EMEP/EEA guidebook updating 4B NMVOC from animal manure

EMEP/EEA guidebookupdating 4BNMVOC from animal manure 14-16 May 2012, Bern, Switzerland Steen Gyldenkærne, Rikke Albrektsen, Mette Hjort Mikkelsen, Ole-Kenneth Nielsen Inst. for Environmental Science National Centre for Environment and Energy Aarhus University

4B NMVOC from animal manure • Challenge: • > 200 different compounds • developing emission Tier 1/2 EF for the entire EMEP area • differences in chemical and physical properties • differences in climatic conditions • differences in VOC patterns from different animal types • differences in measuring techniques • differences in feeding • differences in stabling • difference in ……. • difference in ……. • difference in ……. Biomes of Europe, Wikipedia/EEA

4B NMVOC from animal manure • Task 6 is very complex and too narrow defined to give a fully and comprehensive evaluation of the NMVOC emission from 4B • We are not able to: • within the current state of art • within the given time frame • within the economical term • to give a fully and comprehensive description of the NMVOC emissions and end up with solid Tier 1 and Tier 2 estimates • but – we’ll try our best

4B NMVOC in the current Guidebook • Simple estimates based on Hobbs et al. 2004 • The EF are based on an emission relation to ammonia • The EF are found unreliable • Cannot be seen as proper values for Europe • Do not reflect the different conditions within the EMEP area • Only four EMEP countries are reporting NMVOC under 4B and with very different values • A factor of 10.000 • We had to start from scratch

Questions to ourselves ? • which compounds are the most important • what are the main driving variables for the compounds • physical and chemical properties • temperature • wind speed • which climatic conditions do we have in the EMEP area • what are the main sources • feed • enteric • manure (barn, storage, grazing, field application)

Available data • A few NMVOC measurements in Europe and America • Hobbs et al. • Amon et al. • Trabue et al. • Alanis et al. • Several odor measurements but these are not quantified • A major USEPA study 2007-2009 (NAEM) • VOC and NMHC • A few PRT measurements • Feilberg et al. • Ngwabie et al. • Shaw et al.

Source: The NAEM study – whole barn measurements, USA

Chemical properties • Large differences in Hcc • Log scale • Acids are the most volatile • Alcohols are medium • Ammonia is medium but higher than the alcohols Most important drivers • Partial pressure • Temperature • Wind speed over the surface Source: Parker et al. 2010

NMVOC sources • Silage stores • open surfaces, not common in all parts of the EMEP area • Feeding table • most important source when cattle is fed with silage (acids and alcohols) • Enteric • Probably most important for ruminants (ketones from the rumination process). Independent of climatic conditions • Fouled surfaces • Dependent on climatic conditions and area per animal • probably relatively uniform area per animal across the EMEP area for the major production • Manure stores • In the EMEP area normally concrete tanks where with a standardized surface area per animal (storage time 5-10 months) • large lagoons are uncommon • Grazing and Field application, no data, (4D)

Climatic conditions, closed barns, pigs and poultry • Indoor temperature is kept fairly constant by controlling the • insulation • reducing ventilation rate in winter • Emissions from the barns are primarily a function of wind speed over the surface Source: The NAEM study , USA

Fattening pigs, emissions • Emissions measurements are very variable • measuring techniques • the climate effect is obvious • NMVOC concentrations in the barns are higher in winter than in summer • the emission is higher in summer than in winter Source: The NAEM study , USA

Estimated temperature conditions in pig barns in the EMEP area • Moscow is likely to have low emission in the winter and high emissions in summer reduce the emission • Dublin Ireland is likely to have more uniform emission pattern • Malaga Spain is likely to have high all year round emissions

Emission as an effect of climate, pig barns • A factor of two is very likely found in the emission between the most extremes part of the EMEP area, also found by Amon et al. 2007 between winter and summer in Austria • Observe: the estimated emissions are only preliminary and not finally proposed value

Reporting format: What is the right methodology and the right reporting format? • What shall we report? • Different techniques gives different results • Shall it be reported as NMVOC in gram ? – what ever it is • Shall it be reported as C ?

Climatic conditions, open barns, cattle, sheep, goats and horses • In warm climates are the temperature inside the barns higher than outdoor temperature • In cold climates fluctuates the indoor temperature with 5-10 °C higher in the winter than outdoor temperature and 2-3 °C lower in the summer • It is not possible to draw a linear line as for pig barns • Grazing takes place during summer when the emissions are high

Source distribution from barns for cattle • Silage piles and feeding are by far the largest sources • Enteric emissions are not included in these measurements (canister) • Lagoons are not common in Europe • Difficult to come up with precise recommendations Source: Alanis et al. 2007

Climate dependency • Simple functions • Hypothesis: • Simple exponential functions where the temperature increase with 10 °C, the emission will increase with a factor 1.5-2.0 • Will be tested for some of the most common compounds to get a clearer recommendation • Pig barn: doubling the emission from could to warm (outdoor temperature: cold 0.3-2.8 °C, warm 11.1-20.7 °C, Amon et al. 2007) • Cattle manure: doubling of the VFA emission when increasing the temperature of app. 10 decrease (Alanis et al. 2008) • Integration of climate variables • Function (estimated indoor temperature, estimated ventilation rate, grazing days) • Grazing days for pigs and poultry = 0 • Grazing days for cattle, sheep, goats and horses is taking place when it is warm and when the high emission rates are seen. This is an issue to be solved.

Easy reporting, pigs and poultry • Suggestion for a Tier 2: • Climate dependent EF • Based on average outdoor temperature • If average temperature varies >5°C = ± 30% in emission within a country then a regionalization should be made • For fatteners and broilers based on production level and not Animal Places. • Dairy cattle, non-dairy cattle, sheep, goats and horses based on Animal Places Tier 2 for pigs and poultry: NMVOCi, yr = ∑ Number of Animali,j * EFi,j

Easy reporting • No split in data between slurry and solid based systems as no data is available • Emission faktors (EF) based on functions will be developed for: • Dairy cattle based on feed consumption • Transfer functions non-dairy cattle, sheep, goats and horses will be made on differences in feed consumption • EF for sows, fatteners and piglets will be developed based on available pig data. A model containing feed consumption is not likely to be developed due to lack of data. • EF for poultry will be based on American broiler and egg layer data. Transfer functions to other poultry will be made based on feed consumption.

Questions to you! • What amount shall be reported • NMVOC or C ? • Per animal place or per produced unit ? • Shall a feed intake correction factor be included ? • A temperature dependency is obvious • Is an integration of the barn temperature function valid as proxy for the differences between regions? • Is a 5°C difference between regions enough (±30% in emission) ? • Probably only a few countries will use more than one region • Feeding with silage - this is outside the task but very important • Shall Tier 2 EF be split between silage and non-silage feeding ? • Grazing days – how do we correct for this ? • Manure stores • What manure store type should be used as the reference ? • How shall differences in storage capacity be included • No difference between solid and liquid stores due to lack of data

EMEP/EEA guidebook updating 4B NMVOC from animal manure