DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Effect of General Ventilation Rate on Concentrations of Gaseous Pollutants Emitted from Enclosed Pig Building

밀폐형 돈사 작업장의 전체 환기율이 가스상 오염물질 노출 농도 변화에 미치는 영향

  • Kim, Ki Youn (Department of Industrial Health, Catholic University of Pusan) ;
  • Seo, Sung Chul (The Environmental Health Center for Asthma, Korea University) ;
  • Choi, Jeong-Hak (Department of Environmental Engineering, Catholic University of Pusan)
  • 김기연 (부산가톨릭대학교 산업보건학과) ;
  • 서성철 (고려대학교 알레르기면역연구소) ;
  • 최정학 (부산가톨릭대학교 환경공학과)
  • Received : 2014.01.08
  • Accepted : 2014.02.17
  • Published : 2014.03.31

Abstract

Objectives: The principal aim of this study was to compare the concentrations of gaseous pollutants emitted in enclosed pig buildings between different rates of general ventilation and determine the variations in the patterns of gaseous pollutants as affected by ventilation rate. Materials and Methods: The experiment was performed in the growing/finishing room($20.0m{\times}12.0m{\times}3.0m$) of a pig confinement building located on the experimental farm of Seoul National University. The conditions of the general ventilation rate for three treatments were 30%($4.12m^3s^{-1}$), 50%($6.87m^3s^{-1}$) and 70%($9.61m^3s^{-1}$). The data presented in the study were collected overa total of 45 days, 15 days for each of the three treatments from March to May 2011. A total of six air samplings were taken at 1.5m above the floor of the pig building. The environmental agents measured in the pig building were ammonia, hydrogen sulfide and odor concentration index for gaseous pollutants with temperature and hydrogen sulfide for thermal factors. Results: There were significant differences in the ammonia and odor concentration index in the pig building among the three general ventilation rate conditions(p<0.05), whereas hydrogen sulfide did not show a significant difference among three conditions of general ventilation rate(p>0.05). As the general ventilation rate applied to the pig building increases, it appears that all the indoor environmental agents measured in this study simultaneously decrease. Conclusions: The gaseous pollutants significantly affected by the general ventilation rate in pig building were ammonia and odor concentration index(p<0.05). However, it was found that hydrogen sulfide and thermal factors, temperature and relative humidity were not influenced significantly by variation in the general ventilation rate.

Keywords

References

  1. Aarnink AJA, Van der Berg AJ, Keen A, Hoeksman P, Verstegen MWA. Effect of slatted floor area on ammonia emission and on the excretory and lying behavior of growing pigs. J Agric Eng Res 1996; 64:299-310 https://doi.org/10.1006/jaer.1996.0071
  2. Anderson JF, Bates DW, Jordan KA. Medical and engineering factors relating calf health as influenced by the environment. Trans ASAE 1978;21:1169-1174 https://doi.org/10.13031/2013.35462
  3. Bundy DS. Rate of dust decay as affected by relative humidity, ionization and air movement. Trans ASAE 1984;27:865-870 https://doi.org/10.13031/2013.32886
  4. Chang CW, Chung H, Huang CF, Su HJ. Exposure assessment to airborne endotoxin, dust, ammonia, hydrogen sulfide and carbon dioxide in open style swine houses. Ann Occup Hyg 2001;45:457-465 https://doi.org/10.1093/annhyg/45.6.457
  5. Curtis ES, Drummond JG, Kelley KW, Grunloh DJ, Meares VJ, Norton HW, Jensen AH. Diurnal and annual fluctuations of aerial bacterial and dust levels in enclosed swine houses. J Anim Sci 1975;41 :1502-1511 https://doi.org/10.2527/jas1975.4151502x
  6. Demmers TGM, Wathes CM, Richards PA, Teer N, Taylor LL, Bland V, Goodman J, Armstrong D, Chennells D, Done SH, Hartung J. A facility for controlled exposure of pigs to airborne dusts and gases. Biosys Eng 2003;84:217-230 https://doi.org/10.1016/S1537-5110(02)00243-X
  7. Gay SW, Schmidt DR, Clanton CJ, Janni KA, Jacobson LD, Weisberg S. Odor, total reduced sulfur, and ammonia emissions from animal housing facilities and manure storage units in Minnesota. Appl Eng Agric 2003;19:347-360
  8. Gustafsson G. Factors affecting the release and concentration of dust in pig houses. J Agric Eng Res 1999;74:379-390 https://doi.org/10.1006/jaer.1999.0476
  9. Hellickson MA, Walker JN. Ventilation of agricultural structures. ASAE, St.Joseph, Michigan 1983;49085
  10. Kim KY, Ko HJ, Lee KJ, Park JB, Kim CN. Temporal and spatial distributions of aerial contaminants in an enclosed pig building in winter. Environ Res 2005;99:150-157 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2004.10.004
  11. Leneman HAD, Oudendag KW, Van der Hoek PHM. Focus on emission factors: A sensitivity analysis of ammonia emission modeling in the Netherlands. Environ Pollut 1998;102:205-210
  12. Ni JQ, Heber AJ, Diehl CA, Lim TT, Duggirala RK, Haymore BL. Summertime concentrations and emissions of hydrogen sulfide at a mechanically ventilated swine finishing building. Trans ASAE 2002;45:193-199
  13. Ni JQ, Vinckier C, Coenegrachts J, Hendriks J. Effect of manure on ammonia emission from a fattening pig house with partly slatted floor. Livest Prod Sci 1999;59:25-31 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-6226(99)00002-0
  14. NIOSH. Sampling and characterization of bioaerosols. In: Manual of Analytical Method. Paul AJ, Schafer MP. (eds), 2010, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
  15. Swierstra D, Smits MCJ, Kroodsma W. Ammonia emission from cubicle houses for cattle with solid floors. J Agric Eng Res 1995;62:127-132 https://doi.org/10.1006/jaer.1995.1071
  16. Zhang Y, Tanaka A, Dosman JA, Senthilselvan A, Barber EM, Kirychuk SP, Holfeld LE, Hurst TS. Acute respiratory responses of human subjects to air quality in a swine building. J Agric Eng Res 1998; 70:367-373 https://doi.org/10.1006/jaer.1998.0289