Search

There is a growing concern with air and odor emissions from agricultural facilities. A supplementary research project was conducted to complement the U.S. National Air Emissions Monitoring Study (NAEMS). The overall goal of the project was to establish odor and chemical emission factors for animal feeding operations. The study was conducted over a 17-month period at two freestall dairies, one swine sow farm, and one swine finisher facility. Samples from a representative exhaust airstream at each barn were collected in 10 L Tedlar bags and analyzed by trained human panelists using dynamic triangular forced-choice olfactometry. Samples were simultaneously analyzed for 20 odorous compounds (acetic acid, propanoic acid, butyric acid, isobutyric acid, valeric acid, isovaleric acid, hexanoic acid, heptanoic acid, guaiacol, phenol, 4-methylphenol, 4-ethylphenol, 2-aminoacetophenone, indole, skatole, dimethyl disulfide, diethyl disulfide, dimethyl trisulfide, hydrogen sulfide, and ammonia). In this article, which is part 6 of a six-part series summarizing results of the project, we investigate the correlations between odor concentrations and odor activity value (OAV), defined as the concentration of a single compound divided by the odor threshold for that compound. The specific objectives were to determine which compounds contributed most to the overall odor emanating from swine and dairy buildings, and develop equations for predicting odor concentration based on compound OAVs. Single-compound odor thresholds (SCOT) were statistically summarized and analyzed and OAVs were calculated for all compounds. Odor concentrations were regressed against OAV values using multivariate regression techniques. Both swine sites had four common compounds with the highest OAVs (ranked high to low: hydrogen sulfide, 4-methylphenol, butyric acid, isovaleric acid). The dairy sites" had these same four compounds in common in the top five, and in addition diethyl disulfide was ranked second at one dairy site, while ammonia was ranked third at the other dairy site. Summed OAVs were not a good predictor of odor concentration (R² = 0.16 to 0.52), underestimating actual odor concentrations by 2 to 3 times. Based on the OAV and regression analyses, we conclude that hydrogen sulfide, 4-methylphenol, isovaleric acid, ammonia, and diethyl disulfide are the most likely contributors to swine odor while hydrogen sulfide, 4-methyl phenol, butyric acid, and isovaleric acid are the most likely contributors to dairy odors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Livestock facilities have historically generated public concerns due to their emissions of odorous air and various chemical pollutants. Odor emission factors and identification of principal odorous chemicals are needed to better understand the problem. Applications of odor emission factors include inputs to odor setback models, while chemical emission factors may be compared with regulation thresholds as a means of demonstrating potential health impacts. A companion study of the National Air Emissions Monitoring Study (NAEMS) included measurements necessary for establishing odor and chemical emission factors for confined animal feeding operations. This additional investigation was conducted by the University of Minnesota, Iowa State University, West Texas A&M Agri-Life Center, and Purdue University. The objectives were to (1) determine odor emission rates across swine and dairy facilities and seasons using common protocols and standardized olfactometry methods, (2) develop a chemical library of the most significant odorants, and (3) correlate the chemical library with the olfactometry results. This document describes the sampling and quality assurance methods used in the measurement and evaluation of odor and chemical samples collected at two freestall dairy farms, one sow (gestation/farrowing) facility, and one finishing pig site. Odor samples were collected in Tedlar bags and chemical samples were collected in sorbent tubes at barn inlet and exhaust locations using the NAEMS multiple-location gas sampling systems. Quality assurance protocols included interlaboratory comparison tests, which were evaluated to identify variations between olfactometry labs. While differences were observed, the variations among the labs and samples appeared random and the collected odor data were considered reliable at a 0.5% level of statistical significance. Overall, the study took advantage of groundbreaking opportunities to collect and associate simultaneous odor and chemical information from swine and dairy buildings while maintaining accordance with standard methods and comparability across laboratories. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]