitutes a burden to lower airways (lung tissue). The
larger particles are mainly of feed grain origin and primarily impact the upper airways (sinuses,
trachea and bronchi). Additional components of the ILH dust mix include animal dander, broken
bits of hair, bacteria, endotoxins, pollen grains, insect parts, fungal spores, and several gases
(Donham, 1986; Donham et al., 1985a, 1985b). ILH source dusts differ from other sources of
grain dusts in that they present a chronic exposure to higher concentrations of endotoxin, and
(1→3) β-D-glucan. Also, the dust absorbs ammonia (NH3) and possibly other toxic or irritating
gases adding to the potential hazards of the inhaled particles (Donham and Gustafson, 1982;
Donham et al., 1982b; Do Pico, 1986; Sigurdarson et al., 2004). A recent study has shown that
the mixed exposure to dust and ammonia in ILH has a synergistic toxic effect on the airways, as
measured by cross shift pulmonary function decline in workers. ILH dust combined with ammo-
nia results in 2–4 times (synergistic effect) the extent of cross shift decline compared to a single
exposure of dust or ammonia (Donham et al., 2002).
Gases generated inside the buildings arise from decomposition of animal urine and feces (pri-
marily ammonia, hydrogen sulfide and methane, among some 160 total gases that have been
identified) (Donham and Gustafson, 1982; Donham and Popendorf, 1985; Donham et al., 1982a,
1982b, 1988). Ammonia (NH3) and hydrogen sulfide (H2S) are the two gases that present a known
respiratory hazard for workers. Methane is not a respiratory hazard, but it is a fire and explosive
hazard in ILHs. Fossil fuel-burning heaters and high-pressure washers powered by internal com-
bustion engines emit carbon dioxide (CO2) and carbon monoxide (CO), and the animals’ respira-
tion emits (CO2). CO2 is not an acute hazard for workers, but CO may present a risk to the unborn
fetus of a pregnant woman worker (Donham and Gustafson, 1982).
In swine and some beef and dairy operations, animal wastes are handled in liquid form in
one of two ways: it either drops through a slatted floor into a deep (2–3 m) – pit beneath the
house, where it remains until the manure slurry is pumped out to be distributed on fields as a
crop nutrient (usually twice a year), or it is frequently removed from shallow pits (0.7–1.5 m)
under the building through any of several mechanisms to a solid storage structure or earthen
lagoon outside the building. Poultry wastes are handled as a solid. In caged layer operations, the
manure is stored under the building for some months until it is mechanically removed for land
application as a plant nutrient. Broilers (chickens for meat) and turkeys are raised on the floor on
a base material, such as sawdust, that is compacted with the avian feces to form a solid material
called litter. Note that in avian IHL᾿s, as the manure is not liquid, little H2S is generated, but NH3
Intensive livestock housing 165
can be quite high, often higher that in swine ILH᾿s. In swine IHL᾿s, the source of NH3 inside
VetBooks.ir
ILHs is the decomposition of urine and feces on the floor of the building (40%) and from the
manure storage under the building. The H2S source is the end product of microbial degradation
of sulfur-containing amino acids within animal feces stored anaerobically in liquid manure form
(swine and cattle facilities, not poultry). Animal waste stored in liquid form under the building
will continually emit low concentrations of H2S that may produce ambient concentrations of 1–5
ppm (lower than U.S. OSHA limits of 10 ppm) into the work environment. However when the
liquid manure is agitated in any manner, for example, before or during pump out, lethal concen-
trations may be rapidly emitted.
The mixture and concentrations of dusts and gases inside ILHs vary depending on numer-
ous factors including management practices, ventilation and other engineering controls, the age,
number and type of animals in the building, and the design and management of the feeding and
waste handling systems. Dust and gas concentrations and composition vary over time, relative
to season of the year and age of the animals. This section will focus on swine ILH, primarily
and poultry, secondarily, as these operations have been most extensively studied, and they have
been most commonly reported as potential environments presenting occupational health risks
for workers.
11.3 WHO IS EXPOSED TO THESE DUSTS AND GASES, AND WHEN?
Worker tasks in ILHs include feed preparation, feeding animals, cleaning the buildings, sorting
and moving animals from one pen or building to another, performing routine vaccinations, treat-
ments, breeding sows, tending to birthing sows, and “processing” piglets. The latter involves
umbilical cord stump sanitation, iron administration, identification (e.g., ear clipping or tagging),
tail docking, canine teeth clipping and castration. (Note there are differences in these tasks among
different countries. For example, tail docking, teeth clipping and castration are uncommon in EU
countries).
Women commonly work in these facilities, particularly in the farrowing operations. Farm fam-
ily children may often be exposed because they may be helping out or may be accompanying
parents due to a lack of convenient childcare options. Larger operations often employ immigrant
farm workers in these facilities. Veterinarians who provide services for these farm operations are
exposed. Additionally, larger corporate-style farms employ service technicians who work in these
facilities in facilities maintenance or animal health.
Dust and gas concentrations increase in winter when the houses are tightly closed and venti-
lation rates reduced to conserve heat (Donham et al., 1977). Dust concentrations increase when
animals are being moved, handled, and fed or when buildings are being cleaned by high-pressure
spray washing or sweeping (O’shaughnessy et. al. 2010, O’shaughnessy et al. 2012). Ventila-
tion systems are designed to control only heat and humidity in the building and often will not
reduce dust or gas concentrations adequately to insure a healthful environment for humans, or
animals, especially when ventilation is reduced to conserve heat and energy. Should the ventila-
tion fail in cold weather, CO2 from animal respiration and manure pits, combined with CO2 and
CO from heaters can rise to asphyxiating or toxic levels in a matter of hours. In warm seasons, the
greater risk to animals from ventilation failure is heat stress from high temperatures and humidity.
Although massive animal losses have been attributed to these latter situations, they do not create
an acute human health threat, as workers can leave the building in a safe time.
Hydrogen sulfide (H2S) may pose an acute hazard when the liquid manure slurry is agitated, an
operation commonly performed to suspend solids so that pits can be emptied by pumping (Bea-
ver and Field, 2007; Donham et al., 1982b, 1995). However, agitation may occur in many ways,
such as draining the pits by gravity flow (an optional design in some buildings) or wash water
running into the pits from above. During agitation, H2S can be released rapidly, soaring from
usual ambient levels of less than 5 ppm to lethal levels of over 500 ppm within seconds (Donham
et al., 1982b, 1988). Generally, the greater the agitation, the more rapidly greater amounts of H2S
VetBooks.ir
is released. Animals and workers have died or become seriously ill in swine ILHs when H2S has
risen from agitated manure in pits under the building. Several workers have died when entering
a pit during or soon after the emptying process to repair pumping equipment or clean out solids
(Donham et al., 1982b). Persons attempting to rescue these workers also have died. Workers
may be exposed to high H2S levels when they enter the pit to retrieve animals or tools that have
fallen in, or to repair ventilation systems or cracks in the cement. Hydrogen sulfide exposure is
most hazardous when the manure pits are located beneath the houses. However, an acutely toxic
environment may result from outside storage facilities if gases backflow into a building, due to
inadequate gas traps or other design fault, or if a worker enters a separate confined-space storage
facility. Generally, outside storage facilities are much safer from H2S toxic exposures. However, a
recent case in Pennsylvania on a dairy farm was reported where two young boys were overcome
(but survived) when playing near an outside storage pit during the pump out procedure (Donham
and Thelin, 2016). Note that recycled waste wallboard (dry wall) has been used for bedding in
some dairy operations. Dry wall contains calcium sulfate that is thought to contribute to extra H2S
emissions. Dry wall was used in the case mentioned above with the two young boys overcome
with fumes from an outdoor manure storage structure.
Swine ILH᾿s in North America are concentrated in North Carolina in the east, most states of the
Midwest, including Iowa, Illinois, Minnesota, Indiana, and Ohio and further west to Nebraska,
Oklahoma, Texas, Colorado and Utah. Swine ILHs are also found in the Mideast and Prairie
Provinces of Canada, Northern European countries, Australia and Brazil. Poultry ILHs (includes
turkey, broiler and egg production) are concentrated in the East-central, Southeast, Midwest and
Far West of the United States.Poultry confinements are also found in Europe, Australia and Bra-
zil. Other types of ILHs (beef, dairy, veal) are not nearly as common as swine and poultry, and
they are located in regions where principle feed stuffs (corn, soybeans, and wheat) are grown.
Although respiratory exposures are extremely common among ILH workers, there are several
other occupational hazards that should be considered, including zoonotic infections, traumatic
injuries, needle sticks and loud noise. The hazards of infectious agents involving the respiratory
tract include, but are not limited to, swine and avian influenza, methicillin-resistant Staphylococ-
cus aureus, ornithosis, and Q fever (Holness et al., 1987). These diseases are covered in detail in
other publications (Donham, 1990).
11.4 HOW COMMONLY DOES EXCESSIVE EXPOSURE OCCUR?
In the United States, an estimated 700,000 persons work in livestock or poultry ILH operations
(Donham, 1990). This number includes owner-operators, hired farm workers, spouses, children,
veterinarians and service technicians. Included in the hired farm workers in the United States are
minority populations: Hispanic, Asian and Bosnian, among others.
The largest group of ILH-exposed workers with the most frequent and severe health problems
are swine ILH workers (Donham, 1990; Donham et al., 1989; Radon et al., 2002). Here, typical
dust concentrations are 2 to 6 mg m–3 (Donham et al., 1985a). Buildings with 10 to 15 mg m–3
dust may be seen during cold weather or when moving or sorting the pigs. Concentrations in this
range are high enough to create an unclear view across an 18 m room. Concentrations of dust,
endotoxins and H2S, CO2 and CO may exceed safe levels. Furthermore, research has shown safe
dust and gas concentrations in ILHs are considerably lower than established regulatory (OSHA)
concentrations. Table 11.2 compares recommended maximum exposure concentrations from cur-
rent research to levels set by OSHA and ACGIH (note that European standards are very similar
to the ACGIH recommendations). The relative higher toxicity of swine dust relative to other IHL
dusts is thought to occur because of the higher concentraton of of biologically activity substances,
mainly endotoxin and glucans and the swine dust generallly has an apparent toxic attribute ofin-
creased lymphocyte adhesion to respiratory epithelial cells. Therefore, swine dust generally has
Table 11.2. Comparison of OSHA and ACGIH TLVs to recommended exposure limits to toxic dusts and
VetBooks.ir
gases based on current research (from Donham et al., 1995, 2000; Reynolds et al., 1996).
Toxic Current research Typical ACGIH1 OSHA2
substance recommendations findings
for CAFOs in CAFOs
Total dust 2.5 mg m–3 3–6 mg m–3 4 mg m–3 15 mg m–3

Respirable dust 0.23 mg m–3 0.5–1.5 mg m–3
Ammonia 7 ppm 5–15 ppm 25 ppm 25 ppm
Hydrogen sulfide 0.5–5 ppm 10 ppm 10 ppm
Carbon dioxide 1500 ppm 1000–4000 ppm 5000 ppm 5000 ppm
Endotoxin 100 EU 50–1000 EU
a greater relative inflammatory nature. Further, the additive and synergistic actions of the mixed
dust and gas exposures increase the inflammatory response. Nearly 60% of swine ILH workers
who have worked for six or more years experience one or more respiratory symptoms (Clark
et al., 1983; Donham et al., 1984, 1989; Thedell et al., 1980). The prevalence of respiratory
symptoms among workers in non-confinement swine ILH generally have less than half of that
reported by ILH workers (Donham, 1990).
11.5 RESPIRATORY EFFECTS OF INHALING ILH DUSTS AND GASES
Worker health effects of ILH exposure were first described by Donham in 1977 (Donham
et al., 1977). Since that time, many different authors in various countries around the world have
published numerous studies on the subject. Even with improvements in the engineering of these
buildings over the subsequent 40 years, veterinarians, as well as others, still commonly expe-
rience the complex of agricultural dust respiratory conditions [bronchitis, mucous membrane
irritation (MMI), non-allergic asthma-like condition (NALC), and organic dust toxic syndrome
(ODTS) (Andersen et al., 2004; Donham and Zejda, 1992; Mustajabegovic, et al., 2001; Thelin
et al., 1984)]. An individual’s specific response depends on risk factor variables that will be
described later in this chapter. (Donham, 1991; Donham et al., 1989; Eckert, 1997; Heederik
et al., 1991; Prior et al., 2001).
Acute symptoms of swine and poultry ILH workers are listed in Table 11.3, and acute, delayed,
and chronic conditions of ILH workers with associated history, diagnostic aids and prognosis are
outlined in Table 11.3 (Bar-Sela et al., 1984; Donham et al., 1995, 2000; Kirychuk et al., 2003;
Pederson et al., 1990; Prior et al., 2001; Reynolds et al., 1996; Rylander et al., 1990).
Regarding chronic conditions (Table 11.4), ILH workers (especially swine workers) com-
monly complain of a “persistent cold,” with symptoms of stuffy nose, headache, and “popping
ears” (Donham et al., 2000). These patients typically have chronic non-infectious sinusitis, (a
likely component of the MMI symptoms) produced by long-term inhalation of inflammatory
aerosols within the ILHs.
Chronic lower airways effects manifest as chronic bronchitis with or without obstruction and
are experienced by 25% of all swine ILH workers. This is the most commonly defined health
problem of this occupational group and is suffered two to three times more frequently compared
to farmers who work in conventional (more open and pastured) swine housing units or in agri-
cultural operations other than swine or poultry production (Donham, 1990). Symptoms are sim-
ilar to bronchitis from other chronic lower level exposures, but they are perhaps more common
and severe. Symptoms include chronic cough, with excess production of phlegm and sometimes
chronic wheezing and chest tightness. Smokers experience a higher prevalence and severity of
Table 11.3. Acute symptoms of swine confinement workers (from Donham,

VetBooks.ir
1993; Donham et al., 1995; Dosman et al., 2004; Hoffman

et al., 2004; Monso et al., 2004; Radon et al., 2001).
Symptom Prevalence
Dry Cough 67%

Cough with Sputum or phlegm 56%
Scratchy throat 54%
Runny nose 45%
Burning or watering eyes 39%
Headaches 37%
Tightness of chest 36%
Shortness of breath 30%
Wheezing 27%
Muscle aches and pains 25%
Table 11.4. Symptoms and conditions resulting from two types of exposure conditions to agricultural dusts.
(Donham and Thelin, 2016)
Periodic, acute, massive and moldy (PAMM) Medical Conditions
exposure, Symtoms
(Delayed response: 2–6 hours following exposure) Organic dust toxic syndrome (ODTS) – toxic
alveolitis
Cough and/or
Chest tightness malaise
Headache Hypersensitivity pneumonitis (HP)
Myalgia
Arthralgia
Fever
Chronic lower level concentration (CLLC) Conditions
exposures
Cough – intermittent, associated with exposure Acute bronchitis
Phlegm production – intermittent, associated with
work exposure
Cough and phlegm production – occurring more than Chronic bronchitis
3 weeks out of the year, for longer than 2 years
Chest tightness – wheezing upon exposure Non-allergic asthma-like condition (NALC)
Sore throat, nasal irritation, eye irritation Mucous membrane irritation (MMI)
Stuffy nose Chronic sinusitis (one manifestation of MMI)
Difficult nasal breathing
Complaints of “plugged up” or “persistent cold”
chronic bronchitis than non-smokers. Most workers removed from the ILH environment become
asymptomatic (in the absence of smoking) within a few months, but bronchitis symptoms in some
workers can persist for years.
Although irreversible airways obstruction has not been a common finding in ILH workers,
there is objective evidence that long-term lung damage may occur (Schwartz et al., 1995; Sent-
hilselvan et al., 1997). Pulmonary function studies show evidence of air trapping in the lungs
(Schwartz et al., 1995) suggestive of impending chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)
and risk for emphysema. Lavage studies of bronchial fluids and sputum studies show a persistent
leukocytosis, with inflammatory and epithelial cells (Djuricic et al., 2001; Schwartz et al., 1990).
Baseline pulmonary function studies (FVC, FEV1) of healthy confinement workers usually do not
VetBooks.ir
differ significantly from those of workers in conventional swine buildings (Donham et al., 1989,
1990). However, flow rates at 25%–75% of lung volume (FEF25–75) are significantly lower. Fur-
thermore, work shift declines in FEV1, and flow rate values are seen in most confinement house
workers following a 2–4 h exposure (Donham et al., 1990). In addition, the severity of chronic
bronchitis symptoms increases in workers with a longer history of confinement housework
(Donham, 1990; Holness et al., 1987). Work shift decrements in volumes and flow rates are pre-
dictive of future declines in baseline flow rates and lung volumes (Donham et al., 1990; Senthil-
selvan et al., 1997). Inflammation resulting from insult of the dust to cells within the lungs may
be a major mechanism of this condition (Hoffmann et al., 2004). A prospective study of a cohort
of swine IHL workers has revealed a decline in PFT flow rates over time with increasing evidence
of obstruction (Eckert, 1997). These findings further suggest that chronic obstructive pulmo-
nary disease may occur among these workers in future years (Schwartz et al., 1995). Although
end-stage (permanent) lung disease in ILH workers has not yet been systematically studied, this
author (KJD) has experienced many anecdotal case studies where workers have quit livestock
production or quit farming altogether because of respiratory health reasons. One study of swine
ILH owner/operators revealed a dropout rate of 10% over a six-year period for respiratory health
reasons (Holness et al., 1987). Another study of swine producers revealed a high dropout rate of
swine producers who developed PFT documented airways obstruction (Chenard et al., 2007).
Experimental animal studies have shown long-term ILH exposures create a risk for pneumo-
nia, pleuritis, and bronchial epithelial inflammation and necrosis (Donham, 1991; Donham and
Leininger, 1984).
Relative to the work-exposure time and development of symptoms, there are some import-
ant understandings that should be considered in preventive council with workers and managers.
As described above, cross-sectional studies have shown that chronic respiratory conditions, on
average, are recognized after six years of two or more hours per day of work in ILHs. However,
as livestock production has become more specialized, workers may spend eight or more hours
per day working in ILHs. Therefore, chronic symptoms may occur in less time. However, the
experience of this author (KJD), bolstered by surveillance of new workers (Dosman et al., 2004),
indicates that 10% to 20% of those (without prior work with swine) experience acute symptoms
within the first few days of work. These symptoms may include cough, chest tightness, malaise,
and/or symptoms of mild ODTS. This response is likely due to the individual’s variant genetic
polymorphisms related to endotoxin response, as previously described. If symptoms persist in
these workers, even with appropriate efforts at exposure reduction, then it may be advisable for
these workers to leave that employment. On the other hand, there is an accommodation phenom-
enon in that symptoms of some workers may dissipate with time, because of down regulation of
the innate immune system (Dosman et al., 2004).
Although dust exposure is the most common hazardous exposure in ILHs, the most dramatic
acute response results from exposure to hydrogen sulfide (H2S). At moderately high concentra-
tions (100–400 ppm), the irritating properties of H2S produce rhinitis, cough, dyspnoea, tracheo-
bronchitis and possibly pulmonary oedema. At higher concentrations (400–1500 ppm), H2S will
cause sudden collapse, respiratory paralysis, pulmonary oedema and death. An acutely exposed
person (500–1000 ppm) or a chronically exposed person (50–200 ppm) may have a delayed
response of acute respiratory distress (pulmonary oedema) within the next 24–48 hours. There-
fore, such exposed persons should be medically monitored closely for up to 48 hours. In addi-
tion to its irritant qualities, H2S is a general cellular toxin that works by disrupting the cellular
metabolic system and has a predilection for the central nervous system. At least 25 deaths of
confinement workers in the United States have been reported from this exposure up through 2005
(Donham et al., 1982; Osbern and Crapo, 1981). Often multiple deaths occur during exposure
events, as would-be rescuers become victims. Autopsy reports of victims have reported aspiration
of the liquid manure (Osbern and Crapo, 1981). However, this is probably not the cause of death
but may be sequelae of the H2S intoxication.
11.6 DIAGNOSIS
VetBooks.ir
Described previously, a detailed occupational history is of primary importance to achieving a

diagnosis of an agricultural dust-related illness. Patients’ responses to confinement dusts are vari-
able. In addition, one or more condition may occur simultaneously (e.g., chronic bronchitis, occu-
pational asthma and sinusitis). Mentioned above, a new worker may initially react with flu-like
symptoms, which may reside within a week or two. Veteran workers have chronic symptoms of
bronchitis, MMI, and NAALC that are most likely related to their work exposure if:
1. they have been working in the building for more than 2 h per day for 6 years, or 3 years full
time;
2. the patient’s symptoms subside while away from work for a couple of days or more;
3. the symptoms exacerbate on return to work from a two or several days off on the first day, and
diminish over the week;
4. the patient complains of a “continuous head cold” that will not go away;
5. the patient complains of lasting fatigue in combination with the previously mentioned
symptoms;
6. they think they are allergic to the dust (but are negative atopic status);
7. if the patient complains that the building environment seems poorly ventilated and very dusty
with an ammonia smell;
8. if an environmental assessment of the work place is conducted and dust and ammonia are
found to be greater than 2.5 mg m–3 and 7 ppm, respectively.
For patients with occasional acute ODTS symptoms beginning 4–6 h following a task, a positive
occupational history might include:
1. they have been moving and sorting animals, catching and loading poultry, or rototilling litter
in a poultry building;
2. they have been power washing the building inside;
3. they have been using a leaf blower to blow dust off the poultry cages or pig pens;
4. they have been using a bale shredder (dairy farm worker) to blow straw bedding into cattle
loafing stalls.
Patient management should include a medical assessment for safe use of respirators (free of
cardiopulmonary conditions, no history of claustrophobia, proper selection and fit). A personal
and family medical history should include questions about allergies, asthma, heart conditions
and hobbies or personal habits (such as smoking) that might complicate work exposures. Have
environmental assessments been conducted? A work air quality environment assessment would
be helpful, and maximum concentrations should be under the current research recommendations
seen in Table 11.2. Pulmonary function tests (PFT) may be useful. Lowered volume and flow
rates (FEV1 and FEF) over the work period of 5%–30% are common in symptomatic workers in
ILHs. Less commonly, decreases of 5% or more in volumes (FVC) over the work period may be
seen. However, baseline PFT values may be normal. A decreased tolerance to methacholine chal-
lenge is common. Dermal prick tests for suspected feed or swine allergens are usually negative.
Tables 11.3 and 11.4 summarize the primary respiratory conditions associated with swine con-
finement dusts and gases. Conditions provoked within other types (animal species) of confine-
ment buildings may be similar, but they are typically less severe and less common.
11.7 TREATMENT
Medically, little can be prescribed to cure chronic respiratory conditions of ILH workers, but
sumptoms may be mitigated by reducing exposure, and appropriatly prescribed medications.
Bronchitis and NAALC may respond temporarily to enteral or inhalant bronchodilators and/or
corticosteroids. Details of these treatments, specific control measures, and the prognosis for these
VetBooks.ir
illnesses are listed in other references (Donham, 2013; Donham and Thelin, 2016).
Medical treatment and cures must be accompanied by reducing exposures to dust and gas by
management and engineering controls, appropriate use (selection and fitting) of respirators, and/
or temporary removal from the work site. In order to reduce dusts and gases, a patient may need
to contact an extension agent, consulting veterinarian or agricultural engineer who has knowledge
of environmental control or referral to such resource persons. Monitoring air quality in these
buildings is essential for the assurance of a healthful work environment. Minimum assessments
include ammonia and total dust (mass) twice yearly, one of which should be in cold weather con-
ditions. Contaminant concentrations should be below those levels listed in Table 11.2.
Regarding ILH workers who smoke, the health care provider must direct these patients to a
smoking cessation program. Health care providers must be cognizant of the patient’s emotional
wellness, in addition to the patient’s physical problems. Recommendations to leave farming are
rarely necessary and should only be given once the cause and prognosis of illness have been
determined and other avenues of controlling harmful exposures have been fully explored. Guide-
lines to health care providers of ILH workers include: 1) if the patient has severe symptoms, a
two-to-three-week “vacation” from the work environment with PFT before and at the end of this
time might be indicated; 2) reducing work periods to two hours or less per day may help; 3) fit and
instruct the patient to wear an appropriate respirator; 4) apply a temporary course (2–3 weeks) of
inhaled steroid and/or bronchodilators; 5) make contacts for arrangement and assessment of the
work environment and controls as indicated for dust to achieve concentrations below 2.5 mg m–3
of dust, and 7 ppm NH3; and 6) monitor the patient’s symptoms and pulmonary function at least
annually.
Farmers are becoming increasingly concerned of respiratory conditions associated with con-
finement. A health care provider can explain potential long-term respiratory conditions but also
instill confidence regarding the maintenance of the farmer’s health status so that they can con-
tinue with their livestock operation. Annual monitoring the patient’s respiratory status may be
reassuring to many patients and may encourage behavior changes in the patient to institute envi-
ronmental control measures and comply with proper selection and use of respirators.
Additional details of occupational and community health significance of ILH on humans, diag-
nosis, treatment and prevention can be found in the work by Donham (2013). Further, see chap-
ters 3, 7, 12, 13, and 15 in the textbook Donham and Thelin (2016) Agricultural Medicine: Rural
Occupational Health, Safety, and Prevention, 2nd edition, for details of health and safety hazards
of livestock workers, and prevention.
REFERENCES
Andersen, C., Von Essen, S., Smith, L., Spencer, J., Jolie, R. & Donham, K. (2004) Respiratory symptoms
and airway obstruction in swine veterinarians; a persistent problem. American Journal of Industrial Med-
icine, 46, 386–392.
Bar-Sela, S., Teichtahl, H. & Lutsky, I. (1984) Occupational asthma in poultry workers. Journal of Allergy
and Clinical Immunology, 73(2), 271–275.
Beaver, R.L. & Field, W.E. (2007) Summary of documented fatalities in livestock manure storage and han-
dling facilities – 1975–2004. Journal of Agromedicine, 12(2), 3–23.
Chenard, L., Senthilselvan, A., Grover, V.K., Kirychuk, S.P., Lawson, J.A., Hurst, T.S. & Dosman, J.A. (2007)
Lung function and farm size predict healthy worker effect in swine farmers. Chest, 131(1), 245–254.
Clark, C., Rylander, R. & Larsson, L. (1983) Airborne bacteria, endotoxin and fungi in dust in poultry and
swine confinement buildings. American Industrial Hygiene Association Journal, 44, 537–541.
Djuricic, S., Zlatkovic, M., Babic, D., Gligorijevic, D. & Dlamenac, P. (2001) Sputumcytopathological find-
ing in pig farmers. Pathology, Research and Practice, 197(3), 145–155.
Do Pico, G. (1986) Workgroup report on diseases. American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 10, 261–266.
Donham, K. (1986) Hazardous agents in agricultural dusts and methods of evaluation. American Journal of
Donham, K. (1990) Health effects from work in swine confinement buildings. American Journal of Indus-
VetBooks.ir
trial Medicine, 17, 17–25.

Donham, K. (1991) Association of environmental air contaminants with disease and productivity in swine.
Donham, K. (1993) Respiratory disease hazards to workers in livestock and poultry confinement structures.
Seminars in Respiratory Infections, 14(1), 49–59.
Donham, K. (2013) Challenges to occupational and communitty health and environment in animal produc-
tion and houising: a North American perspective. Chapter 25. In: Aland, A. & Banhazi, T. (eds) Livistock
Housing: Modern Management to Ensure Optimal Health and Welfare of Farm Animals. Wageningen
Donham, K. & Gustafson, K. (1982) Human occupational hazards from swine confinement. Annals of the
American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists, 2, 137–142.
Donham, K. & Leininger, J. (1984) The use of laboratory animals to study potential chronic lung disease in
swine confinement workers. American Journal of Veterinary Research, 45, 926–931.
Donham, K. & Popendorf, W. (1985) Ambient levels of selected gases inside swine confinement buildings.
American Industrial Hygienic Association Journal, 46, 658–661.
Donham, K. & Thelin, A. (2016) Agricultural Medicine: Rural Occupational Health, Safety, and Prevention,
2nd ed. John Wiley and Sons, Hoboken, NJ.
Donham, K. & Zejda, J. (1992) Lung dysfunction in animal confinement workers – Chairman’s report to
the Scientific Committee of the Third International Symposium: Issues in health, safety, and agriculture,
held in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada. Polish Journal of Occupational Medicine and Environmental
Health, 5(3), 277–279.
Donham, K., Rubino, M., Thedell, T. & Kammermeyer, J. (1977) Potential health hazards of workers in
swine confinement buildings. Journal of Occupational Medicine, 19, 383–387.
Donham, K., Carsons, T. & Adrian, B. (1982a) Carboxyhemoglobin values in swine relative to carbon mon-
oxide exposure: guidelines to monitor for animal and human health hazards in swine buildings. American
Journal of Veterinary Research, 5, 813–816.
Donham, K., Knapp, L., Monson, R. & Gustafson, K. (1982b) Acute toxic exposure to gases from liquid
manure. Journal of Occupational Medicine, 24, 142–145.
Donham, K., Zavala, D. & Merchant, J. (1984) Acute effects of the work environment on pulmonary func-
tions of swine confinement workers. American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 5, 367–376.
Donham, K., Scallon, L., Popendorf, W., Treuhaft, M. & Roberts, R. (1985a) Characterization of dusts
collected from swine confinement buildings. American Industrial Hygiene Association Journal, 46,
658–661.
Donham, K., Yeggy, J. & Dague, R. (1985b) Chemical and physical parameters of liquid manure from swine con-
finement facilities: health implications for workers, swine, and environment. Agricultural Wastes, 14, 97–113.
Donham, K., Yeggy, J. & Dague, R. (1988) Health implications for workers and animals in swine buildings.
Biological Wastes, 161–173.
Donham, K., Haglind, P., Peterson, Y., Rylander, R. & Belin, L. (1989) Environmental and health studies of
workers in Swedish swine buildings. British Journal of Industrial Medicine, 46, 31–37.
Donham, K., Merchant, J., Lassise, D., Popendorf, W. & Burmeister, L. (1990) Preventing respiratory dis-
ease in swine confinement workers: intervention through applied epidemiology, education, and consulta-
tion. American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 18, 241–262.
Donham, K., Reynolds, S., Whitten, P., Merchant, J., Burmeister, L. & Popendorf, W. (1995) Respiratory
dysfunction in swine production facility workers: dose-response relationships of environmental expo-
sures and pulmonary function. American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 27, 405–418.
Donham, K., Cumro, D., Reynolds, S. & Merchant, J. (2000) Dose-response relationships between occupa-
tional aerosol exposures and cross-shift declines of lung function in poultry workers: recommendations
for exposure limits. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 42(3), 260–269.
Donham, K., Cumro, D. & Reynolds, S. (2002) Synertistic effects of dust and ammonia on the occupational
health effects o ourtry production workers. Journal of Agromedicine, 8(2), 57–76.
Dosman, J., Lawson, B., Kirychuk, S., Cormier, Y., Biem, J. & Koehncke, N. (2004) Occupational asthma
in newly employed workers in intensive swine confinement facilities. European Respiratory Journal, 24,
698–702.
Eckert, J. (1997) Epidemiology of Echinococcus multilocularis and E. granulosis in Central Europe. Para-
sitologia, 39(4), 337–344.
Heederik, D., Brouwer, R., Biersteker, K. & Boleij, J. (1991) Relationship of airborne endotoxin and bacteria
VetBooks.ir
levels in pig farms with the lung function and respiratory symptoms of farmers. International Archives of
Occupational and Environmental Health, 62, 595–601.
Hoffmann, H.J., Iversen, M., Takai, H., Sigsgaard, T., Omland, O. & Dahl, R. (2004) Exposure to work-
related levels of swine dust up-regulates CD106 on human alveolar macrophages. American Journal of
Industrial Medicine, 46(4), 378–380.
Holness, D., O’Blenis, E., Sass-Kortsak, A., Deliger, C. & Nethercott, J. (1987) Respiratory effects and dust
exposures in hog confinement farming. American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 11, 571–580.
Kirychuk, S.P., Senthilselvan, A., Dosman, J.A., Juorio, V., Feddes, J.J., Willson, P., Classen, H., Reynolds,
S.J., Guenter, W. & Hurst, T.S. (2003) Respiratory symptoms and lung function in poultry confinement
workers in Western Canada. Canadian Respiratory Journal, 10(7), 375–380.
MacDonald, J. & McBride, D. (2009) The transformation of U.S. livestock agriculture: scale, efficiency, and
risks. Economic Information Bulletin No. (EIB-43) 46 pp. Available from: http://www.ers.usda.gov/publica
tions/pub-details/?pubid=44294 [accessed January 2018].
Monso, E., Riu, E., Radon, K., Magarolas, R., Danuser, B., Iversen, M., Morera, J. & Nowak, D. (2004)
Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in never-smoking animal farmers working inside confinement
buildings. American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 46, 357–362.
Mustajabegovic, J., Zuskin, E., Schachter, E., Kern, J., Vrcic-Keglevic, M., Vitale, K. & Ebling, Z. (2001)
Respiratory findings in livestock farm workers. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine,
43(6), 576–584.
Nilsson, C. (1984) Dust investigations in pig houses. In: Hg, H. (ed) Proceedings of the International Society
of Animal Hygiene, 11–13 August 1984, University of Hanover, Hanover, Germany. pp. 31–37.
Osbern, L. & Crapo, R. (1981) Dung lung: a report of toxic exposure to liquid manure. Annals of Internal
Medicine, 95, 312–314.
O’Shaughnessy, P.T., Donham, K.J., Peters, T.M. (2010). A task-specific assessment of swine worker expo-
sure to airborne dust. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene, 7, 7–13.
O’Shaughnessy, P.T., Peters, T.M., Donham, K.J., Altmaier, R., Taylor, C. & Kelly, K. (2012). Assessment
of swine worker exposures to dust and endotoxin during hog load-out and power washing. Annals of
Occupational Hygiene, 56(7), 843–851.
Pederson, B., Iversen, M. & Dahl, R. (1990) Bronchoalveolar lavage of pig farmers. American Journal of
Prior, C., Falk, M. & Frank, A. (2001) Longitudinal changes of sensitization to farming-related antigens
among young farmers. Respiration, 68(1), 46–50.
Radon, K., Danuser, B., Iversen, M., Jorres, R., Monso, E., Opravil, U., Weber, C., Donham K.J. & Nowak,
D. (2001) Respiratory symptoms in European animal farmers. The European Respiratory Journal, 17,
747–754.
Radon, K., Danuser, B., Iversen, M., Monso, E., Weber, C., Hartung, J., Donham, K.J., Palgren, U. & Nowak,
D. (2002) Air contaminants in different European farming environments. Annals of Agricultural and
Environmental Medicine, 9(1), 41–48.
Reynolds, S.J., Donham, K.J., Whitten, P., Merchant, J.A., Burmeister, L.F. & Popendorf, W.J. (1996) Lon-
gitudinal evaluation of dose-response relationships for environmental exposures and pulmonary function
in swine production workers. American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 29(1), 33–40.
Rylander, R., Essle, N. & Donham, K.J. (1990) Bronchial hyperreactivity among pig and dairy farmers.
American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 17(1), 66–69.
Schwartz, D., Donham, K., Popendorf, W., Lassise, D., Hunninghake, G. & Merchant, J. (eds) (1990) Are
work shift changes in lung function predictive of underlying lung disease? 1990 World Conference on
Lung Health, 20–24 May 1990, Boston, MA, American Lung Association, American Thoracic Society,
New York, NY.
Schwartz, D., Donham, K., Olenchock, S., Popendorf, W., Van Fossen, D., Burmeister, L. & Merchant, J.
(1995) Determinants of longitudinal changes in spirometric function among swine confinement operators
and farmers. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, 151, 47–53.
Senthilselvan, A., Dosman, J., Kirychuk, S., Barber, E., Rhodes, C. & Zhang, Y. (1997) Accelerated lung
function dectline in swine confinement workers. Chest, 111, 1733–1741.
Sigurdarson, S., O’Shaughnessy, P., Watt, J. & Kline, J. (2004) Experimental human exposure to inhaled
grain dust and ammonia: towards a model of concentrated animal feeding operations. American Journal
of Industrial Medicine, 46, 345–348.
Thedell, T., Mull, J. & Olenchock, S. (1980) A brief report of gram-negative bacterial endotoxin levels in
VetBooks.ir
airborne and settled dusts in animal confinement buildings. American Journal of Industrial Medicine,
1, 3–7.
Thelin, A., Tegler, O. & Rylander, R. (1984) Lung reactions during poultry handling related to dust and
bacterial endotoxin levels. European Respiratory Journal, 65, 266–291.
CHAPTER 12
VetBooks.ir
The effect of air quality in livestock buildings on the occupational

health of farm workers
Thomas Banhazi and Dino Pisaniello
12.1 INTRODUCTION
The results of Australian studies have confirmed that air quality within many intensive pig pro-
duction facilities is inadequate to meet targets set for animal health and production (Banhazi
et al., 2008a; Banhazi et al., 2009). In a study (Banhazi and Cargill, 1999), it was reported that
37% sheds had respirable dust levels greater than 0.23 mg m–3, and 41% had bacteria levels of
greater than 100,000 cfu m–3. The situation in other intensive industries is very similar (Banhazi
et al., 2008b). Based on anecdotal evidence, staff turnover within the pig industry is high, espe-
cially in larger production units. The reasons for the high turnover rates have not been explored.
However, anecdotal evidence suggests that general health problems, especially respiratory health
problems, are an issue in the industry (Dr. Gale, personal communication) and that employees
and managers do not relate the problems to the work environment (Donham et al., 1977, 2000).
Hence, compensation claims are seldom made under workers’ compensation schemes. If the
anecdotal evidence is substantiated, and employees were to make the connection, the number
of claims could increase dramatically. This is supported by studies undertaken overseas inves-
tigating respiratory problems among employees in intensive livestock industries compared with
agricultural workers in other industries (Donham et al., 1984; Laitinen et al., 2001; Mackiewicz,
1998; Omland et al., 1999; Schwartz, 2001; Schwartz et al., 1995; Von Essen and Romberger,
2003). However, many of these studies were undertaken on farms that generally use mechanical
ventilation, and a similar study has not been undertaken in Australia, where most pig production
units use natural ventilation.
This study was designed to quantify the contribution that poor air quality is making to human
occupational health and safety (OH&S) issues, such as total sick days, staff complaints and staff
resignations due to respiratory discomfort within the working environment. Although the study
was undertaken in the pig industry, the results provide valuable information that can be used in
other intensive animal industries. The study was expanded to include production data to demon-
strate the economic benefits of improving air quality on the health and welfare of pigs.
Facilities commonly used for housing weaner (3 to 10 week old) and grower (10 to 23 weeks
old) pigs were selected on 20 farms in South Australia, and the shed environment monitored for
air quality parameters. Air quality parameters included both inhalable and respirable particles,
ammonia gas and viable bacteria. The data were recorded over a series of days rather than using
snapshot measurements over three to eight hours. A full description of the methodology has been
published before, so only a short summary is presented here (Banhazi et al., 2008c).
175
176 Thomas Banhazi and Dino Pisaniello
A survey questionnaire was developed and used to obtain data on the number of sick days
VetBooks.ir
recorded for each pig production facility, the staff turnover rates for the facility, staff resignations
following complaints of discomfort with the shed environment, and a list of common complaints
about working conditions recorded by staff. The data collected were analyzed to identify signifi-
cant associations between shed environments and a range of human health problems, such as sick
days, staff resignations due to health and discomfort and other complaints.
12.3 RESULTS
The air quality and environment were assessed in sheds used to house weaners and growers on 20
farms. The parameters measured included inhalable airborne particles (dust), respirable particles,
airborne viable bacteria, airborne gram-positive bacteria and ammonia concentrations. The con-
centration of total particles in the grower sheds monitored ranged from 1.5 to 2.5 mg m–3 (mean
2.05+0.25), and the concentration of respirable particles ranged from 0.15 to 0.26 mg m–3 (mean
0.22+0.03). The values for total particles in weaner accommodations ranged from 1.6 to 2.4 mg m–3
(mean 2.12+0.22), and the concentration of respirable particles ranged from 0.19 to 0.28 mg m–3
(mean 0.23+0.02). Concentrations of bacteria ranged from 91,000 to 152,000 cfu m–3 (mean
123,300 + 17,620) in grower sheds and from 89,000 to 149,000 cfu m–3 (mean 120,300 + 17,508)
in weaner accommodations. The majority of sheds had less than the target level of 7 ppm for
ammonia, and the mean concentration for grower sheds was 3.8 + 1.24 ppm (range 1.0–6.0) and
5.0 + 1.75 ppm (range 2–9) in weaner accommodations.
12.3.1 Relationships between human health and shed environment

Thirty farms were included in the survey, and the survey targeted managers or owner/managers
and did not include interviews with employees.
On average, the managers interviewed had been employed in the pig industry for a period of
19.3 +13.9 years (median = 19.5; range 4–40) and had worked on their current farm for 13.4 +
11.7 years (median = 10.5; range 2–40). The average number of employees on each farm was 8.0
+ 9.4 (range 2–41) and the average length of employment for each employee was 5.2 + 2.0 years
(range 2–11). However, the length of employment for small farms (<6 employees) was 5.5 + 1.8,
compared with 4.1 + 2.1 for larger farms. The mean number of sick days/year recorded for each
employee was 2.2 + 0.94 (range 0.5–4.0).
Managers were asked to list up to three reasons for employees seeking work in the pig indus-
try, and the majority (80%) listed “lack of other employment opportunities” as the major reason.
However, the second and third most commonly listed reasons were “attracted by the variable
and interesting activities of the work” (30%) and “like pigs” (30%). Other reasons stated were
“opportunity to progress in an interesting industry” (33%), “job satisfaction” (27%), “no qualifi-
cations needed” (23%) and “like animals” (23%).
Similarly, managers were asked to nominate up to three reasons for employees leaving the
pig industry. The most common reason was “to pursue other opportunities” (66%) but both “low
wages” (43%) and “work environment” (40%) were also rated highly. Other reasons given were
“conflict with managers” (33%), “7 day working week” (30%), “hard work” (26.5%), “partners
object to the smell” (20%), “boredom with routine” (13%) and “to continue study” (6.5%).
Resignations due to discomfort with the working environment were recorded on 12 farms.
The highest number recorded on an individual farm was four. The total number of resignations
recorded over the last five years was 23 (9.6%) from a workforce of 239. The farm average was
0.77 + 1.22. All but five of the resignations came from farms with more than 10 employees. The
percentage of resignations due to discomfort with the work environment on smaller farms (less
than eight employees) was 5.5%, compared with 11.5% for farms with more than eight employees.
Only 18 managers answered the question requesting them to list the most common com-
plaints relating to shed environment in straw-based shelters. “Dustiness” was listed as the most
Air quality and farm workers 177
common complaint (72%) followed by “dirty” (22%) and “smelly” (16.5%). No other reasons
VetBooks.ir
were recorded, and several managers recorded only one.

Thirty responses were received to the same question for traditional sheds. The most common
were “sore eyes from dust and cleaning” (60%) and “dustiness” (53.5%). Other complaints listed
were “poor air flow” (33%), “dirty” (26.5%) and “poor light” (20%).
Although all managers responded to question 11 (“What do you consider are the top three
health and safety hazards in a piggery?”), several failed to list three. Of those listed, the most
common hazard identified was machinery (24%), followed by feed mixing (12.5%) and han-
dling large boars and sows (12.5%). Other hazards identified were “risk of injuries from gates/
pigs” (11.5%), “dust inhalation” (10%), “slippery wet floors” (7.5%), “excessive noise at feed-
ing” (6.5%), “electrical wiring damaged by rodents” (5%), “biological dangers” (5%), “not using
safety equipment (ear protectors, masks etc.)” (4%) and “respiratory problems” (1%).
Managers were also asked to rate the importance of clean and contaminant-free air on their
health and safety hazard list. They were given the choice of placing it near the top, near the mid-
dle or at the bottom. The majority (53%) placed it near the top while 47% placed it in the middle.
No respondents placed it at the bottom.
Finally, managers were asked whether removing health and safety hazards for employees
would have a positive impact upon the production efficiency of their piggery. The majority (73%)
replied yes, while 27% replied no. The main reasons given were “improves conditions for pigs”
(100% of replies) and “improves work environment” (36.5%).
12.3.2 Associations between air quality parameters and sick days and employee resignations
The air quality data were analyzed for significant associations with the data collected from the 20
farms surveyed using Pearson’s correlation (Statistix program). None of the air quality parame-
ters was significantly associated with the average number of sick days/farm. However, there was
a strong trend toward an association between average sick days and the concentration of total
particles in both the grower (p = 0.08) and weaner sheds (p = 0.06) and respirable particles in
weaner rooms (p = 0.07) (Table 12.1).
Although only one significant association was identified between air quality parameters and
the number of staff resignations due to discomfort with the environment, there was also a strong
trend for several other parameters to be associated with this factor. The concentration of bacteria
in weaner rooms was significantly correlated with the number of resignations due to shed envi-
ronment (p = 0.04), and although the R2 value for the concentration of bacteria in grower sheds
was 0.43, the p value was 0.06 (Table 12.1). However, only five farms recorded resignations for
discomfort in the shed environment, and hence, the sample for analysis was small.
There was a negative correlation between two air quality parameters in weaner rooms and the
degree of importance placed on contaminant-free air for the health and safety of workers. These
were ammonia concentrations (p = 0.02) and the concentration of bacteria (p = 0.04). There was
also a strong trend for the concentration of bacteria in grower sheds to be negatively correlated
with staff resignations for this reason (p = 0.06) (Table 12.1).
Analysis of the results also found a significant positive correlation (p = 0.05) between the
number of sick days and employee resignations due to discomfort with the shed environment,
indicating a possible link between the two (Table 12.1).
Significant correlations between the answers received from all 30 farms included the number
of years managers had worked in the pig industry and the number of years spent working on their
current piggery (R2 = 0.70; p < 0.0001), as well as the number of years managers had worked
in the industry and the number of employees on the farm (R2 = 0.44; p < 0.005). There was also
a strong positive correlation between the number of employees on the farm and the average
number of sick days/employee/year (R2 = 0.53; p < 0.005) and the number of resignations due to
discomfort with the environment (R2 = 0.64; p < 0.0001). Also, the number of resignations due
to discomfort with the environment was negatively correlated with the length of time employees
Table 12.1. R-values for correlations between air quality parameters and average days sick leave, resigna-
VetBooks.ir
tions due to discomfort with shed environment and the degree of importance placed on clean air
for worker safety.
Question 4 Question 9 Question 12
Weaner NH3 R = 0.17; p = 0.47 R = 0.33; p = 0.16 R = −0.53; p = 0.02

Weaner bacteria R = 0.04; p = 0.86 R = 0.48; p = 0.04 R = −0.48; p = 0.04
Weaner respirable particles R = 0.44; p = 0.06 R = 0.37; p = 0.10 R = −0.02; p = 0.92
Weaner total particles R = 0.41; p = 0.07 R = −0.16; p = 0.50 R = 0.14; p = 0.55
Grower NH3 R = 0.10; p = 0.68 R = 0.09; p = 0.72 R = −0.25; p = 0.29
Grower bacteria R = 0.16; p = 0.49 R = 0.43; p = 0.06 R = −0.42; p = 0.06
Grower respirable particles R = 0.26; p = 0.27 R = 0.26; p = 0.26 R = −0.18; p = 0.46
Grower total particles R = 0.40; p = 0.08 R = 0.04; p = 0.86 R = −0.11; p = 0.63
Table 12.2. R-values for correlations between employment factors and average days sick leave, resignations
due to discomfort with shed environment.
Period in Number Average sick Mean length
pig industry of employees days/employee of employment
Years on current R = 0.70; p = 0.0001 R = −0.01 R = −0.006 R = 0.19

farm
Number of R = 0.44; p = 0.02
employees
Average R = 0.47; p = 0.01 R = 0.53; p = 0.002
sick days/employee
Mean length R = 0.06 R = −0.33; p = 0.07 R = −0.17
of employment
Resignations* R = 0.29 R = 0.64; p = 0.0001 R = 0.38; p = 0.04 R = −0.57; p = 0.001
resignations due to discomfort with shed environment

*
stayed on the farm (R2 = −0.57; p = 0.0001) and positively correlated with the average number
of sick days/year/employee (R2 = 0.38; p = 0.04). It was also observed that as the number of
employees on the farm increased, the length of time employees stayed decreased (R2 = −0.33;
p = 0.07) (Table 12.2).
12.4 DISCUSSION
The air quality in the sheds selected was similar to that recorded in other Australian surveys
(Banhazi et al., 2008c). Approximately 45% of grower sheds and 40% of weaner rooms recorded
concentrations of respirable particles above recommended limits, and 50% grower sheds and
35% weaner rooms had bacterial concentrations above the suggested maximum figure. Although
the average ammonia concentrations recorded in all buildings were below the recommended
target of 7 ppm, several facilities averaged more than 5 ppm.
The results of the piggery managers’ survey indicate that the pig industry has a relatively stable
workforce. This is particularly true of smaller units, where the majority of employees may be
family members or local residents wishing to remain in their local area. However, even on large
farms with more than 10 employees, the average period of employment was four years.
The mean sick days/employee/year were also at the lower end of the scale, with even the max-
imum figure of four sick days/employee/year being modest. The average of 2.2 fits well within
the figures quoted for other industries.
Resignations due to discomfort with the work environment were also low, and both sick days
VetBooks.ir
and resignations due to discomfort with the environment were related to farm size. Although
larger farms (>20 employees) tended to have worse air quality than smaller farms (<6 employ-
ees), it was not possible to analyze the data, as only four large farms were included in the survey.
It would appear from this limited survey that people enter the pig industry primarily because
of a lack of other opportunities, which probably reflects the general lack of work opportunities
in rural areas. However, all the other reasons given for entering the industry reflected a positive
image of the industry by its employees. The reasons given for leaving were generally negative
and mainly related to the employment conditions and general work environment. This is an issue
that the pig industry will need to address if it is to build a stable and competent workforce.
It is significant that the major environmental complaints registered related to dust and odor are
both areas that are subject to major research projects funded by the pig industry. In traditional
sheds, the two major complaints were dustiness and sores eyes associated with either cleaning or
dust. Although it has been recommended that employees wear facemasks to protect their respi-
ratory tract while working with pigs and cleaning pens, eye protection has not been discussed
(Elbers et al., 1996; Larsson et al., 2002; Pickrell et al., 1995). This finding indicates that some
form of goggles should be used to protect eyes from dust and aerosols while working with pigs
and cleaning facilities.
Air quality and a clean air environment were recognized as important by the majority of
managers who placed these issues high up on their hazard and safety list. None of the managers
interviewed gave them a low priority. It is interesting that the air quality on farms where manag-
ers rated clean air near the top of their hazard and safety list was significantly better than on the
farms where managers placed it in the middle of the list. This suggests that managers who were
concerned about air quality as a hazard were already taking steps to improve air quality on their
farms (Kiekhaefer et al., 1995; Lacey and Dutkiewicz, 1994; O’Shaughnessy et al., 2009). Added
to this was the fact that most managers recognized that improving the shed environment resulted
in improved production outcomes (Reynolds et al., 1996).
The relationship between concentrations of airborne bacteria in weaner rooms and resigna-
tions due to discomfort with the environment is significant for a number of reasons. It has been
demonstrated in Australia that the concentration of airborne bacteria is a significant risk factor
for increasing the prevalence and severity of respiratory disease in pig herds (Cargill and Ban-
hazi, 1998; Cargill et al., 1996, 1998), and other studies reported that increasing concentrations
of airborne bacteria are associated with reduced growth rate in pigs (Murphy et al., 2012). It is
also probable that employees spend more time in weaner rooms than grower sheds, and hence,
those that suffer an adverse reaction to inhaling airborne bacteria, or their components, are more
likely to resign. However, resignations due to discomfort with the work environment were also
associated with farm size and other employment factors and it is difficult to determine the most
significant factor.
The results also indicate a possible association between the average number of sick days and
air quality, but again this is difficult to interpret in the light of other findings. The average number
of sick days was in fact more strongly associated with the size of the farm than any of the air
quality parameters. Nonetheless, it would appear that there is a need to investigate further the
associations between sick days and resignations on the one hand and air quality and work envi-
ronment on the other.
One of the major incentives for producers to improve air quality and reduce the occupational
health risk for employees is the obvious economic benefits that accrue from increased production
efficiency. It is assumed that these improvements result from the fact that the pig reacts phys-
iologically and immunologically in a similar manner to humans when airborne pollutants are
inhaled into the lungs. Hence, any improvement in the environment will be beneficial for both
pigs and humans (Donham, 1989, 1991, 1995).
Although several other OH&S issues were identified in the farm survey, these were all beyond
the scope of the current project. However, the pig industry appear to have addressed these issues
in other projects and documents and in a publication initiated by FarmsafeAUSTRALIA (Jackson

VetBooks.ir
and Mahon, 1995).
12.5 RECOMMENDATIONS
• Clean facilities thoroughly between each batch of animals. Exposed surfaces that collect dust
need to be smooth to minimize resuspension of particles and facilitate cleaning.
• Employees should be asked to wear masks while feeding and working with pigs to reduce dust
inhalation.
• Goggles and masks should be worn while cleaning the facilities. The masks should have a
minimum of two bands that fit around the head.
• Minimize animal disturbance and restrict human access to sheds, as pollutant levels can take
several hours to return to previous levels following animal activity.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This study was funded jointly by the Australian Pork Limited and WorkCover and was under-
taken as a large collaborative project including the contributions of many individuals. We wish to
particularly acknowledge the assistance of the pig producers involved in the study and sincerely
thank Dr. C. Cargill, who was instrumental in obtaining funding for the project. The important
contributions of technical staff are also gratefully acknowledged.
REFERENCES
Banhazi, T. & Cargill, C. (1999) Survey of pig sheds in Australia – preliminary results. In: Pedersen, S. (ed)
Dust Control in Animal Production Facilities, Vol. 1. Danish Institute of Agricultural Science, Aarhus,
Denmark. pp. 76–82.
Banhazi, T., Seedorf, J., Rutley, D.L. & Pitchford, W.S. (2008a). Identification of risk factors for sub-optimal
housing conditions in Australian piggeries: part 2. Airborne pollutants. Journal of Agricultural Safety and
Health, 14(1), 21–39.
Banhazi, T.M., Seedorf, J., Laffrique, M. & Rutley, D.L. (2008b) Identification of the risk factors for high
airborne particle concentrations in broiler buildings using statistical modelling. Biosystems Engineering,
101(1), 100–110.
Banhazi, T.M., Currie, E., Reed, S., Lee, I. & Aarnink, A.J. (2009) Controlling the concentrations of air-
borne pollutants in piggery buildings. In: Aland, A. & Madec, F. (eds) Sustainable Animal Production:
The Challenges and Potential Developments for Professional Farming. Vol. 1. WAP, Wageningen, The
Netherlands. pp. 285–311.
Cargill, C. & Banhazi, T. (1998) The importance of cleaning in all-in/all-out management systems. In: Car-
gill, C. & McOrist, S. (eds) Proceedings of the 15th IPVS Congress, Vol. 3. 5–9 July 1998, Birmingham,
UK, University of Birmingham. p. 15.
Cargill, C. F., Banhazi, T. & Humphris, R. (1996) Improving air quality and production by converting exist-
ing facilities to all-in/all-out systems. Proceedings of the 14th International Pig Veterinary Society Con-
gress, 7–10 July 1996, Bologna, Italy. p. 509
Cargill, C., Banhazi, T. & Connaughton, I. (1998)The influence of air quality on production increases asso-
ciated with all-in/all-out management. In: Cargill, C. & McOrist, S. (eds) Proceedings of the 15th IPVS
Congress, Vol. 2, 5–9 July 1998, Birmingham, UK, University of Birmingham. p. 248.
Donham, K.J. (1990) Relationships of air quality and productivity in intensive swine housing. Agriculture
Practice, 10(6), 15–18.
Donham, K.J. (1995) A review – the effects of environmental conditions inside swine housing on worker and
VetBooks.ir
pig health. In: Jennessy, D.P. & Cranwell, P.D. (eds) Manipulating Pig Production V, Vol. 5. pp. 203–221.
Donham, K.J., Rubino, M., Thedell, T.D. & Kammermeyer, J. (1977) Potential health hazards to agricultural
workers in swine confinement buildings. Journal of Occupational Medicine, 19(6), 383–387.
Donham, K.J., Zavala, D.C. & Merchant, J.A. (1984) Respiratory symptoms and lung function among work-
ers in swine confinement buildings: a cross-sectional epidemiological study. Archives of Environmental
Health, 39(2), 96–101.
Donham, K.J., Cumro, D., Reynolds, S.J. & Merchant, J.A. (2000) Dose-response relationships between
occupational aerosol exposures and cross-shift declines of lung function in poultry workers: recommen-
dations for exposure limits. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 42(3), 260–269.
Elbers, A.R.W., de Vries, M., van Gulick, P.J.M.M., Gerrits, R.P., Smithuis, O.L.M.J., Blaauw, P.J. & Tielen,
M.J.M. (1996) Veterinary practice and occupational health – an epidemiological study of several profes-
sional groups of Dutch veterinarians. 2. Peak expiratory flow variability, dust and endotoxin measure-
ments, use of respiratory, protection devices, and time distribution of professional activities. Veterinary
Quarterly, 18(4), 132–136.
Jackson, A. & Mahon, M. (1995) Occupational Health and Safety for the Australian Pig Industry. PRDC and
Queensland Farmers’ Federation, South Brisbane, Australia.
Kiekhaefer, M.S., Donham, K.J., Whitten, P. & Thorne, P.S. (1995) Cross seasonal studies of airborne micro-
bial populations and environment in swine buildings: implications for worker and animal health. Annals
of Agricultural and Environmental Medicine, 2(1), 37–44.
Lacey, J. & Dutkiewicz, J. (1994) Bioaerosols and occupational lung disease. Journal of Aerosol Science,
25(8), 1371–1404.
Laitinen, S., Kangas, J., Husman, K. & Susitaival, P. (2001) Evaluation of exposure to airborne bacterial
endotoxins and peptidoglycans in selected work environments. Annals of Agricultural and Environmental
Medicine, 8, 213–219.
Larsson, B.-M., Larsson, K., Malmberg, P. & Palmberg, L. (2002) Airways inflammation after exposure in a
swine confinement building during cleaning procedure. American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 41(4),
250–258.
Mackiewicz, B. (1998) Study on exposure of pig farm workers to bioaerosols immunologic reactivity and
health effects. Annals of Agricultural and Environmental Medicine, 5, 169–175.
Murphy, T., Cargill, C., Rutley, D. & Stott, P. (2012) Pig-shed air polluted by α-haemolytic cocci and ammo-
nia causes subclinical disease and production losses. Veterinary Record, 171(5), 123. Published Online
First.
O’Shaughnessy, P.T., Donham, K.J., Peters, T.M., Taylor, C., Altmaier, R. & Kelly, K.M. (2009)
A task-specific assessment of swine worker exposure to airborne dust. Journal of Occupational and
Environmental Hygiene, 7(1), 7–13.
Omland, O., Sigsgaard, T., Hjort, C., Pedersen, O.F. & Miller, M.R. (1999) Respiratory health in young Dan-
ish rurals, is farming a risk factor for reduced lung function? In: Pedersen, S. (ed) Dust Control in Animal
Production Facilities, 30 May–2 June 1999, Scandinavian Congress Center, Aarhus. Danish Institute of
Agricultural Science. pp. 167–175.
Pickrell, J.A., Heber, A.J., Murphy, M.S., Henry, S.C., May, M.M., Nolan, D., Gearhart, S.K., Cederberg,
B.L., Oehme, F.W. & Schonewels, D. (1995) Total and respirable dust in swine confinement buildings:
the benefit of respiratory protective masks and effect of recirculated air. Veterinary and Human Toxicol-
ogy, 37(5), 430–435.
Reynolds, S.J., Donham, K.J., Whitten, P., Merchant, J.A., Burmeister, L.F. & Popendorf, W.J. (1996) Lon-
gitudinal evaluation of dose-response relationships for environmental exposures and pulmonary function
in swine production workers. American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 29(1), 33–40.
Schwartz, D.A. (2001) Inhaled endotoxin, a risk for airway disease in some people. Respiration Physiology,
128(1), 47–55.
Schwartz, D.A., Donham, K.J., Olenchock, S.A., Popendorf, W.J., Van Fossen, D.S., Burmeister, L.F. &
Merchant, J.A. (1995) Determinants of longitudinal changes in spirometric function among swine con-
finement operators and farmers. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, 151(1),
47–53.
Von Essen, S. & Romberger, D. (2003) The respiratory inflammatory response to the swine confinement
building environment: the adaptation to respiratory exposures in the chronically exposed worker. Journal
VetBooks.ir
CHAPTER 13
VetBooks.ir
Dust dispersion modeling of fugitive emissions from piggeries
Thomas Banhazi
13.1 INTRODUCTION
Studies investigating airborne pollution emission rates from different piggery buildings in Austra-
lia demonstrated that airborne particle emission rates are high from deep bedded shelters (DBS)
when compared to emission rates from traditional (slatted floor) buildings (Banhazi et al., 2008a,
2008b, 2008c). Similar findings were also demonstrated in poultry buildings, where the presence
of bedding was associated with very high airborne particle concentrations (Banhazi et al., 2008d).
The general findings of the piggery-focused study also indicated that Australian piggery build-
ings have much higher ventilation rates than similar European buildings and that the associated
emissions are also therefore higher (Banhazi et al., 2008a). The aim of this study was to assess
the potential emission impact area of different “hypothetical” Australian piggery buildings, so the
practical results of changes in emission rates can be assessed.
13.2 METHODOLOGY
13.2.1 Dust measurement method and average values used

As the original study used “seven-hole” and “respirable” filter heads to collect dust in the piggery
buildings (Banhazi et al., 2008c), the dust fractions had to be converted to PM2.5 and inhalable
PM10 fractions to facilitate proper modeling. Respirable particles were all assumed to be PM2.5
and inhalable PM10. Separate studies of particle size distributions for swine building dust con-
ducted in Canada (Chen et al., 1997, 1998a, 1998b, 1999, 2000) revealed that 99.3% of airborne
particles were smaller than 10 µm. Although conducted in Canada, the climatic conditions at
the time of sampling are representative of Australian conditions (e.g., temperatures in the mid
to high 20s). Similar particle size distributions have been found in other studies (Agranovski
et al., 2004; Hinz and Linke, 1998). The preliminary results of this study has been used to esti-
mate total suspended particulate (TSP) emissions based on the Australian data (Banhazi et al.,
2008a, 2008c). The emission values used in this study, together with some other information
describing the hypothetical study buildings, are presented in Table 13.1.
13.2.2 Dispersion model and meteorology data used

For this study, the Ausplume dispersion model has been used (Hurley, 2006). This model is based
on the Gaussian plume theory, which assumes that a plume is dispersed in a manner that enables
the concentrations at a given time to be described in terms of a Gaussian statistical distribution
vertically and horizontally about the centerline of the plume. Ausplume is capable of simulating
183
184 Thomas Banhazi
Table 13.1. Summary of emission rates used in the current study together with other building parameters.
VetBooks.ir
Building type Traditional Straw-based shelters
Dimensions (m) 32.7 × 12.7 × 3.2 19.2 × 8 × 3.2

Ventilation rate (m³ h–1) 36,551 25,818
Air exchange (air change h–1) 2.8 52.6
Temperature differential (°C) 3.8 2.7
Respirable particle emission 105 1717
(mg h–1 per 500 kg)
Inhalable particles emission 1011 4351
(mg h–1 per 500 kg)
the effects of multiple sources, including stacks, volume sources and area sources. Their effects
can be integrated over a long time period (>1 year) or evaluated for short-term maximum impacts
(as short as 3 min) (Jeong, 2002).
The initial step in this assessment was to develop a meteorological data file that was represen-
tative of the Murray Bridge area (South Australia) and suitable for use as an input into the Aus-
plume dispersion model (Guo et al., 2005; Jacobson et al., 2005). For this purpose, a prognostic
meteorological model (TAPM) was used rather than the observed data. This procedure removed
any micrometeorological features associated with a specific observation site and provided a gen-
erally representative dataset for the Murray Bridge area. The Air Pollution Model, or TAPM, is
a three dimensional meteorological and air pollution model developed by the Commonwealth
Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), Division of Atmospheric Research,
Australia. A detailed description of the TAPM model and its performance is provided elsewhere
(Hurley, 1999). TAPM solves the fundamental fluid dynamics and scalar transport equations
to predict meteorology and (optionally) pollutant concentrations. The model predicts airflow
important to local scale air pollution, such as sea breezes and terrain induced flows, against a
background of larger scale meteorology provided by synoptic analyses.
A wind rose diagram for the Murray Bridge area, South Australia, taken from data generated
by TAPM is shown in Figure 13.1. Note that the wind rose data are extracted from a model; there-
fore, this represents an estimate of the local conditions.
Figure 13.1 shows that in the very early morning (rose at top left), winds are lighter than during
the daytime and occur most frequently from the northeast, south, southeast and occasionally
from other directions. By afternoon (rose at top right), winds are generally stronger and most
frequently from the southwest. Over all hours, the wind blows most frequently from the sector
between west and southeast, with a secondary maximum from the northeast. However, there is
no strongly prevalent wind direction. There may be localized variations from this pattern due to
subtle terrain influences.
13.2.3 Hypothetical farm configuration

For this study, a hypothetical farm has been designed that consists of 10 grower buildings
arranged in two rows of five, as shown in Figure 13.2. The farm configuration for the DBS sce-
nario is similar to the above layout with the reduced building dimensions, based on survey results
(Banhazi et al., 2008a, 2008c).
The data collected as part of a large national project has been used as a basis for estimating
the average ventilation and emission rates for the “hypothetical” Australian piggery buildings
(Banhazi et al., 2008a, 2008b, 2008c). Dispersion modeling was based on generic 60 livestock
unit (LU) piggery buildings for traditional buildings and 20 LU for DBS located in the Murray
Bridge area. These stocking rate values were based on actual farm survey results (Banhazi, 2011).
The dimensions of the traditional buildings were 32.7 m × 12.7 m × 3.2 m, and a temperature
differential of 3.8°C was assumed. Correspondingly, the dimensions of the DBS were 19.2 m ×
8 m × 3.2 m, and a temperature differential of 2.7°C was assumed due to the lack of insulation
Dust dispersion modeling 185
VetBooks.ir
Figure 13.1. Model-generated wind roses for the Murray Bridge Area, SA.
Figure 13.2. Hypothetical farm configuration.
material used within the structure of the DBS. The DBS structures are open at each end, with an
average in-shed wind speed of 0.4 m s−1.
13.2.4 Modeling parameters
Traditionally, emissions from animal husbandry buildings have been modeled as volume sources.
Unfortunately, in dispersion models such as Ausplume, volume sources are not capable of incor-
porating plume thermal buoyancy. Even small temperature differentials, such as 1–2°C, can have
a significant effect on near-field ground level concentrations. In order to incorporate the effects
of the temperature differential for this study, the generic pig shed has been modeled as four
large-diameter point sources with low exit velocity (0.01 ms−1) to negate momentum plume rise.
186 Thomas Banhazi
By modeling emissions from the pig shed as a pseudo-point source, it is also possible to incorpo-
VetBooks.ir
rate the effects of building downwash into the model.

As the modeling exercise was designed to represent generic buildings, terrain effects have not
been included. Surface roughness levels have been set at 0.4 m to represent a rural environment
with gentle slopes. As more than 99% of particles are smaller than 10 µm and the modeling
should reflect a generic farm, gravitational settling has not been incorporated into the model.
While it is accepted that some settling of larger particles (>3–4 µm) will occur, particularly under
light wind conditions, neglecting this effect in the modeling adds an additional level of conser-
vatism to the results.
The following results are presented for TSP only. As gravitational settling has not been incorpo-
rated into the modeling, the PM10 and PM2.5 portions may be considered to be fractions of the
TSP values, depending on the particle size distribution of the emissions. Actual emissions from
any given farm will be largely dependent on the conditions within the buildings (Banhazi, 2011;
Banhazi et al., 2008a). Dispersion modeling results for the 10-grower building farm and the 10
DBS farms are presented in Figures 13.3–13.6 for maximum 24-h and annual average ground
level concentrations (in µg m–³) for an area within 2 km of the farm.
Figure 13.3. Predicted maximum 24-h average TSP concentration (µg m–³) for (a) traditional and (b) DBS
farms (gravitational settling not incorporated) – predictions based on traditional stocking den-
sities; scale in meters.
VetBooks.ir
Figure 13.4. Predicted annual average TSP concentration (µg m–³) for (a) traditional and (b) DBS farms (gravita-
tional settling not incorporated) – predictions based on traditional stocking densities; scale in meters.
VetBooks.ir
Figure 13.6. Predicted maximum 24-h average TSP concentration (µg m–³) for (a) traditional and (b) DBS
farms (gravitational settling not incorporated) – predictions based on traditional stocking den-
sities; scale in meters.
VetBooks.ir
Figure 13.7. Predicted annual average TSP concentration (µg m–³) for (a) traditional and (b) DBS farms
(gravitational settling not incorporated) – predictions based on traditional stocking densities;
scale in meters.
190 Thomas Banhazi
VetBooks.ir
It can be seen from the results that the hypothetical piggery with traditional buildings impacted
a larger area (Figs. 13.3 and 13.4) compared to the piggery with DBS structures, despite DBS
structures emitting significantly more dust per standard livestock unit (LU or 500 kg live weight)
than traditional buildings (Banhazi et al., 2008a). This is because stocking densities in traditional
buildings are usually significantly higher than in DBS; thus, the overall emission is greater from
the hypothetical piggery consisting traditional buildings.
However, a different picture emerges when the piggeries were readjusted and equalized for
LUs. When approximately the same biological mass (weight of pigs per piggeries) was assumed
for both piggeries, the emission from the DBS farm significantly increased.
Therefore, it can be concluded that farms with DBS might not emit more pollutants if tradi-
tional stocking densities are used. However, if farms with the same number (and age) of pigs are
compared, a greater level of dust emission can be expected from farm using DBS.
In addition, the uncertainties related to results generated by dispersion modeling need to be
acknowledged. Atmospheric dispersion models (such as Ausplume) represent a simplification of
the many complex processes involved in determining ground level concentrations of pollutants
(Hurley, 2006; Jeong, 2002). One of the crucial issues to obtain good quality results is the correct
application of a model for the specific conditions, for example, source characteristics, local mete-
orology and land use. The quality of data and the ability to accurately represent real conditions
in the model are always less than perfect. Model uncertainty comprises model chemistry/phys-
ics uncertainties, data uncertainties, and stochastic uncertainties. In addition, there is inherent
uncertainty in the relationship between diurnal emission/concentration levels (Banhazi, 2013)
and the behavior of the atmosphere, especially on shorter time scales due to the effects of random
turbulence. The main specific sources of uncertainty in dispersion models and their effects are
summarized in Table 13.2.
If modeling results are to be used as support for regulatory decision-making, it is essential to
provide a measure of the model uncertainty. This information about uncertainties associated with
modeling results is as important as the modeling results per se.
Dust dispersion modeling 191
Table 13.2. Summary of main sources of modeling uncertainty.

VetBooks.ir
Source Effects
Oversimplification Variety of effects that can lead to both under prediction and over prediction.
of physics in model Errors are inherently greater in Gaussian plume models, which do not include the
code (varies with effects of non-steady-state meteorology (i.e., spatially and temporally varying
type of model) meteorology). However, data errors in more sophisticated models can override this
inherent tendency.
Errors in emissions Ground level concentrations are proportional to emission rate. Plume rise is affected
data by source dimensions, temperature and exit velocity.
Errors in wind data Wind direction affects direction of plume travel. Wind speed affects plume rise and
dilution of plume, resulting in potential errors in distance of plume impact from
source, and magnitude of impact.
Errors in stability Gaussian plume models use estimates of stability class, and 3-D models use explicit
estimates vertical profiles of temperature and wind (which are used directly or indirectly
to estimate stability class for Gaussian models). In either case, errors in these
parameters can cause either under prediction or over prediction of ground level
concentrations.
Errors in Usually the effects are small, but temperature affects plume buoyancy, with
temperature potential errors in distance of plume impact from source, and magnitude of impact.
Inherent uncertainty Models predict “ensemble mean” concentrations for any specific set of input
data (say on a 1-hour basis), i.e., they predict mean concentrations that result
from a large set of observations under the specific conditions being modeled.
However, for any specific hour with those exact mean hourly conditions, predicted
ground level concentrations will never exactly match the actual pattern of
ground level concentrations, due to the effects of random turbulent motions and
random fluctuations in other factors such as temperature. Inherent uncertainty in
concentrations downwind of a stack has been estimated as 50%–75% for a 1-h
average simulation (Stein and Wyngaard, 2001).
Ignoring Gravitational settling of particles can be highly significant when attempting to
gravitational predict dispersion, particularly when a high proportion of the released particles
settling are larger than 10 µm in diameter. Gravitational settling of airborne particles from
a standard grower sheds can result in ground level concentrations less than 25%
of those estimated, assuming no settling under neutral atmospheric conditions
(stability class D with 5 ms−1 winds) at distances of more than 1 km (Holmes, 2004
personal communication).
However, in this particular study, “hypothetical” farms were compared to avoid the specific
problems associated with individual farm modeling and comparison. By using “generic” farms,
the principles were demonstrated without the need to pay specific attention to confounding indi-
vidual differences.
13.4 CONCLUSIONS
Based on the data presented in this paper the following brief conclusions can be made:
• Housing/farming systems and management-related factors, such as stocking density of animals
in the buildings, need to be considered when evaluating the likely emission impact of livestock
farming operations.
• Individual farm circumstances (such as location and wind directions) can dramatically affect
the predicted model outcomes.
• Improved management of buildings and stock can reduce the impact area of the pollutants
emitted from livestock buildings.
• Results from modeling studies need to be interpreted correctly, acknowledging the limitations
of such investigations.
192 Thomas Banhazi
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
VetBooks.ir
This study was undertaken as a collaborative project with the Pacific Air & Environment Pty Ltd
and Tonkin Consulting. We wish to particularly acknowledge the professional contributions of
G. Holmes, C. Purton and G. Galvin and the financial assistance of the Australian Pork Limited.
REFERENCES
Agranovski, V., Ristovski, Z., Blackall, P.J. & Morawska, L. (2004) Size-selective assessment of airborne
particles in swine confinement building with the UVAPS. Atmospheric Environment, 38(23), 3893–3901.
Banhazi, T. (2011) Engineering, management and structural characteristics of piggery buildings in Austra-
lia: the results of a large survey. In: Banhazi, T. & Saunders, C. (eds) The Bi-annual Conference of the
Australian Society of Engineering in Agriculture, Vol. 1, 29–30 September 2011, Gold Coast, Australia
SEAg. pp. 79–88.
Banhazi, T.M. (2013) Seasonal, diurnal and spatial variations of environmental variables in Australian live-
stock buildings. Australian Journal of Multi-disciplinary Engineering, 10(1), 60–69.
Banhazi, T., Rutley, D.L. & Pitchford, W.S. (2008a) Identification of risk factors for sub-optimal housing
conditions in Australian piggeries: part 4. Emission factors and study recommendations. Journal of Agri-
Banhazi, T., Seedorf, J., Rutley, D.L. & Pitchford, W.S. (2008b) Identification of risk factors for sub-optimal
Banhazi, T., Seedorf, J., Rutley, D.L. & Pitchford, W.S. (2008c) Identification of risk factors for sub-optimal
Health, 14(1), 21–39.
Banhazi, T.M., Seedorf, J., Laffrique, M. & Rutley, D.L. (2008d) Identification of the risk factors for high
101(1), 100–110.
Chen, Y., Barber, E.M. & Zhang, Y. (1997) Sampling efficiency of the aerodynamic particle sizer. In: Bottcher,
R.W. and Hoff, S.J. (eds) Livestock Environment V – 5th International Symposium, Vol. I, 29–31 May
1997, Bloomington, Minnesota, USA. American Society of Agricultural Engineers. pp. 314–321.
Chen, Y., Barber, E.M. & Zhang, Y. (1998a) Sampling efficiency of the TSI Aerodynamic Particle Sizer.
Instrumentation Science & Technology, 26(4), 363–373.
Chen, Y.C., Barber, E.M. & Zhang, Y. (1998b) Statistical analysis of a steady-state method for estimating
dust production and deposition rates in a ventilated airspace. Bulletin of Environmental Contamination
and Toxicology, 60(5), 677–684.
Chen, Y.C., Barber, E.M., Zhang, Y., Besant, R.W. & Sokhansanj, S. (1999) Methods to measure dust pro-
duction and deposition rates in buildings. Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research, 72(4), 329–340.
Chen, Y.C., Yuanhui, Z. & Barber, E.M. (2000) A dynamic method to estimate indoor dust sink and source.
Building and Environment, 35(3), 215–221.
Guo, H., Jacobson, L.D., Schmidt, D.R., Nicolai, R.E., Zhu, J. & Janni, K.A. (2005) Development of the
offset model for determination of odor-annoyance-free setback distances from animal production sites:
part II. Model development and evaluations. Transactions of the ASAE, 48(6), 2269–2276.
Livestock buildings. Part 1: methods. Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research, 70(1), 111–118.
Hurley, P. J. (1999) The Air Pollution Model (TAPM) Version 1: Technical Description and Examples.
CSIRO, Canberra, Australia.
Hurley, P.J. (2006) An evaluation and inter-comparison of AUSPLUME, AERMOD and TAPM for seven
field datasets of point source dispersion. Clean Air and Environmental Quality, 40(1), 45.
Jacobson, L.D., Guo, H., Schmidt, D.R., Nicolai, R.E., Zhu, J. & Janni, K.A. (2005) Development of the
offset model for determination of odor-annoyance-free setback distances from animal production sites:
part I. Review and experiment. Transactions of the ASAE, 48(6), 2259–2268.
Jeong, S.J. (2002) A study on separation distance between industrial source and residential areas to avoid
odor annoyance using AUSPLUME model. Journal of Korean Society Atmospheric Environment, 18(5),
393–400.
Stein, A.F. & Wyngaard, J.C. (2001) Fluid modeling and the evaluation of inherent uncertainty. Journal of
Applied Meteorology 40(10): 1769–1774.
CHAPTER 14
VetBooks.ir
The effects of atmospheric ammonia during export of livestock
Yu Zhang and Clive J.C. Phillips
14.1 INTRODUCTION
Poor air quality in live export shipments can adversely impact on the health and performance of
animals, as well as those looking after them. One major contributor to poor air quality is ammo-
nia, which is a colorless, highly irritating alkaline gas. Based on the accumulation of ammonia
during the voyage and its correlation with other air pollutants, this review will provide a summary
of the literature on the effects of atmospheric ammonia on the health and performance of animals
and humans. Although there is limited evidence for the effects of ammonia on livestock exports,
many studies have been conducted with pigs and poultry under intensive housing conditions
(David et al., 2015; Drummond et al., 1980; Hamilton et al., 1996, 1998; Jones et al., 1996,
2000, 2001; Michiels et al., 2015; Stombaugh et al., 1969; Urbain et al., 1994, 1996). Finally, the
significant gaps in this research area will be identified, and possible means of addressing these
deficiencies presented. The accumulated information will be used as the basis for defining the
threshold value for atmospheric ammonia above which health problems develop in cattle and
sheep during live export.
Limited measurements of ammonia accumulation on a live export voyage from Fremantle,
Australia, to Muscat, Yemen, suggest that the gas accumulates quickly, while a gradual rise over
the first 10 days was discernible on closed decks. On open decks, there was initially a rapid accu-
mulation, then a reduction due to ventilation on the open sea, and a final increase in the more
sheltered conditions of the Persian Gulf in the last few days of the voyage. Ammonia levels were
consistently higher on closed than on open decks (Fig. 14.1).
14.2 SOURCE OF ATMOSPHERIC AMMONIA DURING LIVE EXPORT
As in other intensive animal housing systems, the conditions onboard live export vessels are
conducive to the accumulation of noxious gases, due to the high stocking densities of animals
and feces and urine accumulation. For cattle export, the waste is usually cleaned out on a regular
basis, such as every 3 days. However, in the case of sheep, as long as humidity is low, a pad of
soft, friable material is formed and will not be cleaned out until the animals have been discharged
at the end of the voyage, usually after 10–26 days (Phillips, 2008).
Among the noxious gases measured onboard, ammonia is a major concern, which may pose a risk
to animal or human welfare or health when the levels exceed the 8-h time-weighted average (TWA)
exposure level for humans (25 ppm, 17.4 mg m–3). Preliminary studies on live export vessels identi-
fied the presence of the pungent, colorless gas ammonia (Mamic, 2001; McCarthy, 2005; Tudor et al.,
2003). Recently it has been reported that veterinarians, livestock exporters, and ship owners consider
ammonia to be one of the top five welfare issues related to the sea transport of livestock (Pines et al.,
2007).
193
194 Yu Zhang and Clive J.C. Phillips
VetBooks.ir
Figure 14.1. Mean (±SEM) concentrations of ammonia on open decks (grey square: n = 12) and closed
decks (black triangle: n = 8) over the course of a live export voyage from Australia to the Mid-
dle East (Pines and Phillips, 2011).
Ammonia is generated by bacterial urease enzymes in bedding or manure pads acting on urea
in urine and undigested protein in feces (Costa et al., 2003). Unlike poultry, which excrete uric
acid and undigested proteins in their feces, cattle, sheep and pigs excrete superfluous nitrogen as
urea in the urine and undigested proteins in the feces (Groot Koerkamp et al., 1998). Ambient
temperature, urine concentration and pH levels of the pad are contributing factors affecting atmo-
spheric ammonia concentration during live export (Costa et al., 2003).
14.3 ATMOSPHERIC AMMONIA LEVELS DURING LIVE EXPORT
There is no universally applied maximum ammonia concentration for live export shipments.
Some for the Australian live export industry (Costa et al., 2003; Mamic, 2001) recommend a
figure of 25 ppm (17.4 mg m–3). However, as TWAs do not apply to livestock on ships, a phys
iologically-validated maximum ammonia concentration of 30 ppm (20.9 mg m–3) has been pro-
posed for steers (Phillips et al., 2010), with supporting evidence that this may be appropriate for
sheep (Phillips et al., 2012a).
Several studies have measured ammonia concentrations on livestock voyages from Australia
to the Middle East (Mamic, 2001; Pines and Phillips, 2011). These studies used vessels selected
by the export industry, and it is not clear if these were representative. One study has shown
that typical values measured below decks in vessels transporting cattle and sheep from Australia
were 15 ppm (10.4 mg m–3), with most common readings of between 20 to 30 ppm (13.9 to 20.9
mg m–3) (Mamic, 2001). Pines and Phillips (2011) showed the concentrations at most of their
measurement locations for similar voyages were below 18 ppm (12.5 mg m–3). However, the
mean level at several sites was above 25 ppm (17.4 mg m–3), which occurred in those parts of the
ship with insufficient ventilation and/or high temperatures and humidity. Some sites registered
up to 59 ppm (41.1 mg m–3), which is above the permissible exposure limit (50 ppm, 34.8 mg m–3)
recommended for humans (NOHSC, 1995).
For livestock export, the major factors influencing levels of atmospheric ammonia include
ventilation efficiency, stocking density, prior diet, shipboard diet, manure characteristics (fecal
pad moisture levels and fecal pad depth), deck washing on-ship, and other environmental con-
ditions (temperature and relative humidity) (Costa et al., 2003). During the voyages, ammonia
concentrations onboard may be increased by high humidity and air temperatures encountered
while vessels travel through tropical and equatorial regions. Another contributing factor is likely
to be ventilation inadequacy, with the lower animal holding decks fully enclosed and dependent
on forced ventilation for air quality and temperature regulation; the upper decks often have open
sides, relying on both forced air ventilation and natural ventilation (Fig. 14.1). Correlations were
Atmospheric ammonia during export 195
found between ammonia concentration on the open decks and cumulative wind during the voy-
VetBooks.ir
age, air speed, dew point, wet bulb temperature and fecal pad depth, while on the closed decks
the correlations were with dew point and wet and dry bulb temperature (Pines and Phillips, 2011).
14.4 EFFECTS OF AMMONIA ON LIVESTOCK DURING LIVE EXPORT
Atmospheric ammonia has been shown to be detrimental to the health and performance of ani-
mals. Most research about the effects of atmospheric ammonia on livestock has focused on pigs
and poultry. However, some studies have also been documented in sheep and cattle, as well as in
simulated sea export from Australia.
14.4.1 Effects of ammonia on growth and production performance

Production indices adversely affected by ammonia exposure in different animal species include
feed intake, average daily weight gain and feed conversion efficiency. Although no effect of ammo-
nia on body weights was observed in steers in a simulated ship journey, feed intakes of sheep on
a similar “journey” decreased in proportion to ammonia concentrations between 15 and 45 ppm
(10.4 and 31.3 mg m–3), and at high concentrations, body weight gain decreased (Phillips et al.,
2010, 2012a). A concentration of 45 ppm (31.3 mg m–3) in this study is close to the maximum
mean value (50 ppm, 34.8 mg m–3) in any environment that humans can legally enter, according
to National Occupational Health and Safety guidelines (NOHSC, 1995). Drummond et al. (1976)
showed that exposure to 75 ppm (52.2 mg m–3) of ammonia for 28 days adversely affected perfor-
mance of sheep, in terms of reduced feed conversion efficiency and body weight gain.
Similar effects of ammonia exposure on growth and production have been extensively reported
in poultry and pigs. In broiler chickens, exposure to 52 ppm (36.2 mg m–3) of aerial ammonia during
the 0–3 week period reduced body weights and feed to gain ratios (Wang et al., 2010). Likewise,
ammonia exposure from 4–7 weeks of age also reduced body weights and feed intakes in proportion
to ammonia concentrations, which ranged from 16 to 54 ppm (11.1 to 37.6 mg m–3) (Yahav, 2004).
During a 4-week brooding period, continuous exposure to 25 and 50 ppm (17.4 and 34.8 mg m–3)
atmospheric ammonia reduced birds’ body weights at 7 weeks of age, as was also the consequence
of exposure to 50–75 ppm (34.8–52.2 mg m–3), which also increased mortality, even though there
was no reported influence on feed conversion efficiency (Miles et al., 2004; Reece and Lott, 1980,
1981). Similarly, layer hens are also subjected to high atmospheric ammonia in enclosed sheds
and have similar responses as broilers. Exposure to 78 ppm (54.3 mg m–3) ammonia reduced feed
intakes and growth rates, resulting in delayed maturation of replacement laying pullets (Charles and
Payne, 1966a, 1966b). Exposing 12-month-old laying hens or pullets at point of lay to 200 ppm
(139.3 mg m–3) ammonia for 17 days reduced egg production, body weights and feed intakes, as
well as the increased post-exposure mortality in pullets (Deaton et al., 1982, 1984).
In contrast to little or no observable effect on growth and production of pigs at, or slightly
above, commercially realistic ammonia concentrations (~20 ppm, 13.9 mg m–3) (Cheng et al.,
2014; Curtis et al., 1975; Von Borell et al., 2007; Wathes et al., 2004), detrimental effects of
ammonia were evident in pigs exposed to higher ammonia concentrations. A concentration-
related reduction in weight gain in pigs exposed to 25, 50, 100 and 150 ppm (17.4, 34.8, 69.7,
and 104.5 mg m–3) ammonia has been reported (Drummond et al., 1980; Urbain et al., 1994).
Compared to 12 or 61 ppm (8.4 or 42.5 mg m–3) ammonia treatment, exposure to 103 or 145 ppm
(71.7 or 101.9 mg m–3) reduced feed consumption and average daily weight gains of pigs, but
there was no effect on feed conversion efficiency (Stombaugh et al., 1969).
14.4.2 Effects of ammonia on health

As a water-soluble irritant, ammonia can easily dissolve in moisture in the air, and on tissue
or mucous membranes, to form ammonium hydroxide and cause inflammation of the mucous
membrane in the eye and the respiratory tract. In humans, Pritchard (2007) concluded that acute
inhalation of ammonia may initially cause upper respiratory tract irritation. Substantial exposure
can cause burns in the oral cavity, nasopharynx, larynx and trachea, together with airway obstruc-
VetBooks.ir
tion, respiratory distress and bronchiolar and alveolar oedema. Chronic inhalation has been asso-
ciated with increased coughing, mucus production, wheezing and asthma. Therefore, ammonia
is considered as a risk factor causing lung disease in humans, in particular agricultural workers
(Omland, 2002).
14.4.2.1 Respiratory dysfunction
Although the anatomical structure of the respiratory system differs between animal species, respi-
ratory dysfunction is the most frequently observed sign of ammonia exposure. Respiratory system
defenses against inhaled pollutants, by integrating complex biochemical, physiological and immu-
nological processes, depend on the properties of the inhaled particles (Korpas and Tomori, 1979).
In simulated ship journeys, ammonia exposure resulted in a transitory adverse effect on the
health of animals. Exposure of Angus-cross heifers to approximately 22 and 42 ppm (15.3 and
29.3 mg m–3) ammonia in simulation rooms for 9 days increased total white cell and mononu-
cleated cell counts of the BAL samples (Accioly et al., 2004). Further evidence of active pulmo-
nary inflammation derives from increased macrophage activity in BAL samples from steers and
transtracheal aspirations from sheep (Phillips et al., 2010, 2012a). In these studies, 30 and 45
ppm (20.9 and 31.3 mg m–3) ammonia increased BAL neutrophils in steers, which is consistent
with previous research on pigs showing that neutrophil count is positively and linearly related
to ammonia concentrations (25, 50, and 100 ppm; 17.4, 34.8 and 69.7 mg m–3) in nasal lavages
(Urbain et al., 1994). Moreover, increased frequency of sneezing in sheep and increased lacri-
mation, nasal secretions and coughing in steers indicate that irritation affected the mucous mem-
branes of eyes, nasal cavity and respiratory tract. Exposure to 75 ppm (52.2 mg m–3) of ammonia
for 28 days has also adversely affected respiratory function in lambs, with severe coughing and
sneezing, profuse lacrimation and nasal discharge, which contained blood in some instances
(Drummond et al., 1976). However, it is unknown to what extent such high levels occur during
sheep transport and if they do, whether respiratory function is impaired in this way.
Similar effects of ammonia exposure have been documented in poultry and pig housing.
Chronic exposure to 20 ppm (13.9 mg m–3) ammonia adversely affected hens’ respiratory health,
and caused gross or histopathological signs of damage to the respiratory tract in chickens and
turkeys (Anderson et al., 1964; Sales, 2012). Exposure to 25 and 50 ppm (17.4 and 34.8 mg
m–3) ammonia for 8 weeks caused a severe airsacculitis condition in broilers at 6 and 8 weeks
of age, with increased airborne bacteria (Quarles and Kling, 1974). Exposure to 60–70 ppm
(41.8–48.8 mg m–3) ammonia can result in tracheitis due to irritation of the mucous membrane
(Valentine, 1964). Even short exposure to increasing ammonia concentrations (50, 75, or 100
ppm; 34.8, 52.2, 69.7 mg m–3) for 4 days led to an increase in thickness of the atrial walls and
a shrinking of air capillaries in broilers, particularly at the two higher levels (Al-Mashhadani
and Beck, 1985).
In pigs, the synergistic role of ammonia in facilitating the growth and/or survival of P. multo-
cida within the upper respiratory tract was highlighted, which contributed to the severity of the
clinical disease atrophic rhinitis (Hamilton et al., 1996). As little as a 6-day exposure to 25 ppm
(17.4 mg m–3) of ammonia caused nasal irritation and functional disturbances of the tracheal
smooth-muscle contractions in pigs (Urbain et al., 1996). Prolonged exposure to as low little as
9 ppm (6.3 mg m–3) of ammonia also had a detrimental effect on development of the nasal turbi-
nates in the absence of bacterial flora in young growing pigs (Hamilton et al., 1998). Exposure
to levels of ammonia above 50 ppm (34.8 mg m–3) resulted in a mild to heavy acute exudate in
the turbinate lumen of some pigs, and an acute inflammatory reaction in the tracheal epithelium
(Drummond et al., 1980).
14.4.2.2 Ocular disease
Keratoconjunctivitis, known as an inflammation of the cornea and conjunctiva, has been described
several times in association with ammonia exposure. On a simulated ship journey, increased
lacrimation in steers indicated that the irritation occurred in the mucous membranes of the eyes,
VetBooks.ir
particularly at a level of 45 ppm (31.3 mg m–3) (Phillips et al., 2010); this has been confirmed
on an actual ship journey in sheep (Pines and Phillips, 2013). Similarly, ammonia also caused
keratoconjunctivitis in chicks’ eyes (Faddoul and Ringrose, 1950). Chronic exposure to 20 ppm
(13.9 mg m–3) of ammonia could adversely affect hens’ ocular health (Sales, 2012), while 30 and
60 ppm (20.9 and 41.8 mg m–3) exposure increased conjunctival lesions in broiler chicks reared to
21 days (Beker et al., 2004). The speed of recovery from ammonia-induced keratoconjunctivitis
depends on the severity of the ulcers (Valentine, 1964). In broiler chickens exposed to 25, 50
and 75 ppm (17.4, 34.8 and 52.2 mg m–3) of ammonia, ocular abnormalities appeared, with more
severe lesions observed at higher concentrations. When aerial ammonia diminished after 28 days
of the grow-out stage, eye health improved, especially uveitis, even though lymphocytes and
heterophils could be seen in the iris up to 49 days later in ammonia-exposed birds (Miles et al.,
2006). Further evidence of rapid recovery from uveitis was found after exposing broiler chickens
to 25 and 50 ppm (17.4 and 34.8 mg m–3) of ammonia for 7 days (Olanrewaju et al., 2007).
14.4.2.3 Susceptibility to disease
Inflammation responses in cattle and sheep exposed to ammonia during live export may make them
more susceptible to disease, as has been observed in poultry and pigs. Broiler chickens exposed to
26 and 52 ppm (18.1 and 36.2 mg m–3) ammonia concentrations had lower Newcastle disease virus
hemaglutination inhibition antibody titers during the first 3 weeks, compared to those in a 13 ppm
(9.1 mg m–3) treatment and a control group (Wang et al., 2010). Either 72-h exposure to 20 ppm
(13.9 mg m–3) of ammonia or 48-h exposure to 50 ppm (34.8 mg m–3) increased infection rates,
both clinically and serologically, when the chickens were subsequently exposed to an aerosol of
Newcastle disease virus (Anderson et al., 1964). Similarly, after Leghorn males were vaccinated
for infectious bronchitis, exposure to 25 and 50 ppm (17.4 and 34.8 mg m–3) ammonia from 4–8
weeks of age caused a reduction in the weight of bursa of fabricius, a part of the avian immune
system, than the control group (Kling and Quarles, 1974). It was suggested that may be a more
severe reaction to the vaccine caused by ammonia stress elicited a greater response from the bur-
sae. In turkeys, more Escherichia coli was found in the lungs, air sacs and livers after exposure to
10 and 40 ppm (7.0 and 27.9 mg m–3) ammonia, compared to the control group, which had better
clearance of E. coli (Nagaraja et al., 1984), consistent with a study in pigs which were exposed to
50 and 75 ppm (34.8 and 52.2 mg m–3) ammonia, in which 50 ppm (34.8 mg m–3) ammonia also
increased pigs’ pulmonic weight and the ratio of pulmonic weight to body weight, compared to
those of the controls (Drummond et al., 1978).
14.4.2.4 Other physiological parameters

In simulated ship journeys, exposure to ammonia had no effect on a limited number of hemato-
logical variables in steers and sheep (Phillips et al., 2010, 2012a). However, changes were found
in some other physiological parameters in pigs and poultry, which may be explored in further
research on the live export of cattle and sheep.
The distribution of ammonia between body compartments is influenced by blood pH, with the
transfer of ammonia being dependent upon arterial pH and systemic alkalosis exacerbating ammonia
toxicity (Ott and Larsen, 2004). In broiler chickens, exposure to 25–75 ppm (17.4–52.2 mg m–3)
ammonia increased the partial pressure of CO2 and blood pH, hematocrit and hemoglobin,
reduced partial pressure of O2, bicarbonate and K+, but had no influence on plasma corticosterone
concentrations. An interaction between ammonia and age was observed for blood pH, anion gap
and HCO3–, with younger birds having a more intense reaction than older birds if judged from the
physiological responses (Olanrewaju et al., 2009). In Yahav’s (2004) study, arterial pH tended
to increase with ammonia concentrations (16, 28, 39 and 54 ppm; 11.1, 19.5, 27.2 and 37.6 mg
m–3), but there was no difference between the two highest levels, while the partial pressure of
arterial CO2 showed a similar but opposite trend, but there was no influence on plasma T3 con-
centration. Ammonia may also affect broiler chickens’ ability to control body temperature, as this
was more effectively regulated at 16 and 28 ppm (11.1 and 19.5 mg m–3) compared with at 39
VetBooks.ir
and 54 ppm (27.2 and 37.6 mg m–3) of ammonia (Yahav, 2004). Moreover, the plasma ammonia
concentration of broilers increased with increasing ammonia levels (13, 26, or 52 ppm (9.1, 18.1,
or 36.2 mg m–3) for 0–3 weeks; 20, 40, or 80 ppm (13.9, 27.9, or 55.7 mg m–3) for 4–5 weeks), but
there was no influence on plasma uric acid (Song et al., 2008). In a simulated ship voyage, some
prolonged but inconclusive effects of ammonia exposure on blood urea concentration of sheep
and cattle also have been observed (Phillips, 2007).
In pigs, prolonged exposure to 35 and 50 ppm (24.4 and 34.8 mg m–3) of atmospheric ammonia
increased weaned pigs’ white blood cell count, the absolute numbers of monocytes and lympho-
cytes, and serum cortisol and haptoglobin concentrations (Von Borell et al., 2007). In contrast
to this, in pigs chronically exposed to 20 ppm (13.9 mg m–3) of ammonia, no clear influence on
hepatic gene expression was found, despite the sentinel role that the liver plays in detecting and
responding to factors affecting normal homoeostasis (Cheng et al., 2014), but ammonia exposure
resulted in lower concentrations of salivary cortisol and larger adrenal cortices, which may indi-
cate down-regulated hypothalamic–pituitary axes (O’Connor et al., 2010).
14.4.3 Behavioral responses
In simulated ship journeys, there was behavioral evidence of mucosal inflammatory responses to
ammonia in sheep and cattle, in the form of sneezing, lacrimation, and coughing (Phillips et al.,
2010, 2012a). Sheep exposed to ammonia were also less active with less locomotion, pawing and
panting at 45 ppm (31.3 mg m–3) of ammonia. In an on-ship comparison of sheep in pens with
high ammonia, low wind speed and high temperatures, with those in pens with low ammonia,
high wind speed and low temperature, the former spent less time feeding and ruminating and held
their head higher, probably to avoid the higher ammonia concentrations at lower heights (Pines
and Phillips, 2013).
As a non-invasive method, behavioral studies integrate sensory, perceptual and cognitive pro-
cesses and complement physiological investigations in research on the environmental responses
of an animal. Animal perceptions of different environments can be investigated by means of pref-
erence testing to record the responses from the animals’ point of view (Dawkins, 2003), with the
assumption that animals are motivated to approach attractive stimuli and avoid disturbing stimuli.
In a test of avoidance, sheep exhibited a moderate aversion to 45 ppm (31.3 mg m–3) ammo-
nia, in comparison with fresh air, with no evidence of sensitivity being affected by previous
ammonia exposures. Although only partial avoidance was observed, the proportion of sheep
preferring fresh air to ammonia was more than 5%–20% which has been suggested as the max-
imum proportion of humans that should be allowed to perceive unpleasant sensory stimulation
without regulatory control (Paustenbach and Gaffney, 2006; Phillips et al., 2012b). Although
similar research is limited in cattle and sheep, several studies have been conducted with pigs
and poultry under intensive housing conditions. Laying hens showed a significant aversion to
atmospheric ammonia in a free choice test by spending more time and preferring to forage, rest
and preen in fresh air rather than in ammoniated atmospheres (25 or 45 ppm; 7.0 or 27.9 mg m–3)
(Kristensen et al., 2000). In broiler chickens, the occupancy and duration of visits to an area
declined with increasing ammonia concentrations (10 to 40 ppm) (7.0 to 27.9 mg m–3), when
tested from 30 to 46 days of age (Jones, 2002). Wathes et al. (2002) also observed similar avoid-
ance, although a delay may indicate the development of a sense of malaise. The ammonia con-
centration avoided by broiler fowl was suggested to be above approximately 10 ppm (7.0 mg
m–3), as the ammonia concentrations commonly found on poultry units were avoided regardless
of previous experience (Jones et al., 2005).
In pigs, 100 ppm (69.7 mg m–3) ammonia exposure could result in an instant but weak aversion
(Jones et al., 1998). While in a choice test, pigs chose to rest, sit, feed and forage more in unpol-
luted compartments, with aversion growing with ammonia concentrations up to 40 ppm (27.9
mg m–3), in which pigs spent just 5% of time, compared with 53% of time in 0 ppm (0 mg m–3)
compartments (Jones et al., 1996). This was not an instant aversion, appearing to derive from a
sense of malaise when a pig is in a polluted atmosphere. Pigs exposed to 20 ppm (13.9 mg m–3)
VetBooks.ir
atmospheric ammonia showed less play behavior (O’Connor et al., 2010), and ammonia may
also undermine their social stability, particularly when in a coincident low lighting level (Parker
et al., 2010).
14.4.4 Olfactory perception and acclimatization to ammonia

Chemical stimulation of the trigeminal nerve often combines with stimulation of the olfactory
nerve to produce sensations as an overall perception of a chemical (Dalton and Jaén, 2010). In a
series of studies to determine the effects of ammonia exposure on olfactory perception in pigs, no
effect of acute exposure to 40 ppm (27.9 mg m–3) ammonia was found on pigs’ ability to detect
buried odorized food, but olfactory perception in 50% of pigs was interfered with by chronic
exposure to 40 ppm (27.9 mg m–3) ammonia, and this loss of acuity was not necessarily reversible
(Jones et al., 2000, 2001). However, although chronic exposure to approximately 36 ppm (25.1
mg m–3) of ammonia did not interfere with pigs’ ability to employ olfactory cues in social recogni-
tion; it seemingly affected their social discrimination. Compared to pigs in fresh air, which spent
longer with an unfamiliar pig, those exposed to ammonia showed a preference for a familiar one
(Kristensen et al., 2001). Because of the paucity of data for livestock export, it is recommended
that research should investigate the effects of ammonia on olfactory perception of animals during
long distance transport.
Limited research about the acclimatization to ammonia has been documented, and the results
are inconsistent. As with the inurement developed in humans after repeated ammonia exposure
(Ferguson et al., 1977), cows appeared to adapt to higher ammonia exposure despite an increas-
ing incidence of nasal irritation (Kertz et al., 1977). Consistent with this, initial aversion to 100
ppm (69.7 mg m–3) ammonia was not complete or sustained, and repeated exposure resulted in
rapid and consistent tolerance in all pigs (Jones et al., 1998).
In contrast, although change was found in odor sensitivity in humans chronically exposed to
approximately 9 ppm (6.3 mg m–3) of ammonia (Holness et al., 1989), there was no evidence of
habituation or sensitization in sheep exposed to 45 ppm (31.3 mg m–3) ammonia in simulated
ship journeys (Phillips et al., 2012b). Similarly, broiler fowl showed an aversion to ammonia
concentrations commonly found on poultry units regardless of previous experience (Jones et al.,
2005). Because of the limited data for live export, more research is needed to investigate whether
desensitization occurs in sheep and cattle, as it could be argued that animals would acclimatize
over the duration of the voyage, with a consequent reduction in discomfort.
14.5 THRESHOLD LEVELS OF ATMOSPHERIC AMMONIA FOR HUMANS
Short-term exposure may allow higher threshold values, but little is known about the long-term
influence of gaseous ammonia in the working environment. However, lower concentrations are
always preferable to higher concentrations, both for humans and livestock. The odor threshold
values (OTV) of gaseous ammonia found in confinement houses is 4.7 ppm (3.3 mg m–3), while
the lowest toxic value (LTV) is 25 ppm (17.4 mg m–3) (Tamminga, 1992). To protect workers
from a health risk, the TWA of atmospheric ammonia for humans has been recommended to be
25 ppm (17.4 mg m–3) (8 h of a 40-h workweek), which is recorded as protective against irri-
tation to the eyes and the respiratory tract and minimizes discomfort. The short-term exposure
limit (STEL) is 35 ppm (24.4 mg m–3) (15 min) recommended by the American Conference of
Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH), the National Institute for Occupational Safety and
Health (NIOSH), NOHSC and the UK Health and Safety Commission. In comparison, the Occu-
pational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) sets 50 ppm (34.8 mg m–3) as the permissible
exposure limit (PEL) for ammonia. While the American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA,
2014) Emergency Response Planning Guidelines (ERPG) suggest 25 ppm (17.4 mg m–3) as the
maximum ammonia concentration, below which most individuals can be exposed for at least 1 h
without suffering more than mild, transient health effects (ERPG-1). The maximum ammonia
concentration that most individuals could be exposed for up to 1 h without experiencing or devel-
VetBooks.ir
oping irreversible or other serious health effects or symptoms or symptoms that could impair their
ability to take protective action (ERPG-2) is 150 ppm (104.5 mg m–3), while for exposure up to
1500 ppm (1044.9 mg m–3) (ERPG-3), although most individuals could be exposed for up to 1 h
without experiencing or developing life-threatening health effects, it is inferred that their ability to
take protective action would be impaired.
14.6 THRESHOLD LEVELS OF ATMOSPHERIC AMMONIA FOR ANIMALS
For live export, there is no universally applied maximum ammonia concentration, except for
some recommendations from different studies. Tudor et al. (2003) recommended that ammo-
nia levels should be kept below 20 ppm (13.9 mg m–3), based on preliminary lung studies in
cattle exposed to 10–18 ppm (7.0–12.5 mg m–3) or 9–16 ppm (6.3–11.1 mg m–3) ammonia for
9 days under simulated conditions. Costa et al. (2003) recommended 25 ppm (17.4 mg m–3) of
atmospheric ammonia as an appropriate maximum concentration for livestock shipments. How-
ever, initial clinical signs of inflammation were also found in BAL samples of cattle exposed to
22 ppm (15.3 mg m–3) atmospheric ammonia. In a similar study, Phillips et al. (2010) suggested
a critical concentration of 30 ppm (20.9 mg m–3) ammonia for steers, because nasal discharge
and excessive lacrimation was seen in an acceptable number of steers (10%–20%) using the
proposed criteria for humans, whereas it was unacceptable at 45 ppm (31.3 mg m–3) (35%–40%).
Moreover, increased coughing and significant inflammatory cell levels in bronchoalveolar fluid
were found at 30 ppm (20.9 mg m–3), as well as increased pulmonary macrophage activity at 15,
30 and 45 ppm (10.4, 20.9 and 31.3 mg m–3). The same researchers concluded that, although there
was currently limited evidence on which to base a critical concentration for sheep, it should be
the same as that proposed for cattle (30 ppm, 20.9 mg m–3) until further information is available
(Phillips et al., 2012a).
In poultry houses, the United Egg Producers (UEP) guidelines recommended aerial ammo-
nia concentration should ideally be less than 10 ppm (7.0 mg m–3) and should not exceed 25
ppm (17.4 mg m–3), and temporary excesses should not adversely affect birds’ health (UEP,
2014). Consistent with this recommendation, Jones et al. (2005) suggested ammonia concen-
trations in a broiler house should not exceed the 10 ppm (7.0 mg m–3) commonly found in
poultry units, and a threshold value of 25 ppm (17.4 mg m–3) for aversion to ammonia was
suggested by Kristensen et al.’s (2000) based on the behavioral changes of laying hens. In
pigs, although Urbain et al. (1994) proposed 15 ppm (10.4 mg m–3) as the maximum ammonia
concentration to be tolerated in pig buildings, there has been little effort to lower the Commis-
sion Internationale de Génie Rural (CIGR) recommendation of 20 ppm (13.9 mg m–3) for pigs.
Limited research on the establishment of acceptable limits for ammonia concentrations in cat-
tle and sheep during live export, and inconsistent existing results, may be the reasons for the
higher thresholds for these species (25 ppm, 17.4 mg m–3) than those proposed for pigs and poul-
try (10–15 ppm; 7.0–10.4 mg m–3). In the light of the equivocal nature of the above evidence, it
is recommended that further research should be conducted to assess fully the health impacts of
ammonia on the welfare of animals exported by sea in order to determine the critical ammonia
concentration.
14.7 CONCLUSIONS
Ammonia exposure has major adverse consequences for farm animals, both those in sheds with
restricted ventilation and high stocking densities, and those in transport vessels, where concentra-
tions can build up to high levels, albeit usually for a shorter duration than in livestock buildings.
These consequences include irritation of the mucosal membranes of the eyes, nose, mouth and
throat, respiratory and ocular infections and the development of a feeling of malaise that may
reduce feed intake and activity. It is recommended that further research is conducted into the
VetBooks.ir
establishment and enforcement of limits, particularly for livestock on ships, for which the evi-
dence is less clear than for pigs and poultry in livestock buildings.
REFERENCES
Accioly, J.M., Taylor, E.G., Costa, N.D., Pethick, D.W., White, C.L., Pluske, J.R., Tudor, G.D. & Clark, P.
(2004) Effect of atmospheric ammonia on bovine lung. Proceedings of the Australian Society of Animal
Production 25th Biennial Conference: The New Realities, 4–8 July 2004, CSIRO, Parkville. Volume 25,
Animal Production in Australia, Collingwood, Australia. pp. 1–4.
Al-Mashhadani, E.H. & Beck, M.M. (1985) Effect of atmospheric ammonia on the surface ultrastructure of
the lung and trachea of broiler chicks. Poultry Science, 64(11), 2056–2061.
American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) (ed) (1994) Threshold Limit Values
for Chemical Substances and Physical Agents and Biological Exposure Indices (1994–1995). ACGI-
H,Cincinnati, OH.
American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA) (2014) Emergency response planning guidelines™.
Falls Church, VA, USA. Available from: http://www.aiha.org/get-involved/AIHAGuidelineFoundation/
Emergency ResponsePlanningGuidelines/Pages/default.aspx [accessed April 2015].
Anderson, D.P., Beard, C.W. & Hanson, R.P. (1964) The adverse effects of ammonia on chickens including
resistance to infection with Newcastle disease virus. Avian Diseases, 8(3), 369–379.
Beker, A., Vanhooser, S.L., Swartzlander, J.H. & Teeter, R.G. (2004) Atmospheric ammonia concentration
effects on broiler growth and performance. The Journal of Applied Poultry Research, 13(1), 5–9.
Charles, D.R. & Payne, C.G. (1966a) The influence of graded levels of atmospheric ammonia on chickens: I.
Effects on respiration and on the performance of broilers and replacement growing stock. British Poultry
Science, 7(3), 177–187.
Charles, D.R. & Payne, C.G. (1966b) The influence of graded levels of atmospheric ammonia on chickens:
II. Effects on the performance of laying hens. British Poultry Science, 7(3), 189–198.
Cheng, Z., O’Connor, E.A., Jia, Q., Demmers, T.G., Wathes, C.M. & Wathes, D.C. (2014) Chronic ammonia
exposure does not influence hepatic gene expression in growing pigs. Animal, 8(2), 331–337.
Costa, N., Accloly, J. & Cake, M. (2003) Determining critical atmospheric ammonia levels for cattle, sheep
and goats – a literature review. Meat and Livestock Australia Ltd., North Sydney, NSW, Australia.
ammonia, hydrogen sulfide and swine-house dust on rate of gain and respiratory-tract structure in swine.
Dalton, P.H. & Jaén, C. (2010) Responses to odors in occupational environments. Current Opinion in Allergy
and Clinical Immunology, 10(2), 127–132.
David, B., Mejdell, C., Michel, V., Lund, V. and Moe, R.O. (2015) Air quality in alternative housing systems
may have an impact on laying hen welfare. Part II – ammonia. Animals, 5(3), 886–896.
Dawkins, M.S. (2003) Behaviour as a tool in the assessment of animal welfare. Zoology, 106(4), 383–387.
Deaton, J.W., Reece, F.N. & Lott, B.D. (1982) Effect of atmospheric ammonia on laying hen performance.
Poultry Science, 61(9), 1815–1817.
Deaton, J.W., Reece, F.N. & Lott, B.D. (1984) Effect of atmospheric ammonia on pullets at point of lay.
Poultry Science, 63(2), 384–385.
Drummond, J.G., Curtis, S.E., Lewis, J.M., Hinds, F.C. & Simon, J. (1976) Exposure of lambs to atmo-
spheric ammonia. Journal of Animal Science, 42(5), 1343.
Drummond, J.G., Curtis, S.E. & Simon, J. (1978) Effects of atmospheric ammonia on pulmonary bacterial
clearance in the young pig. American Journal of Veterinary Research, 39(2), 211–212.
Faddoul, G.P. & Ringrose, R.C. (1950) Avian keratoconjunctivitis caused by ammonia vapour. Veterinary
Medicine, 45, 492–493.
Ferguson, W.S., Koch, W.C., Webster, L.B. & Gould, J.R. (1977) Human physiological response and adap-
tion to ammonia. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 19(5), 319–326.
J.L., White, R.P.P., Hartung, J., Seedorf, J., Schröder, M., Linkert, K.H., Pedersen, S., Takai, H., Johnsen,
J.O. & Wathes, C.M. (1998) Concentration and emissions of ammonia in livestock buildings in Northern
VetBooks.ir

Hamilton, T.D., Roe, J.M. & Webster, A.J.F. (1996) Synergistic role of gaseous ammonia in etiology of
Pasteurella multocida-induced atrophic rhinitis in swine. Journal of Clinical Microbiology, 34(9),
2185–2190.
Hamilton,T.D.C., Roe, J.M., Jones, P., Barnard, S. & Webster, A.J.F. (1998) Effect of chronic exposure to
gaseous ammonia on the nasal turbinates of gnotobiotic pigs. Inhalation Toxicology, 10(7), 753–764.
Holness, D.L., Purdham, J.T. & Nethercott, J.R. (1989) Acute and chronic respiratory effects of occupational
exposure to ammonia. The American Industrial Hygiene Association Journal, 50(12), 646–650.
Jones, E.K.M. (2002) Behavioural Responses of Broiler Fowl to Atmospheric Ammonia. PhD thesis, Univer-
sity of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Jones, E.K.M., Wathes, C.M. & Webster, A.J.F. (2005) Avoidance of atmospheric ammonia by domestic fowl
and the effect of early experience. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 90(3–4), 293–308.
Jones, J.B., Burgess, L.R. Webster, A.J.F. & Wathes, C.M. (1996) Behavioural responses of pigs to atmo-
spheric ammonia in a chronic choice test. Animal Science, 63(3), 437–445.
Jones, J.B., Wathes, C.M. & Webster, A.J.F. (1998) Operant responses of pigs to atmospheric ammonia.
Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 58(1), 35–47.
Jones, J.B., Carmichael, N.L., Wathes, C.M., White, R.P. & Jones, R.B. (2000) The effects of acute simulta-
neous exposure to ammonia on the detection of buried odourized food by pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour
Science, 65(4), 305–319.
Jones, J.B., Wathes, C.M., Persaud, K.C., White, R.P. & Jones, R.B. (2001) Acute and chronic exposure to
ammonia and olfactory acuity for n-butanol in the pig. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 71(1), 13–28.
Kertz, A.F., Brockett, M.K., Davidson, L.E. & Betz, N.L. (1977) Influence of ambient ammonia odor on
acceptance of a nonurea ration by lactating cows. Journal of Dairy Science, 60(5), 788–790.
Kling, H.F. & Quarles, C.L. (1974) Effect of atmospheric ammonia and the stress of infectious bronchitis
vaccination on leghorn males. Poultry Science, 53(3), 1161–1167.
Korpas, J. & Tomori Z. (1979) Cough and other respiratory reflexes. In: Herzog, H. (ed) Progress in Respi-
ration Research, Vol. 12. S. Karger, Basel. pp. 251–263.
Kristensen, H.H., Burgess, L.R., Demmers, T.G. & Wathes, C.M. (2000) The preferences of laying hens for
different concentrations of atmospheric ammonia. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 68(4), 307–318.
Kristensen, H.H., Jones, R.B., Schofield, C.P., White, R.P. & Wathes, C.M. (2001) The use of olfactory and
other cues for social recognition by juvenile pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 72(4), 321–333.
Mamic Pty Ltd (2001) Investigation of the ventilation efficacy on livestock vessels – Final report. Meat &
Livestock Australia Ltd, North Sydney, NSW, Australia.
McCarthy, M. (2005) Pilot monitoring of shipboard environmental conditions and animal performance.
Meat & Livestock Australia Ltd, North Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Michiels, A., Piepers, S., Ulens, T., Van Ransbeeck, N., Sacristán, R.D.P., Sierens, A., Haesebrouck, F.,
Demeyer, P. & Maes, D. (2015) Impact of particulate matter and ammonia on average daily weight gain,
mortality and lung lesions in pigs. Preventive Veterinary Medicine, 121(1), 99–107.
Miles, D.M., Branton, S.L. & Lott, B.D. (2004) Atmospheric ammonia is detrimental to the performance of
modern commercial broilers. Poultry Science, 83(10), 1650–1654.
Miles, D.M., Miller, W.W., Branton, S.L., Maslin, W.R. & Lott, B.D. (2006) Ocular responses to ammonia
in broiler chickens. Avian Diseases, 50(1), 45–49.
Nagaraja, K.V., Emery, D.A., Jordan, K.A., Sivanandan, V., Newman, J.A. & Pomeroy, B.S. (1984) Effect
of ammonia on the quantitative clearance of Escherichia coli from lungs, air sacs, and livers of tur-
keys aerosol vaccinated against Escherichia coli. American Journal of Veterinary Research, 45(2),
392–395.
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (2005) NIOSH Pocket Guide to Chemical Haz-
ards. Washington, DC, USA. Available from: http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/npg/npgd0028.html [accessed
April 2015].
National Occupational Health and Safety Commission (NOHSC) (1995) Worksafe Australia: Adopted
National Exposure Standards for Atmospheric Contaminants in the Occupational Environment [NOHSC:
1003 (1995)] Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra, Australia.
O’Connor, E.A., Parker, M.O., McLeman, M.A., Demmers, T.G., Lowe, J.C., Cui, L., Davey, E.L., Owen,
R.C., Wathes, C.M. & Abeyesinghe, S.M. (2010) The impact of chronic environmental stressors on grow-
ing pigs, Sus scrofa (Part 1): stress physiology, production and play behaviour. Animal, 4(11), 1899–1909.
Olanrewaju, H.A., Miller, W.W., Maslin, W.R., Thaxton, J.P., Dozier, W.A., Purswell, J. & Branton, S.L.
VetBooks.ir
(2007) Interactive effects of ammonia and light intensity on ocular, fear and leg health in broiler chickens.
International Journal of Poultry Science, 6(10), 762–769.
Olanrewaju, H.A., Purswell, J.L., Collier, S.D. & Branton, S.L. (2009) Age-related effects of varying ammo-
nia concentrations on hematophysiological variables in broiler chickens. International Journal of Poultry
Science, 8(2), 138–144.
Omland, O. (2002) Exposure and respiratory health in farming in temperate zones-a review of the literature.
Annals of Agricultural and Environmental Medicine, 9(2), 119–136.
Ott, P. & Larsen, F.S. (2004) Blood-brain barrier permeability to ammonia in liver failure: a critical reap-
praisal. Neurochemistry International 44(4), 185–198.
Parker, M.O., O’Connor, E.A., McLeman, M.A., Demmers, T.G., Lowe, J.C., Owen, R.C., Davey, E.L.,
Wathes, C.M. & Abeyesinghe, S.M. (2010) The impact of chronic environmental stressors on growing
pigs, Sus scrofa (Part 2): social behaviour. Animal, 4(11), 1910–1921.
Paustenbach, D.J. & Gaffney, S.H. (2006) The role of odor and irritation, as well as risk perception, in
the setting of occupational exposure limits. International Archives of Occupational and Environmental
Health, 79(4), 339–342.
Phillips, C.J.C. (2007) Development of welfare indicators for cattle and sheep transported by ship. Stage 2:
The effect of gaseous ammonia on the health and welfare of sheep and cattle. Project Report LIVE.222.
Phillips, C.J.C. (2008) The welfare of livestock during sea transport. In: Appleby, M.C., Cussen, V., Garcés,
L., Lambert, L.A. & Turner, J. (eds) Long Distance Transport and Welfare of Farm Animals. CAB Inter-
national, Wallingford, UK. pp. 137–156.
Phillips, C.J.C., Pines, M.K., Latter, M., Muller, T., Petherick, J.C., Norman, S.T. & Gaughan, J.B. (2010)
The physiological and behavioral responses of steers to gaseous ammonia in simulated long-distance
transport by ship. Journal of Animal Science, 88(11), 3579–3589.
Phillips, C.J.C., Pines, M.K., Latter, M., Muller, T., Petherick, J.C., Norman, S.T. & Gaughan, J.B. (2012a)
Physiological and behavioral responses of sheep to gaseous ammonia. Journal of Animal Science, 90(5),
1562–1569.
Phillips, C.J.C., Pines, M.K. & Muller, T. (2012b) The avoidance of ammonia by sheep. Journal of Veteri-
nary Behavior: Clinical Applications and Research, 7(1), 43–48.
Pines, M.K. & Phillips, C.J.C. (2011) Accumulation of ammonia and other potentially noxious gases on
live export shipments from Australia to the Middle East. Journal of Environmental Monitoring, 13(10),
2798–2807.
Pines, M.K. & Phillips, C.J.C. (2013) Microclimatic conditions and their effects on sheep behavior
during a live export shipment from Australia to the Middle East. Journal of Animal Science, 91(9),
4406–4416.
Pines, M.K., Petherick, J.C., Gaughan, J.B. & Phillips, C.J.C. (2007) Stakeholders’ assessment of welfare
indicators for sheep and cattle exported by sea from Australia. Animal Welfare, 16(4), 489–498.
Pritchard, J.D. (2007) Ammonia Toxicological Overview. Version 2. Health Protection Agency, Didcot, UK.
Available from: http://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/337506/
hpa_ammonia__Toxicological_Overview_v2.pdf [accessed April 2015].
Quarles, C.L. & Kling, H.F. (1974) Evaluation of ammonia and infectious bronchitis vaccination stress on
broiler performance and carcass quality. Poultry Science, 53(4), 1592–1596.
Reece, F.N. & Lott, B.D. (1980) The effect of ammonia and carbon dioxide during brooding on the perfor-
mance of broiler chickens. Poultry Science, 59(7), 1654.
Reece, F.N., Lott, B.D. & Deaton, J.W. (1981) Low concentrations of ammonia during brooding decrease
broiler weight. Poultry Science, 60(5), 937–940.
Sales, G. (2012) An Investigation of Laying Hen Interactions with Ammoniated Environments by Means of
Preference Testing. PhD thesis, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, IL.
Song, Y., Wang, Z., Yao, Z.L., Meng, Q.P., Wang, Y.M., Wang, Y.Z. & Guo, Y.M. (2008) Effects of atmo-
spheric ammonia on growth performance, plasma ammonia and uric acid in broilers. China Poultry,
30(13), 10–12.
Stombaugh, D.P., Teague, H.S. & Roller, W.L. (1969) Effects of atmospheric ammonia on the pig. Journal
of Animal Science, 28(6), 844–847.
Tamminga, S. (1992) Gaseous pollutants by farm animal enterprises. In: Phillips, C. & Piggins, D. (ed) Farm
Animals and the Environment. CAB International, Wallingford, UK. p. 349.
Tudor, G., Accioly, J., Pethick, D., Costa, N., Taylor, E. & White, C. (2003) Decreasing shipboard ammonia
VetBooks.ir
levels by optimising the nutritional performance of cattle and the environment on ship during live export.
United Egg Producers (UEP) (2014) United Egg Producers Animal Husbandry Guidelines for US Egg Lay-
ing Flocks, 2014 ed., Alpharetta, GA. Available from: http://www.uepcertified.com/pdf/UEP-Animal-
Welfare-Guidelines-2014.pdf [accessed April 2015].
Urbain, B., Gustin, P., Prouvost, J.F. & Ansay, M. (1994) Quantitative assessment of aerial ammonia toxicity
to the nasal mucosa by use of the nasal lavage method in pigs. American Journal of Veterinary Research,
55(9), 1335–1340.
Urbain, B., Gustin, P., Charlier, G., Coignoul, F., Lambotte, J.L., Grignon, G., Foliguet, B., Vidic, B., Beerens,
D., Prouvost, J.F. & Ansay, M. (1996) A morphometric and functional study of the toxicity of atmospheric
ammonia in the extrathoracic airways in pigs. Veterinary Research Communications, 20(4), 381–399.
Valentine, H. (1964) A study of the effect of different ventilation rates on the ammonia concentrations in the
atmosphere of broiler houses. British Poultry Science, 5(2), 149–159.
Von Borell, E., Ozpinar, A., Eslinger, K.M., Schnitz, A.L., Zhao, Y. & Mitloehner, F.M. (2007) Acute and
prolonged effects of ammonia on hematological variables, stress responses, performance, and behavior
of nursery pigs. Journal of Swine Health and Production, 15(3), 137–145.
Wang, Y.M., Meng, Q.P., Guo, Y.M., Wang, Y.Z., Wang, Z., Yao, Z.L. & Shan, T.Z. (2010) Effect of atmo-
spheric ammonia on growth performance and immunological response of broiler chickens. Journal of
Animal and Veterinary Advances, 9(22), 2802–2806.
Wathes, C.M., Jones, J.B., Kristensen, H.H., Jones, E.K.M. & Webster, A.J.F. (2002) Aversion of pigs and
domestic fowl to atmospheric ammonia. Transactions of the ASAE, 45(5), 1605–1610.
Wathes, C.M., Demmers, T.G.M., Teer, N., White, R.P., Taylor, L.L., Bland, V., Jones, P., Armstrong, D.,
Gresham, A.C.J. & Hartung, J. (2004) Production responses of weaned pigs after chronic exposure to
airborne dust and ammonia. Animal Science, 78(1), 87–98.
Yahav, S. (2004) Ammonia affects performance and thermoregulation of male broiler chickens. Animal
Research, 53(4), 289–293.
CHAPTER 15
VetBooks.ir
Hygiene and cleanliness in pig buildings as preventive medicine

to ensure healthier animals
Christelle Fablet
15.1 INTRODUCTION
Even though pigs are often perceived as dirty animals, hygiene and cleanliness are considered the
cornerstones of herd health management on every pig farm rearing large numbers of animals in
a building. Hygiene refers to the science of the establishment and maintenance of health in both
humans and animals (Madec, 2013; Terpstra, 1998). This is in keeping with the etymology of the
original Greek word, hygieinos, meaning healthy. Cleanliness is designed to avoid dirtiness and
contamination, which includes the absence of dust, stains, bad smells and waste. Hence, cleaning
is obviously only one of the means involved in hygiene maintenance and disease prevention.
As cleanliness entails the removal of dirt, it implies removal of the associated microorganisms.
However, on a routine basis, efficient decontamination requires techniques specifically designed
to destroy microorganisms, that is, disinfection in addition to removing organic matter.
In livestock production, the ultimate goal of hygiene is to minimize the acquisition of pathogens
from the environment. Hygiene therefore falls into the more general spectrum of biosecurity. Bios-
ecurity is commonly defined as the protection of health through avoidance of disease (FAO et al.,
2010). On farms, biosecurity encompasses all the measures used to protect a herd, whether pre-
venting the admission of new pathogens (external biosecurity) or the transfer of pathogens within
the herd despite physical separation (internal biosecurity). Furthermore, the increasing awareness
of antimicrobial use in livestock production is driving the need for better implementation of pre-
ventive disease control programs without using antibiotics. Enhancing the biosecurity level and
especially the hygiene of farms is therefore considered one of the cornerstones of reducing anti-
microbial use in pig herds and thus minimizing related antibacterial resistance (http://ec.europa.
eu/eip/agriculture/en/content/animal-husbandry). The purpose of the present paper is to report the
relationships between hygiene and susceptibility to animal health disorders and public health, as
well as its impact on the quality of pork products and air quality in buildings. The practical means
currently used in large-scale pig herds to implement hygiene and cleanliness are also discussed.
15.2 INFLUENCE OF HYGIENE AND CLEANLINESS ON PIG HEALTH
Hygiene – or more accurately the lack of it – is cited as one of the most important factors in dis-
ease transmission (Boon and Wray, 1989). The hygiene level and kind of sanitation measures that
have to be applied differ according to the disease’s features. Pig diseases can be classified into
different categories (Boon and Wray, 1989; Madec and Seegers, 2010). Over the years, the type
and prevalence of diseases have evolved.
Under current intensive housing conditions, production diseases – also called “multifactorial
diseases” – are extremely prevalent. They represent by far the greatest source of economic losses
due to disease in this rearing system (Madec and Seegers, 2010). One or more infectious agents
205
206 Christelle Fablet
are generally involved in most of these diseases, in addition to non-infectious factors, that is,
VetBooks.ir
the environmental conditions in which the pigs are kept. The occurrence and severity of disease
depend on the delicate balance between the microbial pressure in the environment imposed on
the animals and the pigs’ ability to cope with the infectious challenge, that is, the pigs’ resilience.
A daily hygiene routine is of utmost importance to counter this kind of disease. The maintenance
of cleanliness at each step of the rearing process should therefore be a major goal, as it influ-
ences the outcome of production diseases by affecting the probability that the pigs will be in
contact with infectious pathogens and by reducing the microbial load in the animal’s immediate
environment.
In the case of “primary infectious diseases,” that is, monofactorial diseases, caused by spe-
cific microorganisms (e.g., foot and mouth disease or classical swine fever), the course of the
disease is not greatly affected by the cleanliness aspect once a herd becomes infected. Indeed, a
slaughter policy is applied in many countries to eradicate such diseases. In this kind of situation,
hygiene is used to sanitize the farm after removal of the infected livestock and to prevent residual
contamination for incoming stock. Strict sanitary procedures are thus applied to clean the prem-
ises thoroughly once the infected animals have been removed. A downtime period of several
weeks is usually required before restocking. In the last few decades, there has been a general
decrease in the incidence of primary infectious diseases in most industrialized pig-producing
countries (Madec and Seegers, 2010). However, the principle of de-population and sanitation
prior to re-population is applied to combat pathogens involved in diseases like porcine reproduc-
tive and respiratory syndrome virus (PRRSV) and Mycoplama hyopneumoniae. All the buildings
and premises are thoroughly cleaned and disinfected during this procedure.
Due to the huge and widespread impact of production diseases in modern swine rearing sys-
tems, and the close relationships between husbandry and the occurrence and severity of multifac-
torial diseases, the following sections will focus on the influence of hygiene on major production
diseases in two main categories of pigs: breeding stock, and more particularly the sow herd, and
growing pigs.
15.2.1 Breeding stock
15.2.1.1 Reproductive and urinary tract disorders
Good reproductive performance depends on the good health of the urinary and reproductive tracts
of breeding animals. Urogenital disease may be responsible for production and economic losses
and may in turn impact herd profitability (Dee, 1992). Several pathogenic microorganisms, espe-
cially viruses and bacteria, are associated with reproductive disorders. Some impair the reproduc-
tive system through a general systemic effect on the dam or by infection of the conceptuses or the
genital tract (Almond et al., 2006). However, certain pathogens can be found in healthy animals
raised in healthy herds, and additional conditions are required for the full clinical expression of
the disorders (Madec, 2009). Hence, non-specific infectious pathogens or commensal bacteria
(such as coliform bacteria) may be involved in reproductive disorders in sows reared under inten-
sive conditions and confined systems. These microorganisms are often of fecal origin, and health
disorders are related to their intense multiplication in the uterus or urinary bladder. Poor hygiene
routines combined with improper husbandry greatly influence such conditions by increasing the
odds of a sow’s uterus becoming infected. Maintaining a high standard of proper hygiene is
one of the key factors to tackle urinary and reproductive problems (Dee, 1992; Madec, 2009;
Perestrelo et al., 1994). Indeed, in an epidemiological survey, Madec and David (1983) showed
that poor cleanliness, particularly of the sows’ hindquarters, increases the odds of urogenital
tract infections. Sow cleanliness is mainly related to the cleanliness of the floors in the housing
units. The type and quality of the floor and premises, in addition to the daily practices designed
to reduce floor dirtiness, are primarily important in keeping sows’ hindquarters clean. Urinary
disorders may also be related to lameness. Lame sows have reduced locomotion due to pain. They
are thus more likely to stay down, such a situation when associated with poor floor hygiene and
sows’ hindquarters dirtiness may increase the odds of urinary disorders.
Hygiene as preventative medicine 207
15.2.1.2 Lameness and leg disorders

VetBooks.ir
Lameness is a major health problem in sows reared indoors under confined conditions (Kroneman
et al., 1993), resulting in painful movement. This condition is one of the main causes of culling of
breeding stock in European and North American intensive swine production systems (D’ Allaire
et al., 1987; Jensen et al., 2010; Pluym et al., 2013). Lameness is also responsible for euthanasia
in sows and higher mortality rates (Abiven et al., 1998; Engblom et al., 2008; Kirk et al., 2005). It
therefore reduces the length of the sows’ productive life and has adverse effects on the herd’s eco-
nomic performance. Besides, lameness indicates pain, which obviously affects the pigs’ welfare.
Locomotor problems are of multifactorial origin, involving infectious and non-infectious com-
pounds (Done et al., 2012). Under our current rearing system, lameness results predominantly from
claw-specific injuries such as overgrowths, cracks and erosions (Cador et al., 2014). The pigs’
environment – and especially housing conditions – plays a major role in the disease process. Due
to its direct contact with animals’ feet, the floor and related factors strongly influence locomotion
system health. The hardness, abrasiveness, slipperiness and cleanliness of the floor therefore all
impact the prevalence and cause of lameness in pigs (Done et al., 2012; Kroneman et al., 1993).
Rough and abrasive floors may induce foot and leg injuries that can potentially serve as an entrance
for microorganisms and lead to infection. Poor hygienic conditions greatly facilitate exposure to
infectious pathogens. In a study carried out in 108 French herds, dirty floors in the activity area of
group-housed gestating sows – characterized by poor evacuation of excrement and a greasy floor
– significantly increased the risk of leg disorders (Cador et al., 2014). Other studies have shown
that poor floor hygiene is related to claw and leg lesions (Gjein and Larssen, 1995; Holmgren et al.,
2000). A high ammonia concentration in gestation rooms was also associated with locomotor prob-
lems (Cador et al., 2014). Ammonia, produced by manure fermentation, reduces both claw solidity
and elasticity (Gregory, 2004; Higuchi et al., 2009). This facilitates the degradation of keratin by
bacterial enzymes and may thus favor foot injuries. Cador et al. (2014) found a positive correla-
tion between floor cleanliness and wetness. Pigs slip more often on wet floors, which in turn may
result in claw lesions. Furthermore, dirty wet conditions may soften the feet, rendering them more
susceptible to trauma (Cameron, 2012). Whatever the kind of floor (solid, partially or fully slatted),
it is best to clean regularly in order to reduce the contact time between urine, manure and the feet,
thus reducing the risk of slipping, horn weakness and exposure to fecal pathogenic microorganisms.
15.2.2 Growing pigs
15.2.2.1 Digestive disorders
Enteric diseases are one of the main causes of the lower performance of intensive herds due to the
decreased growth and food conversion efficiency of affected pigs. They also have adverse conse-
quences on the herd’s economic performances because of higher mortality and the cost of medical
treatments (Chase-Topping et al., 2007). Digestive disorders can occur at every step of the pig’s
life from the neonatal phase, within the first few days of birth, to finishing phases. The etiologic
infectious agents of enteric disorders are numerous and include bacteria, viruses and parasites
(Morin et al., 1983; Thomson and Friendship, 2012). The fecal-oral route plays a major role in
the transmission of enteric pathogens (Pearce, 1999). It is therefore crucial to avoid contact with
fecal material to control such kinds of diseases. Indeed, intense and frequent contact between the
pigs and their excreta is likely to increase fecal-oral contamination and thus foster the recycling
of infectious pathogens. Enteric pathogens are much more likely to be transmitted between pens
in buildings where there are open partitions or when excreta are drained through open channels
between the pens. Measures based on reducing environmental contamination and breaking down
the cycle of infection are recognized as effective means of controlling enteric infections (Alva-
rez-Ordóez et al., 2013; Fairbrother and Gyles, 2006). In a survey carried out in 105 herds, Pearce
(1999) showed that disinfection during the hygiene routine when preparing the pens between
batches of pigs reduced the odds of diarrhea in grower-finisher pigs. Drying and disinfection
was also found to rapidly eliminate Brachyspira hyodysenteriae – the etiological agent of swine
dysentery – from stored dysenteric fecal samples (Chia and Taylor, 1978).
A high standard of hygiene at each step of the rearing process may lead to a reduction in the
VetBooks.ir
numbers of intestinal infectious pathogens encountered by the pig to a level that it is able to
control through its own defense mechanisms. This is particularly important in the farrowing
rooms, because newborns lack immunity. When leaving the uterus of the dam, newborn piglets
are exposed to the contaminated environment of the farrowing pen and the sow’s skin, resulting
in the ingestion of microorganisms from the sow’s intestinal flora. In poor hygienic conditions, a
buildup of pathogenic Escherichia coli in the environment could thus lead to an outbreak of neo-
natal diarrhea (Fairbrother and Gyles, 2006). The influence of the level of hygiene on digestive
troubles has also been found at a later stage, that is, during the post-weaning phase. In a longitu-
dinal study carried out on more than 12,000 piglets from 106 herds, the odds that weaners would
be affected by diarrhea were 7.8 times higher in pigs reared under poor hygienic conditions than
in those reared under good hygienic conditions (Madec et al., 1998). Other authors stressed the
key role of hygiene during the later growing and finishing phases to prevent and control enteric
diseases such as proliferative enteropathy, intestinal/colonic spirochetosis and swine dysentery
(Alvarez-Ordóez et al., 2013; Hampson, 2012; Mc Orist and Gebhart, 2012). Strict observation
of the rules of hygiene is also considered very effective in controlling parasites (Roepstorff and
Nansen, 1994). Generally speaking, husbandry that facilitates optimal levels of hygiene reduces
the risk of digestive disorders in pigs.
15.2.2.2 Respiratory diseases
Along with enteric disorders, respiratory diseases are acknowledged as the main cause of lower
biological and technical performances in grower and finisher pigs. Enzootic lung diseases are
widespread, causing financial losses to the swine industry worldwide (VanAlstine, 2012). Pneu-
monia and pleurisy are the most frequent lung lesions observed at the slaughterhouse, with prev-
alence ranging from 19% to 79% and from 3.8% to 62% of pigs, respectively (Enoe et al., 2002;
Fraile et al., 2010; Hartley et al., 1988; Leneveu et al., 2005; Meyns et al., 2011; Wilson et al.,
1986). Since the aetiology of enzootic respiratory diseases is multifactorial and complex, the term
porcine respiratory disease complex (PRDC) is often used. Indeed, several bacteria, viruses and
mycoplasma, as well as non-infectious factors, are involved in the development of lung alter-
ations (Fablet, 2009).
Among the environmental factors involved in the expression and severity of lung diseases, field
studies have underlined the protective effect of “good hygiene” on respiratory diseases (Bäck-
ström and Bremer, 1978; Stärk et al., 1998). Disinfection after cleaning reduced lung lesions
according to a survey carried out in farrow-to-finish farms applying batch-wise production (Bes-
kow et al., 2008). Long empty periods between successive batches of growers and fatteners were
also associated with reduced prevalence of pleurisy. Cleaning and disinfection followed by a
downtime period reduced microorganism concentrations (Hurnik, 2005; Mannion et al., 2007).
This helps to lessen the pathogen load to which the pigs are exposed and the infection pressure
within the herd. In a similar vein, management practices allowing thorough and proper sanitation
of the room between successive batches of pigs are recommended to control and prevent enzootic
respiratory diseases (Maes et al., 2008). Many studies have shown that implementation of a strict
all-in/all-out (AIAO) procedure has a protective effect on lung lesions and rhinitis (Bäckström
and Bremer, 1978; Clark et al., 1991; Cleveland-Nielsen et al., 2002; Flesja and Solberg, 1981;
Lindquist, 1974; Scheidt et al., 1990; Stärk et al., 1998). The positive effect of AIAO production
most likely results from, on the one hand, breaking the cycle of pathogen transmission through
direct contact between older and younger pigs, and on the other, because cleaning and disinfec-
tion procedures can be carried out between consecutive groups of pigs (Banhazi, 2013b).
Good hygiene routines include controlling insects and rodents to avoid admitting infectious
pathogens through mechanical vectors and thus to reduce the pigs’ exposure to infectious agents
by indirect routes in order to preserve their health. Under experimental conditions, flies were
reported to be able to transmit viral and bacterial respiratory pathogens to pigs (Amass and
Baysinger, 2006; Enright et al., 1987; Otake et al., 2004). In a field observational study, when the
VetBooks.ir
Figure 15.1. Pigs in a finishing pen with a partially slatted floor. In dirty pens, pigs are more likely to have
excreta on their skin. These conditions increase the likelihood of boar taint and higher concen-
trations of dust particles, microorganisms and ammonia and thus sub-optimal air quality (photo:
Anses-Ploufragan).
farrowing room was not disinsectisized, the odds for a herd to have pigs with pleurisy were sig-
nificantly increased (Fablet et al., 2012). Pest control is one of the biosecurity measures designed
to reduce the spread of disease between and within herds (Amass and Clark, 1999).
Cleanliness not only applies to surfaces but also to the air. When dealing with respiratory
diseases, air quality is obviously a critical area. Several epidemiological studies have shown that
sub-optimal air quality in pig houses was associated with respiratory diseases (Awad-Masalmeh
and Köfer, 1993; Baekbo, 1990; Donham, 1991; Fablet et al., 2012; Madec and Josse, 1984;
Pointon et al., 1985; Robertson, 1993; Underdahl et al., 1982). Field studies have also demon-
strated that pen surface hygiene and animal cleanliness affect indoor air quality (Banhazi et al.,
2008; Chang et al., 2001). In dirty pens, pigs are more likely to have excreta on their skin (Fig.
15.1). All these conditions increase the likelihood of higher concentrations of dust particles,
microorganisms and ammonia and thus sub-optimal air quality. Building design and management
to keep animals and their environment clean are beneficial from a respiratory health point of view.
15.3 HYGIENE TO ENSURE FOOD SAFETY AND QUALITY
15.3.1 Foodborne diseases
Pigs may be asymptomatic carriers of foodborne pathogens such as Salmonella enterica, Listeria
monocytogenes, Campylobacter spp., Yersinia enterocolitica and Hepatitis E virus (HEV). The
main preventive measure for reducing the food safety risk at the herd level is considered the full
implementation of good hygiene practices (Blaha and Köfer, 2013; Fosse et al., 2009). Several
epidemiological studies have highlighted the relationships between on-farm hygiene and clean-
liness and pig infections by zoonotic pathogens (Beloeil et al., 2003, 2004, 2007; Walachowski
et al., 2014).
In a study carried out in 105 French farrow-to-finish herds, Beloeil et al. (2004) found that
VetBooks.ir
poor hygiene in the farrowing rooms increased the odds of Salmonella shedding by fattening pigs.
Indeed, not emptying the pit below the slatted floors in the farrowing room after removing the pre-
vious batch of sows and the removal of sow dung less than once per day during the lactation period
were associated with Salmonella shedding at the end of the finishing phase. Short downtime peri-
ods after the cleaning and disinfection procedures and before restocking the nursery and fattening
houses were related to HEV infection (Walachowski et al., 2014) and L. monocytogenes contami-
nation of finishing pigs (Beloeil et al., 2003). Other observational studies have shown that residual
contamination by Salmonella of the finishing rooms after cleaning and disinfection increased the
risk of Salmonella shedding and seroconversion of finishing pigs before slaughter (Beloeil et al.,
2004, 2007). Indeed, it was demonstrated that pigs could become infected with Salmonella during
a very short stay on a contaminated surface (Hurd et al., 2002; Osterberg et al., 2010). These find-
ings indicate that even though hygiene routines are thought to be applied, they may be incorrectly
or sub-optimally carried out and thus fail to break the cycle of infection.
Besides building hygiene and cleanliness, the hygiene of animal workers also impacts the infec-
tion status of the pigs as regard to zoonotic pathogens. The lack of hand washing and disinfection
of employees’ boots were found to be associated with Salmonella and L. monocytogenes contam-
ination of the pigs, respectively (Beloeil et al., 2003; Lo Fo Wong et al., 2001). In a similar vein,
wearing specific clothes when working with the pigs, having a changing place for employees and
visitors and having toilets were all found to have a protective effect on zoonotic bacteria contami-
nation (Beloeil et al., 2003, 2007; Funk et al., 2001; Lo Fo Wong et al., 2004).
15.3.2 Boar taint
Boar taint remains an issue for pork products when uncastrated males are slaughtered after puberty.
It is perceived through a strong, unpleasant perspiration-like and urine-like odor, flavor and taste
while cooking and eating pork and pork products from some uncastrated male pigs once they reach
puberty. Boar taint is primarily derived from the accumulation in fatty tissue of androstenone and
skatole, two substances produced by mature pigs (Patterson, 1968; Vold, 1970). Pig cleanliness is
related to boar taint. A positive association was found between the dirtiness of slaughter pigs and
the skatole and indole concentrations in their subcutaneous fat (Hansen et al., 1995). With a partly
or fully solid floor, the excreta on the solid area significantly increase with temperature (Huynh et
al., 2005), and the area gets dirty. Pigs tend to wallow when subjected to such conditions and are
more likely to be dirty (Fig. 15.1). Hansen et al., (1995) showed that keeping pigs completely clean
during the last week before slaughter was effective in reducing skatole and indole levels at slaughter.
15.4 HYGIENE, HEALTH AND AIR QUALITY IN BUILDINGS
As previously described, sub-optimal air quality may impair the respiratory health of pigs (sec-
tion 15.2.2.2.). Several studies also showed that the quality of air within pig buildings influences
the health of farm workers (Donham and Gustafsson, 1982; Donham et al., 1988, 1995; Radon
et al., 2000; Von Essen and Donham, 1999; Zejda et al., 1994). High levels of gases, dust and
bioaerosols may impair the respiratory health of human and animals. Airborne pollutants occur-
ring in pig houses may be classified into two main classes: gases and particulate pollutants. The
main gases associated with respiratory health disorders are NH3, CO2, CO and H2S (Banhazi
et al., 2009; Lemay et al., 2002). High levels of NH3 and H2S are closely related to manure and
slurry management and storage. Feces and urine accumulation on pen floors or in the pit below
pigs result in increased gases concentrations due to natural fermentation of the excreta (Aarnink
et al., 1997; Banhazi et al., 2008; Groot Koerkamp et al., 1998). Thus, keeping the pigs and their
environment clean impacts the quality of air in pig buildings.
Dust particles in pig buildings originate mainly from feed, animals, dried urine, and bedding
material (Heber et al., 1988; Takai et al., 1998). Finest dust particles constitute a mechanical,
biological and immunological burden to the lung tissue. These particles may carry gases and
VetBooks.ir
microorganisms in the deeper part of the lung, increasing the potential of these bioaerosols to
exert their detrimental effects directly in the lung. Fecal dust is an important source of bacteria
and endotoxins (a cell wall component of gram-negative bacteria) (Zucker et al., 2005). Dirty
pigs and pens are one of the major sources of respiratory dust, airborne bacteria and ammonia
(Banhazi et al., 2008; Takai et al., 1998). Due to the relationships between the amount of fecal
material in the houses and airborne pollutants, pen hygiene is considered as one of the key factors
affecting air quality in pig buildings (Banhazi et al., 2009). In a study carried out by Lee et al.
(2005), the concentrations of airborne pollutants were 1.5 times lower in “clean” environments,
where regular cleaning was undertaken, than in “dirty” pig houses. Furthermore, pigs reared in
a cleaner environment had better performance (weight gain and feed consumption) than pigs
kept under “dirty” houses. Improvement of pen surface hygiene is therefore a practical means to
ensure animal cleanliness and healthier air quality in pig buildings.
In conclusion, the implementation of good hygiene and the cleanliness of both pigs and build-
ings contribute to reducing the transmission of infectious pathogens from pig to pig, from the
environment to pigs and from the animals to humans. This in turn minimizes the occurrence of
health disorders. A high standard of hygiene and cleanliness of the pigs, premises and farmers
also positively influences food safety and quality. Since enteric and respiratory infections are
related to infection by zoonotic pathogens (Beloeil et al., 2004, 2007), all the hygienic measures
designed to protect pig health will also be beneficial to public health. Producing healthy animals
is a step to providing healthy food (Blaha and Köfer, 2013), and hygiene and cleanliness are
pragmatic levers to achieve this goal. However, the findings of field studies make it clear that
good hygiene practices are not always fully and properly implemented on farms and that the pigs
and their direct environment are not easy to keep clean under current conditions. Trends in cost
containment and/or workload limitation eventually result in hygiene deficiencies.
15.5 CURRENT MEANS TO ATTAIN HYGIENE IN PIG PRODUCTION AND THE NEED

TO IMPLEMENT BETTER HYGIENE
The practical means to achieve hygiene and cleanliness in pig production may be divided into
two main areas related firstly to the building design and secondly, to building usage and herd
management practices.
15.5.1 Building design
The way the building is designed and equipped has a major influence on the farmer’s subsequent
ability to implement a high standard of hygiene and keep the building and animals clean in the
long term. All the surfaces in contact with the animals are concerning when dealing with build-
ing cleanliness. The main source of dirtiness in pig houses is the excreta (urine and feces). As
regards health and welfare, infectious pathogens may survive in manure for days or even years,
depending on the environmental conditions and the infectious pathogen (Table 15.1). Dirt can
thus serve as a reservoir for the further contamination of infected herds. Designing buildings
and equipment that avoid the pigs coming into intense and frequent contact with their excreta is
therefore of primary importance to keep both the building and pigs clean and to foster health and
welfare maintenance.
Since an unavoidable relationship exists between the cleanliness of the floors and the cleanli-
ness of the animals, floor design is one of the most important factors to consider when designing
a building. Not only should the robustness of the floor be taken into account but also its hygienic
properties: the floors should be easy to clean efficiently. For instance, Boon and Wray (1989)
advise leaving a slot by the walls to prevent the frequent buildup of feces, which can be difficult
to remove, and state that attention to detail in building design could facilitate hygiene operations
on numerous sites.
Table 15.1. Survival times for selected pathogens in manure [adapted from Amass and Baysinger (2006)]
VetBooks.ir
(ND: not determined).

Microorganism Temperature (°C) Survival time
Parasites Metastrongylus spp. eggs 12 >68 days

22 >47 days
Metastrongylus spp. larvae 12 36 days
22 >47 days
Oesophagostomum spp. larvae 12 4 days
22 7 days
Oesophagostomum spp. larvae 12 >68 days
22 11 days
Ascaris suum eggs ND 5 years
Strongyloides ransomi eggs 12 7 days
22 7days
Strongyloides ransomi larvae 12 21 days
22 13 days
Bacteria Salmonella spp. 6–9 1.6–5.9 weeks
18–20 0.6–2 weeks
Pasteurella multocida 4 3 days
37 6 days
Streptococcus suis 9 10 days
20 72 hours
Brachyspira hyodysenteriae 10 112 days
Viruses Porcine reproductive and respiratory 4 2 weeks
syndrome virus (PRRSV) 25 1 day
Porcine parvovirus (PPV) 5 >40 weeks
20 >40 weeks
Swine influenza virus (SIV) 5 9 weeks
20 2 weeks
Rotavirus 20–25 4 months
Several studies have been carried out to compare the level of hygiene and cleanliness achieved
with the main types of flooring used for pig herds, which range from a solid floor to a partially
then a fully slatted floor. In the farrowing section, Rantzer and Svendsen (2001a) found that pen
hygiene was significantly better on slatted (i.e., perforated) floors in the dunging area than on
solid floors. A larger amount of environmental bacteria was detected on the surfaces of pens with
solid floors, and piglet mortality was higher. On the other hand, no effect was found on the daily
weight gain until weaning. In another experiment involving the same floor design and carried
out the month following weaning, the pen was cleaner and the infection pressure lower with
slatted floors than solid floors (Rantzer and Svendsen, 2001b). Morbidity due to diarrhea was
also reduced. At a later production stage, the results of studies conducted in growing and finish-
ing pigs indicated that cleanliness was significantly better for pigs raised on fully slatted floors
than on partially slatted or solid floors (Courboulay et al., 2003; Spoolder et al., 2000). When the
effect of zoning (i.e., floors of varying type and material) was tested with weaning and fattening
pigs in Denmark, zoned pens were found to get dirtier (Damgaard et al., 2006). An experiment
was also carried out with pregnant sows kept in a building with an automatic feeding system
on a fully slatted or partially slatted floor (58% of the solid surface), obtained by covering the
slatted part (Jegou et al., 2005). The soiled area of the floor and sow dirtiness were determined
at regular intervals. A close correlation was found between sow dirtiness and floor dirtiness.
The sows stayed much cleaner on a fully slatted floor and chose a specific place for excretion
and a completely separate one for lying down and resting, even if there was no floor zonation.
All these findings tend to indicate better hygiene maintenance and cleanliness with fully slatted
floors. However, conflicting results are sometimes obtained for slatted floors, which may be due
VetBooks.ir
to the considerable variability in their design (e.g., slot width and shape) and physical quality
(abrasiveness, roughness after numerous pressure washings, etc.), surface and edge deterioration
after use (contact with urine, feed). The need to design floors to protect the animal’s feet was
recognized a long time ago, and cleanliness, abrasiveness and slipperiness were technical points
clearly emphasized (Scott, 1985). They should still be the object of particular attention. The
abrasiveness and roughness of the surface material interfere with the efficacy of cleaning and
disinfection routines (Fablet et al., 2006; Madec et al., 1999; Määttä et al., 2010). For instance, in
a field study carried out in 105 herds, the odds for a fattening room to test positive to Salmonella
after current cleaning and disinfection procedures rose when the surfaces were considered rough
(Fablet et al., 2006). As rough materials are difficult to thoroughly clean, we can speculate that
Salmonella may survive in the crevices ingrained with organic matter. The degree of roughness
of the walls was linked to the type of material used. Indeed, surfaces covered with concrete were
more likely to be considered as very rough than others were. Kymalainen et al. (2008) showed
that coating of concrete improved cleanability of the flooring. These results suggest that the type
of facility material may contribute to the success of a decontamination operation.
The building and pen materials should be easy to wash and resistant to disinfectants, while
being sustainable and robust (Boon and Wray, 1989). When choosing the material, care must
be taken to select materials that will minimize the presence of biofilms on surfaces, particularly
after the cleaning and disinfection operations (Madec, 2013). Smooth, hard and non-porous sur-
faces are expected to be of higher hygienic value than wooden materials. However, few data are
available on the cleanability of the surfaces used in pig housing and the adhesion and dynamics
of populations of microorganisms on these surfaces. Experimental studies carried out to assess
the cleanability of food processing equipment and the ability to free the equipment from relevant
microorganisms may provide methodological clues for this purpose (Benezech et al., 2002). Fur-
ther research is needed to produce data in order to be able to select the best materials for hygienic
criteria and resistance to livestock housing conditions and to design new materials. All equip-
ment, including fans, heaters and electrical fittings, needs to be designed to be compatible with
pressure washing (Boon and Wray, 1989).
With respect to air parameters, dust-reducing techniques should be encouraged to improve
overall cleanliness. The filtering of indoor air should not be underestimated as regards the recy-
cling of infections among buildings on a specific farm. Experimental studies have shown that
other solutions, such as oil-spraying, give promising results in the reduction of airborne particle
levels in pig buildings (Banhazi, 2013a).
The constant economic constraints aimed to reduce production costs tend to encourage the
design of lower-cost buildings where hygiene maintenance is more difficult. Designers of pig
buildings need to be aware of the major role of animal housing in long-term health and welfare
maintenance and they should take all hygienic criteria into account.
When building cleanliness is considered in terms of animal health, and even occupational
health, hygiene considerations must include other elements of farm management such as the
location of buildings and their inter-connections, together with the equipment and its usage. The
location of changing rooms, boots, hand and fomite washing systems and facilities to store and
use hygiene products should thus be integrated in the building’s initial design to further facilitate
daily hygiene routines once pigs are placed in the houses. Hence, the building design and man-
agement together lay the foundation for long-term health and welfare (Pedersen and Dahl, 1995).
15.5.2 Building usage and herd management practices

Even though a building is well designed, the way the farmer uses it greatly influences the final
cleanliness and hygiene level of the building, equipment and animals.
First, adequate and efficient sanitation procedures – often referred to as cleaning and disin-
fection operations – should be integrated into the routine hygiene practices in every herd. As
previously developed, multifactorial diseases occur because the infection pressure overwhelms
VetBooks.ir
the animal’s capacity to cope. One of the best appropriate technical options for maintaining health
is batch farrowing combined with an AIAO policy, compared to continuous flow (Madec, 2013).
In an age-segregated rearing system with AIAO management, the buildup of dirt and pathogens
in the building can be prevented by cleaning and disinfecting the whole housing unit between
successive groups of animals. The AIAO procedures thus facilitate the disruption of infection
transmission among production stages and from consecutively reared batches. Indeed, in this
system, the farmer decides on the time interval between groups of sows due to farrow, as well
as the approximate number of pigs expected to be born during the farrowing periods. The goal
is to keep only those pigs born within a very narrow time frame together throughout their rear-
ing steps, that is, in the same rooms, and to avoid any mixing with other batches. Once the
whole batch has been removed, all the rooms (i.e., farrowing, nursery and growing-finishing) are
cleaned, washed and disinfected prior to arrival of the next batch. These routines are performed
on a regular basis (for instance, every four or five weeks for the farrowing rooms, depending on
weaning age; every seven weeks or so for the nursery rooms). The slurry under the slatted floor
should also be removed to fully perform AIAO procedures and reduce infection pressure between
consecutive batches. Manure handling systems must be switched to clean formats (McOrist and
Bennett, 2008) by adequate draining, drying and disinfection of pits. Every piece of equipment
in the room must be cleaned and disinfected. The room is then allowed to dry out before being
restocked with a new batch of pigs. The application of such management practices in buildings
properly designed to facilitate sanitation procedures is expected to break the pathogen cycle and
recycling between successive batches of pigs.
Apart from thoroughly cleaning and disinfecting the pens and corridors in the rooms, the sani-
tation program must also be applied to tools, equipment and instruments that could be in contact
with feces or are used for healthcare. This point should not be neglected. Field studies have shown
that some surgical procedures, such as tail docking and castration, increase the odds of digestive
and respiratory diseases (Fablet et al., 2012; Pearce, 1999). The authors speculate that in addition
to the increased susceptibility due to these stressful practices, poor environmental conditions
enhance the likelihood of the pigs being contaminated through their wounds. The instruments
used for such husbandry should be cleaned and disinfected after each use. Similarly, needles can
be vectors for pathogens, so they must be changed or cleaned and sterilized after use (Amass and
Baysinger, 2006). These aspects of cleanliness tend to be overlooked when routine procedures
are performed in a rush with little mindfulness of their importance. It would appear necessary to
increase livestock farmers’ awareness of the role of these practices in the disease process.
Hygiene routines cannot be restricted to cleaning the surfaces per se. Farmers need to be aware
that the dirty surfaces, instruments and equipment in contact with animals may not be the only
sources of infection. Cleanliness also needs to be considered in its internal biosecurity role. Insects
and rodents may be carriers of pathogens (Amass and Baysinger, 2006). Keeping the buildings
clean therefore implies the implementation of strict measures against pathogen vectors such as
houseflies, rats or mice. These pests may temporarily leave the rooms when the pigs are removed
(e.g., during downtime periods) and return after restocking (Amass and Baysinger, 2006). They
can usually find shelter in the building surroundings. Reducing the concentration of infectious
pathogens in the pig’s environment between occupancy periods also reduces the challenges of
these agents to the next group to be kept in the room (Curtis and Backstrom, 1992). Efforts can be
impaired when these essential aspects of hygiene are not built into the daily routine.
Buildings house not only pigs but also the people working with them. The cleanliness of the
stockperson is part of daily hygiene routines. People may act as mechanical vectors of patho-
gens. Experimental studies have revealed the mechanical spreading of PRRSV from infected
to susceptible pigs by workers’ highly contaminated hands and clothing (Amass et al., 2000).
Hence, if the livestock farmer does not fully implement good hygienic measures, pathogens can
easily be transported from rooms or compartments housing infected pigs to other places housing
healthy and previously uninfected animals on workers’ boots, clothes and hands. The quantity
of pathogens transported can be especially high when people are in close physical contact with
VetBooks.ir
sick animals. As underlined above, designers of animal buildings need to consider the various
hygiene operations to make them easier to implement and follow. There should be a special place
for changing boots and clothes, as well as for hand washing, between the main compartments or
herd sectors of the farm buildings.
Pigs may also be kept clean by guiding them into “good” dunging patterns. Even though the
dunging behavior of pigs is not yet fully understood, some management practices and physical
conditions facilitate correct excretory patterns. Hence, Banhazi (2002, 2013a) showed that wet
flooring increased the odds of incorrect dunging, as pigs are attracted by wet areas for defecation
purposes (Banhazi, 2013a). To reduce the likelihood of incorrect dunging behavior, pig breeders
should avoid wetting pen floors and should instead ensure the pens are dry and clean before
restocking. Temperature is another factor influencing dunging patterns. It is acknowledged that
pigs lie in warmer areas and excrete in cooler places (Baxter, 1982; Olsen et al., 2001). However,
during hot periods (summer) or in hot climates, pigs are likely to lie in the cool area, which is
most of the time the dunging area. This condition may affect the pen and animals’ cleanliness.
However, appropriate management of the ventilation system and use of additional tools such as
sprays to cool the pigs may encourage the pigs to adopt correct dunging patterns (Huynh et al.,
2006). Dunging behavior may also be influenced by stocking density, so overcrowding should be
avoided (Banhazi, 2013a).
15.6 CLEANING AND DISINFECTION PROCEDURES IN PIG BUILDINGS
Since some of the pathogens involved in diseases are relatively resistant in the environment, par-
ticularly in the presence of organic matter, it is crucial to apply thorough cleaning and disinfection
routines. Only cleaning and disinfection together will lead to a drastic reduction in the microor-
ganism population on surfaces, and the two steps cannot be separated without losing effectiveness
(Böhm, 1998). Factors such as surface roughness, organic soiling and temperature may limit the
efficacy of these procedures. Therefore, cleaning and disinfection routines should be carried out
thoroughly and in accordance with the best practices available to maximize their effects. Several
steps should be performed in succession.
15.6.1 How to proceed
Once all the pigs have been removed from the room, the first step is to remove all the internal
equipment able to be dismounted and transportable devices such as feed dispensers. All this
equipment needs to be properly cleaned in an appropriate area. Manure or slurry in the pit under
the floor should also be removed during this first step, known as “dry cleaning” (Böhm, 1998).
All dust and other dirt should be brushed, swept or wiped off ceilings, fan parts, air inlets, feeders,
light fixtures and corridors. Since medium- to high-pressure water will be used in a later step, the
room must be made safe, particularly as regards electrical equipment (in other words, electrical
systems must be protected), and the people in charge of cleaning and disinfection procedures
should be aware of the risks and wear appropriate protective clothes or equipment.
Then comes the wet cleaning phase. It should start soon after removal of the animals to prevent
the dirt from drying and begins with soaking. The goal is to soften the dirt and make it easier
to remove from the surfaces during the later steps. Soaking should not require too much water.
The recommended amounts range from 1.5 to 6 L m–², depending on the target situation (surface
roughness, level and type of dirt) (Madec, 2013). The recommended duration of soaking also var-
ies from about 3 h to sequences of successive moistening over a 12-hour period using automatic
sprinklers. During or soon after this step, it is highly recommended to use a degreaser, particularly
in rooms where organic matter has been accumulating for several weeks (e.g., fattening rooms).
Banhazi and Santhanam (2013) showed that the use of degreasers significantly improves the
cleanliness of concrete floors but that the contact surface time is important, so it is necessary to
comply with supplier guidelines (around 30 to 60 minutes). The aim of the degreaser is to help
VetBooks.ir
loosen the dirt either at the start of soaking or just at the end of this phase. It should be remem-
bered that detergents mainly act on dirt, whereas disinfectants focus on microorganisms.
The next step is washing. The goal is to remove all debris and dirt until the surfaces (floor, pen
partitions, ceiling, pipes, walls, feeding trough and corridor) look clean (Böhm, 1998). The most
effective way of cleaning surfaces is to use water under pressure. It is advisable to start from the
top and work downwards, washing the ceiling and finishing with the floor and bottom of the walls
and pen separations. It is best to proceed from the back to the entrance. Attention must be paid
not only to the top but also to the hidden surfaces of pipes, troughs and the edge of slatted floors.
A medium (4 MPa) to high pressure (8 MPa) is generally recommended. It is important to clean
the surfaces adequately, while avoiding wasting water. Amounts ranging from 20 to 50 L m–² have
been reported (Madec, 2013). Cleaning with warm water (40°C or more) was shown to be more
effective in reducing the total bacteria count than cold washing, whatever the material (concrete,
timber or metal) (Böhm, 1998). However, it should be noted that pressure cleaning generates
aerosols, which can pose two problems. Pressure washing can generate bioaerosols made of fine
dust particles and microorganisms that can later settle and re-infect washed surfaces (Banhazi
et al., 2003). A final rinse under low pressure is therefore advised (around 2 h after the end of
washing) to eliminate these settled particles and chemical residues (Böhm, 1998). Indeed, deter-
gent residues can interfere with some disinfectants. Furthermore, bioaerosols generated during
cleaning may be an occupational health safety hazard, especially in relation to zoonotic patho-
gens. It is therefore highly recommended to wear appropriate equipment (waterproof clothes,
gloves and goggles) to reduce exposure during cleaning tasks.
All these cleaning steps are critical for the subsequent disinfection phase to be fully effec-
tive. Disinfectants are only effective when they come into direct contact with microorganisms,
which highlights the importance of removing organic matter and other dirt that could harbor and
protect pathogens. Some disinfectants, for instance (e.g., sodium hypochlorite), are inactivated
by organic matter. In the disinfection step, the most important factor is the choice of chemi-
cal (Böhm, 1998). On a routine basis, the choice of disinfectant will depend on the surfaces to
be cleaned (some disinfectants are corrosive), water properties (pH and hardness, for example)
and expected “-cidal” effect (against bacteria, virus, fungi or spores). Apart from notifiable dis-
eases, when pure solutions are used, disinfectant should be mixed with water according to the
manufacturer’s recommended concentrations. Any commercial disinfectant must have received
official approval. The disinfection procedure should ensure that all the surfaces are thoroughly
treated and that the disinfectant is given enough exposure time to exert its properties efficiently
at the right temperature (> 10°C). The disinfection task can be performed in different ways: by
a pressure cleaner equipped with a special “disinfection nozzle,” by power sprayers or by foam
machines such as hydrofoamers. The main advantages of the latter are that they clearly show
where the solution has been applied and extend the duration of surface exposure to the disinfec-
tant (Dee et al., 2006; Madec, 2013). Like the cleaning procedure, it is recommended to move
from back to front and top to bottom. As regards the workers, care must be taken when handling
and applying the disinfectant: waterproof protective clothing, gloves, rubber boots and a face-
mask are recommended.
Once the disinfectant’s exposure time has passed, the ventilation may be switched on and
heater devices installed for quick drying of the building. Feeders and drinkers need to be rinsed
to remove residual disinfectant. A downtime period of at least four days is recommended to allow
thorough drying and thereby reduce the risk of residual contamination (Böhm, 1998).
15.6.2 How to assess efficacy

Even though visible cleanliness is an initial indicator of the results of the cleaning and disinfec-
tion procedures, residual microbial contamination may occur. Field studies have shown that bac-
terial contamination may be detected after common cleaning and disinfection procedures (Fablet
et al., 2006; Madec et al., 1999). Therefore, laboratory tests are highly recommended to obtain
an objective assessment of the effectiveness of these decontamination operations (Böhm, 1998).

VetBooks.ir
The procedure could then be corrected if necessary based on the results of occasional checks.
The efficacy of decontamination procedures should be assessed just before the building is
restocked. Surface samples are mainly collected by means of agar contact plates, cotton or gauze
surgical swabs, gauze socks or sponges (Beloeil et al., 2004; Kihlstrom et al., 2001; Madec
et al., 1999; Schmidt et al., 2004; Wales et al., 2006). Instant swabs and petri-films used to
assess microbiological load and residues of product contact surfaces may also be practical use-
ful solutions when adapted to farm conditions (www.foodprocessing-technology.com/contrac
tors/quality_control/hygiena/; http://solutions.3m.com.au/wps/portal/3M/en_AU/Microbiology/
FoodSafety/industries/two/). When agar contact plates are used, the physical properties of the
medium are crucial to ensure a good, standardized impression on the surface. Sampling should be
performed at different sites: on the floor, the pen surfaces, and at the feeders and drinkers (Beloeil
et al., 2004; Madec et al., 1999). The samples are then transported to a laboratory to be tested for
the presence of bacteria or viruses. The efficacy of cleaning and disinfection procedures is com-
monly evaluated from bacterial counts or detection (Madec, 2013). The media used for bacterial
counts may vary depending on the purpose of sampling – whether targeting a specific pathogen
such as Salmonella or obtaining a broad assessment of residual bacterial contamination. When
the aim is to assess residual viral contamination, the swabs can be submitted for polymerase chain
reaction (PCR) tests specific to the targeted pathogen. For instance, Dee et al. (2006) used PCR
tests to assess PRRSV residual contamination of transport vehicles. The positive samples were
then evaluated for viable PRRSV in a bioassay involving pigs.
In the event of inadequate results, the whole procedure should be reviewed to identify critical
points. Field studies aimed at identifying factors associated with residual contamination after
routine cleaning and disinfection procedures have shown that several factors may impair the
decontamination process. Most relate to deficiencies in the cleaning and disinfection procedures
(in other words, absence of certain steps such as slurry removal, soaking or degreasing) and to
surface roughness (Fablet et al., 2006; Madec et al., 1999). Successful decontamination relies on
a thorough application of all the recommended steps to ensure healthy housing for the next group
of pigs.
15.7 CONCLUSIONS
Keeping large pig populations healthy is a daily challenge for every farmer to ensure high tech-
nical and economic performance. Under intensive conditions and confined systems, several pro-
duction diseases may impair the health and welfare of pigs in addition to farmers’ profitability.
On-farm hygiene influences the occurrence and severity of multifactorial diseases but also has an
important impact on the safety and quality of pork products. Applying a high standard of hygiene
and cleanliness appears to be an important lever for reducing the transmission of infectious patho-
gens and the infection pressure to which the pigs are exposed, making a strong contribution to dis-
ease prevention. However, field observations tend to indicate that building cleanliness and high
standards of hygiene are not given top priority, and there needs to be improvement in these fields.
Animal cleanliness is directly related to the cleanliness of the housing units. The practical
means to achieve and improve hygiene and cleanliness in pig production strongly rely on building
design and usage and related herd management practices. The way the building is designed and
equipped has a major influence on the farmer’s subsequent ability to implement high hygiene
standards and to keep the building and animals clean in the long term. It is necessary to find
innovative solutions for developing surfaces that are easy to clean and surface treatments with
anti-pathogen properties adapted to farm conditions and constraints. For successful maintenance
of hygienic conditions, it is of prime importance to avoid pigs coming into intense and frequent
contact with their excreta. A bottom-up approach is needed to designing equipment fulfilling
these requirements, an ongoing process that should involve close interactions between farmers,
animal hygienists and building engineers.
Efficient cleaning and disinfection procedures for the building, premises and health instru-
VetBooks.ir
ments are central to good hygiene routines to reduce the transmission of pathogens from the
environment to the pigs. However, decontamination procedures are often thankless tasks and
considered of “minor” value. To reduce the arduousness of these activities, it is necessary to
develop new technical solutions to provide time- and cost-effective equipment for cleaning and
disinfection operations. These may include self-cleaning rooms, or fast-acting, non-corrosive and
non-irritant products for use on surfaces and in the air. Furthermore, animal hygiene needs to be
promoted to the same rank and honor as other routine activities. Together, these solutions will
ensure not only the health and welfare of pigs but also food safety.
REFERENCES
Abiven, N., Seegers, H., Beaudeau, F., Laval, A. & Fourichon, C. (1998) Risk factors for high sow mortality
in French swine herds. Preventive Veterinary Medicine, 33, 109–119.
Almond, G.W., Flowers, W.L., Batista, L. & D’Allaire, S. (2006) Diseases of the reproductive system. In:
Straw, B., Zimmermann, W., D’Allaire, S. & Taylor, D.J. (eds) Diseases of Swine, 9th ed. Iowa State
University Press, Ames, Iowa. pp. 113–147.
Alvarez-Ordóez, A., Martínez-Lobo, F., Arguello, H., Carvajal, A. & Rubio, P. (2013) Swine dysentery: aeti-
ology, pathogenicity, determinants of transmission and the fight against the disease. International Journal
of Environmental Research and Public Health, 10, 1927–1947.
Amass, S.F. & Baysinger, A. (2006) Swine disease transmission and prevention. In: Straw, B.E., Zimmer-
mann, J.J., D’Allaire, S. & Taylor, D.J. (eds) Diseases of Swine, 9th ed. Blackwell Publishing, Ames,
Iowa. pp. 1075–1098.
Amass, S.F. & Clark, L.K. (1999) Biosecurity considerations for pork production units. Journal of Swine
Health & Production, 7, 217–228.
Amass, S.F., Vyerberg, B.D., Ragland, D., Dowell, C.A., Anderson, C.D., Stover, J.H. & Beaudry, D.J.
(2000) Evaluating the efficacy of boot baths in biosecurity protocols. Journal of Swine Health & Pro-
duction, 8, 169–173.
Awad-Masalmeh, M., Köfer, J. (1993) Environmental factors, prevalence of pneumonia and lung lesions of
slaughter swine suffering from chronic respiratory disease. 4th Conference of Livestock Environment, 6–9
July 1993, Coventry, UK. pp. 915–921.
Bäckström, L. & Bremer, H. (1978) The relationship between disease incidences of fatteners registered at
slaughter and environmental factors in herds. Nordisk Veterinaermedicin, 30, 526–533.
Baekbo, P. (1990) Air quality in Danish pig herds. 11th International Pig Veterinary Society Congress, 1–5
July 1990, Lausanne, Switzerland. p. 395.
Banhazi, T. (2002) The effects of wet flooring on dunging patterns. In: Revell, D.K. & Taplin, D. (eds) Ani-
mal Productions in Australia. ASAP, Adelaide, SA, QLD, Australia. p. 372.
Banhazi, T. (2013a) Modelling and influencing hygiene conditions in Australian livestock buildings. In:
Aland, A. & Banhazi, T. (eds) Livestock Housing: Modern Management to Ensure Optimal Health
and Welfare of Farm Animals. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, The Netherlands.
pp. 377–390.
Banhazi, T.M. (2013b) Environmental and management effects associated with improved production effi-
Housing: Modern Management to Ensure Optimal Health and Welfare of Farm Animals. Wageningen
Banhazi, T. & Santhanam, B. (2013) Practical evaluation of cleaning methods that could be implemented
in livestock buildings. In: Aland, A. & Banhazi, T. (eds) Livestock Housing: Modern Management to
Ensure Optimal Health and Welfare of Farm Animals. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen,
The Netherlands. pp. 355–376.
Banhazi, T., Murphy, T. & Hartung, J. (2003) Using ‘Hygiene pavers’ to evaluate cleaning procedures used
on pig farms. Xith ISAH Congress, 23–27 February 2003, Mexico City, Mexico. CD proceedings.
Banhazi, T.M., Seedorf, J., Rutley, D.L. & Pitchford, W.S. (2008) Identification of risk factors for sub-
VetBooks.ir
Safety and Health, 14, 21–39.
Banhazi, T., Currie, E., Reed, S., Lee, I.B. & Aarnink, A.J.A. (2009) Controlling the concentrations of air-
borne pollutants in piggery buildings. In: Aland, A. & Madec, F. (eds), Sustainable Animal Production.
Baxter, M.R. (1982) Environmental determinants of excretory and lying areas in domestic pigs. Applied
Animal Ethology, 9, 195.
Beloeil, P.A., Chauvin, C., Toquin, M.T., Fablet, C., Le Notre, Y., Salvat, G., Madec, F. & Fravalo, P. (2003)
Listeria monocytogenes contamination of finishing pigs: an exploratory epidemiological survey in
France. Veterinary Research, 34, 737–748.
Beloeil, P.A., Fravalo, P., Fablet, C., Jolly, J.P., Eveno, E., Hascoet, Y., Chauvin, C., Salvat, G. & Madec,
F. (2004) Risk factors for Salmonella enterica subsp. enterica shedding by market-age pigs in French
farrow-to-finish herds. Preventive Veterinary Medicine, 63, 103–120.
Beloeil, P.A., Chauvin, C., Proux, K., Fablet, C., Madec, F. & Alioum, A. (2007) Risk factors for Salmonella
seroconversion of fattening pigs in farrow-to-finish herds. Veterinary Research, 38, 835–848.
Benezech, T., Lelievre, C., Membre, J.M., Viet, A.-F. & Faille, C. (2002) A new test method for in-place
cleanability of food processing equipment. Journal of Food Engineering, 54, 7–15.
Beskow, P., Lundeheim, N. & Holmgren, N. (2008) Pleuritis and pleuropneumonia in fatteners – Risk factors
and current infectious agents. 20th International Pig Veterinary Society Congress, 22–26 June 2008,
Durban, South Africa. pp. 377.
Blaha, T. & Köfer, J. (2013) The growing role of animal hygiene for sustainable husbandry. In: Aland, A. &
Banhazi, T. (eds), Livestock Housing: Modern Management to Ensure Optimal Health and Welfare of
Farm Animals. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, The Netherlands. pp. 23–32.
Böhm, R. (1998) Disinfection and hygiene in the veterinary field and disinfection of animal houses and
transport vehicles. International Biodeterioration & Biodegradation, 41, 217–224.
Boon, C.R. & Wray, C. (1989) Building design in relation to the control of diseases of intensively housed
livestock. Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research, 43, 149–161.
Cador, C., Pol, F., Hamoniaux, M., Dorenlor, V., Eveno, E., Guyomarc’h, C. & Rose, N. (2014) Risk factors
associated with leg disorders of gestating sows in different group-housing systems: a cross-sectional
study in 108 farrow-to-finish farms in France. Preventive Veterinary Medicine, 116, 102–110.
Cameron, R. (2012) Integumentary system: skin, hoof and claw. In: Zimmermann, J.J., Karriker, L.A.,
Ramirez, A., Schwartz, K.J. & Stevenson, G.W. (eds) Diseases of Swine, 10th ed. John Wiley and Sons,
Iowa. pp. 251–269.
Chang, W., Chung, H., Huang, C.F. & Su, H.J.J. (2001) Exposure of workers to airborne microorganisms in
open-air swine houses. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 67, 155–161.
Chase-Topping, M.E., Gunn, G., Strachan, W.D., Edwards, S.A., Smith, W.J., Hillman, K., Stefopoulou,
S.N., Thomson, J.R., Stege, H., Jensen, T.K., Moller, K., Baekbo, P. & Jorsal, S.E. (2007) Epidemiology
of porcine non-specific colitis on Scottish farms. The Veterinary Journal, 173, 353–360.
Chia, S.P. & Taylor, D.J. (1978) Factors affecting the survival of Treponema hyodysenteriae in dysenteric pig
faeces. Veterinary Record, 103, 68–70.
Clark, L., Freeman, M., Scheidt, A. & Knox, K. (1991) Investigating the transmission of Mycoplasma hyo-
pneumoniae in a swine herd with enzootic pneumonia. Veterinary Medicine, 86, 543–550.
Cleveland-Nielsen, A., Nielsen, E.O. & Ersboll, A.K. (2002) Chronic pleuritis in Danish slaughter pig herds.
Preventive Veterinary Medicine, 55, 121–135.
Courboulay, V., Bregeon, A., Massabie, P. & Meunier-Salaün, M.C. (2003) Types of floors for fattening pigs.
Techni-Porc, 26, 33–37.
Curtis, S.E. & Backstrom, L. (1992) Housing and environmental influences on production. In: Diseases of
Swine, 7th ed. Iowa State University Press, Iowa. pp. 884–900.
D’ Allaire, S., Stein, T.E. & Leman, A.D. (1987) Culling patterns in selected Minnesota swine breeding
herds. Canadian Journal of Veterinary Research, 51, 506–512.
Damgaard, B.M., Studnitz, M., Nielsen, J., Moustsen, V.A., Jørgensen, E. & Jensen, K.H. (2006) The effects
of zonation of the pen and grouping in intact litters on use of pen, immune competence and health of pigs.
Livestock Science, 104, 203–216.
Dee, S.A. (1992) Porcine urogenital disease. Veterinary Clinics of North America: Food Animal Practice,
8, 641–660.
Dee, S.A., Deen, J. & Pijoan, C. (2006) Evaluation of an industry-based sanitation protocol for full-size
VetBooks.ir
transport vehicles contaminated with porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus. Journal of
Swine Health & Production, 14, 307–311.
Done, S., Williamson, S.M. & Strugnell, B.W. (2012) Nervous and locomotor systems. In: Zimmermann,
J.J., Karriker, L.A., Ramirez, A., Schwartz, K.J. & Stevenson, G.W. (eds) Diseases of Swine, 10th ed.
John Wiley and Sons, New York. pp. 294–328.
Donham, K.J. & Gustafsson, K.E. (1982) Human occupatinal hazards from swine confinement. Annals of the
American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists, 2, 137–142.
Donham, K.J., Haglind, P., Peterson, Y., Rylander, R. & Belin, L. (1988) Environmental and health studies of
farm workers in Swedish swine confinement buildings. British Journal of Industrial Medicine, 46, 31–37.
Donham, K., Reynolds, S., Whitten, P., Merchant, J., Burmeister, L. & Popendorf, W. (1995) Respiratory
dysfunction in swine production facility workers: dose-response relationships of environmental expo-
sures and pulmonary function. American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 27, 405–418.
Engblom, L., Eliasson-Selling, L., Lundeheim, N., Belák, K., Andersson, K. & Dalin, A.M. (2008) Post
mortem findings in sows and gilts euthanised or found dead in a large Swedish herd. Acta Veterinaria
Scandinavica, 50, 25.
Enoe, C., Mousing, J., Schirmer, A.L. & Willeberg, P. (2002) Infectious and rearing-system related risk fac-
tors for chronic pleuritis in slaughter pigs. Preventive Veterinary Medicine, 54, 337–349.
Enright, M.R., Alexander, T.J.L. & Clifton-Hadley, F.A. (1987) Role of houseflies (Musca domestica) in the
epidemiology of Streptococcus suis type 2. Veterinary Record, 121, 132–133.
Fablet, C. (2009) An overview of the impact of the environment on enzootic respiratory diseases in pigs. In:
Aland, A. & Madec, F. (eds) Sustainable Animal Production. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wagen-
ingen, The Netherlands. pp. 239–260.
Fablet, C., Robinault, C., Jolly, J.P., Eono, F., Dorenlor, V., Labbé, A., Fravalo, P. & Madec, F. (2006) Factors
associated with Salmonella contamination of finishing facilities following cleaning and disinfection proce-
dure. 19th International Pig Veterinary Society Congress, 16–19 July 2006, Copenhagen, Denmark. p. 366.
Fablet, C., Dorenlor, V., Eono, F., Eveno, E., Jolly, J.P., Portier, F., Bidan, F., Madec, F. & Rose, N. (2012)
Noninfectious factors associated with pneumonia and pleuritis in slaughtered pigs from 143 farrow-to-
finish pig farms. Preventive Veterinary Medicine, 104, 271–280.
Fairbrother, J.M. & Gyles, C.L. (2006) Escherichia coli infections. In: Straw, B., Zimmermann, W., D’Allaire,
S. & Taylor, D.J. (eds) Diseases of Swine, 9th ed. Iowa State University Press, Ames, Iowa. pp. 639–674.
FAO, OIE, Bank, W. (2010) Good practices for biosecurity in the pig sector – Issues and options in develop-
ing and transition countries. FAO, Rome, Italy.
Flesja, K.I. & Solberg, I. (1981) Pathological lesions in swine at slaughter. IV. Pathological lesions in relation
to rearing system and herd size. Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica, 22, 272–282.
Fosse, J., Seegers, H. & Magras, C. (2009) Prevalence and risk factors for bacterial food-borne zoonotic
hazards in slaughter pigs: a review. Zoonoses Public Health, 56, 429–454.
Fraile, L., Alegre, A., López-Jiménez, R., Nofrarías, M. & Segalés, J. (2010) Risk factors associated with pleuri-
tis and cranio-ventral pulmonary consolidation in slaughter-aged pigs. The Veterinary Journal, 184, 326–333.
Funk, J.A., Davies, P.R. & Gebreyes, W. (2001) Risk factors associated with Salmonella enterica prevalence
in three-site swine production systems in North Carolina, USA. Berliner und Münchener tierärztliche
Wochenschrift, 114, 335–338.
Gjein, H. & Larssen, R.B. (1995) Housing of pregnant sows in loose and confined systems – a field study.
Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica, 36, 443–450.
Gregory, N.G. (2004) Swelling of cattle heel horn by urine. Australian Veterinary Journal, 82, 161–163.
Groot Koerkamp, P.W.G., Metz, J.H.M., Phillips, V.R., Holden, M.R., Sneath, R.W., Short, J.L., White, R.P.,
Hartung, J., Seedorf, J., Schröder, M., Linkert, K.H., Pedersen, S., Takai, H., Johnsen, J.O. & Wathes,
C.M. (1998) Concentrations and emissions of ammonia in livestock buldings in Northern Europe. Jour-
nal of Agricultural Engineering Research, 70, 79–95.
Hampson, D. (2012) Brachyspiral colitis. In: Zimmermann, J.J., Karriker, L.A., Ramirez, A., Schwartz,
K.J. & Stevenson, G.W. (eds) Diseases of Swine, 10th ed. John Wiley and Sons, Iowa. pp. 680–708.
Hansen, L.L., Larsen, A.E. & Hansen-Moeller, J. (1995) Influence of keeping pigs heavily fouled with faeces
plus urine on skatole and indole concentration (boar taint) in subcutaneous fat. Acta Agriculturae Scan-
dinavica A, 45, 178–185.
Hartley, P.E., Wilesmith, J.W. & Bradley, R. (1988) Prevalence of pleurisy in pigs at slaughter. Veterinary
VetBooks.ir
Record, 123, 173–175.

Heber, A.J., Stroik, J.L., Faubion, J.M. & Willard, L.H. (1988) Size distribution and identification of aerial
dust particles in swine finishing buildings. Transactions of the ASAE, 31, 882–887.
Higuchi, H., Kurumado, H., Mori, M., Degawa, A., Fujisawa, H., Kuwano, A. & Nagahata, H. (2009) Effects
of ammonia and hydrogen sulfide on physical and biochemical properties of the claw horn of Holstein
cows. Canadian Journal of Veterinary Research, 73, 15–20.
Holmgren, N., Eliasson-Selling, L. & Lundeheim, N. (2000) Claw and leg injuries in group housed dry sows.
International Pig Veterinary Congress, 17–20 September 2000, Melbourne, Australia. p. 352.
Hurd, H.S., McKean, J.D., Griffith, R.W., Wesley, I.V. & Rostagno, M.H. (2002) Salmonella enterica infec-
tions in market swine with and without transport and holding. Applied and Environmental Microbiology,
68, 2376–2381.
Hurnik, D. (2005) Investigation into optimal washing and disinfection techniques for pig pens London Swine
Conference, Production at the leading Edge, 6–7 April 2005, London, UK. Available from: http://www.
londonswineconference.ca/proceedings/2005 [accessed January 2018].
Huynh, T.T.T., Aarnink, A.J.A., Gerrits, W.J.J., Heetkamp, M.J.H., Canh, T.T., Spoolder, H.A.M., Kemp,
B. & Verstegen, M.W.A. (2005) Thermal behaviour of growing pigs in response to high temperature and
humidity. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 91, 1–16.
Huynh, T.T.T., Aarnink, A.J.A., Truong, C.T., Kemp, B. & Verstegen, M.W.A. (2006) Effects of tropical
climate and water cooling methods on growing pigs’ responses. Livestock Science, 104, 278–291.
Jegou, J.Y., Callarec, J., Dappelo, C., Guivarc’h, C., Quillien, J.P. & Ramonet, Y. (2005) Partially/Fully Slat-
ted Flooring: Cleanliness of the Floor and of the Sows. Report, Chmabres d᾿Agriculture (ed), Brittany,
France. p. 21.
Jensen, T.B., Bonde, M.K., Kongsted, A.G., Toft, N. & Sørensen, J.T. (2010) The interrelationships between
clinical signs and their effect on involuntary culling among pregnant sows in group-housing systems.
Animal, 4, 1922–1928.
Kihlstrom, S.L., Morrow, W.E.M., Davies, P.R. & Luginbuhl, G.H. (2001) Assessing the progressive decon-
tamination of farrowing crate floors by measuring the decrease in aerobic bacteria. Journal of Swine
Health & Production, 9, 65–69.
Kirk, R.K., Svensmark, B., Ellegaard, L.P. & Jensen, H.E. (2005) Locomotive disorders associated with sow
mortality in Danish pig herds. Journal of Veterinary Medicine, A52, 423–428.
Kroneman, A., Vellenga, L., van der Wilt, F.J. & Vermeer, H.M. (1993) Review of health problems in group-
housed sows, with special emphasis on lameness. Veterinary Quarterly, 15, 26–29.
Kymalainen, H.R., Maatta, J., Puumala, M., Kaustell, K.O., Mattila, T., Joutsen, B.L., Kuisma, R., Hurme,
K.R., Uusi-Rauva, A. & Sjoberg, A.M. (2008) A laboratory study of the effect of coating on cleanability
of concrete flooring for use in piggeries. Biosystems Engineering, 99, 88–98.
environment. Livestock Production Science, 93, 255–262.
Lemay, S.P., Chenard, L. & MacDonbald, R. (2002) Indoor air quality in pig buildings: why is it import-
ant and how is it managed? London Swine Conference Conquering the Challenge, 11–12 April 2002,
London, UK. pp. 121–135.
Leneveu, P., Robert, N., Keita, A., Pagot, E., Pommier, P. & Teissier, P. (2005) Lung lesions in pigs at
slaughter: a 2-year epidemiological study in France. The International Journal of Applied Research in
Veterinary Medicine, 3, 259–265.
Lindquist, J.O. (1974) Animal health and environment in the production of fattening pigs. Acta Veterinaria
Scandinavica, 51, 1–78.
Lo Fo Wong, D.M.A., Dahl, J., Stege, H., van der Wolf, P.J., Leontides, L., von Altrock, A. & Thorberg,
B.M. (2001) Herd Level Risk Factors for Subclinical Salmonella Infection in European Finishing Herds.
Epidemiology and Control Options of Salmonella in European Pig Herds. PhD Thesis, Royal Veterinary
and Agricultural University, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Lo Fo Wong, D.M., Dahl, J., Stege, H., van der Wolf, P.J., Leontides, L., von Altrock, A. & Thorberg, B.M.
(2004) Herd-level risk factors for subclinical Salmonella infection in European finishing-pig herds. Pre-
ventive Veterinary Medicine, 62, 253–266.
Määttä, J., Kuisma, R. & Kymäläinen, H.-R. (2010) Cleanability of synthetic mats for use in cattle barns.
Biosystems Engineering, 107, 372–376.
Madec, F. (2009) Reproductive disorders in pigs: a review on the crucial role of the environment. In: Aland,
VetBooks.ir
A. & Madec, F. (eds) Sustainable Animal Production: The Challenges and Potential Developments for
Professional Farming. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wegeningen, The Netherlands. pp. 215–238.
Madec, F. (2013) Aiming at building cleanliness to keep livestock healthy. In: Aland, A. & Banhazi, T.
(eds) Livestock Housing: Modern Management to Ensure Optimal Health and Welfare of Farm Animals.
Madec, F. & David, F. (1983) Les troubles urinaires des troupeaux de truies: diagnostic, incidence et circon-
stances d’apparition. Journées de la Recherche Porcine en France, 15, 431–446.
Madec, F. & Josse, J. (1984) The risk factors of respiratory diseases on fatteners in intensive breeding-
finishing units. 8th International Pig Veterinary Society Congress, 27–31 August 1984, Ghent, Belgium. pp. 349.
Madec, F. & Seegers, H. (2010) Epidemiology of infectious diseases in livestock raised in intensive farming
systems. In: Lefèvre, P.C., Blancou, J., Chermette, R. & Uilenberg, G. (eds) Infectious and Parasitic
Diseases of Livestock. Lavoisier, Paris. pp. 35–52.
Madec, F., Bridoux, N., Bounaix, S. & Jestin, A. (1998) Measurement of digestive disorders in the piglet at
weaning and related risk factors. Preventive Veterinary Medicine, 35, 53–72.
Madec, F., Humbert, F., Salvat, G. & Maris, P. (1999) Measurement of the residual contamination of
post-weaning facilities for pigs and related risk factors. Journal of Veterinary Medicine, A46, 37–45.
Maes, D., Segales, J., Meyns, T., Sibila, M., Pieters, M. & Haesebrouck, F. (2008) Control of Mycoplasma
hyopneumoniae infections in pigs. Veterinary Microbiology, 126, 297–309.
Mannion, C., Leonard, F.C., Lynch, P.B. & Egan, J. (2007) Efficacy of cleaning and disinfection on pig farms
in Ireland. Veterinary Record, 161, 371–375.
Mc Orist, S. & Gebhart, C.J. (2012) Proliferative enteropathy. In: Zimmermann, J.J., Karriker, L.A.,
Ramirez, A., Schwartz, K.J. & Stevenson, G.W. (eds) Diseases of Swine, 10th ed. John Wiley and Sons,
Iowa. pp. 811–820.
McOrist, S. & Bennett, C. (2008) Eradication of swine dysentery on large-scale breeder farms by partial
depopulation/medication. 20th International Pig Veterinary Society Congress, 22–26 June 2008, Durban,
South Africa. p. 319.
Meyns, T., Van Steelant, J., Rolly, E., Dewulf, J., Haesebrouck, F. & Maes, D. (2011) A cross-sectional
study of risk factors associated with pulmonary lesions in pigs at slaughter. The Veterinary Journal, 187,
388–392.
Morin, M., Turgeon, D., Jolette, J., Robinson, Y., Phaneuf, J.B., Sauvageau, R., Beauregard, M., Teuscher,
E., Higgins, R. & Lariviere, S. (1983) Neonatal diarrhea of pigs in Quebec: infectious causes of signifi-
cant outbreaks. Canadian Journal of Comparative Medicine, 47, 11–17.
Olsen, A.W., Dybkjaer, L. & Simonsen, H.B. (2001) Behaviour of growing pigs kept in pens with outdoor
runs: II. Tempertaure regulatory behaviour and dunging preferences. Livestock Production Science, 69,
265–278.
Osterberg, J., Sternberg-Lewerin, S. & Wallgren, P. (2010) Direct and indirect transmission of four Salmo-
nella enterica serotypes in pigs. Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica, 52, 30–37.
Otake, S., Dee, S.A., Rossow, K.D., Trincado, C. & Pijoan, C. (2004) Studies on the carriage and transmis-
sion of porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus by individual houseflies (Musca domestica).
Veterinary Record, 154, 80–85.
Patterson, R.L.S. (1968) 5a-androst-16-ene-3-one, compound responsible for taint in boar fat. Journal of the
Science of Food and Agriculture, 19, 31–38.
Pearce, G.P. (1999) Epidemiology of enteric disease in grower finisher pigs: a postal survey of pig producers
in England. Veterinary Record, 144, 338–342.
Pedersen, B.K. & Dahl, J. (1995) Architecture lays the foundation for long-term herd healths. Pigs-Misset,
11, 44–45.
Perestrelo, R., Perestrelo, H., Madec, F. & Tillon, J.P. (1994) Prevention of metritis-mastitis-agalaxia syn-
drome in sows. Veterinary Research, 25, 262–266.
Pluym, L.M., Van Nuffel, A., Van Weyenberg, S. & Maes, D. (2013) Prevalence of lameness and claw lesions
during different stages in the reproductive cycle of sows and the impact on reproduction results. Animal,
7, 1174–1181.
Pointon, A., Heap, P. & McCloud, P. (1985) Enzootic pneumonia of pigs in South Australia-factors relating
to incidence of disease. Australian Veterinary Journal, 62, 98–100.
Radon, K., Garz, S., Schottky, A., Koops, F., Hartung, J., Szakowski, D. & Nowak, D. (2000) Lung function
and work-related exposure in pig farmers with respiratory symptoms. Occupational and Environmental
Medicine, 42, 814–820.
Rantzer, D. & Svendsen, J. (2001a) Slatted versus solid floors in the dung area of farrowing pens: effects on
VetBooks.ir
hygiene and pig performance, birth to weaning. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica A, 51, 167–174.
Rantzer, D. & Svendsen, J. (2001b) Slatted versus solid floors in the dung area: comparison of pig production
system (moved versus not moved) and effects on hygiene and pig performance, weaning to four weeks
after weaning. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica A, 51, 175–183.
Robertson, J.F. (1993) Dust and ammonia concentrations in pig housing: the need to reduce maximum expo-
sure limits. 4th International Symposium on Livestock Environment, 6–9 July 1993, UK. pp. 694–700.
Roepstorff, A. & Nansen, P. (1994) Epidemiology and control of helminth infections in pigs under intensive
and non-intensive production systems. Veterinary Parasitology, 54, 69–85.
Scheidt, A., Clark, K., Mayrose, V., Cline, T., Jones, D. & Frantz, S. (1990) All-in, all-out finishing as a
means for improving growth in a swine herd affected by enzootic pneumonia. 11th International Pig
Veterinary Congress, 1–5 July 1990, Lausanne, Switzerland. p. 92.
Schmidt, P.L., O’Connor, A.M., McKean, J.D. & Hurd, H. (2004) The association between cleaning and dis-
infection of lairage pens and the prevalence of Salmonella enterica in swine at harvest. Journal of Food
Protection, 67, 1384–1388.
Scott, G.B. (1985) Designing floors for animals’ feet. Farm Building Progress, 82, 27–32.
Spoolder, H.A.M., Edwards, S.A. & Corning, S. (2000) Legislative methods for specifying stocking density
and consequences for the welfare of finishing pigs. Livestock Production Science, 64, 167–173.
Stärk, K.D.C., Pfeiffer, D.U. & Morris, R.S. (1998) Risk factors for respiratory diseases in New Zealand pig
herds. New Zealand Veterinary Journal, 46, 3–10.
Terpstra, P.M.J. (1998) Domestic and institutional hygiene in relation to sustainability. Historical, social and
environmental implications. International Biodeterioration & Biodegradation, 41, 169–175.
Thomson, J.R. & Friendship, R.M. (2012) Digestive system. In: Zimmermann, J.J., Karriker, L.A., Ramirez,
A., Schwartz, K.J. & Stevenson, G.W. (eds) Diseases of Swine, 10th ed. John Wiley and Sons, Iowa.
pp. 199–226.
Underdahl, N.R., Rhodes, M.B., Socha, T.E. & Schulte, D.D. (1982) A study of air quality and respiratory
infections in pigs raised in confinement. Livestock Production Science, 9, 521–529.
VanAlstine, W.G. (2012) Respiratory system. In: Zimmermann, J.J., Karriker, L.A., Ramirez, A., Schwartz,
K.J. & Stevenson, G.W. (eds) Diseases of Swine, 10th ed. John Wiley and Sons, Iowa. pp. 348–362.
Vold, E. (1970) Fleischprouktionseigenschaften bei Ebern und Kastraten: IV. Organoleptische und gaschro-
matografische Untersuchungen wasserdampfflüchtiger Stoffe des Rückenpeckes von Ebern. Meldinger
fra Norges Landbrukshogskole, 49, 1–25.
Von Essen, S. & Donham, K.J. (1999) Illness and injury in animal confinement workers. Journal of Occupa-
tional Medicine, 14, 337–350.
Walachowski, S., Dorenlor, V., Lefevre, J., Lunazzi, A., Eono, F., Merbah, T., Eveno, E., Pavio, N. & Rose,
N. (2014) Risk factors associated with the presence of hepatitis E virus in livers and seroprevalence in
slaughter-age pigs: a retrospective study of 90 swine farms in France. Epidemiology & Infection, 142,
1934–1944.
Wales, A., Breslin, M. & Davies, R. (2006) Assessment of cleaning and disinfection in Salmonella-
contaminated poultry layer houses using qualitative and semi-quantitative culture techniques. Veterinary
Microbiology, 116, 283–296.
Wilson, M.R., Takov, R., Friendship, R.M., Martin, S.W., McMillan, I., Hacker, R.R. & Swaminathan, S.
(1986) Prevalence of respiratory diseases and their association with growth rate and space in randomly
selected swine herds. Canadian Journal of Veterinary Research, 50, 209–216.
Zejda, J.E., Barber, E.M., Dosman, J.A., Olenchock, S.A., McDuffie, H.H., Rhodes, C. & Hurst, T. (1994)
levels. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 36, 49–56.
Zucker, B.A., Bonin, H. & Müller, W. (2005) Relationship between the concentration of different air contam-
inants and the hygienic condition in two fattening houses. 12th International Society for Animal Hygiene
Congress, 5–9 September 2005, Warsaw, Poland. pp. 380–382.
VetBooks.ir
VetBooks.ir
SECTION V
Reduction methods Controlling internal concentrations
and emissions from the animal buildings
VetBooks.ir
CHAPTER 16
VetBooks.ir
Controlling the internal concentrations of gases and odor

within and emissions from animal buildings
Jens Seedorf
16.1 A GENERAL VIEW ON AIRBORNE POLLUTANTS – AN INTRODUCTION
The supply of appropriate ventilation and fresh air is a vital ingredient in managing healthy farm
animals and reducing the Occupational Health and Safety (OH&S) risks associated with farm
work. Consequently, any deterioration of the quality of air might affect the well-being of exposed
individuals. Therefore, gaseous and particulate airborne pollutants play an important role in live-
stock husbandry (Eduard et al., 2009; European Food Safety Authority, 2012; Hallam et al., 2012;
Hooser et al., 2000; Miles et al., 2006; Omland, 2002; Pejsak et al., 2008; Szczyrek et al., 2011;
Urbain et al., 1997; Von Essen et al., 2010). The combined presence of airborne pollutants in
livestock buildings might result in greater harm than their individual effects would have (Donham
et al., 2002; Hamilton et al., 1999; Murphy et al., 2012; Urbain et al., 1996). Admittedly, this
combined impact cannot be established in each individual case (e.g., Done et al., 2005) especially
when management and genetic factors interfere or even protective health effects of the farming
environment occur (e.g., Braun-Fahrländer, 2013; Peters et al., 2006; Radon, 2006; von Mutius
and Radon, 2008; von Mutius et al., 2000).
Once released into the atmosphere, the emitted airborne pollutants might 1) cause acidification
and eutrophication of soil and surface water (e.g., Stevens et al., 2006), 2) alter the abundance and
diversity of terrestrial plant (e.g., Payne et al., 2013; Southon et al., 2013), 3) change the climate
(e.g., IPCC, 2013), 4) transmit microorganisms and diseases (e.g., Dijkstra et al., 2012; Gloster
et al., 2003; Seedorf et al., 2005), or spread 5) dust-borne antibiotics (e.g., Hamscher et al., 2003)
and 6) antibiotic-resistant microorganisms of public health concern (e.g., Alvarado et al., 2012;
Friese et al., 2013; Gibbs et al., 2006; Schulz et al., 2012; Zahn et al., 2001) into the surrounding
space, depending on the prevailing meteorological and topographical conditions. Emission inven-
tories are useful tools with which to overview the potential geographic distribution of airborne
pollutants (e.g., Pattey and Qiu, 2012; Seedorf, 2004a). The results derived from investigations
related to community health issues are complex but more useful in assessing the impacts of emis-
sion. There are reports available on environmental health effects (e.g., McElroy, 2010; Radon
et al., 2007; Schulze et al., 2006, 2011; Wing and Wolf, 2000), but the transmission-based impacts
of pollutant release are not fully understood due to inconsistent results from different studies, as
concluded by O’Connor and co-authors (2010).
Thus, it is obvious that a review of airborne pollutant control and reduction is beneficial and
might initiate the implementation of precautionary measures on farms. It is therefore not surpris-
ing that previous studies on airborne pollutants have already highlighted various measures aimed
at generally improving the air quality in livestock buildings (e.g., Basinas et al., 2013, 2014).
However, any reduction measure implemented within livestock buildings will generally decrease
the burden on the environment as well. This aspect is already regulated in the EU-Directive
2010/75/EU, which lays the foundation for the reference documents for best available techniques
227
228 Jens Seedorf
(Best Available Technique Reference Documents, BREF) as a basis for the legal permission of
VetBooks.ir
the construction and operation of livestock buildings with specific herd sizes in Europe (European
Commission, 2003; European IPPC Bureau, 2013; Grimm et al., 2013). Nonetheless, end-of-pipe
technologies, such as biological exhaust air purification systems, are a further option to achieve
environmental protection standards with respect to ammonia, odor and dust (e.g., European IPPC
Bureau, 2013; Iranpour et al., 2005; Melse, 2009; Seedorf, 2004b), but, on the other hand, the
biosecurity of such devices was questioned (Seedorf, 2013).
There is a relative diversity of management tools and technical applications to mitigate the
extent of releasable pollutants, which can be exemplarily perceived for NH3 (Botermans et al.,
2010; UNECE, 2001): a classic agriculture-related pollutant over the past decades. The aim of
this chapter is therefore to build a general understanding of the sources and the basic mechanisms
of airborne pollutant formation, which is additionally underlined by the basic characteristics of a
selection of gases and odor in livestock operations. From this point of view, a number of control
and reduction measures can be derived, as shown in the subsequent literature review.
16.2 A BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF RELEVANT GASES AND ODOR
Ammonia (NH3), with its colorless, sharp and intensely irritating properties, is the most dominant
and harmful gas in livestock buildings, and it is generated by the degradation of urea and uric
acid, which are excreted by mammals and poultry, respectively. The chemical reaction responsi-
ble for this airborne pollutant is triggered by the enzymes, urease and uricase, which are released
by feces- and environment-associated microorganisms that are partly related to the family Entero-
bacteriaceae, such as Proteus spp. or Klebsiella spp. (Groot Koerkamp et al., 1998; Mobley and
Hausinger, 1989). The magnitude of NH3 volatilization mainly depends on the temperature and
the pH value, which determine the ammonium–NH3 equilibrium (pKa = 9.25). Higher tempera-
tures and increasing pH values favor the release of NH3, which is lighter than air (ATSDR, 2004).
In addition to urea and uric acid, other nitrogen (N)-containing agents, such as proteins, can also
be biochemically degraded, which also results in the production of NH3. Furthermore, NH3 acts
as a precursor in the formation of secondary particulate matter (PM) in the environment (Hertel
et al., 2011) and is therefore a cofactor in the generation of an anthropogenic albedo caused by
aerosol and radiation interactions such as scattering and radiation absorption (IPCC, 2013). Inter-
acting forces between NH3 and aerosols cause a gas-particle association (Reynolds et al., 1998;
Takai et al., 2002).
Hydrogen sulfide (H2S) is a heavier-than-air, colorless gas with a characteristic odor of rot-
ten eggs, which can be perceived at very low concentrations. Documented odor threshold val-
ues range between 0.0005–0.010 ppm and 0.02–0.13 ppm. The gas is mainly formed by the
decomposition of sulfur (S)-containing organic compounds in manure under anaerobic conditions
(ATSDR, 2006; Costigan, 2003). Under normal operations, H2S is a trace gas within livestock
buildings, because H2S concentrations generally reach the ppb level rather than ppm levels (e.g.,
Kim et al., 2008a; Lim et al., 2003; Ni et al., 2002; Zhao et al., 2007), although Jacobsen et al.
(1997) reported concentrations up to 118 ppm observed directly above animal manure storages;
in addition, it can be assumed that H2S concentrations in the air can vary widely during manure
management activities. Conclusively, relatively high and, therefore, unhealthy concentrations
can be reached when manure is agitated during dunging out operations along with insufficient
air exchange close to the gas source (ATSDR, 2006; Chénard et al., 2003; Hooser et al., 2000;
Swestka, 2010). In contrast to NH3, H2S exhibits a relatively weak acidic character. In this con-
text, Swestka (2010) cited Snoeyink and Jenkins (1980), who stated that in solutions with a pH of
7, H2S and HS are present in equal concentrations (pKa = 7). As the pH decreases, more hydrogen
ions are available, and thus, more H2S is present. Below a pH of 5, all sulfides in solution are H2S.
Carbon dioxide (CO2), which has a remarkably higher physical density than air, is mainly
an end product of the mammal’s metabolism, and it is exhaled via the respiratory tract into the
Reduction methods: gases and odor 229
ambient air, but this colorless and odorless gas is additionally formed by microbial activities in
VetBooks.ir
manure. Urea (CO[NH2]2) is converted into ammonium (NH+4 ), a hydroxyl ion (OH–), and bicar-
bonate (HCO–3) in the presence of water and urease enzymes. The formed bicarbonate evolves
into CO2 and water (Snyder et al., 2009). The enzymatic degradation of uric acid also produces
CO2. In addition to biological sources, gas-fired heaters can play a significant role in CO2 release
(e.g., CH4 + 2 O2 → CO2 + 2 H2O). Excessive exposure to CO2 impairs animal performance due
to a relatively higher uptake of the gas into the blood in comparison to oxygen (Reece and Lott,
1980). This is particularly valid for fast-growing animals, such as broilers, where oxygen would
be displaced by CO2, according to Dalton’s law of partial pressures. The resulting imbalance
between the oxygen supply and the required oxygen can even facilitate the generation of meta-
bolic diseases, such as ascites (Beker et al., 2003).
In contrast to CO2, with high toxicological tolerance in mammals but general importance for
climate change, carbon monoxide (CO) is an undesirable by-product of the incomplete com-
bustion processes of hydrocarbon fuels (e.g., 4 CH4 + 7 O2 → 2 CO2 + 2 CO + 8 H2O). Faulty
and insufficiently maintained gas-fired heaters in livestock buildings may therefore cause perfor-
mance losses (Morris et al., 1985), abortions (Pejsak et al., 2008) or even a suffocation risk for
animals when hemoglobin is excessively engaged due to the comparably higher affinity of CO
to hemoglobin than inhaled oxygen. Other sources include vehicles (e.g., tractors used in cubicle
houses for feeding purposes) or fuel-operated electricity generators for emergencies (e.g., venti-
lation failure), from which exhaust gases may enter the livestock building.
Livestock-related greenhouse gases (GHG) such as methane (CH4: colorless, odorless) and
nitrous oxide (N2O: colorless, sweetish odor) contribute to climate change (IPCC, 2013), whereas
their toxicological potential is negligible. In the case of CH4, the ruminal fermentation predom-
inantly observed in cattle and sheep is the most important biochemical process within livestock
production that causes considerable amounts of this gas to be produced by methanogenic pro-
karyotes (methanogens). Other CH4 sources belong to organic materials, such as manure, which
is decomposed in oxygen-deprived conditions (Smith et al., 2008). Methane is also released by
monogastric animals. However, considerable amounts are only derived from fermentative pro-
cesses in the hindgut of pigs. Because CH4 emissions caused by pigs account for only approxi-
mately 1% of those from dairy cattle, no strategies for reducing such emissions seem necessary
(Clemens and Ahlgrimm, 2001).
Nitrous oxide is typically produced by microbial activities in terrestrial and aquatic ecosys-
tems. It is specifically a by-product of the nitrification-denitrification process of N-containing
materials found in soils due to fertilization (i.e., mineral fertilizer) and manure decomposition
(e.g., livestock buildings with bedding material: straw and animal excreta, storage of manure
and applications for plant cultivation). Nitrification is the biological oxidation of NH+4 or NH3 via
hydroxylamine to nitrite (NO−2) or nitrate (NO3−) with a subsequent denitrification, which normally
results in the production of gaseous nitrogen (N2). This nitrogen cycle is microbiologically and aer-
obically triggered by the genera Nitrosomonas (NH3/NH4+ → NO2−) and Nitrobacter (NO−2 → NO3−)
(Butterbach-Bahl et al., 2011) and further maintained by abundant and ubiquitous bacteria, such as
Pseudomonas spp. or Flavobacterium spp., which denitrify the previous intermediate compounds
to N2 under mostly anaerobic conditions (Carlson and Ingraham, 1983; Pichinoty et al., 1976). The
magnitude of the N2O losses depends on several physical and chemical factors, such as the oxygen
concentration, carbon availability, pH value or temperature (Amon et al., 1999).
Odor is a complex mixture of inorganic (e.g., NH3, H2S) and organic (e.g., amines) gaseous
agents, which are mainly produced by the decomposition of organic matter. As parts of aerosols,
it is not surprising that odors and odorants are also associated with particles (Bottcher, 2001; Har-
tung, 1986; Lovanh et al., 2012; Mackie et al., 1998; Wang et al., 1998; Yang et al., 2014). Fur-
thermore, Cai et al. (2006, 2007a) found that swine-related volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
and odorants were present in PM, and their abundance was proportional to the PM size and pref-
erentially to PMs, which are small. However, only very low concentrations and low fractions of
odorants were found in particles measured in a pig house (Andersen et al., 2014).
230 Jens Seedorf
Odor sources are related to buildings, manure storage and treatment units and the land appli-
VetBooks.ir
cation of manure (Nicolai and Pohl, 2005). In contrast to feed and body odors, manure is clearly
regarded as the most important offensive acting substrate (Mackie et al., 1998).
The number of odorous compounds in the air, in particular, malodorous compounds, such as
dimethyl sulfide and dimethyl disulfide, can reach more than 100, and the compounds can be
detected in all livestock types (Blunden et al., 2005; Filipy et al., 2006; Rabaud et al., 2003;
Schiffman et al., 2001; Trabue et al., 2010). Within the class of odorous components, the VOCs,
and here, the volatile fatty acids (VFAs) released from microorganisms, in particular (Zhu,
2000a), represents the main fraction in odor, which significantly determines the olfactory effects
such as the intensity, quality (i.e., character) and persistence, when an individual threshold is
exceeded (Nicell, 2009; Nicolai and Pohl, 2005). Furthermore, Zahn et al. (2000) found a strong
correlation between the odor intensity and the air concentration of VOCs emitted from swine
manure management systems. The perception of broiler house odor as being more intensive than
odor from pig slurry clearly demonstrates the differences in odor types (Misselbrock et al., 1993).
There is also evidence that some odor compounds have a distinct odor compared to others and
that numerous compounds have an estimated atmospheric lifetime < 24 h (Lo et al., 2008). For
odor measurements, the dynamic olfactometry is used (EN 13725, 2003), and the results are
expressed as odorous units (OU).
From a physicochemical point of view, the odorant structure predicts the odor pleasantness,
which is also known as the odor hedonic perception (Joussain et al., 2011). The hedonic tone
(synonym: offensiveness) of odor is a strong stress-influencing factor, and it exhibits a dose-
response association (Sucker et al., 2008). It is suggested that health-related symptoms are not
mediated directly by the odor but rather by an individual’s cognitive associations between odor
and health (Greenberg et al., 2013). Similar to the inter-relationship between all odor character-
istics, the combined effects among odorants make it difficult for some odor constituents, such
as NH3 and H2S, to be easily used as odor indicators. One reason is that their odor detection is
relatively high, and their emission process may differ from the release pathways of most odorants,
as cited by Ubeda et al. (2013).
It is natural to expect odor in livestock buildings, but the need for odor reduction is typically
related to annoyance reactions and health effects in humans living in the vicinity of livestock
operations (Hooiveld et al., 2015; Schiffman, 1998; Schiffman et al., 1995, 2005; Shusterman,
1992). Therefore, odor is clearly the most important decision-making factor in permitting the con-
struction of new livestock operations. Numerical dispersion models are applied to determine the
separation distance between livestock buildings and residential areas (Guo et al., 2006), although
it is normally expected that receptors must tolerate some degree of odor annoyance based on the
local wind conditions. However, it clearly shows that any reduction in odor emission will poten-
tially increase the public acceptance of animal production facilities and increase the possibility of
meeting environmental protection demands.
16.3 CONTROL AND REDUCTION MEASURES
It is clear that there is no “gold standard” that equally guarantees a significant reduction of all
airborne pollutants within livestock houses, because cross-media effects may favor the generation
and release of one or more pollutants while other pollutants are actually mitigated. However,
all measures in the field of mitigation and abatement techniques also have to be monitored with
respect to their cost-benefit relationship, and one should focus on an appropriate win-win situa-
tion for livestock operations and the environment.
16.3.1 Ventilation
Air exchanges in mechanically and naturally ventilated animal buildings are used to create an
appropriate microclimate for livestock operations during yearly production cycles with varying
outdoor temperature and moisture conditions. A high ventilation rate during the summer is a pri-
VetBooks.ir
mary measure to prevent overheating, while the reduced air exchange during the winter preserves
heat in the barn but may cause an accumulation of moisture and airborne pollutants (e.g., Reeve
et al., 2013), which are not sufficiently removed from the interior space in any case. On the other
hand, exposure decreases during the summer due to high ventilation rates, which then cause
environmentally unfriendly higher emissions (e.g., Takai et al., 1998). The floor type and slurry
channel and their role as a boundary layer for gas transfer mechanisms, as well as the spatial and
structural inlet/outlet arrangement, the ventilation rate and the air flow pattern, determine the
magnitude of gas emissions from soiled surfaces (Aarnink, 1997; Banhazi et al., 2008; Morsing
et al., 2008; Ni, 1999; Ye Z. et al., 2008, 2009; Zhang et al., 2008). Consequently, decreasing the
air velocity, turbulence intensity and liquid temperature is shown to reduce the NH3 emission rate
(Rong et al., 2009).
Ventilation systems can be categorized into above-floor and below-floor systems, from which
the air is extracted and released into the ambient air by fans working in a negative pressure mode.
In particular, air extraction from under the floor, for perforated floors, is presumably advanta-
geous, because manure gases are mostly unable to enter the animal’s space, although the emission
load is relatively higher than that for above-floor air extraction. However, mechanical or natural
above-floor ventilation can be combined with an additional pit-exhaust unit, which can positively
influence the concentration and emission of NH3 (Saha et al., 2010; Sapounas et al., 2009; Wu,
2012).
The dimension of the ventilation rates required can be calculated for livestock operations for
different animal species and body mass (e.g., Albright, 1990; DIN 18910–1, 2004; DIN 18910,
2017). In addition to the primary aim of controlling the flow of heat and moisture between the
inner and outer areas of the livestock building using the heat and moisture balance method,
the CO2 balance can also be used to calculate the ventilation rates (Pedersen et al., 1998). This
involves the application of a ventilation indicator to ensure air quality demands. Based on an
indoor threshold limit of 3000 ppm for CO2, it is also assumed that other airborne pollutants
can be sufficiently controlled (DIN 18910–1, 2004; DIN 18910, 2017). Unfortunately, this is
not a valid rule, because the CO2 concentration is not directly correlated to that of other aerial
agents due to the different sources and varying production circumstances of the pollutants and the
lack of direct interrelations among the pollutants (e.g., NH3 from manure and CO2 from exhaled
air). Therefore, the dilution effect due to high air exchanges is either weak (Gustafsson and von
Wachenfelt, 2013) or not even real (Fig. 16.1).
16.3.2 Improvement of air quality

Reduction methods for gases affect odor. Therefore, the mitigation options described for odorous
gases, such as NH3 and H2S, also have consequences for odor. These mitigation methods may be
applicable for specific odor prevention applications.
16.3.2.1 Ammonia
16.3.2.1.1 Nutrition
Dietary or nutritional manipulation (i.e., precision feeding, such as multi-phase feeding, split-sex
feeding, etc.) can be an effective way to lower NH3 emissions by reducing excessive N excretion
or the manure pH (Carter and Kim, 2013; Xin et al., 2011) and to design a feeding program,
which also guarantees optimal animal performance (Petersen, 2010). In addition to the magnitude
of the digestibility of proteins, the content of crude protein (CP) in the diet plays a considerable
role. Reducing the content of CP from 17% to 13.5% in the diet of laying hens causes a 30%–35%
reduction in the daily N output, and the reduction in the dietary CP from approximately 21% to
18% resulted in more than a 20% reduction in the daily N output for broilers without a significant
alteration of the performance (Blair et al., 1999). Decreasing the CP by 1% relative to a standard
diet for hens resulted in a 10% decrease in the annual NH3 emission, while the hen production
232 Jens Seedorf
VetBooks.ir
Figure 16.1. Correlation between CO2 and corresponding NH3 concentrations in a forced ventilated pig-
fattening unit with a slatted floor during the summer (f(x) = 0.014x + 1.86, r = 0.73). Measure-
ments were taken over 24 hours on an hourly basis. Each data point represents the mean value
of the recorded data at seven sampling points within the barn. An assumed threshold limit of 20
ppm for NH3 is already exceeded, which is far below the threshold limit of 3000 ppm for the
ventilation indicator CO2 (dashed line).
performance was maintained (Liang et al., 2005). Modifying the feed composition is another
way to manipulate the amount of generated NH3, as shown by Roberts et al. (2007a, 2007b),
who included high-fiber ingredients in the diet of laying hen with 10% corn dried distillers grains
with solubles (DDGS, a co-product of the ethanol industry, see details in Nitrayová et al., 2012;
Spiehs et al., 2002; US Grains Council, 2012); this resulted in a decrease in NH3 emissions from
the manure without negative effects on egg production. An explanation for this observation is that
the pH of the manure causes a shift of the NH3-NH+4 equilibrium toward the water-soluble NH+4
and inhibition of bacterial enzymes, which normally needs relatively higher pH values to break
down uric acid to NH3. However, Roberts (2009) later detected no reduction in the NH3 emission
when laying hens were fed with a diet containing 15% DDGS. Other effective ingredients to
abate NH3 releases are related to the use of yucca, zeolite and tannin extracts (Çabuk et al., 2004;
Powell et al., 2011a).
For both poultry and livestock mammals, varying the diet composition can positively influ-
ence the NH3 output. Hayes et al. (2004) have shown that the NH3 emission rates per animal for
130, 160, 190 and 220 g kg−1 CP diets were 3.11, 3.89, 5.89 and 8.27 g per day (d) and animal,
respectively, and there was no significant difference in the average daily intake and the average
daily gain for the four diets. Non-starch carbohydrates (coconut expeller, soybean hulls, dried
sugar-beet pulp) as the diet ingredient in pig feed caused a significant decrease in NH3 emissions
as the level of carbohydrates increased, whereas soybean hulls had the largest effect on the reduc-
tion of NH3 emissions due to the decreasing pH values in the slurry (Canh et al., 1998a). Under
simulated field conditions, adding 1% adipic acid in the diet for pigs led to a reduction of 25%
in the NH3 emission, relative to that of the controls, because adipic acid lowers the urinary pH
and, as a result, the NH3 release (van Kempen, 2001). A comparable effect is observed when 2%
benzoic acid is added to pig diets (Eriksen et al., 2010).
In principle, decreasing N excretion upon the reduction of dietary N intake can also be
observed in cattle, and increasing the dietary mineral content may also be performed to increase
the urine volume and thus reduce the urinary N concentration (Dijkstra et al., 2013). However,
CP reduction in dairy cattle diets to reduce NH3 emissions is presumably less promising, because
VetBooks.ir
no significant effect on the NH3 emission rates from the barn floor was observed (Li et al., 2009).
However, in contrast to this result, another study demonstrated that dairy diets with reduced CP
and ruminally degraded protein concentrations will produce manure with a lower NH3-emitting
potential without affecting the cow performance, if specific metabolizable protein requirements
are met (Agle et al., 2010). Furthermore, urinary urea N is the principal nitrogen source that con-
trols the emission of NH3 and N2O from dairy manure. Powell et al. (2014) observed that each 1
mg dL−1 decrease in the milk urea N resulted in an associated daily decrease in the urinary urea
N of 16.6 g per cow, which decreased NH3 and N2O emissions from manure by 7 to 12%. This
relationship offers a great opportunity to determine the consumed dietary CP in excess of the
required amount by monitoring the milk urea N concentration and to predict the NH3 emission
from dairy cattle manure (Burgos et al., 2010; Powell et al., 2011b).
In addition to the sole DDGS feeding, the effect of its combination with either inorganic or
organic trace mineral sources on air emissions has been investigated by Li et al. (2011), who
measured the concentrations and airflow of NH3, H2S, N2O, CH4, CO2, and non-methane total
hydrocarbons (NMTHCs). Compared with the NH3 emitted on a corn and soybean meal-based
control diets, the daily mass of the NH3 emitted decreased by 7.6% when pigs were fed with a diet
containing 20% DDGS with inorganic trace mineral sources and increased by 11.0% when a diet
containing 20% DDGS with organic trace mineral sources was fed. Furthermore, feeding DDGS
with either inorganic or organic trace mineral sources increased the daily emission masses of CH4
and NMTHC but not N2O emissions. The authors finally concluded that DDGS will increase the
H2S, CH4, NH3 and NMTHC emissions from pigs, but organic sources of trace minerals are a
promising mitigation strategy to alleviate the adverse effect of DDGS on H2S emissions.
16.3.2.1.2 Fecal technology
As already demonstrated, the generation of NH3 is mainly a bacteria-driven process. Any mea-
sures against microbial activities must therefore affect the amount of releasable gases. This obser-
vation is particularly true for water as an influencing factor, because bacterial activity is highly
dependent on the moisture available in a degradable substrate. The drier the environmental con-
ditions for microorganisms, the lower their metabolic activities and therefore their potential to
produce NH3 and other undesired agents, such as odor. This principle is well established in influ-
encing the magnitude of dry matter in the droppings of poultry, for instance. The application of
aerated conveyor belt systems results in a high dry matter in the bird’s droppings in conjunction
with frequent manure removal. The drying rate of the manure and the frequency of removal are
crucial to the emission. A minimum emission from manure is achieved if a dry matter content
of 60% is reached within 50 h after the excretion of feces (Groot Koerkamp, 1994). Depending
on the natural or forced drying on the belt and the seasonal climate, manure leaving manure belt
houses will have a moisture content of less than 30% to 60%, and it emits less NH3 (Xin et al.,
2011). Expressed in emission figures, Fabbri and co-authors (2007) have shown that the NH3
emission reduction factor for ventilated belts compared to a deep-pit technique was 61% in lay-
ing hen houses, which has been confirmed by Fournel and colleagues (2012), who stated that the
manure belt systems reduced NH3 emissions by between 92% and 94% for a deep-pit system in
cage layer housing systems. However, in alternative barns for keeping hens, such as small-group
housing systems equipped with small aviaries, conveyor belt systems can cause an NH3 reduc-
tion of 66%, and in conjunction with frequent manure removal, an NH3 reduction of 82% can be
achieved, as cited in a LUFA report (2014).
Feces and urine segregation is a widely tested measure to reduce the contact between urease
enzymes in the feces and the urea in urine. According to Ndegwa et al. (2008), this is mainly
fulfilled by two basic methods. One method uses a conveyor belt to separate urine and feces,
with urine flowing into a pit, while the feces left on the belt are conveyed into a separate collec-
tor. The other method drains urine away from feces into a urine pit immediately after discharge
using appropriate floor designs, while the feces are scraped or washed into a separate feces pit.
234 Jens Seedorf
Considering these basic methods, the conveyor belt, the pre-cast grooves in a concrete floor with
VetBooks.ir
a scraper, the V-shaped pit floor with a gutter at the V and the sloped (3%) solid floor reduced NH3
emissions by 47%–49%, 46%, 50%–65% and 21%, respectively, as reviewed by Ndegwa et al.
(2008). By frequently flushing the floor in free stall dairy houses with water, NH3 emission can
be decreased to approximately 30%, but the amount of slurry was roughly doubled by the flush
water (Kroodsma et al., 1993). Alternatively, flushing and static pit recharge with a lagoon efflu-
ent resulted in significantly less NH3, H2S, and odor emissions in piggeries (Lim et al., 2004). On
the other hand, no significant reduction in NH3 emissions was found by Retz et al. (2011), who
applied a multifunctional cleaning device to remove manure from a slatted floor in a dairy barn.
The architecture, dimensions, materials of slatted and solid floors and the manure removal
management determine the magnitude of NH3 emissions (e.g., Aarnink et al., 1997; Philippe et
al., 2011a; Swierstra et al., 2001). In addition, considering the behavior of pigs, pens with par-
tially slatted floors must offer separate functional areas for lying, eating and dunging. Thus, the
solid part of the floor can be kept free from feces, and NH3 emissions are reduced compared to
fully slatted floors (Philippe et al., 2011a).
In addition to slurry-based mitigation measures, reduction potentials for NH3 can also be
observed for housing systems with litter (Philippe et al., 2011a). For indoor concentrations and
emissions based on a 500-kg live weight (livestock unit), lower NH3 burdens are generally deter-
mined for litter-based cattle houses (Groot Koerkamp et al., 1998), although N2O releases are
frequently greater than those in liquid manure-based barns (Philippe et al., 2011b). Low airborne
pollutant concentrations in litter-based housing systems might be due to the relatively high air
exchanges in naturally ventilated livestock buildings, but this may then cause relatively higher
emissions. The advantage of a litter-based system with respect to low NH3 release is only recog-
nizable if a proper management of bedding materials exists. To enable a complete adsorption of
urine, the regular addition or replenishment of fresh, clean and dry bedding material is vital in
maintaining a low level of NH3 release. The integration of sloped floors and gutters, which enable
rapid drainage and removal of urine, is a supportive measure in conjunction with straw-based sys-
tems. Any unnecessary moistening of the bedding material by improper water equipment mainte-
nance (e.g., leakages in the drinking water system) and evaporative cooler-related water droplets
that fall to the litter must also be prevented. By contrast, when litter is too dry, it becomes dusty
and can cause health problems in animals and humans and elevated emissions. Carey et al. (2004)
therefore recommend an optimum litter moisture within the range of 25% to 35% to minimize
odor and dust releases.
Alternative bedding materials other than straw, for instance, represent an additional way to
positively influence the NH3 emission behavior. In this context, Spiehs et al. (2013a) conducted
a lab-scale experiment with a cattle manure corn stover compared to pine wood chips and dry
and green cedar chips and their impact on airborne NH3 concentrations. For dry and green cedar,
they obtained significantly lower concentrations than bedded packs containing pine chips or corn
stover.
Using a trampoline floor, which is a type of litter drying by sucking air through the bedding
material, reduced the NH3 emission by up to 72% in broiler houses (Arkenau et al., 1997). Due
to the reduced moisture in the litter of the trampoline system, the abundance of specific mites in
this system was 800 times less than in a conventional system (Ehrnsberger and Dabert, 2001),
which may led to the assumption that the allergen pressure by mites is also lowered by the new
system. However, this advantage was accompanied by an increase in the amount of molds in the
litter and a four times higher fungi aerial concentration in the livestock house with a trampoline
floor compared to a conventional broiler barn (DBU, 1997).
16.3.2.1.3 Additives
A wide range of additives is available to reduce the generation and emission of undesired
gases by manipulating the physicochemical and biological properties of manure (Cook et
al., 2011). Such chemical interventions are related to urease inhibition, sodium bisulfate
(NaHSO4) applications, ammonium binding agents, acidification or titanium dioxide (TiO2)

VetBooks.ir
contacts. Typically, in laboratory experiments, the use of urease inhibitors, which are chemi-
cally attributed to triamide or diamidate derivatives, is monitored. Weekly additions of 10, 40
or 100 mg of phenyl phosphorodiamidate (PPDA) per L of cattle waste (5.6 g urea L−1) pre-
vented the hydrolysis of 38%, 48% and 70% of the urea after 28 days, respectively. With swine
waste (2.5 g urea L−1), these PPDA concentrations prevented the hydrolysis of 72%, 92% and
92% of the urea after 28 days (Varel, 1997). An additional laboratory study was conducted by
Parker and coworkers (2005), who evaluated how the rate and frequency of the urease inhib-
itor application affects NH3 emissions from simulated beef cattle feedyard manure surfaces.
Additionally, synthetic urine was added every two days to the manure surface. N−(n−butyl)
thiophosphoric triamide (NBPT) applied every 8 days was the most effective strategy, with 1
and 2 kg NBPT per ha treatments resulting in a 49% and 69% reduction in the NH3 emission
rates, respectively.
A single application of a high concentration of a urease inhibitor at the beginning of a 4-d-long
experiment in a dairy cubicle house showed an average decrease in urease activity of 66%. An
increase of the urease activity was measured again on day two of the experiment. A daily applica-
tion of a lower concentration of the inhibitor over three days resulted in a reduction of the urease
activity over a trial period of four days by an average of 88%. Therefore, a potential NH3 emis-
sion reduction of 40%–50% is expected (Leinker, 2007). Contradictory results were obtained
by Panetta et al. (2005), who found that the NH3 concentrations increased by 140% compared
with the control group with no additive when 152 µL L−1 NBPT was added to pig manure under
laboratory conditions.
In controlled yard studies, in which beef cattle had controlled access to the yard, pressure
washing and the use of a urease inhibitor NBPT in addition to yard scraping were effective ways
of reducing emissions compared with yard scraping alone. Statistical analysis of data, which
were collected on two commercial farms, has shown that pressure washing significantly reduces
emission rates with a predicted reduction of 93%. Water use during pressure washing was esti-
mated at 4–6 L m−2. For the urease inhibitor, a non-significant reduction of 38% was predicted
(Misselbrock et al., 2006).
The application of a urease inhibitor is not limited to the manure of mammals; it can also
successfully be used in poultry houses (Singh et al., 2009). In a 21-d study, Singh et al. (2005)
evaluated the effectiveness of a commercially available urease inhibitor in reducing NH3 emis-
sions from used broiler litter. After 14 d, there was an approximately 42% lower NH3 concentra-
tion compared to the control. This seems to be surprising at first glance because instead of urea,
uric acid is excreted by birds targeted by enzymes, which normally differ from urease. Hence,
the process for decomposing uric acid into NH3 includes a reaction chain consisting of uricase,
urease and other enzymes, which are contributed by microorganisms (e.g., Barnes and Impey,
1974; Cook et al., 2008; Rothrock et al., 2008a; Rouf and Lomprey, 1968). Uricase converts
uric acid into allantoin, which is later converted into glyoxylate and urea. With the addition of
water, urease breaks urea down into NH3 and CO2, as summarized by Ritz et al. (2004). Urease
inhibitor application measures are generally effective, but a continuous buildup of urea may
require a higher inhibitor application rate over time (Parker et al., 2005), which makes a suitable
cost-benefit ratio questionable.
Metals and minerals have also been tested for their usefulness in reducing NH3. Zinc (Zn) and
copper (Cu) greatly blocked the activity of microbial uricase, and ZnSO4 significantly reduced
the number of uric acid-utilizing microorganisms. When poultry manure (300 g) was mixed with
ZnSO4 to create manure concentrations of Zn at 1% and 2% (wt/wt), these treatments signifi-
cantly increased the manure uric acid and total nitrogen retention by reducing the NH3 volatiliza-
tion compared to the control during a 3-week incubation (Kim and Patterson, 2003). Dietary Zn
applications also reduced the NH3 concentration when hens were fed with 1000 and 2000 ppm Zn
(Kim and Patterson, 2005); in addition, for broilers, positive effects were observed with Zn doses
in the feed (Kim and Patterson, 2004).
236 Jens Seedorf
Both enzyme inhibitors and litter amendments, such as NaHSO4, have found their way into poultry
VetBooks.ir
operations, as NH3 reducing agents along with their positive side effect with respect to the improved
footpad quality in broilers (Li et al., 2013). The portfolio of additional available amendments includes
further pH-modifying agents, such as alum, and ammonium binders, such as zeolite, sphagnum moss
and yucca plant extracts, as exemplarily reviewed by Ndegwa et al. (2008) and Ullman et al. (2004).
However, a desired effect of additives is not obvious in any case, as shown by Amon et al. (1997),
who treated a broiler house with the zeolite clinoptilolite and recorded a statistically 50% greater NH3
mass emission than in the control. No successful NH3 reduction was observed from straw litter by
Jeppsson (1999), who applied an additive containing sea algae and vegetable oils.
It is possible that applied additives cause unknown side effects or impacts, which are difficult
to estimate. In addition to the possible uncontrollable effects on crops or pastures, where the
manure is eventually applied as a fertilizer (Ndegwa et al., 2008), the undesired effects may
already have begun indoors. In the case of alum, for example, with its NH3-reducing potential
(Burns et al., 2008), Rothrock et al. (2008b) observed a change in the microbial community in
poultry litter, where there is not only the advantage of a significant reduction of Campylobacter
jejuni and Escherichia coli concentrations in the litter but also a significant change in the fungal
population with a considerable increase of Aspergillus spp., which can cause severe diseases
in poultry (Akan et al., 2002; Okoye et al., 1989), and an increase in occupational exposure
events with potential hypersensitivity reactions (Sabino et al., 2012). In summary, it is important
to determine appropriate additives and application methods to ensure that these additives are
not only extremely effective but also safe for livestock animals and humans, and this must also
include precautionary measures.
Similar to the pH-reducing effect of NaHSO4 for solid manure, the reduction of pH through
acidification in liquid manure is also an effective way to reduce NH3 emissions due to recent
observations of CH4 evolution (Monteny and Erisman, 1998; Petersen et al., 2012). Lowering the
cow slurry pH with sulfuric acid (H2SO4) to 5.5 decreased the NH3 volatilization by 95%, while
lowering the pig slurry pH to 6.0 decreased the NH3 volatilization by 82% (Stevens et al., 1989).
Although H2SO4 is usually applied, other organic and inorganic acids can be used (Ndegwa et al.,
2008). Acidification of manure in a slurry storage tank is one option, but it can also be basically
conducted within livestock buildings. Ndegwa et al. (2014) investigated a manure-flush system
with closed-loop flush water, which was adjusted to pH 4.5 using H2SO4. The authors recorded
a 70% reduction of NH3 emissions in a dairy barn. For pig slurry, Sindhöj and Rodhe (2013)
pumped manure from the manure channels within the pig shed to a tank outside, in which H2SO4
was added. A part of the slurry was then pumped back into the manure channel, which also caused
a pH reduction there. A comparable, commercially available technology reduces NH3 emissions
with an efficiency of 64% when it is applied in finishing pig units, but the acidification system has
no verified reducing effects on odor emissions (VERA, 2016). However, the use of strong acids
requires protection measures not only for farm workers in terms of burns but also with respect to
potential toxic H2S releases when the pH is lowered and manure is agitated (Borst, 2001; VERA,
2016; Wang et al., 2014). Therefore, adequate manure technologies are required.
A specific group of additives belong to the so-called bioactive or effective microorganisms
(EM), which can be fed or applied to reduce the amount of airborne pollutants. It is thought that
these groups of microorganisms are beneficial due to their predominant presence when they are
inoculated in a mixed microbial environment, such as manure. Once in contact with “indigenous”
microorganisms, competitive and antagonistic activities have an impact on the production and,
therefore, on the subsequent release of gaseous pollutants. However, unfortunately, the results in
this field are not conclusive. On one hand, Amon et al. (2004) observed an NH3 reduction in cattle
slurry but not in pig slurry. On the other hand, no significant differences in terms of odor, NH3,
and H2S concentrations and emissions were observed between EM-treated and untreated units in
pit manure systems from swine operations (Rahman et al., 2011).
Applying EM to slurry increased NH3 volatilization, although this only led to a significant
increase in the NH3 emission when the slurry was incubated at 35°C and mixed regularly, as
concluded by Van der Stelt et al. (2007). The observed increase in the NH3 volatilization when
VetBooks.ir
EM was applied to slurry is probably related to the low dry matter content of the slurry, which
was previously stated by Amon et al. (2004). The results suggest that confounding factors have
to be considered if further investigations are conducted with EM.
16.3.2.1.4 Physical measures
Together with water, temperature is a relevant factor and cofactor in combination with the air
flow rate, for example. According to the van’t Hoff rule, chemical reactions become faster
with increasing temperatures, and more NH3 is then subsequently produced. Therefore, low-
ering the manure temperature will inevitably reduce NH3 production (e.g., Andersson, 1998;
Gustafsson et al., 2005). The amount of NH3 released also depends on the air velocity and the
turbulence intensity over the polluted surfaces (Rong, 2011). If these surfaces are large and
heavily polluted, the NH3 emissions are also larger than those over small and less polluted
surfaces (KTBL, 2006). There is a statistically significant relationship between the percentage
of soiled surfaces on piggery floors and ammonia concentrations in the buildings (Banhazi et
al., 2008).
Photocatalytic oxidation mediated by TiO2 paint causes a break down or transformation of
NH3 and GHG, as demonstrated by Guarino et al. (2008), who showed a reduction of the NH3
concentration from 5.41 to 3.76 mg m−3 in a swine farrowing barn with corresponding emission
rates of 16.33 kg a−1 LU−1 (livestock unit) versus 11.37 kg a−1 LU−1. Later, Costa et al. (2012)
observed significant decreases in the CH4 concentration (approx. 27%) and PM10 (particulate
matter ≤ 10 μm in diameter) emission (approximately 17%) together with an increase of the
piglets’ performance. According to a citation in a report of Groenestein et al. (2011), restricted
contact time and contamination of the coating by the attachment of particles are probably the
most dominant limiting factors with respect to the effectiveness of TiO2. The aforementioned
report also provides a comprehensive overview on NH3 abatement principles and evaluates the
efficiency of NH3 abatement.
Some studies have explored the effectiveness of air ionization (see below) in poultry houses
to reduce NH3. Mitchell et al. (2004) and Ritz et al. (2006) found a reduction of NH3 concentra-
tions by an average of 56% and 13%, respectively, and an electrostatic particle ionization system
successfully reduced NH3 emission rates by as much as 17% (Jerez et al., 2013). These positive
results could not be reproduced by Cambra-López et al. (2009), because ionization did not have
a relevant effect on both NH3 and odor emissions from broiler houses.
16.3.2.2 Hydrogen sulfide
Specific reduction measures for H2S are rare, and they are mostly associated with odor mitigation
because direct positive correlations between both parameters were observed or modeled using a
multi-linear regression approach (Akdeniz et al., 2012; Blanes-Vidal et al., 2009; Zhou and Zang,
2003). However, other statements claim that a reduction in the concentration of H2S does not
guarantee a substantial reduction of the odor nuisance, because H2S in many effluents provides
only a small contribution to the odor strength of the total effluent (Jacobsen et al., 1997; WHO,
2000).
Dietary sulfur reduction appears to be a method to reduce H2S release, at least at the bench
scale (Clark et al., 2005a). This observation is in line with the observations of Eriksen et al.
(2010), who observed that a diet supplementation with benzoic acid reduced H2S and dimethyl
trisulfide but interacted with dietary sulfur components, which may increase sulfur gas emissions.
Trabue and Kerr (2014) used DDGS as a pig diet supplement to determine the magnitude
of GHG, NH3 and H2S emissions caused by the diet in comparison with a standard feed of
corn-soybean meal. This study demonstrated that DDGS is potentially able to decrease the emis-
sions of NH3 and H2S.
238 Jens Seedorf
16.3.2.2.2 Manure treatment
VetBooks.ir
In addition to diet manipulation, direct interventions on manure treatments have also been con-
sidered. Predicala et al. (2008) added nitrite and molybdate salts to fresh manure under laboratory
and semi-pilot-scale conditions and found a reduced H2S emission from swine manure and the
associated health and safety concerns but only a small impact on the odor intensity.
Although agitation of manure caused the release of dangerous concentrations of H2S, low-
level air bubbling through slurry in a bench-scale experiment reduced the peak H2S emission
when the slurry was agitated suddenly (Clark et al., 2005a). This is probably caused by a shift
from anaerobic conditions to more aerobic activities in the manure. The type of slurry agitation
also determines the magnitude of H2S release. When a mixing unit is inserted into a deep pit, the
impeller is located relatively near the bottom of the pit, where the manure contains relatively
higher concentrations of H2S, which is then transported from the bottom layers of the pit closer to
the slurry surface or dispersed into the pit headspace, thus increasing the potential for H2S release
into the air (Swestka, 2010). Consequently, alternative manure agitation methods must be exam-
ined. A less mechanically based measure involves the use of a stable aqueous foam-microbial
medium to control the emissions of odorous compounds and H2S by applying the foam on the
surface of manure (Park et al., 2006).
Notably, all actions with an unknown output with respect to the potential H2S release require
precautionary measures. In addition to gas detection by electronic sensors (Muhlbauer et al.,
2008) and the inclusion of a ventilation control outside (Swestka, 2010), it is particularly advis-
able that individuals entering a manure storage facility should use a self-contained breathing
apparatus and wear a safety belt or harness with a line attached. An observer that can retrieve
the individual inside the facility should also be present outside the facility in the event of a toxic
exposure (Hallam et al., 2012).
16.3.2.3 Carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide

The livestock sector globally accounts for 9% of anthropogenic CO2 emissions, which are mainly
caused by land-use changes, such as deforestation (FAO, 2006). Thus, only agricultural non-CO2
sources, such as CH4 and N2O, are reported as anthropogenic GHG emissions, because the CO2
emitted is considered a neutral emission, as it is associated with annual cycles of carbon fixation
and oxidation through photosynthesis (IPCC, 2014). This view is also shared by the World Mete-
orological Organization (WMO, 2010), which stated that the contribution of livestock farming to
the current amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere is very low, thus making livestock a net zero source
of CO2 (Pitesky et al., 2009). Therefore, it can be concluded that comprehensive countermeasures
are not necessary from an environmental point of view, and any efforts to control CO2 are more
justified in terms of the indoor concentrations, which must not exceed the recommended thresh-
old limit values (TLVs) to protect animals and humans; this is a circumstance that is particularly
important during the winter with low ventilation rates and for raising juvenile animals with their
thermal comfort requirements. Therefore, attention should be focused on gas-fired heaters and the
corresponding CO2 emission potential, because these devices are widely distributed in livestock
operations. In this context, it is worthwhile to consider a selection of fuel types, because the
amounts of CO2 emissions during the combustion of fuels are considerably different (CO2 emis-
sions related to net heat of combustion for natural gas: 198 kg MWh−1, propane: 235 kg MWh−1
and butane: 239 kg MWh−1, BMG Engineering, 2009), and this makes CO2 minimization efforts
theoretically possible in barns.
To prevent CO2 accumulation and avoid exceeding exposure limits in livestock buildings,
alternative heating techniques are recommended (Anthony et al., 2014). Gas-fired heaters with
flue-gas disposal do not enrich the interior with CO2 because the combustion residues are drained
outside the building, and the generated heat in the combustion chamber is released into the barn
via a heat exchange module. However, CO2 accumulation cannot be totally avoided when air-
to-air heat exchangers are operated (Bokkers et al., 2010). These devices heat up fresh air from
outside with warm air taken from inside the house and then finally blow the warm air into the
barn. The warm air from inside is generated by the operation of conventional gas-fired heaters,
VetBooks.ir
for example. Other alternative heating methods are earth-tube heat exchangers (Hessel et al.,
2011), cavity- and channel-based heat exchangers (Krommweh et al., 2013), solar collectors
(MWPS, 1983), waste heat from biogas plants (Kaths, 2012) and geothermal heat pumps (Choi
et al., 2012). Infrared lamps are used as zone heating devices and are less suitable for warming
the entire space of a barn.
An effective control of CO2 will also decrease the risk of the occurrence of toxic CO, because
an aerial concentration of 660 ppm CO causes approximately 50% carboxyhemoglobin, which
presents a potential life-threatening situation due to the blockade of blood oxygenation (Forth
et al., 1983). Therefore, in livestock buildings with common gas-fired heaters, frequent mainte-
nance is necessary, and proper operation can be verified by measurements to confirm the safety
levels (Pejsak et al., 2008). By considering impaired animal performance, there appears to be a
threshold concentration between 200 and 300 ppm CO for weanling pigs (Morris et al., 1985).
16.3.2.4 Methane and nitrous oxide

Livestock management activities to reduce CH4 emissions from enteric fermentation and subse-
quent eructation fall into three general categories: improved feeding practices, the use of specific
agents or dietary additives, and longer term management changes and animal breeding (Beauche-
min and McGinn, 2008; Clark, 2013; Hristov et al., 2013a; Johnson and Johnson, 1995; Morgavi
et al., 2011; Smith et al., 2008). Particular attention must be paid to the nutritive requirements
of animals because of their influence on animal performance (e.g., milk quality and quantity)
and the physiological demands on an adequate ruminal activity are important to guarantee the
well-being of the animals. Dietary manipulations are also a promising way to monitor the use-
fulness of additives for mitigation strategies. Ionophores, in particular, were tested to reduce
CH4 emissions from cattle facilities. A critical point in the field of ionophores is the application
of monensin as a feed additive (prevents ketosis and has antimicrobial properties). Although
ionophores should be capable of reducing CH4 production by 25% (Tedeschi et al., 2003), the
increased public pressure to reduce the use of antimicrobials in animal agriculture suggests that
monensin is not the best solution for CH4 abatement (Beauchemin et al., 2008). Inconsistent
effects of monensin on CH4 in dairy cattle have also been observed (Grainger et al., 2010), which
also does not favor the application of monensin.
Reducing the excreted N and degradable organic carbon (C) is an effective way to reduce CH4
and N2O emissions. Nitrous oxide, as a by-product of nitrification and denitrification processes,
depends on diverse environmental factors, such as temperature, moisture content and the avail-
ability of degradable organic carbon. However, due to the difficulties in effectively controlling
these factors over long periods, mitigation options seem to be unrealistic. Therefore, managing
the fate of ammoniacal N is essential to the success of N2O and CH4 mitigation, because NH3 is an
important component in the cycling of N through manure, soil, crops and animal feeds. Environ-
mentally friendly manure application techniques, nitrification inhibitors or practices to increase
the plant N uptake can potentially reduce N2O emissions (Montes et al., 2013).
For a holistic approach, a systematic consideration of all currently known technical interven-
tions is necessary; this has not only proven to be effective at the animal’s level but also at the farm
level, and it includes manure storage, grazing management, composting, biofiltration and many
other actions (Gerber et al., 2013). With this in mind and according to the declared agricultural
mitigation options of the IPCC (2014), a synthesis of known interventions for CH4 and N2O has
been created as an overview in Figure 16.2. Moreover, Borhan and co-authors (2012) provide
a summary of the CH4 reduction potentials based on the percent of mitigation measures with
respect to dairy cows.
16.3.2.5 Odor
Many methods of reducing odor nuisances are related to the effectiveness of NH3 mitiga-
tion (McGinn, 2001; Sutton et al., 1999). This was generally confirmed by Ogink and Groot
240 Jens Seedorf
VetBooks.ir
Figure 16.2. Literature-based factors that influence the reduction potentials for CH4 and N2O by applying
diverse enteric, manure and animal mitigation options. Identical mitigation applications among
the main categories (bold) are not sorted out due to partly different thematic allocations to the
mitigation categories in the references (1modified from Cottle et al., 2011, with permission
from CSIRO Publishing; derived from 2Montes et al., 2013 and 3Hristov et al., 2013b).
Koerkamp (2001) and subsequently by Mol and Ogink (2004), who concluded that methods for
the restriction of the emitting surface and manure cooling in pig husbandry are generally able to
reduce both NH3 and odor emission; however, in poultry houses, the effects of methods for NH3
reduction cannot be directly extrapolated to odor emission.
VetBooks.ir
Concerning dietary manipulations, it is therefore not surprising that a reduction of CP or sup-

plementing amino acids (AA) in diets reduces the N excretion in manure and hence reduces
not only NH3 but also odor emission from it, as reviewed by Le et al. (2005) or Rahman and
Borhan (2012). According to Le (2006) and Le et al. (2007), a decrease of the dietary CP from
18% to 12% and the supplementing of essential AA reduced the odor emission from pig manure
by 80%; moreover, when coupled with low levels of sulfur-containing AA, odor becomes less
unpleasant. However, reducing the dietary CP from 15% to 12% did not reduce odor emission
(Le et al., 2009). A further example is presented by Hayes et al. (2004), who fed four diets to
pigs containing 130, 160, 190 and 220 g kg−1 CP and recorded odor emissions of 12.1, 13.2, 19.6
and 17.6 OUE (European odor unit) per second and animal. Leek et al. (2007) concluded that no
significant advantage was gained in the odor emission rate from reducing the CP level below 160
g kg−1, which equals 16% CP, for finishing pigs. Although the NH3 emissions decreased, Otto et
al. (2003) also observed that pig manure from a 9% and 6% CP diet has a more offensive odor and
is unable to decrease the fecal VFA concentration when compared with a 15% CP diet.
The use of fermentable carbohydrates (FC) and non-starch carbohydrates in diets is presum-
ably advantageous, because N excretion is moved from the urine to the feces, and the pH of
manure is lowered by an increase of VFAs. This observation is obviously related to NH3 mitiga-
tion, but it can also affect the odor in terms of VFAs, because the increase of the VFA concentra-
tion may increase and/or reduce the concentration of other compounds and the odor concentration
(Le et al., 2005). However, the results are not consistent. Lynch et al. (2008) obtained a signifi-
cant increase of odor emissions by 41%, when pigs were offered sugar-beet pulp, and according
to DeCamp et al. (2001), which was cited in Le et al. (2005) where there was a 20% reduction
in the aerial NH3, a 32% reduction in H2S and an 11% reduction in the odor concentration in
the headspace air of manure when soybean hulls were added to the diet of pigs. No remarkable
effect regarding the odor level and hedonic tone in the exhaust air of manure storage vessels was
observed by Clark et al. (2005b), who fed pigs with different CP levels together with non-starch
polysaccharide ingredients.
In addition to the nutritional value of DDGS, this type of feed is also involved in manure man-
agement issues. The usefulness of DDGS as a pig diet component for odor reduction was deter-
mined by Gralapp et al. (2002). They reported no significant treatment effects on odor; however,
a non-significant linear trend was observed for increasing odor concentrations with an increasing
dietary content of DDGS. This finding is in general agreement with the observation of Spiehs
et al. (2000, 2012a), who concluded that feeding 20% DDGS does not reduce H2S, NH3 and
odor levels over a 10-week manure storage period. Hao et al. (2009) recommended the restric-
tion of wheat DDGS to a maximum of 20% in cattle diets to limit malodors. A recent study has
shown that the manure from pigs fed with diets containing DDGS had significantly lower odorant
emissions, expressed in animal units, for H2S and NH3 compared with pigs fed with a corn and
soybean meal diet, but emissions of VFA and phenolic compounds were significantly higher for
manures from animals fed the DDGS diet. There was no significant difference for indole com-
pound emissions due to the dietary treatment applied. However, there were no significant differ-
ences in the odor emissions for either diet, as quantified by human panels or measured as the sum
total of the odor activity value (Trabue et al., 2016). These observations are partially in agreement
with the results from Poulsen et al. (2012), who have shown that feeding a DDGS-containing
diet to pigs actually resulted in a lower H2S net production rate along the large intestine but a
significantly higher net production rate of methanethiol (methyl mercaptane), which is a gas with
a smell similar to rotten cabbage that is typically released from decaying organic matter and ani-
mal feces (PubChem, 2016). In relation to the odor, this increased methanethiol net production
overshadows that of H2S, and consequently, feeding the DDGS diet may lead to increased odor
emission compared to a wheat and barley standard diet; however, this should be verified through
studies including actual olfactometry measurements.
242 Jens Seedorf
A variant of DDGS is the wet distillers grains with solubles (WDGS). In fresh slurry samples
VetBooks.ir
collected from steers fed with different proportions of WDGS, the NH3, H2S, indole, phenol,
isovalerate, isobutyrate and acetate significantly increased with increasing amounts of WDGS in
the diet. Other odorants, including skatole, caproate, valerate, butyrate and propionate, were sig-
nificantly greater in manure slurries from cattle fed with 20% or 40% WDGS compared to those
fed with 0% WDGS (Varel et al., 2008). Subsequently, Varel and co-authors (2010) monitored a
40% proportion of WDGS in the feed of steers and concluded that their results supported earlier
studies, in which increases of odor emissions are likely when WDGS is fed. These observations
are in line with the findings of Spiehs and Varel (2009), who offered feedlot cattle increasing
amounts of WDGS. The authors finally determined increased NH3 and H2S emissions from the
feedlot as well as increased phosphorus (P), N and S intake and excretion, which may contrib-
ute to the production of odorous compounds; however, it does not appear to increase the highly
odorous compounds p-cresol, indole or skatole. Hales and colleagues (2012) have also shown
that different grain processing methods (steam-flaked corn or dry-rolled corn and the inclusion of
corn-based WDGS) also influence the generation of volatile substances in the urine and feces of
feedlot steers. Overall, the presence of starch in the feces was likely the determining factor for the
initial accumulation of odorous compounds in the fecal slurries.
The effects of land application method (surface-applying manure with no-tillage vs. incorpo-
rating manure using disk tillage), soil moisture content, and the time after the manure application
on VOC emissions were monitored in conjunction with cattle diets containing 0%, 10%, or 30%
WDGS. In general, the largest emissions of VOCs were measured during the initial collection
periods on the no-tillage plots under dry soil moisture conditions. Emissions of VFA and aro-
matics were reduced after water addition because these compounds were stored in the soil-water
matrix rather than released into the atmosphere. In contrast, sulfide emissions generally increased
with the addition of the water, especially on the plots containing manure from the 30% WDGS
diet. The sulfur content of manure increases with higher percentages of the WDGS feed stock
(Woodbury et al., 2014).
Within the class of simple composite additives, calcium salts in diets, for example, are mainly
used to alter the pH of urine and manure (Canh et al., 1998b). Because this measure predomi-
nantly targets NH3 reduction, it is proposed that this type of NH3 mitigation should also have
positive effects on the prevention of odor generation (Le et al., 2005). Other efforts are related
to the addition of plant components, such as feeding of yucca extracts, which results in an inef-
fectual reduction of odor (Amon et al., 1995) in contrast to the results of Alam et al. (2013),
who added an oregano lippia seed oil extract to feces samples of pigs for in vitro fermentation
and found an odor reduction due to a modified bacterial diversity. A direct dietary microbial
intervention (Sutton et al., 1999), for example, was realized by Chang and Chen (2003), who fed
a lactobacilli-containing probiotic to broilers and found a reduced malodor score, confirmed by
sensory panelists.
A relatively complex study was conducted by Sharma et al. (2017), who determined the effect
of a low and high CP and several diet-related additives (antibiotic, probiotic, saponin) on the odor
flux from meat chicken litter. In general, the low CP diet, probiotic and saponin were effective in
reducing the emissions of some key odorants (e.g., lower flux of dimethylamine, trimethylamine,
H2S, NH3, and phenol caused by a low CP or high CP plus probiotic produced a lower flux of H2S
and high CP and saponin produced a lower flux of trimethylamine and phenol in the litter com-
pared to high nutritional doses of CP). Less complex are the measures of diet manipulation by
changing from dry to liquid feed to reduce odor, as shown by Hobbs et al. (1997). They revealed
that the pig slurry from a fed 4:1 water to feed ratio contained only a 13% odor concentration
compared to the dry feed.
16.3.2.5.2 Hygiene and fecal technology

In addition to diverse feeding activities to ensure the absence of significant odor perception, the
preservation of an original desired status with a minimal background odor or the prevention of
ongoing degradation processes in organic materials are additional mitigation principles. In this
VetBooks.ir
context, basic hygiene is a general requirement because wet and soiled surfaces, odor-intensive
feed material or undiscovered mortalities are conducive to excessive odor emissions. Therefore,
it is important to investigate factors that influence the hygiene conditions (Banhazi, 2013). For
livestock operators, the recommended best practices for odor control are related to a regular and
thorough cleaning of surfaces, an appropriate floor design and the use of materials to efficiently
drain manure into a pit or a frequent manure removal process (Liu et al., 2014). These measures
are going hand in hand with the substantial improvement of animal health (Madec, 2013). In
addition to this, research in odor control revealed that the solid-liquid separation of manure can
reduce the odor emission per pig by approximately 50%, when filter nets are installed for sepa-
ration in a liquid manure-based husbandry system (Kroodsma, 1986); however, the efficiency is
obviously dependent on the separable particle sizes, because Ndegwa et al. (2002) reported that
separation might not significantly reduce the odor nuisances from swine facilities unless particles
smaller than 0.075 mm are separated from the liquids, although they observed a reduced produc-
tion of VFA.
The nature and the amount of substrate influenced the gas and odor emission behavior of litter
in different ways (e.g., Gilhespy et al., 2009; Jeppsson, 1999). This partially explains, at least,
why the addition of wood shavings to animal manure did not seem to automatically mitigate NH3
or odor emissions (Ngwabie et al., 2010), but deep litter fermentation caused a 36% reduced
odor concentration compared to a slatted floor system (Wang et al., 2011). Mechanical-based
odor reduction measures, such as the trampoline rearing system in broiler houses (Arkenau
et al., 1997), can be supplemented by the operation of ploughs within broiler barns to ventilate
poultry litter for odor abatement (Hicks, 2007). This and comparable aerobic interventions (i.e.,
composting by thermophilic aerobic decomposition) stop ongoing, odor-rich fermentation pro-
cesses (O’Neill and Phillips, 1991), although the proposed methods are often focused on manure
composting in an experimental reactor, which is not necessarily an integral part of the fecal
technology that is normally found in livestock operations. However, the investigations of Zang
et al. (2016) have shown that high aeration rates during the thermophilic phase can minimize the
sulfur odors produced during swine manure composting. Additional trials revealed that nitrogen
chemical addition, such as NO3–, NO2–, and hexaammonium heptamolybdate tetrahydrate, may
provide an efficient method for controlling sulfur odors during composting, because the added
N-compounds are known to be efficient inhibitors of sulfate-reducing bacteria metabolic activi-
ties, which are important contributors to sulfur odor production (Zang et al., 2017).
Furthermore, it was stated that high litter moisture favored sulfurous odorants but did not
affect the odor concentration in broiler sheds (Murphy et al., 2014). From this point of view, it
is generally accepted that water availability is a key survival and reproduction factor for micro-
organisms. Wet litter has an impact on the microbial diversity and abundance and, therefore, on
the odor emission (Carey et al., 2004). The moisture content of dry litter samples ranged from
10%–25% and that for wet litter ranged from 43%–67%. These data are associated with a three
times higher abundance of microorganisms in wet litter than in dry litter (Dumas et al., 2011).
Dunlop and colleagues (2016a) focused on the water activity Aw (which is the ratio of the fugacity
of water in a system to the fugacity of pure liquid water at the same temperature, where fugacity
is a measure of the escaping tendency of a substance) rather than moisture in litter, because Aw is
more closely related to the microbial, chemical and physical properties of natural products than
the moisture content. They found a nonlinear relationship between both parameters and calcu-
lated a microorganism-supportive AW value of 0.95 when the litter moisture content was only
22%–33%. The authors speculated that maintaining an AW less than 0.85–0.91 in the poultry litter
through active litter moisture management not only reduces the microbial odor production but
also reduces the microbial risks to flock health, worker health and food safety. These findings led
to the recommendation that the proper management of the litter moisture content and the design
and maintenance of the drinker system (e.g., nipple vs. bell drinkers) can minimize the odor con-
centration, especially in odor-rich livestock such as broiler sheds (Elwinger and Svensson, 1996;
244 Jens Seedorf
Pillai et al., 2012). However, the variety of influencing factors is much greater than assumed,
VetBooks.ir
because the odor emissions from litter are complex due to the existence of multiple odorant
sources within litter (i.e., fresh excreta, friable litter and cake), the formation and emission of
numerous odorants, and the significant spatial and temporal variability of the moisture content,
porosity, pH, ventilation air flow, temperature, humidity and bird activity, as reviewed by Dunlop
et al. (2016b).
Recent investigations have shown that corn cobs and shredded paper, as bedding materials,
may increase the odor production, whereas wood shavings may have the least impact on air
quality among eight tested materials (Spiehs et al., 2012b). Afterwards, Spiehs et al. (2013b)
monitored three further wood-based, conifer-related materials in beef bedded manure packs and
found that green cedar bedding had the highest concentration of odorous VOC, while pine chip
bedding had the lowest, with an intermediate result for dry cedar ships. This could be attributed
to the presence of essential oils (EOs), which can be found in conifers such as those tested by
Spiehs and coworkers. These EOs not only have odor masking properties but they also have been
identified as effective antibacterials (Burt, 2004; Hammer et al., 1999; Hudson et al., 2011).
These observations have also been made by Varel and Miller (2001) and Varel et al. (2007), who
found an inhibitory effect on odor production when using plant-related EOs alone or combined
with urease inhibitors.
16.3.2.5.3 Additives
Additives for odor control are not limited to feeding purposes. The wide range of theoretical
applicable physical and chemical acting additives can also provide odor control by masking,
disinfecting and oxidizing effects in livestock wastes, but their short-term effects and limited
capacity normally required frequent re-application. In this general context, Zhu (2000b) used aer-
obic bacteria and hydrogen peroxide, as an oxygen provider added to a test manure, to simulate
aeration, but the control of odor failed due to an insufficient outgrow of the aerobic microflora, as
a decomposer of the odorous compounds. Nevertheless, recent activities in the field of de-odor-
ization using horseradish or soybean peroxidase and peroxides in pig manure slurry have shown
that the reoccurrence of odor can be delayed for 48–72 hours, with reductions of the odor inten-
sity between 50 and 84% under laboratory conditions (Govere et al., 2005; Parker et al., 2012;
Ye, F.X. et al., 2009).
Microbial-based additives can be superior to abiotic agents because of their regenerative poten-
tial, but the responsible biological mechanisms of odor manipulation are not well understood
(McCrory and Hobbs, 2001). A microbial additive was evaluated to reduce odor and pollutant
gas emission from deep and shallow pits in a swine gestation-to-farrowing operation. Rahman
and coworkers (2011) found a very marginal decrease of the odor concentration, but in summary,
no significant differences in terms of the odor, NH3 and H2S concentrations were determined
between treated and untreated units. Litter treatment with a yucca extract has no positive impact
on odor (Amon et al., 1997).
Wheeler et al. (2011) tested a combination of amendments with relatively different modes
of actions (microbial digestive, oxidizing, disinfecting, masking, and adsorbent). In total, 22
amendments were applied to dairy manure, and the impacts after 3 and 30 d of incubation were
monitored. Odor emissions after a 3 d storage were significantly higher than emissions after
30 d storage at 20°C for all manure treatments, and none of the manure amendments signifi-
cantly reduced the odor emissions from dairy manure for both the 3 and 30 d incubation periods,
although some amendments showed promising results at one of the storage periods.
Odor reduction rates were determined by Kim and co-authors (2008b) by spraying various
additives (i.e., tap water, salt water, digested manure, microbial additive, soybean oil, artificial
spice and essential oils) in a pig confinement building. In this study, salt water, artificial spice
and essential oils had a positive effect on reducing odor generation, while the odor intensity and
offensiveness were lessened by spraying artificial spice and essential oils, of which the maximum
reduction rates ranged from 60% to 80%. It is assumed that essential oils have antimicrobial
effects, which is why this agent was able to significantly reduce sulfuric odorous compounds.
VetBooks.ir
Ouellette et al. (2006) performed sprinkling treatments with different types of vegetable oils in
a bench-scale pig trial. The results showed no significant differences in the odor emission rates
either between the oil treatments and the control or among the oil treatments alone. Although the
oil treatments effectively reduced dust concentrations, there does not appear to be a correlation
between odor and dust reduction. Additionally, there was no significant difference between the
hedonic tones of the various treatments.
16.3.2.5.4 Physical and chemical measures

To overcome short-term effects, a longer lasting effect can be achieved by applying continuously
operating systems based on treated recirculating air within a room, unless these systems are also
used as end-of-pipe technology to control emissions. Nevertheless, in this category, one system
is related to ozone generation, which continuously destroys unpleasant odorants with chemical
reactions. Regardless of the differences in experimental designs when comparing investigations
in this field, Wu et al. (1999) found that ozonation was effective in reducing odor in pig manure
slurry. By contrast, Keener et al. (1999) reported that air samples from an ozonated pig building
were statistically more odorous, irritable and unpleasant than air samples from the control build-
ing. A serious problem of ozonation is the potential exceedance of permissible health-related
exposure limits to achieve significant odor reductions (Kim-Yang et al., 2005).
Based on the reported odor-dust association (discussed earlier), which was supported by the
results of Cai et al. (2006) and Das et al. (2004), who confirmed that the majority of VOCs were
preferentially bound to smaller dust particles, a further odor reduction can be expected when dust
is eliminated. This was confirmed by Hartung (1986), who stated that filtering of dust from the
exhaust air can reduce odor emissions from animal houses by up to 65%. On the other hand, Wil-
liams (1989) found no significant change in the odor concentration due to dust filtration. Despite
these conflicting observations, dust reduction measures are often combined with odor mitigation
efforts. This is particularly obvious with regards to oil-spraying in barns. In this context, in a pig
nursery, Jacobson et al. (1999) found a 62.5% reduction of the odor during a trial with soybean
oil, but a significant reduction was not observed during a second trial for oil dosages between 5
and 40 ml per m² and day. Feddes et al. (1999) reported a 20% odor reduction by applying canola
oil in a pig building at a rate of 30–60 mL per m² and week. According to the suggestions of the
authors, the relatively weak reduction could be attributed to an extremely low frequency of oil
application, which minimized the deposition of respirable dust, as an important carrier of odorous
VOCs or relevant odorous compounds that are responsible for odor perception; these compounds
were not absorbed by any type of dust particle.
Electromagnetic waves with short wavelengths can be used to destroy gaseous pollutants.
Typically, an ultraviolet (UV) radiation source (e.g., low-pressure UV lamps) can break down
pollutant molecules by a radical chain reaction. This reaction mechanism is known as photolysis
or UV oxidation. Normally, the waste gas is passed along UV lamps in a reaction chamber and is
thereby exposed to UV radiation, which can completely or partially destroy organic compounds.
By integrating photolytically active catalysts, the destruction process can be further enhanced.
For this purpose, metal oxides are used as catalysts (VD 2441, 2016).
The use of photocatalytic metal oxides, such as TiO2, is not only limited to the reduction of
NH3 or GHG (as mentioned earlier). Because photocatalytic reactions mainly produce hydroxyl
radicals in conjunction with UV light and adsorbed water on the photocatalyst, a fast reaction
with odorants is provoked. On this basis, Yao (2013) investigated the removal efficiency of a pho-
toreactor for key VOCs associated with livestock houses and concluded that in most cases, more
than an 80% efficiency was observed upon removing odorous compounds under a lower air flow
rate within the device (<200 m³ h−1) and a sub-ppm level, with the exception of H2S. The latter
point highlights the importance of the magnitude of individual vapor pressures for all gaseous
pollutants, because the higher the volatile potential is, the more difficult the adsorption on the
photocatalyst. As a consequence, there is not sufficient time to react with radicals. Therefore, only
246 Jens Seedorf
a selective reduction of undesired components in the air seems possible, which may positively or
VetBooks.ir
negatively alter the perception of odor.

Another technique is based on a concept similar to that of ozonation, and it attempts to reduce
airborne microbials, odors, and VOCs through physicochemical processes; this technique is
known as non-thermal plasma (NTP) or cold plasma. From an awareness of different NTP tech-
nologies applied to control air pollution (VDI 2441, 2016), this method is generally focused on
the application of high voltages between electrodes, which create ions and electrons during a dis-
charge process. This process is visible as luminous corona, and it indicates the close surrounding
of the produced plasma. In this environment, atoms are separated from their molecules to produce
free radicals. Because free radicals are highly reactive, they quickly recombine with other atoms
and/or molecules to form new compounds, such as reactive oxygen species, which then eliminate
VOCs and PM; however, PM removal is particularly enhanced by air ionization. A process con-
trol is necessary, because the nature of the corona determines the successful production of ozone
as an undesired by-product and, therefore, makes health protection for humans and animals a
challenging task (Andersen, 2013; Andersen et al., 2013; Daniels, 2002; EPA, 2005; Korachi and
Aslan, 2013).
16.4 FINAL REMARKS
The available mitigation measures and techniques highlight the nearly endless potential of reduc-
ing airborne pollutants in and from livestock buildings. Despite the successful reduction mea-
sures to protect animals and humans indoors and in the environment, some bottlenecks require
attention to achieve improved, reliable, acceptable and cost-effective abatement techniques,
which may then result in a wider dissemination of mature technologies in this area and perhaps
make them attractive enough to be considered as the best available techniques in future. From
this point of view, a few weaknesses are explained more extensively with respect to feed and
manure management. Unfortunately, the technical implementation of abatement techniques can
be frequently constrained by undesirable interferences from animals, humans and environmental
factors. Consequently, the evaluation of mitigation methods and the subsequent derivation of
unequivocal recommendations are not always simple.
Nutritional modifications offer a useful mitigation strategy on the animals’ level when physi-
ological, performance and welfare factors are aligned with the desired abatements (e.g., Nahm,
2007). Altering multiple dietary factors and finding beneficial intercorrelations, which affect the
emission of airborne pollutants, might be more efficient than adjusting only a single factor in the
feed. A key for the successful mitigation of emissions involves avoiding the excessive excretion
of nitrogen or sulfur, which are important odor-forming components. On the other hand, this path
presents more difficulties than expected, because the complexity of feeding strategies along with
the high number of relatively different feed types (which do not necessarily have standardized
composition such as DDGS) impede the rapid evolution of useful feeding strategies. Further
investigations in this area are therefore required to partially solve the air pollution problems in
livestock housing (e.g., Aarnink and Verstegen, 2007). In advertising DDGS or other feed types
as a valuable feed component in abatement strategies, safety aspects have to be considered, such
as mycotoxins (Khatibi et al., 2014; Rodrigues and Naehrer, 2012; Zhang and Caupert, 2012).
It is recognized that biotoxins and other ingredients, if present in the original feedstock, are also
concentrated due to the nature of DDGS (Liu, 2011).
Manure control technologies that are applicable outdoors are not necessarily applicable
indoors. For example, changing manure pH values via acids to mitigate NH3, is relatively easy
and effective but it is impractical within animal houses due to the risk of H2S generation. The
toxic potential of manure gas was experimentally reproduced by Borst (2001), who investigated
100% mortality in a pig herd, which was exposed to an enormous H2S concentration after an
accidental flow of lactic acid in the slurry pit underneath the pig house.
In-house additives to control airborne pollutants, such as odor, seem to cause fewer compli-
VetBooks.ir
cations when they are applied as topical treatments, but unfortunately, the results are not always
consistent. Miner (1997) stated that odor control additives, either fed or applied to the manure,
have generally been less than fully successful. On the other hand, Cai et al. (2007b) found con-
siderable odor reductions for topical applications applied on nearly fresh laying hen manure.
However, despite certain characteristics of additives (such as the low-cost, non-toxicity, and ease
of use), additives are not as effective as other physical methods in combating odor emission
(Banhazi et al., 2009). Moreover, very limited information is available on the environmental and
agronomic impacts when additive-amended manure is applied to cropland, as fertilizer (Rahman
and Borhan, 2012).
The protection of the external environment and the protection of health and welfare of animals
and humans indoors have to be achieved concurrently. However, this is difficult to achieve. The
dilemma here can be exemplarily shown by the investigations of Pedersen and Ravn (2008), who
monitored different floor types for pigs with respect to the animal well-being and the interference
of NH3 release. They observed that concrete slats were ideal for the animals with respect to the
risk of slipping but less than ideal with respect to elasticity and NH3 emission. Furthermore, the
slats were cold for the animals due to the increased heat conduction. Plastic and cast iron slats
were too slippery, but they were better for the environment with respect to NH3 emission; more-
over, they were warmer for the pigs to lie on. The situation is even more challenging if positive
cross-media effects are sought (e.g., de-odorization and particle reduction by NTP) while neg-
ative side effects are avoided (e.g., excessive ozone release or decrease of animal performance
and health).
The acceptance of abatement technologies depends on performance indicators, which are nor-
mally based on relative values for the reduction efficiency. Therefore, it is extremely important
to achieve a reduction efficiency of 70%, 90% or even more. However, TLVs may not be reached
despite the high relative reductions (as observed in Winkel et al., 2014). Therefore, relative val-
ues should also be translated into absolute concentration or emission values to justify the need for
additional abatement methods. This becomes more important if single methods are insufficient
due to extremely high pollutant concentrations and technological restrictions. Such shortcomings
can be overcome by the creation of a hurdle concept of integrated abatement technologies to
establish comprehensive and standardized practice, which also sufficiently consider animal wel-
fare and human well-being requirements.
REFERENCES
Aarnink, A.J.A. (1997) Ammonia Emission from Houses for growing Pigs as affected by Pen Design, Indoor
Climate and Behaviour. PhD thesis, University of Wageningen, The Netherlands. Available from: http://
edepot.wur.nl/201644 [accessed August 2014].
Aarnink, A.J.A. & Verstegen, M.W.A. (2007) Nutrition, key factor to reduce environmental load from pig
production. Livestock Science, 109(1–3), 194–203.
tural Engineering Research, 66(2), 93–102.
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) (2004) Toxicological profile for ammonia.
Atlanta, GA. p. 269. Available from: http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp126.pdf [accessed July 2014].
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) (2006) Toxicological profile for hydrogen
sulfide. Atlanta, GA. p. 253. Available from: http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp114.pdf [accessed
July 2014].
Agle, M., Hristov, A.N., Zaman, S., Schneider, C., Ndegwa, P. & Vaddella, V.K. (2010) The effects of rumi-
nally degraded protein on rumen fermentation and ammonia losses from manure in dairy cows. Journal
of Dairy Science, 93(4), 1625–1637.
Akan, M., Hazıroğlu, R., İlhan, Z., Sareyyüpoğlu, B. & Tunca, R. (2002) A case of aspergillosis in a broiler
breeder flock. Avian Diseases, 46(2), 497–501.
248 Jens Seedorf
Akdeniz, N., Jacobson, L.D., Hetchler, B.P., Bereznicki, S.D., Heber, A.J., Koziel, J.A., Cai, L., Zhang, S. &
VetBooks.ir
Parker, D.B. (2012) Odor and odorous chemical emissions from animal buildings: part 4. correlations
between sensory and chemical measurements. Transactions of the ASABE, 55(6), 2347–2356.
Alam, M.J., Mamuad, L.L., Kim, S.H., Jeong, C.D., Sung, H.G., Cho, S.B., Jeon, C.O., Lee, K. & Lee,
S.S. (2013) Effect of phytogenic feed additives in soybean meal on in vitro swine fermentation for odor
reduction and bacterial community comparison. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences, 26(2),
266–274.
Albright, L.D. (1990) Environment control for animals and plants. ASAE Textbook, no. 4, American Society
of Agricultural Egineers, St. Joseph, MI.
Alvarado, C.S., Gibbs, S.G., Gandara, A., Flores, C., Hurd, W.W. & Green, C.F. (2012) The potential
for community exposures to pathogens from an urban dairy. Journal of Environmental Health, 74(7),
22–28.
Amon, B., Amon, T. & Boxberger, J. (1999) N2O aus Land- und Forstwirtschaft. ACCC-Workshop “N2O und
das Kyoto-Ziel” [N2O from agriculture and forestry. ACCC workshop ‘N2O and the Kyoto protocol’].
Universität für Bodenkultur Wien, Vienna, Austria, 1999, 11 pp. Available from: http://www.accc.gv.at/
pdf/no-amon.pdf [accessed August 2014].
Amon, B., Kryvoruchko, V., Amon, T. & Moitzi, G. (2004) Can the additive “Effective Micro-Organisms
(EM)” reduce ammonia and greenhouse gas emissions from slurry stores? Proceedings of the 11th Inter-
national Conference on Network on Recycling of Agricultural, Municipal and Industrial Residues in
Agriculture (RAMIRAN), 6–9 October 2004, Murcia, Spain, Vol. 1, 233–236. Available from: http://www.
ramiran.net/doc04/Proceedings%2004/B_Amon1.pdf [accessed August 2014].
Amon, M., Dobeic, M., Sneath, R.W., Phillips, V.R., Misselbrook, T.H. & Pain, B.F. (1995) A farm-scale
study on the use of clinoptilolite zeolite and De-Odorase for reducing odour and ammonia emissions from
intensive fattening piggeries. Bioresource Technology, 51(2–3), 163–169.
Amon, M., Dobeic, M., Sneath, R.W., Phillips, V.R., Misselbrock, T.H. & Pain, B.F. (1997) A farm-scale
study on the use of clinoptilolite zeolite and De-Odorase® for reducing odour and ammonia emissions
from broiler houses. Bioresource Technology, 61(3), 229–237.
Andersen, K.B. (2013) Chemical assessment of nonthermal plasma for reduction of odour emissions from
pig houses. Aarhus University, Denmark, Technical report BCE-TR-5, 47 pp. Available from: http://eng.
au.dk/fileadmin/DJF/ENG/PDF-filer/Tekniske_rapporter/Bioteknologi_og_Kemiteknologi/TP_BCE-5-
SAMLET.pdf [accessed September 2014].
Andersen, K.B., Beukes, J.A. & Feilberg, A. (2013) Non-thermal plasma for odour reduction from pig
houses – a pilot scale investigation. Chemical Engineering Journal, 223, 638–646.
Andersen, K.B., Glasius, M. & Feilberg, A. (2014) Gas-particle partitioning of odorants in a pig house mea-
sured by thermal desorption GC/MS. Environmental Science: Processes & Impacts, 16(5), 1059–1068.
Andersson, M. (1998) Reducing ammonia emissions by cooling of manure in manure culverts. Nutrient
Cycling in Agroecosystems, 51(1), 73–79.
Anthony, T.R., Altmaier, R., Park, J.H. & Peters, T.M. (2014) Modeled effectiveness of ventilation with
contaminant control devices on indoor air quality in a swine farrowing facility. Journal of Occupational
and Environmental Hygiene, 11(7), 434–449.
Arkenau, E.F., Macke, H. & Van den Weghe, H. (1997) Influence of “Trampoline-Floor” in broiler houses on
emission, animal performance and carcass classification. Proceedings of the 9th International Congress
in Animal Hygiene, 17–21 August 1997, Helsinki, Finland, Vol. 1. pp. 297–300.
Banhazi, T. (2013) Modelling and influencing hygiene conditions in Australian livestock buildings. In: Aland,
A. & Banhazi, T. (eds) Livestock Housing. Modern Management to Ensure Optimal Health and Welfare of
Farm Animals. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, The Netherlands., pp. 377–390.
Banhazi, T., Seedorf, J., Rutley, D.L. & Pitchford, W.S. (2008) Identification of risk factors for sub-optimal
housing conditions in Australian piggeries: Part 2. Airborne pollutants. Journal of Agricultural Safety and
Health, 14(1), 21–39.
Banhazi, T., Hudson, N., Dunlop, M., Dyson, C. & Thomas, R. (2009) Development and testing of an eval-
uation procedure for commercial manure additive products. Biosystems Engineering, 103(3), 321–328.
Barnes, E.M. & Impey, C.S. (1974) Irence and properties of uric acid decomposing anaerobic bacteria in the
avian caecum. Journal of Applied Microbiology, 37(3), 393–409.
Basinas, I., Schlünssen, V., Takai, H., Heederik, D., Omland, Ø., Wouters, I.M., Sigsgaard, T. & Kromhout.,
H. (2013) Exposure to inhalable dust and endotoxin among Danish pig farmers affected by work tasks
and stable characteristics. Annals of Occupational Hygiene, 57(8), 1005–1019.
Basinas, I., Sigsgaard, T., Erlandsen, M., Andersen, N.T., Takai, H., Heederik, D., Omland, Ø., Kromhout,
VetBooks.ir
H. & Schlünssen, V. (2014) Exposure-affecting factors of dairy farmers’ exposure to inhalable dust and
endotoxin. Annals of Occupational Hygiene, 58(6), 707–723.
Beauchemin, K. & McGinn, S. (2008) Reducing methane in dairy and beef cattle operations: what is feasible?
Prairie Soils and Crops, 1, 17–21. Available from: http://www.prairiesoilsandcrops.ca/articles/volume-
1-3-print.pdf [accessed August 2014].
Beauchemin, K.A., Kreuzer, M., O’Mara, F. & McAllister, T.A. (2008) Nutritional management for enteric
methane abatement: a review. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture, 48(2), 21–27.
Beker, A., Vanhooser, S.L., Swartzlander, J.H. & Teeter, R.G. (2003) Graded atmospheric oxygen level
effects on performance and ascites incidence in broilers. Poultry Science, 82(10), 1550–1553.
Blair, R., Jacob, J.P., Ibrahim, S. & Wang, P. (1999) A quantitative assessment of reduced protein diets and
supplements to improve nitrogen utilization. The Journal of Applied Poultry Research, 8(1), 25–47.
Blanes-Vidal, V., Hansen, M.N., Adamsen, A.P.S., Feilberg, A., Petersen, S.O. & Jensen, B.B. (2009) Char-
acterization of odor released during handling of swine slurry: part I. Relationship between odorants and
perceived odor concentrations. Atmospheric Environment, 43(18), 2997–3005.
Blunden, J., Aneja, V.P., & Lonneman, W.A. (2005) Characterization of non-methane volatile organic com-
pounds at swine facilities in eastern North Carolina. Atmospheric Environment, 39(36), 6707–6718.
BMG Engineering (2009) Energie-Kennzahlen. Sammlung der BMG Engineering AG [Energy basic data. Collec-
tion of the BMG Engineering AG], Schlieren, Switzerland. Available from: http://www.bmgeng.ch/downloads/
produktion/Energiekennzahlen.pdf [accessed August 2014].
Bokkers, E.A.M., van Zanten, H.H.E. & van den Brand, H. (2010) Field study on effects of a heat exchanger
on broiler performance, energy use, and calculated carbon dioxide emission at commercial broiler farms,
and the experiences of farmers using a heat exchanger. Poultry Science, 89(12), 2743–2750.
Borhan, M.S., Mukhtar, S., Capareda, S. & Rahman, S. (2012) Greenhouse gas emissions from housing and
manure management systems at confined livestock operations. In: Rebellon, L.F.M. (ed) Waste Manage-
ment – An Integrated Vision. InTech, Rijeka, Croatia. pp. 259–296. Available from: http://cdn.intechopen.
com/pdfs-wm/40530.pdf [accessed August 2014].
Borst, G.H. (2001) Acute poisoning of pigs with hydrogen sulfide as a result of acidification of slurry on a
pig farm. Tijdschrift Voor Diergeneeskunde, 126(4), 104–105.
Botermans, J., Gustafsson, G., Jeppsson, K.-H., Brown, N. & Rohde, L. (2010) Measures to reduce ammonia
emissions in pig production – review. Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Faculty of Landscape
Planning, Horticulture and Agricultural Science, Alnarp, Sweden, Report 2010:12. Available from: http://
pub.epsilon.slu.se/4687/1/LTJ-rapport_2010-12.pdf [accessed June 2015].
Bottcher, R.W. (2001) An environmental nuisance: odor concentrated and transported by dust. Chemical
Senses, 26(3), 327–331.
Braun-Fahrländer, C. (2013) The role of the microbial environment for the development of childhood asthma
and allergies. Therapeutische Umschau, 70(12), 714–719
Burgos, S.A., Embertson, N.M., Zhao, Y., Mitloehner, F.M., DePeters, E.J. & Fadel, J.G. (2010) Prediction
of ammonia emission from dairy cattle manure based on milk urea nitrogen: relation of milk urea nitro-
gen to ammonia emissions. Journal of Dairy Science, 93(6), 2377–2386.
Burns, R., Moore, P. & Moody, L. (2008) Using liquid aluminum sulfate to reduce poultry housing ammonia
emissions. Proceedings of the Conference on Mitigating Air Emissions from Animal Feeding Operations,
19–21 May 2008, Des Moines, IA. pp. 95–98.
Burt, S. (2004) Essential oils: their antibacterial properties and potential applications in foods-a review.
International Journal of Food Microbiology, 94(3), 223–253.
Butterbach-Bahl, K., Gundersen, P., Ambus, P., Augustin, J., Beier, C., Boeckx, P., Dannenmann, M., Sanchez-
Gimeno, B., Ibrom, A., Kiese, R., Kitzler, B., Rees, R.M., Smith, K.A., Stevens, C., Vesala, T. & Zech-
meister-Boltenstern, S. (2011) Nitrogen processes in terrestrial ecosystems. In: Sutton, M.A., Howard,
C.M., Erisman, J.W., Billen, G., Bleeker, A., Grennfelt, P., van Grisven, H. & Grizzetti, B. (eds) The
European Nitrogen Assessment: Sources, Effects, and Policy Perspectives. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, UK. pp. 99–125.
Çabuk, M., Alçiçek, A., Bozkurt, M. & Akkan, S. (2004) Effect of Yucca schidigera and natural zeolite on
broiler performance. International Journal of Poultry Science, 3(10), 651–654.
Cai, L., Koziel, J.A., Lo, Y.C. & Hoff, S.J. (2006) Characterization of volatile organic compounds and
odorants associated with swine barn particulate matter using solid-phase microextraction and gas
chromatography-mass spectrometry-olfactometry. Journal of Chromatography A, 1102(1–2), 60–72.
250 Jens Seedorf
Cai, L., Koziel, J.A., Lo, Y.C. & Hoff, S.J. (2007a) Characterization of volatile organic compounds and odor-
VetBooks.ir
ants associated with swine barn particulate matter using solid-phase microextraction and gas chromatog-
raphy – mass spectrometry – olfactometry. Iowa State University, USA, Animal Industry Report: AS 653,
ASL R2210. Available from: http://lib.dr.iastate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1248&context=ans_air
[accessed September 2014].
Cai, L., Koziel, J.A., Liang, Y., Nguyen, A.T. & Xin, H. (2007b) Evaluation of zeolite for control of odorants
emissions from simulated poultry manure storage. Journal of Environmental Quality, 36(1), 184–193.
Cambra-López, M., Winkel, A., van Harn, J., Hannink, N. & Aarnink, A.J.A. (2009) Measures to Reduce
Fine Dust Emission from Poultry Houses: Reduction from Broiler Houses by Ionization. Animal Sciences
Group of Wageningen UR, Lelystad, The Netherlands, Report 215. 51 pp. Available from: http://edepot.
wur.nl/11262 [accessed September 2014].
Canh, T.T., Sutton, A.L., Aarnink, A.J.A., Verstegen, M.W., Schrama, J.W. & Bakker, G.C. (1998a) Dietary
carbohydrates alter the fecal composition and pH and the ammonia emission from slurry of growing pigs.
Canh, T.T., Aarnink, A.J.A., Mroz, Z., Jongbloed, A.W., Schrama, J.W. & Verstegen, M.W.A. (1998b) Influ-
ence of electrolyte balance and acidifying calcium salts in the diet of growing-finishing pigs on urinary
pH, slurry pH and ammonia volatilisation from slurry. Livestock Production Science, 56(1), 1–13.
Carey, J.B., Lacey, R.E. & Mukhtar, S. (2004) A review of literature concerning odors, ammonia, and dust
from broiler production facilities: 2. flock and house management factors. The Journal of Applied Poultry
Research, 13(3), 509–513.
Carlson, C.A. & Ingraham, J.L. (1983) Comparison of denitrification by Pseudomonas stutzeri, Pseudomonas
aeruginosa, and Paracoccus denitrificans. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 45(4), 1247–1253.
Carter, S.G. & Kim, H.J. (2013) Technologies to reduce environmental impact of animal wastes associated
with feeding for maximum productivity. Animal Frontiers, 3(3), 42–47.
Chang, M.H. & Chen, T.C. (2003) Reduction of broiler house malodor by direct feeding of a lactobacilli
containing probiotic. International Journal of Poultry Science, 2(5), 313–317.
Chénard, L., Lemay, S.P. & Laguë, C. (2003) Hydrogen sulfide assessment in shallow-pit swine housing and
outside manure storage. Journal of Agricultural Safety and Health, 9(4), 285–302.
Choi, H.C., Salim, H.M., Akter, N., Na, J.C., Kang, H.K., Kim, M.J., Kim, D.W., Bang, H.T., Chae, H.S. &
Suh, O.S. (2012) Effect of heating system using a geothermal heat pump on the production performance
and housing environment of broiler chickens. Poultry Science, 91(2), 275–281.
Clark, H. (2013) Nutritional and host effects on methanogenesis in the grazing ruminant. Animal, 7(s1), 41–48.
Clark, O.G., Morin, B., Zhang, Y., Sauer, W.C. & Feddes, J.J. (2005a) Preliminary investigation of air bub-
bling and dietary sulfur reduction to mitigate hydrogen sulfide and odor from swine waste. Journal of
Environmental Quality, 34(6), 2018–2023.
Clark, O.G., Moehn, S., Edeogu, I., Price, J. & Leonard, J. (2005b) Manipulation of dietary protein and
nonstarch polysaccharide to control swine manure emissions. Journal of Environmental Quality, 34(5),
1461–1466.
Clemens, J. & Ahlgrimm, H.-J. (2001) Greenhouse gases from animal husbandry: mitigation options. Nutri-
ent Cycling in Agroecosystems, 60(1–3), 287–300.
Cook, K.L., Rothrock, M.J. Jr, Warren, J.G., Sistani, K.R. & Moore, P.A. Jr. (2008) Effect of alum treatment
on the concentration of total and ureolytic microorganisms in poultry litter. Journal of Environmental
Quality, 37(6), 2360–2367.
Cook, K.L., Rothrock, M.J. Jr, Eiteman, M.A., Lovanh, N. & Sistani, K. (2011) Evaluation of nitrogen
retention and microbial populations in poultry litter treated with chemical, biological or adsorbent amend-
ments. Journal of Environmental Management, 92(7), 1760–1766.
Costa, A., Chiarello, G.L., Selli, E. & Guarino, M. (2012) Effects of TiO2 based photocatalytic paint on con-
centrations and emissions of pollutants and on animal performance in a swine weaning unit. Journal of
Environmental Management, 96(1), 86–90.
Costigan, M.G. (2003) Hydrogen sulphide: U.K. occupational exposure limit. Occupational and Environ-
mental Medicine, 60(4), 308–312.
Cottle, D.J., Nolan, J.V. & Wiedemann, S.G. (2011) Ruminant enteric methane mitigation: a review. Ani-
mal Production Science, 51(6), 491–514. Available from: http://www.fsaconsulting.net/fsa/docs/Enteric_
methane_review_%28published_version%29.pdf [accessed August 2014].
Daniels, S.L. (2002) “On the ionization of air for removal of noxious effluvia” (Air ionization of indoor
environments for control of volatile and particulate contaminants with nonthermal plasmas generated by
dielectric-barrier discharge). IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, 30(4), 1471–1481.
Das, K.C., Kastner, J.R. & Hassan, S.M. (2004) Potential of particulate matter as a pathway for odor disper-
VetBooks.ir
sion. ASAE/CSAE Annual International Meeting, 1–4 August 2004, Ottawa, Canada, 2004, ASAE Paper
No. 044125.
DeCamp, S.A., Hill, B.E., Hankins, S.L., Bundy, D.C. & Powers, W.J. (2001) Effects of soybean hulls in
commercial diet on pig performance, manure composition, and selected air quality parameters in swine
facilities. Journal of Animal Science, 79, Suppl. 1, 252 Abstr.
Deutsche Bundesstiftung Umwelt (DBU) (1997) Projektkennblatt der Deutschen Bundesstiftung Umwelt. Akten-
zeichen 10745, 2 pp. Available from: http://www.dbu.de/PDF-Files/A-10745.pdf [accessed August 2014].
DIN 18910-1 (2004) Wärmeschutz geschlossener Ställe – Wärmedämmung und Lüftung – Teil 1: Planungs-
und Berechnungsgrundlage für geschlossene zwangsbelüftete Ställe [Thermal insulation for closed live-
stock buildings – Thermal insulation and ventilation forced – Part 1: Principles for planning and design
for closed ventilated livestock buildings]. Deutsches Institut für Normung e.V. (DIN), Beuth Verlag
GmbH, Berlin, Germany.
DIN 18910 (2017) Wärmeschutz geschlossener Ställe - Wärmedämmung und Lüftung - Planungs- und
Berechnungsgrundlagen für geschlossene zwangsbelüftete Ställe [Thermal insulation for closed livestock
buildings – Thermal insulation and ventilation – Principles for planning and design for closed ventilated
livestock buildings]. Deutsches Institut für Normung e.V. (DIN), Beuth Verlag GmbH, Berlin, Germany.
Dijkstra, F., van der Hoek, W., Wijers, N., Schimmer, B., Rietveld, A., Wijkmans, C.J., Vellema, P. & Schnee-
berger, P.M. (2012) The 2007–2010 Q fever epidemic in The Netherlands: characteristics of notified
acute Q fever patients and the association with dairy goat farming. FEMS Immunology and Medical
Microbiology, 64(1), 3–12.
Dijkstra, J., Oenema, O., van Groenigen, J.W., Spek, J.W., van Vuuren, A.M. & Bannink, A. (2013) Diet
effects on urine composition of cattle and N2O emissions. Animal, 7:s2, 292–302.
Done, S.H., Chennells, D.J., Gresham, A.C., Williamson, S., Hunt, B., Taylor, L.L., Bland, V., Jones, P.,
Armstrong, D., White, R.P., Demmers, T.G., Teer, N. & Wathes, C.M. (2005) Clinical and pathological
responses of weaned pigs to atmospheric ammonia and dust. Veterinary Record, 157(3), 71–80.
Donham, K.J., Cumro, D. & Reynolds, S. (2002) Synergistic effects of dust and ammonia on the occupa-
tional health effects of poultry production workers. Journal of Agromedicine, 8(2), 57–76.
Dumas, M.D., Polson, S.W., Ritter, D., Ravel, J., Gelb, J. Jr., Morgan, R. & Wommack, E. (2011) Impacts of poul-
try house environment on poultry litter bacterial community composition. PLoS ONE, 6(9), e24785, 12 pp.
Dunlop, M.W., McAuley, J., Blackall, P.J. & Stuetz, R.M. (2016a) Water activity of poultry litter: relation-
ship to moisture content during a grow-out. Journal of Environmental Management, 172, 201–206.
Dunlop, M.W., Blackall, P.J. & Stuetz, R.M. (2016b) Odour emissions from poultry litter – A review litter
properties, odour formation and odorant emissions from porous materials. Journal of Environmental
Management, 177, 306–319.
Eduard, W., Pearce, N. & Douwes, J. (2009) Chronic bronchitis, COPD, and lung function in farmers: the
role of biological agents. Chest, 136(3), 716–725.
Ehrnsberger, R. & Dabert, J. (2001) Population dynamics of acarid mites in two different types of poultry
raising systems in Germany. In: Halliday, R.B., Walter, D.E., Proctor, H.C., Norton, R.A. & Colloff, M.J.
(eds) Acarology: Proceedings of the 10th International Congress, 2001. CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne,
Australia. pp. 576–582.
Elwinger, K. & Svensson, L. (1996) Effect of dietary protein content, litter and drinker type on ammonia
emission from broiler houses. Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research, 64(3), 197–208.
EN 13725 (2003) Air quality – Determination of odour concentration by dynamic olfactometry. European
Committee for Standardization, Beuth Verlag GmbH, Berlin, Germany.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (2005) Using non-thermal plasma to control air pollutants. Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency, Research Trieangle Park, NC, USA. EPA-456/R-05-001. Available from:
http://www.epa.gov/ttncatc1/dir1/fnonthrm.pdf [accessed September 2014].
Eriksen, J. Adamsen, A.P., Nørgaard, J.V., Poulsen, H.D., Jensen, B.B. & Petersen, S.O. (2010) Emissions
of sulfur-containing odorants, ammonia, and methane from pig slurry: effects of dietary methionine and
benzoic acid. Journal of Environmental Quality, 39(3), 1097–1107.
EU-Directive 2010/75/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 on indus-
trial emissions (integrated pollution prevention and control). Available from: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/
legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32010L0075&from=EN [accessed July 2014].
European Commission (EC) (2003) Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC). Reference Doc-
ument on Best Available Techniques for intensive rearing of poultry and pigs. Available from: http://
eippcb.jrc.ec.europa.eu/reference/BREF/irpp_bref_0703.pdf [accessed July 2014].
252 Jens Seedorf
European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) (2012) Scientific Opinion on the welfare of cattle kept for beef pro-
VetBooks.ir
duction and the welfare in intensive calf farming systems. EFSA Journal, 10(5), 2669. 166 pp. Available
from: http://www.efsa.europa.eu/de/efsajournal/doc/2669.pdf [accessed July 2014].
European Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPPC) Bureau (EIPPCB) (2013) Best Available
Techniques (BAT) Reference Document for the intensive rearing of poultry and pigs. Working draft
in progress. Available from: http://eippcb.jrc.ec.europa.eu/reference/BREF/IRPP_D2_082013online.pdf
[accessed July 2014].
Fabbri, C., Valli, L., Guarino,M., Costa, A. & Mazzotta, V. (2007) Ammonia, methane, nitrous oxide and
particulate matter emissions from two different buildings for laying hens. Biosystems Engineering, 97(4),
441–455.
Feddes, J., Qu, G., Leonard, J. & Coleman, R. (1999) Control of dust and odour emissions using sprinkled
canola oil in pig barns. Proceeding of the International Symposium on Dust Control in Animal Production
Facilities, 30 May–2 June 1999, Aarhus, Denmark. pp. 265–270.
Filipy, J., Rumburg, B., Mount, G., Westberg, H. & Lamb, B. (2006) Identification and quantification of
volatile organic compounds from a dairy. Atmospheric Environment, 40(8), 1480–1494.
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) (2006) Livestock’s long shadow. Environ-
mental issues and options. FAO, Rome, Italy. Available from: ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/010/a0701e/
a0701e.pdf [accessed July 2014].
Forth, W., Henschler, D. & Rummel, W. (1983) Allgemeine und spezielle Pharmakologie und Toxikologie
[General and specific pharmacology and toxicology]. Bibliographisches Institut, Mannheim/Wien/Zürich.
Fournel, S., Pelletier, F., Godbout, S., Lagace, R. & Feddes, J.J.R. (2012) Odour emissions, hedonic tones and
ammonia emissions from three cage layer housing systems. Biosystems Engineering, 112(3), 181–191.
Friese, A., Schulz, J., Zimmermann, K., Tenhagen, B.A., Fetsch, A., Hartung, J. & Rösler, U. (2013) Occur-
rence of livestock-associated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in turkey and broiler barns and
contamination of air and soil surfaces in their vicinity. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 79(8),
2759–2766.
Gerber, P.J., Hristov, A.N., Henderson, B., Makkar, H., Oh, J., Lee, C., Meinen, R., Montes, F., Ott, T.,
Firkins, J., Rotz, A., Dell, C., Adesogan, A.T., Yang, W.Z., Tricarico, J.M., Kebreab, E., Waghorn, G.,
Dijkstra, J. & Oosting, S. (2013) Technical options for the mitigation of direct methane and nitrous oxide
emissions from livestock: a review. Animal, 7(s2), 220–234.
Gibbs, S.G., Green, C.F., Tarwater, P.M., Mota, L.C., Mena, K.D. & Scarpino, P.V. (2006) Isolation of
antibiotic-resistant bacteria from the air plume downwind of a swine confined or concentrated animal
feeding operation. Environmental Health Perspectives, 114(7), 1032–1037.
Gilhespy, S.L., Webb, J., Chadwick, D.R., Misselbrook, T.H., Kay, R., Camp, V., Retter, A.L. & Baso, A.
(2009) Will additional straw bedding in buildings housing cattle and pigs reduce ammonia emissions?
Biosystems Engineering, 102(2), 180–189.
Gloster, J., Champion, H.J., Sørensen, J.H., Mikkelsen, T., Ryall, D.B., Astrup, P., Alexandersen, S. &
Donaldson, A. (2003) Airborne transmission of foot-and-mouth disease virus from Burnside Farm,
Heddonon-the-Wall, Northumberland, during the 2001 epidemic in the United Kingdom. Veterinary
Record, 152(17), 525–533.
Govere, E.M., Tonegawa, M., Bruns, M.A., Wheeler, E.F., Heinemann, P.H., Kephart, K.B. & Dec, J. (2005)
Deodorization of swine manure using minced horseradish roots and peroxides. Journal of Agricultural
and Food Chemistry, 53(12), 4880–4889.
Grainger, C., Williams, R., Eckard, R.J. & Hannah, M.C. (2010) A high dose of monensin does not reduce
methane emissions of dairy cows offered pasture supplemented with grain. Journal of Dairy Science,
93(11), 5300–5308.
Gralapp, A.K., Powers, W.J., Faust, M.A. & Bundy, D.S. (2002) Effects of dietary ingredients on manure
characteristics and odorous emissions from swine. Journal of Animal Science, 80(6), 1512–1519.
Greenberg, M.I., Curtis, J.A. & Vearrier, D. (2013) The perception of odor is not a surrogate marker for
chemical exposure: a review of factors influencing human odor perception. Clinical Toxicology (Phila-
delphia, Pa.) 51(2), 70–76.
Grimm, E., Döhler, H., Eurich-Menden, B., Wechsung, G. & Suhr, M. (2013) Beste verfügbare Techniken
(BVT) – Stand der Revision des BVT-Merkblattes für die Intensivtierhaltung [Best available techniques
(BVT) for livestock housing – current status after revision]. Proceedings of the 11th Conference on Con-
struction, Engineering and Environment in Livestock Farming, 2013, Vechta, Germany. pp. 178–183.
Groenestein, C.M., Smits, M.C.J., Huijsmans, J.F.M. & Oenema, O. (2011) Measures to reduce ammo-
nia emissions from livestock manures; now, soon and later. Wageningen UR Livestock Research,
Lelystad, The Netherlands, Report 488. Available from: http://edepot.wur.nl/189371 [accessed

VetBooks.ir
August 2014].
Groot Koerkamp, P.W.G. (1994) Review on emissions of ammonia from housing systems for laying hens in
relation to sources, processes, building design and manure handling. Journal of Agricultural Engineering
Research, 59(2), 73–87.
J.L., White, R.P., Hartung, J., Seedorf, J., Schröder, M., Linkert, K.H., Pedersen, S., Takai, H., Johnsen,
Guarino, M., Costa, A. & Porro, M. (2008) Photocatalytic TiO2 coating to reduce ammonia and green-
house gases concentration and emission from animal husbandries. Bioresource Technology, 99(7),
2650–2658.
Guo, H., Yu, Z. & Lague, C. (2006) Livestock odour dispersion modeling: a review. CSBE/SCGAB Annual
Conference, 16–19 July 2006, Edmonton, Canada, Available from: http://www.csbe-scgab.ca/docs/meet-
ings/2006/CSBE06170.pdf [accessed August 2014].
Gustafsson, G. & von Wachenfelt, E. (2013) Methods to reduce airborne dust in a floor-housing system for
laying hens. Proceedings of the 11th Conference on Construction, Engineering and Environment in Live-
stock Farming, 24–26 September 2013, Vechta, Germany. pp. 252–257.
Gustafsson, G., Jeppsson, K.H., Hultgren, J. & Sanno, J.O. (2005) Techniques to reduce the ammonia release
from a cowshed with tied dairy cattle. CIGR Journal, Manuscript BC 04 010, Vol. VII. 13 pp. Available
from: http://dspace.library.cornell.edu/bitstream/1813/10424/1/BC%2004%20010%20Gustafsson%20
final%2010Dec2005.pdf [accessed August 2014].
Hales, K.E., Cole, N.A. & Varel, V.H. (2012) Effects of corn processing method and dietary inclusion of
corn wet distillers grains with solubles on odor and gas production in cattle manure. Journal of Animal
Science, 90(11), 3988–4000.
Hallam, D.M., Liao, J. & Choi, K. (2012) Manure pit injuries: rare, deadly, and preventable. Journal of
Emergencies, Trauma and Shock, 5(3), 253–256.
Hamilton, T.D., Roe, J.M., Hayes, C.M., Jones, P., Pearson, G.R. & Webster, A.J. (1999) Contributory and
exacerbating roles of gaseous ammonia and organic dust in the etiology of atrophic rhinitis. Clinical and
Diagnostic Laboratory Immunology, 6(2), 199–203.
Hammer, K.A., Carson, C.F. & Riley, T.V. (1999) Antimicrobial activity of essential oils and other plant
extracts. Journal of Applied Microbiology, 86(6), 985–990.
Hamscher, G., Pawelzick, H.T., Sczesny, S., Nau, H. & Hartung, J. (2003) Antibiotics in dust originating
from a pig-fattening farm: a new source of health hazard for farmers? Environmental Health Perspec-
tives, 111(13), 1590–1594.
Hao, X., Benke, M.B., Gibb, D.J., Stronks, A., Travis, G. & McAllister, T.A. (2009) Effects of dried distill-
ers’ grains with solubles (wheat-based) in feedlot cattle diets on feces and manure composition. Journal
of Environmental Quality, 38(4), 1709–1718.
Hartung, J. (1986) Dust in livestock buildings as a carrier of odours. In: Nielsen, V.C., Voorburg, J.H. &
L’Hermite, P. (eds) Odor Prevention and Control of Organic Sludge and Livestock Farming. Elsevier
Applied Science Publishers, London, UK. pp. 321–332.
Hayes, E.T., Leek, A.B.G., Curran, T.P., Dodd, V.A., Carton, O.T., Beattie, V.E. & O’Doherty, J.V. (2004)
The influence of diet crude protein level on odour and ammonia emissions from finishing pig houses.
Bioresource Technology, 91(3), 309–315.
Hertel, O., Reis, S., Skjøth, C.A., Bleeker, A., Harrison, R., Cape, J.N., Fowler, D., Skiba, U., Simpson, D.,
Jickells, T., Baker, A., Kulmala, M., Gyldenkærne, S., Sørensen, L.L. & Erisman, J.W. (2011) Nitrogen
processes in the atmosphere. In: Sutton, M.A., Howard, C.M., Erisman, J.W., Billen, G., Bleeker, A.,
Grennfelt, P., van Grisven, H. & Grizzetti, B. (eds) The European Nitrogen Assessment: Sources, Effects,
and Policy Perspectives. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. pp. 177–207.
Hessel, E.F., Zurhake, C. & Van den Weghe, H.F. (2011) Heating and cooling performance of earth-tube heat
exchanger in a mechanical ventilated farrowing house. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology
A, 1, 187–193.
Hicks, K.C. (2007) Design of Aeration Ploughing Tool for Poultry Litter within Shed to Reduce Odour Gen-
eration. Dissertation, University of Southern Queensland, Australia. Available from: https://eprints.usq.
edu.au/3942/1/Hicks_2007.pdf [accessed September 2014].
Hooser, S.B., Van Alstine, W., Kiupel, M. & Sojka, J. (2000) Acute pit gas (hydrogen sulfide) poisoning in
confinement cattle. Journal of Veterinary Diagnostic Investigation 12(3), 272–275.
254 Jens Seedorf
Hristov, A.N., Oh, J., Firkins, J.L., Dijkstra, J., Kebreab, E., Waghorn, G., Makkar, H.P.S.,Adesogan, T.,
VetBooks.ir
Yang, W., Lee, C., Gerber, P.J., Henderson, B. & Tricarico, J.M. (2013a) Mitigation of methane and
nitrous oxide emissions from animal operations: I. A review of enteric methane mitigation options. Jour-
nal of Animal Science, 91(11), 5045–5069.
Hristov, A.N., Ott, T., Tricarico, J., Rotz, A., Waghorn, G., Adesogan, A., Dijkstra, J., Montes, F., Oh, J.,
Kebreab, E., Oosting, S.J., Gerber, P.J., Henderson, B., Makkar, H.P.S., & Firkins, J.L. (2013b) Mitiga-
tion of methane and nitrous oxide emissions from animal operations: III. A review of animal management
mitigation options. Journal of Animal Science, 91(11), 5095–5113.
Hobbs, P.J., Misselbrook, T.H. & and Pain, B.F. (1997) Characterisation of odorous compounds and emis-
sions from slurries produced from weaner pigs fed dry feed and liquid diets. Journal of the Science of
Food and Agriculture, 73(4), 437–445.
Hooiveld, M., van Dijk, C., van der Sman-de Beer, F., Smit, L.A., Vogelaar, M., Wouters, I.M., Heederik, D.J. &
Yzermans, C.J. (2015); Odour annoyance in the neighbourhood of livestock farming – perceived health and
health care seeking behaviour. Annals of Agricultural and Environmental Medicine, 22(1), 55–61.
Hooser, S.B., Van Alstine, W., Kiupel, M. & Sojka, J. (2000) Acute pit gas (hydrogen sulfide) poisoning in
confinement cattle. Journal of Veterinary Diagnostic Investigation, 12(3), 272–275.
Hudson, J., Kuo, M. & Vimalanathan, S. (2011) The antimicrobial properties of cedar leaf (Thuja plicata)
oil; a safe and efficient decontamination agent for buildings. International Journal of Environmental
Research and Public Health, 8(12), 4477–4487.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPPC). (2013) Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science
Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change. Stocker, T.F., Qin, D., Plattner, G.-K., Tignor, M., Allen, S.K., Boschung,
J., Nauels, A., Xia, Y., Bex, V. & Midgley, P.M. (eds). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United
Kingdom and New York, NY.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPPC) (2014) Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate
Change. IPCC Working Group III Contribution to AR5, Chapter 11: Agriculture, Forestry and Other
Land Use (AFOLU). Available from: http://report.mitigation2014.org/drafts/final-draft-postplenary/ipcc_
wg3_ar5_final-draft_postplenary_chapter11.pdf [accessed August 2014].
Iranpour, R., Cox, H.H.J., Deshusses, M.A. & Schroeder, E.D. (2005) Literature review of air pollution
control biofilters and biotrickling filters for odor and volatile organic compound removal. Environmental
Progress, 24(3), 254–267.
Jacobson, L. Clanton, C.J., Schmidt, D.R., Radman, C.R., Nicolai, E. & Janni, K.A. (1997) Comparison
of hydrogen sulfide and odor emissions from animal manure storages. Proceeding of the International
Symposium onAmmonia and Odour Control from Animal Production Facilities, 6–10 October 1997, Vin-
keloord, The Netherlands, Vol. 4. pp. 405–412.
Jacobson, L., Johnston, L., Hetchler, B. & Janni, K.A. (1999) Odor emission control by sprinkling oil for
dust reduction in pig buildings. Proceeding of the International Symposium on Dust Control in Animal
Production Facilities, 30 May–2 June 1999, Aarhus, Denmark. pp. 223–230.
Jeppsson, K.-H. (1999) Volatilization of ammonia in deep-litter systems with different bedding materials for
young cattle. Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research, 73(1), 49–57.
Jerez, S.B., Mukhtar, S., Faulkner, W., Casey, K.D., Borhan, M.S. & Smith, R.A. (2013) Evaluation of elec-
trostatic particle ionization and Biocurtain™ technologies to reduce air pollutants from broiler houses.
Applied Engineering in Agriculture, 29(6), 975–984.
Johnson, K.A. & and Johnson, D.E. (1995) Methane emissions from cattle. Journal of Animal Science, 73(8),
2483–2492.
Joussain, P., Chakirian, A., Kermen, F., Rouby, C. & Bensafi, M. (2011) Physicochemical influence on odor
hedonics: where does it occur first? Communicative & Integrative Biology 4(5), 563–565.
Kaths, F.A. (2012) Technische und betriebswirtschaftliche Analyse von Konzepten zur ganzjährigen Nutzung
der Abwärme einer Biogasanlage im dezentralen ländlichen Raum [Technical and economical analysis
of concepts for using the heat of biogas plants in rural areas]. PhD thesis, University of Gießen, Gießen,
Germany.
Keener, K.M., Bottcher, R.W., Munilla, R., Parbst, K.E. & van Wicklen, G. (1999) Field evaluation of an
indoor ozonation system for odor control. ASAE/CSAE-SCGR Annual International Meeting, 18–21 July
1999, Toronto, Canada. pp. 1–14.
Khatibi, P.A., McMaster, N.J., Musser, R. & Schmale, III, D.G. (2014) Survey of mycotoxins in corn dis-
tillers’ dried grains with solubles from seventy-eight ethanol plants in twelve states in the U.S. in 2011.
Toxins (Basel), 6(4), 1155–1168.
Kim, K.Y., Jong Ko, H., Tae Kim, H., Shin Kim, Y., Man Roh, Y., Min Lee,C. & Nyon Kim, C. (2008a)
VetBooks.ir
Quantification of ammonia and hydrogen sulfide emitted from pig buildings in Korea. Journal of Envi-
ronmental Management, 88(2), 195–202.
Kim, K.Y., Ko, H.J., Kim, H.T., Kim, Y.S., Roh, Y.M., Lee, C.M. & Kim, C.N. (2008b) Odor reduction
rate in the confinement pig building by spraying various additives. Bioresource Technology, 99(17),
8464–8469.
Kim, W.K. & Patterson, P.H. (2003) Effect of minerals on activity of microbial uricase to reduce ammonia
volatilization in poultry manure. Poultry Science, 82(2), 223–231.
Kim, W.K. & Patterson, P.H. (2004) Effects of dietary zinc supplementation on broiler performance and
nitrogen loss from manure. Poultry Science, 83(1), 34–38.
Kim, W.K. & Patterson, P.H. (2005) Effects of dietary zinc supplementation on hen performance, ammonia
volatilization, and nitrogen retention in manure. Journal of Environmental Science and Health, Part B,
40(4), 675–686.
Kim-Yang, H., von Bernuth, R.D., Hill, J.D. & Davies, S.H. (2005) Effect of ozonation on odor and the
concentration of odorous organic compounds in air in a swine housing facility. Transactions of the ASAE,
48(6), 2297–2302.
Korachi, M. & Aslan, N. (2013) Low temperature atmospheric plasma for microbial decontamination. In:
Méndez-Vilas, A. (ed) Microbial Pathogens and Strategies for Combating Them: Science, Technology
and Education. Formatex Research Center, Badajoz, Spain, Microbiology Book Series no. 4, Vol. 1.
pp. 453–459. Available from: http://www.formatex.info/microbiology4/vol1/453-459.pdf [accessed
September 2014].
Krommweh, M.S., Rösmann, P. & Büscher, W. (2013) Der Modulstall mit Erdwärmetauscher: Zuluftkondi-
tionierung mittels alternativen Gebäude- und Lüftungskonzeptes für zwangsbelüftete Tierställe [Modular
house with geothermal heat exchanger: Supply air conditioning by an alternative building and ventilation
concept for forced ventilated livestock buildings]. 11th Conference on construction, Engineering and
Environment in Livestock Farming, 24–26 September 2013, Vechta, Germany. pp. 188–193.
Kroodsma, W. (1986) Separation as a method of manure handling and odors reduction in pig buildings. In:
Nielsen, V.C., Voorburg, J.H. & L’Hermite, P. (eds) Odor Prevention and Control of Organic Sludge and
Livestock Farming. Elsevier Applied Science Publishers, London, UK. pp. 213–221.
Kroodsma, W., Huis in ‘t Veld, J.W.H. & Scholtens, R. (1993) Ammonia emission and its reduction from
cubicle houses by flushing. Livestock Production Science, 35(3–4), 293–302.
Kuratorium für Technik und Bauwesen in der Landwirtschaft (KTBL) (2006) Nationaler Bewertungsrahmen
Tierhaltungsverfahren [The national evaluation framework for livestock management systems]. KTBL,
Darmstadt, Germany, KTBL-Schrift 446.
Landwirtschaftliche Untersuchungs- und Forschungsanstalt Nord-West (LUFA) (2014) Modellvorhaben
Landwirtschaftliches Bauen 2011–2013 – Bodenhaltung von Legehennen – Maßnahmen zur Minderung
luftgetragener Belastungen im Stall [Demonstration project of agricultural construction 2011–2013 –
Laying hens kept on deep litter – Measures to reduce airborne pollutants in the barn]. Abschlussbericht,
Oldenburg, Germany. 53 pp. Available from: http://www.ktbl.de/fileadmin/user_upload/artikel/Tierhal
tung/Huhn/Stallluftbelastung/Modellvorhaben-Landwirtschaftliches-Bauen-2011-2013.pdf [accessed
August 2014].
Le, P.D. (2006) Odor from Pig Production: Its Relation to Diet. PhD thesis, Wageningen University and
Research Centre, Wageningen, The Netherlands. p. 215.
Le, P.D., Aarnink, A.J.A., Ogink, N.W., Becker, P.M. & Verstegen, M.W. (2005) Odour from animal produc-
tion facilities: its relationship to diet. Nutrition Research Reviews, 18(1), 3–30.
Le, P.D., Aarnink, A.J., Jongbloed, A.W., Peet-Schwering, C.M., Ogink, N.W. & Verstegen, M.W. (2007)
Effects of dietary crude protein level on odour from pig manure. Animal, 1(5), 734–744.
Le, P.D., Aarnink, A.J. & Jongbloed, A.W. (2009) Odour and ammonia emission from pig manure as affected
by dietary crude protein level. Livestock Science, 121(2–3), 267–274.
Leek, A.B., Hayes, E.T., Curran, T.P., Callan, J.J., Beattie, V.E., Dodd, V.A. & O’Doherty, J.V. (2007) The
influence of manure composition on emissions of odour and ammonia from finishing pigs fed different
concentrations of dietary crude protein. Bioresource Technology, 98(18), 3431–3439.
Leinker, M. (2007) Entwicklung einer Prinziplösung zur Senkung von Ammoniakemissionen aus Nutz-
tierställen mit Hilfe von Ureaseinhibitoren [Development of a potential Solution to reduce Ammonia
Emissions from Livestock Buildings using Urease Inhibitors]. PhD thesis, Martin-Luther Universität,
Halle-Wittenberg, Germany. Available from: http://sundoc.bibliothek.uni-halle.de/diss-online/07/08A1/
prom.pdf [accessed August 2014].
256 Jens Seedorf
Li, H., Lin, C., Collier, S., Brown, W. & White-Hansen, S. (2013) Assessment of frequent litter amendment
VetBooks.ir
application on ammonia emission from broilers operations. Journal of the Air & Waste Management
Association, 63(4), 442–452.
Li, L., Cyriac, J., Knowlton, K.F., Marr, L.C., Gay, S.W., Hanigan, M.D. & Ogejo, J.A. (2009) Effects of reduc-
ing dietary nitrogen on ammonia emissions from manure on the floor of a naturally ventilated free stall
dairy barn at low (0–20 degrees C) temperatures. Journal of Environmental Quality, 38(6), 2172–2181.
Li, W., Powers, W. & Hill, G.M. (2011) Feeding distillers dried grains with solubles and organic trace mineral
sources to swine and the resulting effect on gaseous emissions. Journal of Animal Science, 89(10), 3286–3299.
Liang, Y., Xin, H., Wheeler, E.F., Gates, R.S., Li, H., J. Zajaczkowski, J.S., Topper, P.A., Casey, K.D.,
Behrends, B.R., Burnham, D.J. & Zajaczkowski, F.J. (2005) Ammonia emissions from U.S. laying hen
houses in Iowa and Pennsylvania. Transactions of the ASAE, 48(5), 1927–1941.
Lim, T.-T., Heber, A. J. & Ni, J.-Q. (2003) Air quality measurements at a laying hen house: odor and hydro-
gen sulphide emissions. International Symposium on Control of Gaseous and Odour Emissions from
Animal Production Facilities, 2–4 June 2003, Horsens, Denmark. pp. 273–282.
Lim, T.-T., Heber, A.J., Ni, J.-Q., Kendall, D.C. & Richert, B.R. (2004) Effects of manure removal strategies
on odor and gas emission from swine finishing. Transactions of the ASAE, 47(6), 2041–2050.
Liu, K. (2011) Chemical composition of distillers grains, a review. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chem-
istry, 59(5), 1508–1526.
Liu, Z., Murphy, P. & DeRouchey, J. (2014) Technologies for Odor Control in Swine Production Facilities. Kan-
sas State University, Agricultural Experiment Station and Cooperative Extension Service, USA, MF2918. 6
pp. Available from: http://www.ksre.ksu.edu/bookstore/pubs/MF2918.pdf [accessed August 2014].
Lo, Y.-C.M., Koziel, J.A., Cai, L., Hoff, S.J. & Xin, H. (2008) Simultaneous chemical and sensory char-
acterization of volatile organic compounds and semi-volatile organic compounds emitted from swine
manure using solid phase microextraction and multidimensional gas chromatography – mass spectrome-
try – olfactometry. Journal of Environmental Quality, 37(2), 521–534.
Lovanh, N., Loughrin, J. & Sistani, K. (2012) Volatile fatty acids in suspended particulate matter from a
poultry house using rice hulls as bedding materials-a profile of first flock after total cleanout. Journal of
Civil & Environmental Engineering, 2(4), 114, 4 pp.
Lynch, M.B., O’Shea, C.J., Sweeney, T., Callan, J.J. & O’Doherty, J.V. (2008) Effect of crude protein con-
centration and sugar-beet pulp on nutrient digestibility, nitrogen excretion, intestinal fermentation and
manure ammonia and odour emissions from finisher pigs. Animal, 2(3), 425–434.
Mackie, R.I., Stroot, P.G. & Varel, V.H. (1998) Biochemical identification and biological origin of key odor
components in livestock waste. Journal of Animal Science, 76(5), 1331–1342.
Madec, F. (2013) Aiming at building cleanliness to keep livestock healthy. In: Aland, A. & Banhazi, T.
(eds) Livestock Housing. Modern Management to Ensure Optimal Health and Welfare of Farm Animals.
Wageningen Academic Publishers, The Netherlands. pp. 331–354.
McCrory, D.F. & Hobbs, P.J. (2001) Additives to reduce ammonia and odor emissions from livestock wastes:
a review. Journal of Environmental Quality, 30(2), 345–355.
McElroy, K.G. (2010) Environmental health effects of concentrated animal feeding operations: implications
for nurses. Nursing Administration Quarterly, 34(4), 311–319.
McGinn, S.M. (2001) Odours from intensive livestock operations. Advanced Dairy Science and Technol-
ogy, 13, pp. 417–430. Available from: http://www.wcds.ca/proc/2001/Manuscripts/Chapter%2032%20
McGinn.pdf [accessed August 2014].
Melse, R.W. (2009) Air Treatment Techniques for Abatement of Emissions from Intensive Livestock Produc-
tion. PhD thesis, Wageningen University, Wageningen, The Netherlands. Available from: http://edepot.
wur.nl/12452 [accessed July 2014].
Midwest Plan Service (MWPS) (1983) Solar Livestock Housing Handbook. MWPS-23, Iowa State University,
Ames, Iowa. Available from: http://www-mwps.sws.iastate.edu/sites/default/files/imported/free/solarlive
stockhousing.pdf [accessed August 2014].
Miles, D.M., Miller, W.W., Branton, S.L., Maslin, W.R. & Lott, B.D. (2006) Ocular responses to ammonia in
broiler chickens. Avian Diseases, 50(1), 45–49.
Miner, J.R. (1997) Nuisance concerns and odor control. Journal of Dairy Science, 80(10), 2667–2672.
Misselbrook, T.H., Clarkson, C.R. & Pain, B.F. (1993) Relationship between concentration and intensity of
odours for pig slurry and broiler houses. Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research, 55(2), 163–169.
Misselbrook, T.H., Webb, J. & Gilhespy, S.L. (2006) Ammonia emissions from outdoor concrete yards used
by livestock – quantification and mitigation. Atmospheric Environment, 40(35), 6752–6763.
Mitchell, B.W., Richardson, L.J., Wilson, J.L. & Hofacre, C.L. (2004) Application of an electrostatic space
VetBooks.ir
charge system for dust, ammonia, and pathogen reduction in a broiler breeder house. Applied Engineering
in Agriculture, 20(1), 87–93
Mobley, H.L. & Hausinger, R.P. (1989) Microbial ureases: significance, regulation, and molecular character-
ization. Microbiology Reviews, 53(1), 85–108.
Mol, G. & Ogink, N.W. (2004) The effect of two ammonia-emission-reducing pig housing systems on odour
emission. Water Science and Technology, 50(4), 335–340.
Monteney, G.J. & Erisman, J.W. (1998) Ammonia emission from dairy cow buildings: a review of measure-
ment techniques, influencing factors and possibilities for reduction. Netherlands Journal of Agricultural
Science, 46(3–4), 225–249.
Montes, F., Meinen, R., Dell, C., Rotz, A., Hristov, A.N., Waghorn, G., Gerber, P.J., Henderson, B., Makkar,
P.S. & Dijkstra, J. (2013) Mitigation of methane and nitrous oxide emissions from animal operations:
II. A review of manure management mitigation options. Journal of Animal Science, 91(11), 5070–5094.
Morgavi, D.P., Eugène, M., Martin, C. & Doreau, M. (2011) Reducing methane emissions in ruminants:
is it an achievable goal? In: Ranilla, M.J., Carro, M.D., Ben Salem, H. & Morand-Fehr, P. (eds) Chal-
lenging Strategies to Promote the Sheep and Goat Sector in the Current Global Context. Zaragoza,
CIHEAM/CSIC/Universidad de León/FAO. pp. 65–73 (Options Méditerranéennes: Série A., Séminaires
Méditerranéens, n. 99). Available from: http://om.ciheam.org/om/pdf/a99/00801537.pdf [accessed
August 2014].
Morris, G.L., Curtis, S.E. & Widowski, T.M. (1985) Weanling pigs under sublethal concentrations of atmo-
spheric carbon monoxide. Journal of Animal Science, 61(5), 1080–1087.
Morsing, S., Strøm, J.S., Zhang, G. & Kai, P. (2008) Scale model experiments to determine the effects of
internal airflow and floor design on gaseous emissions from animal houses. Biosystems Engineering,
99(1), 99–104.
Muhlbauer, R.V., Swestka, R.J., Burns, R.T., Xin, H., Hoff, S. & Li, H. (2008) Development and testing of
a hydrogen sulfide detection system for use in swine housing. Proceedings of the ASABE International
Meeting, 29 June–2 July 2008, Providence, RI. Paper No. 084203. Available from: http://lib.dr.iastate.
edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1151&context=abe_eng_conf [accessed August 2014].
Murphy, K.R., Gavin, P. & Stuetz, R.M. (2014) Non-methane volatile organic compounds predict odor emit-
ted from five tunnel ventilated broiler sheds. Chemosphere, 95, 423–432.
Murphy, T., Cargill, C., Rutley, T. & Stott, P. (2012) Pig-shed air polluted by α-haemolytic cocci and ammo-
nia causes subclinical disease and production losses. Veterinary Record, 171(5), 123.
Nahm, K.H. (2007) Feed formulations to reduce N excretion and ammonia emission from poultry manure.
Bioresource Technology, 98, 2282–2300.
Ndegwa, P.M., Zhu, J. & Luo, A. (2002) Effects of solids separation and time on the production of odorous
compounds in stored pig slurry. Biosystems Engineering, 81(1), 127–133.
Ndegwa, P.M., Harrison, J.H., Neerackal, G.M. & Joo, H.-S. (2014) Manure-pH management for mitigating
ammonia emissions from manure-flush dairy barn. Annual International Meeting of American Society of
Agricultural and Biological Engineers, Montreal, Canada, Paper 141892636.
Ngwabie, N.M., Jeppsson, K.-H., Gustafsson, G. & Nimmermark, S. (2010) Influence of environmental
factors and the addition of wood shavings on ammonia and odour emissions from fresh livestock manure.
CIGR Journal, 12(3), 68–81.
Ni, J. (1999) Mechanistic models of ammonia release from liquid manure: a review. Journal of Agricultural
Engineering Research, 72(1), 1–17.
Ni, J.-Q., Heber, A.J., Diehl, C.A., Lim, T.T., Duggirala, R.K. & and Haymore, B.L. (2002) Characteristics
of hydrogen sulphide concentrations in mechanically ventilated swine buildings. Canadian Biosystems
Engineering, 44, 6.11–6.19.
Nicell, J.A. (2009) Assessment and regulation of odour impacts. Atmospheric Environment, 43(1), 196–206.
Nicolai, R. & Pohl, S. (2005) Understanding livestock odors. Fact sheet FS 925-A, South Dakota Coopera-
tive Extension Service, Brookings, SD. Available from: http://www.sdstate.edu/abe/research/structures/
upload/FS925-A.pdf [accessed August 2014].
Nitrayová, S., Brestensky, M., Patrás, P. & Heger, J. (2012) Nutritional characteristics of by-products orig-
inating from the Central European ethanol fuel industry for pigs. Journal of Animal Science, 90(Suppl
4), 122–124.
258 Jens Seedorf
O’Connor, A.M., Auvermann, B., Bickett-Weddle, D., Kirhorn, S., Sargeant, J.M., Ramirez, A. & von Essen,
VetBooks.ir
S.G. (2010) The association between proximity to animal feeding operations and community health: a
systematic review. PLoS ONE, 5(3), e9530, 13 pp.
Ogink, N.W.M. & Groot Koerkamp, P.W.G. (2001) Comparison of odour emissions from animal housing
systems with low ammonia emission. Water Science and Technology, 44(9), 245–252.
Okoye, J.O., Gugnani, H.C. & Okeke, C.N. (1989) Pulmonary infections due to Aspergillus flavus in turkey
poults and goslings. Mycoses, 32(7), 336–339.
Omland, Ø. (2002) Exposure and respiratory health in farming in temperate zones – a review of the literature.
O’Neill, D.H. & Phillips, V.R. (1991) A review of the control of odour nuisance from livestock buildings:
part 1, influence of the techniques for managing waste within the building. Journal of Agricultural Engi-
neering Research, 50, 1–10.
Otto, E.R., Yokoyama, M., Hengemuehle, S., von Bermuth, R.D., van Kempen, T. & Trottie, N.L. (2003)
Ammonia, volatile fatty acids, phenolics, and odor offensiveness in manure from growing pigs fed diets
reduced in protein concentration. Journal of Animal Science, 81(7), 1754–1763.
Ouellette, C., Lemay, S., Godbout, S. & Edeogu, I. (2006) Oil application to reduce dust and odour emis-
sions from swine buildings. CSBE/SCGAB 2006 Annual Conference, 16–19 July 2006, Edmonton, Can-
ada. Paper 06–147. Available from: http://www.csbe-scgab.ca/docs/meetings/2006/CSBE06147.pdf
[accessed July 2015].
Panetta, D.M., Powers, W.J., & Lorimor, J.C. (2005) Management strategy impacts on ammonia volatiliza-
tion from swine manure. Journal of Environmental Quality, 34(4), 1119–1130.
Park, J., Lee, S.R., Han, J.K. & Nam, K. (2006) Mitigation of ammonia and hydrogen sulfide emissions by
stable aqueous foam-microbial media. Environmental Science & Technology, 40(9), 3030–3035.
Parker, D.B., Pandrangi, S., Greene, L.W., Almas, L.K., Cole, N.A., Rhoades, M.B. & Koziel, J.A. (2005)
Rate and frequency of urease inhibitor application for minimizing ammonia emissions from beef cattle
feedyards. Transactions of the ASAE, 48(2), 787–793.
Parker, D.B., Cai, L., Kim, K.H., Hales, K.E., Spiehs, M.J., Woodbury, B.L., Atkin, A.L., Nickerson, K.W. &
Patefield, K.D. (2012) Reducing odorous VOC emissions from swine manure using soybean peroxidase
and peroxides. Bioresource Technology, 124, 95–104.
Pattey, E. & Qiu, G. (2012) Trends in primary particulate matter emissions from Canadian agriculture. Jour-
nal of the Air & Waste Management Association, 62(7), 737–747.
Payne, R.J., Dise, N.B., Stevens, C.J., Gowing, D.J. & BEGIN Partners (2013) Impact of nitrogen deposition
at the species level. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(3), 984–987.
Pedersen, S. & Ravn, P. (2008) Characteristics of floors for pig pens: friction, shock absorption, ammonia
emission and heat conduction. CIGR Ejournal, Manuscript BC 08 005, Vol.X., July. 16 pp. Available
from: http://cigrjournal.org/index.php/Ejounral/article/viewFile/1202/1060 [accessed June 2015].
Pedersen, S., Takai, H., Johnsen, J.O., Metz, J.H.M., Groot Koerkamp, P.W.G., Uenk, G.H., Phillips, V.R.,
K.H. & Wathes, C.M. (1998) A comparison of three balance methods for calculating ventilation flow rates
in livestock buildings. Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research, 70(1), 25–37.
Pejsak, Z., Zmudzki, J. & Wojnicki, P. (2008) Abortion in sows associated with carbon monoxide intoxica-
tion. Veterinary Record, 162(13), 417–418.
Peters, M., Kauth, M., Schwarze, J., Körner-Rettberg, C., Riedler, J., Nowak, D., Braun-Fahrländer, C., von
Mutius, E., Bufe, A. & Holst, O. (2006) Inhalation of stable dust extract prevents allergen induced airway
inflammation and hyperresponsiveness. Thorax, 61(2), 134–139.
Petersen, S.O., Andersen, A.J. & Eriksen, J. (2012) Effects of cattle slurry acidification on ammonia and
methane evolution during storage. Journal of Environmental Quality, 41(1), 88–94.
Petersen, S.T. (2010) The potential ability of swine nutrition to influence environmental factors positively.
Journal of Animal Science, 88(13), Suppl., E95-E101.
Philippe, F.-X., Cabaraux, J.-F. & Nicks, B. (2011a) Ammonia emissions from pig houses: influencing fac-
tors and mitigation techniques. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 141(3–4), 245–260.
Philippe, F.-X., Laitat, M., Wavreille, J., Bartiaux-Thill, N., Nicks, B. & Cabaraux, J.-F. (2011b) Ammonia
and greenhouse gas emission from group-housed gestating sows depends on floor type. Agriculture, Eco-
systems & Environment, 140(3–4), 498–505.
Pichinoty, F., Bigliardi-Rouvier, J., Mandel, M., Greenway, B., Méténier, G. & Garcia, J.-L. (1976) The iso-
lation and properties of a denitrifying bacterium of the genus Flavobacterium. Antonie Van Leeuwenhoek,
42(3), 349–354.
Pillai, S.M., Wang, X., Parcsi, G., Gallagher, E., Dunlop, M. & Stuetz, R. (2012) Temporal variations and
VetBooks.ir
influencing factors of odour emissions from litter in tunnel ventilated broiler sheds. Air Quality and Cli-
mate Change 46(3), 17–21.
Pitesky, M.E., Stackhouse, K.R. & Mitloehner, F.M. (2009) Clearing the air: livestock’s contribution to cli-
mate change. In: Sparks, D. (ed) Advances in Agronomy, Vol. 103. Academic Press, Burlington. pp. 1–40.
Poulsen, H.V., Jensen, B.B., Finster, K., Spence, C., Whitehead, T.R., Cotta, M.A. & Canibe, N. (2012)
Microbial production of volatile sulphur compounds in the large intestine of pigs fed two different diets.
Journal of Applied Microbiology, 113(1), 143–154.
Powell, J.M., Aguerre, M.J. & Wattiaux, M.A. (2011a) Tannin extracts abate ammonia emissions from sim-
ulated dairy barn floors. Journal of Environmental Quality, 40(3), 907–914.
Powell, J.M., Wattiaux, M.A. & Broderick, G.A. (2011b) Evaluation of milk urea nitrogen as a management
tool to reduce ammonia emissions from dairy farms. Journal of Dairy Science, 94(9), 4690–4694.
Powell, J.M., Rotz, C.A. & Wattiaux, M.A. (2014) Potential use of milk urea nitrogen to abate atmospheric
nitrogen emissions from wisconsin dairy farms. Journal of Environmental Quality, 43(4), 1169–1175.
Predicala, B., Nemati, M., Stade, S. & Laguë, C. (2008) Control of H2S emission from swine manure using
Na-nitrite and Na-molybdate. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 154(1–3), 300–309.
PubChem (2016) Methanethiol. Available from: https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/methanethio-
l#section=Top [accessed December 2016].
Rabaud, N.E., Ebeler, S.E., Ashbaugh, L.L. & Flocchini, R.G. (2003) Characterization and quantification
of odorous and non-odorous volatile organic compounds near a commercial dairy in California. Atmo-
spheric Environment, 37(7), 933–940.
Radon, K. (2006) The two sides of the “endotoxin coin.” Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 63(1),
73–78.
Radon, K., Schulze, A., Ehrenstein, V., van Strien, R.T., Praml, G. & Nowak, D. (2007) Environmental expo-
sure to confined animal feeding operations and respiratory health of neighboring residents. Epidemiology,
18(3), 300–308.
Rahman, S. & Borhan, M.S. (2012) Typical odor mitigation technologies for swine production facilities – a
review. Journal of Civil & Environmental Engineering, 2(4), 117, 11 pp.
Rahman, S., DeSutter, T. & Zhang, Q. (2011) Efficacy of a microbial additive in reducing odor, ammonia,
and hydrogen sulfide emissions from farrowing-gestation swine operation. CIGR Journal, 13(3), Manu-
script No. 1940, 14 pp.
Reece, F.N. & Lott, B.D. (1980) Effect of carbon dioxide on broiler chicken performance. Poultry Science,
59(11), 2400–2402.
Reeve, K.A., Peters, T.M. & Anthony, T.R. (2013) Wintertime factors affecting contaminant distribution in a
swine farrowing room. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene, 10(6), 287–296.
Retz, S.K., Georg, H. & Van den Weghe, H.F.A. (2011) Einfluss einer Spaltenbodenreinigung in einem
Rinderstall auf die Ammoniakemissionen [Slatted floor cleaning and the influence on ammonia emis-
sions of a cattle barn]. 11. Wissenschaftstagung Ökologischer Landbau, 15–18 March 2011, Gießen,
Germany, Vol. I. pp. 151–154. Available from: http://orgprints.org/17381/3/Retz_17381.pdf [accessed
June 2015].
Reynolds, S.J., Chao, D.Y., Thorne, P.S., Subramanian, P., Waldron, P.F., Selim, M., Whitten, P.S. & Pop-
pendorf, W.J. (1998) Field comparison of methods for evaluation of vapor/particle phase distribution of
ammonia in livestock buildings. Journal of Agricultural Safety and Health, 4(2), 81–93.
Ritz,C.W., Fairchild, B.D. & Lacy, M.P. (2004) Implications of ammonia production and emissions from
commercial poultry facilities: a review. The Journal of Applied Poultry Research, 13(4), 684–692.
Ritz, C.W., Mitchell, B.W., Fairchild, B.D., Czarick III, M. & Worley, J.W. (2006) Improving in-house air
quality in broiler production facilities using an electrostatic space charge system. The Journal of Applied
Poultry Research, 15(2), 333–340.
Roberts, S.A. (2009) Effects of dietary Corn Distiller’s dried Grains with solubles on Ammonia Emission,
Production Performance, Manure Characteristics, and economic Efficiency for laying Hens. PhD thesis,
Iowa State University, Ames.
Roberts, S.A., Xin, H., Kerr, B.J., Russell, J.R. & Bregendahl, K. (2007a) Effects of dietary fiber and reduced
crude protein on ammonia emission from laying-hen manure. Poultry Science, 86(8), 1625–1632.
Roberts, S.A., Xin, H., Kerr, B.J., Russell, J.R. & Bregendahl, K. (2007b) Effects of dietary fiber and reduced
crude protein on nitrogen balance and egg production in laying hens. Poultry Science, 86(8), 1716–1725.
Rodrigues, I. & Naehrer, K. (2012) A three-year survey on the worldwide occurrence of mycotoxins in feed-
stuffs and feed. Toxins, 4(9), 663–675.
260 Jens Seedorf
Rong, L. (2011) Study of Ammonia Emissions in a ventilated Pig Pen. PhD thesis, Aalborg University, Aal-
VetBooks.ir
borg, Denmark. Available from: http://vbn.aau.dk/files/51968502/Study_of_Ammonia_Emissions_in_a_

Ventilated_Pig_Pen.pdf [accessed August 2014].
Rong, L., Nielsen, P.V. & Zhang, G. (2009) Effects of airflow and liquid temperature on ammonia mass trans-
fer above an emission surface: experimental study on emission rate. Bioresource Technology, 100(20),
4654–4661.
Rothrock, M.J. Jr, Cook, K.L., Lovanh, N., Warren, J.G. & Sistani, K. (2008a) Development of a quantitative
real-time polymerase chain reaction assay to target a novel group of ammonia-producing bacteria found
in poultry litter. Poultry Science, 87(6), 1058–1067.
Rothrock, M.J. Jr, Cook, K.L., Warren, J.G. & Sistani, K. (2008b) The effect of alum addition on microbial
communities in poultry litter. Poultry Science, 87(8), 1493–1503.
Rouf, M.A. & Lomprey, R.F. Jr. (1968) Degradation of uric acid by certain aerobic bacteria. Journal of
Bacteriology, 96(3), 617–622.
Sabino, R., Faísca, V.M., Carolino, E., Veríssimo, C. & Viegas, C. (2012) Occupational exposure to Asper-
gillus by swine and poultry farm workers in Portugal. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health,
Part A, 75(22–23), 1381–1391.
Saha, C.K., Zhang, G., Kai, P. & Bjerg, B. (2010) Effects of a partial pit ventilation system on indoor air
quality and ammonia emission from a fattening pig room. Biosystems Engineering, 105(3), 279–287.
Sapounas, A.A., Campen, J., Smits, M. & Dooren, H. (2009) Simulating the effect of forced pit ventilation
on ammonia emission from a naturally ventilated cow house with CFD. Joint International Agricultural
Conference, 6–8 July 2009, Wageningen, The Netherlands. Available from: http://edepot.wur.nl/169220
[accessed August 2014].
Schiffman, S.S. (1998) Livestock odors: implications for human health and well-being. Journal of Animal
Science, 76(5), 1343–1355.
Schiffman, S.S., Saltely Miller, E.A., Suggs, M.S. & Graham, B.G. (1995) The effect of environmental odors
emanating from commercial swine operations on the mood of nearby residents. Brain Research Bulletin,
37(4), 369–375.
Schiffman, S.S., Benett, J.L. & Raymer, J.H. (2001) Quantification of odors and odorants from swine opera-
tions in North Carolina. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 108(3), 213–240.
Schiffman, S.S., Studwell, C.E., Landerman, L.R., Berman, K. & Sundy, J.S. (2005) Symptomatic effects
of exposure to diluted air sampled from a swine confinement atmosphere on healthy human subjects.
Environmental Health Perspectives, 113(5), 567–576.
Schulz, J., Friese, A., Klees, S., Tenhagen, B.A., Fetsch, A., Rösler, U. & Hartung, J. (2012) Longitudinal study
of the contamination of air and of soil surfaces in the vicinity of pig barns by livestock-associated methicil-
lin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 78(16), 5666–5671.
Schulze, A., van Strien, R., Ehrenstein, V., Schierl, R., Küchenhoff, H. & Radon, K. (2006) Ambient endo-
toxin level in an area with intensive livestock production. Annals of Agricultural and Environmental
Medicine, 13(1), 87–91.
Schulze, A., Römmelt, H., Ehrenstein, V., van Strien, R., Praml, G., Küchenhoff, H., Nowak, D. & Radon, K.
(2011) Effects on pulmonary health of neighboring residents of concentrated animal feeding operations:
exposure assessed using optimized estimation technique. Archives of Environmental & Occupational
Health, 66(3), 146–154.
Seedorf, J. (2004a) An emission inventory of livestock-related bioaerosols for Lower Saxony, Germany.
Atmospheric Environment, 38(38), 6565–6581.
Seedorf, J. (2004b) Biological purification of waste air in livestock operations – system requirements and
limitations. Proceedings of the 13th World Clean Air and Environmental Protection Congress and Exhi-
bition, 22–27 August 2004, London, UK. Available from: http://www.umad.de/infos/cleanair13/pdf/
full_258.pdf [accessed June 2015].
Seedorf, J. (2013) Biological exhaust air treatment systems as a potential microbial risk for farm animals
assessed with a computer simulation. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 93(12), 3129–3132.
Seedorf, J., Schulz, J. & Hartung, J. (2005) Outdoor measurements of airborne emission of staphylococci
from a broiler barn and its predictability by dispersion models. WIT Transactions on Ecology and the
Environment, 85, 33–42.
Sharma, N.K., Choct, M., Dunlop, M.W., Wu, S.B., Castada, H.Z. & Swick, R.A. (2017) Characterisation
and quantification of changes in odorants from litter headspace of meat chickens fed diets varying in
protein levels and additives. Poultry Science, 96(4), 851–860.
Shusterman, D. (1992) Critical review: the health significance of environmental odor pollution. Archives of
VetBooks.ir
Environmental Health, 47(1), 76–87.

Sindhöj, E. & Rodhe, L. (2013) Examples of implementing manure processing technology at farm level.
Swedish Institute of Agricultural and Environmental Engineering, Uppsala, Sweden, Report 412. 57 pp.
Available from: http://www.jti.se/uploads/jti/r-412_manure_processing_technology_final_se_web.pdf
[accessed August 2014].
Singh, A., Casey, K.D., Pescatore, A.J. & Gates, R.S. (2005) Efficacy of urease to reduce ammonia emis-
sions from broiler litter. Animal Waste Management Symposium, 5–7 October 2005, Raleigh, NC.
pp. 219–226.
Singh, A., Casey, K.D., King, W.D., Pescatore, A.J., Gates, R.S. & Ford, M.J. (2009) Efficacy of urease
inhibitor to reduce ammonia emission from poultry houses. The Journal of Applied Poultry Research,
18(1), 34–42.
Smith, P., Martino, D., Cai, Z., Gwary, D., Janzen, H., Kumar, P., McCarl, B., Ogle, S., O’Mara, F., Rice, C.,
Scholes, B., Sirotenko, O., Howden, M., McAllister, T., Pan, G., Romanenkov, V., Schneider, U., Tow-
prayoon, S., Wattenbach, M. & Smith, J. (2008) Greenhouse gas mitigation in agriculture. Philosophical
Transactions of the Royal Society B, 363(1492), 789–813.
Snoeyink, V.L. & Jenkins, D. (1980) Water Chemistry. John Wiley & Sons, New York,.
Snyder, C.S., Bruulsema, T.W., Jensen, T.L. & Fixen, P.E. (2009) Review of greenhouse gas emissions from
crop production systems and fertilizer management effects. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment,
133(3–4), 247–266.
Southon, G.E., Field, C., Caporn, S.J.M., Britton, A.J. & Power, S.A. (2013) Nitrogen deposition reduces
plant diversity and alters ecosystem functioning: field-scale evidence from a nationwide survey of UK
heathlands. PLoS ONE, 8(4), e59031, 12 pp.
Spiehs, M.J. & Varel, V.H. (2009) Nutrient excretion and odorant production in manure from cattle fed corn
wet distillers grains with solubles. Journal of Animal Science, 87(9), 2977–2984.
Spiehs, M.J., Whitney, M.H., Shurson, G.C. & Nicolai, R.E. (2000) Odor characteristics of swine manure
and nutrient balance of grow-finish pigs fed diets with and without distillers dried grains with solubles.
Journal of Animal Science, 78(69) (Suppl. 2).
Spiehs, M.J., Whitney, M.H. & Shurson, G.C. (2002) Nutrient database for distiller’s dried grains with sol-
ubles produced from new ethanol plants in Minnesota and South Dakota. Journal of Animal Science,
80(10), 2639–2645.
Spiehs, M.J., Whitney, M.H., Shurson, G.C., Nicolai, R.E., Renteria Flores, J.A. & Parker, D.B. (2012a)
Odor and gas emissions and nutrient excretion from pigs fed diets containing dried distillers grains with
solubles. Applied Engineering in Agriculture, 28(3), 1–7.
Spiehs, M.J., Brown-Brandl, T.M., Parker, D.B., Miller, D.N., Berry, E.D. & Wells, J.E. (2012b) Effect
of bedding materials concentration of odourous compounds and Escherichia coli in beef cattle bedded
manure packs. Journal of Environmental Quality, 42(1), 65–75.
Spiehs, M.J., Brown-Brandl, T.M., Parker, D.B., Miller, D.N., Jaderborg, J.P., DiConstanzo, A., Berry,
E.D. & Wells, J.E. (2013a) Use of wood-based materials in beef bedded manure packs: 1. Effect on
ammonia, total reduced sulfide, and greenhouse gas concentrations. Journal of Environmental Quality,
43(4), 1187–1194.
Spiehs, M.J., Brown-Brandl, T.M., Berry, E.D., Wells, J.E., Parker, D.B., Miller, D.N., Jaderborg, J.P. &
DiConstanzo, A. (2013b) Use of wood-based materials in beef bedded manure packs: 2. Effect on odou-
rous volatile organic compounds, odor activity value, Escherichia coli, and nutrient concentrations. Jour-
nal of Environmental Quality, 43(4), 1195–1206.
Stevens, C.J., Dise, N.B., Gowing, D.J.G. & Mountford, J.O. (2006) Loss of forb diversity in relation to
nitrogen deposition in the UK: regional trends and potential controls. Global Change Biology, 12(10),
1823–1833.
Stevens, R.J., Laughlin, R.J. & Frost, J.P. (1989) Effect of acidification with sulfuric acid on the volatilization
of ammonia from cow and pig slurries. Journal of Agricultural Science, 113(3), 389–395.
Sucker, K., Both, R., Bischoff, M., Guski, R., Krämer, U. & Winneke, G. (2008) Odor frequency and odor
annoyance Part II: dose-response associations and their modification by hedonic tone. International
Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health, 81(6), 683–694.
Sutton, A.L., Kephart, K.B., Verstegen, M.W., Canh, T.T. & Hobbs, P.J. (1999) Potential for reduction
of odorous compounds in swine manure through diet modification. Journal of Animal Science, 77(2),
430–439.
262 Jens Seedorf
Swestka, R.J. (2010) Hydrogen Sulfide Spatial Distribution and Exposure in Deep-Pit Swine Housing. Mas-
VetBooks.ir
ter thesis, Iowa State University, Iowa. p. 121.

Swierstra, D., Braam, C.R. & Smits, M.C. (2001) Grooved floor system for cattle housing: ammonia emis-
sion reduction and good slip resistance. Applied Engineering in Agriculture, 17(1), 85–90.
Szczyrek, M., Krawczyk, P., Milanowski, J., Jastrzębska, I., Zwolak, A. & Daniluk, J. (2011) Chronic
obstructive pulmonary disease in farmers and agricultural workers – an overview. Annals of Agricultural
and Environmental Medicine, 18(2), 310–313.
desorption from dusts collected in livestock buildings. Agricultural Engineering International: CIGR
Journal of Scientific Research and Development, Manuscript BC 01005, Vol. IV, June, 11 pp.
Tedeschi, L.O., Fox, D.G. & Tylutki, T.P. (2003) Potential environmental benefits of ionophores in ruminant
diets. Journal of Environmental Quality, 32(5), 1591–1602.
Trabue, S. & Kerr, B. (2014) Emissions of greenhouse gases, ammonia, and hydrogen sulfide from pigs fed
standard diets and diets supplemented with dried distillers grains with solubles. Journal of Environmental
Quality, 43(4), 1176–1186.
Trabue, S., Scoggin, K., Li, H., Burns, R., Xin, H. & Hatfield, J. (2010) Speciation of volatile organic com-
pounds from poultry production. Atmospheric Environment, 44(29), 3538–3546.
Trabue, S., Kerr, B. & Scoggin, K. (2016) Odor and odorous compound emissions from manure of swine fed
standard and dried distillers grains with soluble supplemented diets. Journal of Environmental Quality,
45(3), 915–923.
Ubeda, Y., Lopez-Jimenez, P.A., Nicolas, J. & Calvet, S. (2013) Strategies to control odours in livestock
facilities: a critical review. Spanish Journal of Agricultural Research, 11(4), 1004–1015.
Ullman, J.L., Mukhtar, S., Lacey, R.E. & Carey, J.B. (2004) A review of literature concerning odors, ammo-
nia, and dust from broiler production facilities: 4. Remedial management practices. The Journal of
Applied Poultry Research, 13(3), 521–531.
United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) (2001) Framework code for good agricul-
tural practice for reducing ammonia, EB.AIR/WG.5/2001/7, Geneva, Switzerland. Available from:
http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/env/documents/2001/eb/wg5/eb.air.wg.5.2001.7.e.pdf [accessed
August 2014].
Urbain, B., Prouvost, J.-F., Beerens, D., Ansay, M. & Gustin, P. (1996) Acute effects of endotoxin inhalation
on the respiratory tract in pigs: interaction with ammonia. Inhalation Toxicology, 8(9), 947–968.
Urbain, B., Beerens, D., N’Guyen, Q., Mast, J., Goddeeris, B., Ansay, M. & Gustin, P. (1997) Chronic effects
of dust inhalation on the respiratory tract in pigs. Journal of Veterinary Pharmacology and Therapeutics,
20(Supplement 1), 291–292.
US Grains Council (2012) A Guide to Distiller’s Dried Grains with Solubles (DDGS), 3rd ed. Available from:
http://www.ddgs.umn.edu/prod/groups/cfans/@pub/@cfans/@ansci/documents/asset/cfans_
asset_417244.pdf [accessed August 2014].
Van der Stelt, B., Temminghoff, E.J., Van Vliet, P.C. & Van Riemsdijk, W.H. (2007) Volatilization of ammo-
nia from manure as affected by manure additives, temperature and mixing. Bioresource Technology,
98(18), 3449–3455.
van Kempen, T.A. (2001) Dietary adipic acid reduces ammonia emission from swine excreta. Journal of
Animal Science, 79(9), 2412–2417.
Varel, V.H. (1997) Use of urease inhibitors to control nitrogen loss from livestock waste. Bioresource Tech-
nology, 62(1–2), 11–17.
Varel, V.H. & Miller, D.N. (2001) Plant-derived oils reduce pathogens and gaseous emissions from stored
cattle waste. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 67(3), 1366–1370.
Varel, V.H., Wells, J.E. & Miller, D.N. (2007) Combination of a urease inhibitor and a plant essential oil
to control coliform bacteria, odour production and ammonia loss from cattle waste. Journal of Applied
Microbiology, 102(2), 472–477.
Varel, V.H., Wells, J.E., Berry, E.D., Spiehs, M.J., Miller, D.N., Ferrell.C.L., Shackelford, S.D., & Kooh-
maraie, M. (2008) Odorant production and persistence of Escherichia coli in manure slurries from cattle
fed zero, twenty, forty, or sixty percent wet distillers grains with solubles. Journal of Animal Science,
86(12), 3617–3627.
Varel, V.H., Wells, J.E., Berry, E.D. & Miller, D.N. (2010) Manure odor potential and Escherichia coli
VetBooks.ir
concentrations in manure slurries of feedlot steers fed 40% corn wet distillers grains. Journal of Environ-
mental Quality, 39(4), 1498–1506.
Verein Deutscher Ingenieure (VDI) (2016) Process Gas and Waste Gas Cleaning by Cold Plasma. VDI-
Richtlinie 2441. Beuth Verlag GmbH, Berlin, Germany.
Verification of Environmental Technologies for Agricultural Production (VERA) (2016) JH Forsuring NH
4+. VERA Verification no 006. Available from: http://www.vera-verification.eu/fileadmin/download/
VERA_Statements/VERA-Statement006_JH-Forsuring-NH4.pdf [accessed December 2016].
Von Essen, S., Moore, G., Gibbs, S. & Larson, K.L. (2010) Respiratory issues in beef and pork production:
recommendations from an expert panel. Journal of Agromedicine, 15(3), 216–225.
von Mutius, E. & Radon, K. (2008) Living on a farm: impact on asthma induction and clinical course. Immu-
nology and Allergy Clinics of North America, 28(3), 631–647.
von Mutius, E., Braun-Fahrländer, C., Schierl, R., Riedler, J., Ehlermann, S., Maisch, S., Waser, M. &
Nowak, D. (2000) Exposure to endotoxin or other bacterial components might protect against the devel-
opment of atopy. Clinical & Experimental Allergy, 30(9), 1230–1234.
Wang, K., Wei, B., Zhu, S. & Ye, Z. (2011) Ammonia and odour emitted from deep litter and fully slatted
floor systems for growing-finishing pigs. Biosystems Engineering, 109(3), 203–210.
Wang, K., Huang, D., Ying, H. & Luo, H. (2014) Effects of acidification during storage on emissions of
methane, ammonia, and hydrogen sulfide from digested pig slurry. Biosystems Engineering, 122, 23–30.
Wang, X.L., Stroot, P.G., Zhang, Y.H. & Riskowski, G.L. (1998) Odor carrying characteristics of dust from
swine facilities. ASAE Annual International Meeting, 12–16 July 1998, Orlando, FL. Paper 984068.
Wheeler, E.F., Arlene, M., Adviento-Borbe, A., Brandt, R.C., Topper, P.A., Topper, D.A., Elliot, H.A.,
Graves, R.E., Hristov, A.N., Ishler, V.A. & Burns, M.A.V. (2011) Evaluation of odor emissions from
amended dairy manure: preliminary screening. CIGR Journal, 13(2), 1–15.
Research, 44(3), 175–190.
Wing, S. & Wolf, S. (2000) Intensive livestock operations, health, and quality of life among eastern North
Carolina residents. Environmental Health Perspectives, 108(3), 233–238.
Winkel, A., Vermeij, I. & Ellen, H.H. (2014) Testing of various techniques for dust reduction in an exper-
imental pig house. Proceedings of the International Conference of Agricultural Engineering, AgEng,
6–10 July 2014, Zurich, Switzerland. Available from: http://www.geyseco.es/geystiona/adjs/comunica
ciones/304/C04160001.pdf [accessed June 2015].
Woodbury, B.L., Gilley, J.E., Parker, D.B., Marx, D.B., Miller, D.N. & Eigenberg, R.A. (2014) Emission of
volatile organic compounds after land application of cattle manure. Journal of Environmental Quality,
43(4), 1207–1218.
World Health Organization (WHO) (2000) Hydrogen sulfide. WHO Air Quality Guidelines for Europe, 2nd
edition (CD-ROM version). Chapter 6.6. Available from: http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_
file/0019/123076/AQG2ndEd_6_6Hydrogensulfide.PDF [accessed August 2014].
World Meteorological Organization (WMO) (2010) Guide to Agricultural Meteorological Practices.
WMO-No. 134, Updated in 2012, Geneva, Switzerland. Available from: http://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/
wcp/agm/gamp/documents/WMO_No134_en.pdf [accessed August 2014].
Wu, J.J., Park, S.-H., Hengemuehle, S.M., Yokoyama, M.T., Person, H.L., Gerrish, J.B. & Masten, S.J.
(1999) The use of ozone to reduce the concentration of malodorous metabolites in swine manure slurry.
Wu, W. (2012) Modelling and reducing gas emissions from naturally ventilated livestock buildings. Techni-
cal report BCE-TR-2, Department of Engineering, Aarhus University, Denmark. Available from: http://
eng.au.dk/fileadmin/DJF/ENG/PDF-filer/Tekniske_rapporter/Bioteknologi_og_Kemiteknologi/Tech
nical_Report_BCE-TR-2.pdf [accessed August 2014].
Xin, H., Gates, R.S., Green, A.R., Mitloehner, F.M., Moore Jr., P.A. & Wathes, C.M. (2011) Environmental
impacts and sustainability of egg production systems. Poultry Science, 90(1), 263–277.
Yang, X., Lorjaroenphon, Y., Cadwallader, K.R., Wang, X., Zhang, Y. & Lee, J. (2014) Analysis of
particle-borne odorants emitted from concentrated animal feeding operations. Science of the Total Envi-
ronment, 490, 322–333.
Yao, H. (2013) Application of advanced oxidation processes for treatment of air from livestock buildings and
industrial facilities. Technical report BCE-TR-8, Aarhus University, Denmark. 41 pp. Available from:
http://eng.au.dk/fileadmin/DJF/ENG/PDF-filer/Tekniske_rapporter/Bioteknologi_og_Kemiteknologi/
SAMLET_TR_BCE-8.pdf [accessed September 2014].
264 Jens Seedorf
Ye, F.X., Zhu, R.F. & Li, Y. (2009) Deodorization of swine manure slurry using horseradish peroxidase and
VetBooks.ir
peroxides. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 167(1–3), 148–153.

Ye, Z., Zhang, G., Li, B., Strøm, J.S. & Dahl, P.J. (2008) Ammonia emissions affected by airflow in a model
pig house: effects of ventilation rate, floor slat opening, and headspace height in a manure storage pit.
Transactions of the ASABE, 51(6), 2113–2122.
Ye, Z., Zhang, G., Seo, I.-H., Kai, P., Saha, C.K., Wang, C. & Li, B. (2009) Airflow characteristics at the
surface of manure in a storage pit affected by ventilation rate, floor slat opening, and headspace height.
Zahn, J.A., Hatfield, J.L., Do, Y.S. & DiSpirito, A.A. (2000) Air pollution from swine production facilities
differing in waste management practice. Proceedings of the Odors and Emission 2000 Conference, 16–19
April 2000, Cincinnati, OH. Available from: http://www.sraproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/air
pollutionfromswineproduction.pdf [accessed August 2014].
Zahn, J.A., Anhalt, J. & Boyd, E. (2001) Evidence for transfer of tylosin and tylosin-resistant bacteria in air
from swine production facilities using sub-therapeutic concentrations of tylan in feed. Journal of Animal
Science, 79, Suppl. 1, Abstract no. 783, p. 189. Available from: http://www.jtmtg.org/JAM/2001/jointabs/
iaafsc83.pdf [accessed June 2015].
Zang, B., Li, S., Michel, F. Jr., Li, G., Luo, Y., Zhang, D. & Li, Y. (2016) Effects of mix ratio, moisture
content and aeration rate on sulfur odor emissions during pig manure composting. Waste Management,
56, 498–505.
Zang, B., Li, S., Michel, F.C., Li, G., Zhang, D. & Li, Y. (2017) Control of dimethyl sulfide and dimethyl disulfide
odors during pig manure composting using nitrogen amendment. Bioresource Technology, 224, 419–427.
Zhang, G., Bjerg, B., Strøm, J.S., Morsing, S., Kai, P., Tong, G. & Ravn, P. (2008) Emission effects of three
different ventilation control strategies – a scale model study. Biosystems Engineering, 100(1), 96–104.
Zhang, Y. & Caupert, J. (2012) Survey of mycotoxins in U.S. distiller’s dried grains with solubles from 2009
to 2011. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 60(2), 539–543.
Zhao, L.Y., Brugger, M.F., Manuzon, R.B., Arnold, G. & Imerman, E. (2007) Variations in air quality of
new Ohio dairy facilities with natural ventilation systems. Applied Engineering in Agriculture, 23(3),
339–346.
Zhou, X. & Zhang, Q. (2003) Measurements of odour and hydrogen sulfide emissions from swine barns.
Canadian Biosystems Engineering, 45, 6.13–6.18.
Zhu, J. (2000a) A review of microbiology in swine manure odor control. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Envi-
ronment, 78(2), 93–106.
Zhu, J. (2000b) The effectiveness of aerobes used as manure additives for swine manure odor control. Jour-
nal of Swine Health & Production 8(1), 5–9.
CHAPTER 17
VetBooks.ir
ontrolling the internal concentrations of particulate matter within

C
and emissions from animal buildings
Jens Seedorf
17.1 THE CHARACTERISTICS OF AIRBORNE PARTICLES AT A GLANCE
Particulate matter (PM, i.e., bioaerosols) in and from livestock buildings consists of a complex
mixture of mainly organic dust (e.g., proteins, polycarbohydrates), biologically active compo-
nents (e.g., endotoxins, glucans) and microorganisms (e.g., bacteria, fungi) that is suspended in
the livestock air with trace gases, such as ammonia (NH3). Indoor sources include feed, bedding
materials, animals themselves, their feces and other organic materials, which are subject to ero-
sive mechanisms caused by animals, humans and machines (Seedorf and Hartung, 2002). Animal
activity can increase the concentrations of airborne particles (Pedersen and Takai, 1999), which
can be mathematically described as a cause-effect relationship to obtain the predicted dust con-
centrations (Calvet et al., 2009; Costa et al., 2009).
Apart from the qualitative composition of PM, the size of the particles determines their depo-
sition behavior in the environment and their penetration depth into the respiratory tract. Parti-
cle sizes for bioaerosols may range from aerodynamic diameters of approximately 0.5 to 100
µm (Cox, 1995; Hirst, 1995). The relative frequency distribution of different particle sizes can
be related to the mass or number of all the suspended particles. Both dimensions are inversely
related to each other: The few large particles mainly contribute to the total mass, but the many
small particles primarily determine the total amount in the dust sample (Aarnink et al., 1999 vs.
Debey et al., 1994). Total dust includes all airborne particles, regardless of their size, whereas
health-related particle sizes are further divided into inhalable (trapped in the nose, mouth, and
throat), thoracic (the fraction of inhaled particles penetrating beyond the larynx) and respirable
dust fractions (reaching the unciliated airways and the alveoli) that have a 50% penetration prob-
ability into the respiratory tract when particles are 100 µm, 10 µm and 4 µm in size, respectively.
This convention is generally used for health-related sampling routines (EN 481, 1993; ISO 7708,
1995), although the “traditional” selective particle size criteria are discussed further in previously
published studies (Brown et al., 2013; Vincent, 2005). In the case of environmental air pollution,
the expressions PM10 (inhalable particles ≤ 10 μm in diameter) and PM2.5 (fine inhalable parti-
cles ≤ 2.5 μm in diameter) are commonly used to highlight the general ability of such particles to
penetrate deep into the respiratory tract and enter the circulatory system (Fig. 17.1).
Pulmonary health effects in the agricultural industry in general (Nordgren and Bailey, 2016)
and bioaerosol exposures in livestock settings in particular can cause acute (e.g., allergy) or
chronic effects in the respiratory tract (e.g., obstructive pulmonary diseases) of humans with
considerable impairment in lung functionality, as reviewed by Douwes et al. (2003), Eduard et al.
(2009), Just et al. (2009), May et al. (2012), Omland (2002), Poole and Romberger (2012) and
Samadi et al. (2013). It is also noteworthy that farmers working on farms with a high prevalence
for respiratory disease in pigs may have more respiratory problems than farmers working in
farms with a low prevalence of such diseases (Jolie et al., 1998). Interestingly, recent works have
265
266 Jens Seedorf
VetBooks.ir
Figure 17.1. Size comparison of various types of PM and their basic compositions. Source: US Environ-
mental Protection Agency, https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-09/PM2.5_scale_
graphic-color_2.jpg (accessed 06 January 2017), modified.
shown that repetitive inhalation exposure to organic dust, lipopolysaccharides, and peptidogly-
cans resulted in bone loss in an animal model (Dusad et al., 2013). Comparable investigations
have been relatively rare for livestock animals and are mostly related to controlled experimen-
tal settings in which inflammatory processes, immunological suppressions (e.g., Knetter et al.,
2014; Urbain et al., 1997) or epidemiological relationships between unsatisfactory air qualities
and the increasing incidence of diseases, such as atrophic rhinitis in pigs, were stated (Baekbo,
1990). However, it can be hypothesized that due to the complex nature of bioaerosols, varying
biological responses might occur that have not always been related to specific agents or combi-
nations of airborne materials thus far. This point of view has already been suggested by Eduard
and coworkers (2012).
Apart from occupational health aspects, public health issues are also connected to livestock-
related air pollution, which is thought to be associated with a lower prevalence of respiratory
diseases or reported symptoms of people living close to livestock farms, likely caused by the
protective effects of dispersed abiotic and biotic substances (Smit et al., 2014; van Dijk et al.,
2016a). In contrast, Radon (2014) notes that such results do not preclude the adverse effects
of livestock operations on respiratory health, because methodological approaches differ among
studies, and this may cause unequivocal findings. Nevertheless, it has been documented that
COPD (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease) patients living near livestock farms or in areas
with a high livestock density reported more respiratory symptoms, suggesting an increased risk
of exacerbations, although the environmental factors responsible for this increased risk were not
always clear (Borlée et al., 2015; van Dijk et al., 2016b). However, it was shown that children
with asthma had a lower forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) and more frequently
reported symptoms after exposure to elevated PM2.5 concentrations in agricultural areas (Loftus
et al., 2015a). This observation can be probably linked to the association of NH3 with acute lung
function decrements in children with asthma (Loftus et al., 2015b), because NH3 is a precursor
for the formation of ammonium salt aerosols, a component of PM2.5 (Aneja et al., 2009).
Reduction methods: particulate matter 267
In atmospheric science, PM of a biological origin has been gaining attention over recent years
VetBooks.ir
due to its relative importance in comparison to other particle types (e.g., soot) and its magnitude
of participation in cloud- and ice-forming processes in the atmosphere (e.g., Huffman et al., 2013;
Spracklen and Heald, 2014). In this research field, scientists prefer the term “primary biological
aerosol particles (PBAPs),” which includes all types of intact or fragmented biological cells, dis-
persal units and tissues. In contrast to PBAPs, it is argued that the term “bioaerosol” is not very
clearly defined and is frequently used with different meanings (Després et al., 2012). However,
in both aerosol categories, human- and animal-related microorganisms, their fragments, plant
and tissue debris and traces of excrement are detectable. The most obvious difference between
the two aerosol types is probably the relatively higher content of materials in farm animal-related
bioaerosols that originate mainly from feed, feces, skin particles, feathers and renal excretion
products (Aarnink et al., 1999; Donham et al., 1986; Feddes et al., 1992; Pearson and Sharples,
1995). However, atmospheric scientists also use the term “bioaerosol” to characterize particle
interactions with climate, health, and ecosystems (Fröhlich-Nowoisky et al., 2016).
Regarding the atmospheric impact of PBAPs and bioaerosols, rural areas have been showing
varying content of airborne biogenic particles, as summarized by Després et al. (2012). Moreover,
the concentrations of high-temperature ice nuclei found in agricultural areas have been found to be
two and eight times higher than those in samples from other land-use types, which might have indi-
cated an agricultural, perhaps biological, source of ice nuclei, but the nature of the ice nuclei was not
determined (Bowers et al., 2011). This clearly opens a door for speculating whether or not released
bioaerosols from livestock operations contribute to potential physicochemical processes in the atmo-
sphere, but this certainly also depends on the qualitative aerosol composition when considering the
different abilities of microorganisms or other components to cause cloud droplet and ice crystal
formation (Després et al., 2012). Therefore, verifiable investigations in this field are needed to clar-
ify the role of agricultural settings in terms of climate modifications, at least in a regional context.
Furthermore, climate change may have consequences for airborne pathogenic bioaerosol concentra-
tions, which will probably influence the infection pressure of bioaerosols (e.g., Coxiella burnetii), as
was modeled with several assumed climate change scenarios by van Leuken et al. (2016).
17.2 CONTROL AND REDUCTION MEASURES
An overwhelming flood of investigations have been carried out in the livestock production sector
during the last few decades to describe and to evaluate mitigation options for PM. Examples
of these long-term research efforts are reflected by publications such as Bundy (1974), Millner
(2009), Mostafa (2012), Tan and Zhang (2004) and Wood (2015), who specifically summarized
the diverse mitigation options for PM. The first author already evaluated the potential of con-
trolling dust concentrations in pig buildings using several different dust-influencing methods
related to feeding, ventilation or even ionization, while the latter authors reviewed the nature,
reduction and management of airborne particulates in and from animal operations. VDI guideline
4255 (2009) is another starting point for obtaining a general overview of the diversity of bioaero-
sol reduction measures within livestock operations. The guideline additionally illuminates pro-
cesses relevant to emission and related influencing factors and refers to measurement methods.
The functionality and reduction efficiency of exhaust air purification systems such as biofilters,
biotrickling filters, bioscrubbers or other end-of-pipe technologies are not addressed here. How-
ever, readers can find information on these specific PM emission reduction techniques in KTBL
publication 464 (2008) and VDI 4255 (2009) or in the studies by Mostafa (2012), Samer (2016),
Seedorf (2017) and Van der Heyden et al. (2015).
17.2.1 Ventilation
An increased ventilation rate should have only a limited effect on the total mass of airborne dust
(Gustafsson, 1999), because the dust production rate can increase with increasing ventilation
268 Jens Seedorf
(Banhazi et al., 2008a; Pedersen et al., 2000), probably due to higher air velocities that can cause
VetBooks.ir
the re-entrainment of already settled dust. If this event can be avoided, then the settling of dust on
different surfaces is a more important mechanism for removing large dust particles from the air
than the ventilation rate (Gustafsson, 1997), or dust deposition onto surfaces can be equivalent
to at least the spring/autumn ventilation rates, in terms of the rate at which dust is removed from
the airspace (Barber, 1991). In a simple model, dust removal resulted in achieved air exhaust and
sedimentation in the ranges 26%–46% and 54%–74%, respectively (CIGR, 1994).
17.2.2 Threshold limit values

The definition of threshold limit values (TLV) primarily serves as a protection measure for the
health of individuals. However, such exposure limits also provide information about the magni-
tude of a pollutant’s accumulation and the effectiveness of the countermeasures to improve air
quality. Any control strategy must therefore consider measurable criteria to decide whether the
reduction measures are successful. If not, actions have to be performed to return the air quality
to an acceptable level for the health of animals and humans. Unfortunately, commonly accepted
TLVs are mainly available for occupational purposes, but they are not uniform due to different
national rules, recommendations or definitions of what is defined as dusty (see, e.g., Kim et al.,
2008). The situation is more drastic for livestock animals because more gaps exist, particularly
in terms of official or recommended TLVs for bioaerosols. The few existing literature-based data
sources were used by Seedorf (2013) to propose a multifactorial Livestock Burden Index (see
Chapter 21 of this book). However, emissions are also principally regulated to protect the envi-
ronment, as defined by the German Technical Instructions on Air Quality Control – TA Luft
(2002). However, TLVs in the field of emission regulations are generally rare, and therefore,
Leytem and Dungan (2014) have emphasized this to draw attention to information gaps, such
as improving emission measurements, developing emission factors or developing and validating
tools for estimating emissions. If all this information is considered, we will then be able to assign
appropriate actions to mitigate emissions by following agreed upon TLVs or comparable criteria.
17.2.3 Attempt for a holistic control and abatement strategy

The reduction of particle concentrations and emissions should not only be restricted to appro-
priate measures within livestock buildings. A close look at the sources of material flows shows
that particle-forming events can be identified at different locations (Pattey and Qiu, 2012). Bulk
materials, such as feed and bedding materials, do not arrive at farm sites free of particle loads,
because the materials have a history of production, processing and transportation circumstances
(Fig. 17.2). Under industrial settings, the ratio of the material and particle separation forces
(e.g., impaction) caused by the energy input from the process as well as the magnitude of the
inter-particle binding forces (e.g., moisture content) generally determines the dust generation rate
(Plinke et al., 1995), which is additionally influenced by the particle size, drop height and mate-
rial flow (Ansart et al., 2009; Plinke et al., 1991). With a multilevel approach, as proposed here,
the establishment of a dust management plan in the feed industry is the first level of dust mitiga-
tion. It is highlighted that specific consideration must be given to feed additives and pre-mixtures
with a high propensity to generate dust and, particularly, to minimize the impact of dust with
pharmacologically active ingredients at the level of carryover (European Feed Manufacturers
Federation, 2014).
During transportation on roads, railway tracks or waterways, the abrasion of feed material
caused by vibration events, for example, facilitates further dust particle generation. Conclusively,
delivered materials already comes with a potential PM “background noise” to the barn and, there-
fore, may require control. For example, when filling storage units such as silos, at the interface
between the delivery and acceptance of goods, dusty air is significantly released from the silo
exhaust pipe. Cyclone dust collectors are operated to minimize loose organic materials (Fig.
17.3) that may attract pests and wild animals, which are detrimental to the biosecurity of farms.
VetBooks.ir
Figure 17.2. Scheme to consider areas of dust generation events starting from the harvested raw materials of
the feed and bedding material to the arrival within the barn. Delivered material flows from the
outside via the interface (e.g., silos) to the interior of the livestock building. During the move-
ment and interim storage, further influences can cause additional particle formation in the mate-
rial that is originally loaded with already existing dust particles, which were generated during
processing and transportation in industrial and agricultural settings. Potential particle-forming
events, such as vehicle-related vibration or magnitude of structural stability of the material,
are mentioned. Amount of released of PM is influenced by feed, animals, feces and bedding
material. Ventilation considers the balance of the indoor concentration and emission strength,
without considering the natural PM in the ambient air. Freq.: frequency, GI: gastro-intestinal
tract, PM: particulate matter, and +: additional.
In conjunction with further countermeasures, there are fewer birds and evidence of fewer badgers
appearing at farm sites (BPEX, 2011), which reduces the transmission of relevant zoonotic dis-
eases, such as bovine tuberculosis (Judge et al., 2011).
Additional PM enrichments occur at the interface between the arrival of bulk materials onsite
and their further handling when feed or bedding materials arrive under technological influences
during ongoing storage activities (e.g., drop height and free falling or flow of bulk materials in
silos) and transport into the barn (e.g., feed auger, screw conveyors). Once PM arrives in the
interior of the livestock building, the previously formed PM becomes a part of the subsequently
formed PM that is generated within the livestock building afterwards. Aside from the feed and
bedding materials, animals and their feces determine the magnitude of aerosolization, together
with a varying dynamic balance between the sedimentation and re-entrainment processes, which
are influenced by animal activity. Environmental factors such as the building classification, pen
hygiene, bedding type, season, ventilation rate, temperature, and humidity are statistically inter-
related, providing the opportunity to define environmental improvement strategies to reduce air-
borne pollutants (Banhazi et al., 2008a–e). Additionally, Yao and colleagues (2010) observed
positive correlations between the temperature and airborne bacteria, and the air speed and airborne
bacteria in swine nursery houses. Negative correlations were found between the temperature and
PM, the relative humidity and relatively large airborne particulates, and the air speed and PM.
270 Jens Seedorf
VetBooks.ir
Figure 17.3. Operation of a cyclone dust collector (bright oval area) for silo-related dust releases. Source:
Photo © Paul Collins (cc-by-sa/2.0), http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/569994 (accessed 09
July 2017), modified.
If increasing the air speed also indicated a higher ventilation rate, then this may have caused a
conflicting situation. Although the indoor microclimate was potentially improved, the ambient air
was then relatively more polluted by emissions.
In summary, the integration of practical abatement options for early formed PM outside of
the barns, at the interface of farms and for additionally released airborne PM within the live-
stock buildings could promise a holistic precautionary principle for animals, humans and the
environment.
Although PM-generating free-range livestock animals are not directly within the thematic area
of this contribution, extra efforts are also required to solve emission problems caused by (tempo-
rarily) free-range farm animals, such as cattle kept in feedlots (Miller and Berry, 2005) and pigs
kept under free-range conditions (Banhazi, 2013a). The action of cattle hooves on feedlot surfaces
is certainly a primary factor for dust generation and subsequent diffuse emissions. Simulations of
such mechanisms could be useful for assessing the relative effectiveness of dust abatement mea-
VetBooks.ir
sures (e.g., water application) and/or the relative effects of feedlot surface conditions (Razote et
al., 2004). This will not only have direct consequences for dust as a general nuisance but also may
fix antibiotics and antibiotic-resistant bacteria that are detectable in wind-dispersed particles from
cattle feed yards (McEachran et al., 2015), although it might be questionable how far the anti-
biotics and the antibiotic-resistant bacteria genes can travel or underlay an environmental fate.
However, this is a possible avenue by which antibiotics and related agents can escape animal feed
yards and be potentially transported to new niches that may pose a currently underestimated risk
for human and animal health (Seitenrich, 2015). It must be clear that this problem is not limited
to free-range animals alone, because it can also be related to conventional livestock operations,
in which feed containing antibiotics is used for therapeutic reasons, for example. Abrasively
released fractions of feed are constituents of airborne dust, which will then finally enter the envi-
ronment together with antibiotic residues. Therefore, dust reduction also plays an important role
here to prevent environmental pollution (Stahl et al., 2016).
The control of successful PM reduction efforts depends also on measurement strategies to
record reliable data before and after an abatement measure. In the best case, measurement stan-
dardization is achieved for results comparison. For this purpose, measurement protocols are use-
ful tools for guiding the investigator through the organizational and instrumental requirements
and defining the necessary information, which have to be implemented in a required measuring
report (Aarnink et al., 2015). It must be clear that such protocols often represent only a frame-
work. According to the specific objectives in a measurement campaign, the positive and negative
characteristics of sampling devices for a specific airborne component should be assessed before-
hand using guidelines (e.g., VDI 4257, 2011a) or publications (e.g., Duquenne et al., 2013).
Additionally, it is worth mentioning that individual respiratory protective equipment can be
frequently used in dusty working environments to protect the health of individuals (Syamlal et
al., 2013). Von Essen et al. (2010) recently highlighted that 20% to 40% of pig confinement work-
ers experience respiratory symptoms, and respiratory protection options lead to improvements if
the efficiency of the filtering face-piece respirators is ensured by specific standards, such as the
so-called workplace protection factor (WPF) for dust and bioaerosols in agricultural environ-
ments (Cho et al., 2010; Lee et al., 2005). Particle sizes play a major role in respirators that are
used to restrict the inhalability of dust and other airborne components (e.g., Ferguson, 2012). Poor
filter collection efficiency is related to surgical masks, because these have higher filter penetration
and, thus, are generally not efficient for protecting a wearer from a bioaerosol hazard. A serious
problem in respiratory protection devices is the presence of face-seal leakages, which allow for
substantial particle penetration. Therefore, an optimal fit between the respirator periphery and the
face is essential for the proper operation of the protective equipment (Grinshpun, 2010).
17.2.4 Overview of basic dust reduction measures indoors

A first systematic classification of air control options can be principally related to three catego-
ries: source, ventilation and removal control. Source control strategies for dust include the use of
feed additives (fats or oils), cleaning dusty surfaces and spraying water or oil over dusty surfaces.
Ventilation control includes increasing the ventilation rate, although restrictions exist (see ear-
lier), purge ventilation and effective room air distribution systems. Air cleaning strategies include
using air filters, ionizers, or wet scrubbers (Almuhanna, 2007). To link the categories to their
reduction efficiencies, Pedersen et al. (2000) provided a graphical summary of various achievable
dust reduction methods (Fig. 17.4). The relative reduction efficiency can range between approx-
imately 10% and 90%, depending on the application method. Moreover, substantial information
can be found in studies by Aarnink and Ellen (2007), CIGR (1994), Dawson (1990), Gustafsson
(1997, 1999), Pearson and Sharples (1995) and Takai and Pedersen (2000). However, due to
recent developments, some dust prevention and removal measures are specified in more detail,
such as feed manipulation, liquid fluid application and selected physical treatments.
272 Jens Seedorf
VetBooks.ir
Figure 17.4. Relative dust reduction capabilities of various abatement techniques (Pedersen et al., 2000; mod-
ified from VDI 4255, 2009). Reproduced with permission from Verein Deutscher Ingenieure.
17.2.5 Specification of selected dust prevention and removal measures

17.2.5.1 Management of the feed, manure and bedding material
The manipulation of feed can play an important role in preventing excessive dust generation in
barns. Even if water application is generally effective to prevent dustiness from the feed, the
materials must be dried and immediately used or they will get moldy, which is also valid for
litter material. Therefore, most methods that are available utilize oil additives. To avoid dust gen-
eration during material handling, an oil application can help to control the excessive release of
dust. From this point of view, techniques for this purpose can be generally used at all processing
points along the material flow line, regardless of whether it is in a grain mill or a farm, for exam-
ple (e.g., Lai and Miller, 1982). More specifically, oil or fat manipulated diets must be carefully
formulated, because they may create a nutritional imbalance and decrease the performance and
health status of the animals. This kind of possible impairment can be avoided if specific additives
are used for coating feed powder particles. As a consequence, particles agglomerate to bigger
clusters, which are less dispersible and do not negatively alter the nutrient balance significantly
(e.g., Mellor, 2003).
Mankell et al. (1995) revealed that airborne total dust concentrations generated from swine
feeds may be markedly reduced by adding 1% soybean oil and further reduced by adding 3%
soybean oil. These observations corresponded to total dust reductions of 88% and 97% in the
case of normal-bulk density corn, respectively. The reduction efficiencies were not significantly
different for low-bulk density corn (82% and 97%, respectively). Because feeds made from low-
bulk density corn generate more total dust than those made from normal-bulk density corn, oil
addition may be more important when low-bulk density corn is used.
The addition of 5% dietary tallow in pig feed caused a dust reduction of 48% to 51% in
mechanically ventilated and modified open-front barns and significantly lowered the amount of
settled dust. In some trials, there was a trend for pigs that were fed a diet without tallow to have
more severe forms of lung lesions than those fed a diet with tallow (Chiba et al., 1985). Later, Peo
and Lewis (1992) continued the investigations of Chiba and coworkers by increasing the tallow
to 7.5% in the diet. They reached a 52.5% reduction in the aerial dust content and an average
reduction of 57.3% for the settled dust. Furthermore, the tallow treatment also caused a 75%
decrease in the detectable cultivable airborne bacteria.
The dust reduction potential of animal fat- and soybean oil-enriched swine feed consisting of
VetBooks.ir
wheat, corn and milo was investigated using a grain dustiness tester to simulate the aerodynamic
dust segregation (ADS) that occurs during grain handling (Heber and Martin, 1988). It was found
that twice as much animal fat as soybean oil was required in the feed to attain the same reduc-
tion in the ADS and that corn feed was 12.3% and 5.8% less dusty than milo and wheat feeds,
respectively. Later, Heber (2002) conducted a laboratory study demonstrating the effectiveness
of several high-oil corn (HOC) varieties (i.e., corn hybrids with higher oil content) for reducing
the ADS compared with conventional or normal corn (NC). In general, feed with HOC varieties
was significantly less dusty than NC-based feed. The application of soybean oil (0.5% to 2.0%)
to NC-based swine feed resulted in up to 26% less mass-related ADS and up to 78% less particle
number-related ADS, depending on the oil content.
One or three percent soybean oil was used by Guarino et al. (2007) in a laboratory experiment
in which an inhalable dust reduction of 80%–95% compared to two commercial available addi-
tives was achieved, but these additives showed a higher reduction potential for the respirable dust
fraction (70%–90%). Pedersen et al. (2000) summarized that reductions of up to 50% could be
obtained by adding 5% fat into the feed. They additionally concluded that a considerable reduc-
tion in dust could actually be achieved by adding fat to the pig feed, but oil sprinkling has, to date,
proven to be the best technique for reducing dust levels in pig production systems.
The positive impact of various manure management systems is not strictly limited to gaseous
compounds in livestock production but can also be beneficially for PM reduction if solid/liquid
separation techniques are applied (Lavoie et al., 2009; Létourneau et al., 2010). In contrast to
these observations, solid manure management based on the bedding material often contributes
to a dusty atmosphere within livestock houses. No less noteworthy is that the type of husbandry
system used also influences the dustiness. Referring specifically to poultry houses, dust concen-
trations and emissions are frequently higher for non-cage littered floor barns or aviaries than for
cage barns in poultry houses (Martensson and Pehrson, 1997; Saleh, 2006; Wathes et al., 1997;
Takai et al., 1998). As assumed, dust-related components such as inhalable (IE) and respirable
endotoxins (RE) are also emitted in higher quantities from aviaries [IE: 244.8 µg h−1 per livestock
unit (LU), RE: 20.5 µg h−1 LU−1] than from caged laying hens [IE: 6.3 µg h−1 LU−1, RE: 0.7 µg h−1
LU−1; Seedorf, 2004], which was already confirmed in an earlier field study (Seedorf et al., 1998).
Moreover, in buildings with litter, such as sawdust beds, culturable bacteria, actinomycetes and
molds were found in higher concentrations than in conventional livestock buildings, as demon-
strated for pig barns (Létourneau et al., 2010).
The association between negative respiratory health effects and particle releasing bedding
materials due to handling and agitation events was comprehensively described for horse keeping
systems (Wyse et al., 2005). It is not surprising that several investigations were conducted in this
field because, depending on the quality of the raw bedding materials and the types of management,
there can be great differences in the ability of these materials to release particulates. While straw
is a major source of released particles, wood shavings and paper emit only negligible or moderate
amounts of particles (Clarke, 1987), although it has also been shown that good quality straw can
be less dusty than wood shavings (Vandenput et al., 1997), which clearly underlines other quality
influencing factors such as harvesting conditions and mechanical de-dusting. Alternative bedding
materials are being sought in order to optimize indoor environmental conditions and therefore
improve animal health, but this has to be verified by investigations to evaluate the chemical,
physical, biological and environmental properties of the bedding materials (Airaksinen, 2006;
Elfman et al., 2011; Fleming et al., 2008; Seedorf et al., 2007; Ward et al., 2001). From this point
of view, the usage of bedding materials with antimicrobial properties is a promising approach for
reducing the microbial pressure within barns and, subsequently, in the air. The impact of essential
oils in conifers can inhibit the growth of gram-positive and gram-negative bacteria and fungi
(Hong et al., 2004). Bedding materials made from Pinus spp. are one such example of how essen-
tial oils can obviously reduce the survival and spread of disease-causing pathogens. It was shown
that Pinus sylvestris bedding resulted in significantly less bacterial growth of Streptococcus equi
274 Jens Seedorf
(strangles), Streptococcus zooepidemicus (inflammatory airway diseases, uterine infections),

VetBooks.ir
Fusobacterium necrophorum and Dichelobacter nodosus (foot rot, hoof thrush) and Dermatoph-
ilus congolensis (rain scald, mud fever) (Yarnell et al., 2017).
All results reported here are theoretically transferable to other livestock husbandries, with
respect to their practicability and benefit, and whether or not such associations are suggested
between litter-related air quality demands and the well-being of animals and farmers. However,
in addition, to rule out what kind of bedding material is most suitable for livestock operations,
the application of amendments to litter also demands consideration. In this context, Breum and
colleagues (1999) investigated the impact of lignosulfonate on dust suppression, because it binds
surface particles together. For this purpose, they used a rotating drum with treated chopped straw
to simulate mechanical influences, which finally causes dustiness. They summarized that dusti-
ness with respect to the mass of the dust was reduced by at least a factor of 6, and for fungi and
endotoxins, the factors of reduction were 4 and 3, respectively. It is additionally noteworthy that
feed for horses has been treated with liquid additives, such as water, rapeseed oil and molasses.
These treatments caused PM20 reductions of 75.6%, 96.5% and 81.9%, respectively, on a basis
of a 3% mixing ratio with whole oats or rolled oats and additives (Garlipp et al., 2011).
17.2.5.2 Application of dust-binding and microbiocide acting liquids

Water sprinkling or spraying (fogging, misting) can deposit dust partially by agglomeration of the
airborne particles to bigger clusters, which mainly undergo sedimentation. It is expected that this
kind of short-term effect is less sustainable because of rapid water evaporation, which makes the
re-entrainment of already settled dust possible. Nevertheless, when working with water droplets
and aerosols, special attention is needed with respect to the thermal balance capabilities of live-
stock animals. This is particularly true for pigs and poultry, which cannot sweat, although water
applications are implemented in barns to overcome heat stress situations. In this context, wetting
the body surface by sprinkling and utilizing adiabatic cooling via spraying often requires suffi-
cient draining of the excessive moisture to the outside of the barn to prevent potential detrimental
effects. This can be seen particularly at high humidity levels in combination with high tempera-
tures, although a decrease in the temperature due to fogging can more than compensate for the
negative effects of increased humidity indoors, as reflected by the reduction in the temperature
humidity index (Haeussermann et al., 2007).
Nevertheless, apart from such a side effect, water fogging achieved a dust reduction of 50%
to 65% in a climate chamber with laying hens on the floor without wetting the litter due to the
adequate position of the spraying nozzles (Gustafsson and von Wachenfelt, 2007; Gustafsson and
von Wachenfelt, 2012; von Wachenfelt, 1999). Technical aspects such as the influence of differ-
ent nozzle types are no less important for successful mitigation. As shown by Gustafsson (1999),
dust reduction was detected using full-cone nozzles but not when using ultrasound nozzles, which
probably caused increased activity from the pigs due to the sound effect of such nozzles, and
therefore, more airborne dust was detectable. Different nozzles were tested for dust reduction
purposes in a separate study, and the results demonstrated that nozzle design has a major impact
on dust reduction capacity (Mehdizadeh and Banhazi, 2015). In summary, due to the limited
sustainability of long-term dust reduction, the application of pure water has not been widely dis-
seminated in livestock operations to control PM.
Aerial disinfection by fogging in the presence of livestock animals is a challenge for improving
air hygiene from an epidemiological and performance-related point of view. More than 20 years
ago, Fotheringham (1995) cited investigations in which aerial disinfection in the presence of pigs
reduced the numbers of bacteria and viruses in the air, settled dust, reduced odor by the absorp-
tion of NH3, and had a cooling affect in warm weather. The author also cited that this method has
been successfully used in Japan as part of a system to control enzootic pneumonia and atrophic
rhinitis. Concerning dust settlement by aerial disinfection, Costa et al. (2014) applied a com-
mercially available chemical disinfectant for fogging, and they measured a significant reduction
in the aerial dust and fungal spores in an occupied piggery, although the efficiency of fogging
seemed to be linked more to the mechanical action of the spraying procedure than to true anti-
VetBooks.ir
microbial action. This was also indicated by an NH3 reduction of 18% that was probably due to
the physical absorption capacities of the sprayed fluid. Recent trials have additionally revealed
antimicrobial effects by applying slightly acidic electrolyzed water (SAEW) composed of active
chlorine components (Issa-Zacharia et al., 2010). Spraying SAEW with an available chlorine
concentration of 300 mg L−1 reduced 59% of the airborne organisms in 30 min and kept the popu-
lation of microbes at a reduced level for at least 8 h in swine barns (Hao et al., 2013a). In addition,
SAEW or technical variants has also been successfully applied in other types of livestock oper-
ations, such as poultry houses (Hao et al., 2014; Zhao et al., 2014a; Zheng et al., 2013a), where
SAEW significantly reduced the airborne bacteria by up to 49% ± 10% in an experimental aviary
laying-hen housing system (Zheng et al., 2013b, 2014). Apart from SAEW, neutral electrolyzed
water (NEW) spray reduced the airborne dust level by 34% 3 h after spraying 216 mL m−2 NEW
in a layer breeder house (Zheng et al., 2012).
Electrolyzed water technology has also been demonstrated to considerably reduce the microbes
on equipment or facility surfaces (Hao et al., 2013b). The demand for the chemical reduction
of pathogens and other microorganisms in animal feeding operations might also become more
and more important with respect to the (uncontrolled) environmental dissemination of airborne
antibiotic-resistant microbes, such as extended-spectrum, beta-lactamase-producing (ESBL) bac-
teria (Laube et al., 2014; von Salviati et al., 2015) or methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus
(MRSA; Friese et al., 2013). MRSA exposure from barn air seems to be an important determinant
for the nasal carriage of farmers, which makes the reduction of MRSA air levels necessary (Bos
et al., 2016). In this context, Ferguson (2012) recommended the use of respirators and the opera-
tion of biofilters as successful intervention measures for protecting humans and the environment.
Sprinkling a small amount of oil manually with a handheld sprayer, for example, or automati-
cally using a permanently installed sprinkler system with a specific design and technical applica-
tion requirements (e.g., a droplet size that is sufficient to bind dust on its surface but not too small
to be inhaled) can considerably reduce airborne dust (Takai and Pedersen, 1999; Takai, 2007;
Zhang, 1997). Spreading vegetable oil onto animals reduced the inhalable and respirable dust by
83% and 63%, respectively (Osman et al., 1999). This is in good agreement with a recent study,
where a reduction potential of 62% was found for PM10 when pigs came into contact with an oil
applicator (Winkel et al., 2014a). Spraying of oil and oil-water mixtures is a more practical tool
for sustainably reducing PM in livestock houses, although the remaining oily coatings on surfaces
may cause an occupational hazard, and cleaning the barns between turns of pigs is likely to be
more time consuming with an oil sprinkling system in operation (Schmidt and Heber, 2004). In
addition, spraying the oil/water mixture on the floor of pig pens might negatively influence dung-
ing patters that could, in turn, compromise pen hygiene. Compromised pen hygiene is likely to
have an adverse effect on production efficiency that might partially explain the lack of production
efficiency gains reported by researchers as a result of using this duct reduction method (Banhazi,
2013b). However, in Australia, a number of experiments have been conducted demonstrating the
benefits of oil-spraying as well as the benefits of impregnating bedding material with an oil-water
mixture (Banhazi et al., 2011). Despite these recent investigations, the co-application of oil with
water for dust control is not as new as previously thought, because Harris and Shure (1952)
already demonstrated that the relief of allergic symptoms in humans was considerable after a
water-and-oil emulsion was sprayed to immobilize house dust. Due to similar aims for improving
human and animal health in livestock buildings by liquid aerosol applications, the results of some
selected investigations in piggeries are summarized in Table 17.1.
Peak dust concentrations can be often determined in poultry husbandry systems in which birds
show high activity, such as in aviary systems, for example. As a result, high dust levels may
compromise the health and welfare of both the birds and their caretakers (David et al., 2015).
Consequently, experiences with oil treatments are also advisable for poultry houses to prevent
particles on surfaces from becoming airborne. From this point of view, spraying onto the litter
alone and on the birds is conducted, whereas plume spoilages have to be considered as a side
276 Jens Seedorf
Table 17.1. Summary of some reported aerosol reduction efficiencies via oil or emulsion sprinkling and
VetBooks.ir
spraying in pig confinement buildings.

Particle reduction
Liquid type Spraying rate (%) Notes Reference
Canola oil, 6.3 g m−2 d−1 Inhal. Dust: 51 Data from weaner Banhazi (2013c)
water and Resp. dust: 35 building, enrichment
surfactant Bacteria: 55 of airborne bacteria
mixture (4:5:1) in grower unit after
treatment
Canola oil 10, 20 and 30 mL Dust: 85, 92 and 95 Godbout et al.
m−2 d−1 (2001)
Seven different 10 L for 15 min, 3 Dust: 30 Reduction rate as an Kim et al. (2006)
additives were repetitions Bacteria: 53 average of all additive
sprayed Fungi: 51 treatments
5% oil/water 3 and 5 g pig−1 d−1 Total dust: 23–34 Nonnenmann et al.
mixture (2004)
5% oil (soybean, 7 and 8 g pig−1 d−1, Total dust: 52 Smaller droplet size, Nonnenmann et al.
canola)/water 12 x per day, 12 s direct spray on pen (2004)
mixture each time floor surfaces
Canola, soybean 10 mL m−2 d−1 Total dust: 68–72 No reduction in Ouellette et al.
and sunflower (during the odor emissions, no (2006)
oil morning) improvement in the
hedonic tone of the air
Oil/water 6.7 mL m−2 d−1 Inhal. Dust: 79 Paszek et al.
mixture Resp. dust: 65 (2001)
Acid-oil-alcohol 45 mL m−2 d−1 PM2.5: 71 Data for the long- Rule et al. (2005)
mixture (once a day for PM10: 91 term effects of
45 s) PMTot1): 82 changes in airborne
Bacteria: 90 concentrations after 27
Gram-pos. cocci: 93 days of daily treatment
Enterobact.2): 94 (i.e., suppression of
Fungi: 85 dust resuspension)
in comparison to an
untreated control site
Canola oil From 40 over 20 to Dust: 84.2 Area sampling values Senthilselvan et al.
5 mL m−2 d−1 over Endotoxin: 92 were chosen instead of (1997)
time personal sampling data
Canola oil once a day Total dust: 86 Reduction of mainly Siggers et al.
Total Etox3): 82.5 large particles, (2011)
proportion of Etox
associated with smaller
particles was higher in
oil treated rooms
PMTot1): total PM, 2) Enterobact: Enterobacteriaceae, 3) Etox: Endotoxin.
effect. Banhazi (2013c) treated chopped straw with an oil-water mixture in a broiler house before
birds were introduced. This procedure was able to significantly reduce the concentrations of both
the inhalable and respirable particles. In an aviary system for laying hens, von Wachenfelt (1999)
had already applied an oil application and determined a dust reduction of approximately 50%, if
the spraying nozzles were placed under the ceiling to keep the litter essentially dry. Recent inves-
tigations have reported that rapeseed oil-spraying via nozzles in aviaries with doses of 15, 30, or
45 mL m−2 per day (d) significantly reduced emission rates of PM10 by 27%, 62%, and 82%, and
emission rates of PM2.5 by 71%, 83%, and 94%, respectively (Winkel et al., 2016a).
In contrast to an ordinary spraying system with nozzles, an ultrasonic sprayer with a 2% solu-
VetBooks.ir
tion of emulsified canola oil (dosage: 14 g day−1 head−1 after feeding) was used by Ikeguchi (2002)
to reduce dust with diameters of 0.5 to 2 μm and 10 to 30 μm by 42% and 49%, respectively,
in a house with caged laying hens. An additional experiment in a floor-reared broiler house was
conducted, in which the dust was eliminated to 47%. However, this did not result in clear absolute
dust reduction, because the PM concentration was still 100 times higher than that measured in the
layer house. Therefore, Ikeguchi concluded that for the floor-reared broiler house, spraying is not
a suitable method to significantly reduce the dust concentration. In another broiler house, Aarn-
ink et al. (2011) applied 6 mL rapeseed oil per m² per d to reduce PM10 concentrations by 44%
and PM10 emissions by 48%. This was comparable with up to an 82% concentration reduction
and 87% emission reduction at an oil dose of 24 mL m−2 d−1. A dosage of only 6 mL m−2 d−1 was
sufficient to reduce PM2.5 concentrations and emissions by 68% and 84%, respectively, without
improving the reduction efficiency with higher oil doses. A follow-up study with different rape-
seed oil-spraying regimes in a broiler house principally showed that PM10 emissions were sig-
nificantly reduced by 59% at 8 mL m−2 d−1 and by 64% at 16 mL m−2 d−1; for PM2.5, these values
were 81% and 74%, respectively. Interestingly, on days after spraying, the PM10 emission was
44% higher than on spraying days. This suggested that the PM reduction was partially abolished
on the second day after spraying (Winkel et al., 2014b). Further information on using oil-spraying
as a dust reduction method will be presented in Chapter 20 of this book.
17.2.5.3 Physical treatment
This section outlines farm-related physical applications tested under real and lab-scale condi-
tions. No detailed considerations were made with respect to the physical treatments, which are
less practical, that have not yet been implemented or target only specific components in livestock
production but are generally tested for their usefulness. These applications generally involve
thermal energy above 100°C (e.g., recirculating ventilation systems) and direct ultraviolet (UV)
germicidal irradiation (Lee, 2011). However, it is worthwhile to highlight the general usefulness
of UV-C light, at least with wavelengths between 200 and 280 nm, because this short wavelength
spectrum affects the double-bond stability of adjacent carbon atoms in molecules such as pyrim-
idines and purines, which provide the basic structure for nucleobases within the nucleic acids
RNA and DNA. As a consequence, a molecular transformation in the genetic material occurs,
and microbial cell survival fails. Unfortunately, this promising germicidal effect is not easy to
obtain, because sufficient exposure doses of UV irradiation for bioaerosols are hard to achieve
in relation to the relatively large volume of air. Furthermore, the inactivation kinetics of most
airborne pathogens are unknown for the range of environmental conditions (temperature and rel-
ative humidity) in which such a system would need to function (Cutler and Zimmerman, 2011).
Under the environmental conditions (e.g., airborne dust loads and corresponding UV-blocking
properties) that are normally found in livestock buildings, UV irradiation is more of an add-on
application rather than a stand-alone technique (see later).
Apart from direct irradiation, UV light is able to interact with semiconductors (specific metal
oxides) in conjunction with water and oxygen. The result is photocatalytic oxidation, which pro-
duces reactive oxygen species with antimicrobial effects (Binas et al., 2017). This technique was
used by Zhao et al. (2014b), and they have shown, under pilot-scale conditions, that reductions >
99.7% and 72.4% were recorded for artificially aerosolized Enterococcus faecalis and an infec-
tious bursal disease virus in a test chamber, respectively. However, it can be expected that basic
problems, such as sufficient UV irradiance levels and contact times, dust concentrations and the
susceptibility of target microorganisms have to be solved before full-scale devices are operated
under field conditions.
17.2.5.3.1 Dry and wet particle reduction techniques

Carpenter and Fryer (1990) used internal recirculating dry air filters in flat-deck rooms with
early-weaner pigs and found a 50% to 60% reduction in the concentrations of dust mass and
278 Jens Seedorf
numbers of bacterial colony-forming particles. The effects of an internal recirculating air filter
VetBooks.ir
on air hygiene and pig performance were already demonstrated by Carpenter et al. (1986a), who
showed that pigs exposed to dust-reduced air reached a marketable state 6–8 days earlier than
the control group, and Pritchard et al. (1981) were able to decrease the incidence and severity of
clinical and subclinical respiratory diseases in calves by internal air filtration. No improvement
was observed in terms of growth, food utilization and mortality in a broiler-keeping system,
although the internal air filtration was able to reduce the dust content in the air by up to a half
and the concentration of airborne bacteria by more than 100-fold by the time the broilers were
21 days of age (Carpenter et al., 1986b). Van’t Klooster et al. (1993) found no positive effects
from aerosol-reducing techniques (internal filtration, vacuum cleaning, washing of weaners) on
the performance of pigs. However, airborne dust as part of the microclimate in animal husbandry
should not be underestimated in respect to herd health (e.g., Brscic et al., 2012), justifying the
consideration of any mitigation options.
The performance of a recirculating ventilation system with dust filtration was evaluated by
Anthony and coworkers (2015) during winter time in a piggery (Fig. 17.5). For this purpose, air
was exhausted from a swine farrowing room and treated with a filtration unit (Shaker-Dust Col-
lector, SDC), in which particle-laden air was sucked through a dry pocket filter. The cleaned air
was returned afterwards to the piggery. Over the study period, the mean respirable dust concen-
tration with the ventilation system off (0.20 mg m−3) was higher than that with the system on (0.12
mg m−3), yielding an overall 41% reduction. Additionally, the mean inhalable dust concentration
with the ventilation system off was 1.01 mg m−3, and it was reduced to 0.68 mg m−3, which corre-
sponded to an overall reduction of 33%. In laboratory tests, collection efficiencies of > 95% were
found for particles larger than 5 μm, even when the filter was pristine. This provides evidence that
a SDC should be effective for particles that dominate the inhalable mass concentrations typical of
agricultural dusts. For respirable-sized particles, collection efficiencies were low when the filter
was pristine (e.g., 27% for 1 μm), but they were much higher when a dust cake was present on the
filter (> 99% for all particle sizes). A dust cake on the filter was needed to achieve high collection
efficiencies, but it had to be removed from the filter media when the pressure drop across the filter
reached a critical value. The pocket filter assembly was then mechanically shaken to recover the
filter capacity (Peters et al., 2015).
Figure 17.5. Schematic drawing of the Shaker-Dust Collector (SDC, left side), which is located outside of
the animal room and connected to air ducts within the piggery (right side). Crude air is sucked
close to the ground and finally released over the aisles of the animal house via diffusers, which
minimizes the airflow on the crated animals. The figure was adopted from Anthony et al. (2015)
and Peters et al. (2015), redrawn and modified.
A wet filter system for recirculated air was designed by Hölscher (2006), who worked with two
VetBooks.ir
air scrubbers in a pig barn by recirculating the air indoors during a three-month fattening period
and determined a mean reduction of 63% for the total dust and 60% for PM10 on the basis of the
airborne concentrations. This wet filter system was modified later for investigations in laying hen
houses and in a pig fattening unit (Mostafa and Büscher, 2011; Schulz et al., 2013). Mostafa and
Büscher (2011) conducted laboratory and farm experiments to evaluate the efficiency of a wet fil-
ter system and two further dust reduction technologies for laying hen houses. A dry filter achieved
the highest dust reduction efficiency in comparison to a cyclone and a wet filtration system. In a
commercial laying hen farm, the dry filter system caused reduction efficiencies of 55% and 72%
for the indoor concentration and dust emission rate, respectively. Schulz et al. (2013) used a fur-
ther developed prototype of a wet filter system that reduced culturable bioaerosols by combining
an air washer and a UV-C irradiation compartment within the device. The prototype was placed
in the center of a barn at a height of 1.2 m above the floor level. The air flow through the system
was adjusted to approximately 6992 m³ h−1. Under these conditions, washing the air reduced the
bacterial content by 84% to 96%, and the relative reduction due to UV irradiation ranged between
55% and 90%. The highest relative reduction in airborne bacteria (90% to 99%) was detected
when the air washer and the UV-C irradiation system were in simultaneous operation, which also
guaranteed a significant reduction of fungi. However, in a single case, no reduction of the fungi
was detected (Fig. 17.6). The authors hypothesized that the hydrophobicity of the fungal spores
and the relatively low UV intensity within the tested device were not always successful in depos-
iting and killing fungal spores.
A uniflow deduster prototype (a cyclone type dust separator) was tested by Zhang et al. (2001a),
who found a particle separation efficiency of 90% for particles larger than 10 µm and 77% for par-
ticles larger than 7 µm. In terms of the dust mass, the particle separation efficiency of the de-duster
was 85%. Because the apparatus could be incorporated into existing ventilation systems to control
emissions, Zhang et al. (2001b) did not exclude a wider application of the de-duster for indoors.
The subsequently developed de-dusting technology uses a diffusion-coagulation-separation
(DCS) process in conjunction with a wet scrubbing section (Zhang et al., 2005) and is able to
Figure 17.6. Reduction efficiencies of an air cleaner prototype for bioaerosol components within the air of a
commercial pig fattening unit (Schulz et al., 2013; modified). Data are specifically shown from
a one-day measurement in the 10th week of the fattening period. MRSA: methicillin-resistant
Staphylococcus aureus; *: no reduction for fungi; selected data have been converted into a
figure).
280 Jens Seedorf
remove 90% of dust in the case of a pilot-scale prototype (Zhang et al., 2001b). Field-scale pro-
VetBooks.ir
totypes had an overall dust removal efficiency in the range of 70%–80% and showed that the dust
removal efficiency was not significantly affected by fan power levels (Zhang, 2014a). For optimi-
zation purposes, the particle cut size, inlet geometry and turbulence intensity could be modeled to
make particle separation more effective (Dalal, 2010; Zhang, 2014b).
17.2.5.3.2 Ionization and electrically powered add-on techniques

Air ionizers for dust removal (i.e., electrostatic precipitators, electrostatic air filters) show a high
collection efficiency, even for very small particle sizes (<1 μm) (VDI 3678, 2011b). These devices
are distinct from ozone generators, in that the active species are clusters of air ions and normally
not nascent ozone, which is regulated for health reasons in indoor environments (Daniels, 2001;
Sawant, 2013). The general architecture of air ionizers consists of a discharge (emission) elec-
trode and a collecting electrode as a counter electrode. When a high voltage [direct current (DC)
>10 kV] is applied to a discharge electrode, a corona discharge occurs, which produces ions
(e.g., ionized gas molecules) and electrons in the surrounding gas phase. Gas-borne dust parti-
cles pass through the charging field where they receive an electric charge due to the current of
ions and electrons in the space (Parker, 1997). This process of field charging (shock charging by
ions) is applicable to particles of approximately 2 µm in size and bigger. For smaller particles
(<0.2 µm), the thermal diffusion of ions (diffusion charging) becomes dominant (Mizuno, 2000).
Furthermore, to reach a saturation charge of 90%, the maximum charging of 0.2-μm particles
takes three times longer than for 5-μm particles (Hölscher, 2006). Ultimately, the charged par-
ticles move across the gas phase toward the collecting electrode due to Coulomb forces and are
deposited on that electrode, which is normally grounded and part of the DC (Fig. 17.7). Due to
electrostatic repelling forces, the particles migrate toward the indoor surfaces and subsequently
precipitate on these surfaces (Grinshpun et al., 2004), whereas the electric field produced by the
electrical discharge increases the electromigration velocity toward the indoor surfaces (Mayya
et al., 2004; Wu et al., 2006a). Alternatively, such surfaces are also oppositely charged plates,
rods or grounded collection tubes from which particles can be removed (e.g., Rosentrater, 2003).
Dust removal can be conducted manually or automatically (e.g., mechanical shock impulse or
vibrating surfaces with subsequent collection of the collected dust in a bag), and it is also import-
ant to avoid dust overloading of the device and re-entrainment of the already captured PMs,
which reduces the efficiency of the mitigation technique. Additional parameters that influence the
magnitude of removable dust include the operating voltage, particle size and mass spectrum and
air velocity (Manuzon, 2012).
Furthermore, air ionizers can be generally designed as open (i.e., free mounted charging elec-
trodes or ionization heads for treating indoor air in a barn) or closed (i.e., exhaust air or recircu-
lated indoor air passing through an ionization field of a tube or channel) systems (CIGR, 1994;
Manuzon, 2012). Apart from a positive corona discharge, the application of a negative corona
discharge electrode is also possible. However, due to the elevated ozone formation involved, the
latter option is not normally used in indoor air cleaning (VDI 3678, 2010, 2011b). In this context,
a further health aspect is related to the generated airborne ionic compounds, which are negatively
or positively charged. Negative air ionizers are often operated because negative ions commonly
occur throughout nature and can create an overall sense of well-being. In contrast, positive ions
are believed to have negative effects on human health (Shiue et al., 2011). Nevertheless, these
comments were opposed by other observations, which do not indicate a significant detrimental
effect of exposure to positive air ions upon respiratory functions (Alexander et al., 2013). How-
ever, this issue is less relevant if specific closed air ionizer techniques are operated, and the direct
exposition of individuals within a barn can probably be excluded.
Based on the explained physical dust removal process, a choice of experiments can be high-
lighted. A working group of the CIGR (1994), who reported from Scandinavian investigations
of different authors, showed a reduction of the total dust in a range of 12% and 23% in pig and
laying hen facilities by ionization but also no reductions were found. In contrast to these more
VetBooks.ir
Figure 17.7. Operating principle of an electrostatic precipitator. Electrostatic precipitation process consists

of four stages: 1) generation of gas ions by corona discharge at a discharge electrode, 2) elec-
trical charging of the aerosols to be collected by the gas ions, 3) particle transportation through
the electric field to the collecting electrode, and 4) particle deposition and removal from the col-
lecting electrode (VDI 3678, 2011b). Grey dashed line simply indicates the principle transition
from an open to a closed system in which crude air passes the air ionizer due to a mechanically
caused air stream, which finally leaves the device as clean air. This figure was adopted from
Mayer-Schwinning (1996), redrawn and modified.
marginal reductions, it was shown that negative air ionizers, which were installed in poultry
cabinets, caused an overall 81.9% reduction in the mean counts of airborne particles in these
cabinets, while reductions between 68.4% and 91.7% were observed for particles of six different
size ranges between 0.3 and > 25 µm (Gast et al., 1999).
Mitchell et al. (2000) determined a reduction in the average concentration of artificially gen-
erated dust ranging from 72% to 91% using an ionizer setup called the electrostatic space charge
system (ESCS). In a caged layer room and for naturally generated dust from mature White Leg-
horn chickens, they found a mean reduction of 52%. Richardson et al. (2003a) continued the
investigations in a broiler breeder house by using an ESCS and reported a significant dust reduc-
tion of 61%. The same reduction efficiency was also found by Mitchell and co-authors (2004)
in a broiler breeder house. These collected experiences were used for a further study, which was
conducted by Ritz et al. (2006). The results of this study indicate that the ESCS significantly
reduced airborne dust by an average of 43% in a broiler house compared to a control building.
Furthermore, the effectiveness of the system was increased with higher dust concentrations. Chai
et al. (2009) used a test aerosol made from corn starch instead of real poultry dust to evaluate the
removal efficiency of an electrostatic precipitator (ESP). They measured a collection efficiency
ranging from 37% to 79%. The authors additionally showed that the efficiencies varied between
the positive and negative charging modes, whereas particles less than 2.1 µm in size were pref-
erably removed. An optimized ESP was tested inside a poultry barn after being equipped with an
automated pneumatic cleaning system. The performance of the ESP for collecting poultry dust
282 Jens Seedorf
(comparison between the inlet and outlet PM concentrations by driving air constantly through the
VetBooks.ir
system) was 86.1% ± 5.5% for PM1, 85.8% ± 5.4% for PM2.5, 85.3% ± 5.4% for PM4, 84.1% ±
5.4% for PM10, and 81.8% ± 6.5% for total PM during a continuous 10-day operation (Manuzon,
2012). Carpenter (1986) placed an electrostatic filter in a poultry house, where 90% of the dust
was removed by weight; all particles were >8 µm, but less than 50% were below 3 µm.
An ionization system called electrostatic particle ionization (EPI) was recently used by
Cambra-López et al. (2009a) in a pilot broiler house to reduce PM10 and PM2.5. The investiga-
tions showed that reductions of 36% and 10%, respectively, could be obtained. Jerez et al. (2013)
also evaluated the effectiveness of EPI in conjunction with a further commercially available
control technology, which treated the exhaust air close to the fans of a mechanically ventilated
broiler barn. Apart from the PM10, NH3, and hydrogen sulfide (H2S) concentrations, the reduc-
tion efficiency for the total suspended PM (TSP) was 39% for the EPI system.
The EPI system was also considered as one of several mitigation options to control odor and
dust from chicken sheds in Australia. Apart from successful dust reductions via ionizers, it was
observed that dust that was once attracted to grounded surfaces, such as ceilings, could become
resuspended when the power was switched off, and larger dust clumps may fall to the ground,
requiring the technical equipment to be protected (Dunlop, 2009). Such events may then cause
even more an annoyance for animals and humans.
Air ionization has been also tested for pig and cattle houses. Veenhuizen (1989) and Veenhui-
zen and Bundy (1990) demonstrated that in a nursery house for pigs, a dust reduction of 57% to
66% was achievable, whereas particles greater than 2 µm were more effectively removed than
particles less than 2 µm. A comparable reduction efficiency for total dust of 58% and 45% was
reached in a pig nursery and farrowing setting, respectively, with an installed ESP dust collection
system (Rosentrater, 2003). These findings corresponded to 36% and 50% reduction for respi-
rable particles. An ESP used in conjunction with a recirculation duct was developed by George
and Feddes (1995) to remove airborne swine dust within an environmental chamber. The overall
collection efficiency of the ESP ranged from 18.5% to 96.4%, whereas the applied voltage had a
significant effect on the collection efficiency. Gustafsson (1999) found no significant dust reduc-
tions in a piggery by means of electrostatic air cleaning but showed relative differences between
8% and 28% when comparing the dust concentrations between the treated and untreated pig barn.
Four cows in a loose-housing barn were exposed to artificially generated air ions to remove dust
(Dolejš et al., 2006). The airborne dust concentration was reduced from 12.7% to 26.2%, and
based on the emission rates, the reduction was 24.1% to 31.3%.
In contrast to investigations with only one pollutant reduction device, Winkel et al. (2014a) syn-
chronically operated a negative corona ionization system (NCI), a radiant catalytic ionizing sys-
tem (RCI), an applicator for spreading vegetable oil onto pigs (VOA, see earlier), an oxygen-ion
generator (OIG), and an electrostatic filtration unit (EFU), each installed in an extra room with
pigs. The mean PM10 reductions were 36% for the NCI and 28% for the EFU, whereas nearly no
reductions were found for the RCI (0.1%) and the OIG (3%). For the pigs from the rooms with
technologies that reduced the PM10 concentration (VOA, NCI, and EFU), fewer lung abnormal-
ities were found in comparison to the rooms without PM10 reduction (control, RCI, and OIG).
A combined technique was favored by Almuhanna (2007), who tested a fan-operated electro-
statically assisted particulate wet scrubber (EPWS). He found that under laboratory conditions,
negatively charged water spray was significantly more effective [reduction efficiency (RE): 79%]
than either the uncharged water spray (i.e., only the wet scrubber was operated, RE: 58%) or no
water spray (i.e., only the fan was operated, RE: 21%) to remove dust (Almuhanna et al., 2009).
There was no significant difference when using the positively charged EPWS (RE: 73%). Field
tests in a swine building proved that the EPWS was effective in removing airborne dust. More
recently, an optimized EPWS reached reduction efficiencies of 80.3%, 62.4% and 24.5%, respec-
tively (Almuhanna et al., 2012).
The reduction potential of ionization for airborne microorganisms was frequently checked
together with dust mitigation methods (e.g., Gast et al., 1999), because ions can also have a
microbial inactivation effect (Krueger and Reed, 1976), even though exposure to positive ions
VetBooks.ir
produces a dissimilar effect compared to negative ions (Fletcher et al., 2007). Regardless of this
observation, air ionization may have the potential to control and prevent infectious animal dis-
eases. From this point of view, Richardson et al. (2003b) discovered a 64% mean reduction in
airborne gram-negative bacteria, when applying an ESCS in an experimental room with broiler
breeder pullets. An extended survey additionally revealed that a significant reduction of 76% and
48% for the total airborne and gram-negative bacteria, respectively, occurred in a broiler breeder
house in conjunction with fewer hens testing positive for Salmonella enteritidis, indicating the
effectiveness for such pathogens (Richardson et al., 2003a). Seo et al. (2001) have already con-
cluded that high levels of negative air ions cause a significant impact on airborne microbial loads,
which also includes the direct killing of S. enteritidis, as previously confirmed by Holt et al.
(1999), who observed an effective quantitative decrease in airborne Salmonella enterica. The
inactivation rate of the ESCS on airborne and surface S. enteritidis within approximately 25 cm
has been shown to be 96% or more (Seo et al., 2001).
To study the effects of electrostatic fields on the culturability of microorganisms in an airborne
state, Yao et al. (2005) aerosolized Pseudomonas fluorescens bacteria and passed those through
a chamber where they were exposed to electrostatic fields of various strengths for approximately
30 s. Because they observed no significant inactivation of the stress-sensitive bacteria species,
experiments with hardy microorganisms such as Bacillus subtilis var. niger were not additionally
performed, although the authors could not rule out that longer exposure times were possibly
needed to achieve significant inactivation.
In most cases, comprehensive sanitation of the air is demanded with less reduction of a specific
microorganism, unless it belongs to an infectious agent (see later). With this in mind, Carpen-
ter (1986) reported an 80% reduction of airborne bacteria by electrostatic filtration in a poultry
house. Contrarily, Cambra-López et al. (2009b) did not find a significant reduction in microbial
emissions (total airborne bacteria and fungi) by ionization in a broiler house. In addition, for a
sow building, no significant microbial reductions or decreases in dust emissions were found,
but unexpected ozone concentrations of approximately 10 to 160 µg m−3 were detected (SMUL,
2003). All these ambiguous results probably indicate that several possible mechanisms (i.e., the
action of the ions, the production of ozone, and the action of the electric field) interacted with
different bacteria in varying ways and proportions. Therefore, the bactericidal action attributed to
negative air ions has probably been overestimated (Fletcher et al., 2007).
Both dust and viruses can generally be captured and finally inactivated by the use of an
electrostatic precipitator via continual ion and reactive species (e.g., radicals) bombardment
(Kettleson et al., 2009). Viruses with great epidemiological importance, such as the por-
cine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus (PRRSV), porcine epidemic diarrhea virus
(PEDV) and influenza, have also been checked for considerable reduction by EPI. This is due
to the aerial transmissibility of the aforementioned viruses (Alonso et al., 2014a; Corzo et al.,
2013; Otake et al., 2010). First, investigations with artificially generated aerosols showed that
the influenza virus and PRRSV could be associated with aerosols of various particle size ranges
and that the most pronounced reduction (up to 2.57 logs) was observed in particles from 9 to
10 µm in size and up to 3.5 logs in the particle size range of 5 to 10 µm, if the sampling point
was 3 m away from the ionizer system (Alonso et al., 2014b, 2014c). For PEDV, Alonso et
al. (2014d) found a viral particle removal efficiency of 86.2%. The overall airborne pathogen
reduction ranged between 0.5 and 1.9 logs, whereby not only the distance to the source of the
ions and the particle size influenced the removal efficiency of the EPI system but also the type
of pathogen. Furthermore, relative humidity of 30% and 70% did not show a significant effect
on the pathogen removal efficiency. However, air humidity had an impact on the efficiency
of ionization because a relationship exists between negative ion concentrations (an indicator
of particle removal efficiency) and air humidity levels (Alonso et al., 2016), but the interrela-
tionships are complicated (e.g., Wu et al., 2006b). It becomes additionally complicated when
not only considering the quantitative virus losses due to the mitigation technique but also the
284 Jens Seedorf
interplay between the survival of aerosolized viruses, relative humidity and temperature (Yang
VetBooks.ir
and Marr, 2012).

This clearly shows that different factors were obviously considered and that experimental
procedures should be standardized to evaluate the performance of EPI (La et al., 2013). Never-
theless, commercially available electrostatic particle ionizers are currently advertised to control
infectious pig diseases and to improve daily weight gain in conjunction with less mortalities
(Kephart and Wastell, 2014a,b).
Waste gas cleaning by cold, non-thermal plasma (NTP) applications can be operated to control
air pollution. While corona discharges are used in electrostatic separators (electrostatic precipi-
tators, see earlier), diverse variants of the so-called barrier discharge technique predominate in
NTP technologies (VDI 2441, 2016). NTP applications are not only able to reduce odorants and
specific gases (e.g., EPA, 2005), but they are also able to eliminate other airborne pollutants such
as particles and microorganisms due, in particular, to the decontamination capabilities of plasma
(Korachi and Aslan, 2013; Moreau et al., 2008). Although plasma devices are frequently operated
as an end-of-pipe technology, such methods are also generally capable of working with recircu-
lating air to clean up the indoor atmosphere of livestock buildings. Aside from odor removal,
Andersen et al. (2013) found an RE of more than 90% for particles when they conducted air from
a pig house through a NTP chamber. Seedorf et al. (2005, 2009) reported that a prototype of a
plasma physical abatement technique in a dielectric-barrier discharge mode sanitized a part of the
exhaust air of a pig house using flow rates in the range of 40 to 80 m³ h−1 within the plasma device
at different electrical power rates. They demonstrated an RE up to 90% (and sometimes more) for
airborne bacteria (mesophilic total bacteria, streptococci, staphylococci). When comparing the
endotoxin concentrations between the crude and clean gas, an RE of 73% was found. However,
the inactivation mechanisms for the bioaerosols were not exclusively related to the basic plasma
properties themselves, because temperatures of approximately 80°C were measured, contrasting
what is meant by non-thermal plasma activities. Therefore, the heat probably caused bactericidal
effects. Additionally, high ozone concentrations were also detected, although a catalysator was
operated in parallel to neutralize the ozone before the clean gas was released (Nieswandt, 2006).
For validation of all applications, the safety demands, costs, technical robustness and ease of use
require attention in the case of NTP techniques before a routine operation can be proposed to
control airborne pollutants in livestock facilities.
17.3 FINAL REMARKS
Livestock-related airborne PM and bioaerosols, respectively, contribute to indoor and outdoor

pollution and are therefore under public observation. Detrimental effects in man and animals
were determined over the last few decades, making countermeasures desirable to prevent diseases
and, thus, to enhance the acceptance of agricultural activities. Therefore, it is not surprising that a
considerable number of abatement techniques have been tested during recent years (e.g., Winkel,
2016b), and novel and improved methods have even been required to control the PM exposure
in livestock farms (Basinas et al., 2015). In contrast, it is also necessary to consider effectiveness
and technical suitability, which should be specifically explained for ionizing devices.
The operation of ionizers has been apparently successful in terms of airborne particle reduc-
tion. However, this technique is not totally free of shortcomings, which require rectification in
conjunction with technical improvements. This is because good, uniform results are not always
achieved over time when operating air ionizers. Cambra-López et al. (2009a) argued that the
removal of airborne particles is considerably affected by high ventilation rates, decreasing ion
concentrations and increasing dust layers on room surfaces, which cause the decreased attraction
of dust to these surfaces. It could be imagined that these dynamic events are highly variable over
a rearing period of different livestock species, therefore making the reduction efficiency unreli-
able or not even detectable. Consequently, efforts are needed to optimize the ionization technique
with respect to the electromagnetic field strength requirements, to improve the charge-to-mass
VetBooks.ir
ratio of particles, to rapidly reduce airborne particle concentrations over time, and to determine
the overall operational performance (Almuhanna, 2013; Rosentrater, 2004). This has also led
to the conclusion that a combination of quite different reduction mechanisms in one device can
strengthen the efficiency; an interesting offensive for aerobiological concerns, namely, to inactive
stress-resistant microorganisms apart from stress-sensitive cells (Grinshpun et al., 2007).
A further point is related to the operational safety of such devices. In addition to common fire
and electrical power protection shields for safe operation, other safety demands are particularly
related to the potential of ozone generation as a by-product, because the operation of ionizers can
produce ozone levels exceeding health-related standards (Britigan et al., 2006; George and Fed-
des, 1995). The high voltage used for ion generation produces ozone above the threshold voltage
of 16,000 volts, as cited by Sawant et al. (2012). Furthermore, a positive corona of an electrostatic
precipitator is generally less efficient in comparison to a negative corona at the same voltage,
but it is associated with less ozone generation (Mizuno, 2000) and, therefore, tends to be more
suitable when people and animals are nearby (Chai et al., 2009). However, well working devices
under high voltages must not present major problems in this area (Manuzon, 2012), but the indoor
existence of ozone may be masked by high ventilation rates that transport “the problem” from
inside to outside (Cambra-López et al., 2009a).
The statements above show that introducing an effective and practical strategy for reducing
airborne PMs is a challenging task, because the field and experimental investigations carried out
to date have often been time consuming, costly, and labor intensive. Therefore, the application of
predictive models is a suitable alternative for assessing the potential benefit of technical devel-
opments. Due to the current availability of cost-effective computers, the usage of computational
fluid dynamics (CFD) offers great possibilities for improving or optimizing dust-rich feeding sys-
tems, air cleaning devices or measurement techniques. (Kwon et al., 2016; Manuzon, 2012; van
Dooren and Sapounas, 2013). Nevertheless, best practice guidelines for CFD modeling should
not only be considered to ensure sufficient accuracy but also the validation of simulations has to
be considered (Rong et al., 2016).
Apart from all current scientific and technical knowledge and prospective efforts in the field of
mitigation options, efforts to promote and to establish PM reduction techniques in the agricultural
sector are required. A step ahead in this direction is the study of Basinas and colleagues (2016).
The results of the study suggest that reductions between 20% and 30% in personal exposure to
inhalable dust are feasible through simple information provided to farm owners regarding actual
levels of exposure together with instructions on basic measures of prevention, which are mainly
related to the avoidance of dust production through administrative methods (e.g., use of enclosed
feed systems) and the use of respirators. Administrative methods are mostly successful if expo-
sure determinants can be defined and clearly targeted to PM generation sources. This approach is
beneficial for both farmers and the environment, in contrast to respirators, which only serve as a
human-related intervention measure without any benefit for livestock animals or the environment.
In conclusion, a sustainable solution for the pollution problems should be primarily based on
a dust avoidance strategy along the whole material flow line. If this ambition is restricted, or the
expected reduction levels are not achievable, (whatever the reasons are) abatement technologies,
which are operated in livestock farming, could be the next choice. In these cases, precision live-
stock farming (PLF) can offer the opportunity for real-time monitoring of environmental factors
(Banhazi, 2009) and to design control loops (e.g., Berckmans, 2014), which initiate air cleaning
procedures if a TLV or a combination of relevant TLVs for specific air quality factors is exceeded.
Due to the current uncertainties in the area of TLVs (see 17.2.2), the usage of biological indicators
and their algorithmic transformation into electrical signals is a potential alternative for integration
into control loops that automatically control mitigation measures and simultaneously alert farm-
ers (e.g., cough sound monitoring according to Ferrari et al., 2008). The establishment of PLF
also depends on the economic feasibility of the (commercially) available techniques. Online aero-
sol measurements have normally belonged to more cost-intensive investigations in the past, due
286 Jens Seedorf
to relatively expensive instruments. Low-cost aerosol devices are currently accessible, making
VetBooks.ir
PLF slightly more attractive for farmers (Jones et al., 2016). Nevertheless, to determine whether
the implemented technologies affect the animals in a negative or positive manner, it is necessary
to continuously develop animal welfare protocols in the future that integrate animal-, environ-
ment-, and management-related recordings of relevant criteria with respect to their interactions
(Renggaman et al., 2015). Therefore, these protocols could also be an important conceptual tool
to raise the awareness for the need of PM reduction strategies.
REFERENCES
Aarnink, A.J.A. & Ellen, H.H. (2007) Processes and factors affecting dust emissions from livestock produc-
tion. DustConf 2007, 23–24 April 2007, Maastricht, The Netherlands, X. Available from: http://www.
dustconf.com/CLIENT/DUSTCONF/UPLOAD/S6/AARNINK_.PDF [accessed September 2014].
Aarnink, A.J.A., Roelofs, P.F.M.M., Ellen, H. & Gunnink, H. (1999) Dust sources in animal houses. Pro-
ceeding of the International Symposium on Dust Control in Animal Production Facilities, 30 May–2 June
1999, Aarhus, Denmark. pp. 34–40.
Aarnink, A.J.A., van Harn, J., van Hattum, T.G., Zhao, Y. & Ogink, N.W.M. (2011) Dust reduction in broiler
houses by spraying rapeseed oil. Transactions of the ASABE, 54(4), 1479–1489.
Aarnink, A.J.A., Zhao, Y. & Ogink, N.W.M. (2015) Measurement protocol for emissions of bio-aerosols
from animal houses. Wageningen UR Livestock Research, Wageningen, The Netherlands, Livestock
Research Report 878. Available from: http://library.wur.nl/WebQuery/wurpubs/fulltext/347166 [accessed
December 2016].
Airaksinen, S. (2006) Bedding and Manure Management in Horse Stables. Its Effect on Stable Air Quality,
Paddock Hygiene and the Compostability and Utilization of Manure. PhD thesis, University of Kuopio,
Kuopio, Finland.
Alexander, D.D., Bailey, W.H., Perez, V., Mitchell, M.E. & Su, S. (2013) Air ions and respiratory function
outcomes: a comprehensive review. Journal of Negative Results in BioMedicine, 12(14), 16 pp.
Almuhanna, E.A. (2007) Dust Control in Livestock Buildings with electrostatically charged Water Spray.
PhD thesis, Kansas State University, Manhattan, Kansas. 236 pp.
Almuhanna, E.A. (2013) Concentration, size distribution and electrostatic charge of laying hen house partic-
ulate matter. Environment and Pollution, 2(3), 67–80.
Almuhanna, E.A., Maghirang, R.G., Murphy, J.P. & Erickson, L.E. (2009) Laboratory scale electrostatically
assisted wet scrubber for controlling dust in livestock buildings. Applied Engineering in Agriculture,
25(5), 745–750.
Almuhanna, E.A., Amer Eissa, A.H., Alghannam, A.O. & Al-Amri, A.M. (2012) Optimization of dust
removal in poultry houses using electrostatic wet scrubber. Journal of Applied Sciences Research, 8(12),
5651–5660.
Alonso, C., Goede, D.P., Morrison, R.B., Davies, P.R., Rovira, A., Marthaler, D.G. & Montserrat Torre-
morell, M. (2014a) Evidence of infectivity of airborne porcine epidemic diarrhea virus and detection of
airborne viral RNA at long distances from infected herds. Veterinary Research, 45(73), 5 pp.
Alonso, C., Raynor, P., Davies, P. & Torremorell, M. (2014b): Effect of the electrostatic particle ionization
technology on decreasing influenza virus in aerosols from experimentally infected pigs. Proceedings of
the 23rd International Pig Veterinary Society Congress, Vol. I. 8–11 July 2014, Cancun, Mexico. p. 107.
Alonso, C., Raynor, P., Davies, P. & Torremorell, M. (2014c): Efficacy study of the electrostatic particle
ionization technology on PRRSV and influenza artificial aerosols. Proceedings of the 23rd International
Pig Veterinary Society Congress, Vol. I, 8–11 July 2014, Cancun, Mexico. p. 177.
Alonso, C., Torremorell, M., Raynor, P. & Davies, P. (2014d) Effect of the EPI® technology on decreas-
ing PRRS, influenza and PED viruses in aerosols from experimentally infected pigs. Available from:
http://www.swineweb.com/effect-epi-technology-decreasing-prrs-influenza-ped-viruses-aerosols-exper
imentally-infected-pigs/ [accessed September 2014].
Alonso, C., Raynor, P.C., Davies, P.R., Morrison, R.B. & Torremorell, M. (2016) Evaluation of an electro-
static particle ionization technology for decreasing airborne pathogens in pigs. Aerobiologia (Bologna)
32(3), 405–419.
Andersen, K.B., Beukes, J.A. & Feilberg, A. (2013) Non-thermal plasma for odour reduction from pig
houses – a pilot scale investigation. Chemical Engineering Journal, 223, 638–646.
Aneja, V.P., Schlesinger, W.H. & Erisman, J.W. (2009) Effects of agriculture upon the air quality and climate:
VetBooks.ir
research, policy, and regulations. Environmental Science & Technology, 43(12), 4234–4240.

Ansart, R., de Ryck, A. & Dodds, J.A. (2009) Dust emission in powder handling: free falling particle plume
characterisation. Chemical Engineering Journal, 152(2–3), 415–420.
Anthony, T.R., Altmaier, R., Jones, S. Gassman, R. Park, J.H. & Peters, T.M. (2015) Use of recirculating
ventilation with dust filtration to improve wintertime air quality in a swine farrowing room. Journal of
Occupational and Environmental Hygiene, 12(9), 635–646.
Baekbo, P. (1990) Air quality in Danish pig herds. Proceedings of the 11th International Pig Veterinary
Society Congress, 1–5 July 1990, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Banhazi, T.M. (2009) User-friendly air quality monitoring system. Applied Engineering in Agriculture,
25(2), 281–290.
Banhazi, T.M. (2013a) Monitoring the potential environmental impact of free range piggeries in three states
of Australia, part 3: Dust concentrations. In: Saunders, C. & Banhazi, T.M. (eds) Bi-Annual Conference of
the Australian Society of Engineering in Agriculture (SEAg), 2013, Vol. 1, CD 1–10. Australian Society
of Engineering in Agriculture, Perth, Australia.
Banhazi, T. (2013b) Modelling and influencing hygiene conditions in Australian livestock buildings. In:
Aland, A. & Banhazi, T. (eds) Livestock Housing. Modern Management to Ensure Optimal Health
and Welfare of Farm Animals. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, The Netherlands.
pp. 377–390.
Banhazi, T. (2013c) Controlling the concentrations of airborne pollutants in three different livestock facil-
ities. In: Aland, A. & Banhazi, T. (eds) Livestock Housing. Modern Management to Ensure Optimal
pp. 281–295.
Banhazi, T.M., Seedorf, J., Rutley, D.L. & Pitchford, W.S. (2008a) Identification of risk factors for
sub-optimal housing conditions in Australian piggeries: part 2. Airborne pollutants. Journal of Agricul-
Banhazi, T.M., Seedorf, J., Rutley, D.L. & Pitchford, W.S. (2008b) Identification of risk factors for
sub-optimal housing conditions in Australian piggeries: part 1. Study justification and design. Journal of
Banhazi, T.M., Seedorf, J., Rutley, D.L. & Pitchford, W.S. (2008c) Identification of risk factors for
sub-optimal housing conditions in Australian piggeries: part 3. Environmental parameters. Journal of
optimal housing conditions in Australian piggeries: part 4. Emission factors and study recommendations.
Banhazi, T.M., Seedorf, J., Laffrique, M. & Rutley, D.L. (2008e) Identification of the risk factors for high
101, 100–110.
Banhazi, T., Saunders, C., Nieuwe, N., Lu, V. & Banhazi, A. (2011) Oil-spraying as an air quality improve-
ment technique in livestock buildings: development and utilisation of a testing device. Australian Journal
of Multi-Disciplinary Engineering, 8(2), 169–180.
Barber, E.M. (1991) A review of methods for estimating the role of dust deposition in removal of dust from
livestock building airspaces. International ASAE Meeting, 17–20 December 1991, Chicago, USA. Paper
91–4551.
Basinas, I., Sigsgaard, T., Kromhout, H., Heederik, D., Wouters, I.M. & Schlünssen, V. (2015) A comprehen-
sive review of levels and determinants of personal exposure to dust and endotoxin in livestock farming.
Journal of Exposure Science and Environmental Epidemiology, 25(2), 123–137.
Basinas, I., Sigsgaard, T., Bønløkke, J.H., Andersen, N.T., Omland.Ø., Kromhout, H. & Schlünssen, V.
(2016) Feedback on measured dust concentrations reduces exposure levels among farmers. Annals of
Occupational Hygiene, 60(7), 812–824.
Berckmans, D. (2014) Precision livestock farming technologies for welfare management in intensive live-
stock systems. Revue scientifique et technique (International Office of Epizootics), 33(1), 189–196.
Binas, V., Venieri, D., Kotzias, D. & Kiriakidis, G. (2017) Modified TiO2 based photocatalysts for improved
air and health quality. Journal of Materiomics, 3(1), 3–16.
Borlée, F., Yzermans, C.J., van Dijk, C.E., Heederik, D. & Smit, L.A. (2015) Increased respiratory symp-
toms in COPD patients living in the vicinity of livestock farms. European Respiratory Journal, 46(6),
1605–1614.
288 Jens Seedorf
Bos, M.E., Verstappen, K.M., van Cleef, B.A., Dohmen, W., Dorado-García, A., Graveland, H., Duim, B.,
VetBooks.ir
Wagenaar, J.A., Kluytmans, J.A. & Heederik, D.J. (2016) Transmission through air as a possible route
of exposure for MRSA. Journal of Exposure Science and Environmental Epidemiology, 26(3), 263–269.
Bowers, R.M., McLetchie, S., Knight, R. & Fierer, N. (2011) Spatial variability in airborne bacterial com-
munities across land-use types and their relationship to the bacterial communities of potential source
environments. ISME Journal, 5(4), 601–612.
BPEX (2011) Farm case study: Is there gold in your dust? Kenilworth, United Kingdom. Available from:
http://www.bpex.org.uk/media/2122/BPEX-farm-case-study-25.pdf [accessed June 2015].
Breum, N.O., Nielsen, B.H., Lyngbye, M. & Midtgård, U. (1999) Dustiness of chopped straw as affected by
lignosulfonate as a dust suppressant. Annals of Agricultural and Environmental Medicine, 6, 133–140.
Britigan, N., Alshawa, A. & Nizkorodov, S.A. (2006) Quantification of ozone levels in indoor environments
generated by ionization and ozonolysis air purifiers. Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association,
56(5), 601–610.
Brown, J.S., Gordon, T., Price, O. & Asgharian, B. (2013) Thoracic and respirable particle definitions for
human health risk assessment. Particle and Fibre Toxicology, 10, 12 pp.
Brscic, M., Leruste, H., Heutinck, L.F., Bokkers, E.A., Wolthuis-Fillerup, M., Stockhofe, N., Gottardo, F.,
Lensink, B.J., Cozzi, G. & Van Reenen, C.G. (2012) Prevalence of respiratory disorders in veal calves
and potential risk factors. Journal of Dairy Science, 95(5), 2753–2764.
Bundy, D.S. (1974) Ionization Control and Particle Size Distribution of Dust in Swine Buildings. PhD
thesis, Iowa State University. 163 pp. Available from: http://lib.dr.iastate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?
article=7328&context=rtd [accessed December 2016].
Calvet, S., Van den Weghe, H., Kosch, R. & Estellés, F. (2009) The influence of the lighting program on
broiler activity and dust production. Poultry Science, 88(12), 2504–2511.
Cambra-López, M., Winkel, A., van Harn, J., Hannink, N. & Aarnink, A.J.A. (2009a) Measures to reduce
fine dust emission from poultry houses: reduction from broiler houses by ionization. Animal Sciences
Group of Wageningen UR, Lelystad, The Netherlands, Report 215. 51 pp. Available from: http://edepot.
wur.nl/11262 [accessed September 2014].
Cambra-López, M., Winkel, A., van Harn, J., Ogink, N.W.M. & Aarnink, A.J.A. (2009b) Ionization for reduc-
ing particulate matter emissions from poultry houses. Transactions of the ASABE, 52(5), 1757–1771.
Carpenter, G.A. (1986) Dust in livestock buildings-review of some aspects. Journal of Agricultural Engi-
neering Research, 33(4), 227–241.
Carpenter, G.A. & Fryer, J.T. (1990) Air filtration in a piggery: filter design and dust mass balance. Journal
of Agricultural Engineering Research, 46, 171–186.
Carpenter, G.A., Cooper, A.W. & Wheeler, G.E. (1986a) The effect of air filtration on air hygiene and pig
performance in early-weaner accommodation. Animal Production, 43(3), 505–515.
Carpenter, G.A., Smith, W.K., MacLaren, A.P.C. & Spackman, D. (1986b) Effect of internal air filtration on
the performance of broilers and the aerial concentrations of dust and bacteria. British Poultry Science,
27(3), 471–480.
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 Animal Science, 67(6), 870–875.
Chiba, L.I., Peo, E.R., Jr, Lewis, A.J., Brumm, M.C., Fritschen, R.D. & Crenshaw, J.D. (1985) Effect of
dietary fat on pig performance and dust levels in modified-open-front and environmentally regulated
confinement buildings. Journal of Animal Science, 61(4), 763–781.
Cho, K.J., Jones, S., Jones, G., McKay, R., Grinshpun, S.A., Dwivedi, A., Shukla, R., Singh, U. & Reponen,
T. (2010) Effect of particle size on respiratory protection provided by two types of N95 respirators used
in agricultural settings. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene, 7(11), 622–627.
CIGR (1994) Aerial environment in animal housing. International Commission on Agricultural Engineering
(CIGR), Working Group Report Series No. 94.1. 114 pp. Available from: http://www.cigr.org/documents/
CIGR-workinggroupreport1994.pdf [accessed September 2014].
Clarke, A.F. (1987) Chronic pulmonary disease – a multifaceted disease complex in the horse. Irish Veteri-
nary Journal, 41(4), 258–264.
Corzo, C.A., Culhane, M., Dee, S., Morrison, R.B. & Torremorell, M. (2013) Airborne detection and quan-
tification of swine influenza a virus in air samples collected inside, outside and downwind from swine
barns. PLoS One, 8(8), e71444, 7 pp.
Costa, A., Borgonovo, F., Leroy, T., Berckmans, D. & Guarino, M. (2009) Dust concentration variation in
relation to animal activity in a pig barn. Biosystems Engineering, 104(1), 118–124.
Costa, A., Colosio, C., Gusmara, C., Sala, V. & Guarino, M. (2014) Effects of disinfectant fogging procedure
VetBooks.ir
on dust, ammonia concentration, aerobic bacteria and fungal spores in a farrowing-weaning room. Annals
of Agricultural and Environmental Medicine, 21(3), 494–499.
Cox, C.S. (1995) Physical aspects of bioaerosol particles. In: Cox, C.S. & Wathes, C.M. (eds) Bioaerosols
Handbook. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL. pp. 15–25.
Cutler, T.D. & Zimmerman, J.J. (2011) Ultraviolet irradiation and the mechanisms underlying its inactivation
of infectious agents. Animal Health Research Reviews, 12(1), 15–23.
Dalal, P. (2010) Modeling and sensitivity analysis of 10 μm dust particle separation (PM10) for uniflow
aerodynamic dedusters. Journal of Environmental Research and Development, 5(1), 34–45.
Daniels, S.L. (2001) Applications of air ionization for control of VOCs and PMx. Proceedings of the Air &
Waste Management Association 94th Annual Meeting & Exhibition, 24–28 June 2001, Orlando, FL.
Paper No. 918. Available from: http://www.transjonic.se/ionization.pdf [accessed September 2014]
David, B., Moe, R.O., Michel, V., Lund, V. & Mejdell, C. (2015) Air quality in alternative housing systems
may have an impact on laying hen welfare. Part I-Dust. Animals (Basel) 5(3), 495–511.
Dawson, J.R. (1990) Minimizing dust in livestock buildings: possible alternatives to mechanical separation.
Debey, M.C., Trampel, D.W., Richard, J.L., Bundy, D.S., Hoffman, L.J., Meyer, V.M. & Cox, D.F. (1994)
Effect of building ventilation design on environment and performance of turkeys. American Journal of
Veterinary Research, 55(2), 216–220.
Després, V.R., Huffman, J.A., Burrows, S.M., Hoose, C., Safatov, A.S., Buryak, G.A., Fröhlich-Nowoisky,
J., Elbert,W., Andreae, M.O., Pöschl, U. & Jaenicke, R. (2012) Primary biological aerosol particles in the
atmosphere: a review. Tellus B, 64, 15598, 58 pp.
Dolejš, J., Mašata, O. & Toufar, O. (2006) Elimination of dust production from stables for dairy cows. Czech
Donham, K.J., Scallon, L.J., Popendorf, W., Treuhaft, M.W. & Roberts, R.C. (1986) Characterization of
dusts collected from swine confinement buildings. American Industrial Hygiene Association Journal,
47(7), 404–410.
Douwes, J., Thorne, P., Pearce, N. & Heederik, D. (2003) Bioaerosol health effects and exposure assessment:
progress and prospects. Annals of Occupational Hygiene, 47(3), 187–200.
Dunlop, M. (2009) Control of odour and dust from chicken sheds Review of “add-on” technologies. Aus-
tralian Government Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation, Publication No. 09/034.
Available from: https://rirdc.infoservices.com.au/items/09-034 [accessed September 2014]
Duquenne, P., Marchand, G. & Duchaine, C. (2013) Measurement of endotoxins in bioaerosols at work-
place: a critical review of literature and a standardization issue. Annals of Occupational Hygiene, 57(2),
137–172.
Dusad, A., Thiele, G.M., Klassen, L.W., Gleason, A.M., Bauer, C., Mikuls, T.R., Duryee, M.J., West, W.W.,
Romberger, D.J. & Poole, J.A. (2013) Organic dust, lipopolysaccharide, and peptidoglycan inhalant
exposures result in bone loss/disease. American Journal of Respiratory Cell and Molecular Biology,
49(5), 829–836.
Eduard, W., Pearce, N. & Douwes, J. (2009) Chronic bronchitis, COPD, and lung function in farmers: the
Eduard, W., Heederik, D., Duchaine, C. & Green, B.J. (2012) Bioaerosol exposure assessment in the work-
place: the past, present and recent advances. Journal of Environmental Monitoring, 14(2), 334–339.
Elfman, L., Wålinder, R., Riihimäki, M. & Pringle, J. (2011) Air quality in horse stables. In: Mazzeo, N.
(ed) Chemistry, Emission Control, Radioactive Pollution and Indoor Air Quality. Intech, Rijeka, Croatia.
pp. 655–680. Available from: http://www.intechopen.com/books/chemistry-emission-control-radioactive
pollution-and-indoor-air-quality/air-quality-in-horse-stables [accessed September 2014].
EN 481 (1993) Workplace Atmospheres. Size Fraction Definitions for Measurement of airborne Particles.
European Committee for Standardization, Beuth Verlag GmbH, Berlin, Germany.
EPA (2005) Using non-thermal plasma to control air pollutants. EPA-456/R-05-001, Environmental Pro-
tection Agency (EPA), Research Trieangle Park, NC. Available from: http://www.epa.gov/ttncatc1/dir1/
fnonthrm.pdf [accessed September 2014].
European Feed Manufacturers Federation (2014) European Feed Manufacturers Guide. A community guide
to good practice for the EU industrial compound feed and premixtures manufacturing sector for food pro-
ducing animals, November, version 1.2. Available from: http://www.fefac.eu/files/58224.pdf [accessed
June 2015].
290 Jens Seedorf
Feddes, J.J.R., Cook, H. & Zuidhof, M.J. (1992) Characterization of airborne dust particles in turkey hous-
VetBooks.ir
ing. Canadian Agricultural Engineering, 34(3), 273–280.

Ferguson, D.D. (2012) Assessment and Mitigation of Airborne Transmission of Methicillin-Resistant Staph-
ylococcus Aureus in Animal Feeding Operations and the Outdoor Environment. PhD thesis, University
of Iowa. Available from: http://ir.uiowa.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3453&context=etd [accessed
February 2015].
Ferrari, S., Silva, M., Guarino, M. & Berckmans, D. (2008) Analysis of cough sounds for diagnosis of respi-
ratory infections in intensive pig farming. Transactions of the ASABE, 51(3), 1051–1055.
Fleming, K., Hessel, E.F. & Van den Weghe, H.F.A. (2008) Generation of airborne particles from different
bedding materials used for horse keeping. Journal of Equine Veterinary Science, 28(7), 408–418.
Fletcher, L.A., Gaunt, L.F., Beggs, C.B., Shepherd, S.J., Sleigh, P.A., Noakes, C.J. & Kerr, K.G. (2007) Bac-
tericidal action of positive and negative ions in air. BMC Microbiology, 7, Article no. 32, 9 pp.
Fotheringham, V.J.C. (1995) Disinfection of livestock production premises. Revue scientifique et technique
(International Office of Epizootics), 14(1), 191–205.
Friese, A., Schulz, J., Zimmermann, K., Tenhagen, B.A., Fetsch, A., Hartung, J. & Rösler, U. (2013) Occur-
rence of livestock-associated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in turkey and broiler barns and
contamination of air and soil surfaces in their vicinity. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 79(8),
2759–2766.
Fröhlich-Nowoisky, J., Kampf, C.J., Weber, B., Huffman, J.A., Pöhlker, C., Andreae, M.O., Lang-Yona,
N., Burrows, S.M., Gunthe, S.S., Elbert, W., Su, H., Hoor, P., Thines, E., Hoffmann, T., Després, V.R. &
Pöschl, U. (2016) Bioaerosols in the Earth system: climate, health, and ecosystem interactions. Atmo-
spheric Research, 182, 346–376.
Garlipp, F., Hessel, E.F. & Van den Weghe, H.F.A. (2011) Effects of three different liquid additives mixed
with whole oats or rolled oats on the generation of airborne particles from an experimental simulating
horse feeding. Journal of Equine Veterinary Science, 31(11), 630–639.
Gast, R.K., Mitchell, B.W. & Holt, P.S. (1999) Application of negative air ionization for reducing experimen-
tal airborne transmission of Salmonella enteritidis to chicks. Poultry Science, 78(1), 57–61.
George, S.D.St. & Feddes, J.J.R. (1995) Removal of airborne swine dust by electrostatic precipitation. Cana-
dian Agricultural Engineering, 37(2), 103–107.
Godbout, S., Lemay, S.P., Joncas, R., Larouche, J.P., Martin, D.Y., Bernier, J.F., Zijlstra, R.T., Chénard, L.,
Marquis, A., Barber, E.M. & Massé, D. (2001) Oil sprinkling and dietary manipulation to reduce odour
and gas emissions from swine buildings – laboratory scale experiment. Livestock Environment VI: Pro-
ceedings of the 6th International Symposium, 21–23 May 2001, Louisville, KY. pp. 671–678.
Grinshpun, S.A. (2010) Biological aerosols. In: Agranovski, I. (ed) Aerosols – Science and Technology.
Wiley-VCH, Weinheim, Germany. pp. 379–406.
Grinshpun, S.A., Adhikari, A., Lee, B.U., Trunov, M., Mainelis, G., Yermakov, M. & Reponen, T. (2004)
Indoor air pollution control through ionization. In: Brebbia, C.A. (ed) Air Pollution XII. Wessex Institute
of Technology, WITPress, Southampton, UK. pp. 689–704.
Grinshpun, S.A., Adhikari, A., Honda, T., Kim, K.Y., Toivola, M., Rao, K.S. & Reponen, T. (2007) Control
of aerosol contaminants in indoor air: combining the particle concentration reduction with microbial
inactivation. Environmental Science & Technology, 41(2), 606–612.
Guarino, M., Jacobson, L.D. & Janni, K.A. (2007) Dust reduction from oil-based feed additives. Applied
Engineering in Agriculture, 23(3), 329–332.
Gustafsson, G. (1997) Investigations of factors affecting air pollutants in animal houses. Annals of Agricul-
tural and Environmental Medicine, 4, 203–215.
cultural Engineering Research, 74(4), 379–390.
Gustafsson, G. & von Wachenfelt, E. (2007) Airborne dust control for floor housing systems of laying hens.
Landbauforschung Volkenrode, Special Issue 308, 135–140.
Gustafsson, G. & von Wachenfelt, E. (2012) Reducing airborne dust in a loose-housing system for laying
hens. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology A, 2, 350–356.
Haeussermann, A., Hartung, E., Jungbluth, T., Vranken, E., Aerts, J.-M. & Berckmanns, D. (2007) Cooling
effects and evaporation characteristics of fogging systems in an experimental piggery. Biosystems Engi-
neering, 97(3), 395–405.
Hao, X.X., Li, B.M., Zhang, Q., Lin, B.Z., Ge, L.P., Wang, C.Y. & Cao, W. (2013a) Disinfection effectiveness
of slightly acidic electrolysed water in swine barns. Journal of Applied Microbiology, 115(3), 703–710.
Hao, X.X., Li, B.M., Wang, C.Y., Zhang, Q. & Cao, W. (2013b) Application of slightly acidic electrolyzed
VetBooks.ir
water for inactivating microbes in a layer breeding house. Poultry Science, 92(10), 2560–2566.
Hao, X., Cao, W., Li, B., Zhang, Q., Wang, C. & Ge, L. (2014) Slightly acidic electrolyzed water for reducing
airborne microorganisms in a layer breeding house. Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association,
64(4), 494–500.
Harris, M.C. & Shure, N. (1952) Evaluation of a new method of dust control. California Medicine, 76(1),
30–33.
Heber, A.J. (2002) Effects of high-oil corn and soybean oil additives on dustiness of ground corn and feed.
Heber, A.J. & Martin, C.R. (1988) Effect of additives on aerodynamic segregation of dust from swine feed.
Hirst, J.M. (1995) Bioaerosols: Introduction, Retrospect and Prospect. In: Cox, C.S. & Wathes, C.M. (eds)
Bioaerosols Handbook. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL. pp. 5–14.
Holt, P.S., Mitchell, B.W., Seo, K.-H. & Gast, R.K. (1999) Use of negative air ionization for reducing air-
borne levels of Salmonella enterica serovar enteritidis in a room containing infected caged layers. Jour-
nal of Applied Poultry Research, 8(4), 440–446.
Hölscher, R. (2006) Nachrüstlösungen zur Emissionsminderung dezentral entlüfteter Stallungen zur Schweine-
mast [Retrofit Solutions to reduce Emissions in decentral ventilated Pig Barns]. PhD thesis, University of
Bonn, Germany. Available from: http://hss.ulb.uni-bonn.de/2006/0797/0797.pdf [accessed February 2015].
Hong, E.J., Na, K.J., Choi, I.G., Choi, K.C. & Jeung, E.B. (2004) Antibacterial and antifungal effects of
essential oils from coniferous trees. Biological and Pharmaceutical Bulletin, 27(6), 863–866.
Huffman, J.A., Prenni, A.J., DeMott, P.J., Pöhlker, C., Mason, R.H., Robinson, N.H., Fröhlich-Nowoisky, J.,
Tobo, Y., Després, V.R., Garcia, E., Gochis, D.J., Harris, E., Müller-Germann, I., Ruzene, C., Schmer, B.,
Sinha, B., Day, D.A., Andreae, M.O., Jimenez, J.L., Gallagher, M., Kreidenweis, S.M., Bertram, A.K. &
Pöschl, U. (2013) High concentrations of biological aerosol particles and ice nuclei during and after rain.
Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 13(13), 6151–6164.
Ikeguchi, A. (2002) Ultra sonic sprayer controlling dust in experimental poultry houses. CIGR Journal,
Manuscript BC 01 002, Vol. IV, 10 pp. Available from: http://dspace.library.cornell.edu/retrieve/296/BC
[accessed June 2015]
ISO 7708 (1995) Air Quality – Particle Size Fraction Definitions for Health related Sampling. International
Organization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland.
Issa-Zacharia, A., Kamitani, Y., Tiisekwa, A., Morita, K. & Iwasaki, K. (2010) In vitro inactivation of Esch-
erichia coli, Staphylococcus aureus and Salmonella spp. using slightly acidic electrolyzed water. Journal
of Bioscience and Bioengineering, 110(3), 308–313.
Jerez, S.B., Mukhtar, S.,Faulkner, W., Casey, K.D., Borhan, M.S. & Smith, R.A. (2013) Evaluation of elec-
trostatic particle ionization and Biocurtain™ technologies to reduce air pollutants from broiler houses.
Jolie, R., Bäckström, L. & Gundersen, P. (1998) Airborne contaminants and farmers health in swine farms
with high and low prevalence of respiratory diseases in pigs. Annals of Agricultural and Environmental
Medicine, 5(1), 87–92.
Jones, S., Anthony, T.R., Sousan, S., Altmaier, R., Park, J.H. & Peters, T.M. (2016) Evaluation of a low-cost
aerosol sensor to assess dust concentrations in a swine building. Annals of Occupational Hygiene, 60(5),
597–607.
Judge, J., McDonald, R.A., Walker, N. & Delahay, R.J. (2011) Effectiveness of biosecurity measures in pre-
venting badger visits to farm buildings. PLoS ONE, 6(12), e28941, 8 pp.
Just, N., Duchaine, C. & Singh, B. (2009) An aerobiological perspective of dust in cage-housed and floor-
housed poultry operations. Journal of Occupational Medicine and Toxicology, 4(13), 8 pp.
Kephart, R. & Wastell, M. (2014a): The importance of air quality in livestock buildings. Gro Master,
Inc., Omaha, NE, USA. 5 pp. Available from: http://gromaster.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/The-
importance-of-air-quality-in-livestock-buildings-v2.pdf [accessed September 2014].
Kephart, R. & Wastell, M. (2014b): The effects of improving air quality on performance and mortality in
8 groups of finishing pigs challenged with PRRS. Gro Master, Inc., Omaha, NE, USA. Available from:
http://gromaster.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/EPI-Data-1.pdf [accessed September 2014].
Kettleson, E.M., Ramaswami, B., Hogan, C.J., Jr, Lee, M.H., Statyukha, G.A., Biswas, P. & Angenent, L.T.
(2009) Airborne virus capture and inactivation by an electrostatic particle collector. Environmental Sci-
ence & Technology, 43(15), 5940–5646.
292 Jens Seedorf
Kim, K.Y., Ko, H.J., Kim, H.T. & Kim, C.N. (2006) Effect of spraying biological additives for reduction of
VetBooks.ir
dust and bioaerosol in a confinement swine house. Annals of Agricultural and Environmental Medicine,
13(1), 133–138.
Kim, K.Y., Ko, H.J., Kim, Y.S. & Kim, C.N. (2008) Assessment of Korean farmer’s exposure level to dust in
pig buildings. Annals of Agricultural and Environmental Medicine, 15(1), 51–58.
Knetter, S.M., Tuggle, C.K., Wannemuehler, M.J. & Ramer-Tait, A.E. (2014) Organic barn dust extract
exposure impairs porcine macrophage function in vitro: implications for respiratory health. Veterinary
Immunology and Immunopathology, 157(1–2), 20–30.
Korachi, M. & Aslan, N. (2013) Low temperature atmospheric plasma for microbial decontamination.
In: Méndez-Vilas, A. (ed) Microbial Pathogens and Strategies for Combating Them: Science, Tech-
nology and Education. Formatex Research Center, Badajoz, Spain, Microbiology Book Series no. 4,
Vol. 1. 453–459. Available from: http://www.formatex.info/microbiology4/vol1/453-459.pdf [accessed
September 2014].
Krueger, A.P. & Reed, E.J. (1976) Biological impact of small air ions. Science, 193(4259), 1209–1213.
Kuratorium für Technik und Bauwesen in der Landwirtschaft (KTBL) (2008) Exhaust Air Treatment Systems
for Animal Housing Facilities. Association for Technology and Structures in Agriculture, Darmstadt,
Germany, KTBL publication 464.
Kwon, K., Lee, I. & Ha, T. (2016) Identification of key factors for dust generation in a nursery pig house and
evaluation of dust reduction efficiency using a CFD technique. Biosystems Engineering, 151, 28–52.
La, A., Ngan, C. & Zhang, Q. (2013) A bio-aerosol transmission test system for assessment of electrostatic
particle ionization (EPI) in improving barn air quality. CSBE/SCGAB 2013 Annual Conference, 7–10
July 2013, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Canada. Paper CSBE132–52. Available from: http://
www.csbe-scgab.ca/docs/meetings/2013/CSBE13052.pdf [accessed September 2014].
Lai, F.S. & Miller, B.S. (1982) An inexpensive method for treating grain dust to prevent fine particles becom-
ing airborne during handling. Cereal Chemistry, 59(5), 444–445.
Laube, H., Friese, A., von Salviati, C., Guerra, B. & Rösler, U. (2014) Transmission of ESBL/AmpC-
producing Escherichia coli from broiler chicken farms to surrounding areas. Veterinary Microbiology,
172(3–4), 519–527.
Lavoie, J., Godbout, S., Lemay, S.P. & Belzile, M. (2009) Impact of in-barn manure separation on biological
air quality in an experimental setup identical to that in swine buildings. Journal of Agricultural Safety
and Health, 15(3), 225–240.
Lee, B.U. (2011) Life comes from the air: a short review on bioaerosol control. Aerosol and Air Quality
Research, 11(7), 921–927.
Lee, S.A., Adhikari, A., Grinshpun, S.A., McKay, R., Shukla, R., Zeigler, H.L. & Reponen, T. (2005) Respi-
ratory protection provided by N95 filtering facepiece respirators against airborne dust and microorgan-
isms in agricultural farms. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene, 2(11), 577–585.
Létourneau, V., Nehmé, B., Mériaux, A., Massé, D. & Duchaine, C. (2010) Impact of production systems
on swine confinement buildings bioaerosols. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene, 7(2),
94–102.
Leytem, A.B. & Dungan, R.S. (2014) Livestock GRACEnet: a workgroup dedicated to evaluating and miti-
gating emissions from livestock production. Journal of Environmental Quality, 43(4), 1101–1110.
Loftus, C., Yost, M., Sampson, P., Arias, G., Torres, E., Vasquez, V.B., Bhatti, P. & Karr, C. (2015a) Regional
PM2.5 and asthma morbidity in an agricultural community: a panel study. Environmental Research, 136,
505–512.
Loftus, C., Yost, M., Sampson, P., Torres, E., Arias, G., Breckwich Vasquez, V., Hartin, K., Armstrong, J.,
Tchong-French, M., Vedal, S., Bhatti, P. & Karr, C. (2015b) Ambient ammonia exposures in an agricul-
tural community and pediatric asthma morbidity. Epidemiology, 26(6), 794–801.
Mankell, K.O., Janni, K.A., Walker, R.D., Wilson, M.E., Pettigrew, J.E., Jacobson, L.D. & Wilcke, W.F.
(1995) Dust suppression in swine feed using soybean oil. Journal of Animal Science, 73(4), 981–985.
Manuzon, R.B. (2012) Electrostatic Precipitation Technologies for the Mitigation of Particulate Matter Emis-
sions from Poultry Facilities. PhD thesis, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH. Available from: https://etd.
ohiolink.edu/!etd.send_file?accession=osu1345562603&disposition=inline [accessed April 2016].
Martensson, L. & Pehrson, C. (1997) Air quality in a multiple tier rearing system for layer type pullets.
May, S., Romberger, D.J. & Poole, J.A. (2012) Respiratory health effects of large animal farming environ-
ments. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, 15(8), 524–541.
Mayer-Schwinning, G. (1996) Elektroabscheider. In: H. Brauer (ed.): Handbuch des Umweltschutzes
und der Umweltschutztechnik - Band 3: Additiver Umweltschutz: Behandlung von Abluft und Abgasen
[Handbook of Environmental Protection and Environmental Engineering - Volume 3: Additive environ-

VetBooks.ir
mental protection: Treatment of exhaust air and exhaust gases]. Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, Ger-
many, 1996, pp. 89–148.
Mayya, S.S., Sapra, B.K., Khan, A. & Sunny, F. (2004) Aerosol removal by unipolar ionization in indoor
environments. Journal of Aerosol Science, 35(8), 923–941.
McEachran, A.D., Blackwell, B.R., Hanson.J.D., Wooten.K.J., Mayer.G.D., Cox, S.B. & Smith, P.N. (2015)
Antibiotics, bacteria, and antibiotic resistance genes: aerial transport from cattle feed yards via particulate
matter. Environmental Health Perspectives, 123, 337–343.
Mehdizadeh, S.A. & Banhazi, T.M. (2015) Evaluating droplet distribution of spray-nozzles for dust reduc-
tion in livestock buildings using machine vision. International Journal of Agricultural and Biological
Mellor, S. (2003) A simple additive settles premix dust problems. FeedTech, 7(4), 13–14. Available from:
http://www.allaboutfeed.net/PageFiles/10795/001_boerderij-download-AAF10711D01.pdf [accessed
September 2014].
Miller, D.N. & Berry, E.D. (2005) Cattle feedlot soil moisture and manure content: I. Impacts on greenhouse
gases, odor compounds, nitrogen losses, and dust. Journal of Environmental Quality, 34(2), 644–655.
Millner, P.D. (2009) Bioaerosols associated with animal production operations. Bioresource Technology,
100(22), 5379–5385.
Mitchell, B.W., Holt, P.S. & Seo, K.-H. (2000) Reducing dust in a caged layer room: an electrostatic space
charge system. Journal of Applied Poultry Research, 9(3), 292–296.
in Agriculture, 20(1), 87–93.
Mizuno, A. (2000) Electrostatic precipitation. IEEE Transactions on Dielectrics and Electrical Insulation,
7(5), 615–624.
Moreau, M., Orange, N. & Feuilloley, M.G. (2008) Non-thermal plasma technologies: new tools for bio-
decontamination. Biotechnology Advances, 26(6), 610–617
Mostafa, E. (2012) Air-polluted with particulate matters from Livestock buildings. In: Lopez Badilla, G.,
Valdez, B. & Schorr, M. (eds) Air Quality – New Perspective. InTech, Rijeka, Croatia. pp. 287–312.
Available from: http://cdn.intechopen.com/pdfs-wm/37974.pdf [accessed December 2016].
Mostafa, E. & Büscher, W. (2011) Indoor air quality improvement from particle matters for laying hen poul-
try houses. Biosystems Engineering, 109(1), 22–36.
Nieswandt, H. (2006) Wirkungsgrad eines plasmaphysikalischen Verfahrens zur Minderung luftgetragener
Keime in der Stalluft [Efficiency of a Plasma physical Abatement Technique to reduce airborne Microor-
ganisms in a Livestock Building]. PhD thesis, University of Hannover, Germany. Available from: http://
edok01.tib.uni-hannover.de/edoks/e01dh06/515339814.pdf [accessed September 2014].
Nonnenmann, M.W., Donham, K.J., Rautiainen, R.H., O’Shaughnessy, P.T., Burmeister, L.F. & Reynolds,
S.J. (2004) Vegetable oil sprinkling as a dust reduction method in swine confinement. Journal of Agricul-
Nordgren, T.M. & Bailey, K.L. (2016) Pulmonary health effects of agriculture. Current Opinion in Pulmo-
nary Medicine, 22(2), 144–149.
Omland, Ø. (2002) Exposure and respiratory health in farming in temperate zones – a review of the literature.
Osman, S.P.L., Kay, R.M. & Owen, J.E. (1999) Dust reduction in pig buildings using an applicator to spread
oil directly onto pigs. Proceeding of the International Symposium on Dust Control in Animal Production
Facilities, 30 May–2 June 1999, Aarhus, Denmark. pp. 253–260.
Otake, S., Dee, S., Corzo, C., Oliveira, S. & Deen, J. (2010) Long-distance airborne transport of infectious
PRRSV and Mycoplasma hyopneumoniae from a swine population infected with multiple viral variants.
Veterinary Microbiology, 145(3–4), 198–208.
Ouellette, C., Lemay, S., Godbout, S. & Edeogu, I. (2006) Oil application to reduce dust and odour emissions
from swine buildings. CSBE/SCGAB 2006 Annual Conference, 16–19 July 2006, Edmonton, Canada. Paper
06–147. Available from: http://www.csbe-scgab.ca/docs/meetings/2006/CSBE06147.pdf [accessed July 2015].
Parker, K.R. (1997) Applied Electrostatic Precipitation. Blackie Academic and Professional, London, UK.
Paszek, D.A., Jacobson, L.D., Johnson, V.J. & Nicolal, R.E. (2001) Design and management of an oil sprin-
kling system to control dust, odor and gases in and from a curtain-sided pig finishing barn. ASAE Annual
International Meeting, 30 July–1 August 2001, Sacramento, CA. Paper 01–4076.
Pattey, E. & Qiu, G. (2012) Trends in primary particulate matter emissions from Canada. Journal of the Air &
Waste Management Association, 62(7), 737–747.
294 Jens Seedorf
Pearson, C.C. & Sharples, T.J. (1995) Airborne dust concentrations in livestock buildings and the effect of
VetBooks.ir
feed. Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research, 60(3), 145–154.

Pedersen, S. & Takai, H. (1999) Dust response to animal activity. Proceeding of the International Symposium
on Dust Control in Animal Production Facilities, 30 May–2 June 1999, Aarhus, Denmark. pp. 306–309.
Peo, E.R. & Lewis, A.J. (1992) Use of inedible fats in swine diets for dust control. In: Director’s Digest,
Fats and Protein Research Foundation, Inc., FL, June, No. 236. pp. 40–46. Available from: http://www.
fprf.org/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_download&gid=1088 [accessed September 2014].
Peters, T.M., Sawvel, R.A., Park, J.H. & Anthony, T.R. (2015) Evaluation of a shaker dust collector for
use in a recirculating ventilation system. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene, 12(9),
D201–D210.
Plinke, M.A.E., Leith, D., Holstein, D.B. & Boundy, M.G. (1991) Experimental examination of factors that
affect dust generation. American Industrial Hygiene Association Journal, 52(12), 521–528.
Plinke, M.A.E., Leith, D., Boundy, M.G. & Löffler, F. (1995) Dust generation from handling powders in
industry. American Industrial Hygiene Association Journal, 56(3), 251–257.
Poole, J.A. & Romberger, D.J. (2012) Immunological and inflammatory responses to organic dust in agricul-
ture. Current Opinion in Allergy and Clinical Immunology, 12(2), 126–132.
Pritchard, D.G., Carpenter, C.A., Morzaria, S.P., Harkness, J.W., Richards, M.S. & Brewer, J.I. (1981) Effect
of air filtration on respiratory disease in intensively housed veal calves. Veterinary Record, 109(1), 5–9.
Radon, K. (1981) To live or not to live near a farm? Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 71(2)
(2014), 79.
Razote, E.B., Maghirang, R.G., Predicala, B.Z., Murphy, J.P., Auvermann, B.W., Harner, III, J.P. & Har-
grove, W.L. (2004) Dust-emission potential of cattle feedlots as affected by feedlot surface character-
istics. ASAE/CSAE Annual International Meeting, 1–4 August 2004, Fairmont Chateau Laurier, The
Westin, Government Centre, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. Paper 044015.
Renggaman, A., Choi, H.L., Sudiarto, S.I., Alasaarela, L. & Nam, O.S. (2015) Development of pig welfare
assessment protocol integrating animal-, environment-, and management-based measures. Journal of
Animal Science and Technology, 57(1), 11 pp.
Richardson, L.J, Hofacre, C.L., Mitchell, B.W. & Wilson, J.L. (2003a) Effect of electrostatic space charge
on reduction of airborne transmission of Salmonella and other bacteria in broiler breeders in production
and their progeny. Avian Diseases, 47(4), 1352–1361.
Richardson, L.J, Mitchell, B.W., Wilson, J.L. & Hofacre, C.L. (2003b) Effect of an electrostatic space charge
system on airborne dust and subsequent potential transmission of microorganisms to broiler breeder pul-
lets by airborne dust. Avian Diseases, 47(1), 128–133.
Ritz, C.W., Mitchell, B.W., Fairchild, B.D., Czarick III, M. & Worley, J.W. (2006) Improving in-house air
quality in broiler production facilities using an electrostatic space charge system. Journal of Applied
Poultry Research, 15(2), 333–340.
Rong, L., Nielsen, P.V., Bjerg, B. & Zhang, G. (2016) Summary of best guidelines and validation of CFD
modeling in livestock buildings to ensure prediction quality. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture,
121 (2016), 180–190.
Rosentrater, K.A. (2003) Performance of an electrostatic dust collection system in swine facilities. Agricul-
tural Engineering International: CIGR Journal of Scientific Research and Development. Manuscript BC
03 003, 10 pp.
Rosentrater, K.A. (2004) Laboratory analysis of an electrostatic dust collection system. Agricultural Engineer-
ing International: CIGR Journal of Scientific Research and Development. Manuscript BC 03 008, 14 pp.
Rule, A.M., Chapin, A.R., McCarthy, S.A., Gibson, K.E., Schwab, K.J. & Buckley, T.J. (2005) Assessment
of an aerosol treatment to improve air quality in a swine concentrated animal feeding operation (CAFO).
Environmental Science & Technology, 39(24), 9649–9655.
Saleh, M. (2006) Untersuchungen zur Luftqualität in verschiedenen Systemen der Geflügelhaltung mit
besonderer Berücksichtigung von Staub und Luftkeimen [Air quality in different housing systems for
poultry with special reference to dust and airborne micro-organisms]. PhD thesis, University of Veter-
inary Medicine, Hannover, Germany. Available from: http://elib.tiho-hannover.de/dissertations/salehm_
ws06.pdf [accessed 26 February 2015].
Samadi, S., Wouters, I.M. & Heederik, D.J.J. (2013) A review of bio-aerosol exposures and associated health
effects in veterinary practice. Annals of Agricultural and Environmental Medicine, 20(2), 206–221.
Samer, M. (2016) Abatement Techniques for Reducing Emissions from Livestock Buildings. SpringerBriefs
VetBooks.ir
in Environmental Science, Springer International Publishing.

Sawant, V.S. (2013) Control of respirable particles in indoor air with portable negative air ion generator.
IOSR Journal of Environmental Science, Toxicology and Food Technology, 3(3), 28–31.
Sawant, V.S., Meena, G.S. & Jadhav, D.B. (2012) Effect of negative air ions on fog and smoke. Aerosol and
Air Quality Research, 12(5), 1007–1015.
Schmidt, A.M. & Heber, A.J. (2004) Dust, Odor and Gas Control in Swine Finishing Barns Through Oil
Sprinkling. University of Missouri, Extension Publications. http://extension.missouri.edu/explorepdf/
agguides/ansci/g02530.pdf [accessed June 2015].
Schulz, J., Bao, E., Clauß, M. & Hartung, J. (2013) The potential of a new air cleaner to reduce airborne
microorganisms in pig house air: preliminary results. Berliner und Münchener tierärztliche Wochen-
schrift, 126(3–4), 143–148.
Seedorf, J. (2004) Potential of emitable airborne endotoxin concentrations in an aviary and a caged hus-
bandry system for laying hens. Proceedings of the in-between Congress of the International Society for
Animal Hygiene, 11–13 October 2004, St. Malo, France, Vol. I, pp. 209–210.
Seedorf, J. (2013) A proposed Livestock Burden Index (LBI) for airborne pollutants in livestock build-
ings. In: Aland, A. & Banhazi, T. (eds) Livestock Housing. Modern Management to Ensure Optimal
pp. 315–327.
Seedorf, J. (2017) Systemimmanente Biopartikel mit potentieller Hygienerelevanz in biologischen Abluftrein-
igungsanlagen der Tierproduktion. Eine erste Wirkungsabschätzung für Mensch, Tier und Umwelt unter
Mitberücksichtigung ablufttechnisch unbeeinflußter Emissionen [Hygiene-related bioparticles inherent
in biological waste gas purification systems for livestock buildings - An initial estimate of effects on
humans, animals, and the environment]. Papierflieger Verlag GmbH, Clausthal-Zellerfeld, Germany.
Seedorf, J. & Hartung, J. (2002) Stäube und Mikroorganismen in der Tierhaltung [Dust and microorganisms
in livestock housing]. Kuratorium für Technik und Bauwesen in der Tierhaltung (KTBL), KTBL-Schrift
393, Darmstadt, Germany.
J.L., White, R.P., Pedersen, S., Takai, T., Johnsen, J.O., Metz, J.H.M., Groot Koerkamp, P.W.G., Uenk,
Seedorf, J., Nieswandt, H. & Hartung, J. (2005) Wirkungsgrad eines plasmaphysikalischen Verfahrens zur
Minderung luftgetragener abiotischer und biotischer Partikel in der Stallabluft. Abschlussbericht zum
BMBF-Forschungsvorhaben “Plasmaphysikalisches Verfahren zum Abbau anorganischer und organ-
ischer Schadstoffe und Keime im Stallklima und der Stallabluft (Förderkennzeichen 0330157C)”, Teil-
vorhaben 4 [Efficiency of a plasma physical abatement technique to reduce abiotic and biotic particles
in the air of livestock buildings. Final report of a BMBF research project “Plasma physical applications
for the degradation of inorganic and organic pollutants and livestock-related airborne microorganisms
(Project no. 0330157C)”, Subproject no. 4]. Available from: http://edok01.tib.uni-hannover.de/edoks/
e01fb06/513410473.pdf [accessed September 2014].
Seedorf, J., Schröder, M., Köhler, L. & Hartung, J. (2007) Suitability of biocompost as a bedding material
for stabled horses: respiratory hygiene and management practicalities. Equine Veterinary Journal, 39(2),
129–135.
Seedorf, J., Schulz, J. & Hartung, J. (2009) Reduction of livestock-related airborne bacteria by means of a
plasma physical abatement technique (PPAT) – a self-critical review of a study. Proceedings of the 14th
International Congress on Animal Hygiene, 19–23 July, 2009, Vechta, Germany, Vol. 2. pp. 891–894.
Seitenrich, N. (2015) Dust emissions from cattle feed yards. A source of antibiotic resistance ? Environmen-
tal Health Perspectives, 123(4), A96.
Senthilselvan, A., Zhang, Y., Dosman, J.A., Barber, E.M., Holfeld, L.E., Kirychuk, S.P., Cormier, Y., Hurst,
T.S. & C. Rhodes, C.S. (1997) Positive human health effects of dust suppression with canola oil in swine
barns. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, 156(2 Pt 1), 410–417.
Seo, K.H., Mitchell, B.W., Holt, P.S. & Gast, R.K. (2001) Bactericidial effects of negative air ions on air-
borne and surface Salmonella enteritidis from an artificially generated aerosol. Journal of Food Protec-
tion, 64(1), 113–116.
Shiue, A., Hu, S.-C. & Tu, M.-L. (2011) Particles removal by negative ionic air purifier in cleanroom. Aero-
sol and Air Quality Research, 11(2), 179–186.
296 Jens Seedorf
Siggers, J.L., Kirychuk, S.P., Lemay, S.P. & Willson, P.J. (2011) Size distribution of particulate and asso-
VetBooks.ir
ciated endotoxin and bacteria in traditional swine barn rooms and rooms sprinkled with oil. Journal of
Agromedicine, 16(4), 271–279.
Smit, L.A., Hooiveld, M., van der Sman-de Beer, F., Opstal-van Winden, A.W., Beekhuizen, J., Wouters,
I.M., Yzermans, C.J. & Heederik, D. (2014) Air pollution from livestock farms, and asthma, allergic
rhinitis and COPD among neighbouring residents. Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 71(2),
134–140.
SMUL (2003) Keim- und Luftschadstoffemissionen einer Sauenzuchtanlage [Emissions of airborne pollut-
ants and microorganisms released by a sow breeding barn]. Sächsisches Landesamt für Umwelt, Land-
wirtschaft und Geologie (SMUL), Dresden, Germany. Available from: http://www.umwelt.sachsen.de/
umwelt/download/luft/Messbericht_Luftionisation.pdf [accessed September 2014].
Spracklen, D.V. & Heald, C.L. (2014) The contribution of fungal spores and bacteria to regional and global
aerosol number and ice nucleation immersion freezing rates. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 14(17),
9051–9059.
Stahl, J., Zessel, K., Schulz, J., Finke, J.H., Müller-Goymann, C.C. & Kietzmann, M. (2016) The effect of
miscellaneous oral dosage forms on the environmental pollution of sulfonamides in pig holdings. BMC
Veterinary Research, 12(68), 8 pp.
Syamlal, G., Schleiff.P.L., Mazurek.J.M., Doney, B. & Greskevitch, M. (2013) Respirator use among U.S.
farm operators: evidence from the 2006 Farm and Ranch Safety Survey. Journal of Agromedicine, 18(1),
27–38.
Takai, H. (2007) Factors influencing dust reduction efficiency of spraying of oil-water mixtures in pig
buildings. DustConf 2007, 23–24 April 2007, Maastricht, The Netherlands. Available from: http://www.
researchgate.net/profile/Hisamitsu_Takai/publication/242214628_Factors_influencing_dust_reduction_
efficiency_of_spraying_of_oil-water_mixtures_in_pig_buildings/links/00b4952b20e7e1efd6000000.
pdf [accessed June 2015].
Takai, H. & Pedersen, S. (1999) Design concept of oil sprayer for dust control in pig buildings. Proceeding
of the International Symposium on Dust Control in Animal Production Facilities, 30 May–2 June 1999,
Aarhus, Denmark. pp. 279–285.
Tan, Z. & Zhang, Y. (2004) A review of effects and control methods of particulate matter in animal indoor
environments. Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association, 54(7), 845–854.
Technical Instructions on Air Quality Control – TA Luft, 2002. Available from: http://www.bmub.bund.
de/fileadmin/bmu-import/files/pdfs/allgemein/application/pdf/taluft_engl.pdf [accessed February 2015].
Urbain, B., Beerens, D., N’Guyen, Q., Mast, J., Goddeeris, B., Ansay, M. & Gustin, P. (1997) Chronic effects
of dust inhalation on the respiratory tract in pigs. Journal of Veterinary Pharmacology, 20(Suppl. 1),
291–292.
Van der Heiden, C., Demeyer, P. & Volcke, E.I.P. (2015) Mitigating emissions from pig and poultry housing
facilities through air scrubbers and biofilters: state-of-the-art and perspectives. Biosystems Engineering,
134, 74–93.
van Dijk, C.E., Smit, L.A., Hooiveld, M., Zock, J.P., Wouters, I.M., Heederik, D.J. & Yzermans, C.J. (2016a)
Associations between proximity to livestock farms, primary health care visits and self-reported symp-
toms. BMC Family Practice, 17(22).
van Dijk, C.E., Garcia-Aymerich, J., Carsin, A.E., Smit, L.A., Borlée, F., Heederik, D.J., Donker, G.A.,
Yzermans, C.J. & Zock, J.P. (2016b) Risk of exacerbations in COPD and asthma patients living in the
neighbourhood of livestock farms: observational study using longitudinal data. International Journal of
Hygiene and Environmental Health, 219(3), 278–287.
van Dooren, H.J.C. & Sapounas, A. (2013) Use of computational fluid dynamics (CFD) modelling to improve
tracer gas techniques in very open naturally ventilated livestock buildings. Wageningen UR Livestock
Research, Wageningen, The Netherlands, Report 664. Available from: http://library.wur.nl/WebQuery/
wurpubs/fulltext/279240 [accessed 17 January 2017].
van Leuken, J.P., Swart, A.N., Droogers, P., van Pul, A., Heederik, D. & Havelaar, A.H. (2016) Climate
change effects on airborne pathogenic bioaerosol concentrations: a scenario analysis. Aerobiologia
(Bologna) 32(4), 607–617.
van’t Klooster, C.E., Roelofs, P.F.M.M. & den Hartog, L.A. (1993) Effects of filtration, vacuum cleaning
VetBooks.ir
and washing in pig houses on aerosol levels and pig performance. Livestock Production Science, 33(1–2),
171–182.
Vandenput, S., Istasse, L., Nicks, B. & Lekeux, P. (1997) Airborne dust and aeroallergen concentrations in
different sources of feed and bedding for horses. Veterinary Quarterly, 19(4), 154–158.
Veenhuizen, M.A. (1989) Development and Evaluation of an Atmospheric Dust Removal Systems for Swine
Housing Using Electrostatic Precipitation Techniques. PhD thesis, Iowa State University, Ames, IA.
Available from: http://lib.dr.iastate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=10915&context=rtd [accessed 15
January 2017].
Veenhuizen, M.A. & Bundy, D.S. (1990) Electrostatic precipitation dust removal system for swine housing.
ASAE Paper No. 90–4066, St. Joseph, MI. pp. 1–19.
Verein Deutscher Ingenieure (VDI) (2009) Bioaerosols and Biological Agents – Emission Sources and
Control Measures in Livestock Operations – Overview. VDI 4255 Part 2, Beuth Verlag GmbH, Berlin,
Germany.
Verein Deutscher Ingenieure (VDI) (2010) Electrostatic Precipitators – Process Air and Indoor Air Clean-
ing. VDI 3678 Part 2, Beuth Verlag GmbH, Berlin, Germany.
Verein Deutscher Ingenieure (VDI) (2011a) Bioaerosols and Biological Agents – Emission Measurement –
Sampling of Bioaerosols and Separation in Liquids. VDI 4257 Part 2, Beuth Verlag GmbH, Berlin, Germany.
Verein Deutscher Ingenieure (VDI) (2011b) Electrostatic Precipitators – Process and Waste Gas Cleaning.
VDI 3678 Part 1, Beuth Verlag GmbH, Berlin, Germany.
Verein Deutscher Ingenieure (VDI) (2016) Process Gas and Waste Gas Cleaning by Cold Plasma – Barrier
Discharge, Corona Discharge, UV Radiation. VDI 2441, Beuth Verlag GmbH, Berlin, Germany.
Vincent, J.H. (2005) Health-related aerosol measurement: a review of existing sampling criteria and propos-
als for new ones. Journal of Environmental Monitoring, 7(11), 1037–1053.
Von Essen, S., Moore, G., Gibbs, S. & Larson, K.L. (2010) Respiratory issues in beef and pork production:
recommendations from an expert panel. Journal of Agromedicine, 15(3), 216–225.
von Salviati, C., Laube, H., Guerra, B., Roesler, U. & Friese, A. (2015) Emission of ESBL/AmpC-producing
Escherichia coli from pig fattening farms to surrounding areas. Veterinary Microbiology, 175(1), 77–84.
von Wachenfelt, E. (1999) Dust reduction in alternative production systems for laying hens. Proceeding of
the International Symposium on Dust Control in Animal Production Facilities, 30 May–2 June 1999,
Ward, P.L., Wohlt, J.E. & Katz, S.E. (2001) Chemical, physical, and environmental properties of pelleted
newspaper compared to wheat straw and wood shavings as bedding material. Journal of Animal Science,
79(6), 1359–1369.
Wathes, C.M., Holden, M.R., Sneath, R.W., White, R.P. & Phillips, V.R. (1997) Concentrations and emission
rates of aerial ammonia, nitrous oxide, methane, carbon dioxide, dust and endotoxin in UK broiler and
layer houses. British Poultry Science, 38(1), 14–28.
Winkel, A., Vermeij, I. & Ellen, H.H. (2014a): Testing of various techniques for dust reduction in an exper-
imental pig house. Proceedings of the International Conference of Agricultural Engineering, AgEng,
6–10 July 2014, Zurich, Switzerland. Available from: http://www.geyseco.es/geystiona/adjs/comunica
ciones/304/C04160001.pdf [accessed June 2015].
Winkel, A., Cambra-López, M., Groot Koerkamp, P.W.G., Ogink, N.W.M. & Aarnink, A.J.A. (2014b) Abate-
ment of particulate matter emission from experimental broiler housings using an optimized oil-spraying
method. Transactions of the ASABE, 57(6), 1853–1864.
Winkel, A., van Riel, J.W., van Emous, R.A., Aarnink, A.J.A., Groot Koerkamp, P.W.G & Ogink, N.W.M.
(2016a) Abatement of particulate matter emission from experimental aviary housings for laying hens by
spraying rapeseed oil. Poultry Science, 95(12), 2836–2848.
Winkel, A. (2016b) Particulate Matter Emission from Livestock Houses: Measurement Methods, Emission
Levels and Abatement Systems. PhD thesis, Wageningen University, Wageningen, The Netherlands.
Available from: http://edepot.wur.nl/390454 [accessed December 2016].
Wood, D.J. (2015) The Evaluation of Ammonia and Particulate Matter Control Strategies for Poultry Pro-
duction Facilities. PhD thesis, University of Guelph, Ontario, Canada. Available from: https://atrium.lib.
uoguelph.ca/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10214/9224/Wood_David_201507_PhD.pdf [accessed April 2016].
Wu, C.C., Lee, G.W.M., Cheng, P., Yang, S. & Yu, K.P. (2006a) Effect of wall surface materials on deposition
of particles with the aid of negative air ions. Journal of Aerosol Science, 37(5), 616–630.
Wu, C.C., Lee, G.W., Yang, S., Yu, K.P. & Lou, C. (2006b) Influence of air humidity and the distance from
the source on negative air ion concentration in indoor air. Science of the Total Environment, 370(1),
245–253.
298 Jens Seedorf
Wyse, C.A., Skeldon, K., Hotchkiss, J.W., Gibson, G., Yam, P.S., Christley, R.M., Preston, T., Cumming,
VetBooks.ir
D.R., Padgett, M., Cooper, J.C. & Love, S. (2005) Effects of changes to the stable environment on the
exhalation of ethane, carbon monoxide and hydrogen peroxide by horses with respiratory inflammation.
Veterinary Record, 157(14), 408–412.
Yang, W. & Marr, L.C. (2012) Mechanisms by which ambient humidity may affect viruses in aerosols.
Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 78(19), 6781–6788.
Yao, H.Q., Choi, H.L., Lee, J.H., Suresh, A. & Zhu, K. (2010) Effect of microclimate on particulate matter,
airborne bacteria, and odorous compounds in swine nursery houses. Journal of Animal Science, 88(11),
3707–3714.
Yao, M., Mainelis, G. & An, H.R. (2005) Inactivation of microorganisms using electrostatic fields. Environ-
mental Science & Technology, 39(9), 3338–3344.
Yarnell, K., Le Bon, M., Turton, N., Savova, M., McGlennon, A. & Forsythe, S. (2017) Reducing exposure
to pathogens in the horse: a preliminary study into the survival of bacteria on a range of equine bedding
types. Journal of Applied Microbiology, 122(1), 23–29.
Zhang, Y. (1997) Sprinkling oil to reduce dust, gases, and odor in swine buildings. Agricultural Engineers
Digest, 42(August), MidWest Plan Service, Iowa State University, Ames, IA. Available from: http://
www-mwps.sws.iastate.edu/sites/default/files/imported/free/aed_42.pdf [accessed June 2015].
Zhang, Y. (2014a) Reducing Dust and Gas Emissions Using an Aerodynamic Deduster. University of Illi-
nois, Champaign, IL. Available from: http://livestocktrail.illinois.edu/uploads/sowm/papers/p247-257.
pdf [accessed September 2014].
Zhang, Y. (2014b) Modeling and Sensitivity Analysis of Dust Particle Separation for Uniflow Dedusters.
University of Illinois, Champaign, IL. Available from: http://age-web.age.uiuc.edu/bee/RESEARCH/
Deduster/dedpaper1.html [accessed September 2014].
Zhang, Y., Wang, X., Riskowski, G.L., Christianson, L.L. & Ford, S.E. (2001a) Particle separation efficiency
of uniflow deduster with different types of dust. ASHRAE Transactions, 107(2): January, 4465. Available
from: http://age-web.age.uiuc.edu/bee/research/Deduster/dedpaper2.html [accessed September 2014].
Zhang, Y., Polakow, J.A., Wang, X., Riskowski, G.L., Sun, Y. & Ford, S.E. (2001b) An aerodynamic deduster
to reduce dust and gas emissions from ventilated livestock facilities. Proceedings of the 6th International
Symposium on Livestock Environment VI, 21–23 May 2001, Louisville, KY. pp. 596–603.
Zhang, Y., Tan, Z. & Wang, X. (2005) Aerodynamic deduster technologies for removing dust and ammonia
in air streams. Proceedings of the 7th International Symposium on Livestock Environment VII, 18–20
May 2005, Beijing, China, 701P0205.
Zhao, Y., Xin, H., Zhao, D., Zheng, W., Tian, W., Ma, H., Liu, K., Hu, H., Wang, T. & Soupir, M. (2014a)
Free chlorine loss during spraying of membraneless acidic electrolyzed water and its antimicrobial effect
on airborne bacteria from poultry house. Annals of Agricultural and Environmental Medicine, 21(2),
249–255.
Zhao, Y., Aarnink, A.J.A., & Xin, H. (2014b) Inactivation of airborne Enterococcus faecalis and infectious
bursal disease virus using a pilot-scale ultraviolet photocatalytic oxidation scrubber. Journal of the Air &
Waste Management Association, 64(1), 38–46.
Zheng, W., Li, B., Cao, W., Zhang, G. & Yang, Z. (2012) Application of neutral electrolyzed water spray
for reducing dust levels in a layer breeding house. Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association,
62(11), 1329–1334.
Zheng, W., Kang, R., Wang, H., Li, B., Xu, C. & Wang, S. (2013a) Airborne bacterial reduction by spraying
slightly acidic electrolyzed water in a laying-hen house. Journal of the Air & Waste Management Asso-
ciation, 63(10), 1205–1211.
Zheng, W., Zhao, Y., Xin, H., Gates, R.S., Li, B., Zhang, Y. & Soupir, M. (2013b) Airborne particulate
matter and bacteria reduction from spraying slightly acidic electrolyzed water in an experimental aviary
laying-hen housing system. ASABE Annual International Meeting, 21–24 July 2013, Kansas City, MO.
Paper 131619362.
Zheng, W., Zhao, Y., Xin, H., Gates, R.S., Li, B.,Zhang, Y. & Soupir, M. (2014) Airborne particulate matter
and culturable bacteria reduction from spraying slightly acidic electrolyzed water in an experimental
aviary laying-hen housing chamber. Transactions of the ASABE, 57(1), 229–236.
CHAPTER 18
VetBooks.ir
Emission reduction from livestock buildings using a filtration device
Thomas Banhazi
18.1 INTRODUCTION
The air in livestock buildings contains gases, odors, dust particles and microorganisms that are
emitted by the ventilation system into the surrounding environment (Bottcher et al., 2001; See-
dorf et al., 1998; Takai et al., 1998). Odor and pollutant emissions can be a nuisance for residents
living in the close proximity of livestock buildings (Thu, 2002). There is also an increasing con-
cern in recent years that emitted airborne dust and microorganisms may play a role in respiratory
problems affecting people living near animal enterprises. There are legislative requirements in
place in different countries encouraging producers to implement abatement techniques to mini-
mize odor and airborne pollutant emissions (Bottcher et al., 1999). One of the methods that can
be used for pollutant reduction is air-scrubbing (Melse et al., 2006; Ndegwa et al., 2008). The
polluted ventilation air from the animal house is forced to pass through a self-contained filter
unit that consists of a screen and associated “water curtain.” As the air enters the unit, the screen
directs the air plume to pass through the water curtain (Backus et al., 1993; Bottcher et al., 1999).
Airborne particles are “knocked out” by the water curtain, while gaseous pollutants are absorbed
into the water stream and, therefore, removed from the exhaust air. Although such reduction
technologies have not been extensively investigated in Australia, overseas studies demonstrated
that pollutant emission can be significantly reduced by using air-scrubbing technologies (Seedorf
and Hartung, 2002). The objective of the experiment reported in this article is to assess the likely
level of dust, bacteria and ammonia emission reduction, which could be achieved by utilizing a
self-contained and low-cost air-scrubber unit.
18.2.1 Facilities and the filter

The experiment was carried out at the University of Adelaide, Roseworthy campus, utilizing
the ventilation air leaving the weaner rooms. Weaner buildings were selected for the study, as
previous Australian research demonstrated that weaner sheds are the dustiest piggery buildings,
and dust levels are comparable with levels measured in some broiler buildings (Banhazi et al.,
2008a, 2008c, 2008d). The mechanically ventilated weaner room was equipped with a variable
speed fan, and the fan was located at the rear end of the room. The main air stream leaving the
fan been forced to pass through the attached air-scrubber unit. The air-scrubber unit contained
two compartments. The first component of the system was a coarse screen, used to diffuse and
direct the incoming air plume over the next fine mesh. The second mesh was designed to wash
out and capture all water-soluble and solid components, that is, ammonia and dust, from the
polluted livestock air. The wash water was recirculated over the screen and contained 3% canola
299
300 Thomas Banhazi
oil for increased particle removal efficiency. The evaporated water was replaced by fresh water
VetBooks.ir
automatically, using a common “toilet-float” valve. Based on overseas information, it is possible

to further increase the efficiency of the filter by attaching a third component at the front of the
filter. The third cleaning stage could be a simple biofilter, which could capture the particles not
eliminated by the scrubber (Seedorf and Hartung, 2002). However, for this experiment no further
air treatment was used after the scrubber unit. Instead, the front of the filter was closed by a metal
sheet to ensure optimal sampling of the air leaving the filter unit. A sampling attachment was
secured to the front of the unit containing all the sampling equipment.
18.2.2 Sampling procedure
Dust particles, bacteria and ammonia were sampled at two positions. One sampling position
was after the exhaust air left the weaner room (untreated air) and one after the scrubber unit
(treated air). Both sampling positions were shielded to avoid atmospheric influences. The sam-
pling attachment was directly connected to the unit via a smaller door at the front of the unit.
Samplings were carried out for 15 days. At each sampling day, the following parameters were
recorded: inhalable and respirable dust, total viable bacteria, humidity, temperature and ammonia
and carbon dioxide concentrations. The samples were collected using methodology detailed in
Section 2.3. Figure 18.1 shows the air-scrubber system and the position of the sampling points.
The General Linear Model and one-way ANOVA were used to process the data.
18.2.3 Measurement methods
18.2.3.1 Dust and airborne particles
Total and respirable particle concentrations (Banhazi et al., 2009a, 2009b) were measured using
TH#107CD 18–194A air pumps connected via “Venturi-tubes” (Euro-Glass Pty. Ltd.) to cyclone
filter heads (for respirable particles) and Seven Hole Sampler (SHS) filter heads (for inhalable
dust) (Casella Inc., UK) and operated at 1.9 and 2.0 L min–1 flow rate, respectively. The pumps
were operated over an 8-h period, starting at 08:00 am. The selection of the monitoring period
was based on previous studies (Pedersen and Pedersen, 1995). After sampling, the filter heads
were taken back to the laboratory and weighed to the nearest 0.001 mg using certified microbal-
ances, and the inhalable and respirable dust concentrations in each shed were calculated. Filter
Figure 18.1. Experimental setup and the two main sampling position is show above (①-sampling position
for pre-filtered air; ②- sampling position for filtered air).
Emission reduction with a filter 301
papers were conditioned, (following standard operational procedures for gravimetric air sam-
VetBooks.ir
pling) by being kept in the laboratory for approximately 24 h before and after deployment. Gillian
field calibration instrumentation (Gillian Instrument Corp., US) was used to recalibrate the flow
rates of the sampling pumps before installation in the buildings.
18.2.3.2 Ammonia and carbon dioxide

Ammonia and carbon dioxide were monitored continuously using a multi-gas monitoring (MGM)
machine (Fig. 18.2) (Banhazi et al., 2008b). Results were graphed using Microsoft Excel and
minimum, maximum and average gas concentrations, as well as time spent above and below
the acceptable gas values, were calculated. All equipment was calibrated using standard 50 ppm
ammonia and 2500 ppm carbon dioxide calibration gases at least every second month, or as
required. An infrared sensor was used to measure CO2 concentrations, while the sensor used to
measure NH3 was an electrochemical sensor (Fotis, 2002; Phillips et al., 2001).
18.2.3.3 Temperature and humidity

Temperature and humidity readings were recorded in all sheds monitored using Tinytalk tempera-
ture and humidity data loggers (Hasting Dataloggers, Tinytalk-1 and 2) throughout the experi-
ment, and outside temperature data were logged simultaneously (Fig. 18.3). Temperature data
Figure 18.2. MGM machine in operation set up in the study building.

302 Thomas Banhazi
was downloaded and graphed using Microsoft Excel graphical output. Maximum, minimum,
VetBooks.ir
average temperature and the percentage of time spent above, below and within the recommended
temperature range appropriate for the particular age group could also be calculated using this
program.
18.2.3.4 Continuous dust monitoring

Continuous dust monitoring equipment (OSIRIS-2014, Turnkey Ltd.) was used in two sheds to
collect dust distribution information over the experimental period of time on each monitoring
occasion (Fig. 18.4). As only one piece of continuous dust monitoring equipment was avail-
able, not all sheds were monitored. The technology used in this instrumentation is based on the
Figure 18.3. Temperature and humidity loggers used during the study.
Figure 18.4. OSIRIS particle monitoring equipment.

“photoelectric” cell, which receives two rays of light: one that is diffused through the dusty air
VetBooks.ir
and the other is a reference ray (Praml et al., 1990; Sioutas et al., 2000). The cell compares the
brightness of the two rays, and the difference is used to determine the dust concentration in ppm.
The post-filter concentrations of inhalable particles and ammonia were significantly reduced by
the filter device. The concentrations of respirable particles did not change significantly post-filter,
indeed, they numerically slightly increased. In Table 18.1 and Figure 18.5, the pre- and post-fil-
ter concentration of different airborne pollutants of are presented. The concentrations of most
pollutants were significantly reduced by the device, although the reduction efficiencies were not
as high for particles as it was reported by previous studies (Seedorf and Hartung, 2002; Seedorf
et al., 2005).
Residents living near livestock enterprises are increasingly concerned about the possible health
and environmental effects caused by emitted pollutants (Thu, 2002). Therefore, interest in using
techniques to reduce emission of airborne pollutants from livestock enterprises is increasing
(Amon, 2000; Hartung et al., 2001; Kulling et al., 2001; Martens et al., 2001; McCrory and
Hobbs, 2001; Ognink and Groot Koerkamp, 2001). The results of this investigation demonstrated
that simple air-scrubbing technology could be successfully used to reduce emitting airborne pol-
lutants from livestock buildings. The ammonia removal efficiency of acid scrubbers (air scrub-
bers containing low pH scrubber liquid) can vary between 40% and 100% (Melse and Ogink,
2005). Biotrickling filters (filters than contain bacteria that will break down the absorbed ammo-
nia biologically) have a reported overall efficiency around 70% (Melse and Mol, 2004; Melse and
Table 18.1. Pollutant concentrations (least squares mean and standard error, LS Mean ± SE) pre- and
post-filter.
Pollutant LS Mean ± SE LS Mean ± SE Significance Reduction
(pre-filter) (post-filter) efficiency
Ammonia (ppm) 9.26 ± 0.54 1.03 ± 0.54 p < 0.001 89%

Respirable particles (mg m–3) 0.382 ± 0.047 0.398 ± 0.111 p = 0.892 n/a
Inhalable particles (mg m–3) 2.099 ± 0.326 1.003 ± 0.326 p = 0.025 53%
Figure 18.5. Particle concentrations measured using the OSIRIS instrument pre- and post-filter (indicative
of relative concentrations only).
304 Thomas Banhazi
Ogink, 2005). However, these previously mentioned technologies are relatively complex, making
VetBooks.ir
the equipment expensive to manufacture (and ultimately to purchase), as well as expensive and
difficult to maintain. The simple equipment tested in this study achieved an excellent ammonia
reduction efficiency (approx. 90%, Table 18.1) and an acceptable airborne particle reduction effi-
ciency (approx. 50%, Table 18.1). Unfortunately, the filter tested had no effect on the small respi-
rable particles, so further testing and fine-turning of the technology will need to be undertaken in
the future to achieve maximum removal efficiency. However, these initial results are encourag-
ing. A commercialization process is also need to be implemented to make this technology readily
available for the farming community. Such a commercialization process has to include financial
and cost/benefit analysis of the proposed technology.
18.4 CONCLUSIONS
Air-scrubbing is a proven technology used for pollutant emission control in industrial settings.
In the livestock industries, there is a renewed interest in removing pollutants from air emitted
from buildings housing livestock. During this study, samples were taken from the air leaving a
weaner building and from the air stream leaving air-scrubber unit. High reduction efficiencies
were achieved for inhalable particles (53%) and ammonia (89%). The results demonstrated that
the investigated air-scrubber unit is capable of significantly reducing the amount of pollutants
leaving livestock buildings via ventilation air. Future work is needed to fine-tune the technology
and achieve results comparable with international publications.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This project was funded by Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation (RIRDC).
We wish to acknowledge the professional support of many colleagues and the invaluable techni-
cal assistance of Mr. S. Macdonald (NUMAC) during the study.
REFERENCES
Amon, M. (2000) Strategies for environmental protection and reduction of emissions in livestock produc-
tion. 10th International Congress on Animal Hygiene, Vol. 2, 2–6 July 2000, Maastricht, The Nether-
lands. pp. 820–828.
Backus, G.B.C., van de Sande-Schellekens, A.L.P. & Voermans, J.A.M. (1993) Economics of bioscrubbers
to reduce ammonia emission from fattening pig farms. In: Verstegen, M.W.A., den Hartog, L.A., van
Kempen, G.J.M. & Metz, J.H.M. (eds) First International Symposium on Nitrogen Flow in Pig Produc-
tion and Environmental Consequences, 8–11 June 1993, Wageningen (Doorwerth). EAAP Publication
No. 69, Wageningen (Doorwerth), The Netherlands. pp. 455–459.
Banhazi, T., Rutley, D.L. & Pitchford, W.S. (2008a). Identification of risk factors for sub-optimal housing
conditions in Australian piggeries: part 4. Emission factors and study recommendations. Journal of Agri-
Banhazi, T., Seedorf, J., Rutley, D.L. & Pitchford, W.S. (2008b). Identification of risk factors for sub-optimal
Banhazi, T., Seedorf, J., Rutley, D.L. & Pitchford, W.S. (2008c). Identification of risk factors for sub-optimal
Health, 14(1), 21–39.
Banhazi, T.M., Seedorf, J., Laffrique, M. & Rutley, D.L. (2008d). Identification of the risk factors for high
101(1), 100–110.
Banhazi, T.M., Currie, E., Quartararo, M. & Aarnink, A.J.A. (2009a). Controlling the concentrations of
airborne pollutants in broiler buildings. In: Aland, A. & Madec, F. (eds) Sustainable Animal Production:
VetBooks.ir

Banhazi, T.M., Currie, E., Reed, S., Lee, I.-B. & Aarnink, A.J.A. (2009b). Controlling the concentrations of
Bottcher, R.W., Munilla, R.D., Keener, K.M., Parbst, K.E. & Van Wicklen, G.L. (1999) Windbreak walls
and wet pad scrubbers for reducing odorous dust emissions from tunnel ventilated swine buildings. In:
Pedersen, S. (ed) Dust Control in Animal Production Facilities. Danish Institute of Agricultural Science,
Scandinavian Congress Center, Aarhus, Denmark. pp. 186–194.
Bottcher, R.W., Munilla, R.D., Baughman, G.R. & Keener, H.M. (2001) Designs for windbreak walls for
mitigating dust and odor emissions from tunnel ventilated swine buildings. Swine Housing, Proceedings
on the First International Conference, 9–11 October 2001, Des Moines, IA, St. Joseph, MI. ASAE.
Fotis, E. (2002) A new ammonia detector based on thin film polymer technology. Journal of Applied Sensing
Technology, 19(5), 73–79.
Hartung, E., Jungbluth, T. & Buscher, W. (2001) Reduction of ammonia and odor emissions from a piggery
with biofilters. Transactions of the ASAE, 44(1), 113–118.
Kulling, D.R., Menzi, H., Krober, T.F., Neftel, A., Sutter, F., Lischer, P. & Kreuzer, M. (2001) Emissions of
ammonia, nitrous oxide and methane from different types of dairy manure during storage as affected by
dietary protein content. Journal of Agricultural Science, 137(2), 235–250.
Martens, W., Martinec, M., Zapirain, R., Stark, M., Hartung, E. & Palmgren, U. (2001) Reduction potential
of microbial, odour and ammonia emissions from a pig facility by biofilters. International Journal of
Hygiene and Environmental Health, 203, 335–345.
McCrory, D.F. & Hobbs, P.J. (2001) Additives to reduce ammonia and odor emissions from Livestock
wastes: a review. Journal of Environmental Quality, 30(2), 345–355.
Melse, R.W. & Mol, G. (2004) Odour and ammonia removal from pig house exhaust air using a biotrickling
filter. Water Science and Technology, 50(4), 275–282.
Melse, R.W. & Ogink, N.W.M. (2005) Air scrubbing techniques for ammonia and odor reduction at livestock
operations: review of on-farm research in The Netherlands. Transactions of the ASABE, 48(6), 2303–2313.
Melse, R.W., van Wagenberg, A.V. & Mosquera, J. (2006) Size reduction of ammonia scrubbers for pig and
poultry houses: use of conditional bypass vent at high air loading rates. Biosystems Engineering, 95(1),
69–82.
Melse, R.W., Ogink, N.W.M. & Rulkens, W.H. (2009) Overview of European and Netherlands᾿ regulations
on airborne emissions from intensive livestock production with a focus on the application of air scrub-
bers. Biosystems Engineering 104(3), 289–298.
Ognink, N.W.M. & Groot Koerkamp, P.W.G. (2001) Comparison of odour emissions from animal housing
systems with low ammonia emission. Water Science and Technology, 44(9), 245–252.
Pedersen, S. & Pedersen, C.B. (1995) Animal activity measured by infrared detectors. Journal of Agricul-
Phillips, V.R., Lee, D.S., Scholtens, R., Garland, J.A. & Sneath, R.W. (2001) A review of methods for mea-
suring emission rates of ammonia from livestock buildings and slurry or manure stores, part 2: monitoring
flux rates, concentrations and airflow rates. Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research, 78(1), 1–14.
Praml, G.J., Zeitler-Feicht, M.H., Hartmann, A.L. & Riedel, H. (1990) Dust exposure of man and animal in
swine confinement buildings: benefits of full shift continuous registration. Journal of Aerosol Science,
21(Suppl. 1), S751–S754.
Seedorf, J. & Hartung, J. (2002) Reduction efficiency of a container-based biofilter for bioaerosols from a
broiler house. In: Revell, D.K. & Taplin, D. (eds) Animal Production in Australia, Vol. 24. Adelaide, SA,
Australia. pp. 205–208.
Seedorf, J., Hartung, J., Schroder, M., Linkert, K.H., Phillips, V.R., Holden, M.R., Sneath, R.W., Short,
Seedorf, J., Banhazi, T. & Hartung, J. (2005) Cleaning exhaust air by biological gas purification systems in
livestock buildings – state of art and shortcomings. In: Krynski, A. & Wrzesien, R. (eds) 12th ISAH Con-
gress – Animals and Environment, 4–8 September 2005, Vol. 2, Warsaw Agricultural University, Warsaw,
Poland. pp. 238–241.
306 Thomas Banhazi
Sioutas, C., Kim, S., Chang, M., Terrell, L.L. & GongJr., H. (2000) Field evaluation of a modified DataRAM
VetBooks.ir
MIE scattering monitor for real-time PM2.5 mass concentration measurements. Atmospheric Environ-
ment, 34(28), 4829–4838.
Thu, K.M. (2002) Public health concerns for neighbors of large – scale swine production operations. Journal
CHAPTER 19
VetBooks.ir
Effect of electrostatic precipitation on particulate matter emissions

from a high-rise layer house
Teng-Teeh Lim, Chaoyuan Wang, Albert J. Heber, Ji-Qin Ni and Lingying Zhao
19.1 INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE
High concentrations of certain pollutants released in livestock and poultry facilities, including
particulate matter (PM), may cause health and nuisance concerns. Particulate matter concen-
trations and emission rates of various animal buildings have been reported and characterized
(Guarino et al., 1999; Lacey et al., 2003; Lim et al., 2003; Takai et al., 1998). The high PM
concentrations reported in some facilities give cause for concern for both stockmen and animal
health and performance (Takai et al., 1998). Measured inhalable dust concentrations in poultry
houses ranged from 0.02 to 81.3 mg m–³, and the birds and their excrements were the most
important sources (Ellen et al., 2000). Another modeling study determined that the ventilation
system, bedding, and temperature had significant effects on inhalable particle concentrations in
broiler houses (Banhazi et al., 2008). The same study also identified biological loading (kg birds
per building airspace) of buildings (p = 0.008), ventilation rate (p = 0.005) and humidity levels
(p = 0.016) had significant effects on respirable particle concentrations.
Particulate matter concentrations and emissions during six days in June were reported for a
high-rise layer house (Lim et al., 2003). Concentrations of PM were measured using three tapered
element oscillating microbalances (TEOMs). Emission rates were observed to peak in the day-
time when hens were most active and ventilation rates were the highest. Emission was positively
correlated with house ventilation rate, outdoor and exhaust temperatures, and relative humidity
(p < 0.05). Using similar methods, PM emissions were measured at two 250,000-hen layer houses
for 380 d (Heber et al., 2005). The average daily mean (ADM) PM10 concentration was 971 μg
dsm−³ (μg per dry standard m³), and the mean emission rate was 22.0 g d−¹ AU−¹ or 70.3 mg d−¹
hen−¹. The highest concentrations and emissions were observed during manure pit loadouts.
Accurate measurements of the efficiency of mitigation technologies are essential for pollutant
emission management. However, very few large-scale PM mitigation technologies have been
tested in commercial layer facilities. The effectiveness of a commercial filter (particulate impac-
tion curtain, PIC) was studied in a six-month test by Lim et al. (2007). The PIC was installed in
parallel with the first floor sidewalls and upstream of exhaust fans of the high-rise layer house.
Both concentrations of PM10 and total suspended particulate (TSP) were measured continuously.
The mean treated PM10 emission rate was decreased by 41% based on measurements before and
after the PIC. However, some important practical issues currently hinder the use of PIC in high-
rise layer houses, which include high maintenance costs, mechanical instability and respiratory
and other hazards.
Simultaneously with the PIC study, a belt-battery laying facility was measured for its effec-
tiveness in reducing PM emissions compared with commonly used high-rise houses (Zhao et al.,
2005). It was reported that the PM10 emission rate of a belt-battery house was about 62% of the
307
308 Teng-Teeh Lim et al.
emission rate from a high-rise house. Similar reductions in TSP concentrations and emission rates
VetBooks.ir
were observed in the belt-battery houses compared with the high-rise layer houses.
A small-scale electrostatic precipitator (EP) was tested to reduce PM in a broiler breeder house
(Mitchell et al., 2004). Ceiling fans were applied to distribute negatively charged air throughout
the room and to move charged PM toward the grounded litter, where most of it would be cap-
tured. The system reduced airborne PM by an average of 61% and airborne bacteria by 67%. Ear-
lier studies with an EP resulted in similar PM reductions in poultry hatching cabinets and caged
layer rooms (Mitchell et al., 2000, 2002).
Measurements in this study were conducted at a commercial egg-laying facility in west central
Ohio, US. Several mitigation tests including an EP application were required by a U.S. EPA con-
sent decree, which did not require replication of the control or treated houses.
The objective of this study was to determine the effectiveness of EP for reducing PM emissions
(PM10 and TSP) from a high-rise layer house. A full-scale prototype of the EP was tested from
1 September 2005 to 4 March 2006 at a laying facility. The test was conducted at the same site
of a six-month commercial filter test that ended on 31 January 2005 (Lim et al., 2007). The EP
was operated along with applications of aluminum sulfide (alum) and aluminium chloride, for
mitigating ammonia (NH3) emissions. This was the first test of an electrostatic PM removal sys-
tem ever conducted in a full-scale commercial layer house and provided insights about required
maintenance and management.
19.2 METHODS AND PROCEDURES
19.2.1 Description of laying house

The two caged-hen layer houses used in this test were previously monitored for a particulate
impaction curtain system (Lim et al., 2007). Constructed in 1994, the houses measured 201 m ×
20.7 m, and were oriented east-west and spaced 20.7 m apart (Fig. 19.1). Each house had a
capacity for 169,000 hens in eight rows of 4-tier crates in the 3.3-m high upper floor. Manure was
Figure 19.1. Layout and cross section of high-rise layer houses showing monitoring locations, for the field
tests of the electrostatic precipitator system.
Electrostatic precipitation and PM 309
scraped off the floor under the cages into the 3.2-m high first floor. Manure drying on the first
VetBooks.ir
level was enhanced with 18 auxiliary circulation fans with 92-cm diameters (Model VG36DM3F,
J&D Manufacturing, Eau Claire, WI). Instrumentation for measuring aerial pollutant emissions
from the two mechanically ventilated houses was placed inside an air conditioned on-farm instru-
ment shelter (OFIS), located between the houses. Vacuum hoses were insulated and heated to
prevent condensation of sampled air.
A difference between this test and the previous test of the particulate impaction curtain was the
locations of the manure drying fans in the manure storage pit. A system for applying aluminum
chloride (alum) was installed in House 2 to control NH3. Both dry (powder form, manually applied
once in Test 2) and liquid products were used in the tests. The spray tubes and sprinkling nozzles
were installed on the pit ceiling along the length of the house. The original design of the spraying
system was to install eight lateral tubes distributed equally across the house. However, the first and
last spraying tubes were excluded to avoid spraying the corrosive solutions onto the ventilation fans
and house sidewalls. The alum solution was automatically sprayed for 3 s every hour, for a total of
24 times per day. The circulation fans were repositioned to generate air patterns in a 45° angle with
the length (sidewalls) of the house, to minimize exposure of the fans to the sprayed alum. The cir-
culation fans were originally oriented perpendicular to the sidewalls of the house. Hens were placed
in Houses 1 (H1) and 2 (H2) in July 2004 and February 2005, respectively.
Ventilation air entered the houses through temperature-adjusted baffled ceiling inlets and
exited through continuous manure slots beneath each cage row into the pit. There were 25 belted
exhaust fans with 122-cm diameters (fans 1–25) (AT481Z3CP, Aerotech, Lansing, MI) distrib-
uted along the east sidewall with 25 on the west sidewall (fans 26–50) (Fig. 19.1). The fans were
grouped into 10 ventilation stages for this monitoring test. Each house was originally ventilated
in 26 rotating stages.
19.2.2 Description of electrostatic space charge system

The EP system (Electrostatic Space Charge System, ESCS, Baumgartner Environics Inc., Olivia,
MN) utilized electrodes to induce electrical charges on particles as they moved through the
charging field. The charged particles were then attracted to a ground panel, the floor, the manure
and other grounded surfaces. High voltages of 25K–30K VDC were delivered by power supply
units (2 mA capacity). The electrode cables had 79 ion discharge needles per meter (Fig. 19.2).
Four cables ran along the entire length of H2 and were spaced uniformly across the width of the
Figure 19.2. Precipitator electrodes and ground panel on the manure storage pit ceiling (left) and the modu-
lar high-voltage supply unit (right).
house (Fig. 19.1). The operation of each EP electrode line was monitored by continuously mea-
VetBooks.ir
suring and recording the voltages and current of the individual power supply units, using the data
acquisition system.
19.3 EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN
The EP was installed and operated in H2, while H1 served as the untreated (control) house. Sev-
eral adjustments to the mitigation system were introduced to improve effectiveness during the
test, because of the large house size and lack of experience in operating the systems under the rel-
atively harsh environment of the manure pit. The EP systems malfunctioned several times, and on
one occasion, it took over two weeks to receive the replacement part. The six-month evaluation
period was therefore broken down into several shorter tests for data analysis (Table 19.1). Except
for Test 1 (1–10 September) and Test 3 (21–29 September), the tests were conducted in H2 with
simultaneous applications of alum to the manure (H1 was untreated the entire time). The alum
application was tested independently in Test 2 (11–20 September). It is assumed that the alum
spraying had no effect on PM concentration, since it was sprayed for only 3 s per hour. With this
assumption, the results of Test 2 were used as baseline data and compared with Tests 1, 3 and 4
to assess the PM reduction potential of EP. Baseline or control data is needed to delineate house
differences. There were no replications of Test 2 for the baseline. The emission rates obtained in
subsequent tests of various treatments were compared with the baseline emissions obtained in
Test 2.
In Test 3, the EP cable and electrodes were moved 15 cm away from the alum-spraying system
to protect the spraying system from the high EP voltages and to allow more space to maintain
the nozzles. The EP voltage was increased on 26 September to improve its effectiveness. There
were two partial ESCS failures for over one month, during which one electrode failed resulting
in 75% operation. A power supply unit (Line 2) of the EP malfunctioned from 22 November to
12 December, while unit 3 failed from 6 December to 3 January. The EP Line 4 malfunctioned
from 12 to 15 January.
Starting on 28 November, the EP lines were switched off between noon on Friday, and noon
on Monday to establish untreated H2 baseline emission. Both treated and untreated H2 emission
tests included alum, thus allowing unbiased evaluation of EP effectiveness based on data col-
lected within H2. Therefore, EP evaluations were not compromised by the alum application. The
old flock was removed from H2 on 12 December and a new flock was placed on 18 December.
To avoid bias, only full house data were analyzed. Since Zhao et al. (2005) and Lim et al. (2007)
showed that new flocks create more PM emission while they adapt to new environments, the
first five weeks of data were denoted as Test 6. The PM concentrations in H2 stabilized after 20
January (Test 7).
Table 19.1. Schedule of the EP and alum tests in House 2.

Test Date Description
1 01/09/2005–10/09/2005 EP only
2 11/09/2005–20/09/2005 alum only
3 21/09/2005–29/09/2005 EP only
4 30/09/2005–21/11/2005 alum + EP
5[a] 22/11/2005–12/12/2005[a] alum + partial EP operation
6 23/12/2005–19/01/2006 alum + partial EP[b], new hens in H2
7 20/01/2006–04/03/2006 alum + EP
[a]
EP was switched off on weekends, starting 28 November 2005.
[b]
EP was repaired; all four lines were working again on 15 January 2006.
19.3.1 Particulate matter concentration

VetBooks.ir
Particulate matter (PM10) concentrations were measured with continuous PM10 monitors
(Tapered Element Oscillating Microbalance, TEOM Model 1400a, Rupprecht & Patashnick,
Albany, NY) at the inlet of fans 38 and 13 of H1 and H2, respectively. The TEOM pumps and
controllers in the OFIS were connected to sampling inlets and sensor units inside the hen houses.
Ambient PM10 concentration was measured by a TEOM on the OFIS roof (Fig. 19.1). The
TEOM inlets were heated to 50°C, and the flow rates, leaks and mass transducers were checked
at the beginning and end of the test.
Concentrations of TSP were measured gravimetrically with a sampler developed by the Uni-
versity of Illinois Champaign (Jerez et al., 2005). The sampler drew 20 L min−1 of sampling air
through each of three 37-mm glass fiber filters (mounted in 3-piece open-faced filter holders)
located at the inlets of the exhaust fans adjacent to the TEOM inlets. Sampling of TSP was con-
ducted one to three times per week, over 1–3 d sampling periods. The isokinetic sampling nozzles
were located at three different heights within the fan inlet (less than 0.5 m from the impellers)
at points where the air speeds were 2 m s−1. The air speeds were measured with a portable vane
thermo-anemometer (Model 451126, Extech, Bohemia, NY) at four points around each sampling
nozzle. The flow rate of each sampler was the average of measurements conducted at the begin-
ning and end of each sampling period.
19.3.2 Pressure measurement
The differential static pressures of the exhaust fans were monitored using pressure transmitters
with stated accuracies of ±1% (Model 2671–100-LB11–9KFN, Setra, Boxborough, MA), and
used to calculate fan airflow. The pressure transmitters were regularly checked against zero pres-
sure and also compared with an inclined manometer. Atmospheric pressures were monitored with
the atmospheric pressure transducers in the TEOMs.
19.3.3 Ventilation and environmental variables

The operating status (on/off) of each fan stage was monitored via auxiliary contacts of fan
motor control relays and verified with either an open impeller anemometer or a vibration sensor
(Ni et al., 2005) installed at each fan. The airflows of 96 of 100 fans were measured from 31
August to 2 September, with a calibrated portable fan tester that consisted of multiple travers-
ing impeller anemometers (Gates et al., 2004). During these tests, the fan static pressure was
recorded, and the airflow was compared with the ventilation rates estimated from independent
tests conducted for the fan model and published by the manufacturer. The actual fan airflows
were calculated from the airflow versus static pressure curves that were developed from the
fan test data.
The temperature and humidity of exhaust air, along with barometric pressure, were used
for density corrections to standard conditions. Temperatures were measured at exhaust sam-
pling points using copper-constant and thermocouples (Type T), which were calibrated prior
to and following the test using a constant-temperature bath. A relative humidity (RH) and
temperature (T) probe (Model HMW61, Vaisala, Woburn, MA) were collocated with each
TEOM (Fig. 19.1).
19.3.4 Data acquisition and processing

A custom PC-based data acquisition and control (DAC) program was developed using LabVIEW
for Windows (National Instruments Co., Austin, TX). Data was acquired at a frequency of 1 Hz,
and 60-s averages were recorded. The recorded data was processed and analyzed using a spe-
cialized data processing program (Eisentraut et al., 2004a, 2004b). Concentrations of PM were
corrected to standard temperature and pressure (NTP, 1 atm and 20°C) for calculating emissions
(Lim et al., 2007).
Since PM10 concentrations reported by the TEOMs were based on 1 atm pressure and 25°C
VetBooks.ir
(standard ambient temperature and pressure, or SATP), the gross PM10 emission rate was cal-
culated as:
P0 * 273+T *
E =Q0 C0 (1)
P 273+T0
where:
E = Gross PM10 emission rate, µg s−1
Q0 = Exhaust airflow rate at T0, m³ s−1
P0 = Pressure of exhaust air, Pa
P’ = Standard pressure, 101325 Pa
C0* = PM concentration recorded by TEOM in exhaust air, µg m–³
T* = Temperature basis of TEOM reported concentrations, 25°C
T0 = Temperature of exhaust air, °C
All reported daily means (DM) or hourly means consisted of over 70% valid data (complete-data
days or complete-data hours) to minimize bias due to missing data. The emission value of each
test period was the mean of all available paired H2/H1 daily emission rates. The period means
included emission values when both house emission rate means were complete (> 70% valid data).
19.3.5 Statistical analysis
For Tests 1 to 4 (Table 19.1), a significant difference between the two house emission rates
was determined based on Student’s t-tests conducted for the paired daily mean house emission
rates for H1 and H2. In the t-test, the assumption of equal variance was made but not tested. If
the calculated p value was below the threshold (p < 0.05), then the null hypothesis that the two
emission rates did not differ significantly was rejected. For Tests 5 to 7, the analysis of variance
was conducted to determine whether there were significant differences between treated H2 and
untreated H2 emission rates.
The data completeness for PM10 emission (number of days with over 70% valid data) were 92%
and 76% for H1 and H2, respectively. The fewer complete-data days for the H2 emission rate
were partially due to the 11 days required for flock replacement, or about 6% of the test period.
The basic statistics were calculated for house inventory, environment variables, ADM emis-
sion rates and other parameters (Tables 19.2 and 19.3). Monitoring started with 158,787 and
153,660 hens and ended with 154,729 and 157,031 hens in H1 and H2, respectively (Fig. 19.3).
The flocks of Hy-line W36 hens in H1 and H2 were 46 and 73 weeks old when the test started,
and they were 72 and 29 weeks old when it ended. The ADM hen masses were 1.40 and 1.53
kg for H1 and H2, respectively. The ADM total live mass of H1 and H2 were 440 and 468 AU
(AU = 500 kg live mass), respectively. House 2 started with a new flock which was still growing,
and they gained weight faster when placed in H2 (Fig. 19.3).
The ADM airflow rates of H1 and H2 were 78.6 ± 60 (ADM ± standard deviation) and 84.1
± 66 dsm³ s−1, respectively. As expected, house ventilation rates were generally higher in warm
weather (Fig. 19.4). Daily mean airflow rate ranged from 29 to 257 dsm³ s−1 for H1, and from
31 to 287 dsm³ s−1 for H2. The ADM ambient temperature was 5.7 ± 8.8°C and ranged from
−13.1°C to 21.7°C. Polynomial equations relating airflow rate and ambient temperature sug-
gested that the two houses had similar ventilation rate and temperature control (not shown).
Close correlation between the ambient temperature and house airflow rate was also observed by
Lim et al. (2007).
Table 19.2. Summary of daily means measured at the control house, H1, 1 September 2005 to 3 April 2006.
VetBooks.ir
Parameter n[a] Min Mean Max SD
Flock characteristics
Hen inventory 185 154,729 156,884 158,787 1237
Mean hen mass, kg hen−1 185 1.37 1.40 1.45 0.02
Total live mass, AU 185 427 440 457 6.54
Temperatures, °C
Ambient air 175 −13.1 5.65 21.7 8.81
Cages 171 20.3 23.1 26.8 1.50
Exhaust air 171 13.8 20.4 26.4 3.01
Ambient relative humidity, % 180 43.6 75.6 96.3 10.8
Airflow, dsm3 s−1 165 29.1 78.6 257 59.8
Particulate matter (PM10)
Inlet concentration, μg dsm–³ 170 13.2 73.8 188 37.3
Exhaust concentration, μg dsm–³ 170 144 475 883 135
Emission rate, mg s−1 168 5.95 25.6 60.2 7.74
Emission rate, kg d−1 168 0.51 2.21 5.21 0.67
Emission rate, g d−¹ AU−¹ 168 1.15 5.03 14.9 1.51
Emission rate, mg d−¹ hen−¹ 168 3.24 14.1 33.6 4.26
Total suspended particulate (TSP)
Exhaust concentration, μg dsm–³ 51 1925 3129 4160 599
Emission rate, mg s−1 52 49.3 252 715 147
Emission rate, g d−¹ AU−¹ 52 9.69 49.1 138 28.2
Emission rate, mg d−¹ hen−¹ 52 27.2 138 390 79.9
[a]
Number of valid daily means.
Table 19.3. Summary of daily means measured at the treated house, H2, 1 September 2005 to 3 April 2006.
Flock characteristics
Hen inventory 177 148,197 153,816 158,120 3365
Mean hen mass, kg hen−1 180 1.12 1.53 1.66 0.11
Total live mass, AU 177 354 468 495 26.4
Temperatures, °C
Ambient air 175 –13.1 5.65 21.7 8.81
Cages 163 15.5 21.9 27.1 3.02
Exhaust air 155 9.79 19.6 26.3 3.90
Airflow, dsm³ s−1 153 31.1 84.1 287 66.3
Particulate matter (PM10)
Untreated[a] concentration, μg dsm−3 46 238 613 1534 368
Treated[a] concentration, μg dsm−3 99 183 494 1474 283
Untreated emission rate, mg s−1 45 8.80 35.0 64.5 17.6
Untreated emission rate, kg d−1 45 0.76 3.02 5.57 1.52
Untreated emission rate, g d−¹ AU−¹ 45 1.66 6.71 14.8 3.68
Untreated emission rate, mg d−¹ hen−¹ 45 4.84 19.4 36.2 9.71
Treated emission rate, mg s−1 95 7.02 27.5 85.0 15.0
Treated emission rate, kg day−1 95 0.61 2.38 7.35 1.30
Treated emission rate, g d−¹ AU−¹ 95 1.29 5.15 17.2 3.11
Treated emission rate, mg d−¹ hen−¹ 95 3.86 15.4 46.5 8.20
Total suspended particulate (TSP)
Untreated concentration, μg dsm−3 9 1243 2067 3556 708
Treated concentration, μg dsm−3 38 926 2186 3858 680
(Continued)
Table 19.3. Continued
VetBooks.ir
Untreated emission rate, mg s−1 9 59.5 238 750 240

Untreated emission rate, g d−¹ AU−¹ 9 11.1 43.5 133 42.0
Untreated emission rate, mg d−¹ hen−¹ 9 32.7 133 423 136
Treated emission rate, mg s−1 38 36.1 191 548 141
Treated emission rate, g d−¹ AU−¹ 38 6.36 35.1 97.7 24.8
Treated emission rate, mg d−¹ hen−¹ 38 21.0 108 310 80.3
[a]
Number of valid daily means.
[b]
Untreated: EP off; treated: EP on.
Figure 19.3. House inventory and total live mass of the two tested layer houses.
The ADM cage temperatures were 23.1 ± 1.5°C and 21.9 ± 3.0°C for H1 and H2, respec-
tively. The temperatures of H2 were maintained generally higher at the beginning of the test
and generally became lower than H1 starting in December with the new flock. The ADM
exhaust temperatures (measured at up to six sampling locations) were 20.4 ± 3.0°C and 19.6
± 3.9°C for H1 and H2, respectively. Only two of the six thermocouples were used to measure
H2 exhaust temperatures, because the other four experienced interference from the high volt-
age of the EP.
19.4.1 PM10 concentrations
The ADM ambient PM10 concentration was 73.8 μg dsm−3 (n = 170 d), and ranged from 13 to 188
μg dsm−3 (Fig. 19.5). The ambient PM10 concentration was generally higher in warm weather
and lower in cold weather. This was most probably due to the higher volume of barn exhaust
air, and greater house emission rates that would obviously increase ambient concentrations. The
other reason was that the location of the ambient TEOM monitor was between the houses, rather
than at the eave inlets. However, the effectiveness can also be quantified by comparing the gross
emission rates.
VetBooks.ir
Figure 19.4. House ventilation rate and ambient temperature of the two layer houses.
Figure 19.5. Daily mean PM10 concentrations of ambient, H1 exhaust, and treated and untreated H2
exhausts. The arrow indicates a new flock started in H2, on 21 December 2015.
The ADM PM10 concentration in the H1 exhaust air was 475 μg dsm−3 (n = 170 d). The ADM
PM10 concentration in the exhaust air of untreated H2 was 613 μg dsm−³ (n = 46 d). The effec-
tiveness of EP was evaluated based on emission rate, because concentration is directly affected
by ventilation rate.
The new flock produced higher PM10 concentrations and emissions after placement in H2.
The higher-than-normal concentrations and emissions lasted for about five weeks (Figs. 19.5
and 19.6). This confirms that the higher PM10 emissions were caused by new hens as observed
by Zhao et al. (2005) and Lim et al. (2007). In this test, the new flock in H2 produced higher
VetBooks.ir
Figure 19.6. Daily mean PM10 emission rates from houses H1 and H2.
PM10 concentrations and emissions in December and January. Both treated and untreated PM10
concentrations of H2 were greater than H1 until the end of January 2006, which approximately
corresponds to five weeks of adaptation.
The operating voltage of the EP was increased after 26 September (Fig. 19.6). The EP power
supply unit failure caused mean EP voltage to decrease in December. The EP voltage appeared
to gradually decrease during the second half of the test, even after all EP lines were repaired on
15 January 2006.
The ADM untreated PM10 emission rates of H1 was 5.03 ± 1.5 g d−1 AU−1 (14.1 ± 4.3 mg d−1
hen−1), which were lower than a short-term summertime gross emission of 16 ± 3.4 g d−1 AU−1
measured at a high-rise layer house (Lim et al., 2003). In the previous test in the same houses,
the ADM untreated PM10 gross emission rates of H1 and H2 were 9.2 and 12.6 g d−1 AU−1,
respectively (Lim et al., 2007). The higher values were probably due to the higher ventilation
rates used during warmer weather. Net emission rates were not determined for the two houses in
the previous test. However, the emission rates would be comparable if the 18% ambient concen-
trations were assumed.
Based on paired H1 and H2 emission rates (ratios of H2/H1 emission rates), the overall
(all tests combined) mean untreated and treated PM10 emission rates of H2 were 50% and
3% higher than H1, respectively, suggesting an overall 47% (50%–3%) reduction. How-
ever, the reduction of PM10 emission was 23% based on measurements in H2 with (treated,
5.15 g d−1 AU−1) and without (untreated, 6.71 g d−1 AU−1) the EP within H2 for all tests. The
reduction of PM10 emission rates was only 12% based on measurements in H2 with (treated,
5.80 g d−1 AU−1) and without (untreated, 6.56 g d−1 AU−1) the EP, after 28 November when
the EP was turned off on weekends. The reduction was probably masked by the new flock
effect in H2, because the individual Test 7 results were as high as 36% (Table 19.4). It is
thus essential to evaluate the emission rate reduction for each test based on the following
considerations:
1. There were more treated H2 emission data than untreated H2 data, and the treatment schedule
was not uniform.
2. Failure incidents of EP power unit occurred, which were expected due to relatively harsh
environments and field test conditions.
3. Higher-than-normal PM was generated by the new flock in H2.
Table 19.4. Summary of EP test results for PM10, for all the tests involved.
VetBooks.ir
Emission, g d–¹ AU–¹
Test H1 H2 Control H2 Treated Diff.[a] Reduction
1 5.2 n/a 5.3 −2.5% 48%[b]

2 4.4 7.3 n/a −65% Baseline
3 4.5 n/a 5.1 −12% 37%[b]
4 5.3 n/a 4.4 18% 61%[b]
5 5.0 4.8 3.5 30% 5%[c]
6 4.9 12.0 11.0 −124% 16%[c]
7 5.3 4.7 3.3 38% 36%[c]
[a]
Difference between H2 treated and H1, except for Test 2, between H2 control and H1.
[b]
Reduction was calculated by comparing paired H1 and H2 emission rates with Test 2 data.
[c]
Reduction was calculated by comparing paired treated and untreated H2 emission rates.
Average daily mean PM10 emission rates were 4.4 and 7.3 g d–¹ AU–¹ for H1 and H2 during
Test 2 (alum spraying), respectively (Table 19.4). Using the mean paired H2/H1 emission com-
parison of Test 2 as the baseline, the EP reduced PM10 emission by 37% and 61% in Tests 3 and
4, respectively. The baseline data was considered because the untreated H2 emitted 65% more
PM10 emission than H1 when the EP was off. However, the reduction in Test 4 could be biased by
the lack of untreated H2 emission data, and because Test 2 baseline data was only from 10 days in
September, it may not be comparable with the October and November 2005 emission rates in Test
4. Another uncertainty was that the control and treated houses did not have similar ages of hens.
The effect of hen age was unknown and unaccounted for in Tests 1 to 5. For these reasons, the EP
was turned off on weekends to establish untreated PM emission rates within H2, thus excluding
the hen age factor from the efficiency study in Tests 5 to 7.
Higher reductions were achieved during certain test periods (48% at the beginning of the test,
and 36% at the end of the test after the new flock had adapted to the new environment). Further-
more, the treated daily mean PM10 concentration and emission rate of H2 were generally lower
than untreated H1 throughout the test (Fig. 19.7), except when the new flock was moved into H2.
The lowest reduction was detected for Test 5, which was probably due to the large amount of PM
generated by the new hens.
There was no significant difference (p = 0.66, analysis of variance test) between treated and
untreated emission rates in H2, between 28 November and 4 March (partial Test 5, and Tests 6
and 7), when the EP was switched off periodically to obtain untreated emission data. However, the
treated emissions were consistently lower after the new flock adaptation period and the reduction
averaged 36% in Test 7. The PM removal efficiency of the EP may have been reduced or affected
by the declining voltages of Line 1 in the last test (Fig. 19.6). The mean Line 1 voltages were 19.6
and 23.8 kV in Tests 7 and 6 respectively. The lower EP voltage of Line 1 could have had a more
significant effect in reducing the PM removal, because it was located nearest to the south side PM
monitors. The voltages of the other three EP lines were higher than 23 kV during the last two tests.
The ESCS performance appeared to be affected by voltage in the earlier tests. The PM reduc-
tion also increased after the ESCS voltage was increased on 26 September. The emission rate of
H1 was 12% lower than H2 in Test 3 but was 18% higher in Test 4. The PM removal by the EP
was also hampered by the reliability and performance of the power unit and by the new flock
placement into H2. The overall EP performance could be expected to have been higher without
the power unit failures and the flock replacement in H2.
19.4.2 TSP measurement
The mean TSP concentration in the exhaust air from 51 measurements in H1 was 3129 ± 599 μg
dsm–³. The mean untreated TSP concentration of H2 was 2067 ± 708 μg dsm−3 (n = 9), and the
VetBooks.ir
Figure 19.7. Daily mean TSP concentrations and emission rates of the field tests of the EP.
mean treated TSP concentration of H2 was 2186 ± 680 μg dsm−3 (n = 38). The TSP measurement
had lower data completeness than PM10 because of the test schedule and limits in instrumenta-
tion. The overall mean TSP concentration of treated H2 was slightly higher than the untreated
concentration, which was probably due to small numbers of samples, and the fact that the H2
TSP concentration exhibited a decreasing trend, especially with the new flock (Fig. 19.7). The
TSP concentration of H1 was similar to the concentrations measured in the previous year from
the same house (Lim et al., 2007).
The overall mean gross TSP emissions were 252 ± 147, 191 ± 141, and 238 ± 240 mg s−1 (49.1,
35.1, and 43.5 g d−1 AU−1) for H1, treated H2, and untreated H2, respectively (Tables 19.2 and
19.3). The EP-treated TSP emission rate of H2, while the EP was 24% lower than control H1, and
the untreated H2 TSP emission was 6% lower than H1, suggesting an overall reduction of 18%
(24%–6%) from the EP treatment. The EP-treated TSP emission rate of H2 was 19% lower than
the untreated value. However, these differences cannot entirely be attributed to the EP removal
efficiency, because there were only a few replications of untreated TSP measurements in H2. The
other factor was that a decreasing trend of TSP concentration and emission rate was noticed in H2,
similar to the H2 PM10 data. Thus, the emission differences and reductions observed in the individ-
ual tests were used to evaluate the EP performance (Table 19.5). It is also noted that the mean TSP
emission rates had high standard deviations, adding to the overall uncertainties of the test results.
Similar to the analyses of PM10 emission, the comparison of paired H2 and H1 emission rates
in Test 2 (untreated test) was considered as the baseline. In Test 2, the mean gross TSP emission
rates were 88 and 91 g d−1 hen−1 for H1 and H2, respectively, and the difference was 4%. Based
on this baseline data, the EP reduced the emission by 22% and 33% in Tests 3 and 4, respectively.
The EP performance in Test 5 was compromised by several power supply unit failures. Since
there was only one untreated TSP measurement conducted after the new flock placement in H2,
it is not known whether the new flock caused the higher TSP concentrations similar to PM10. In
fact, the untreated H2 TSP emission taken on 23 December 2005 was the highest for the second
half of the test. The TSP concentration and emission for the new flock in H2 were comparable
to H1, although the PM10 concentrations and emissions of H2 were more than twice that of H1.
This suggests that the new flock only created noticeably higher PM emission for PM10.
No reduction was observed in the last test when comparing the treated and untreated H2 TSP
emission rates, although the treated H2 TSP emission rate was less than half of H1. The PM
Table 19.5. Summary of EP system test results for TSP.

VetBooks.ir
Emission, g d–¹ AU–¹
Test H1 H2 Control H2 Treated Diff.[a] Reduction
1 86 n/a 80 12%[b]
2 88 91 n/a 4% Baseline
3 94 n/a 79 17% 22%[b]
4 63 n/a 45 23% 33%[b]
5 27 13 13 34% 2.3%[c]
6 33 35 26 25%[c]
7 31 12 14 58% −12%[c]
[a]
Difference between H2 treated and H1, except for Test 2, between H2 control and H1.
[b]
Reduction was calculated by comparing paired H1 and H2 emission rates with Test 2 data.
[c]
Reduction was calculated by comparing paired treated and untreated emission rates within the H2 test.
removal efficiency of the EP may have been affected by the lowered Line 1 voltages in the last
test, as discussed earlier. Unfortunately, there were only four untreated TSP measurements con-
ducted in Test 7. It is not known what caused TSP concentration and emission in H2 to decrease
during the second half of the test. Since a similar trend was also observed for PM10, the possibil-
ity of a systematic equipment failure or biasness is very low, especially when the TSP sampling
flow rates were measured at the beginning and end of each sampling event. Although there was
no significant TSP reduction by the EP observed in H2, the continuous and more frequent PM10
measurements suggested that the EP was capable of reducing PM10 emission.
19.4.3 Costs associated with the EP

According to the manufacturer, the capital cost of the complete system and installation was
$10.76 per square meter of building area (price quoted in 2006) for similar large, high-rise layer
houses. For the house tested in this paper, the operating cost was estimated to be similar to the
expense for 240 W of continuous electrical power, or 2100 kW h per year. At $0.10 per kW
h, the annual operating cost would be $210. The operating cost of the EP was relatively low,
but the long-term durability, maintenance requirements, and practical issues (high voltages and
acceptance by farm personnel) are needed to provide a more thorough evaluation of using such a
system in commercial settings.
19.5 CONCLUSIONS
1. The average daily mean untreated net PM10 emission rates ranged from 1.15 to 14.9 g d−¹
AU−1 and averaged 5.03 ± 1.5 g d−1 AU−1 for H1.
2. The EP reduced PM10 emissions by 47% based on overall paired H1 and H2 emission rate
comparisons. However, the reduction of PM10 emission was only 12%, based on measure-
ments with (treated) and without (untreated) the EP within H2 for the periods when EP was
turned off on weekends for within-house comparisons. The lower reduction was compromised
by EP failures and the placement of a new flock of layers into H2. The PM10 emission reduc-
tion increased to 36% in Test 7.
3. The overall mean gross TSP emissions were 252 ± 147, 191 ± 141, and 238 ± 240 mg s−1 (49.1
± 28, 35.1 ± 25, and 43.5 ± 42 g d−1 AU−1) for H1, and treated and untreated H2, respectively.
4. The EP reduced TSP emissions by 18% based on overall H1 and H2 emission rate compari-
sons. The reduction was 19% based on measurements with (treated) and without (untreated)
the EP within H2.
5. The overall PM removal efficiency of the EP was compromised by equipment failure and per-
VetBooks.ir
formance and the new flock. Higher PM removal efficiency was expected and observed during
certain individual tests.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would like to thank Mr. Sam Hanni for the field work, Mr. John Baumgartner and his
team for the technical support, and the producer and farm staff for the field support.
REFERENCES
Banhazi, T.M., Seedorf, J., Laffrique, M. & Rutley, D.L. (2008) Identification of the risk factors for high
airborne particle concentrations in broiler buildings using statistical modeling. Biosystems Engineering,
101(1), 100–110.
Eisentraut, M.A., Heber, A.J., Lim, T.-T. & Hoff, S.J. (2004a) CAPECAB part II: Calculating barn ventila-
tion and emission rates. Annual Conference and Exhibition of Air and Waste Management Association,
22–25 June 2004, Indianapolis, IN. CD-ROM.
Eisentraut, M.A., Heber, A.J. & Ni, J.-Q. (2004b) CAPECAB part I: Processing barn emission data. Annual
Conference and Exhibition of Air and Waste Management Association, 22–25 June 2004, Indianapolis,
IN. CD-ROM.
Ellen, H.H., Bottcher, R.W., von Wachenfelt, E. & Takai, H. (2000) Dust levels and control methods in poul-
try houses. Journal of Agricultural Safety and Health, 6(4), 275–282.
Gates, R.S., Casey, K.D., Xin, H., Wheeler, E.E. & Simmons, J.D. (2004) Fan assessment numeration system
(FANS) design and calibration specifications. Transactions of ASAE, 47(5), 1709–1715.
Heber, A.J., Ni, J.-Q., Lim, T.-T., Chervil, R., Tao, P.C., Jacobson, L.D., Hoff, S.J., Koziel, J.A., Zhang,
Y., Beasley, D.B. & Sweeten, J.M. (2005) Aerial pollutant emissions from two high-rise layer barns in
Indiana. Annual Conference and Exhibition of Air and Waste Management Association, 21–24 June 2005,
Minneapolis, MN. Paper No. 1368.
Jerez, S., Zhang, Y., McClure, J., Jacobson, L.D., Heber, A.J., Koziel, J.A., Hoff, S.A. & Beasley, D.B.
(2005) Comparison of total particulate emission using tapered element oscillating microbalance and a
TSP sampler. Journal of the Air and Waste Management Association, 56(3), 261–270.
Lacey, R.E., Redwine, J.S. & Parnell, C.B. (2003) Particulate matter and ammonia emission factors for
tunnel-ventilated broiler production houses in the Southern US. Transactions of the ASAE, 46(4),
1203–1214.
Lim, T.-T., Heber, A.J., Ni, J.-Q., Gallien, J.Z. & Xin, H. (2003) Air quality measurements at a laying hen
house: Particulate matter concentrations and emissions. The Third International Conference on Air Pol-
lution from Agricultural Operations, 12–15 October 2003, Durham, NC. pp. 249–256.
Lim, T.T., Sun, H.W., Ni, J.-Q., Zhao, L., Diehl, C.A., Heber, A.J. & Hanni, S.M. (2007) Field tests of a
particulate impaction curtain on emissions from a high-rise layer barn. Transactions of the ASABE, 50(5),
1795–1805.
Mitchell, B.W., Holt, P.S. & Seo, K.H. (2000) Reducing dust in a caged layer room: an electrostatic space
charge system. Journal of Applied Poultry Research, 9(3), 292–296.
Mitchell, B.W., Buhr, R.J., Berrang, M.E., Bailey, J.S. & Cox, N.A. (2002) Reducing airborne pathogens,
dust and Salmonella transmission in experimental hatching cabinets using an electrostatic space charge
system. Poultry Science, 81(1), 49–55.
in Agriculture, 20(1), 87–93.
Ni, J.-Q., Heber, A.J., Lim, T.T. & Diehl, C.A. (2005) A low-cost technique to monitor ventilation fan oper-
ations in animal buildings to increase air emission measurement quality. The Seventh International Live-
stock Environment Symposium, 18–20 May 2005, Beijing, China. pp. 389–395.
Takai, H., Pedersen, S., Johnsen, J.O., Metz, J.H.M., Koerkamp, P.W.G.G., Uenk, G.H., Phillips, V.R.,
VetBooks.ir
Zhao, L., Lim, T.-T., Sun, H.W., Heber, A.J., Diehl, C.A., Ni, J.-N., Tao, P.-C. & Hanni, S.M. (2005) Partic-
ulate matter emissions from a Ohio belt-battery layer barn. Annual International Meeting of ASAE, 1–4
August 2005, Tampa, FL. ASAE paper No. 054010.
VetBooks.ir
VetBooks.ir
SECTION VI
Reduction methods and technologies for
controlling airborne pollutants
VetBooks.ir
CHAPTER 20
VetBooks.ir
Oil-spraying technologies to be used for dust reduction in livestock

buildings
Hisamitsu Takai and Thomas Banhazi
20.1 INTRODUCTION
High concentrations of airborne particles that can be found in a variety of livestock buildings
(Banhazi et al., 2008a; Guarino et al., 1999; Gustafsson, 1999; Heber et al., 1988; Takai et al.,
1998) could have a detrimental effect on the health, welfare and production efficiency of live-
stock and on the respiratory health of farm workers (Banhazi, 2013; Donham, 1991; Iversen et al.,
2000; Larsson et al., 1994; Wathes et al., 2004). Thus, it is desirable to reduce the concentration
of airborne particles inside livestock buildings.
There are three principle ways of reducing dust concentrations in livestock buildings: 1)
removal of airborne dust, 2) increase of the ventilation rates (might actually increase the concen-
tration of small particles under certain conditions (Banhazi et al., 2008a) and 3) reduction of dust
generation from sources. In 1986, the National Institute of Agricultural Engineering, Denmark,
proposed a new dust control method based on the last principle and carried out a series of fea-
sibility tests in pig barns in the following years (Takai and Pedersen, 2000; Takai et al., 1995).
Along with these works, scientists, engineers and extension specialists in other countries have
also carried out further development and explored its feasibility (Banhazi et al., 2011a; Ellen
et al., 2000; Ikeguchi and Xin, 2001; Mehdizadeh and Banhazi, 2015; Nonnenmann et al., 2004;
Pedersen et al., 2001; Perkins and Feddes, 1996; Senthilselvan et al., 1997; Takai and Pedersen,
2000; Zhang et al., 1996).
This method is based on the assumption that the main dust source in livestock buildings is set-
tled dust on building surfaces. It also takes advantage of the nature of oil to bind dust to surfaces
for a longer period than water, for example. Oil evaporates slowly and thereby its dust-binding-
effects remain much longer than water. The engineering task was to develop a method, which can
distribute a small, but well defined amount of oil over a large area. The amount of oil must be
as small as possible, just enough to stop the dust particles stirring up. This led to the method of
spraying vegetable oil mixed with water onto floors, fixtures and animals (Takai and Pedersen,
1999). Spray rates can be controlled by known technologies. However, there were several other
aspects of this dust reduction technique that had to be investigated to establish the basic design
concept of the method and to assess its possible negative impacts.
20.2 FUNDAMENTALS FOR DESIGNING OIL-SPRAYING FOR DUST CONTROL
20.2.1 Duration of the dust-binding effect of a vegetable oil

Spraying of water on floors before sweeping is a well-known method of controlling dust dis-
persion. Nevertheless, the effect of water as a dust binder will fade out as the water evaporates.
325
326 Hisamitsu Takai and Thomas Banhazi
The length of time this dust-binding-effect will be sustained will depend on the amount of water
VetBooks.ir
sprayed and on the evaporation rate. A rough estimation by a theoretical calculation based on
Fick’s laws of diffusion shows that it takes about 1.5 h to evaporate a 1-mm water layer when
the temperature and relative humidity (RH) is 20°C and 60%, respectively. Exact calculation of
evaporation rates of water and vegetable oil sprayed on surfaces in livestock buildings is difficult.
It is a function of pressure difference between the vapor pressure of the liquid and the partial
pressure of the molecules in the gas phase. This again is a function of temperature, humidity,
concentration of the liquid adsorbed on/in dust particles and air movement around dust particles
and the surfaces. However, the difference between vapor pressure of water and vegetable oil is a
good indication for difference in evaporation rates and thus the dust-binding effects of these liq-
uids. The saturation vapor pressure of water at 20°C is 2.3 kPa. We could not find earlier studies
discussing vapor pressures of vegetable oils at room temperature. It was reported that the vapor
pressure of rapeseed biodiesel is 8 × 10–6 kPa at 40°C and 6 × 10–3 kPa at 110°C (Diaz, 2012).
From this information we can assume that rapeseed oil (and possibly other oils with similar char-
acteristics) can be characterized by very low vapor pressure and slow evaporation rate, which
retaining the dust-binding-effect for many days.
20.2.2 Selection of vegetable oil

In general, all kinds of vegetable oil, which is available at reasonable prices, can be used as a
dust binder. However, there are some considerations to be made. It is not necessary to use refined
vegetable oil, but the oil must be free of particles. Vegetable oil with strong odors might not be
suitable, due to its potential effect on animal behavior. Storage of large quantities of oil in live-
stock buildings requires special attention in relation to its combustibility. Even if the oil is diluted
with water, one should remember that the spraying of oil in air and on combustible materials, for
example, straws, will involve potential risks. The iodine value is a good indication of the level
of chemical reaction (i.e., heat production) of the oil when it is exposed to air. Oil with a high
iodine value, for example, linseed oil, under specific conditions can produce so much heat that
self-ignition may take place. Self-ignition of sprayed or spilt oil in barns may be another safety
risk on farms. Thus, selection of oil with a low iodine value is recommended.
Appropriate quantity and quality of emulsifiers also have to be used as part of the dust sup-
pression mixture. As mentioned before (Nonnenmann et al., 1999; Takai and Pedersen, 1999),
a wide variety of vegetable oils can be used for dust reduction. However, there are no reliable
references for an appropriate emulsifier to use for dust suppression purposes. One of the major
considerations when using emulsifiers is to avoid any risk of meat contamination. Therefore it
is recommended to use only food grade emulsifiers. However, the risk of meat contamination is
very remote, given the very small quantities of emulsifiers used and the unlikely scenario of pigs
ingesting contaminated oil from the pen floor.
The other consideration is the efficiency of emulsification. Different types and concentrations
of emulsifiers have been assessed in Australia by observing the droplet size under a microscope
and also evaluating the emulsification efficiency over time by observing the speed of separation
(Fig. 20.1). It was noted that different emulsifiers behaved differently (Banhazi et al., 2002b).
Some of the emulsification liquids evaluated provided a more even distribution of oil particles in
the liquid and stabilized the mixture over a longer timeframe when compared to other emulsifiers
(Banhazi et al., 2002b).
20.2.3 Distribution of oil over a large surface area

The optimal oil-spraying rate for dust reduction was demonstrated to be less than 5 g per day per
pig, regardless of the weight of pigs (Takai et al., 1995). According to EU regulations, the mini-
mum requirements for pen areas in pig buildings are from 0.2 to 0.65 m2 for a pig of 20 kg and 110
kg, respectively. If a system distributes 5 g of oil to cover an area of 0.2 m2, the thickness of the
oil layer will be 27 µm, and the oil layer must be as thin as 8 µm to cover an area of 0.65 m2. The
Oil spraying for dust reduction 327
VetBooks.ir
Figure 20.1. Badly (top slide) and well (bottom slide) emulsified oil droplet under the microscope. Note the
large and unevenly distributed oil droplets on the top slide.
development of a system that can make such thin layer of oil would be a difficult task. However,
it may not be necessary to cover the entire surface by oil at every treatment. This technique is
based on the assumption that animals distribute oil further and the whole area will be smeared by
oil after several oil spray events. The evenness of the oil distribution can be objectively assessed
using image analysis techniques (Mehdizadeh and Banhazi, 2015).
20.2.4 Droplet size
The aim of oil-spraying is not to bind dust particles in the air, but to distribute oil as evenly as
possible over a large surface area so that it can bind dust particles on the surfaces. Therefore, the
droplets must fall quickly to minimize the undesirable airborne transportation of oil by ventila-
tion air. The movement of airborne droplets in livestock buildings are affected by air stream, for
example, ventilation air jets, eddy, buoyant air streams, and others. Small droplets may be carried
to the outside by the ventilation air. Furthermore, small droplets inhaled by humans and animals
cause health hazards (Nuyttens et al., 2007). Evaporation will cause reduced droplet size, and
very small droplets may disappear before they reach the floor.
To ensure the droplets fall quickly on the floor, the terminal velocity of the droplets should be
sufficiently large compared with the air velocity found in livestock buildings. The air velocities
frequently recorded in livestock buildings range from 0.2 to 0.5 m s−1 (Banhazi et al., 2008b,
2011b). In zones influenced by the ventilation inlet air jets, the air velocities can be faster than
0.5 m s−1. According to Figure 20.2, the droplets should be around 150 µm for comparable termi-
nal velocities with the most common air velocities in barns.
It can be assumed that a sprayer sends droplets horizontally into a completely stagnant air.
Even if the initial velocity of droplets at the spray nozzle is high, the small droplets will quickly
stop moving in horizontal direction due to the air resistance. The distance between the nozzle and
the point the droplet stops determines stop distance, which gives an idea of the spray diameter.
The stop distances for different droplet sizes, with an initial velocity of 20 m s−1, are shown in
Figure 20.2. A spray nozzle horizontally ejecting droplets 150 to 250 µm in diameter at an initial
velocity of 20 m s−1 will have a spray radius of about 1 to 2 m, which may be a practical dimension
for spraying over a single pen.
VetBooks.ir
Figure 20.2. Terminal velocity of free falling water droplets and stop distance for the droplets with initial
velocity of 20 m s−1 (based on the table presented in AMI, 1986).
20.2.5 Oil concentration in water

Dilution is a popular technique to ensure the sufficient distribution of a small amount of liquid
within a large area. The use of water as a dilution liquid and as a material carrier is a sensible way
of approaching an environment friendly dust suppression system. The question is how much the
oil should be diluted.
The reason for diluting oil is to obtain a bigger volume, which enables the generation of a
greater number of droplets so that the oil can be distributed a larger area. Figure 20.3 shows the
effects of droplet size and dilution rate, that is, percent oil in the mixture, on the sum of section
areas of the droplets when 5 g oil was distributed in uniform droplets. As seen in the figure,
the total section area is inversely proportional with the percent oil in the mixture. Spraying an
oil-water mixture with a dilution rate of 10% oil has potential to cover 0.4 to 0.54 m2 when
droplets of 150 to 200 µm are distributed without overlapping. This is the required pen area for
a pig.
20.2.6 Effect of the sprayed water on the humidity

The effect of the water sprayed into barn environments on humidity must be explored. Table 20.1
shows examples of the estimated vapor productions of a 20 kg piglet and a 100 kg finisher pig.
Vapor productions from pigs were estimated by using the equations given by two key publica-
tions (CIGR, 1984; Pedersen et al., 1998). For the estimations, room temperatures 20°C and 18 oC
were used for the piglet and the fattening pig, respectively. The amounts of water sprayed by the
treatment with 10% and 20% oil concentrations are also shown in Table 20.1. For the assumed oil
spray rate of 5 g oil day−1 pig−1, the treatment causes 0.6% to 3.4% more water in the room, which
has to be removed from the barn by ventilation air. In a mechanically ventilated barn, removal of
additional vapor can result in an increase of energy consumption in cold period. More vapor in
the room means that a larger amount of air has to be removed and a larger amount of fresh air has
to be heated up. In warmer periods or in the warmer region, where the main aim of ventilation is
the removal of heat from the barn, the addition of water in the barn may not influence the venti-
lation rate. In such situation, lower oil concentrations can be applied if it is advantageous for oil
distribution and/or other operational reasons.
VetBooks.ir
Figure 20.3. Effects of droplet size and dilution rate, that is, percent oil in the mixture, on the sum of section
areas of the droplets when 5 g oil was distributed in uniform droplets. (For the calculation,
specific gravity of 0.915 for rapeseed oil was applied.) Based on (AMI, 1986).
Table 20.1. Estimated vapor production of pigs at two different weights and the amounts of water sprayed
by oil-spraying with 10% and 20% oil concentrations (*:CIGR, 1984; Pedersen et al., 1998).
Ratio between sprayed water
Water added by the treatment and the vapor production by the
5 g oil day−1 pig−1 animal, %
Vapor produced
by animal* 10% oil conc. 20% oil conc. 10% oil conc. 20% oil conc.
g day pig
−1 −1
g day 1 pig
− −1
g day pig
−1 −1
% %
Piglet (20 kg) 1320 (20 oC) 45 20 3.4 1.5

Finisher pig 3500 (18 oC) 1.3 0.6
(100 kg)
20.3 STRATEGY OF THE OIL-SPRAYING OPERATION
20.3.1 Spray rate
The daily oil-spraying rate should preferably be adjusted according to the daily dust production.
However, dust production rate in barns varies. It is affected by many factors, such as the amount
of dispersed dust, activity level in the barn, feeding practices, handling of bedding materials,
dung and slurry (Banhazi et al., 2008a; Takai et al., 1998). Those factors may vary from day to
day, even in the same livestock building. Nevertheless, a day-to-day unvaried oil-spraying rate
may be applied because the sprayed oil maintains the dust-binding-effect for many days. The
surplus oil from the previous day will supplement the possible shortage on the following days.
Online control of the oil-spraying rate according to the dust production rate might be another
way to improve the dust reduction efficiency. This will require development of dust sensors fea-
sible in livestock buildings. Use of activity sensors to control the oil-spraying rate might also be
an effective method, because animal activities strongly affect the dust production.
20.3.2 Frequency and timing of oil-spraying

VetBooks.ir
As the dust-binding-effect of oil maintain for many days, spraying every second or third day
should be suitable for dust reduction. This strategy is attractive for those who might like to spray
the oil-water mixture manually. However, it requires spraying enough oil to bind the existing
dusts and the dusts expected to be produced in the successive days. This may create problems
with slippery floor and smeary fixtures due to excess oil.
An alternative strategy is spraying several times after a planned schedule, for example, early
morning, late evening and other times, when no workers are present in the barn. It requires a
control unit with programmable timers to enable automatic spraying. By adjusting the number of
treatments per day and spraying interval, the spraying rate could be controlled (Banhazi, 2005).
The system is simple, but it probably requires more oil to achieve the same dust reduction as that
achieved by spraying according to animal activity.
The need for shorter spraying times was recognized in an Australian study, and a special timer
was developed to allow shorter bursts of spraying (Banhazi, 2005; Banhazi et al., 2011a). Under
individual circumstances normal timers might still work very efficiently. However, dunging pat-
terns in pens need to be very carefully monitored and controlled, when using longer spraying
times, as the resultant floor wetness might trigger incorrect dunging patters (Banhazi, 2013). It
was recognized that a reduction in spraying duration and an increase in frequency might further
improve the even distribution of the oil-water mixture over time, thus, reducing the chance of
triggering incorrect dunging patterns (Banhazi, 2013). Delivering the required daily oil-water
mixture in one dose per day can cause a temporary wetting of the pen floors, potentially triggering
incorrect dunging patterns (Banhazi, 2013).
Oil binds the dust particles on the surfaces so that lower amounts of dust can become airborne.
Thus, the best timing for oil-spraying is supposed to be short time before the start of increased
activity (such as work activities), which can lead to increased dust concentrations (Banhazi et al.,
2002a; Pedersen and Takai, 1999). The disadvantage of this strategy is the possible health hazard
effect of oil mist. Oil mist can remain airborne in the barn sometime after spraying operations.
Therefore, oil should not be sprayed shortly before workers enter the barn. This may conflict
with a strategy aimed at spraying oil according to animal activity, because animal activity often
increases shortly before feeding, and workers can cause increased animal activity. Oil should not
be sprayed when workers are inside the barn. Thus, workers should not enter the barn shortly after
the spraying operation.
20.4 DIFFERENT TYPES OF OIL-SPRAYING SYSTEMS
The oils spraying systems developed and tested by different countries can be grouped into four
categories: 1) manual spraying by back pack sprayer; 2) low-pressure spraying system (about 250
kPa); and 3) high-pressure spraying system (1400 kPa) (Nonnenmann et al., 2004). The operation
modes of the systems and their strong and weak characteristics are discussed in this section.
20.4.1 Manual spraying
Zhang et al. (1996) developed a method to apply pure oil under low pressures (206 kPa) by using
a backpack sprayer commonly used for chemical spray. The process was called “sprinkle,” as
it applied oil under low pressure and gave a shower-like effect. The use of a backpack sprayer
permits flexible oil application according to various needs for oil over the room. The amount of
sediment dust on the floor, fixtures and animals may differ, and applying oil according to this will
increase the treatment efficiency per applied oil.
The method requires only a backpack sprayer. So, it is an immediately practical method in
any type of animal houses. However, the method requires extra work (Banhazi et al., 2007). The
operation frequency is limited by the time the farmer is willing to (or can) spend for dust control.
It is expected that the sprinkling process produced larger droplets and fewer amounts of small
VetBooks.ir
droplets, which could be harmful for human health. Nevertheless, the use of a protective mask
is recommended, because the operation causes increased animal activity, and the operator is
exposed to the stirred dust particles and possible airborne oil droplets.
20.4.2 Low-pressure spraying system

Figure 20.4 shows a function diagram of the low-pressure spraying system, which has been
developed by Takai et al. (1995) and used in a series of feasibility study. It is a modified chemical
sprayer used in agriculture and consists of the components commonly used by farmers, that is,
an electrically driven liquid pump, a tank, a pressure regulator, a pressure gauge, a 3-way sole-
noid valve, a 2-way solenoid vale, plastic hoses and spray nozzles. Cone spray nozzles with a
spray angle of about 90° were used. Nozzle pressure was about 0.3 MPa. According to the test
report (SjF, 1981), the cone spray nozzle used in the experiment produces water droplets with a
weight basis has a mean diameter of approximately 600 µm and more than 99.5% of the water
sprayed formed droplets with a diameter larger than 100 µm. The nozzles were mounted about
2 m above the pen floor, which permits the distribution of droplets in a circle with a diameter of
2 m on the floor. Rapeseed oil mixed with water by using emulsifying agent was sprayed. The
spraying frequencies were one to four times a day. The daily oil dose was varied by changing the
oil concentration in the mixture (5% to 20%) and by changing the spraying interval (5 to 90 s d−1).
The system showed an ability to reduce dust concentration in the air by 50%–90% when spray
rates of about 5–10 g oil pig−1 d−1 were used. Long-term observations at a commercial pig farm
showed that there was no significant difference in pig performance between treated groups and
control groups. Veterinary examinations of the pigs did not indicate any harmful effect on the pigs
related to the treatment. The experiment also showed that a substantial improvement in the work-
ing environment in a pig house was achieved by this dust control method (Takai et al., 1995).
Using nozzles with wider spray angle permits the distribution of droplets to a larger area.
The oil sprayer system seen in Figure 20.5 used deflector nozzles with a spray angle somewhat
smaller than 180°, which produced a round spray pattern. The impaction on the deflector causes
a reduction of droplet velocity. Thus, it produces a slowly dispersing cloud, which can cause loss
of some small droplets due to evaporation and airborne transportation by ventilation air.
Figure 20.4. Function diagram of the low-pressure spraying system, which has been used in a series of fea-
sibility studies of the dust control method by oil-spraying.
VetBooks.ir
Figure 20.5. Using nozzles with wider spray angle permits to distribute droplets to a larger area (Takai
et al., 1995).
20.4.3 High-pressure sprayer controlled by animal activity sensor

Figure 20.6 shows a function diagram of high-pressure oil-spraying system. The pump supplied
high-pressure water to two spray bars located about 2 m above the floor. Each spray bar had four
nozzles, covering half of the room. The pressure at the nozzles was about 5 MPa. The injector
sucked oil into the pipeline. Due to the turbulent liquid flow in the pipe, the oil was mixed with
water on the way to the nozzles without using an emulsifying agent (Fig. 20.7).
To spray oil-water mixtures according to the animal activity, a specially designed animal activ-
ity sensor was installed. It consists of a passive infrared detector, which converts animal activities
to analogue signals and a signal-conditioning unit (Pedersen and Pedersen, 1995). A control unit
activated the spray system if the preset conditions were fulfilled. The preset conditions were
the threshold level for animal activity and time from the last spraying (Pedersen and Pedersen,
1995). By changing these preset conditions and the spraying interval, the daily spraying rate was
changed. The whole system was inactivated when herdsmen were inside the barn to avoid their
exposure to oil droplets. The duration of a single spraying process could also be programmed.
The amount of oil sprayed per day varied, depending on the settings and animal activity.
VetBooks.ir
Figure 20.6. Function diagram of a high-pressure system spraying oil according to animal activity level
(Takai and Pedersen, 2000).
Figure 20.7. High pressure oil-spraying system installed in a pig barn (Takai and Pedersen, 2000) Water-oil
mixture was sprayed when the activity signal exceeded the preset threshold level (35 mV) and
time from the last spraying exceeded 30 min. Number of sprayings on the day shown in the
example was nine: 9:45, 14:35, 15:05, 15:35, 16:15, 16:45, 18:45, 19:40 and 20:15. Spraying
interval was 2.5 s spray−1, and spraying rate for the day was 2.9 g of oil day−1 pig−1.
Figure 20.8 shows an example of animal activity signals that were used to control oil-spraying
operations with setting values for the threshold level of 35 mV, the least time from the last spray-
ing of 30 min and the spraying interval of 2.5 s spray−1. As seen in the figure, it sprayed nine times
during 24 h. The spray rate on that day was 2.9 g of oil pig−1 d−1.
The oil spray rate was further lowered because the treatment was an extra expense and no
contribution to improvement of pig performance was achieved (Takai and Pedersen, 2000). To
VetBooks.ir
Figure 20.8. Example of signals from animal activity sensor controlling oil-spraying operation (Takai and
Pedersen, 2000). The time of spraying events are indicated by arrows on the x axis.
achieve this, combination with another dust control method was proposed. It showed that addition
of animal fat to feed could reduce dust concentrations by 35%–60% (Takai et al., 1996; Takai and
Pedersen, 2000). It was, therefore, proposed to combine this feed addition with a high-pressure
sprayer controlled by the animal activity sensor. The treatment reduced the airborne dust concen-
trations and dust exposures of the herdsman by about 80% and 85%, respectively. The numbers
of sprayings varied from 9.5 and 11.3 treatments per day, which resulted in oil-spraying rates
of 3.1 and 3.3 g oil day−1 pig−1, respectively, when the spray interval was about 2.5 s (Takai and
Pedersen, 2000).
20.5 REVIEW OF STUDIES REPORTED PREVIOUSLY
A number of studies have been conducted to assess and fine-tune oil-spraying techniques and
to demonstrate them under a variety of farming conditions as a viable dust reduction technique
(Table 20.2). These studies were conducted in pig, poultry and horse facilities and also aimed at
assessing the possible extent of dust reduction.
While the Australian results, by large, confirmed the application rate (around 5 g pig –1 d–1)
suggested by European researchers (Takai et al., 1995), the short-term dust reduction potential of
spraying (Table 20.2, study 4) oil at high concentration rates (20–30 g m2) was also demonstrated.
In a study, the floors (and other horizontal dust collecting surfaces) in piggery buildings were
sprayed immediately before a standardized work activity (Banhazi et al., 2002a) was simulated
for three hours. As the result of this treatment, the concentrations of inhalable and respirable dust
were significantly reduced in the trial rooms (Table 20.2, study 4), demonstrating the beneficial
effects of oil-spraying before work activities. The beneficial effects of impregnating bedding
materials with oil in order to reduce the opportunities for dust generation was also demonstrated
in horse stables (Table 20.2, study 6) and poultry buildings (Table 20.2, study 5).
In another study, the author indicated that the dust level after the treatment was still too high
(on the order of 109 particles m−3), and spraying oil by using ultrasonic sprayer might open a new
possibility (Ikeguchi, 2002) (Table 20.2, study 9). The spray system carries oil in a tank and does
not need pipe connection to a fixed point. Thus, it can be mounted on an autonomous traveling
robot, which enables a flexible and intelligent spraying operation.
VetBooks.ir
Table 20.2. Results of selected Australian studies using oil-spraying as dust reduction method (resp. = respirable particles; inhal. = inhalable particles) [after (Banhazi et al., 2011a)].
Study Reference Livestock Building Application Reduction Oil application Type of Comments
no. achieved rate bedding
1 (Banhazi et al., Pigs Weaner Hand-held spray 30% respirable 6.3 g m−2 d−1 N/A Hand-held spray system
1999b) building 33% total used once per day
2 (Banhazi et al., Pigs Straw- Hand-held spray 37% respirable 4.4 g m−2 d−1 Wheat Hand-held spray system
1999a) based shed 22% total straw used once per day
3 (Banhazi et al., Pigs Weaner Impregnated 18% respirable 2 g m−2 d−1 Saw dust Oil impregnated bedding
2001) kennel bedding 24% total used to reduce dust
4 (Banhazi et al., OH&S Work area Hand-held spray 42–56% respirable 20–30 g m−2 d−1 N/A Short-term reduction in two
2002a) (Pigs) 65%–78% inhalable different areas
5 (Banhazi et al., Poultry Broiler Hand-held spray 44% respirable Approx. 3 g m−2 Sawdust Oil incorporated into the
2007) 28% inhalable bedding material before
stocking
6 (Banhazi and Horse Boxes Hand-held spray 49% respirable Approx. 3 g m−2 Sawdust Oil incorporated into the
Woodward, 2007) 50% total bedding material
7 (Banhazi, 2007) Pigs Grower/ Low pressure 18%–28% respirable 6.3 g m−2 d−1 N/A Long-term experiments
weaner 44%–46% inhalable
8 (Banhazi et al., Pigs Weaner Low pressure 28% respirable 6.3 g m−2 d−1 N/A Preliminary results
2002c) 44% inhalable
9 (Ikeguchi, 2002) Poultry Layer and Ultrasonic sprayer 42% (0.5–2 µm) 2.9 g head−1 d−1 Broiler: sawdust 2% solution of canola oil
broiler 49% (10–30 µm)
10 (Winkel et al., Poultry Broiler High pressure 64% (PM0) 16 mL m−2 d−1; Wood shaving Daily or every other day
2014) 81% (PM2.5) 8 mL m−2 d−1 spraying
11 (Nonnenmann et Pigs Finishers Automatic sprinklers 23%–34% total 3–5 g head−1 d−1 N/A Frequent spraying
al., 2004)
12 (Nonnenmann et Pigs Finishers Automatic sprinklers 52% total 7–8 g head−1 d−1 N/A Improved spray heads
al., 2004)
13 (Ellen et al., Poultry Broiler Fogging system Approx. 50% total Approx. 38 mL m−2 d−1 Gravel Reported: (Wachenfelt, 1999)
2000) aviary
system
14 (Takai et al., Pigs Piglets, Low-pressure system 76%, 54% and 52% 5 to 64 mL head−1 d−1
Slatted/ partially Long-term study with
1995) grower/ respirable slatted floor automated spray system in
finishers commercial pig buildings.
Substantial improvement in
the working environment.
15 (Takai and Pigs Grower/ Combined method: high- Reduction rate: Oil-water mixture (ca. Partially slatted Two identical pig finishing
Pedersen, 2000) finishers pressure (5 MPa) system with 80% (stationary 10% oil) floor and a rooms (treatment and control
animal activity sensor and 4% measurement) 3.3 g head−1 d−1 small amount of room, each 59.4 m2) at
animal fat added to dry feed 85% (personal monitoring) chopped straw experimental farm
16 (Zhang et al., Pigs Grower Backpack sprayer 71% mean respirable 76% 10–40 mL m−2 d−1 N/A Study in spray frequency and
1996) finishers mean inhalable quantity
20.6 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE STUDIES

VetBooks.ir
20.6.1 Plugging of spray system

Farmers using this dust reduction method often claim that they encounter “plugging” problems
(i.e., blockage developing potentially in the water pipes and specifically in the nozzles). This
could considerably affect the oil distribution and dust reduction efficiency of the system. This is
probably the most significant unsolved technical problem in oil-spraying systems. Because the
spray interval is very short, (i.e., often less than 1 minute) the spray system is idle most of the
time, which results in the coagulation of oil in the pipe line and the nozzles. To overcome this
problem, Paszek et al.(2001) has installed an interval delay timer, which allowed the system to be
flushed for an additional minute with water. They also have added 5% surfactant to enhance the
mixing of the oil with water. Further development of methods to prevent plugging of the spray
system is recommended.
20.6.2 Effect of oil on the microflora

Even though the amount of oil used at each spray event is relatively small, it repeatedly injects
nutrients into the microflora of livestock buildings. The total amount can probably reach a level
that can change the balance of the microflora. We do not know the effect of this nutrient enrich-
ment on animal health and the work environment. Studies on the effects of oil-spraying on micro-
flora are therefore recommended.
20.6.3 Odor and dust

Dust in livestock ventilation air has been implicated in transporting and even magnifying odor
(Hammond et al., 1979; Liao et al., 2000; Van der Heyden et al., 2015; Williams, 1989). The
mechanisms suggested include odorous molecules (odorants) and potentially other noxious
gases, including ammonia (Takai et al., 2002), which are normally absorbed on particle surfaces
and then desorbed in large local concentrations in the nasal lining, where the olfactory nerve cells
are located (Hammond et al., 1981; Williams, 1989). Thus, further studies on the effect of dust
control method on malodor from livestock buildings are recommended.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would like to acknowledge the professional assistance of a number of colleagues and
the livestock producers involved in the studies that are cited in this chapter.
REFERENCES
AMI (1986) Basisbog I teknisk arbejdshygiejne [Basic book for teknical occupational hygiene]. Vol. 1, 356
National Institute of Occupational Health, Denmark.
Banhazi, T. (2005) Oil-spraying systems for piggeries to control dust. In: Fahy, T. (ed) Proceedings of AAPV
Conference, 15–19 May 2005, Gold Coast, QLD, Vol. 1. AVA,, Australia. pp. 76–80.
Banhazi, T. (2007) Improving air quality in piggery buildings. In: Aland, A. (ed) XIII International Congress on
Animal Hygiene, 17–21 June 2007, Tartu, Estonia,Vol. 1. Estonian University of Life Sciences. pp. 237–241.
Banhazi, T.M. (2013) Environmental and management effects associated with improved production effi-
Housing, Vol. 1. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, The Netherlands. pp. 297–314.
Banhazi, T.M. (2013) Modelling and influencing hygiene conditions in Australian livestock buildings. In:
Aland, A. & Banhazi, T. (eds) Livestock Housing, Vol. 1. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen,
Banhazi, T. & Woodward, R. (2007) Reducing the concentration of airborne particles in horse stables. In:
Aland, A. (ed) XIII International Congress on Animal Hygiene, Vol. 1. Estonian University of Life Sci-
ences, Tartu, Estonia. pp. 483–487.
Banhazi, T., Cargill, C., Masterman, N. & Wegiel, J. (1999a) The effects of oil-spraying on air quality in a
VetBooks.ir
straw based shelter. In: Cranwell, P.D. (ed) Manipulating Pig Production VII. Australasian Pig Science
Association (APSA) Warribee, VIC, Australia. p. 28.
Banhazi, T., O’Grady, M., Cargill, C., Wegiel, J. & Masterman, N. (1999b) The effects of oil-spraying on air
quality in traditional weaner accommodation. In: P.D. Cranwell (ed) Manipulating Pig Production VII.
Australasian Pig Science Association (APSA), Warribee, VIC, Australia. p. 27.
Banhazi, T., Wegiel, J., Kloppers, M. & Cargill, C. (2001) Improving air quality in weaner kennels. In:
Cranwell, P.D. (ed) Manipulating Pig Production VIII, Vol. VIII. Australasian Pig Science Association,
Victorian Institute of Animal Science, Werribee, VIC, Australia. p. 47.
Banhazi, T., Hillyard, K. & Kloppers, M. (2002a) The short term suppression of dust in piggery buildings. In:
Revell, D.K. & Taplin, D. (eds) Animal Production in Australia, Vol. 24. ASAP, QLD, Australia. p. 374.
Banhazi, T., Hillyard, K., Murphy, T., Kloppers, M., Cargill, C. & Hughes, P. (2002b) Minimising Airborne
Pollutant Concentration Within and Emission from Pig Sheds. Vol. 1, 95. South Australian Research and
Development Institute, Canberra, ACT, Australia.
Banhazi, T., Murphy, T., Kloppers, M. & Cargill, C. (2002c) The effects of oil-spraying on air quality in pig-
gery buildings – preliminary results. In: Revell, D.K. & Taplin, D. (eds) Animal Production in Australia,
Vol. 24. Adelaide, SA. ASAP, QLD, Australia. p. 377.
Banhazi, T., Laffrique, M. & Seedorf, J. (2007) Controlling the concentrations of airborne pollutants in
poultry buildings. In: Aland, A. (ed) XIII International Congress on Animal Hygiene, Vol. 1. Estonian
University of Life Sciences, Tartu, Estonia. pp. 302–307.
Banhazi, T., Seedorf, J., Rutley, D.L. & Pitchford, W.S. (2008a) Identification of risk factors for sub-optimal
Health, 14(1), 21–39.
Banhazi, T., Seedorf, J., Rutley, D.L. & Pitchford, W.S. (2008b) Identification of risk factors for sub-optimal
housing conditions in Australian piggeries: part 3. Environmental parameters. Journal of Agricultural
Banhazi, T.M., Saunders, C., Nieuwe, N., Lu, V. & Banhazi, A. (2011a) Oil-spraying as an air quality
improvement technique in livestock buildings: development and utilisation of a testing device. Australian
Journal of Multi-disciplinary Engineering, 8(2), 169–180.
Banhazi, T.M., Stott, P., Rutley, D., Blanes-Vidal, V. & Pitchford, W. (2011b) Air exchanges and indoor
carbon dioxide concentration in Australian pig buildings: effect of housing and management factors.
CIGR (1984) Climatization of animal houses. Scottish Farm Building Investigation Unit, Craibstone, Aber-
deen, Scotland.
Diaz, O.C. (2012) Measurement and Modelling Methodology for Heavy Oil and Bitumen Vapour Pressure.
Department of Chemical and Petroleum Engineering, PhD thesis, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta,
Canada.
Ellen, H.H., Bottcher, R.W., von Wachenfelt, E. & Takai, H. (2000) Dust levels and control methods in poul-
try houses. Journal of Agricultural Safety and Health, 6(4), 275–282.
cultural Engineering Research, 74(4), 379–390.
Hammond, E.G., Fedler, C. & Junk, G. (1979) Identification of dust-borne odors in swine confinement facil-
ities. Transactions of the ASAE, 22(5), 1186–1189.
Hammond, E.G., Fedler, C. & Smith, R.J. (1981) Analysis of particle-borne swine house odors. Agriculture
and Environment, 6(4), 395–401.
Heber, A.J., Stroik, M., Nelssen, J.L. & Nichols, D.A. (1988) Influence of environmental factors on concentra-
tions and inorganic content of aerial dust in swine finishing buildings. Transactions of the ASAE, 31, 875–881.
Ikeguchi, A. (2002) Ultra sonic sprayer controlling dust in experimental poultry houses. Agricultural Engi-
neering International: the CIGR Journal of Scientific Research and Development, 4. Manuscript BC 01
002 pp. 1–10
Ikeguchi, A. & Xin, H. (2001) Field evaluation of a sprinkling system for cooling commercial laying hens in
Iowa. Applied Engineering in Agriculture, 17(2), 217–221.
Iversen, M., Kirychuk, S., Drost, H. & Jacobson, L. (2000) Human health effects of dust exposure in animal
confinement building. Journal of Agricultural Safety and Health, 6(4), 283–288.
Larsson, K.A., Eklund, A.G., Hansson, L.-O., Isaksson, B.-M. & Malmberg, P.O. (1994) Swine dust causes
VetBooks.ir
intense airways inflammation in healthy subjects. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care
Medicine, 150(4), 973–977.
Liao, C.-M., Chen, J.-S. & Chen, J.-W. (2000) Dynamic model for predicting dust-borne odour concentra-
tions in ventilated animal housing. Applied Mathematical Modelling, 24(2), 131–145.
Mehdizadeh, S.A. & Banhazi, T.M. (2015) Evaluating droplet distribution of spray-nozzles for dust reduc-
tion in livestock buildings using machine vision. International Journal of Agricultural and Biological
Nonnenmann, M.W., Rautiainen, R.H., Donham, K.J., Kirychuk, S.P., Reynolds, S.J. & O’Shaughnessy, P.T.
(1999) Vegetable oil sprinkling as a dust reduction method in a swine confinement. In: Pedersen, S. (ed)
Dust Control in Animal Production Facilities. Scandinavian Congress Center, Danish Institute of Agri-
cultural Science, Aarhus, Denmark. pp. 271–278.
Nonnenmann, M.W., Donham, K.J., Rautiainen, R.H., O’Shaughnessy, P.T., Burmeister, L.F. & Reynolds,
S.J. (2004) Vegetable oil sprinkling as a dust reduction method in swine confinement. Journal of Agricul-
Nuyttens, D., Baetens, K., De Schampheleire, M. & Sonck, B. (2007) Effect of nozzle type, size and pressure
on spray droplet characteristics. Biosystems Engineering, 97(3), 333–345.
Paszek, D. A., Jacobson, L. D., Johnson, V. J. & Nicolai, R. E. (2001) Design and management of an oil
sprinkling system to control dust, odor and gases in and from a curtain-sided pig finishing barn. ASAE
Annual International Meeting, 30 July–1 August 2001, Sacramento, CA. American Society of Agricul-
tural and Biological Engineers, St. Joseph, MI.
Pedersen, S. & Pedersen, C.B. (1995) Animal activity measured by infrared detectors. Journal of Agricul-
Pedersen, S. & Takai, H. (1999) Dust response to animal activity. In: Pedersen, S. (ed) Dust Control in
Animal Production Facilities. Scandinavian Congress Center, Danish Institute of Agricultural Science,
Pedersen, S., Takai, H., Johnsen, J.O., Metz, J.H.M., Groot Koerkamp, P.W.G., Uenk, G.H., Phillips, V.R.,
Holden, M.R., Sneath, R.W. & Short, J.L. (1998) A comparison of three balance methods for calculating
ventilation rates in Livestock buildings. Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research, 70(1), 25–37.
Perkins, S.L. & Feddes, J.J.R. (1996) The effect of timing of floor-application of mineral oil on dust concen-
trations in a swine farrowing unit. Canadian Agricultural Engineering, 38(2), 1–5.
Senthilselvan, A., Zhang, Y., Dosman, J.A., Barber, E.M., Holfeld, L.E., Kirychuk, S.P., Cormier, Y., Hurst,
T.S. & Rhodes, C.S. (1997) Positive human health effects of dust suppression with canola oil in swine
barns. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, 156, 410–417.
SjF (1981) SjF meddelelse nr. 187 (Test report No.l87, in Danish). National Institute of Agricultural Engi-
neering, Bygholm, Horsens, Denmark.
Takai, H. & Pedersen, S. (1999) Design concept of oil sprayer for dust control in pig buildings. In: Pedersen,
S. (ed) Dust Control in Animal Production Facilities. Scandinavian Congress Center, Danish Institute of
Agricultural Science, Aarhus, Denmark. pp. 279–286.
Takai, H., Moller, F., Iversen, M., Jorsal, S.E. & Bille-Hansen, V. (1995) Dust control in pig houses by spray-
ing rapeseed oil. Transactions of the ASAE, 38(5), 1513–1518.
Takai, H., Jacobson, L.D. & Pedersen, S. (1996) Reduction of dust concentration and exposure in pig build-
ings by adding animal fat in feed. Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research, 63(2), 113–120.
desorption from dusts collected in livestock buildings. Agricultural Engineering International: The CIGR
Journal of Scientific Research and Development, 4.
Van der Heyden, C., Demeyer, P. & Volcke, E.I.P. (2015) Mitigating emissions from pig and poultry hous-
ing facilities through air scrubbers and biofilters: state-of-the-art and perspectives. Biosystems Engineer-
ing, 134(0), 74–93.
Wachenfelt, E.V. (1999) Dust reduction in alternative production systems for laying hens. In: Pedersen, S.
VetBooks.ir
(ed) Dust Control in Animal Production Facilities, Vol. 1. Danish Institute of Agricultural Science, Scan-
dinavian Congress Center, Aarhus, Denmark. pp. 261–264.
Wathes, C.M., Demmers, T.G.M., Teer, N., White, R.P., Taylor, L.L., Bland, V., Jones, P., Armstrong, D.,
Gresham, A.C.J., Hartung, J., Chennells, D.J. & Done, S.H. (2004) Production responses of weaned pigs
after chronic exposure to airborne dust and ammonia. Animal Science, 78(1), 87–97.
Research, 44, 175–190.
Winkel, A., Cambra-López, M., Groot Koerkamp, P.W.G., Ogink, N.W.M. & Aarnink, A.J.A. (2014) Abate-
ment of particulate matter emission from experimental broiler housings using an optimized oil-spraying
method. Transactions of the ASABE, 57(6), 1853–1864.
Zhang, Y., Tanaka, A., Barber, E.M. & Feddes, J.J.R. (1996) Effects of frequency and quantity of sprinkling
canola oil on dust reductions in swine buildings. Transactions of the ASAE, 39(3), 1077–1081.
VetBooks.ir
CHAPTER 21
VetBooks.ir
Housing index development for a holistic air quality evaluation

A preliminary framework
Jens Seedorf
21.1 INTRODUCTION
Inhalation of potential toxic gas and bioaerosol enriched air within livestock buildings is typ-
ical in farm animal production. This impression is underlined by measurements, which partly
recorded high concentrations of ammonia, airborne dust and microorganisms (e.g., Groot Koer-
kamp et al., 1998; Samadi et al., 2012; Seedorf et al., 1998; Takai et al., 1998). From this point
of view, any existing insufficient air quality in livestock operations is regarded as health hazard
for animals and humans. Consequently, human individuals and animals’ herds can suffer from
physiological and pathological changes that are expressed as acute inflammation, increased sus-
ceptibility to pathogens or chronic respiratory diseases (e.g., Douwes et al., 2003; Eduard et al.,
2009; Hamilton et al., 1999; Lekeux and Art, 2003). In case of farm animals, the impact on health
can be seen during the inspection of abattoir carcasses, which show remarkable incidences of
lung and chest lesions (e.g., Bostelmann, 2000; Christensen and Enoe, 1999).
Similar to maximum allowable exposure level values for occupational purposes, the control
of harmful air conditions for livestock animals based on some few recommendations in the lit-
erature or their implication in official welfare regulations, although gases are only quantitatively
considered but not so for dust (e.g., CIGR, 1984; Regulation for the Protection of Livestock Ani-
mals, 2001). Independent from such deficiencies the greatest challenge is to take into account the
mixture of quiet different airborne components and their combined impact on animals (Donham,
1991). Scientific solutions in this area will then hopefully help to derive applicable procedures for
a comprehensive control of air hygiene (Basinas et al., 2015).
The aim of this brief and hypothetical report is to show first a selection of already existing
index formulas used in urban air hygiene. When getting familiar with the overall idea of an
air quality index (AQI), the methodology of a proposed index formula called Livestock Burden
Index (LBI) is then secondly demonstrated, which associates the risk of adverse effects with ani-
mal health and welfare. The characteristics of the LBI were already published by Seedorf (2013)
and repeatedly mentioned here in a shortened form. Finally, thoughts are presented to indicate
potential modifications of the tentative LBI.
21.2 THE CONCEPTS OF AIR QUALITY INDICES
According to the information of Dimitriou et al. (2013), human-related AQIs for ambient air can
be generally classified into two groups. One group consider each defined pollutant separately due
to the known health effect caused by individual noxious agents. The other category is dealing
with a mixture of air pollutants, which cause adverse health effects. This latter approach is appar-
ently more challenging, because the magnitude of the expected synergistic impacts are difficult
341
342 Jens Seedorf
to assess in conjunction to not acceptable health hazards. Close to the statements of Shooter and
VetBooks.ir
Brimblecombe (2009), a comprehensive presentation of an air hygiene status is useful to con-

dense complex data to provide an information overview e.g. for the development of policy, to
check compliance with standards and, from the farmers’ and veterinarians’ point of view, drawing
attention to air quality issues in a more holistic way and therefore raising a more fundamental
awareness. To realize such desires advanced technologies are necessary to monitor air quality and
to subsequently inform livestock operators and related professionals when defined break points are
exceeded. In these cases manually conducted or more sophisticated automatically acting counter-
measures must be carried out to take remedial actions that finally ensure animal and human health.
21.2.1 Selected index principles in air hygiene

To get aware of the overall idea of air hygiene indices, this section introduces some basic math-
ematical equations, that are predominately developed and subsequently used under urban atmo-
spheric conditions, because epidemiological studies have shown an association between human
exposure to ambient air pollution and daily excesses in mortality and morbidity (e.g., Katsouy-
anni, 2003; WHO, 2013). Consequently, and apart from necessary real-time measurements in
ambient air, disease prevention of the population needs easy-to-use tools to consider the most
important pollutants by decision, combine them mathematically in an appropriate manner to
achieve a representative result and finally relate the result to descriptors that indicate the mag-
nitude of the expected health impairments. At the end of such a basic procedure, people can be
alerted and advised to avoid overexposures. This led exemplary to the following indices in urban
settings to fulfil the precautionary principle.
Air Stress Index (ASI): The ASI is certainly the easiest and most comfortable index in respect
to its applicability. The basic equation is:
n
C 
ASI = ∑   (21.1)
i =1  R  i
where n is the number of air pollutants considered, C is the mean concentration and R is a ref-
erence value for the air pollutant i (Mayer et al., 2002, 2004). The ASI describes (or tries to
describe at least) the combined (or preferably the synergistic impact) effect of a mixture of air
pollutants within an agreed time period (e.g., daily basis). As for nearly all indices in this field,
it is most challenging to define a range of index values, which can be clearly related to health
impacts and expressed as a couple of easily recognizable descriptors leading finally to effective
countermeasures.
Air Quality Index (AQI): The index IP is widely used (EPA, 2006) and alternatively named Pollu-
tion Index (Dimitriou et al., 2013) or Daily Air Quality Index (Mayer et al., 2002, 2004). This method
generally aims at assessing the air quality status with respect to its short-term effect (respiratory and
cardiovascular diseases) on human health (Dimitriou et al., 2013). The index IP is defined as:
I Hi − I Lo
IP = × (CP − BPLo ) + I Lo (21.2)
BPHi − BPLo
where Cp is the concentration of pollutant p, BPHi is the break point that is greater than or equal
to Cp, BPLo is the highest break point of pollutant p that is lower than or equal to Cp, IHi is the
AQI value corresponding to BPHi and ILo is the AQI value corresponding to BPLo. The calculated
Ip value must be linked with category descriptors such as “good,” “moderate,” “unhealthy for
sensitive groups,” “unhealthy,” “very unhealthy” and “hazardous.” To more clearly visualize the
categories, color codes are also used to indicate the magnitude of the expected health impair-
ments. In contrast to the ASI, the pollutants under consideration here are separately taken into
Housing index for air quality 343
account. Therefore, the calculation for each individual pollutant identifies the leading pollutant by
VetBooks.ir
the greatest AQI value, which preferably indicates the most overwhelming impact on health. For
more details about defined break points for the AQI or examples how to calculate and interpret
the AQI see EPA (2006).
21.2.2 The Livestock Burden Index

The LBI was designed to consider the most important and currently accepted airborne pollutants
in livestock housing and includes their available individual TLVs in a mathematical formula that
combines actual airborne concentrations and related TLVs into one indicative index value for
respiratory health (Seedorf, 2013). One such index was based on the mathematical principle of
the summation of the relative concentrations of airborne components, and it is originally related
to the ASI as shown in Equation (21.1):
n
C 
LBI = ∑   (21.3)
i =1  R  i
where C is the measured concentration related to R as the defined TLV of a specific component i.
The symbol n indicates the number of airborne pollutants under consideration.
For pigs, the exposure limits for inhalable dust (ID: 3.7 mg m–3), respirable dust (RD: 0.23 mg
m ³) and endotoxins (IEtox: 1540 EU m–³ equals approximately 154 ng m–³) proposed by Donham
–
(1991) and Donham and Cumro (1999) were used. For ammonia (NH3), the original TLV was
reduced from 11 to 10 ppm, because the lower value is commonly preferred (Wathes et al., 2003).
Finally, the selected TLVs were integrated into the mathematical expression (denominators) of
Equation (21.3). The full LBI for pigs (LBIP) is thus:
CNH3 CID CRD CIEtox

LBI P = + -3
+ -3
+ (21.4)
10 ppm 3.7 mg m 0.23 mg m 154 ng m -3
For chickens, the applied TLVs are vaguer, because the information in this area is rare. Because
hens were found to avoid compartments with at least 25 ppm ammonia (Kristensen et al., 2000);
therefore, this value seems to be an acceptable TLV. A more speculative TLV of 6 mg m–³ for
inhalable dust is used to maintain a balance between the sometimes high dust concentrations
present in chicken houses and the physiological tolerance against inhaled dust loads. Bringing
both TLVs together, the following equation for a chicken-related LBIC can be derived:
CNH3 CID
LBI C = + (21.5)
25 ppm 6 mg m −3
As a first step, the calculated numerical individual index values can be used to establish index
classes indicating the magnitude of the burden to which the animals are exposed. Table 21.1
contains the proposed index classes. In a further step, the observed status of the livestock and the
corresponding need for countermeasures can also be interpreted in terms of these index classes
(Table 21.2). Terms that are more descriptive can be used instead of the purely numerical index
classes: operating, precaution, alarm, intervention and worst-case values. After the application
of countermeasures (e.g., lowering animal density, increasing air exchange, using dedusted
bedding material), the success of improved air hygienic conditions can then be re-evaluated by
re-calculating the LBI.
Seedorf (2013) calculated a LBI for pigs and chickens by using livestock-related air quality
data from Seedorf (2003). He has shown that 40.6% of all pig buildings and 37.5% of all chicken
houses would fall in index class 3 or higher, indicating potential detriments to health and wel-
fare. Nearly 22% of the pig buildings and 25% of the chicken houses would fall in index classes
344 Jens Seedorf
Table 21.1. Index classes and magnitude of burden according to the proposed index value intervals for pigs
VetBooks.ir
and chickens.
Index interval Index interval
Index class pigs chickens Magnitude of burden
1 0 ≤ LBIP ≤ 2 0 ≤ LBIC ≤ 1 Slight

2 2 < LBIP ≤ 3 1 < LBIC ≤ 1.5 Moderate
3 3 < LBIP ≤ 4 1.5 < LBIC ≤ 2 Substantial
4 4 < LBIP ≤ 5 2 < LBIC ≤ 2.5 Serious
5 5 < LBIP 2.5 < LBIC Extreme
LBI = Livestock Burden Index.
Table 21.2. Index class and assumed corresponding livestock status and proposed countermeasures to ensure
welfare in pig and chicken livestock buildings.
Index class Rank order of alert values Livestock status Measures
1 Operating value Normal No countermeasures

2 Precaution value No direct threat to health No countermeasures
and welfare
3 Alarm value Potential threat to health Preventive countermeasures
and welfare should be initiated
4 Intervention value Likely threat to health and Countermeasures have to be
welfare initiated
5 Worst-case value Manifest threat to health Countermeasures have to be
and welfare initiated immediately
4 and 5, indicating manifest health and welfare threats and the necessity for countermeasures
(Table 21.2). However, approximately 59% of the piggeries and 63% of the poultry confinement
operations have only slight to moderate problems in respect to concentrated airborne pollutants
in livestock air, if the LBI is applied as evaluation basis.
21.3 CONCLUSIONS
Due to the complex interactions between qualitatively and quantitatively different airborne pol-
lutants, their impact on animals cannot be reliably evaluated by a mono-causal application of
TLVs. The proposed and certainly preliminary LBI generally permits the assessment of the addi-
tive effect of important airborne pollutants on animal health and welfare. Therefore, the LBI
should provide veterinarians and other animal health and welfare professionals with a practi-
cal and reliable decision-making tool for monitoring air hygiene standards and implementing
countermeasures more effectively than with individual exposure limits. However, there are some
of critical questions that must be sufficiently answered:
• How reliable are current TLVs, because exposure limits are crucial determinants in AQI?
• Is it necessary to mathematically modify the general LBI concept according to monitoring
results of air hygiene factors and related health effects (e.g., implementing fuzzy logic; Turner
et al., 1997), and what epidemiological sample sizes are necessary to generate datasets large
enough to statistically validate the applicability of AQIs?
• Should we “play” with alternative published (and applied) AQIs, which give us more confi-
dence of the derived index values?
VetBooks.ir
Figure 21.1. Example of the dynamic variation of ammonia concentrations over time at seven sampling
positions in a sow confinement building (Seedorf, 2003). Ammonia detections in the early
morning would give a quite different index value compared to measurements made during the
early afternoon. The sampling position also determines whether a calculated index value actu-
ally reflects the real livestock status, according to Table 21.2.
• Could we increase the reliability of the AQI by introducing a risk factor that describes the con-
tribution of individual pollutants to the total health risk (see e.g., Dimitriou et al., 2013)?
• Does it make sense to integrate susceptibility factors from the animals’ point of view (e.g., age,
immune status, already existing primary diseases)?
• How do we achieve representative measurements of airborne pollutants over time and with
respect to adequate sampling locations (Fig. 21.1)?
• What (averaged) exposure times must be considered to generate valid index values (short-term
versus long-term measurements, see also Fig. 21.1)?
All these questions clearly show the uncertainty of indices to some extent. However, due to
the model character of the LBI, future practical investigations in livestock operations will aim to
develop and adjust the LBI to make the model better suited to different livestock housing conditions.
REFERENCES
Basinas, I., Sigsgaard., T., Kromhout, H., Heederik, D., Wouters, I.M. & Schlünssen, V. (2015) A compre-
hensive review of levels and determinants of personal exposure to dust and endotoxin in livestock farm-
ing. Journal of Exposure Science and Environmental Epidemiology, 25(2), 123–137.
Bostelmann, N. (2000) Untersuchung über den Einfluß von Vermarkterorganisationen auf die Tiergesund-
heit und Fleischqualität von Mastschweinen anhand der am Schlachtbetrieb erhobenen Organbefunde,
pH-Werte und Schinkenkerntemperaturen [An Examination of the Influence of marketing Organisations
346 Jens Seedorf
on Animal Health and Meat Quality of fattening Pigs on the Basis of collected Slaughter Check Results,
VetBooks.ir
pH-Values and Meat Temperature of the Ham]. PhD thesis, Freie Universität Berlin, Germany.
Christensen, G. & Enoe, C. (1999) The prevalence of pneumonia, pleuritis, pericarditis and liver spots in
Danish slaughter pigs in 1998 and comparison with 1994. Dansk Veterinaertidsskrift, 82, 1006–1015.
CIGR (1984) Climatisation of animal houses. Commision Internationale du Génie Rural, Report of working
group, Scottish Farm Building Investigation Unit, Craibstone, Aberdeen, Scotland.
Dimitriou, K., Paschalidou, A.K. & Kassomenos, P.A. (2013) Assessing air quality with regards to its effect
on human health in the European Union through air quality indices. Ecological Indicators, 27, 108–115.
Donham, K.J. & Cumro, D. (1999). Setting maximum dust exposure levels for people and animals in live-
stock facilities. Proceeding of the International Symposium on Dust Control in Animal Production Facil-
ities, 30 May–2 June 1999, Aarhus, Denmark. pp. 93–110.
Douwes, J., Thorne, P., Pearce, N. & Heederik, D. (2003) Bioaerosol health effects and exposure assessment:
progress and prospects. Annals of Occupational Hygiene, 47(3), 187–200.
Eduard, W.; Pearce, N. & Douwes, J. (2009) Chronic bronchitis, COPD, and lung function in farmers: the
EPA (2006) Guideline for Reporting of Daily Air Quality – Air Quality Index (AQI). EPA-454/B-06-001.
US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle
Park, NC. Available from: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t1/memoranda/rg701.pdf [accessed May 2015].
Groot Koerkamp, P.W.G., Uenk, G.H., Metz, J.H.M., Phillips, V.R., Holden, M.R., Sneath, R.W., Short,
J.L., White, R.P., Hartung, J., Seedorf, J., Schröder, M., Linkert, K.H., Pedersen, S., Takai, H., Johnsen,
Hamilton, T.D.C., Roe, J.M., Hayes, C.M., Jones, P., Pearson, G. & Webster, A.J.F. (1999) Contributory and
exacerbating roles of gaseous ammonia and organic dust in the etiology of atrophic rhinitis. Clinical and
Diagnostic Laboratory Immunology, 6(2), 199–203.
Katsouyanni, K. (2003) Ambient air pollution and health. British Medical Bulletin, 68(1), 143–156.
Kristensen, H.H., Burgess, L.R., Demmers, T.G.H. & Wathes, C.M. (2000) The preferences of laying hens for
different concentrations of atmospheric ammonia. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 68(4), 307–318.
Lekeux, P. & Art, T. (2003) Mechanics of breathing in resting and exercising animals. In: Lekeux, P. (ed) Pul-
monary Function in Healthy, Exercising and Diseased Animals. Vlaams Diergeneeskundig Tijdschrift,
Ghent, Belgium. pp. 67–91.
Mayer, H., Kalberlah, F., Ahrens, D. & Reuter, U. (2002) Analyse von Indizes zur Bewertung der Luft [Anal-
ysis of indices for the assessment of the air]. Gefahrstoffe-Reinhaltung der Luft, 62, 177–183.
Mayer, H., Makra, L., Kalberlah, F., Ahrens, D. & Reuter, U. (2004) Air stress and air quality indices. Mete-
orologische Zeitschrift, 13(5), 395–403.
Regulation for the Protection of Livestock Animals (2001), based on the German Animal Welfare law, date
of issue: 25 October.
Samadi, S., van Eerdenburg, F.J., Jamshidifard, A.R., Otten, G.P., Droppert, M., Heederik, D.J. & Wouters,
I.M. (2012) The influence of bedding materials on bio-aerosol exposure in dairy barns. Journal of Expo-
sure Science and Environmental Epidemiology, 22(4), 361–368.
Seedorf, J. (2003) Die integrierte tier- und umwelthygienische Erfassung und Bewertung von Bioaerosolen
in der Nutztierhaltung unter Einsatz eines mobilen Meßkonzeptes [The integrated Determination and
Evaluation of Animal and environmental hygiene-related Bioaerosols in Animal Production Facilities
using a mobile Measurement Concept]. Postdoctoral thesis (Habilitation), University of Veterinary Med-
icine Hannover, Foundation, Germany.
Seedorf, J. (2013) A proposed Livestock Burden Index (LBI) for airborne pollutants in livestock buildings.
In: Aland, A. & Banhazi, T. (eds) Livestock Housing. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen,
J.L., White, R.P., Pedersen, S., Takai, T., Johnsen, J.O., Metz, J.H.M., Groot Koerkamp, P.W.G., Uenk,
Shooter, D. & Brimblecombe, P. (2009) Air quality indexing. International Journal of Environment and
Pollution, 36(1–3), 305–323.
Takai, T., Pedersen, S., Johnsen, J.O., Phillips, V.R., Holden, M.R., Sneath, R.W., Short, J.L., White, R.P.,
VetBooks.ir
Hartung, J., Seedorf, J., Schröder, M., Linkert, K.H., Metz, J.H.M., Koerkamp, P.W.G., Uenk, G.H. &
Wathes, C.M. (1998) Concentrations and emissions of airborne dust in livestock buildings in Northern
Europe. Journal of Agricultural Engineering, 70(1), 59–77.
Turner, L.W., Gates, R.S., Wathes, C.M. & Audsley, E. (1997) Using fuzzy logic for assessment of dust and
ammonia effects on swine respiratory disease. Proceedings of the 5th International Symposium on Live-
stock Environment, 29–31 May 1997, Bloomington, MN. pp. 638–646.
Wathes, C.M., Demmers, T.G.M. & Xin, H. (2003) Ammonia concentrations and emissions in livestock
production facilities: guidelines and limits in the USA and UK. Proceedings of the ASAE Annual Interna-
tional Meeting, 27–30 July 2003, Las Vegas, NV. Paper 034112. Available from http://lib.dr.iastate.edu/
cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1126&context=abe_eng_conf [accessed 30 May 2015].
World Health Organization (2013) Review of evidence on health aspects of air pollution – REVIHAAP Proj-
ect. Final Technical Report, WHO Regional Office for Europe, Copenhagen, Denmark. Available from:
http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/193108/REVIHAAP-Final-technical-report-final-
version.pdf?ua=1 [accessed April 2015].
VetBooks.ir
CHAPTER 22
VetBooks.ir
Computer-based management of air quality data

Development of a software system
Thomas Banhazi
22.1 INTRODUCTION
A user-friendly environmental quality measurement system was created in Australia to enable

routine environmental assessment to be undertaken in commercial livestock buildings (Banhazi,
2005b; Banhazi, 2009). It is hoped that the routine use of such instrumentation will ultimately
improve building environments and reduce pollutant emissions by creating awareness of air
quality issues among livestock managers (Donham, 1991, 2013). Key components of the mea-
surement system are the so-called BASE-Q boxes containing the sensors that will reliably and
cost-effectively measure six key environmental variables. The BASE-Q system also contains an
internet-based, a PC-based and a Pocket PC-based software, as well as the Users’ Manual, detail-
ing recommended monitoring procedures (Banhazi, 2005a, 2005b). This article focuses on the
development of the software component of the BASE-Q system that can record the engineering
characteristics of the buildings on-site and process the collected data (Murakami et al., 2007).
The program can automatically calculate the concentrations and emission rates of the different
airborne pollutants from individual buildings by using prediction models developed during related
studies as a pre-screening exercise before actual measurements are undertaken (Banhazi et al.,
2008a, 2008b, 2008c, 2008d). These special software have greatly simplified data management
and reporting. The improvements have reduced the labor input required for operating the system
and, thus, minimized the cost of air quality (AQ) monitoring. This will enable producers and
consultants to measure AQ routinely on farms, reducing worker occupational health and safety
(OH&S) risks, improving environmental outcomes, and potentially improving production effi-
ciency (Banhazi et al., 2009a, 2009b).
22.2 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE SOFTWARE
The BASE-Q software is designed for Windows operating system. It is a database application
designed to capture, store and retrieve air/environmental quality data. The program allows the
main users to set different access levels and has other built-in functions for enhanced data secu-
rity (database compression, data archive functions). It accepts data from external data loggers
(temperature, humidity, gas) and via keyboard (bacteria, dust) and has different data search, man-
agement and reporting functions. The program can connect with a mobile data exchange module
via Pocket PC. The system operates with large data volumes, and the data collected (humidity,
temperature, gas, bacteria and dust) is depends on the contact and facility. In order to successfully
install the BASE-Q program, the host laptop or desktop PC is required to have the minimum
hardware and software components listed in Table 22.1. The system was designed to be installed
on older computers as well; hence, the hardware requirement was kept at minimal level.
349
350 Thomas Banhazi
Table 22.1. Hardware and software requirements of the BASE-Q software system.
VetBooks.ir
Hardware components Requirements
Free hard disc space Approx. 1 GB

RAM min. 64 MB
Display 800x600 resolution (min.)
Internal modem 56K
External Pocket PC HP Jornada 568
Software components Requirements

Operating system MS Windows 2000 or better
Data logger application TRWIN – TrendReader
Pocket PC data synchronization ActiveSync
22.3 DESCRIPTION OF THE MAIN FUNCTIONALITIES OF THE BASE-Q SOFTWARE
In the following pages, a brief review of the main functionalities of the BASE-Q system will be
given.
22.3.1 Quick data search “contact” and “facility” functions

The so-called “quick data search” function enables users to quickly review the status of available
data (Fig. 22.1). Using this function, available environmental data can be filtered by specifying
different search parameters, such as contact, facility, location, and others. Contacts (farms) are
accessed easily and displayed in the form of a table. The table can be sorted by different param-
eters, simply by clicking on the relevant button, such as “Farm ID”, “Producer”, “Manager”
or “Property” name. A new contact can be added, an existing contact can be edited, deleted,
Figure 22.1. Quick search display windows of the BASE-Q program.

Computer-based management 351
activated for future operations or inactivated. When a contact is selected, the existing buildings
VetBooks.ir
related to that contact can be accessed directly by clicking on the respective “Sheds,” “Herds” or
“Kennels” link.
22.3.2 Temperature, humidity and gas measurements

Humidity and temperature measurements are logged into the BASE-Q hardware units (Banhazi,
2009) and then imported into the BASE-Q application via an import facility. Humidity and tem-
perature measurements are allocated to a specific contact and facility. After data import, the appli-
cation allows users to search, filter, view, chart, archive, delete and print both the humidity and
temperature data (Fig. 22.2a). Chart configuration and recommended maximum and minimum
values could also be set by users (Fig. 22.2b).
Two important gases are measured as part of the environmental assessment; namely ammonia
(NH3) and carbon dioxide (CO2) and expressed in ppm. After data transfer, similar operations are
available for NH3 and CO2 data as for the temperature and humidity data (Fig. 22.3a).
22.3.3 Dust and bacteria measurements

Dust concentrations are measured using the dust module of the BASE-Q kit (Banhazi, 2009),
and the concentrations are expressed in ppm. Users of the BASE-Q application could enter new
dust measurements manually related to a specific date, contact and facility (Fig. 22.3b). The dust
measurements then can be filtered by date, viewed, edited, searched by contact/category/facility,
charted, printed, archived and deleted.
Viable airborne microorganism measurements are usually made using Anderson samplers
on farms, and bacteria concentrations are expressed in colony-forming units (CFU) per m3.
New bacteria measurements for a specific date, contact and facility are entered manually by
users of the BASE-Q application (Fig. 22.4a). After information entered, users could search by
Figure 22.2. Display of (a) temperature graph and (b) numerical display of logged data.
VetBooks.ir
Figure 22.3. Display of (a) gas information and (b) graphical presentation of dust concentrations.
VetBooks.ir
Figure 22.4. Data entry forms for (a) dust measurements and (b) graphical display of data.
354 Thomas Banhazi
VetBooks.ir
contact/category/facility, filter by date, view, edit, chart, archive or delete bacteria measurements
(Fig. 22.4b).
22.3.4 Archives and reports

In this module, users are able to manage (create and restore) different environmental and facility
data archives simply by specifying a date. The archived data can be restored any time, and then
the BASE-Q application will use the restored data in all the database operations.
In this module, users could create different reports, related to buildings. After a facility (shed,
herd or kennel) is specified (selected form the list), the relevant data related to this facility is dis-
played (Figs. 22.5a and 22.5b). The facility data includes a number of variables, such as length,
width, height of shed/pen, management type, number of pens, description of manure management
system, hygiene/cleaning, ventilation system description and others.
22.4 DESCRIPTION OF THE MAIN FUNCTIONALITIES OF THE POCKET BASE-Q

PROGRAM
Pocket BASE-Q (PBQ) is a computer database application for Windows CE based Pocket PCs.
Pocket BASE-Q is designed to collect information and evaluate the likely internal environment of
piggery buildings (Banhazi, 2009). Pocket BASE-Q is also a very convenient means of carrying
large amount of information related to piggery buildings. Pocket BASE-Q could also be used to
evaluate the theoretical outcomes of building renovation and to pre-screen sheds with potentially
sub-optimal air quality before a more detailed assessment is done (Banhazi, 2009).
VetBooks.ir
Figure 22.5. Reporting displays and facility descriptions (a and b).
22.4.1 Farm and shed menu

From the main menu (Fig. 22.6a), the farm menu can be selected. There are four basic operation
modes, shown on the line above the soft keyboard. This is the operation-mode-bar (Fig. 22.6b).
The operation modes are: “Show farm,” “New farm,” “Modify farm” and “Delete.” Every farm
contains the following description fields: “Farm ID,” “Producer name,” “Manager name,” “Prop-
erty name,” “Street address,” “Town/Suburb,” “Postcode,” “Telephone,” “Fax,” “Mobile phone
number,” “Email address” and “Comment.” When “Show farm” is selected, in the command-bar
the “Previous” and “Next” command buttons will be active. These buttons will allow the user to
browse through the farms (Fig. 22.6b).
VetBooks.ir
Figure 22.6. (a) Main menu, (b) farm mode and (c) index page display windows.
VetBooks.ir
When the operation-mode-bar is activated by tapping on it, the user is able to choose from the
required shed information categories, such as “Ventilation” (Fig. 22.7a), “Primary data” (Fig.
22.7b), “Hygiene” (Fig. 22.7c) and “Index” (Fig. 22.6c).
New sheds can be added to the database by simply tapping on “New shed bar” in the shed
menu. A new shed is assigned to a specific farm by selecting the relevant farm code from a list
of available farms. The shed category is selected by tapping on the relevant “class of buildings”
in the list of shed categories. A shed can be individually named, and the date of data capture will
be displayed automatically. The selected farm and shed name will be displayed on the top of the
screen and as a next step; data related to hygiene/cleaning and ventilation will be entered. During
data capture, information entered into the database is automatically validated, and if data is out-
side acceptable limits, a special message is displayed. As data entry and validation are completed,
shed information is saved after the final confirmation is accepted by tapping on the “Yes” option.
Immediately after information is saved, the shed index information screen will be displayed.
Based on the collected data, the estimated bacteria and ammonia concentration index (Banhazi
VetBooks.ir
Figure 22.7. Shed info category displays: (a) ventilation, (b) primary data and (c) hygiene.
VetBooks.ir
et al., 2003, 2008a, 2008b, 2008c, 2008d) will be calculated and the information screen will be
displayed. The captured shed data will be inserted into the Pocket PC database, and then all data
will be uploaded into the desktop PC BASE-Q database during the next data synchronization
process.
In summary, the software developed made data collection and reporting much simpler com-
pared to previous methods (Cargill et al., 2002). Thus, the software developed improved data
management significantly, reducing labor requirements of the system, making it a cost-effective
service. The calculation of cost effectiveness was presented in a different article, (Banhazi, 2009)
and for completeness, the information is also presented below. On average, the labor requirement
of the data processing using the new software system was approximately 2–3 h per operator per
building, compared with the 4–6 h per operator labor requirement of the original Environmental
Monitoring Kit (EMK) (Table 22.1).
360 Thomas Banhazi
Table 22.1. Labor requirements for information processing tasks associated with environmental monitoring
VetBooks.ir
kit (EMK) and BASE-Q deployment (based on Banhazi, 2009).

Activity ANHR[a]-BASE-Q ANHR[a]-EMK Labor saving
Post-farm: 2–3[d] 4–6[d] Downloading is simplified and

cleaning of equipment, data processing automated
downloading,
processing of information
Approximate cost of labor AD$100–$150 AD$200–$300
($50/h)
[a]
Approximate number of hours required; labor requirement is highly variable and is based on [b] operators’
experience, [c] complexity of operating environment/building structure and previous experience, and [d] level
of soiling of equipment and operators’ experience.
22.5 CONCLUSION
The software developed made data collection and reporting much simpler compared to previous
methods. Thus, the software developed improved data management significantly, reducing labor
requirements of the system and making it a cost-effective service. Further commercialization
efforts need to be undertaken to ensure that the system is more widely used within the agricultural
sector.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The development of software system was generously supported by many individuals and orga-
nizations. I wish to particularly acknowledge the technical support of Vandomis Media and the
financial support of the Australian Pork Limited.
REFERENCES
Banhazi, T. (2005a) Building assessment system for environmental quality – Project Final Report and User’s
Manual. Australian Pork Limited, Canberra, ACT, Australia.
Banhazi, T. (2005b) Improved air quality measurement procedure – BASE-Q system. In: Fahy, T. (ed) AAPV
Conference, Vol. 1. AVA, 15–19 May 2005, Gold Coast, QLD, Australia. pp. 71–75.
Banhazi, T.M. (2009) User-friendly air quality monitoring system. Applied Engineering in Agriculture,
25(2), 281–290.
Banhazi, T., Payne, H., Moore, K. & Cargill, C. (2003) Emissions and internal concentrations of ammonia in
Australian piggery buildings. In: Pedersen, S. (ed) 2nd Conference on Odour and Ammonia emission from
Livestock Buildings, 12–14 June 2003, Horsens, Denmark, Vol 1. DIAS. pp. 544–556.
Banhazi, T.M., Rutley, D.L. & Pitchford, W.S. (2008a) Identification of risk factors for sub-optimal housing
Banhazi, T.M., Currie, E., Quartararo, M. & Aarnink, A.J.A. (2009a) Controlling the concentrations of air-
VetBooks.ir
borne pollutants in broiler buildings. In: Aland, A. & Madec, F. (eds) Sustainable Animal Production:
airborne pollutants in piggery buildings. In Aland, A. &Madec, F. (eds) Sustainable Animal Production:
Cargill, C., Murphy, T. & Banhazi, T. (2002) Hygiene and air quality in intensive housing facilities in Aus-
tralia. In: Revell, D.K. & Taplin, D. (eds) Animal Production in Australia, Vol. 24. Australian Society for
Animal Production, Adelaide, SA, Australia. pp. 387–393.
Donham, K.J. (2013) Challenges to occupational and community health and the environment in animal
production and housing: a North American perspective. In: Aland, A. & Banhazi, T.M. (eds) Livestock
Housing, Vol. 1. Wageningen Academic Publisher, Wageningen, The Netherlands. pp. 455–481.
Murakami, E., Saraiva, A.M., Ribeiro Junior, L.C.M., Cugnasca, C.E., Hirakawa, A.R. & Correa, P.L.P.
(2007) An infrastructure for the development of distributed service-oriented information systems for pre-
cision agriculture. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture (Precision Agriculture in Latin America),
58(1), 37–48.
VetBooks.ir
Index
VetBooks.ir
AA (amino acids) 165, 241 concentration 51, 141, 142, 282, 334
AAP (average annual population) 33, 35 particles 52, 154
abrasiveness 207, 213 microorganisms 87, 141, 142, 144, 146, 149, 282
absolute ammonia emission 70, 73 concentrations 144, 146, 149
ACGIH (American Conference of Governmental particles 55, 104, 117, 118, 127, 141, 149, 183,
Industrial Hygienists) 166, 199 191, 265, 274, 281, 284, 299, 300, 325
acuity, olfactory 50, 51 concentrations 51, 102, 104, 117, 118, 265,
additives 234, 236, 239, 244, 247, 268, 285, 325
271 – 274, 276 pollutants 87, 88, 100, 103, 104, 141, 153, 179,
ADS (aerodynamic dust segregation) 273 210, 211, 227, 228, 230, 231, 236, 246,
AED (aerodynamic equivalent diameter) 4 269, 303, 343 – 345, 349
aeration 18, 19, 24 – 26, 63, 72 concentrations 141, 211
period 18, 19 emission 141, 246, 299, 303
aerator 17, 18, 20 airflow 15, 53, 67, 184, 233, 278, 311
aerobic plate count (APC) 17 airspace 3, 44, 104, 268
aerodynamic dust segregation (see ADS) alum 236, 308 – 310
aerodynamic equivalent diameter (see AED) alveoli 53 – 55, 157, 265
AFOs (animal feeding operations) 36, 47, 78, 275 ambient
air 53, 63, 65, 77, 78, 102, 104, 105, 156 – 158, 209, air 16, 78, 81, 229, 231, 269, 270, 341, 342
210, 227, 228, 230, 231, 268 – 271, 273, hydrogen sulfide (H2S) concentrations 13, 14, 21,
274, 276 – 279, 299, 300, 326 – 328 22, 24 – 26
inlet 67, 215 PM10 concentration 311, 314
ionizers 280, 281 temperature 82, 194, 312, 315
low concentration 23 American Conference of Governmental Industrial
outgoing 65, 67, 68 Hygienists (ACGIH) 166, 199
pollutants 193, 341, 342 amino acids (see AA)
pollution 41, 42, 51, 77, 78, 266 ammonia (see NH3)
sample 35, 65, 245 ammonium (see NH+4 )
streams, free 38, 39 anaerobic conditions 71, 72
stress index (ASI) 342, 343 animal
temperature 87, 105, 125, 126, 128, 129, activity 4, 78, 149, 180, 265, 269, 329,
135–137, 153–155, 194 230, 332
odor emission 135 sensor 332, 334, 335
volume 89, 97 – 99, 104 facilities 3, 29, 32, 38, 42, 47
warm 238, 239 fat 273, 334, 335
air quality (AQ) 87 – 89, 91, 95, 97–101, 103 – 105, feeding operations (AFOs) 36, 47, 78, 275
153, 175, 176, 178, 179, 193, 194, 205, health 51, 63, 77, 78, 87, 100, 105, 165, 175, 213,
209 – 211, 227, 266, 268, 349 271, 273, 275, 336, 341, 344
index (AQI) 341 – 345 effects 141
level 90, 91, 93, 97 – 100, 102 houses 51, 52, 77, 78, 153, 245, 246, 278,
parameters 175, 177 – 179 299, 330
airborne manure 29, 243
bacteria 150, 179, 211, 269, 275, 276, 278, 279, APC (aerobic plate count) 17
283, 284, 308 AQI (air quality index) 341 – 345
components 271, 341, 343 ASI (air stress index) 342, 343
concentrations 87, 147, 276, 279, 343 assessment, environmental 170, 349, 351
dust 3, 102, 141, 157, 267, 271, 274, 275, 278, atmosphere 14, 26, 55, 77, 78, 119, 190, 227, 238,
325, 341 242, 267
363
364 Index
atmospheric ammonia 193 – 195, 198 – 201 CH4 (methane) 64 – 68, 71, 72, 229, 233, 238 – 240
VetBooks.ir
Australian piggery buildings 141, 146, emissions 70 – 72, 229, 239

148 – 150, 183 methane (see CH4)
average chickens 164, 196, 197, 343, 344
ammonia concentrations 65, 149, 178 chronic bronchitis 77, 167, 168, 170
ammonia emissions 74 chronic lower level concentration (see CLLC)
annual population (AAP) 33, 35 chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (see COPD)
temperatures and CO2 concentrations 101 CIGR (Commission Internationale de Génie Rural)
TSP concentration 186, 188 4, 31, 68, 153, 154, 156, 200, 268, 271,
aviaries 6, 7, 233, 273, 276 280, 328, 329, 341
climatic
bacteria 52, 87, 142, 149, 150, 164, 175 – 177, conditions 51, 56, 88, 89, 97, 105, 183
206 – 208, 211, 216, 217, 265, 274 – 276, parameters 90, 93, 95, 105
283, 299, 300, 303, 349 CLLC (chronic lower level concentration) 168
concentrations 142, 145, 146, 176, 351 CO2 (carbon dioxide) 37 – 39, 64 – 68, 70 – 74, 77,
emissions 146, 150 79, 80, 82, 83, 87, 93 – 95, 102, 103, 153,
measurements 351, 354 154, 156, 164 – 167, 228, 229, 231 – 233,
total 150, 216, 284 235, 238, 239, 301, 351
barn 4, 5, 7, 9, 63 – 68, 71, 72, 80 – 82, 154, 156, 157, concentration 68, 80, 82, 89, 93 – 96, 101,
231 – 233, 238, 239, 268 – 270, 272 – 275, 156, 231
279, 280, 326 – 330, 332 emissions 68, 154, 238
bedded pack barns 63, 64, 66, 68, 69, 71 (and) NH3 concentrations 83, 91, 94, 96, 102, 154
ventilated 67, 68 production 68, 72
cubicle 63 coefficient
finishing 7, 14, 15 temperature fluctuation 98
measurements 64, 66, 68, 70, 72, 74 thermal fluctuation 97, 98
bedding 3 – 6, 8, 9, 63 – 65, 67 – 73, 82, 102, 133, Commission Internationale de Génie Rural (see
157, 158, 166, 183, 194, 307, 335 CIGR)
area 68, 71, 74 compost 63, 65, 69 – 74
materials 63 – 65, 70 – 72, 74, 78, 133, 148, 153, bedding 68, 70, 73, 74
157, 229, 234, 265, 268, 269, 272 – 274, composting 63, 64, 73, 239, 243
329, 335 processes 63, 64
bioaerosols 78, 87, 105, 141, 210, 211, 216, concentration of
265 – 268, 271, 277, 284, 341 bacteria 177
biochemical oxygen demand (see BOD) dust particles 209
biosecurity 205, 228, 268 recommendation 148, 149
bird 5, 123, 126, 136, 197, 200, 235, 269, 275, respirable particles 176
276, 307 total particles 176, 177
blood stream 54 – 56 continuous dust monitoring equipment 302
boar taint 209, 210 control emissions 245, 279
BOD (biochemical oxygen demand) 14, 17 – 19 control group 197, 235, 278, 331
broiler 5 – 8, 31, 163, 164, 166, 195, 196, 198, 229, COPD (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease) 168,
231, 235, 236, 242, 278, 335 169, 266
chickens 195, 197, 198 corn 166, 232, 233, 241, 273
houses 79, 200, 234, 236, 237, 243, 276, 267, cows 63 – 65, 68, 71, 72, 74, 154, 157, 199, 233, 282
281, 283, 307 cubicle system 64, 69, 71
floor-reared 277 cyclone dust collectors 268, 270
bronchitis 50, 167, 170
bubbles 38, 39 dairy
building buildings 153, 154, 156
design 5, 87, 88, 90, 102, 104, 195, 209, 211, cows 63, 83, 153, 155, 156, 239
213, 217 DBS (deep bedded shelters) 183 – 185, 190
housing 146, 148, 149 farms 186 – 190
management 97, 99, 103, 105 structures 185, 190
deep bedded shelters (see DBS)
cages 6, 7, 163, 309 degreasers 215, 216
canola oil 276, 335 discomfort 49, 176 – 179, 199
carbon dioxide (see CO2) diseases 103, 166, 197, 205 – 207, 209, 215, 227,
cattle 71, 82, 153, 193 – 195, 197 – 200, 229, 232, 236, 265, 266, 284
242, 270, 271 disinfectants 213, 216
Index 365
disinfecting 214, 244 electrostatic

VetBooks.ir
disinfection 104, 205, 207, 208, 210, 214, 215 filtration unit (EFU) 282
procedures 208, 210, 213, 215 – 218 particle ionization (EPI) 237, 282 – 284
disorders, digestive 207, 208 precipitator (EP) 280, 281, 283 – 285, 308, 310,
dispersion modeling 184, 186, 190 314, 316 – 320
dung 120, 134, 135, 329 space charge system (ESCS) 281, 283, 309
dust 51, 52, 94 – 96, 104, 105, 113, 114, 126, 127, EM (effective microorganisms) 236, 237
129, 163 – 166, 169 – 171, 179, 180, 268, emission 23, 33 – 42, 64 – 66, 68, 70 – 74, 77 – 79, 81 – 84,
271 – 277, 282 – 284, 299, 300, 330, 349 148 – 150, 185, 186, 233, 234, 236 – 239,
binding-effect 325, 326, 329, 330 241, 242, 267, 268, 307, 308, 315 – 319
cake 278 average H2S 40, 41
concentration 93, 95, 102, 104, 121, 126, 128, building 24
129, 136, 137, 165, 166, 273, 277, 281, factors (EF) 30, 33 – 36, 42, 65, 71, 72, 79 , 80,
282, 331, 334, 351, 352 83, 84
daily 126 gas 47, 231
high 127, 148, 149, 163, 343 gaseous 63, 64
highest respirable 148 gross TSP 318, 319
highest total airborne 142 inventories 42, 227
increased 330 levels 141, 148
inhalable 148, 278 measured 65, 68
intermitted 117 measurements 72, 73
low 126, 127, 136 mitigation 30, 246
measured 126, 128 nitrous oxide 71 – 74
peak 275 problems 113, 114, 270
predicted 265 rates 40, 41, 132, 137, 141, 142, 144, 146, 147,
reduced 245 149, 150, 183, 184, 235, 237, 276, 307,
reducing 325 308, 310, 312, 315 – 319
total 102, 272 airborne microorganism 146
control method 325, 331, 334, 336 comparisons 319
dispersion modeling of fugitive emissions 183 gross 314, 316
dust binder 325, 326 highest 144, 146, 147, 150
emissions 190, 283 house 312, 314
exposures 169, 334 low 142, 144, 146, 150
generation 3, 148, 270, 272, 325, 334 measured odor 130, 137
levels 95, 102, 117, 126, 127, 299, 334 treated PM10 307, 316
respirable 91, 94, 96, 175 untreated 317, 319
mass 277, 279 untreated H2 312, 317
measurements 126, 351, 353 reduction 133, 277
organic 141, 167, 168, 265, 266 relative 68 – 72
particles 51, 53, 54, 87, 95, 104, 209, 210, 216, total 64, 71, 77
245, 269, 299, 300, 326, 327, 330 untreated H2 TSP 318
production rate 267, 329 values 150, 183, 247, 312
reduction 245, 271 – 274, 276, 281, 282, 325, 326, EMK (Environmental Monitoring Kit) 359, 360
330, 334 endotoxin 87, 141, 142, 149, 164, 166, 211, 265,
efficiency 329, 336 274, 276, 343
methods 271, 277, 336 concentration 141, 142, 147, 149, 164, 284
technique 325, 334 emission 148
removal 268, 280 respirable 148, 149, 273
efficiency 280 environment 49, 51, 63, 64, 77, 100, 153, 154,
samples 142, 150, 265 175 – 177, 179, 198, 199, 205 – 211, 227,
settled 78, 268, 272, 274, 325 228, 230, 246, 247, 270, 271, 285, 286
total 167, 171, 265, 272, 276, 279, 280, 282 rural 148 – 150, 186
dustiness 176, 177, 179, 272 – 274 shed 175 – 179
DustTrack instrument 117, 118, 127, 128 environmental conditions 52, 88, 102, 103, 105, 126,
dynamic olfactometry 119, 230 156, 194, 206, 211, 214, 233, 273, 277
Environmental Monitoring Kit (see EMK)
EF (see emission, factors) EOs (essential oils) 244, 273
effective microorganisms (see EM) EP (electrostatic precipitator) 280, 281, 283 – 285,
EFU (electrostatic filtration unit) 282 308, 310, 314, 316 – 320
electrode 246, 280, 281, 310 EP-treated TSP emission rate of H2 318
366 Index
EPI (electrostatic particle ionization) 237, 282 – 284 strong greenhouse 71

VetBooks.ir
ESCS (electrostatic space charge system) 281, tracer 66, 67, 70, 72, 74
283, 309 gas exchange zone 54, 55
essential oils (see EOs) gas-fired heaters 229, 238, 239
Estonia 79, 82, 83, 153, 154 geotextile 15, 26
Europe 33, 34, 78, 79, 166, 228 gestating sows 116
European Environment Agency 33 – 35, 78 grain dust 164
excreta 102, 207, 209 – 211, 217 gravimetric
excretion 212, 231 – 233, 241, 242 measurements 117, 127
exhaust air 14, 99, 102, 103, 241, 245, 280, 282, method 91, 94 – 96, 100
284, 299, 300, 311, 312, 315, 317 gross PM10 emission rate 312
export, live 193 – 195, 197, 199, 200 grower 30, 101, 116, 142, 144, 147 – 150, 175 – 177,
exposure 31, 37, 49, 50, 56, 78, 148, 149, 163, 208, 335
168 , 169, 171, 195 – 197, 200, 207, 208, buildings 144, 146, 149, 150, 184
216, 280, 283 – 285 pigs 31, 88, 206, 207
chronic 164, 196, 197, 199 sheds 176 – 179
reducing 170, 171
external climatic conditions 97 – 99, 102 H2S 14, 29, 37, 153, 163 – 165, 169, 228, 237, 282
concentrations 17, 21, 26, 37
fan 103, 213, 231, 282, 299, 309, 311 health 30, 31, 49, 51, 171, 175 – 177, 193, 195, 196,
farm 64 – 66, 68, 70 – 74, 114, 116 – 118, 121 – 124, 200, 205, 206, 208, 210, 211, 217, 218,
126 – 130, 132 – 134, 136 , 137, 142, 267, 268, 341, 343, 344
175 – 179, 190, 205, 206, 349 – 351, 355 care providers 171
ammonia emission of 72 hens 195 – 198, 200, 231 – 233, 235, 273, 274, 276,
barn level measurements of 73 277, 283, 307 – 309, 312, 315, 317, 343
free-range 133, 136 herds 88 – 90, 92 – 96, 100, 105, 142, 205 – 209, 213,
generic 186, 191 341, 351, 354
hypothetical 184, 191 farrow-to-finish 88
large 178, 179 hood, isolation flux 118 – 120
large-scale dairy 153, 158 house
poultry 52, 55 broiler breeder 281, 283, 308
selecting representative 113, 114 chicken 343
farmer 89, 92, 100, 103, 167, 171, 211, 214, 217, 265, hen 233, 279, 311
274, 275, 285, 286, 330, 331, 336, 342 ventilation rates 307, 312, 315
farrowing 5 – 7, 34, 114, 116, 142, 144, 149, 150, 214 housing systems 3, 5 – 8, 65, 113, 114, 234
buildings 142, 144, 146 – 148, 150 human health 4, 55, 56, 77, 101, 157, 176, 280,
huts 114 – 116, 133, 134 331, 342
paddocks 114, 116 humidity 88, 93 – 95, 98, 99, 101, 104, 105, 121,
feces 52, 63, 64, 164, 165, 193, 194, 210, 211, 214, 122, 125, 128, 129, 136, 165, 193, 194,
228, 233, 234, 241, 242, 265, 267, 269 300, 301, 326, 328, 349, 351
filter 65, 89, 278, 299, 300, 303, 304, 351, 354 hydrogen sulfide (see H2S)
Finnish Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry hygiene 205, 206, 208 – 212, 214, 217, 242, 354,
(see MMM) 357, 358
floor routines 206 – 208, 210, 214, 218
hygiene 206, 207 hygienic conditions 207, 208, 217
reference 65
solid 65, 68, 210, 212, 234 IFH (isolation flux hood) 118 – 120
surface 97, 98, 104 ILHs (intensive livestock house) 163 – 167, 169 – 171
flux chamber 65, 66, 68, 71 workers 166 – 168, 170, 171
measurements 64, 65, 68 – 72, 74 indoor
France 5, 33, 89, 98, 100 air 81, 156, 213, 280
western 88, 93 – 97, 99 concentrations 83, 234, 238, 269, 279
free-range piggeries 113, 114, 123, 125, 136, 137 indoor climate 103 – 105
fungi 87, 216, 265, 273, 274, 276, 279, 283 temperatures 33, 102, 153, 155, 156
infection 51, 105, 206, 207, 210, 211, 213, 214
gas 3, 5, 38, 39, 47, 55, 56, 77, 78, 87, 88, 154, infectious pathogens 206 – 208, 211, 214
156, 163 – 165, 167, 170, 171, 210, 211, inhalable
227 – 229, 349 dust 142, 144, 148, 149, 163, 285, 300, 343
clean 284 particles 4, 118, 154, 265, 303, 304
greenhouse 64, 66, 68 intensive livestock houses (see ILHs)
noxious 141, 193, 336 ionization 237, 267, 280, 282, 283
Index 367
ions 246, 280, 282, 283 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (see MPCA)
VetBooks.ir
IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) MMI (mucous membrane irritation) 167,
227 – 229, 238, 239 168, 170
irritation 31, 196, 197, 199, 200 MMM (Finnish Ministry of Agriculture and
isolation flux hood (see IFH) Forestry) 153, 154, 156
MPCA (Minnesota Pollution Control Agency)
kit, environmental monitoring 359, 360 thresholds 21, 22
mucous membrane 195 – 197
laboratory 31, 90, 217, 238, 300, 301 irritation (MMI) 167, 168, 170
labor requirements 359, 360 multi-gas monitoring (see MGM)
lagoon 14, 15, 17, 19, 20, 23, 24, 26, 34, 133 Murray Bridge Area 184, 185
first-stage 13 – 20, 24, 26
second-stage 14 – 17 NAEMS (National Air Emissions Monitoring
layer houses, high-rise 307, 308, 316, 319 Study) 36, 38
LBI (livestock burden index) 341, 343 – 345 nanoparticles 54, 56
Light-scattering method 91, 95, 96 National Air Emissions Monitoring Study (see
liquid manure 38, 165, 169, 236 NAEMS)
swine 38, 39 National Institute for Occupational Safety and
litter 3 – 6, 8, 9, 47, 50, 63, 158, 163, 164, 234, 236, Health (see NIOSH)
242 – 244, 273 – 276 NCI (negative corona ionization system) 282
wet 243 Netherlands 5, 7, 8, 33, 34, 63 – 65
live weight 49, 142, 143, 145 – 148, 150, 190, 234 new particle formation (see NPF)
livestock New South Wales (see NSW)
animals 236, 266, 268, 274, 285, 341 NH3 (ammonia) 29 – 33, 36 – 39, 41, 42, 49 – 51, 70,
buildings 148 – 150, 163, 164, 200, 201, 227 – 231, 74, 77 – 80, 82 – 84, 93 – 95, 101 – 104,
236, 238, 239, 268 – 270, 273, 275, 277, 141, 144, 149, 150, 154, 156, 163 – 165,
299, 303, 304, 325 – 327, 329, 336 193 – 200, 228 – 237, 239 – 242, 265, 266,
burden index (LBI) 341, 343 – 345 299 – 301, 303, 304
exports 193, 194, 199 accumulation 193
farms 118, 266, 284 aerial 49, 141, 195, 197
houses 51, 55, 77, 78, 230, 234, 245, 273, 275 concentration 30, 31, 33, 35, 49, 65, 67, 70, 77,
managers 141, 349 89, 90, 94, 100, 101, 104, 144, 149, 150,
operations 171, 228, 230, 231, 238, 243, 266, 156, 176, 177, 194 – 200, 232, 235,
267, 271, 274, 275, 341, 345 237, 345
units (LU) 80, 82, 83, 143, 145 – 150, 184, 190, applied maximum 194, 200
234, 237, 273 atmospheric 194
LU (livestock units) 80, 82, 83, 143, 145 – 150, 184, concentrations onboard 194
190, 234, 237, 273 consistent 56
lung 4, 53, 54, 78, 87, 168, 179, 197, 211, 341 critical 200
method 67, 68, 119 high 30, 50, 82, 141, 149, 207
high average 157
manure 14, 15, 19, 37, 38, 79, 102, 104, 153, 156, highest 144
157, 164, 207, 210 – 212, 215, 228 – 236, increasing 196, 198
238 – 243, 308 – 310 index 357
agitation 37, 38, 41, 238 lowest 144
channels 236 measured 194
concentrations 235 measurement 31, 39
dairy 233, 244 moderate 49
inlet 15, 20 physiologically-validated maximum 194
pits 14, 165, 166, 310 plasma 198
removal 41, 80, 154 recommended aerial 200
frequent 233 suggested 200
storage 29, 38, 83, 165, 229, 230, 239 emission 30, 33, 36, 49, 65, 66, 70 – 74, 77,
under-floor 104 83, 104, 144, 156, 157, 231 – 237,
mating 114, 116 241, 247
methane (see CH4) rates 34, 144, 150, 231 – 233, 235
MGM (multi-gas monitoring) 142, 301 reduced 33, 233
microbes 52, 141, 275 reduction 233, 236, 245, 275, 299
microorganisms 141, 149, 156, 157, 206 – 209, 211, exposure 51, 101, 149, 195, 196, 198 – 200
213, 216, 230, 233, 235, 236, 243, 265, gas 51, 175
267, 283, 284, 299 gaseous 50, 199
368 Index
levels 193, 200 concentrations 328, 329, 331

VetBooks.ir
volatilization 228, 235 – 237 soybean 244, 245, 272, 273

NH+4 (ammonium) 55, 78, 229 spraying 213, 245, 275, 277, 327, 329 – 331,
nitrate 77, 88 334, 336
particulate 78, 82 rates 329, 334
sulfate 77 water mixture 275, 276, 328, 330, 335
NIOSH (National Institute for Occupational Safety organic dust toxic syndrome (see ODTS)
and Health) 49, 125, 199 organic matter 213, 215, 216, 229, 241
nitrogen 33, 64, 73, 74, 119, 228, 243, 246 OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health
ammoniacal 17, 19, 20 Administration) 4, 38, 165, 166, 199
dioxide (NO2) 229 OTC (other than cage) 6, 8
gas 71, 118 other than cage (see OTC)
loss 33, 73, 74 OTV (odor threshold values) 199
nitrous oxide 64, 65, 70 – 74, 229, 239 OU (odorous units) 230
NO2 (nitrogen dioxide) 229 oxygen-ion generator (see OIG)
noise 113, 114, 123, 126, 136, 166 ozonation 245, 246
levels 116, 121, 123, 125, 126, 136 ozone 246, 283 – 285
non-thermal plasma (see NTP)
North America 34, 35, 47, 166 paddocks 114 – 117, 127
nozzle 274, 276, 277, 310, 327, 331, 332, 336 paired H1 316, 317, 319
NPF (new particle formation) 55, 56 particle 3, 4, 7, 51, 53, 54, 56, 77, 78, 80, 82, 87,
NSW (New South Wales) 114, 122, 132 88, 157, 163, 164, 265, 273, 275, 276,
farms 120, 123, 126, 127, 130 278 – 285
NTP (non-thermal plasma) 246, 247, 284, 311 concentrations 80, 100, 268, 303
nursery 6, 15, 34, 87 – 89, 91, 93, 97, 100 – 105, high 149
210, 214 high airborne 183
facilities 5, 90 inhalable 154, 307
rooms 89, 92 – 95, 97, 98, 101 – 105, 214 respirable 93, 94, 142, 300, 303, 307
deposit 53
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (see deposition 53, 281
OSHA) diameter 53, 54
odor 14, 29, 38, 47, 114, 118, 119, 127, 133, formation, secondary 83, 84
227 – 231, 233, 234, 236, 239, 241, 242, number concentration 80
244 – 247, 299 particle sizes 51, 53, 55, 265, 268, 271, 278, 280,
characteristics 132, 134, 230 283
concentrations 118 – 121, 129, 134 – 137, 241 – 245 size distributions 183, 186
control 243, 244 secondary 78
emissions 18, 77, 113, 114, 129, 132 – 135, 137, separation efficiency 279
230, 234, 236, 237, 240 – 245, 247, 276 ultrafine 54 – 56
levels 113, 114, 136 particulate impaction curtain (see PIC)
rates 121, 132 – 135, 137, 241, 245 particulate matter 3, 5, 36, 51, 52, 54, 55, 77, 79, 83,
intensity 230, 238, 244 104, 153, 157, 265, 269, 307, 311
levels 113, 114, 133, 137, 241 concentrations 9, 154, 157, 158, 307
measurements 116, 119, 129, 130, 132, 136, pathogens 205, 206, 214 – 218, 275, 283, 341
137, 230 zoonotic 209 – 211, 216
perception 242, 245, 246 patients 167, 170, 171, 266
piggery 132, 134, 137 PBAPs (primary biological aerosol particles) 267
production 244 PEDV (porcine epidemic diarrhea virus) 283
reductions 230, 241, 242, 245, 247 PEL (permissible exposure limit) 194, 199
samples 118, 120, 132, 134, 137 pens 89, 90, 104, 132, 165, 198, 207, 211, 212, 214,
sulfur 243 215, 234, 330, 354
threshold values (OTV) 199 perception, olfactory 50, 199
odorants 50, 51, 229, 230, 242, 244, 245, 284, 336 permissible exposure limit (see PEL)
odorous PFT (pulmonary function tests) 170, 171
compounds 77, 230, 238, 242, 244, 245 phenols 17, 19, 20, 242
material 119, 127, 136 pH reduction 236
units (OU) 230 PIC (particulate impaction curtain) 307
ODTS (organic dust toxic syndrome) 167 – 169 pig(s) 7, 8, 30, 31, 49, 50, 87 – 90, 97 – 105, 116, 179,
OIG (oxygen-ion generator) 282 180, 195 – 201, 205 – 215, 217, 218, 232 – 234,
oil 244, 271 – 273, 275, 276, 300, 325 – 330, 332, 241 – 243, 272 – 275, 282, 343 , 344
334 – 336 batch of 97, 207, 208, 214
Index 369
buildings 36, 38, 87, 88, 100 – 104, 200, 205, 210, RCI (radiant catalytic ionizing system) 282
VetBooks.ir
211, 213, 215, 245, 267, 326, 343 reduction

farms 47, 123 efficiencies 247, 267, 271, 272, 277, 279, 281,
free-range 113, 114, 127, 133, 136, 137 282, 284, 303
fattening 35, 49, 210, 212, 328 measures 227, 228, 230, 237, 246, 267, 268
finisher 116, 149, 208, 328, 329 NH3 emissions 232, 236
finishing 14, 34, 93, 95, 210, 212, 241 particle 247, 276
health 30, 31, 101, 102, 205, 211 PM10 emission 316, 319
houses 38, 40, 147, 209 – 211, 229, 246, 284, 331 relative humidity (see RH)
industry 113, 114, 175 – 179 respirable
free-range 113, 114 airborne particles concentrations 89, 157
manure 235, 241 airborne particles fraction PM1.0 concentration 157
slurry 244, 245 dust 89, 101, 102, 148, 150, 167, 245, 275, 300,
nursery 14, 95 334, 343
respiratory health of 101, 105, 210 concentrations 5, 8, 9, 88, 91, 93 – 96, 100,
slaughter 93, 210 101, 142, 143, 148, 278, 300
weaner 144, 147 – 150 emission rates 144
weight of 190, 326 particles 4, 53, 118, 154, 175 – 178, 183, 276, 282,
welfare of 175, 217, 218 300, 303, 304
piggery 49, 50, 52, 87 – 89, 104, 177, 183, 190, 234, respirators 170, 171, 271, 275, 285
275, 278, 282, 344 respiratory
buildings 132, 141 – 150, 183, 184, 334, 354 diseases 31, 49, 51, 77, 88, 89, 100, 103, 105,
piglets 52, 93, 114, 116, 208, 237, 328, 329 179, 208, 209, 214, 265, 266
pleurisy 208, 209 system 51, 53, 196
pleuritis 87, 88, 105 tract 51, 53, 54, 56, 87, 157, 166, 179, 195, 196,
PLF (precision livestock farming) 105, 285, 286 199, 228, 265
PM2.5 55, 77, 80, 82, 83, 153, 154, 157, 158, 183, upper 50, 51, 53, 196
186, 265, 266, 276, 277, 282 RH (relative humidity) 78 – 80, 82, 83, 89, 91, 94 – 97,
concentrations 82, 157, 277 99, 101, 102, 125, 126, 128, 129, 135 – 137,
PM10 5, 77, 80, 82, 83, 153, 154, 157, 158, 186, 153, 154, 156, 283, 284, 311, 326
237, 275, 276, 279, 282, 307, 308, 311,
317 – 319 SAEW (slightly acidic electrolyzed water) 275
concentrations 49, 82, 153, 277, 282, 307, 312, salmonella 210, 213, 217
314 – 318 sensors 31, 39, 40, 42, 80, 105, 116, 301, 349
emissions 82, 83, 277, 312, 315 – 319 electrochemical 100, 301
rates 307, 316, 317 shaker-dust collector 278
reduced 317, 319 shavings, wood 78, 243, 244, 273
reductions 282 sheds 146, 149, 150, 175, 176, 178, 180, 200, 301,
pollutant 29, 49, 78, 81, 190, 191, 230, 231, 303, 302, 351, 357
304, 307, 342, 343, 345 sheep 193 – 200, 229
concentrations 41, 87, 184, 303 short-term exposure limits (see STEL)
emissions 299, 349 sick days 176 – 179
pollution, regional 82, 83 simulated ship journeys 195 – 199
porcine epidemic diarrhea virus (see PEDV) single point monitor (see SPM)
poultry 3, 7 – 9, 52, 79, 153, 165, 166, 193 – 198, slaughter 93, 210
200, 201, 228, 232, 233, 236, slightly acidic electrolyzed water (see SAEW)
274, 334 slurry 35, 38, 50, 71, 72, 98, 104, 214, 215, 232,
houses 3, 49, 77, 79, 200, 235, 237, 240, 273, 234, 236 – 238, 329
275, 282, 283, 307 storage 33, 65, 71, 72
housing systems 3 – 5, 9 soil 78, 136, 227, 229, 239
production systems 4, 9 sound pressure levels 114, 123 – 126, 136
units 198 – 200 South Australia 175, 184
power supply units 309, 310 sows 6, 30, 34, 35, 93, 114, 116, 177, 206, 207, 210,
precision livestock farming (see PLF) 212, 214
primary biological aerosol particles (see PBAPs) dry 142, 144, 146 – 148
production diseases 205, 206, 217 SPM (single point monitor) 13, 15 – 17, 21 – 26, 40
property boundary 15, 16 spray
protective effect 208, 210, 266 angle 331, 332
PRRSV 206, 212, 214, 217, 283 system 332, 334 – 336
pulmonary function tests (see PFT) spraying 244, 274 – 277, 309, 325 – 328, 330,
pump 32, 40, 165, 166, 300, 332 332 – 335
370 Index
interval 330 – 333 United Egg Producers (see UEP)

VetBooks.ir
system, low-pressure 330, 331 United States (USA) 5, 7, 29, 30, 33, 34, 40, 132,
STEL (short-term exposure limits) 4, 5, 199 166, 169
stock, breeding 206, 207 untreated TSP measurements 318, 319
stocking density, traditional 186 – 190 urea 49, 156, 194, 228, 229, 233, 235
straw 13 – 16, 25, 26, 63, 78, 114, 229, 234, urease inhibitors 235, 244
273, 326 uric acid 49, 228, 229, 232, 235
straw-based shelters 116, 142, 144, 146 – 150, urine 50, 63, 64, 73, 134, 156, 164, 165, 194, 207,
176, 184 211, 213, 233, 234, 241, 242
straw-bedding system 93 US EPA 4, 33, 34, 36, 77, 163, 367
sub-optimal air quality 90, 98 – 104, 141, 209, UV irradiation 277, 279
210, 354
sulfate 17, 55, 56, 78 vegetable oils 236, 245, 275, 282, 325, 326
sulfides 17, 19, 228 ventilation 33, 89, 103, 154, 165, 193, 216, 227,
summer 3, 19, 24, 33, 38, 82, 103, 114, 121, 122, 124, 230, 267, 269, 271, 311, 328, 357, 358
129, 130, 132, 154 – 156, 215, 231, 232 controller 97 – 99, 103
period 80, 81, 123, 126 rates 33, 35, 40, 65, 68, 79, 80, 82, 83, 99 – 101,
swine 29, 30, 34, 49, 52, 55, 164 – 167, 169, 272 103, 183, 184, 231, 268 – 271, 307, 311,
buildings 29 – 31, 33, 34, 37 – 40, 169, 282 312, 315, 316
dust 166 high 149, 150, 231, 284, 285
facilities 13 – 15, 29 – 31, 34 – 37, 39, 41, 243 VFA (volatile fatty acids) 17 – 19, 26, 71, 230,
houses 40, 79 241 – 243
ILH 165, 166 viruses 206 – 208, 217, 274, 283
workers 166, 167 VOCs (volatile organic compounds) 36, 77, 78, 229,
production 13, 29, 33, 37, 40 – 42, 47 230, 242, 245, 246
volatile
tapered element oscillating microbalances fatty acids (VFAs) 17 – 19, 26, 71, 230, 241 – 243
(see TEOMs) organic compounds (VOCs) 36, 77, 78, 229, 230,
temperature 242, 245, 246
control 3, 312
data 99, 100, 301, 351 water 38, 80, 114, 215, 216, 229, 233 – 235, 237,
high 95, 101, 105, 149, 155, 165, 194, 198, 274 242, 243, 274 – 277, 325, 326, 328, 329,
low 78, 94 – 97, 103, 153, 155, 158, 198 331, 332, 336
measurements 351 applications 271, 272, 274
room 103, 104, 326, 328 curtain 299
TEOMs (tapered element oscillating microbalances) mixture 275, 276
307, 311, 312 vapor 3, 102
TKN (total Kjeldahl nitrogen) 17, 20, 36 weaner
total buildings 101, 142, 144, 148 – 150, 276, 299, 304
Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN) 17, 20, 36 rooms 177 – 179, 299, 300
particles 176, 177 weaning 89, 93, 212
suspended particulates (TSP) 4, 183, 186, 282, welfare 49, 63, 87, 88, 100, 102, 105, 113, 114, 127,
307, 308, 311, 319 200, 207, 211, 213, 247, 341, 343, 344
suspended solids (TSS) 17, 19 wind 13, 17, 23, 24, 26, 30, 81, 118, 123, 126, 136,
tracer 66, 68, 70, 72, 73 184, 191
TSP (total suspended particulates) 4, 183, 186, 282, direction 21, 22, 30, 81
307, 308, 311, 319 speeds 23, 24
concentrations 308, 311, 317 – 319 winter 30, 33, 38, 80 – 83, 103, 114, 115, 118, 122,
predicted annual average concentration 187, 189 124, 129, 130, 133, 154, 156, 165, 231,
TSS (total suspended solids) 17, 19 238
turbulence 148, 149 period 79, 82, 123, 132
turkey 6, 7, 163, 164, 166, 196, 197 wood chips 63, 64, 69 – 74
work environment 165, 171, 175, 176, 179, 336
UEPs (United Egg Producers) 54, 200 workers 30, 49, 55, 87, 88, 101, 105, 163 – 170,
uninsulated 175, 177, 199, 214, 216, 330
cowsheds, large-scale 156 – 158
loose-housing cowsheds 153, 158 yearly emission rates 83, 84
Sustainable Energy Developments
VetBooks.ir
Series Editor: Jochen Bundschuh
ISSN: 2164-0645
Publisher: CRC Press/Balkema, Taylor & Francis Group
1. Global Cooling – Strategies for Climate Protection

Hans-Josef Fell
2012
ISBN: 978-0-415-62077-2 (Hbk)
ISBN: 978-0-415-62853-2 (Pb)
2. Renewable Energy Applications for Freshwater Production

Editors: Jochen Bundschuh & Jan Hoinkis
2012
ISBN: 978-0-415-62089-5 (Hbk)
3. Biomass as Energy Source: Resources, Systems and Applications

Editor: Erik Dahlquist
2013
ISBN: 978-0-415-62087-1 (Hbk)
4. Technologies for Converting Biomass to Useful Energy – Combustion, gasification,

pyrolysis, torrefaction and fermentation
Editor: Erik Dahlquist
2013
ISBN: 978-0-415-62088-8 (Hbk)
5. Green ICT & Energy – From smart to wise strategies

Editors: Jaco Appelman, Anwar Osseyran & Martijn Warnier
2013
ISBN: 978-0-415-62096-3
6. Sustainable Energy Policies for Europe – Towards 100% Renewable Energy

Rainer Hinrichs-Rahlwes
2013
ISBN: 978-0-415-62099-4 (Hbk)
7. Geothermal Systems and Energy Resources – Turkey and Greece

Editors: Alper Baba, Jochen Bundschuh & D. Chandrasekaram
2014
ISBN: 978-1-138-00109-1 (Hbk)
8. Sustainable Energy Solutions in Agriculture

Editors: Jochen Bundschuh & Guangnan Chen
2014
ISBN: 978-1-138-00118-3 (Hbk)
ISBN: 978-0-415-62099-4 (Hbk)
7. Geothermal Systems and Energy Resources – Turkey and Greece

Editors: Alper Baba, Jochen Bundschuh & D. Chandrasekaram
2014
ISBN: 978-1-138-00109-1 (Hbk)
8. Sustainable Energy Solutions in Agriculture

VetBooks.ir
Editors: Jochen Bundschuh & Guangnan Chen

2014
ISBN: 978-1-138-00118-3 (Hbk)
9. Advanced Oxidation Technologies – Sustainable Solutions for Environmental Treatments

Editors: Marta I. Litter, Roberto J. Candal & J. Martín Meichtry
2014
ISBN: 978-1-138-00127-5 (Hbk)
10. Computational Models for CO2 Geo-sequestration & Compressed Air Energy Storage
Editors: Raﬁd Al-Khoury & Jochen Bundschuh
2014
ISBN: 978-1-138-01520-3 (Hbk)
11. Micro & Nano-Engineering of Fuel Cells

Editors: Dennis Y.C. Leung & Jin Xuan
2015
ISBN: 978-0-415-64439-6 (Hbk)
12. Low Energy Low Carbon Architecture: Recent Advances & Future Direction
Editor: Khaled A. Al-Sallal
2016
ISBN: 978-1-138-02748-0 (Hbk)
13. Geothermal, Wind and Solar Energy Applications in Agriculture and Aquaculture
Editors: Jochen Bundschuh, Guangnan Chen, D. Chandrasekharam & Janusz Piechocki
2017
ISBN: 978-1-138-02970-5 (Hbk)
14. Green Aviation: Reduction of Environmental Impact Through Aircraft Technology and
Alternative Fuels
Editors: Emily S. Nelson & Dhanireddy R. Reddy
2017
ISBN: 978-0-415-62098-7 (Hbk)
15. Air Quality and Livestock Farming

Editors: Thomas Banhazi, Andres Aland & Jörg Hartung
2018
ISBN: 978-1-138-02703-9 (Hbk)

Air Quality and Livestock Farming

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Air Quality and Livestock Farming

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

VetBooks.

ADVISORY EDITORIAL BOARD

Environmental Engineering, National University of General San Martín (UNSAM), San

Guðni Jóhannesson (geothermal powered buildings; low energy systems in buildings),

Peter Birkle (geochemistry of geothermal and petroleum reservoirs), Saudi Aramco,

Affairs, Royal Institute of Technology (KTH); Stockholm

project management, international cooperation, hydrogen and fuel cells), International

Arthur Nozik (photoelectrochemistry; solid state physics; semiconductor nanoscience;

About the book series vii

SECTION I: Characteristics and sources of different airborne pollutants 1

2. Lagoon characteristics and ambient hydrogen sulfide concentrations at a swine

3. Ammonia and hydrogen sulfide in swine production 29

3.2 Ammonia in swine production 29

3.2.1 Research on ammonia in swine production 29

4. Pollutants in livestock buildings: Ammonia and dust interplay with

SECTION II: Measurement issues 61

5.4.2.2 Greenhouse gas emissions 72

5.4.2.3 Nitrogen loss 73

6. Seasonal variability of the PM and ammonia concentrations in uninsulated

SECTION III: Pollutant levels encountered in livestock buildings 111

9. Airborne pollutant concentrations within and emission rates from Australian

10. Microclimate and air quality in uninsulated loose-housing cowsheds in temperate

SECTION IV: Effects of sub-optimal air quality on workers, animals and the

13 Dust dispersion modeling of fugitive emissions from piggeries 183

14 The effects of atmospheric ammonia during export of livestock 193

15 Hygiene and cleanliness in pig buildings as preventive medicine to ensure

healthier animals 205

SECTION V: Reduction methods Controlling internal concentrations and emissions

animal buildings 265

18 Emission reduction from livestock buildings using a filtration device 299

19 Effect of electrostatic precipitation on particulate matter emissions from a high-rise

SECTION VI: Reduction methods and technologies for controlling

airborne pollutants 323

21 Housing index development for a holistic air quality evaluation: A preliminary

22 Computer-based management of air quality data: Development of a software system 349

Thomas Banhazi National Centre for Engineering in Agriculture (NCEA) and

François Madec Anses, Unité Epidémiologie et Bien-Etre du Porc, Ploufragan,

Airborne dust in livestock buildings

1.2 PARTICULATE SOURCES AND FRACTIONAL CHARACTERISTICS

1.3 INDOOR PARTICULATE MATTER CONCENTRATIONS

Table 1.1 summarizes the regulated human occupational PM concentrations allowed by region

Table 1.1. Regulated occupational PM concentrations allowed.

PM category and concentration (mg m−3)

Region Inhalable1) Respirable (PM10)1)

Pigs Sows 630–3490 90–460 Northern Europe Takai et al. (1998)

1.4 SUMMARY OF COMPREHENSIVE ANIMAL AND

Lagoon characteristics and ambient hydrogen sulfide

2.3.1 Description of swine facility and emission abatement methods

Table 2.1. Abatement and monitoring schedule in 1998.

Date Activity Barn pits 1st stage 2nd stage

26 March Added PR - 300 75

2.3.2 Total reduced sulfur monitor at southeast corner

2.3.3 Chemcassette method at northwest corner

2.3.4 Other measurements and analyses

2.4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Table 2.2. Slurry characteristics of the first-stage lagoon.

Date mg L−1 mg L−1

22 April - - 3200 1035

BOD and VFA concentration (mg L–1) BOD

TSS concentration, mg L–1

14 July 3200 1900 1300 2133(B) 700

2.4.2 Ambient hydrogen sulfide concentrations

2.4.3 Effect of time of day

2.4.4 Effect of wind speed

About the book series vii

SECTION I: Characteristics and sources of different airborne pollutants 1

3. Ammonia and hydrogen sulfide in swine production 29

3.2 Ammonia in swine production 29

3.2.1 Research on ammonia in swine production 29

SECTION II: Measurement issues 61

5.4.2.2 Greenhouse gas emissions 72

5.4.2.3 Nitrogen loss 73

SECTION III: Pollutant levels encountered in livestock buildings 111

SECTION IV: Effects of sub-optimal air quality on workers, animals and the

13 Dust dispersion modeling of fugitive emissions from piggeries 183

14 The effects of atmospheric ammonia during export of livestock 193

healthier animals 205

SECTION V: Reduction methods Controlling internal concentrations and emissions

animal buildings 265

18 Emission reduction from livestock buildings using a filtration device 299

SECTION VI: Reduction methods and technologies for controlling

airborne pollutants 323

22 Computer-based management of air quality data: Development of a software system 349

Airborne dust in livestock buildings

1.2 PARTICULATE SOURCES AND FRACTIONAL CHARACTERISTICS

1.3 INDOOR PARTICULATE MATTER CONCENTRATIONS

1.4 SUMMARY OF COMPREHENSIVE ANIMAL AND

2.3.1 Description of swine facility and emission abatement methods

2.3.2 Total reduced sulfur monitor at southeast corner

2.3.3 Chemcassette method at northwest corner

2.3.4 Other measurements and analyses

2.4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

2.4.2 Ambient hydrogen sulfide concentrations

2.4.3 Effect of time of day

2.4.4 Effect of wind speed

2.4.5 Effect of abatement methods

2.5 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Ammonia and hydrogen sulfide in swine production

3.2 AMMONIA IN SWINE PRODUCTION

3.2.1 Research on ammonia in swine production

3.2.2 Ammonia concentrations at swine production facilities

3.2.3 Ammonia concentration measurement instruments and sensors

3.2.4 Ammonia emissions from swine production

3.2.5 Ammonia emission factors adopted in Europe and the United States

3.2.6 Ammonia emission rates from field monitoring in North America

3.3 HYDROGEN SULFIDE IN SWINE PRODUCTION

3.3.1 Hydrogen sulfide concentrations in swine buildings

3.3.2 Characteristics and danger of hydrogen sulfide release

3.3.3 Hydrogen sulfide measurement sensors and instruments

3.3.4 Hydrogen sulfide emissions from swine buildings

3.4 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

4.1 AMMONIA IN PIGGERIES: CONCENTRATIONS AND EFFECTS ON ANIMAL’S

4.2 PARTICULATE MATTER: ORIGIN, CLASSIFICATION, DEPOSITION

4.2.1 Particulate matter in animal confinements

4.2.2 Chemical properties of the particles

4.2.3 Size of particle and site of particle deposition in the respiratory system

4.2.4 Principal mechanisms of particle deposition in the respiratory system

4.3 CONCEPT OF SECONDARY PARTICULATE MATTER: FROM GASES

5.2 MATERIALS AND METHODS

5.2.2 Flux chamber measurements

5.3.2 Flux chamber measurements

5.4.1 Flux chamber measurements

5.4.1.1 Effect of bedding material