nh 3 emissions intercomparation of different techniques for the storage and application of slurry
DESCRIPTION
NH 3 EMISSIONS Intercomparation of different techniques for the storage and application of Slurry. M.J. Sanz, Carlos Monter- Fundación CEAM Pilar Illescas, Gema Montalvo, Tragsega S.A. Carlos Piñeiro, PigCHAMP Pro Europa S.A. Studies in 2004-2005. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
NH3
EMISSIONS
Intercomparation of different techniques for the storage and
application of Slurry
M.J. Sanz, Carlos Monter- Fundación CEAM
Pilar Illescas, Gema Montalvo, Tragsega S.A.
Carlos Piñeiro, PigCHAMP Pro Europa S.A.Studies in 2004-2005
1. Measure air concentration fields with passive sampler (low cost to cover large surface).
2. Compare NH3 air concentration fields generated by different field application methods of slurry
3. Preliminary estimate of emission rates related to the activities.
Compare NH3 volatilization resulting from different field applications and storage methods for slurry
Objetives
Type of activities / Experiments already carried out
Inter-calibration of 3 types of passive samplers with a photoacustic monitor (Innova) inside a pig farm installations- 2005
Comparison of different ways to cover the storage containers of slurry (Balsas 2005)
Comparison of different techniques for application of slurry in agricultural lands and grasslands, including as control mineral fertilizer (2004-05)
Concentration fields around different pig and poultry installation 2005
Intercalibration
2 types of samplers are being tested.
T. I (H2SO4 impregnated mesh)
T.II (Citric acid impregnated filter)
Under very high concentrations, samplers were not showing saturation before 2 days of exposure
Type I showed to be better in terms of reproducibility for low concentrations. Therefore was selected for the gradients with short exposures, and type I was kept for field concentrations, were minimum time of exposure were above 12 h
Type I
Type II
SLURRY STORAGE
Met tower
C- Plastic cover A- Straw
D- Reference - none
B- Natural Crust
Concentration fields – Red dots
(2 m, Sampler Type I)
Gradients - Blue dots 3 heights above surface = 1.2; 2; 3 m/ plot centre , (Sampler Type I, II)
SLURRY STORAGE
Concentration fields
A- StrawB- Natural CrustC- Plastic coverD- Reference
Concentraciones NH3 (ug/m3) - 6 horas
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
1.6 2 2.4 2.8 3.2
Altura(m)
A B C D
Concentraciones NH3 (ug/m3) - 12 horas
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
1.6 2.0 2.4 2.8 3.2
Altura(m)A B C D
SLURRY STORAGE
6 h 12 h
Vertical Gradients in the centre of the plot22-24 July 2005. A,B,C,D; average of the 6 and 12 h of application
A- StrawB- Natural CrustC- Plastic coverD- Reference
Concentraciones NH3 (ug/m3) - 24 horas
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
1.6 2 2.4 2.8 3.2
Altura(m)
A B C D
Concentraciones NH3 (ug/m3) - 48 horas
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
1.6 2 2.4 2.8 3.2
Altura(m)
A B C D
Vertical Gradients in the centre of the plot22-24 July 2005. A,B,C,D; average of the 24 and 48 h of application
24 h 48 h
SLURRY STORAGE
A- StrawB- Natural CrustC- Plastic coverD- Reference
Flujo vertical de emisiones NH3 (ug/m^2s) 48 horas de exposición
-3.0
0.0
3.0
6.0
9.0
12.0
15.0
18.0
21.0
24.0
27.0
30.0
33.0
36.0
39.0
42.0
45.0
0 1 2 3 4 5
Estimated vertical emissions – calculated from the averaged 48 h concentrations in the gradients
z
CKF zz
Preliminar estimations, have to be taken with caution
SLURRY STORAGE
1- Straw2- Natural Crust3- Plastic cover4- Reference
Concluding Remarks
Slurry storage
The use of plastic cover results in very low or no emissions, followed by the use of straw (with substantial reductions, >60 %), being the formation of natural crust less efficient (around 30% reduction). Problems were found in the reference since it was very difficult to prevent the formation of the crust.
Although emission rates may still be not best ones, in terms of comparability the experimental design let us to cost efficiently compare among different treatments.
The results are preliminary, and should be taken with caution.
Grassland application
Concentration fields – Red dots
(2 m, Sampler Type I)
Gradients - Blue dots 3 heights = 1.2; 2; 3 m/ plot centre , (Sampler Type I, II)
Treatments
Gradient
A- Discs systemB- Splash plateC- Band spreadD- Reference / Mineral Fert.
A
B C
D
Concentraciones NH3 (ug/m3) - 6 horas
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
1.2 1.6 2.0 2.4 2.8 3.2
Altura(m)
A B C D
Concentraciones NH3 (ug/m3) - 12 horas
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
1.2 1.6 2.0 2.4 2.8 3.2
Altura(m)
A B C D
Grassland applicationVertical Gradients in the centre of the plot
2,3,4 August 2005. A,B,C,D; average of the 6 and 12 h of application
A- Discs systemB- Splash plateC- Band spreadD- Reference / Mineral Fert.
Concentraciones NH3 (ug/m3) - 24 horas
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
1.2 1.6 2.0 2.4 2.8 3.2
Altura(m)
A B C D
Concentraciones NH3 (ug/m3) - 48 horas
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
1.2 1.6 2 2.4 2.8 3.2
Altura(m)
A B C D
Grassland applicationVertical Gradients in the centre of the plot
2,3,4 August 2005. A,B,C,D; average of the 24 and 48 h of application
A- Discs systemB- Splash plateC- Band spreadD- Reference / Mineral Fert.
Flujo vertical de emisiones NH3 (ug/m^2s) - Tratamiento A
-5.0
-2.5
0.0
2.5
5.0
7.5
10.0
12.5
15.0
17.5
20.0
22.5
25.0
27.5
30.0
32.5
35.0
37.5
40.0
42.5
45.0
0 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54
Grassland applicationEstimated vertical emissions – calculated from the averaged 6, 12, 24, 48 h concentrations in the gradients
Flujo vertical de emisiones NH3 (ug/m^2s) - Tratamiento B
-5.0
-2.5
0.0
2.5
5.0
7.5
10.0
12.5
15.0
17.5
20.0
22.5
25.0
27.5
30.0
32.5
35.0
37.5
40.0
42.5
45.0
0 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54
Flujo vertical de emisiones NH3 (ug/m^2s) - Tratamiento C
-5.0
-2.5
0.0
2.5
5.0
7.5
10.0
12.5
15.0
17.5
20.0
22.5
25.0
27.5
30.0
32.5
35.0
37.5
40.0
42.5
45.0
0 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54
A- Discs systemB- Splash plateC- Band spread
Time of exposure of Passive Sampler
Flujo vertical de emisiones (ug/m^2*s) - Comparativa tratamientos A,B,C,D
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
0 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54
Q_A Q_B Q_C Q_D
Grassland application
Estimated vertical emissions – calculated from the averaged 6, 12, 24, 48 h concentrations in the gradients
A- Discs systemB- Splash plateC- Band spreadD- Mineral fertilizer application
Time of exposure of Passive Sampler
Emission (g/m2s
Cropland appication
2004 2005
Wind conditions for both experiments very similarSame plot
Cropland appication
Concentration fields – Red dots
(2 m, Sampler Type I)
Gradients - Blue dots 3 heights = 1.2; 2; 3 m/ plot centre , (Sampler Type I, II)
A- Splash plateB- Splash plate + till after 6 hC- Mineral Fert.D- Mineral Fert. + till after 6 h
Treatments
2005 Data still being analysed
Summary 2004Cropland appication
Fertilizer and slurry applications:
• Mineral fertilizer (NH4NO3) – Plot 1
• Slurry open slot-injection – Plot 2
• Slurry applied by band spread – Plot 3
• Slurry applied by splash plate and ploughed after 24 h – Plot 4
• Slurry applied by a splash plate – Plot 5
Experimental setup
Theoretical load of N
= 170 kg N /ha = 12.000 l of slurry per plot (30 m x 40 m)
2004NH3 concentrations (µg/m3) interpolated (Kriging) for different
time periods, 24, 48, 72, 168, 240 hours
-200 -100 0 100 200
-400
-200
0
200
400
1
2
3
4
5
6
78
910
1112
13
1415
16
1718
19
2021
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
33
35
36
37
38
40
-200 -100 0 100 200
-400
-200
0
200
400
1
2
3
4
5
6
78
910
1112
13
1415
16
1718
19
2021
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
33
35
36
37
38
40
-200 -100 0 100 200
-400
-200
0
200
400
1
2
3
4
5
6
78
910
1112
13
1415
16
1718
19
2021
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
33
35
36
37
38
40
-200 -100 0 100 200
-400
-200
0
200
400
1
2
3
4
5
6
78
910
1112
13
1415
16
1718
19
2021
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
33
35
36
37
38
40
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
-200 -100 0 100 200
-400
-200
0
200
400
1
2
3
4
5
6
78
910
1112
13
1415
16
1718
19
2021
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
33
35
36
37
38
40
Concentration fields
Center of the plots + passive sampling
Passive sampling points
(µg/m3)
2004-
Splash plate + ploughed (24 hr)
Mineral Fertilizer application
Slurry open slot-injector
Band spread system
Splash plate
+ Source BREF 2003 SLURRY APPLICATION
NH3 EMISSION REDUCTIONS (%), IN
BREF
NH3 EMISSION REDUCTIONS (%), IN
OUR STUDY FOR CROPLANDS
Mineral fertilizer - 63Splash plate Ref RefBand spread 30 63Inyection 60 53Splash plate + till (before 24 hr)
40 45
Concluding Remarks
Slurry application It is difficult to determine the background concentration in the areas
were the different experiments were held, likely around 8 gr m-3.
It seems that the different techniques of application performed similarly for the two different land uses where slurry as applied in terms of what is best, being injection and band application similar in term of emission reduction in our cases
Although emission rates may still be not best ones, in terms of comparability the experimental design let us to compare efficiently among different treatments.
Most of the emissions happened within the 48 h after application. The importance of the temperature in the 48 h period after application needs to be further studied .... For example, select colder days (Q: Are emissions increased later by raising the temperature?)
Concentration fields / Pig and Poultry Farms
Concentration fields around point sources:
Laying hensBroilersFarrow to finishFinishersFarrow to 20 Kg
2550350 250 200 150 100450 2550350 250 200 150 100450
Concentration fields
Meteorological data 1,5 m mast in the roof of the instalation:
Wind Direction (10 min)Wind Speed (10 min)Data logger
Solar panels for power
Passive samplers, Type II (citric acid, badge tipe)5 Days exposure
Valtiendas
Pig farm
2 Buildings 2700 pigs
Max. Concentration
81.6 ugr/m3
Cuellar
Poultry/ egg production
5 Barns75000 Laying hens
Max. Concentration
77.6 ugr/m3
Aguilafuente
Pig farm
480 sows + pigletsup to 20 kg
Max. Concentration
62.6 ugr/m3
Cantalejo
Pig farm / one site
586 sows + pigsup to 100 kg
Max. Concentration
61.9 ugr/m3
Navalmanzano
Poultry farm / meat prod.
2 Barns13000 Broilers
Max. Concentration
27.5 ugr/m3
Thank you for your attention!!