lim 2000 odor voc

Copyright (c) 2000 Water Environment Federation. All Rights Reserved.

Odors and VOC Emissions 2000

1

ODOR IMPACT DISTANCE GUIDELINE FOR SWINE PRODUCTIONSYSTEMS

Teng Teeh Lim, Albert J. Heber, Ji-Qin Ni, Richard Grant, Alan L. Sutton1146 Agricultural and Biological Engineering

Purdue UniversityWest Lafayette, IN 47907, USA

ABSTRACT

The determination of odor-based setbacks for swine facilities is an important issue for thepork production industry. Sufficient setbacks prevent costly nuisance complaints andlawsuits, and excessive setbacks stifle expansion. Therefore, a science-based setbackestimation tool to guide and educate livestock producers and regulators is needed. Thispaper describes a new simple-to-use, site-specific setback guideline developedspecifically for U.S. swine production facilities. The guideline at least partially accountsfor wind frequency, land use, topography, orientation and shape, facility size, buildingdesign and management, manure handling characteristics, and odor abatementeffectiveness. Odor emission factors were based in part on actual odor emissionmeasurements in commercial swine nursery and finishing buildings. The Gaussianatmospheric dispersion model was used to conduct sensitivity analyses on certain aspectsof the setback guideline. The guideline is now a planning and educational tool fordetermining odor impact distance from swine facilities. An interactive version of theguideline has been published on the World Wide Web at www.agairquality.com.

KEYWORDS

Odor concentration, odor emission, atmospheric dispersion, olfactometer, air quality

INTRODUCTION

Odor-related complaints from people living and working near pork production facilitieshave become a major issue for the entire industry. Significant resources are beinginvested towards minimizing swine odor emission and dispersion. The issue of separationdistance between facilities and neighbors is important for pork producers becauseexcessive setback distances imposed by regulations hinder expansion opportunitieswhereas insufficient separation distances can trigger nuisance complaints and lawsuits.Factors affecting nuisance complaints include odor production at the facility, odortransport between the facility and neighbors, and odor tolerance of neighbors. Since eachof these factors is highly variable, odor impact distances are derived by judgements basedon perceptions, resulting in widely varying state and county setbacks across the UnitedStates.



2

Pig numbers and weights, building design and management, weather, manuremanagement methods, and odor control technologies influence the quantity and nature ofodors emitted from a swine facility. Odor dispersion from a facility at a given emissionrate also depends on weather and local topography. Existing setback guidelines in theU.S. do not consider site-specific topography or prevailing winds, yet such information isreadily available.

Some fixed setback distances based only on land use have been recommended. However,a one-size fits all setback tends to meet the needs of the worst odor emission problem,the worst dispersion characteristics, and the most sensitive neighborhoods. Lost withfixed setbacks is the ability of individual farms to achieve sufficient odor dilution, or ofcommunities to accept detectable odors periodically and thereby reduce setbacks.

An emission-based setback guideline (Williams, 1986) and a parametric setbackguideline developed in Austria (Schauberger and Piringer, 1997) have frequently beenutilized for locating swine facilities by Heber (1997). However, the factors and scoringmethods for these European guidelines do not accurately represent the influence ofdesign, management and odor control technologies used in the United States. A science-based setback guideline is therefore needed to guide U.S. livestock producers and policymakers in the difficult and complex task of siting swine facilities with reasonable odor-based setbacks.

Baseline odor emissions can be used to: 1) assess nuisance potential, 2) provide inputs toodor dispersion models, 3) compare research results, 4) gain understanding of emissioncharacteristics, and 5) build a data base that reveals trends between building types, designand management. Therefore, knowledge of baseline odor emissions from commercialfacilities is important for modelers, research scientists, engineers, regulators, producersand manufacturers of odor control technology, yet available information is very limited.Swine buildings with deep under-floor pits for manure storage are considered the greatestemitters of odorous gases compared to other building types. Thus odor emissionmeasurements in similar deep pit buildings with different age pigs would provide usefuldata for establishing the odor emission factor for the new setback guideline.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Odor concentration of livestock building air was determined by Lim et al. (1999) usingdynamic dilution, forced-choice olfactometry. Odor dilution ratio is the volumetric ratioof odor-free air to sample air in the mixture presented to the panelists. Odorconcentration is the dilution ratio at which 50% of the panelists can detect the presence ofodor and is expressed as OU/m3 (ASTM, 1978). Odor emission rate is expressed as odorunits per second (OU/s) and is the product of the odor concentration and volumetricairflow rate from the odor source(s).



3

Schiffman et al. (1995) reported that persons living near intensive swine operations whoexperienced swine odors had significantly more tension, depression, anger, fatigue, anddepression than control subject. Primary complaints of health symptoms includedheadache, drowsiness, and eye, nose, and throat irritations (Schiffman, 1998). Estimatesfrom a hedonic model (a technique developed for evaluating environmental effects)showed that proximity of swine operations had a significant and negative impact onproperty values (Palmquist et al., 1997).

Many of the extensively used atmospheric dispersion models for industrial sources arebased on Gaussian plume equations. Harrison and McCartney (1979) compared plume-model results with ground level measurements of NOx pollutants using continuousmonitors over six-month periods. Reliable predictions of NOx concentrations were madebetween 1 and 2 km from the source but not at distances less than 1 km. Even thoughswine odors cause complaints at distances far away from the source, relatively fewcomplaints come at separation distances beyond 500 m (Hardwick, 1986). Mostindustrial dispersion models are not designed for such short distances. Carney and Dodd(1989) applied the Gaussian plume model for malodors from swine slurry and found thatit was a good indicator for point and linear sources. For area sources, however, bestresults were obtained when an equivalent width was used with the linear model.

Important features that make dispersion modeling of agricultural odor different thanindustrial pollutants have been delineated (Mejer and Krause, 1986; Smith, 1993; Zhu etal., 1998). Atmospheric dispersion of odor is distinguished from dispersion of industrialtoxic gas by its subjective nature and short time scales. Odor sensation is a personalresponse and all observers are not equally sensitive (ASAE, 1997). Odor stimuli acttypically over timescales on the order of seconds (Hogstrom, 1972; Williams, 1986).Gaussian models are based on conservation of mass, steady-state conditions and thenormal distributions of crosswind and vertical concentrations (Turner, 1994). Theseassumptions may contribute to under predictions of agricultural odor concentrations.Regulatory guidelines for livestock facilities utilize either fixed setbacks or setbackscalculated with relatively simple formulas.

Setback distances adopted by Ontario, Iowa, and Illinois (Toombs, 1995; IllinoisDepartment of Agriculture, 1997; Kohl and Lorimor, 1997) for livestock facilities dependroughly on animal type, land use, and total animal body weight and range from 0.23 to2.4 km. Setback guidelines have been developed in Austria, Germany, The Netherlands,Switzerland and The United Kingdom (Schauberger and Piringer, 1997; Williams, 1986).In Australia, environmental impact assessments of proposed new feedlots containpredictions of odor impact distance (Watts et al., 1994). Williams (1986) derived anempirical equation to estimate minimum nuisance setback for facilities in The UnitedKingdom based on measured odor emissions from various sources including chicken andpig houses. The setback distance (m) was calculated as 2.2E0.6, where E is the buildingodor emission rate in OU/s. Guidelines in The Netherlands were established andvalidated with odor emission measurements, dispersion modeling, neighbor surveys andexperience (Klarenbeek and van Harreveld, 1995). Most of these guidelines assumed



4

that odor impact distances are a power function of the rate of pollution (odor emissionrate) usually with exponents between 0.3 and 0.6.

The Austrian guideline improved upon previously established guidelines from Germany,The Netherlands and Switzerland, all of which are at least partially based on scientificodor measurements and neighbor surveys (Piringer and Schauberger, 1999). Thisguideline considers facility size, local topography, wind frequency, some building designand management features, and some odor abatement techniques. The guideline estimatesthe strength of the odor source and the dispersion of odors from the source as follows: D= 25 fd fl (O) 0.5 where: D = setback distance, m, fd = odor dispersion factor [0.6 to 1.0], fl= land use factor [0.5 to 1.0], and O = odor number.

The dimensionless odor number (O) representing the relative strength of the odor sourceis calculated by multiplying the number of animals (N) by the animal factor (A) and thetechnical factor (T). The animal factor depends on animal type and body weight. Thetechnical factor is the sum of a ventilation factor (V), a manure management factor (M),and a feed factor (F). For example, a ventilation factor is 0.10 for vertical exhaustsystems (uncommon in the U.S.) and 0.45 for horizontal exhaust systems (common in theU.S).

Odor impact distance from the source is estimated by considering annual winddistribution and influence of obstacles and land slopes. The surrounding topography isassigned a score from zero to 70 points in each of eight directions, which is then added tothe wind frequency to obtain a total score. The odor dispersion factor is 0.6, 0.7, 0.8,0.9 and 1.0 for total scores of 0-10, 11-30, 31-50, 51-70 and >70, respectively. Thedirectional land use factor (L) ranges from zero to 1.0, with zero for full tolerancezones, 0.5 for commercial areas and 1.0 for purely residential areas. Thus, site-specificinformation is used to estimate setback distances. The Austrian guideline was designedfor livestock confinement buildings themselves and does not consider emissions fromoutdoor manure storage facilities.

The shape and orientation of long and narrow odor sources may influence downwindodor concentration. The only attempt to study effects of building orientation wasconducted by Stork (1977), who suggested that a swine house be oriented such that thenearest neighbor faces the swine house lengthwise. However, there was no discussionabout the greater likelihood of receiving odor when facing the swine house lengthwise.

OBJECTIVES

The primary objectives of this project were to: 1) evaluate odor emission rates for deeppit buildings with different age pigs, and 2) develop a simple parametric setbackguideline for determining odor impact distances for swine buildings and outdoor manurestorage facilities based on site-specific factors including overall shape and orientation ofthe facility.



5

METHODOLOGY

Odor Emission from Nursery and Finishing Buildings

Odor emission measurements were conducted in two nursery rooms, Room A and RoomB (Lim et al., 1999). Both nursery rooms were equipped with long-term manure storagepits beneath a fully slatted floor, one pit ventilation fan, and one or two wall ventilationfans. One of the rooms had a pre-heated hallway along the south endwall. Fan airflowrates were determined using the velocity traverse method (Henderson and Perry, 1976).Airflow rates were kept constant with the fan controller during the sampling visit.Exhaust fan airflow rates were measured immediately after the odor samples werecollected. Odor samples were collected in 10 L Tedlar bags and evaluated within fivehours at the Purdue University Air Quality Laboratory. Odor concentrations weredetermined using a dynamic dilution, forced-choice olfactometer (ACSCENTInternational Olfactometer, St. Croix Sensory, Minneapolis, MN) and eight trainedpanelists.

Odor emission measurements were taken in four, identical, 1,000-head, mechanicallyventilated swine finishing houses, buildings A to D (Heber et al., 1998). Each buildingwas equipped with long-term manure storage beneath a fully slatted floor, sidewall andendwall curtains, and pit and end wall exhaust fans. Pit fan ventilation rates weremeasured with full-size airflow rate sensors (FanCom Model FMS 50, Techmark, Inc.,Lansing, MI) and recorded every minute. Exhaust fan ventilation rates were measured bymonitoring the operation of each exhaust fan with the computerized data acquisitionsystem. Odor samples were collected in 80 L Tedlar bags and sent overnight to IowaState University for analysis of concentration, using dynamic dilution olfactometry withfour to six trained panelists. All averages of concentrations and emissions weregeometric means.

Setback Guideline

A new setback guideline was developed based on measured baseline odor emissions,literature review, dispersion modeling and review and study of existing setbackguidelines. The following features were incorporated into the new guideline:

1. Parametric approach (Schauberger and Piringer, 1997).2. Building design and management and odor abatement factors that replaced the

technical factor (Schauberger and Piringer, 1997).3. Factor accounting for facility shape and orientation.4. Outdoor manure storage sources.5. Odor strength expressed as odor units per second (Williams, 1986).6. Wind frequency factor.7. Land use factor (Schauberger and Piringer, 1997).8. Topography factor.9. Manure management factor calculated based on frequency of manure removal

and degree of manure dilution.



6

RESULTS

Odor Emissions from Swine Buildings

Outdoor odor concentration ranged from 7 to 85 OU/m3 and averaged 18 OU/m3. Odorconcentration of nursery building air ranged from 93 to 635 OU/m3 with a mean of 190OU/m3 (Lim et al., 1999). Mean odor emissions from rooms A and B were 20 and 83OU/s-AU (animal unit, AU = 500 kg of pig weight), respectively. The mean for bothrooms was 36 OU/s-AU or 1 OU/s-pig (assuming average weight of 14 kg/pig). Thus, thebuilding odor emission factor was assumed to be 1 OU/s-pig for nursery pigs.

Mean odor concentrations measured in finishing buildings A to D were 235, 260, 321,and 339 OU/m3, respectively. Overall odor concentrations among 109 samples rangedfrom 12 to 1586 OU/m3 with a mean of 142 OU/m3. The 95% confidence interval aroundthis mean was 109 to 185 OU/m3. Mean odor emission rates from buildings A, B, C andD were 73, 85, 137 and 81 OU/s-AU, respectively. The mean was 36 OU/s-AU(assuming average weight of 70 kg/pig) and the 95% confidence interval was between 27and 55 OU/s per AU. The building odor emission factor for finishing pigs was thereforeassumed to be 5 OU/s-pig.

Setback Guideline

The new setback guideline combines existing features of the British and Austrian setbackguidelines (Williams, 1986; Schauberger and Piringer, 1997) and incorporates severalnew concepts and factors. The new setback guideline is as follows:

D = 6.19 FLTV (AEE+ASS) 0.5where D = setback distance, m

F = wind frequency factor [0.75 - 1.00]L = land use factor [0.50 - 1.00]T = topography factor [0.80 - 1.00], Table 1V = orientation and shape factor [1.00 - 1.15]E = NPBwhere E = building odor emission, OU/s

N = number of pigsP = building odor emission factor, OU/s-pig, Table 2B = M-Dwhere: B = building design and management factor

M = manure removal frequency [0.50 - 1.00]D = manure dilution factor [0.00 - 0.20]

AE = building odor abatement factor [0.30 - 1.00]S = CGwhere S = storage odor emission, OU/s

C = odor emission factor for outdoor liquid manure storage, 50 OU/s-AUG = animal units, AU

AS = storage odor abatement factor [0.30 - 1.00]



7

Wind Frequency Factor, F

The historical frequencies of wind direction in eight directions are required by the newguideline. Regional wind frequencies in 16 directions (National Climatic Data Center,Asheville, North Carolina). Wind frequencies are calculated from this data for eightdirections, converted to decimal fractions, and subtracted from 1.00 resulting in windfrequency factors. For example, the wind frequency factor is 0.85 for a wind frequency of15%. The wind frequency factor is 0.75 for all wind frequencies greater than 25%.

The wind frequency factor requires climatic data, thus reducing the convenience of theguideline. A nominal fee is required to obtain the data. A value of 1.00 should be used ifthe information is not available to the use of the guideline. A wind frequency databasecould be developed for the web-based interactive guideline and automatically entered forthe user for the facility location.

Land Use Factor, L

Setback distances should depend on the degree of acceptability of the odor by thesurrounding community. For example, setbacks should obviously be greater forrecreational and residential areas than for industrial areas. Therefore, land use factorsrange from 0.50 for areas that need lower protection from odor to 1.00 for areas that aremore vulnerable to odor. The land use factor is directional and may be differentdepending on direction from the facility. The range of land use factors correspondroughly to the German guideline which specifies that extremely vulnerable areas, e.g.towns, not have exceedances of 1 OU/m3 more than 3% of the time and that lessvulnerable areas in rural areas not exceed 3 OU/m3 more than 5% of the time or 1 OU/m3more than 10% of the time.

Topography Factor, T

Surrounding topography and landscape influence odor dispersion and dilution from odorsources. Dispersion conditions are more favorable if the odor source is located on flatland with very limited obstacles in the vicinity. For a source that is located in a valley,neighbors in the same valley, but at lower elevation, would experience higher odorconcentrations than if the land was flat, especially at night during temperature inversions.Topography factors range from 0.80 to 1.00, Table 1, and have roughly the same effecton setback distance as the assignment of points in the Austrian guideline (Schaubergerand Piringer, 1997).

Table 1. Directional Topography and Landscape Categories.

Factor Topography and Landscape Situation0.80 No vegetation, buildings or other obstacles0.85 Dispersion reduced by obstacles0.90 Hillside or valley with upward flowing wind0.95 Hillside or valley with downward flowing wind1.00 Very narrow valley with downward flowing wind



8

Orientation and Shape Factor, V

Odor emission sources may include an array of points (exhaust fans), lines (building sidewalls with discrete or intermittent openings) and areas (outdoor lagoons or basins). Aswine production facility may cover a relatively large area with several buildings andwaste storage or treatment facilities that emit odors. All odor emission sources at a givenproduction site should be grouped and encompassed spatially with a rectangle as shownin Figure 1. A building length to width ratio (L/W) is used to describe the shape of theencompassing rectangle and a direction is used to give its orientation.

Figure 1. Circumscribing Facilities at a Production Site with a Rectangle.

The orientation and shape factor (V) depends on overall facility orientation and shape(L/W) and distance between the facility and neighbors, Figure 2. For a long and narrowodor emission source that is oriented north-south, the likelihood of receiving odor isgreater for a neighbor to the east of the facility than a neighbor to the north because of alarger wind exposure angle. Downwind odor concentrations are greater when the windblows along the length of the facility, but wind exposure angles are smaller, Figure 3.

A sensitivity test was conducted with a 10,000-head swine finishing facility and a 52-mdiameter neighbor to study the interactive effects of the L/W ratio and wind exposureangle on downwind concentrations at a distance of 1,340 m. The line source Gaussiandispersion model was used to predict downwind gas concentrations with all combinationsof wind speed and stability.

The hypothetical swine production facility covered a total land area of 15,000 m2. A setof actual weather data from Dayton, Ohio was arbitrarily used to determine realisticfrequencies of wind speed and stability combinations. Percent exceedances of anypredicted concentration higher than an arbitrary threshold concentration were calculatedfor L/W ratios between 2 and 20.

Circumscribingrectangle for

facilities

Swineproduction

building

Waste lagoon

W

L



9

Figure 2. Wind Exposure Angle Depends on Orientation, Shape and Distancebetween Odor Emission Source and Neighbors.

Figure 3. Odor Concentration Depends on the Total Length of Line A and B whenWind Blows from the Southwest.

The results showed that percent exceedance increased with L/W for directions paralleland perpendicular to the odor source. However, orientation and shape did not have asignificant effect on percent exceedance in the NW, NE, SE and SW directions. Based onthis study, the following odor source orientation and shape factors were assumed: V =1.00 for L/W < 2, V = 1.05 for L/W > 2 and < 4, V = 1.10 for L/W > 4 and < 8 and V =1.15 for L/W >8.

0 o

Odoremissionsource

Neighbor tothe north

90 o

Windexposureangle

Neighbor tothe east

N

B

L

A

45oN

W



10

Building Odor Emission Factor, E

The ratio of odor emission rates of the finishing pig to the nursery pig was 5:1. Thiscorresponds to the ratio of pig weights in kg (70/14 = 5.0) and more importantly to theratio of fresh manure production (MWPS, 1985) in kg/day (4.44/1.04 = 4.3), Table 2.Since reliable odor emission data is not yet available for other pig types and ages, odoremission factors (P) were assigned based on the amount of fresh manure production ascompared to the nursery and finishing pigs while also considering recommended spaceper pig in the buildings. Odor emitted by stored manure on a per head basis is larger forpigs with more space per pig such as sows with litters. Thus, odor emission factorsassigned to growers, boars, gestating sows, and sows and litters were 8, 6, and 15 OU/s-head, respectively.

Table 2. Building Odor Emission Factors.

Type of pig Space perpig, m2

Manure production,kg/day

Emission factor,OU/s-head

Nursery, 14 kg 0.33 1.04 1Grower, 30 kg 0.46 1.90 2Finishing, 70 kg 0.74 4.44 5Gestating 1.50 4.08 6Sow and litter 2.80 10.20 15Boars 3.70 5.21 8

Building Odor Abatement Factor, AE

Some swine facilities utilize one or more odor reduction or treatment methods to reduceodor emission such as biofilters, pit additives and diet manipulation. The building odorabatement factor (AE) accounts for accepted reductions in odor emission for appliedtechnologies. The allowable reduction of odor emission ranges from 0 to 70%. The odorabatement factor is calculated as (1-R/100), where R = the percent reduction of odor. Forexample, the factor is 0.70 for an effectiveness of 30%.

Building Design and Management Factor, B = M D

It is assumed that the total odor emission from a swine building is influenced by thefrequency of manure removal (M) from the building and the final dilution (D) of thestored manure. There is no reported data that provides the percentage reduction of odoremission due to manure removal frequency. Some data is available on reductions inammonia emissions but it was also assumed that reductions in odor emissions are lessthan corresponding reductions in ammonia emissions.

Estimations of percent reduction in odor emissions must be based on expertise andexperience until appropriate research is conducted to determine them experimentally. Allpercentage reductions are based on long-term under-floor storage with no dilution water.The manure removal factor is assumed to be 0.40 for daily manure removal and 0.50 for



11

manure removal every three days. Manure removal factors are assumed to be 0.70, 0.80and 0.90 for weekly, biweekly and monthly manure removal, respectively. The factor is1.0 for manure storage periods longer than one month.

It was also assumed that odor emission from swine buildings is reduced by dilution ofstored manure. Recirculation flush pits were designed specifically to reduce manure odorby frequent manure removal and dilution (MWPS, 1985). The water to manure dilutionratio is defined as the amount of recharge water added to the pit divided by the amount offresh manure produced by the animals during a manure accumulation cycle. For example,the dilution is 1:1 if 0.1 m of recharge water were added to the pit at the beginning of thecycle and 0.1 m of manure accumulated in the pit during the cycle. The dilution ratio is10:1 if 0.7 m of water were added to a recirculation flush pit and 0.07 m of manureaccumulated before emptying the pit. The manure dilution factors were thereforeassumed to be 0.20, 0.15, 0.10, 0.05 and 0.0 for dilution ratios of 10:1, 5:1, 2:1, 1:1 and0:1, respectively.

Odor Emission from Outdoor Storage, S = CG

The total odor emission rate from outdoor storage is the product of the number of animalunits (G) and odor emission rate per animal unit (C). The number of animal units iscalculated by dividing the total animal weight by 500 kg. Odor emission rates of 87 and110 OU/s-AU from two first-stage anaerobic lagoons (9,655 and 12,672 m2) weremeasured using a buoyant convective flux chamber at an artificial wind speed of 4.0km/h (Heber and Ni, 1999). These measurements were conducted during late spring whenodor emission rates from lagoons are usually higher than other times of the year.Therefore, a lower odor emission rate of 50 OU/s-AU was selected to represent year-round emissions from outdoor liquid manure storage. According to Nicolai (1999),earthen storage basins which are typically 20% the size of anaerobic lagoons, emit fivetimes as much odor per unit area than lagoons. Thus, an odor emission rate of 50 OU/s-AU is assumed to be reasonable for manure storage basins.

Odor Abatement Factor for Outside Liquid Manure Storage, AS

The odor abatement factor for outside liquid manure storage, AS, is used to characterizethe reduction in odor emitted from open manure storages due to odor abatementtechnologies, e.g. covers, aeration, etc. A lower emission factor can be accounted for byassigning an appropriate value to the odor abatement factor, AS. Surface aeration ofanaerobic lagoons is an odor reducing technology. Odor emission from a 9,655 m2anaerobic lagoon with surface aeration was 24 OU/s-AU (Heber and Ni, 1999). Thus,using this emission rate, As = (50-24)/50 = 0.52.

DISCUSSION

Setbacks that depend on building design and management and odor abatement methodsbenefit swine producers needing smaller setbacks because of proximity to neighbors.



12

Producers and other interested parties will be able to access the interactive guideline onthe web (www.agairquality.com/setback.htm). County zoning and planning boards nowhave access to an interactive web-based tool to determine reasonable setbacks for swinefacilities.

The calculated setback distance is always a worst-case assessment since most of thefactors are equal to or less than one. Missing information about the site will not result inshorter setback distances.

It should be noted that this guideline was not developed to compete with atmosphericdispersion models. Rather, the guideline is intended to provide guidance with greateraccuracy and flexibility than existing guidelines used by local and state agencies. Theminimum and maximum setback distances predicted by the new guideline for 70-kgfinishing pigs are compared to setbacks of other guidelines in Figure 4.

Figure 4. Comparison of Setback Guidelines for Swine Finish Buildings.

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

0 4000 8000 12000 16000Number of Pigs

Setb

ack

Dis

tanc

e, m

Schauberger & Piringer, '97, minimumSchauberger & Piringer, '97, maximumWilliams, '86Illinois, maximumIllinois, minimumIowa, maximumIowa, minimumPurdue, maximumPurdue, minimum

The new guideline has the following advantages:

1. Relatively simple to use.2. Supported in part by scientific measurements and modeling.3. Contains incentives to invest in low odor emission technologies.4. Educates producers about odor impacts from their facilities.5. Allows new information to be readily incorporated.6. Allows incorporation of local tolerance to odors through the land use factor.7. Minimizes influence of human emotion in establishing setbacks.



13

8. Includes directional influences of prevailing winds and topography.9. Has a continuous increase in setbacks with increasing animal numbers.10. The difference between minimum and maximum setback distances is greater

than other guidelines for a given number of pigs, Figure 4.11. The new setback roughly corresponds to setback guidelines in Iowa and

Illinois but allows site-specific factors to influence the distance.

One of the disadvantages of the new guideline is site-specific information such as windfrequency, topography, and land use must be gathered. However, topographicalinformation and wind frequency information can be integrated into the web-basedguideline in the future. Once this is accomplished, all one needs to do is select theweather station and the computer will help to select the relevant data set. Land usesurrounding the facility also needs to be assessed based on judgment or from local zoningauthorities.

Other livestock species such as dairy and poultry should be added to the guideline. Moreodor emission measurements are needed to establish more accurate emission factors.Since the guideline is developed based on limited odor emission data, literature review,dispersion models and existing setback guidelines, more research should be conducted toverify the factors so that the guideline can be used with greater confidence. Fieldevaluations are also needed to validate the guideline.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

In addition to funds received from the National Pork Producers Council, support was alsoreceived from the Purdue University Agricultural Research Program. The authorsacknowledge the collaboration and assistance of Dick and Rick Ward, the owners andoperators of the swine production facility where odor measurements were conducted.

REFERENCES

ASAE (1997). Control of Manure Odors, ASAE Standard EP379.1, American Society ofAgricultural Engineers, St. Joseph, Michigan.

ASTM (1978). Standard Test Method for Measurement of Odor in Atmospheres(Dilution Method), Annual Book of Standards, American Society for Testing andMaterials, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Vol. 26, pp.492-495.

Carney, P.G. and V.A. Dodd. (1989) A Comparison between Predicted and MeasuredValues for the Dispersion of Malodours from Slurry, Journal of Agricultural EngineeringResearch, Vol. 44, No. 1, pp.67-76.

Hardwick, D.C. (1986) Agricultural Problems Related to Odor Prevention and Control, InOdour Prevention and Control of Organic Sludge and Livestock Farming, eds. V.C.



14

Nielsen, J.H.V., and P. L'Hermite, London: Elsevier Applied Science Publishers, pp.21-26.

Harrison, R.M. and H.A. McCartney. (1979) A Comparison of the Predictions of aSimple Gaussian Plume Dispersion Model with Measurement of Pollutant Concentrationat Ground Level and Aloft, Atmospheric Environment, Vol. 14, pp.589-596.

Heber, A. J. (1997) Setbacks for Sufficient Swine Odor Dispersion and Dilution, InLivestock and Environment Symposium, Columbus, Nebraska, December 10-11.

Heber, A.J., D.S. Bundy, T.T. Lim, J.Q. Ni, B.L. Haymore, C. Diehl and R. Duggirala.(1998) Odor Emission Rates from Swine Finishing Buildings, In Animal ProductionSystems and the Environment, An International Conference on Odor, Water Quality,Nutrient Management and Socioeconomic Issues, Des Moines, Iowa, July 20-22, Vol. 1,pp.305-310.

Heber, A.J. and J.Q. Ni. (1999) Odor Emission from a Swine Finishing Facility with aSurface-Aerated Lagoon, In ASAE Annual International Meeting, ASAE Paper No.994129, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, July 18-21.

Henderson, S.M. and R.L. Perry. (1976) Velocity measurement, Agricultural ProcessEngineering, Westport, Connecticut: The AVI Publishing Company, Inc., pp.422.

Hogstrom, U. (1972) A Method for Predicting Odour Frequencies from a Point Source,Atmospheric Environment, Vol. 6, pp.103-121.

Illinois Department of Agriculture. (1997) Livestock Management Facilities Act andRules, 510 ILCS 77/1 et seq., Springfield, Illinois.

Klarenbeek, J.V. and T.A. van Harreveld. (1995) On the Regulations Measurement andAbatement of Odors Emanating from Livestock Housing in The Netherlands, InInternational Livestock Odor Conference, Ames, Iowa, October 16-18, pp.16-21.

Kohl, K. and J. Lorimor. (1997) Swine Manure Management and Iowa's Manure Law,Engineering 1-1, Iowa State University Extension, Ames, Iowa.

Lim, T.T., A.J. Heber and J.Q. Ni. (1999) Odor Emission from Commercial SwineNurseries, In ASAE Annual International Meeting, ASAE Paper No. 994147, Toronto,Ontario, Canada, July 18-21.

Mejer, G.J. and K.H. Krause. (1986) Dispersion Models for Emissions from AgriculturalSources, In Odour Prevention and Control of Organic Sludge and Livestock Farming,eds. V.C. Nielsen, J.H.V., and P. L'Hermite, London: Elsevier Applied SciencePublishers, pp.99-112.



15

MWPS (1985). Recirculation Flush Pits, Livestock Waste Facilities Handbook, MidwestPlan Service, Ames, Iowa, pp.3.22.

Nicolai, R. (1999) Personal Communication, October 1.

Palmquist, R.B., F.M. Roka and T. Vukina. (1997) Hog Operations, EnvironmentalEffects, and Residential Property Values, Land Economics, Vol. 73, No. 1, pp.114-124.

Piringer, R. and G. Schauberger. (1999) Comparison of A Gaussian Diffusion Modelwith Guidelines for Calculating the Separation Distance between Livestock Farming andResidential Areas to Avoid Odour Annoyance, Atmospheric Environment, Vol. 33, No.14, pp.2219-2228.

Schauberger, G. and M. Piringer. (1997) Assessment of the Protection Distance to AvoidAnnoyance by Odor Sensation Caused by Livestock Husbandry by the AustrianGuideline, In International Symposium on Ammonia and Odour Control from AnimalProduction Facilities, eds. Voermans, J.A.M. and G.J.Monteny, Vinkeloord, TheNetherlands, Oct. 6-10, Vol. 2, pp.677-684.

Schiffman, S.S. (1998) Livestock Odors: Implications for Human Health and Well-Being,Journal of Animal Science, Vol. 76, No. 5, pp.1343-1355.

Schiffman, S.S., E.A. Sattely-Miller, M.S. Suggs and B.G. Graham. (1995) The Effect ofEnvironmental Odors Emanating from Commercial Swine Operations on the Mood ofNearby Residents, Brain Research Bulletin, Vol. 37, pp.369-375.

Smith, R.J. (1993) Dispersion of Odours from Ground Level Agricultural Sources,Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research, Vol. 54, No. 3, pp.187-200.

Stork, B. (1977) Dispersion of Odors in the Neighborhood of Pig Houses, Agricultureand Environment, Vol. 3, pp.287-295.

Toombs, M.R. (1995) Preventing and Managing Livestock Odor Conflicts in Ontario, InInternational Livestock Odor Conference, Ames, Iowa, October 16-18, pp.16-21.

Turner, B. (1994) Estimates of Atmospheric Dispersion, Workbook of AtmosphericDispersion Estimates, Second Edition, Ann Arbor, Michigan: Lewis Publishers, pp.2-1.

Watts, P.J., M. Jones, S.C. Lott, R.W. Tucker and R.J. Smith. (1994) Feedlot OdorEmission Following Heavy Rainfall, Transactions of the ASAE, Vol. 37, No. 2, pp.629-636.

Williams, M.L. (1986) The Effects of Weather on Odour Dispersion from LivestockBuildings and from Fields, In Odour Prevention and Control of Organic Sludge andLivestock Farming, eds. Nielsen, V.C. et al., London: Elsevier Applied SciencePublishers, pp.227-233.



16

Zhu, J., L. Jacobson, D. Schmidt and R. Nicolai. (1998) Modeling the Agricultural OdorDispersion Using Atmospheric Dispersion Models, In ASAE Annual InternationalMeeting, ASAE Paper No. 984056, Orlando, Florida, July 12-16.

Back to Main

lim 2000 odor voc

Documents

0 0000' ovoc ovoc 0 000 ovoc ovoc o#voc 0000'...

the low odor, zero-voc...

tds no odor medicare - avianbrands.com odor...

· lim ex : : — . x x : x : ex x : — lim lim ex = lim...

a odor labeling convolutional encoder-decoder for odor

engineered solutions for odor control odor armor... ·...

odor-armor bel 200 - benzaco scientific... · odor-armor...

ammonia and volatile organic compound (voc) … ·...

odor control

»flying« - kölner philharmonie€¦ · sidiki jobarteh...

myrifilm zero-voc coalescing solvent - myriant.com · 2...

vaporvapor--phase odor control phase odor control … pncwa-...

vocabulaire - librairie-interactive · voc 1 l'utilisation...

tmts 1 voc and odor control options for industry and...

suor odor prata transpirando inovação anti transpirante...

vaporizer odor control systems - wilkinson hi-rise ·...

speciale salute: voc odor

innovative scr technologies for voc co odor - …...semi...

the original clenair tm odor neutralizer ›...

odor control using chemical dosing, coupled with odor...