1 / 30

NH 3 EMISSIONS Intercomparation of different techniques for the storage and application of Slurry

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.

eden
Download Presentation

NH 3 EMISSIONS Intercomparation of different techniques for the storage and application of Slurry

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. NH3EMISSIONSIntercomparation 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

  2. Compare NH3 volatilization resulting from different field applications and storage methods for slurry Objetives • Measure air concentration fields with passive sampler (low cost to cover large surface). • Compare NH3 air concentration fields generated by different field application methods of slurry • Preliminary estimate of emission rates related to the activities.

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. SLURRY STORAGE 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) Met tower

  6. SLURRY STORAGE Concentration fields A- Straw B- Natural Crust C- Plastic cover D- Reference

  7. SLURRY STORAGE Vertical Gradients in the centre of the plot 22-24 July 2005. A,B,C,D; average of the 6 and 12 h of application 6 h 12 h A- Straw B- Natural Crust C- Plastic cover D- Reference

  8. SLURRY STORAGE Vertical Gradients in the centre of the plot 22-24 July 2005. A,B,C,D; average of the 24 and 48 h of application 24 h 48 h A- Straw B- Natural Crust C- Plastic cover D- Reference

  9. SLURRY STORAGE Estimated vertical emissions – calculated from the averaged 48 h concentrations in the gradients 1- Straw 2- Natural Crust 3- Plastic cover 4- Reference Preliminar estimations, have to be taken with caution

  10. 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.

  11. Grassland application A- Discs system B- Splash plate C- Band spread D- Reference / Mineral Fert. 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 B C Gradient D A

  12. Grassland application Vertical 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 system B- Splash plate C- Band spread D- Reference / Mineral Fert.

  13. Grassland application Vertical 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 system B- Splash plate C- Band spread D- Reference / Mineral Fert.

  14. Grassland application Estimated vertical emissions – calculated from the averaged 6, 12, 24, 48 h concentrations in the gradients A- Discs system B- Splash plate C- Band spread Time of exposure of Passive Sampler

  15. Grassland application Estimated vertical emissions – calculated from the averaged 6, 12, 24, 48 h concentrations in the gradients Emission (g/m2s A- Discs system B- Splash plate C- Band spread D- Mineral fertilizer application Time of exposure of Passive Sampler

  16. Cropland appication Wind conditions for both experiments very similar Same plot 2004 2005

  17. 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) Treatments A- Splash plate B- Splash plate + till after 6 h C- Mineral Fert. D- Mineral Fert. + till after 6 h 2005 Data still being analysed

  18. Cropland appication Summary 2004 Experimental setup • 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 splashplate– Plot 5 Theoretical load of N = 170 kg N /ha = 12.000 l of slurry per plot (30 m x 40 m)

  19. 2004 Center of the plots + passive sampling Passive sampling points Concentration fields NH3 concentrations (µg/m3) interpolated (Kriging) for different time periods, 24, 48, 72, 168, 240 hours (µg/m3)

  20. - 2004 Mineral Fertilizer application Slurry open slot-injector Band spread system Splash plate + ploughed (24 hr) Splash plate +

  21. 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?)

  22. Concentration fields / Pig and Poultry Farms Concentration fields around point sources: Laying hens Broilers Farrow to finish Finishers Farrow to 20 Kg

  23. Concentration fields Passive samplers, Type II (citric acid, badge tipe) 5 Days exposure 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

  24. Valtiendas Pig farm 2 Buildings 2700 pigs Max. Concentration 81.6 ugr/m3

  25. Cuellar Poultry/ egg production 5 Barns 75000 Laying hens Max. Concentration 77.6 ugr/m3

  26. Aguilafuente Pig farm 480 sows + piglets up to 20 kg Max. Concentration 62.6 ugr/m3

  27. Cantalejo Pig farm / one site 586 sows + pigs up to 100 kg Max. Concentration 61.9 ugr/m3

  28. Navalmanzano Poultry farm / meat prod. 2 Barns 13000 Broilers Max. Concentration 27.5 ugr/m3

  29. Thank you for your attention!!

More Related